l'llmwlmin i k ,fi . 3051525 597\1 i a f - \— ‘ 2 2.22332}? l 1.. fiicmaag}: 2; 33f i “marshy t nWo--- a.” ....... This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Study to Determine If Superintendents of Schools Have Manifest Needs and Think- ing Styles that are Identical in the Principals They Hire. presented by Jacqueline Jaaskelainen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Education degreein ll «/A7 / Major professor March 1984 I)ate MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘bvisSInj BEIURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from _—.,_b your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY TO DETERMINE IF SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS HAVE MANIFEST NEEDS AND THINKING STYLES THAT ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRINCIPALS THEY HIRE By Jacqueline Jaaskelainen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum I984 ABSTRACT A STUDY TO DETERMINE IF SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS HAVE MANIFEST NEEDS AND THINKING STYLES THAT ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRINCIPALS THEY HIRE By Jacqueline Jaaskelainen The purpose of this study was to determine if superintendents tend to hire principals with similar manifest needs and thinking styles. The five characteristics tested for manifest needs were achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abasement. The five characteristics tested for thinking styles were pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst. A demographic checklist consisted of six biographical characteristics. Procedure To determine and measure similarities and differences among the variables of this study, two instruments were used. The Personal Preference Schedule measured the manifest needs, and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire measured the thinking styles. Both superintendents and the principals they had hired completed these two tests along with a demographic checklist. Administrators in the Michigan Middle Cities Association were participants. Jacqueline Jaaskelainen Major Findings Manifest Needs and Thinking Styles l. The superintendents' and principals' manifest needs of achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abasement showed no significant difference. 2. The superintendents' and principals' thinking styles, pragmatist, idealist, synthesist, and analyst, showed no significant difference. 3. The superintendents' and principals' thinking style, realist, showed a significant difference. Demographics 1. There was no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in demographic characteristics of age, marital status, racial group, level of education, years as a classroom teacher, and years of administrative experience. Suggestions for Further Study_ l. A comparison study should be made of a school district in which the superintendent hires his/her principals and a school dis- trict where a personnel director is involved in the hiring process. 2. A study be made in smaller school districts and in larger school districts where the superintendent does the hiring of prin- cipals. 3. A study be made of a larger sample, specifically a national sample of small school districts, middle-sized school districts, and large school districts. Jacqueline Jaaskelainen 4. A study be conducted in industry to determine if there is a match in manifest needs and thinking styles between the interviewer and the interviewee. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with deep appreciation that I acknowledge the guidance, support, and encouragement given to me by my chairman, Dr. Louis Romano. His constant counsel made a difficult task a more tolerable one and, may I add, enjoyable. I wish to thank Dr. Keith Groty, whose kind support has been invaluable to me. Additionally, I wish to thank Dr. Norman Weinheimer and Dr. Lonnie McIntyre for serving on my dissertation committee and providing me with encouragement and assistance whenever it was needed. To my loving parents, whose respect for further education has given me direction and inspiration to reach for higher goals. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... v Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ....................... 1 Introduction ..................... 1 Purpose of the Study ................. 3 Definition of Terms .................. 3 Assumptions ...................... 5 Delimitations ..................... 6 Research Questions .................. 6 Population/Sample ................... 7 Procedures Used .................... 8 Overview of the Study ................. 8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. lO Perceived Similarity ................. l0 Attraction and Self-Disclosure ............ l3 Similar-to-Me Effect ................. 22 Summary ........................ 23 III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY ........... 25 Sample Selection ................... 25 Instruments Employed ................. 26 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule ........ 26 Inquiry Mode Questionnaire ............. 28 Demographic Questionnaire .............. 3l Data Gathering .................... 32 Procedure for Analyzing Data ............. 33 Summary ........................ 34 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................. 35 Manifest Needs .................... 36 Thinking Styles .................... 4] Demographics ..................... 45 Summary ........................ 52 Conclusions Related to the Demographics ........ 54 iii V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... Summary ........................ Design of the Study .................. Fi Co Co ndings ....................... Manifest Needs ................... Thinking Styles ................... Demographics .................... nclusions Related to the Variables ......... nclusions Related to the Demographics ........ Summary of Findings .................. Re Su APPENDICES commendations .................... ggestions for Further Study ............. A. EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE .......... B. INQU IRY MODE QUESTIONNAIRE ............... C. DEMOGRAPHIC CHECKLIST .................. BIBLIOGRAPHY iv Table 10. ll. 12. l3. l4. l5. LIST OF TABLES Coefficients of Internal Consistency and Stability for the EPPS Variables ................. Test-Retest Reliability and Subtest Intercorrelation Coefficients ...................... Highest Positive Factor Loadings of InQ Items ....... All Positive Factor Loadings of InQ Items ......... ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Manifest Need for Achievement .............. ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Manifest Need for Affiliation .............. ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Manifest Need for Dominance ............... ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Manifest Need for Abasement ............... ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Thinking Style, Idealist ................ ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Thinking Style, Realist ................. ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents ANOVA--Comparison of Superintendents Frequency Distribution of Superintendents and Principals in the Demographic Characteristic of Age V and and and and and and Principals Principals ' Manifest Need for Autonomy ............... Principals Principals Principals Principals ' Thinking Style, Pragmatist ............... Principals Principals ' Thinking Style, Synthesist ............... Principals ° Thinking Style, Analyst ................. in in in in in Page 29 3O 3O 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 45 l6. T7. 18. l9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Test of Significance of Demographic Characteristic of Age Between Superintendents and Principals ........ Frequency Distribution of Superintendents and Principals in the Demographic Characteristic of Marital Status Test of Significance of Demographic Characteristic of Marital Status Between Superintendents and Principals Frequency Distribution of Superintendents and Principals in the Demographic Characteristic of Racial Group Test of Significance of Demographic Characteristic of Racial Group Between Superintendents and Principals Frequency Distribution of Superintendents and Principals in the Demographic Characteristic of Level of Education Test of Significance of Demographic Characteristic of Level of Education Between Superintendents and Principals ........................ Frequency Distribution of Superintendents and Principals in the Demographic Characteristic of Years in the Classroom ........................ Test of Significance of Demographic Characteristic of Years as Classroom Teacher Between Superintendents and Principals ...................... Frequency Distribution of Superintendents and Principals in the Demographic Characteristic of Administrative Experience ........................ Test of Significance of Demographic Characteristic of Administrative Experience Between Superintendents and Principals ...................... Frequency Table of Match Versus No Match for the Demographic Variables of Superintendents and Principals Summary of Tests of Significance for Each of the Variables of Manifest Needs and Thinking Style ...... Summary of Tests of Significance for Each of the Demographic Variables ......... ‘ ......... vi Page 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 51 52 52 53 67 68 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The selection of principals is a vital aspect of the system of personnel selection in a school organization. The initial deci- sion on hiring an executive is an extremely critical one (Wendell, l970). The responsibility for the interviewing in most cases rests with the superintendent because it is his/her responsibility to recom- mend for employment principals who will perform at a level that will result in meeting the goals of the organization. The success of the superintendent vfill be determined by the administrative efforts of his/her subordinates, namely the principals, in an attempt to meet the goals of the organization. To meet these goals, do superintendents tend to hire principals who have manifest needs and thinking styles similar to the superintendent? In this study, there was an attempt to determine if the superintendent of schools has the same manifest needs and/or thinking styles that are identical to the principals he/she hires. This investigation looked at five manifest needs: namely, affiliation, autonomy, achievement, dominance, and abasement (Edwards, l959). Also, the thinking styles, which include pragmatist, analyst, syn- thesist, idealist, and realist (Bramson, Palette, & Harrison, l977). Examining the manifest needs and the thinking style places a different perspective on the employment interview process. If this investigation determines that the manifest needs and thinking styles are identical, it may be a factor that determines who are hired and what salary they receive. Basket (1973) stated, "the less similar targets (applicants) received a substantially lower salary than the high similar targets." Other organizational problems could arise in a school set- ting when there is a need for a disciplinarian type of principal, but there is an easy-going superintendent, or the school may need some innovative and creative person in contrast to a superintendent who is a traditionalist. This study does not attempt to suggest that an organization hire people with different manifest needs and thinking styles. It may be good for an organization to have people with the same manifest needs and thinking styles to aid in teamwork and cooperation. If this study does find that the cloning process does take place, it will not be for the purpose of determining if it is good or bad, but only to determine if it does exist at all. Should this investigation indicate that manifest needs and thinking styles are identical in the superintendent and principal, then the superintendent should become more aware of these similarities. The superintendent should seriously consider if he/she needs a principal who is like him/herself or whether the school needs someone who has a different perspective to develop a better balance and possibly give the school a new direction. The hiring decision is a crucial one and should be approached with the utmost care. No other single activity of an administrator is as important to operating an efficient and effective school as the selection of quality personnel (Engel & Frederichs, 1980). Purpose of the Study This study was designed to investigate if superintendents tend to hire principals with similar manifest needs and thinking styles as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire by Bramson, Parlette, and Harrison. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule includes the five manifest needs of achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abasement. The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire tested for the five thinking styles of pragmatism, idealism, realism, synthesism, and analysm. Definition of Terms Manifest needs is the overall term used in the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule that includes achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abasement (Edwards, 1959). Achievement--To do one's best, to be successful, to accomplish something of great significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better than others, to write a great novel or play (Edwards, l959). Autonomy--To be able to come and go as desired, to say what one thinks about things, to be independent of others in making deci- sions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are unconventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in positions of authority, to avoid responsibilities and obli- gations (Edwards, l959). Affiliation--To be loyal to friends, to participate in friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships, to make as many friends as possible, to share things with friends, to do things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments, to write letters to friends (Edwards, l959). Dominance--To argue for one's point of view, to be a leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to per- suade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs (Edwards, 1959). Abasement--To feel guilty when one does something wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal pain and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for punishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoid- ing a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession of errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situa- tions, to feel timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most respects (Edwards, 1959). Thinking styles is the overall term used in the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire that includes synthesism, idealism, pragmatism, analysm, and realism (Bramson et al., 1977). Synthesist-~Integrative approach, sees likeness in apparent unlikes, seeks conflict and synthesis, is interested in change. Idealist--Assimilative approach, broad range of views wel- comed, ideal solutions sought. Pragmatist--Eclectic approach, "whatever works," seeks shortest route to payoff, interested in innovation. Analyst--Logica1 approach, seeks "one best way," seeks models and formulas, interested in "scientific" solutions. Realist--Empirical approach, relies on facts and expert Opinion, seeks solutions that meet current needs, interested in con- crete results. Sgperintendent of schools--Chief executive and advisory officer charged with direction of schools in a local school adminis- trative unit, as in a district, city, town, or township, or in a county or state. Principal--The administrative head and professional leader of a school division or unit, such as a high school, junior high school, or elementary school. Assumptions This dissertation is based on two assumptions: 1. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule does test for achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abasement. 2. The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire does test for pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst. Delimitations l. The data collected were based only on the responses received from the consortium of Middle Cities schools in Michigan. 2. The data of the study were affected by the degree of sincerity of response to the test administered. 3. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire provided the data needed. 4. The findings of the relationship between factors cited in the previous statements were viewed as correlational and limited only to the categories cited. Research Question This study was an attempt to investigate if superintendents tend to hire principals with the same manifest needs and thinking styles as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and by the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire by Bramson et al. The general research question is as follows: "Do superin- tendents hire principals who are similar to themselves in manifest needs and thinking styles? Specific research questions include the following: 1. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in achievement? 2. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in autonomy? 3. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in affiliation? 4. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in dominance? 5. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in abasement? 6. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in thinking style, synthesist? 7. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in thinking style, idealist? 8. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in thinking style, pragmatist? 9. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in thinking style, analyst? 10. Do superintendents select principals similar to them- selves in thinking style, realist? Population15ample All of the Michigan schools in the Middle Cities Association were included in this study, but the sample comprised only the super- intendents and their principals in those school districts that do the hiring of the principals rather than those school districts in which the personnel directors are involved in the hiring process. The Middle Cities Association serves Michigan's middle-sized urban centers. The smallest is Muskegon Heights with 3,000 students, and the largest is Flint with more than 30,000. Together, MCA districts have a membership of students larger than Detroit and the fifth largest in the country. Procedures Used The data collected for the study were analyzed to determine if superintendents and principals have similar manifest needs and thinking styles. The first analysis was descriptive, using per- centages and frequencies, and 'is illustrated in tabular fashion. Also, the data are illustrated by inferential statistics using chi- square for demographic characteristics to determine similarities or differences. The analysis of variance was used to know whether the differ- ence or similarity between the two groups of superintendents and principals in manifest needs and/or thinking styles is significant or whether it can be attributed to chance. The scores were compiled, punched, and verified on IBM cards and processed by the computer center at Michigan State University. Overview of the Study This study consists of five chapters, a selected bibliog- raphy, and appendices. Chapter I included the rationale for the study, purposes of the study, research questions, assumptions, definition of terms, and the organization of the study. Chapter II contains a review of the literature related to the tapic. This includes a search of pertinent ERIC files, review of psychological abstracts, review of periodicals index, business management abstracts, and dissertation abstracts. Chapter III describes and explains the methods and proce- dures of the study. Included in this chapter are the p0pulation, sample, instrumentation, collection, and treatment of the data. Chapter IV is an analysis of data from the instruments. Chapter V presents the summary, findings, and recommenda- tions of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of the literature is organized under three major headings: (l) perceived similarity, (2) attraction and self- disclosure, and (3) similar-to-me effect. All of these subheadings are related to the belief that there is a tendency for one to relate to another whom he/she believes to be similar to him/herself. Perceived Similarity The relationship between perceived similarity to self and interpersonal attraction has been well documented (Byrne, 1961, 1965, 1969; Bowditch, 1969; Byrne, Clore, & Norchel, 1966; Byrne & Griffitt, 1969; Byrne, London, & Reeves, l968). The evidence is clear and unequivocal: the greater the degree of perceived simi- larity between two persons, the greater their attraction for each other. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence to suggest that raters tend to attribute a number of their own characteristics to the persons they rate. Learly (1957) found that hostile people tended to attribute more hostility to other people than nonhostile persons attributed to others. The same relationship was obtained for ratings of friendliness by friendly and nonfriendly raters. lO 11 Edwards (1959) demonstrated that persons with positive self- descriptions were more positive in their evaluation of others than persons with negative self-descriptions. In experimental investigations of interpersonal attraction, various stimulus characteristics associated with an individual have been manipulated and found to exert an effect on attraction toward the individual. The theory of social-comparison processes suggests that individuals are attracted to each other on the basis of simi- larity in opinions, abilities, emotional state, and economic status (Byrne et al., 1966). Byrne stated that friendship choices within a group tend to be between members of the same general socioeconomic status. In his methodology, his subjects were asked to evaluate a stranger about whom information concerning both attitude and economic status were provided. It was hypothesized that attraction is a positive function of similarity of economic status. The derived attraction formula found positive similarity responses concerning economic status. The central figure in the investigations of similarity and attraction relationship has been Donald Byrne. He and his associates have attempted to develop a theoretical explanation of the similarity- attraction relationship. Byrne and Clore (1968) developed a rein- forcement model of evaluative responses that they use to explain the consistent research findings. Attitude statements are conceptualized as having evaluative or affective meaning and hence reinforcement properties. Attitudes may then serve as reinforcers in learning 12 other evaluative responses. Byrne and Clare maintained that the evaluative meaning of any given stimulus is a positive linear function of the proportion of positive reinforcements associated with it. Positive and negative reinforcements act as unconditioned stimuli which then have the power to elicit the implicit affective responses without the necessity of the original unconditioned stimulus being present. In support of their model, the authors cited a variety of studies showing that evaluations of other people are a function of the association of a person with some positive reinforcement (Byrne & Clore, 1968). A similar model of similarity-attraction that empha- sizes perceived instrumentality of similarity-dissimilarity was proposed by Simons, Mayer, and Berkowitz (1972). Some studies have indicated that interviewers' decisions are based on personality characteristics, and the favored applicant is seen as having congruent or similar beliefs to those of the inter- viewer (Baskett, 1973; Nexley & Numeroff, 1974). Perhaps the most overlooked variables in studies of inter- viewer decision-making behaviors are the self-perceptions that interviewers hold of themselves. Fortunately, the effects of self- perception on behavior have been studied in other contexts, and some generalizations to the interview setting may be justified. Bem (1967) was one of the first psychologists to recognize the role of self-perception in determining behavior. Korman (1970) developed a model of work behavior with self-perception as its focal point. Korman believed that a person behaves in such a way as to be 13 consistent with a given person's self-image. Korman used the person's chronic self-esteem as a measure of his/her self-concept and related differences in self-esteem to vocational choice (1966, 1967a, 1967b). These investigations led Korman to the conclusion that persons high in self-esteem make vocational choices that are consis- tent with their needs, goals, and self-concepts, whereas persons low in self-esteem are more influenced in their choices by external factors such as social desirability, family pressure, and so on. Korman (1966, 1967a, 1967b, 1970) had previously indicated that he perceived self-esteem to be a relatively stable character- istic, built up over years of reinforcement history, and thus not likely to change much. However, recently both Korman (1971) and a study by Raben and Klimoski (1972) have provided evidence to sug- gest that self-esteem can be changed by altering the expectations that significant others (i.e., a supervisor, friend, spouse, etc.) have regarding the person's performance. While the results of these studies are merely suggestive, they do give hope that eventually we may be able to help individuals who are not realizing their full human potential because of faulty self-concepts. As usual, further research is needed. Attraction and Self-Disclosure Originally, Jourard (1964) stated that high disclosure is the trademark of a healthy, self-actualized person, implying that he should be liked and admired by his peers for his honesty in com- municating information about himself. Research by several l4 investigators (Jourard, 1959; Jourard & Landsman, 1960; Jourard & Friedman, 1970; Jourard & Jaffee, 1970; Johnson & Noonan, 1972) agreed with this position by finding that a person who discloses intimate information is more liked and trusted than if he discloses superficial information. On the other hand, other investigators (Ehrlich & Graeven, 1971; Derlega, Halmer, & Furman, 1973; Kohen, 1975) have found no relationship between intimacy of the disclosure and liking for the discloser, while Cozby (1972) reported a curvi- linear relationship between intimacy of the disclosure and liking for the discloser. In their review of research, Chaikin and Derlega (1976) concluded that a simple relationship does not exist between the level of disclosure and the evaluation of the discloser. They further proposed that the task thus becomes one of specifying the factors that affect the nature of the relationship. One line of research that has suggested a key variable in determining the relationship between self-disclosure and liking is the perceived "appropriateness" of the disclosure rather than the level of disclosure (Kiesler, Kiesler, & Pollak, 1967; Derlega, Harris, & Chaikin, 1973; Chelune, 1976; Gilbert, 1977). Derlega et al. (1973) predicted that persons should like a conformer to a norm of disclosure more than a person who does not adhere to a disclosure norm, regardless of whether the norm-breaker talks too intimately or not intimately enough. In this study, observers watched videotapes of two girls conversing. The first girl revealed either nonintimate or intimate information about herself. The 15 second girl revealed either nonintimate or intimate information about herself in return. The results showed that the norm-breaker was less liked than the girl who observed the reciprocity norm, regard- less of the level of intimacy. Responses to other impression ratings indicated that the nonintimate norm-breaker was rated as “cold," whereas the intimate norm-breaker was seen as "maladjusted," "unusual," and "inappropriate" in her behavior. There was also an overall ten- dency to evaluate high disclosure as more unusual and inappropriate than low disclosure. The authors suggested that if a reciprocity norm does account for the dyadic effect, it is probably that liking for the discloser will depend on the perceived appropriateness as deter- mined by the preceding disclosure by either individual. Similarly, Gilbert (1977) added further support that attrac- tion to a high discloser depends on the perceived appropriateness of disclosures. In her study, appropriateness was varied according to which task subjects expected to participate in with an applicant. Subjects met with an applicant who communicated either a high or a low set number of personal statements and were told the task was either a problem-solving or a personal-growth-orientation task. Although a significant difference was not found between tasks, the results indicated that subjects exposed to a high-disclosing appli- cant expressed less attraction, perceived her as behaving inapprop- riately, were generally uncomfortable with her, and perceived the chance of successful task completion with her to be minimal. As noted by Cozby (1973), one methodological problem with research on the relationship between social attraction or liking 16 and self-disclosure is that the intimacy of self-disclosure has not been separated from the content of disclosure. In most studies, subjects received from another content about a topic that varied in intimacy value. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the subjects' liking rating was due to the intimacy value of the topic or their own feelings about that particular topic. Therefore, to study the actual effect of intimacy, topic content must be controlled or treated separately in the valuative ratings. In summary, reciprocity of self-disclosure in social inter- actions has been given much empirical support. Many investigators (e.g., Chaikin & Derlega, 1976; Chelune, 1976; Gilbert, 1977) have suggested that the perceived appropriateness of self-disclosure as determined by a number of variables, including the target of self- disclosure as well as situational norms and expectations, is a critical variable affecting disclosure reciprocity. Likewise, the relationship between social attraction and self-disclosure may also depend on the judged appropriateness of the disclosure. Either too high to too low self-disclosure by one member of the dyad may result in a decrease in reciprocity as well as less attraction to the dis- closer. Reciprocity of self-disclosure also tended to be strongest when the dyad consisted of strangers, who may depend more on prin- ciples of equity and modeling rather than trust in establishing reciprocity (Altman, 1973; Rubin, 1975). The investigation of the therapist-client or experimenter- subject relationship within the psychological interview merits 17 special consideration within the context of interpersonal relation- ships (Cozby, 1973). Self-disclosure within the psychological inter- view is different from other dyadic social interactions in that there are given differences in status (professional versus client) as well as in the nature of the task. The therapist or interviewer seeks information about another person's private self. Thus, research on self-disclosure within the psychological interview may have a number of practical as well as methodological implications. Several theorists (Rogers, 1961; Jourard, 1971; Mowrer, 1964) have emphasized the importance of self-disclosure or self-exploration as a goal in traditional psychotherapy. Truax and Carkhuff (1965) suggested that in successful psychotherapy the client is involved in a process of self-disclosure or self-exploration; that is, a process of coming to verbalize and know one's beliefs, values, motives, etc. However, most research has focused on the effects of the therapist or interviewer behavior on client or interviewee behavior in facili- tating this process. One research strategy in experimentally facilitating client self-disclosure has been the comparison of self-disclosing versus other verbal interview techniques (Powell, 1968; Vondracek, 1969; Feijenbaum, 1977). For example, Powell (1968) explored the effects of approval-supportive, reflection-restatement, or open disclosure statements on the conditioning of subjects' verbal behavior in an experimental interview. The interview was divided into two ten- minute periods: operant level and acquisition. During the second 18 period, the interviewer responded to the subject's positive or negative self-references with one of the three above interventions. The results indicated that the three types of interviewing styles were differentially effective in influencing subjects' self-references. In general, subjects disclosed more when an interviewer corresponded to subjects' self-references with open disclosure than when he used approval-supportive or reflection-statement styles. On the other hand, Vondracek (1969) reported that a "probing" technique was more effective in eliciting high amounts of interviewee self-disclosure (extent of verbalization time) than when the inter- viewer was either "reflecting" or "revealing," although none of the interviewing techniques produced differences in the rated intimacy of self-disclosure. More recently, Feijenbaum (1977) investigated the intimacy of subjects' self-disclosure in relation to a reflect- ing versus disclosing interviewing style. Results showed a signifi- cant correlation of interviewee intimate self-disclosure, as measured by judges' content ratings of the interviews and by subjects' use of self-referent words, when the interviewer was both reflecting and self-disclosing. Feijenbaum (1977) concluded that in relatively brief interviews, interviewer self-disclosure as a technique in facilitating intimate disclosure is no more effective than the reflec- tion technique. Overall, the relationship between self-disclosing and other verbal techniques remains unclear because of the use of different parameters and measures of self-disclosure. For example, different 19 dependent measures of the amount of disclosure have included the extent of verbalization time (Vondracek, 1969) or the number of self- references (Feijenbaum, 1977). In addition, since the above studies have not consistently employed the same parameter, such as amount or intimacy of self-disclosure, the comparison of results is difficult. However, the foremost area of research on self-disclosure within the psychological interview has been the investigation of Jourard's (1960) dyadic effect. As previously mentioned, the impli- cation of the dyadic effect is that high therapist self-disclosure should lead to high levels of disclosure by the client. Jourard also assumed that the reciprocity of self-disclosure proceeded in a linear manner and that more self-disclosure by the therapist should elicit more self-disclosure by the client. Thus, the typical research procedure in the investigation of self-disclosure within the psy- chological interview has been through the manipulation of different levels of therapist or interviewer self-disclosure in facilitating interviewee or client self-disclosure (Bundza & Simonson, 1973; Simonson & Bahr, 1974; Simonson, 1976). For example, Bundza and Simonson (1973) presented subjects with transcripts of one of three simulated psychotherapy sessions. Client responses were held con- stant while the therapist's behavior consisted of three levels of disclosure (nondisclosure, warm support, and self-disclosure). Although the dependent measure was the subjects' willingness to dis- close rather than actual self—disclosing behavior, results indicated that the therapist who made warm-accepting remarks to the client elicited the greatest willingness to self-disclose. 20 Additional support for the facilitating effect of interme— diate levels of therapist disclosure has come from a number of studies examining the frequency and similarity of interviewer self- disclosure (Giannandra & Murphy, 1973; Mann & Murphy, 1975; Murphy & Strong, 1972). For example, Giannandra and Murphy (1973) had inter- viewers disclose experiences, attitudes, and feelings similar to those revealed by subjects 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12 times during a 20- minute interview on college life. The interviewer's disclosure con- sisted of short and honest positive comments about the interviewer's own experience, beliefs, and attitudes, and were inserted on a ran- dom basis following an unobtrusive light signal. In general, a moderate number of interviewer's self-disclosures, rather than a few or many, resulted in significantly more students returning for a second interview and increasing the subjects' reciprocal disclosure. Additionally, an intermediate number of similar disclosures by the interviewer led to the interviewer being described as significantly more empathetic, warm, and genuine (Mann & Murphy, 1975). Murphy et al. concluded that the use of a moderate number of interviewer self-disclosures may be an effective means of increasing the attractiveness of the therapist and of increasing client approach response to the therapist. Simonson and Bahr (1974) examined the effect of therapist disclosure on subject disclosure and attraction during the first interview. Three levels of therapist disclosure (personal, demo- graphic, and none), in addition to two levels of professional 21 affiliation (professional and paraprofessional), were manipulated. Simonson and Bahr reasoned that the perceived "psychological dis— tance" between the subject and a professional therapist or inter- viewer is so great that the disclosure of personal material by a figure so far removed from the subject is simply too unusual to be accepted. The results supported the predicted hypothesis that per- sonal disclosure by a paraprofessional would elicit greater attrac- tion and reciprocal disclosure by subjects than exposure to a professional therapist. Personal self-disclosure by a professional therapist resulted in lower levels of attraction and disclosure than were obtained by exposure to a therapist who offered only demographic self-disclosure. However, demographic self-disclosure for both pro- fessional and paraprofessional therapists resulted in greater self- disclosure and attraction than exposure to a therapist who offered no self-disclosing statements. Simonson and Bahr (1974) concluded that intermediate therapist self-disclosure appears to be a helpful technique for both professional and paraprofessional therapists, but that personal self-disclosure by a professional therapist may be viewed by subjects as inappropriate. Within the psychological interview, the development of trust and social attraction is considered essential for an effective coun- seling relationship (Rogers, 1961; Jourard, 1971). Strong (1968) conceptualized therapy as an interpersonal influence process and proposed that the counselor's ability to influence the client can be enhanced by possessing characteristics of expertness, attractiveness, 22 and trustworthiness. Thus, one implication of previous research on self-disclosure is that counselors who disclose personal information may be rated as more attractive and trustworthy. However, the spe- cific relationship between counselor self-disclosure and social attraction within the psychological interview has been studied by only a few investigators. SimilarLto-Me Effect The similarity effect has been a consistent finding that a favorable evaluation of a job applicant is significantly related to the degree of similarity of that applicant to the rater. Golightly, Huffman, and Byrne (1972) reported that the proportion of similar attitudes held in comnon between a simulated loan officer and a bogus loan applicant influenced the attraction toward the applicant and the magnitude of the loan approval. Baskett (1973) found that attitudinally dissimilar applicants in a simulated employment inter- view were perceived as being less competent and were offered lower starting salaries. In another simulated-interview study, Nexley and Nemeroff (1974) examined the influence of applicant race and bio- graphical similarity on subjects' evaluations of job candidates. Although applicant race did not have a substantial effect on the evaluations, biographical similarity accounted for 12 percent of the interviewers' total decision variance. Rand and Nexley (1975), employing simulated videotaped employment interviews, also found that biographical similarity of interviewer and applicant led to substantially higher ratings of the candidate's job suitability. In 23 fact, their "similar-to-me“ effect accounted for 11.3 percent of the hiring-recommendation variance. In the course of training experi- enced managers to minimize various rating errors, it was found that the similarity effect accounted for 26 percent of the variance in the ratings by control-group managers (Latham, Nexley, & Pursell, 1975). Pulakos and Hexley (1982) found that perceptual similarity is certainly related to managers' evaluations of their subordinates and the subordinates' evaluations of their managers. The managers continue to provide support and work facilitation as long as at least one individual within the manager-subordinate dyad perceives similarity. Presumably, the vertical dyadic linkage remains fairly high whenever the manager, the subordinates, or both parties believe that there is some degree of similarity between them (Pulakos & Nexley, 1982). Summary This chapter reviewed research related to perceived simi- lariby theory, attraction, self-disclosure, and similarity between interviewer and interviewee. Perceived similarity theory suggests that individuals are attracted to each other on the basis of simi- larity in opinions, abilities, emotional state, and economic status. Also that hostile people tend to attribute more hostility to other people and friendly people tend to attribute more friendliness to other people. Attraction and self-disclosure indicates that high disclosure reveals healthy self-actualized people who should be liked and admired 24 for their honesty in communication of information about themselves. Therefore, the more intimate the disclosures, the more they are liked and trusted than if they had disclosed superficial informa- tion. Some studies showed a falling off of attraction when the disclosures were viewed as inappropriate. Similar-to-me effect was studied in job ratings and employ- ment interviews. It was found that a favorable evaluation of a job applicant was significantly related to the degree of similarity of that applicant to the rater. Biographical similarity of inter- viewer and applicant led to substantially higher ratings of the candidate's job suitability. It was found that these factors do influence the ratings of on-the-job performance and preference given in an interview situation. Interpersonal judgments manifest them- selves in the interview process and may help to explain why certain candidates are chosen over others of equal ability. It is certainly understandable that individuals will relate and evaluate others more favorably whom they perceive as being similar to themselves. The research of the literature thus far does indicate that similarity between interviewers and interviewees leads to favorable interviewer judgments. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY The purpose of this investigation was to determine if super- intendents of schools tend to hire principals with similar manifest needs and thinking styles. The question posed is: "Do superintend- ents tend to hire people exactly like themselves in manifest needs and thinking styles?" The purpose of this research was only to determine if a match does, in fact, exist. If it is found to be identical in some areas, then the conscious awareness of it is sufficient in that it may have an effect on the interview process. Included in this chap- ter on research methodology is the definition of the population, sample selection, instruments employed, demographics, scoring pro- cedures, and procedures for analyzing data. Sample Selection The Middle Cities Association (MCA) is a consortium of 20 urban school districts in Michigan formed out of a conmon need and committed to cooperative, constructive action. MCA's major goal is to help improve educational service to nearly 300,000 students. No other formal organization like MCA exists in this country. The MCA districts form a composite school district that is larger than 25 26 Detroit and the fifth largest in the country. The Middle City schools were selected as the population because they represent the middle- sized districts as opposed to the very few large school districts and the numerous small-sized school districts. The introductory letter explained the project and asked the superintendent if he/she had hired his/her present principals. Let- ters were sent to the following districts: Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Bay City, Benton Harbor, Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Marquette, Midland, Monroe, Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, Niles, Pontiac, Saginaw, Southfield, Willow Run, and Ypsilanti. The reply from these schools indicated that ten superintendents had hired their present principals. Within these ten superintendents, they had hired a total of 15 principals. Instruments Employed The three instruments used to collect the data were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) was used to test the following areas: achievement, affiliation, autonomy, abase- ment, and dominance. This test was a forced choice between two statements, one of which would indicate a preference for the spe- cific basic need. Reliability of EPPS.--Split-half reliability coefficients or coefficients of internal consistency were determined for the 15 27 personality variables in the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. These coefficients were obtained by correlating the row and column scores for each variable over the 1,509 subjects in the college nor- mative group. The internal consistency coefficients, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, are given in Table 1. Table l.--Coefficients of internal consistency and stability for the EPPS variables. Variable Coggigtggly M:::b111t:0 l. Achievement 0.74 0.74 14.46 4.09 2. Autonomy 0.76 0.83 13.62 4.48 3. Affiliation 0.70 0.77 15.40 4.09 4. Dominance 0.81 0.87 15.72 5.28 5. Abasement 0.84 0.88 14.10 4.96 Test-retest reliability coefficients or stability coeffi- cients are also given in Table l. Validity.--Various studies have been made comparing ratings and scores on the variables of the EPPS. In one study, subjects were asked to rank themselves on the 15 personality variables without knowledge of their corresponding scores on the EPPS. Definitions of the variables were provided in terms of the statements appearing in the EPPS. This was necessary because it was believed that the names of some of the more familiar variables, such as "dominance," would probably evoke many different connotations. 28 The self-rankings of some subjects agreed perfectly with their rankings based upon the EPPS. In other cases, the two sets of rankings showed little agreement. The subjects, in general, reported the self—rankings difficult to make. Some complained of being unable to evaluate the individual statements in order to obtain a single ranking. Others placed undue stress on a single statement involved in the definition of a variable and neglected the remaining statements. Some of the subjects also undoubtedly tended to evaluate the variables in terms of standards of social desirability. Inquiry Mode Questionnaire The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire (InQ) tested the five areas of pragmatist, idealist, realist, analyst, and synthesist. Each of these variables was answered on a five-point scale: (1) least like them, (2) a little like them, (3) moderately like them, (4) more like them, and (5) the most like them. Scores in each area were tabulated for a total score of 270 points for the test. Reliability.--The reliability of the subtests of the InQ inventory was investigated by the test-retest procedure, which is essentially a measure of temporal stability. Data were obtained from 700 respondents late in 1980 and again six weeks to two months later, early in 1981. The data for reliability assessment are based on a totally different group of respondents, whose responses formed the basis of the item analyses reported above. Test-retest coeffici- ents for the five subtests of the InQ inventory are presented along the main diagonal of Table 2. 29 Table 2.--Test-retest reliability and subtest intercorrelation coefficients. Synthesist Idealist Pragmatist Analyst Realist Synthesist (0.75) -0.05 -O.32 -O.30 -O.4O Idealist -O.24 (0.52) -O.12 -O.36 -O.49 Pragmatist -O.24 -0.02 (0.65) -O.4l -O.l4 Analyst -O.16 -O.16 -O.50 (0.70) -O.lO Realist -O.43 -O.43 -0.03 -O.18 (0.61) Validity.--Two approaches to validity were taken by the current research. First, the factorial structure of the 90 items composing the InQ inventory was.investigated; second, the subtest score profiles of various occupational groups taking the InQ were analyzed. Standard factor-analytic procedures were used, followed by the quartimax rotation procedures designed to simplify rows of a factor matrix. If an analytical procedure is used requiring five factors, then for an array as shown in Table 3, all 18 synthesist items should have their major positive loading on one factor, all 18 idealist items should have their major positive loading on a different single factor, and so on. As a corollary for an array as shown in Table 4, all factor loadings for the synthesist factor should be positive, as should be the case for the remaining four factors associated with the remaining four subtests of the InQ inventory. 30 Table 3.--Highest positive factor loadings of InQ items. Factors Synthesist Idealist Pragmatist Analyst Realist 1 o (3)a (8) 3 3 2 2 1 O (9) 5 3 1 1 5 4 (6) 4 (13) 6 0 1 0 5 2 2 5 l 4 aBracketed entries represent most frequent positive factor load- ings. Table 4.--All positive factor loadings of InQ items. Factors Synthesist Idealist Pragmatist Analyst Realist l l (13) 10 13 8 2 9 8 3 (16) 6 3 2 3 11 14 (12) 4 (14) 12 4 9 1 5 9 11 (12) 6 10 Tables 3 and 4 present the summary of results from the five- factor quartimax rotation analytic procedure here employed. It may be seen from Table 3 that Factor 4 clearly represents a synthe- sist factor with 13 of the 18 items having here their major positive loading. Analyst items are clearly represented by Factor 2, and realist items seem most predominantly represented by Factor 3. 31 Idealist and pragmatist items seem to both be well represented by Factor 1. However, this may be somewhat of an artifact of the quarti- max rotation since there is a tendency for the first rotated factor to be a general factor. In this circumstance, the results of Table 4 indicate that idealist items are the major representation in Factor 1, and pragmatist forms the fifth factor, if somewhat indistinctly (Bramson, Parlette, & Harrison Manual, 1977). Demographic Questionnaire Review procedure.--The following steps were developed to facilitate the implementation of the demographic-instrument review procedure: Step 1: At the first mailing, a panel of three superin- tendents and six principals who were not participating in the study were asked to complete the survey instrument and submit comments on (a) layout and general design, (b) number and arrangement of ques- tions, (c) general instructions to the subjects, and (d) ambiguity and sensitivity of the questions. Step 2: The panel members' responses were noted and changes implemented. Step 3: The panel members were again requested to respond to the revised survey instrument, and their responses were noted. Step 4: The final survey instrument reflected the changes as indicated by the reviewers. Scoring procedures.--Before the tests were sent out, they were coded with a number or a letter to protect the anonymity of the participants. Participation at all times was voluntary. 32 This is a relationship study and requires that variables be identified for proper analysis. All instruments were scored and tabulated, becoming variables that would possibly identify signifi- cant relationships. Precoding of the instruments was accomplished through consulting with the Michigan State University Research Con- sultation Center. The five manifest needs of achievement, affiliation, autonomy, abasement, and dominance of the superintendents were matched with the scores of the principals they had hired. Then the five areas of thinking styles--pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst--of the superintendents were matched with the five same areas of the principals they had hired. Data Gathering, The following procedures were designed to gather the data for this study. In April 1982, the superintendents of the 20 Middle City schools were sent a cover letter explaining the purpose of this study and how the tabulated data were to be used. Most impor- tant, they were asked if they had hired any of the principals in their school district at any time during their tenure. Within two weeks, another mailing was sent out to the superintendents so as to receive returns from all the superintendents. The returned letters were examined to note which superin— tendents had hired one or more principals within their school dis- trict. Another letter was sent to these superintendents asking for the names and addresses of the principals they had hired. They were 33 also provided with a form letter for their principals, asking them to cooperate with this project by completing the instruments which they would receive in the near future. In June 1982, a packet of materials, which included a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and asking the partici- pants to complete the three instruments, namely the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire, and the demo- graphics questionnaire was sent to each potential respondent. If no reply was received two weeks after the initial mailing, a second letter was sent to the nonrespondents. If no response was received two weeks after the second mailing, a telephone call was made to the nonrespondents. All of the respondents had turned in the required materials by August 1982. Procedure for Analyzing Data Data for this study consisted of the responses to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire, and the demographic questionnaire. Upon return, these instruments required handscoring and tabulation. These scores were compiled and transferred to data sheets. Scores were punched and verified on IBM cards processed by the Computer Center at Michigan State University. The results were illustrated by inferential statistics using chi-square for demo- graphic characteristics to determine similarities or differences. The analysis of variance was used for the manifest needs and thinking styles. 34 Summary Ten superintendents and 15 principals were subjects in this study to help determine if there were matches in manifest needs, thinking styles, and/or demographics. The superintendents and principals completed the identical testing program. The scores were compared to determine if there were matches in the areas of achievement, affiliation, autonomy, dominance, abasement, pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst. All participants filled out the general background demo- graphic questionnaire consisting of the following: age, marital status, degree, teaching experience, administrative experience, racial group, and administrative position. All information was posted on data sheets, and the statis- tics were generated by the use of the computer at Michigan State University. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the data that related specifically to the primary purpose of this study, namely, to determine if a rela- tionship exists among the manifest needs, thinking styles, and demo- graphics between the superintendent and the principal whom he/she has hired. The manifest needs were obtained through the completion of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, which tested the areas of achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abasement. Data on thinking styles were obtained through the completion of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire and tested for pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst. Certain demographic data were also obtained from the superintendents and the principals for comparison purposes. The analysis of the data is presented in the following manner: 1. Each of the original hypotheses of the study is restated, and appropriate data and an explanation are provided. 2. Data related to demographics are presented in tabular form. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings. 35 36 Manifest Needs Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in manifest need of achieve- ment. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted to do their best, to be successful, to accomplish the tasks requiring skill and effort, to do a difficult job well, and to solve difficult problems (Edwards, 1959). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' manifest need of achievement (F [1,25] = 0.20, p < 0.59). Thus, the absence of any significant difference between superintendents and principals is not surprising since achievement is necessary to attain this level of competency. It usually requires advance degrees and a desire to be a leader with supervisor responsibilities over others. Therefore, the null hypothe- sis is accepted. Table 5.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in manifest need for achievement. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 2.5885 1 2.5885 0.2901 0.5901 No Within groups 223.0412 25 8.9216 Total 225.6297 Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in manifest need for autonomy. 37 In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators desired to come and go as they pleased, to say openly what they think about things, to be independent of others in making decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are unconventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in positions of authority, and to avoid responsi- bilities and obligations (Edwards, 1959). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and the principals' manifest need of autonomy (F [1,25] = 0.22, p < 0.63). The absence of any significant differ- ence between superintendents and principals is accepted since the occupation oftentimes requires working alone as there is usually only one principal in a school building and one superintendent for many schools. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 6.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in manifest need for autonomy. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 3.5139 1 3.5139 0.2295 0.6361 No Within groups 382.7824 25 15.3113 Total 386.2963 Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in manifest need of affiliation. 38 In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted to be loyal to friends, to partici- pate in friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friend- ships, to make as many friends as possible, to share things with friends, to do things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments, and to write letters to friends (Edwards, 1959). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superin- tendents' and principals' manifest need of affiliation (F [1,25] = 0.01, p < 0.91). The absence of any significant difference between superintendents and principals is accepted as the administrators are required to be loyal to their school and to be supportive of staff and students. They must be open to all members of their staff, stu- dent body, the parent groups, and even the general public. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 7.—-ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in manifest need for affiliation. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 0.3314 1 0.3314 0.0132 0.9095 No Within groups 628.3353 25 25.1334 Total 628.6667 Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between super- intehdents and principals in the manifest need of dominance. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted to argue for their point of view, to be a 39 leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct the actions of others, and to tell others how to do their jobs (Edwards, 1959). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' manifest need of dominance (F [1,25] = 0.47, p < 0.49). The absence of any significant differ- ence between superintendent and principal is accepted since one must be a leader to function in either capacity of superintendent or principal, and have others view them as a leader. The administrators have the duty to make decisions that affect the organization. They have the responsibility to settle disputes, persuade, influence, supervise, and direct the actions of others. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 8.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in manifest need for dominance. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 11.1277 1 11.1277 0.4781 0.4981 No Within groups 581.8353 25 23.2734 Total 592.9630 4O Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between super- ifitendent and principal in the manifest need of abasement. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators felt guilty when doing something wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal pain and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for pun- ishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession of errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situations, to feel timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most respects (Edwards, 1959). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' manifest need of abasement (F [1,25] = 0.41, p < 0.52). The absence of any significant differ- ence between superintendent and principal is accepted since they both have to make a decision and live with it. They are ineffective if they lament or keep reversing their decisions. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 9.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in manifest need for abasement. Source of Signifi- Variation. SS df "5 F p cant Between groups 8.8024 1 8.8020 0.4106 0.5275 No Within groups 535.8647 25 21.4346 Total 544.6671 41 Thinking Styles Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in thinking style, pragmatist. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators take an eclectic approach, "whatever works." They seek the shortest route to the payoff and are interested in innova- tion (Bramson et al., 1977). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' thinking style, pragmatist (F [1,25] = 0.16, p < 0.68). The absence of any significant differ- ence between superintendents and principals is accepted as they must act now and do whatever works for the moment to keep the organization running as smoothly as possible. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 10.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in thinking style, pragmatist. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 4.0891 1 4.0891 0.1637 0.6892 No Within groups 624.4294 25 24.9772 Total 628.5185 Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, idealist. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted to take an assimilative approach and 42 welcomed a broad range of views to seek ideal solutions (Bramson et al., 1977). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' thinking style, idealist (F [1,25] = 0.41, p < 0.52). The absence of any significant differ- ence between superintendents and principals is accepted as the ideal solution can be achieved in most situations if the leader can work effectively with all publics. Assuming that the superintendents and principals can work effectively with teachers, parents, and nonparents, then proper solutions to problems can be achieved. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table ll.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in thinking style, idealist. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 26.8412 1 26.8412 0.4196 0.5230 No Within groups 1599.1588 25 63.9664 Tbtal 1626.0000 Hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, realist. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted to take an empirical approach, relying on facts and expert opinion, seeking solutions that meet current needs, and interested in concrete results (Bramson et al., 1977). 43 Based on the data, there was a significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' thinking style, realist (F [2,25] = 13.52, p < 0.00). The presence of a significant difference between superintendents and principals is surprising since both would be expected to rely on facts and expert Opinions. It appears they are taking an approach to solutions that is not based on empirical evi- dence. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Table 12.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in thinking style, realist. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 1331.7983 2 665.8992 13.5229 0.0001 No Within groups 1231.0588 24 49.2424 Total 2562.8571 Hypothesis_g: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, synthesist. In this hypothesis, the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted to take an integrative approach, seeing likeness in apparent unlikes, seeing conflict and synthesis, and interested in change (Bramson et al., 1977). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' thinking style, synthe- sist (F [1,25] = 0.91, p < 0.34). The absence of any significant difference between superintendents and principals is accepted since an integrated approach is part of the school philosophy. The 44 superintendent and principal must act as mediators to resolve problems that arise. Also, if schools are to meet the challenges of a changing society, it is imperative that they welcome change into the organiza- tion. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 13.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in thinking style, synthesist. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 91.2002 1 91.2002 0.9177 0.2372 No Within groups 2484.4292 25 99.3772 Total 2575.6296 Hypothesis 10: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in thinking style, analyst. In this hypothesis. the purpose was to determine whether both administrators attempted the logical approach, seeking "one best way," using models and formulas, and interested in "scientific" solutions (Bramson et al., 1977). Based on the data, there was no significant difference between the superintendents' and principals' thinking style, analyst (F [1,24] = 1.80, p < 0.19). The absence of any significant differ- ence between superintendent and principal is accepted since most situations must be thought through and one best way to proceed decided upon. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. 45 Table 14.--ANOVA--Comparison of superintendents and principals in thinking style, analyst. Source of Signifi- Variation SS df MS F p cant Between groups 81.4240 1 81.4240 1.8035 0.1919 No Within groups 1083.5375 24 45.1474 Total 1164.9615 Demographics Hypothesis 11: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in demographic characteristic of age. A chi-square test was performed to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the ages of superintendents and their principals. According to these data, superintendents and principals seem to be close in age. Six superintendents were over 50 years of age, and 10 principals were over 50. In the 40 to 49 age group, there were three superintendents and two principals. Table l5.--Frequency distribution of superintendents and principals in the demographic characteristic of age. Age Superintendent Principal Number Percent Number Percent 20—29 0 0 0 0 30-39 1 10 5 29 40-49 3 30 2 12 50+ 6 60 10 59 Total 10 100 17 100 45 The chi-square value of 0.1625 with one degree of freedom was not significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore, there is no signifi- cant difference between the superintendents' and principals' demo- graphic characteristic of age. Table l6.--Test of significance of demographic characteristic of age between superintendents and principals. Superintendent Principal Row Total Chi-Square Match 6 (46%) 7 (53%) 13 0.1625 No match 4 (31%) 9 (69%) 13 Column match 10 16 26 Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in demographic characteristics of marital status. A chi-square test was performed to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the marital status of superintend- ents and the marital status of their principals. Superintendents, according to these data, were all married, whereas 14 principals were married, 1 single, 1 widowed, and l separated (Table 17). The chi-square value of 0.0 with one degree of freedom was significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted (Table 18). 47 Table l7.--Frequency distribution of superintendents and principals in the demographic characteristic of marital status. Marital Superintendent Principal Status Number Percent Number Percent Single 0 0 l 6 Married 10 100 14 82 Widowed 0 0 1 6 Separated 0 0 l 6 Total 10 100 17 100 Table 18.--Test of significance of demographic characteristic of marital status between superintendents and principals. 7 Superintendent Principal Row Total Chi-Square Match 8 (40%) 12 (60%) 20 1.0 No match __ji (33%) _:l (67%) _fi Column total 10 16 26 Hypothesis 13: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in the demographic characteristics of racial group. A chi-square test was performed to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the racial group of superin- tendents and the racial group of their principals. According to the data, there was a difference in racial groups. Seven superintendents and 16 principals were Caucasian. One superintendent was Native American, whereas two superintendents and one principal were Black. 48 Table 19.--Frequency distribution of superintendents and principals in the demographic characteristic of racial group. , Superintendent Principal Rac1a1 Group Number Percent Number Percent Native American 1 10 0 Black 2 20 1 6 Asian 0 0 0 Caucasian 7 70 16 94 Latino 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total 10 100 17 100 The chi-square value of 0.0 with one degree of freedom was ‘ significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Table 20.--Test of significance of demographic characteristic of racial group between superintendents and principals. Superintendent Principal Row Total Chi-Square Match 8 (36%) 14 (64%) 22 1.0 No match _2_ (50%) _2_ (50%) _:l Column total 10 16 26 Hypothesis 14: There is no significant difference between super- ifitendents and principals in the demographic characteristics of level of education. A chi-square test was performed to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the level of education of 49 superintendents and the level of education of their principals. Six superintendents, according to these data, had doctorate degrees, as compared to only three principals. Three superintendents and two principals had education specialists degrees. Twelve principals had master's degrees, compared to only one superintendent. Table 21.--Frequency distribution of superintendents and principals in the demographic characteristic of level of education. Level of Education Superintendent Principal Number Percent Number Percent Doctorate 6 60 , 3 18 Education specialist 3 30 2 12 Master's degree 1 10 12 70 Bachelor's degree 0 0 0 0 Total 10 100 10 100 The chi-square value of 0.03 was significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. Table 22.--Test of significance of demographic characteristic of level of education between superintendents and principals. Superintendent Principal Row Total Chi-Square Match 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6 0.03385 No match _7_ (35%) 13_ (56%) 20 Column total 10 16 26 50 Hypothesis 15: There is no significant difference between super— intendents and principals in demographic characteristics of years as a classroom teacher. A chi-square test was performed to determine the number of years spent in the classroom by the superintendent and his/her prin- cipal. According to these data, superintendents and principals had similar years in the classroom. Four superintendents had spent one to five years in the classroom, as had the same number of principals. Three superintendents had spent six to ten years in the classroom, as had two principals. Three superintendents had 11 to 15 years of classroom experience, as did five principals. Table 23.--Frequency distribution of superintendents and principals in the demographic characteristic of years in the classroom. Years in Superintendent Principal Classroom Number Percent Number Percent 0 0 0 0 0 l- 5 4 4o 4 24 6-10 3 30 2 23 11-15 3 30 5 29 16+ 0 0 6 35 Total 10 100 17 100 The chi-square value of 0.14 with one degree of freedom was not significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore, the null hypothe- sis is accepted. 51 Table 24.--Test of significance of demographic characteristic of years as classroom teacher between superintendents and principals. Superintendent Principal Row Total Chi-Square Match 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 8 0.13655 No match 3 (33%) _1__2_ (67%) 18 Column total 10 16 26 Hypothesis 16: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in demographic characteristics of years as a classroom teacher. A chi-square test was performed to determine whether there was a significant relationship between years of administrative experi- ence of the superintendent and the years of administrative experience of his/her principal. Superintendents, according to these data, seem to have more years of experience as compared to the principals. The data show that six superintendents had six or more years of experience, whereas only three principals were in this category. At the other extreme, three superintendents had one to five years of experience, while more than twice as many principals (seven) had limited experience (Table 25). The chi-square value of 0.04 with one degree of freedom was significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore. the null hypothesis is rejected (Table 26). 52 Table 25.--Frequency distribution of superintendents and principals in the demographic characteristic of administrative experience. Years of Superintendent Principal Administrative Experience Number Percent Number Percent 0 0 0 l 5 1- 5 3 30 7 41 6-10 0 0 2 12 11-15 1 10 4 23 16+ 6 60 3 18 Total 10 100 17 100 Table 26.--Test of significance of demographic characteristic of administrative experience between superintendents and principals. Superintendent Principal Row Total Chi-Square Match 5 (46%) 6 (55%) 11 0.04826 No match __5_ (33%) 10 (67%) 15 Column total 10 16 26 Summary This study proposed to examine the similarity between superin- tendents and principals with regard to their thinking styles and common manifest needs. The categories of manifest needs were the following: achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abase- ment. The thinking styles examined were pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst. 53 Table 27.--Frequency table of match versus no match for the demo- graphic variables of superintendents and principals. , -Match No Match Demographic S . S _ Variable uperin- . uperin- . . tendent Princ1pal tendent Pr1nc1pal Age 6 7 4 9 Marital status 8 12 2 4 Racial group 8 14 2 2 Level of education 3 3 7 13 Years as classroom teacher 4 4 6 12 Years of adminis- trative experience 5 6 5 10 A sample of ten school systems was selected for the study from the Michigan Middle Cities Association. Superintendents and principals were requested to complete the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire by Bramson, Parlette, and Harrison. A biographical and school information checklist was also furnished by the 27 participants. Data were obtained by matching the ten characteristics of principals with the ten characteristics of superintendents who hired them. To determine whether a relationship existed between the vari- ables, the data were submitted to the Michigan State University Computer Center. Those research questions answered through statistical inference became the operational hypotheses and were tested by being cast into null hypotheses as follows: ents' ents' ents' ents' ents' 1. There was and principals' 2. There was and principals' 3. There was and principals' 4. There was and principals' 5. There was and principals' 6. There was pragmatist. 7. There was idealist. 8. There was realist. 9. There was synthesist. 10. There was analyst. 54 no significant difference between superintend- manifest need of achievement. no significant difference between superintend- manifest need of autonomy. no significant difference between superintend- manifest need of affiliation. no significant difference between superintend- manifest need of dominance. no significant difference between superintend- manifest need of abasement. no significant difference in thinking style, no significant difference in thinking style, a significant difference in thinking style, no significant difference in thinking style, no significant difference in thinking style, Conclusions Related to the Demographics 1. There was no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of age. 2. There was a significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of marital status. 55 3. There was a significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of racial group. 4. There was a significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of level of education. 5. There was no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of years as a classroom teacher. 6. There was no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of years of administrative experience. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This final chapter is devoted to a summary of the study, followed by a discussion of the conclusions generated from the analy- sis of the data, and concluded with recommendations for further research. Ml This study was planned to investigate if superintendents tend to hire principals with similar manifest needs and thinking styles as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire by Bramson, Parlette, and Harrison. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule includes the five manifest needs of achievement, autonomy, affiliation, dominance, and abase- ment. The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire tested for the five thinking styles of pragmatist, idealist, realist, synthesist, and analyst. Allied with this purpose was the desire to ascertain a match between superintendents and principals in demographic characteris- tics. The literature was reviewed to include the following tapics: (l) perceived similarity, (2) attraction and self-disclosure, and (3) similar-to-me effect. 56 57 The limitations of the study included: (1) responses received were limited to the consortium of Middle Cities schools in Michigan; (2) the data were affected by the degree of sincerity of response to the test administered; (3) the Edwards Personal Prefer- ence Schedule and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire provided the data needed; and (4) the findings of the relationship between factors cited were viewed as correlational and limited to the categories cited. Design of the Study A sample of ten school systems from Michigan's Middle Cities qualified for the study. Superintendents and principals were requested to complete the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire. A biographical and school information checklist were used for the demographics. Demographic data obtained included degree earned, marital status, age, racial group, years in the class- room, and years of administrative experience. Findings Manifest Needs Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in manifest need of achievement. The absence of any significant difference in achievement may be due to the similarity of professional goals between superintendent and principal. Both by the very nature of their positions desire to achieve in their administrative role. Success in their positions is measured by successful achievement. Superintendents want to satisfy not only their board of education but also the professional and 58 nonprofessional staff, while principals attempt to satisfy their superintendents and their respective staffs. Therefore, it would seem logical that both the superintendent and principal have a strong desire to achieve. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between superintendénts and principals in manifest need of autonomy. The absence of any significant difference between superin- tendent and principal in autonomy need is a result of a tendency of administrative personnel to be able to work independently. They are on their own for the most part. They can arrange their own schedule and work at their own pace. They do not have to be at a certain place every morning and do not have to answer to the bell schedule of the school. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between supeantendents and principals in manifest need of affiliation. The absence of any significant difference between superin- tendent and principal in affiliation implies that there is a desire to participate in friendly groups. The school staff can be classi- fied as a friendly group as contrasted with professions that encounter unfriendly groups such as lawyers. In affiliation, loyalty is expected to the group. Administrators are loyal to their school, as demonstrated by their efforts to provide an effective teaching- 1earning environment for children to grow and learn. They share the schools' progress with people in the community and invite the commu- nity leaders and public into their schools. Educational administra- tors must affiliate with as many groups as possible. They know they 59 serve at the will of the public and they must be available to them. Affiliation with all people is an integral part of their duties as an administrator because their school must rely on the public for support. Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the manifest need of dominance. ' The absence of any significant difference between superin- tendent and principal in dominance refers to standing up for one's point of view. The school's priorities need to be argued for and defended in the community. Also, the administrators must justify their position in negotiations with their staff. The administrators are the spokespersons for their cause with the responsibility of con- vincing others of their programs. The administrators are at the management level of operation where they are expected to settle dis- putes between others and make decisions that affect the entire group. The administrator's dominances can be seen as they persuade and influ- ence others. Furthermore, administrators are expected to supervise and direct the actions of their staff to meet the goals of their organization. They are entrusted with the authority to supervise others in their jobs. Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the manifest need of abasement. The absence of any significant difference between superin- tendent and principal in abasement need refers to the acceptance of blame when things do not go right. The success or failure of the 60 school rests with the administrative ability of superintendents and principals. This may be considered an occupational hazard as demon- strated by the movement of superintendents from one school system to another. The administrator will be asked to leave if he becomes dis- franchised from the group that has the most influence. Administra- tors may go to great lengths to avoid a confrontation on a contro- versial issue and may give in to avoid problems. The position is a public one, and the administrator must take the consequences if he is viewed as a failure. Thinking Styles Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, pragmatist. Administrators are men and women who are people of action. When something must be done it is up to them to see that it does happen. It is their decisions, as leaders of the organization, that translate into results. Whatever works to solve a problem, even if it is temporary, must be done. It may be a quick fix, but they are expected to come up with answers. They are also expected to know the latest research to give way to new ideas and innovative solu- tions to problems. A pragmatic approach may be forced upon superin- tendents and principals by a community that demands action. School systems are today plagued with problems related to declining enroll- ments, fiscal needs, and teacher strikes. These and many more problems demand administrators who can identify and resolve problems at the building level and the total school system level. 61 Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, idealist. An idealist administrator should be attentive and accepting of a broad range Of views and coming up with the workable solutions. The administrator must be attentive to the views of various groups in the community, and the professional staff. Having contact with such a variety Of people, the administrator is exposed to a broad spectrum of ideas. Hopefully, these ideas represent plausible solu- tions. Furthermore, the schools do belong to the peOple, and it behooves both the superintendent and the principal to listen carefully to the thinking shared by parents, nonparents, and other professionals. Hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, realist. Of all Of the variables tested, realism was found to lack a match between the superintendent and the principal. When one examines the definition of realist, one must question why a super- intendent or a principal does not rely on facts and expert Opinion to seek solutions that meet current needs. It seems important that any administrator who is faced with an important problem would use any source Of reliable expertise and facts that would be used to find a suitable solution to a pressing problem. What makes this finding perplexing is that one does not, from the data, know whether it is the superintendent or the principal who does not use the empirical approach or concrete data to solve problems. The literature on the role Of the administrator, regardless Of position, calls for men and women who can define a problem, collect the necessary data, and suggest alternative solutions to meet current needs. 62 According to these data, the cloning process would not occur in terms Of realism, a thinking style. In other words, a superin- tendent who uses this style of thinking may not necessarily choose a principal with this style Of thinking. Hypothesis 9: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, synthesist. The absence of any significant difference between superin- tendent and principal may be due to the fact that administrators, regardless of position, are concerned about the good of the whole school system. They must synthesize the viewpoints of various groups and make a workable solution. Administrators must be concerned with the good of the whole because the school's atmosphere is influenced positively by the degree to which it functions as a coherent whole (Rutter, 1979). Hypothesis 10: There is no significant difference between super- intendents and principals in thinking style, analyst. The administrators, in attempting to function effectively, need to resolve most problems in a logical or step-by-step procedure. Such action assures all who may be affected by a decision that careful thinking was manifested by both superintendent and principal. Such thinking gives the impression that administrators are in control of the situation. Strong administrators were found to be one Of the key elements in rating a school a success (Edmonds, 1982). The administrator must make decisions that are sound and respected to create an atmosphere that is orderly without being rigid or oppres- sive. 63 Demographics Hypothesis 11: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the demographic character- istic Of age. As seen by the data, there were over half Of the superintend- ents and principals over the age of 50. This evidence may indicate that the superintendents tend to hire principals who are close to their age, or it may be due to declining enrollment and resources resulting in less movement among administrators. However, it was found that biographical similarity of interviewer and applicant led to much higher ratings Of the candidate's job suitability (Rand & Wexley, 1975). Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the demographic character- istic Of marital status. It seems that boards Of education tend to favor candidates who are married for these administrative positions, or it may be that most candidates are Older and are generally married by the time they apply for an administrative position. Hypothesis 13: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the demographic character- istic of racial group. The absence of any significant difference in superintendent and principal in racial group may be due to the number Of Caucasians seeking a position, while the number Of minorities applying for a position is usually small. Ilsuperintendent may identify more with the candidate of the same race, believing that he/she will be in tune with his/her thinking. Discrimination laws were enacted to 64 guard against bias and to provide for equal opportunity. However, it still seems to persist in our schools according to these data. Other studies found that race does have an effect on the evaluations of job applicants (Wexley & Nemeroff, 1974). Hypothesis 14: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the demographic character- istic Of level Of education. In most education job specifications there is the requirement that administrators hold at least the master's degree, while many school districts are asking for additional professional training, especially for the superintendency. Candidates realize that an addi- tional degree will aid them in obtaining an administrative position. Hypothesis 15: There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in the demographic character- istic Of years as a classroom teacher. As seen from the data, the absence Of any significant differ- ence between superintendent and principal in years as a classroom teacher indicates that both administrators have similar backgrounds Of teaching experience. School systems may require a certain number Of years in the classroom before a candidate may become an adminis- trator. It is believed that this requirement would aid the admin- istrator in his/her understanding of the classroom and help him/her become an educational leader. This classroom experience may be important in developing rapport with their respective teaching staffs. Hypothesis 16: There is no significant difference between superintendent and principal in the demographic characteris- tic Of administrative experience. 65 Superintendents, according to these data, seem to have more years of administrative experience as compared to the principals. Usually superintendents obtain this role through spending a number Of years in the principalship. It is the rare case that a teacher moves directly into the superintendency. Therefore, a man or a woman who desires a superintendency will have spent a few some form Of administration: at the building level or in Office position. Conclusions Related to the Variables l. The superintendents' and principals' manifest achievement showed no significant difference. 2. The superintendents' and principals' manifest autonomy showed no significant difference. 3. The superintendents' and principals' manifest affiliation showed no significant difference. 4. The superintendents' and principals' manifest dominance showed no significant difference. 5. The superintendents' and principals' manifest abasement showed no significant difference. 6. The superintendents' and principals' thinking pragmatist, did not show a significant difference. 7. The superintendents' and principals' thinking idealist, did not show a significant difference. 8. The superintendents' and principals' thinking realist, did show a significant difference. years in a central- need Of need of need Of need of need of style, style, style, 66 9. The superintendents' and principals' thinking style, synthesist, did not show a significant difference. 10. The superitendents' and principals' thinking style, analyst, did not show a significant difference. Conclusions Related to the Demogrgphics 1. There is no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic Of age. 2. There is no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of marital status. 3. There is no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of racial group. 4. There is a significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic of level of education. 5. There is no significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic Of years as a classroom teacher. 6. There is a significant difference between superintend- ents and principals in the demographic characteristic Of years Of administrative experience. 67 Summary of Findings In all of the variables of manifest needs and in thinking styles except for realist there were no significant differences between the superintendents and the principals whom they hired. Table 28.--Summary Of tests of significance for each Of the variables of manifest needs and thinking style. Variable Test of Variable Test of Manifest Needs Significance Thinking Style Significance Achievement NS Pragmatist NS Autonomy NS Idealist NS Affiliation NS Realist S Dominance NS Synthesist NS Abasement NS Analyst NS In the tests Of significance for each of the variables Of demographics there was no significant difference between the superin- tendents and principals whom they hired in the variables Of age, years as a classroom teacher, and years of administrative experience. There was a significant difference in the following demographics: marital status, racial group, and levels of education (Table 29). Recommendations Based on the findings of this study and the conclusions reached as a result Of these findings, the following recommendations are presented for consideration. 68 Table 29.-~Summary of tests of significance for each of the demographic variables. Demographic Variable Test Of Significance Age NS Marital status NS Racial group NS Level Of education S Years as a classroom teacher NS Years Of administrative experience S l. The literature on effective schools points out that the principal is an important person in the process Of developing a strong educational program (Edmonds, 1982). As the data show, there is a cloning process in the hiring of principals; that is, superin- tendents tend to hire principals who have similar manifest needs and thinking styles as they do. Therefore, it is recommended that boards Of education be aware of the findings of this study and that they hire superintendents who are highly qualified for this important position with the manifest needs and thinking styles that would result in the hiring Of principals who will perform at the highest level. If we are going to have schools that maximize learning for boys and girls, superintendents must hire principals who know how to work cooperatively with teachers, parents, and students to achieve effective schools. 2. It is recommended that superintendents be trained in the techniques of interviewing, which is not an easy task. Does a 69 superintendent desire to perpetuate the cloning process, or will a principal with differing manifest needs and thinking styles bring about more effective results for a particular school? If so, then it is important that the superintendent understand his/her manifest needs and thinking styles and know what questions to ask within the interview to gain a knowledge of the candidate's manifest needs and thinking styles, and to understand how the candidate's qualifications fit into the particular position. 3. It is recommended that each superintendent take the time to determine what his/her manifest needs and thinking styles are, and to determine the comparability Of these attributes in terms of suc- cess in the attainment Of the organizational goals. A superintendent may have certain thinking styles or manifest needs that might within a particular school district hinder his/her ability to function suc- cessfully; therefore, such knowledge and change in behavior could mean success for the superintendent. Also, with a change in his/her behavior he/she will hire only principals whose manifest needs and thinking styles are compatible with the needs of the particular school and community. 4. It is recommended that boards of education be aware Of the findings of this study and take the time to determine their mani- fest needs and thinking styles that might be influencing the type Of superintendent they hire. Does the cloning process begin with the boards Of education? 5. It is recommended that superintendents who desire to have a team approach be aware Of these findings as it may aid in 70 the selection Of people who are COOperative and can identify with others in the group who are selected to work together. 6. It is recommended that the education profession develOp a means Of measuring one's ability to be an effective leader and identify those traits to be cloned in other administrators who are hired. More definitive research could be undertaken to establish the underlying causes that contribute to effective leadership selec- tion. If critical thinkers and problem solvers are a prerequisite to the survival Of society and social injustice, then a massive effort must be made to generate high-quality professionals who react with manifest needs and thinking styles that are educationally grounded. Suggestions for Further Study 1. It is recommended that a comparison study be made of a school district in which the superintendent hires his/her principals and a school district in which a personnel director is involved in the hiring process. Is the cloning process broken down when a third party is involved in the selection process of principals? 2. It is recommended that a study be made in smaller school districts and in larger school districts where the superintendents do the hiring of principals. Is there a greater tendency for the cloning process to occur in the smaller school districts than in the larger ones? 3. It is recommended that a study be made of a larger sample, specifically a national sample of small school districts, 71 middle-sized school districts, and large school districts. Is there a change in the cloning process in varying sizes of school districts? 4. It is recommended that a study be made Of the manifest needs and thinking styles of superintendents and principals, but also to examine the length of service of principals to ascertain if there is a relationship between manifest needs and thinking styles and length of service of principals. Specifically, do principals with similar manifest needs and thinking styles as their superintendents tend to remain as principals for a longer period of time than princi- pals with dissimilar manifest needs and thinking styles? 5. It is recommended that a study be done in industry tO determine if there is a match in manifest needs and thinking styles between the interviewer and interviewee. Is the cloning process unique to educational administration, or does the cloning process also take place in industry? 6. It is recommended that a case study be made of a school district in which there is a significant difference in the manifest needs and thinking style of the superintendent and principal to ascertain if the school district is meeting the organizational goals. 7. It is recommended that those school districts included in this study be studied to determine which are the most effective school districts and those which are not as effective in terms of fulfilling the goals Of the organization, namely, the effective schooling of boys and girls. Does the cloning process make any difference in the quality Of the schools? Or is there a specific cloning process that spells success in the quality of the school district? APPENDICES 72 APPENDIX A EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE 73 74 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule All.» L M Univ-say of Washington DIRECTIONS mmdulemistsofannmberofpcinOfmmminpmatymmyormynot fle;ahuunpinwhichyounyormynotfed.bokudnmplcbdow. Allihetonlklbatmpelftoothets. Blliketovorkmrdme‘oddmlhveafampdf. Whidxddiscmmhmdnmhkdvhuywlfltdflmflh'hkmgabwt yonnclftoothea"mthnnyoulike"vorkingtowudmcgmllhtpuhvesdfaymndf,”dxn yuaslnzldchoooerverB.lfymlike"vorkingmdmegmlthtyouhavesaforyonaelf”m thanyoulike"¢lking¢aflyoundftoodus."duenyoushonlddnuc3mh YoumaylikebodiAnndB.Ind:iscue,ywvouldhavetochoaehetvemthetwomdyoushonld “hmMywfihm.HpudidhbahAmdB,finydechoacthemMym mm SomeofflnepinofmintheacheddehnbfifimhnchuAmdBIbme. Othetpdnofmhvetodovithho'yonfeetbokuhennpkbdow. Alfddepmed-henlfuflumahin‘. Blfeelmvhenmahlkbefaecm MdhemmbmmdbvmfdPHWWvbyw Mum”hmuw¢ywm"beingnermvhengivingnnlkheloreaywpi' MmWMAmnHBkadMMAMmMMB WA. Uhmhmdaahhwmfadunymfiouflchwetbmvflchmmkhm mummmntdydmihabvmfdthmmsbdddnaehm whichywmsidenobebainmnte. Ymchokginachmlhmldbeinmdvhtmfibndhowymfduthemt mmdmhmdvaMmWMuhmfinkdefetmh untam'l'haemnoddlorvmgm.Yonrchoicnchonldbeadecriptionofmmpa- mlfikesmdfeelinp.lhheachoic¢faaeqpirdm;bwtfipuy. Mfladmmhfdhhgmminflnmfiemfiagimmmm pair of statements mdpickoutthemestatcmcnt thubettexdescribe who: you like Othovwaeel. Memmbhhmmbewmmhammwmmwm dhpindmudmkmmmmfingfahmmmuhMyw madinginthehoflh. Ummdnetisprinted Hymnmslmisprimed h BLACK ink: inOTl-IERTI-MN BLACKink: Fundamfiueditemdnvadrckcmd Pa gal-mm am an in the w therrBtoindiauthemyou foerrBuMnintheDimiuuon hum them“. DonotMnihispogounfilflnmmhmblhyoubm. WMHMWM. ”mm-“human“... mum“. “'0 'W‘M'OIW (“PW-"0n. NW Vat. N-Y- 71-1307. Hm” WBWN Marketplace-mmInMHHMMWVmMMhWWuMhMMMI Corporation."mmmmmflflhmialmmnmuwbthd-unc 10 11 12 13 14 U> I like to help my friends when they are in trouble. I like to do my very best in whatever I undertake. I like to find out what great men and women have thought about various problems in which I am in- tcrestcd. B I would like to accomplish something of great signifi- cance. A Any written work that I do I like to have precise, neat, w>u>u>m> >u>u>n>u> U>w 15A 16 and well organized. I would hke tobea recognized authorityinaomeiob, profession. or field of specialization. I liketotell amusing storiesandjokesatparties. I would like to write a great novel or play. I liketobcablctooomeandgoasl wantto. Ilikctobeabletosaythatihavedoneadificult job well. I like to solve puzzles and problems that other people have dificulty with. I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected me. I like to experience novelty and change in my daily routine. I liketotellmysuperiorsthattheyhavedoneagood jobonsomething,whenlthinktheyhave. Iliketoplanandorganizethedetailsotanywork that l have to undertake. I loi‘ketofoliowinsttuctionsandtodowhatisexpected me. Ilikepeopletonotioeandtoenmmentuponmyap- paramewhenlammstinpublic. Iliketoreadabmuthelivesofgreatmenandwomen. Ilike toavoid situations where I amexpectedtodo things in a conventional way. Iiiketoreadabwtdselivesofgrcatmenandwomen. Iwouldliketobeatecognizedauthorityinsonujob, profession, or field of specialization. Iliketohavemyworkormzedandplannedbefiore beginningit. Iliketolindoutwhatgreatmenandwomenhave dtoughtabwtvariwsproblemsinwhichlamin- created. If I have to take a ttip,l like to have things planned inadvanee. Iliketofinishanyjobortaskthatlbegin. lliketokeepmythingsneatandorderlyonmydesk «workspace. Iliketotellotherpeopleabomadventuresandstrange things that have happened to me. Iliketohavemymealsorganizedandadcfinitetime xtasidefmeating. Ilikctobeindependentofuhersindecidingwhatl wanttodo. Hike tokeep my thingsneatand orderlyonmydesk «workspace. A Iliketobeabletodothingsbetterthanotherpeople can. I like to tell amusing stories and jokes at parties. 75 18 19 21 23 24 25 27 31 32 33 W>U> U>U> U>U>U’ U> U’I>U§U>U>U>U> I? I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that people I respect might consider unconventional. I like to talk about my achievements. I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and without much change in my plans. I like to tell other people about adventures and strange things that have happened to me. Iliketoreadbooksandplaysinwhichseaplaysa major part. Iliketobethecenterofattentioninagroup. Ilikcsocriticiae people whominapositionofau- thority Iliketouscmdswhichotherpeoflenftcndonot knowthemeaningof. Iliketoaoeomplishtasksthatothetsmognizeasre- quiringskillandefiort. Iliketobeabletoeomeandgoaslwantto. Ilikempraisesomeoneladmire. IIikemIeclEreetodowhatlwanttodo. Iliketokeepmylettergbills, andotherpapers neatly arnngedand filed accordingtosomesystem. Iliketobcindependcntofothetsindecidingwhatl wantaodo. Ilikeusaskquestionswhichlknownoonewillbe abletoanswer. Ilikeusctiticiaepeoplewhoarehtapositionofau- charity. [getaoangrythatlfiecllikethrowingandbreaking things. [like to avoid responsibilities and obligations. Iliketobesucoessfulinthingsnndettaken. Ilikeufiormnesvh-iendships. Iikebfollowinsmactionsandtodowhatiseapectcd me. Iliketohavestrongattachmentswithmyhiends. Anyminenworkthatldolliketohaseptecimneat, udwellocganiacd. Ilikcnomakeasmanyfriendsaslean. Iliketonllamusingstoriesandiokesatparties. Iliketomiteletaerstomyhiends. Iliheanbefiletooomeandgoaslwantto. IIiketoshrcthingswithmyII-iends. IIiketoaolvepuzzlesandpmblemsthatodter e has-edificultywith. M IIficniudgepeoplebywhydIeydoaomething—not bywhattheyactuallydo. Iliketoaeeepttheleadershipofpeopleladmire. Iliketounderstandhowmyfriendsieelabotnratiom pruhlemstheyhavetofaee. A Iliketohanmymealsorganiaedandadefinitetime set foreattng. I liketo studyand toanalyzethebehu'iorofothers. 34 35 36 37 41 42 43 47 AIIiketosaythingsthtarerqudedaswinyand work ~cleverbyother Blliketoputmyselfinaomeoneelse'sflaceandto In} imaginehowlmldt'eelinthesamesituation. Ilikeaofeelfteetodowhatlwanttodo. I like to observe how another individual feels in a given situation. A Iliketoaceomplishtasksthatothersreeogniaeasre- n>n>u>u U> U? quiringskillaodeflort. Ilikemyfriendstoeneoutagemevhmlmeetwith ure. WhenplanningsomethingJIiketogetmggestions fromothcrpeoplevhoaeopininnsirespect. Ilikcmyfriendstotreatmekindly. Iliketohas-emylifeaoamngedthuittunssmoothly andwithoutmuchchangeinmyplans. Ilikemyiriendstoieelsonyiormewhenlamsick. IIikembedteeentcrofatsencioninagroup. Iflemyh'iendstomakeahnsovetmevhcnlam hurtorsick. Iliketoavoidsinsationswherelmeapctedaodo thingsinaoonventionalvay. Ilikemyfsiendsto ‘ withmeandtocheer antebellum Iwouldliketovfiteagreatnovelorplay. Whmmingmaoanmhmgllihembeappninted orelccd ' . Whmlamina ,Iliketoacoeptthelcah'shtp' ofdsnomeoneelsein " whatthegtoupisgoing to Ih'ketouperviaeandtodincttheactionsdoeher peoplevheneverlcan. A Iflkemkupmylunmbillgandothuppersneady mad U>I>N§ U’ andfiledaemrdingtoaomesystem. Iliketoheoncoftheleadclsintheorganizationaand gtoupstowhichlhelong. [liketoaskqnestiats'hichlknownone'ilbe abletoanswer. Iliketotcllotherpeoplehowtodotheirjobs. Iliketoavoidtesponsihilitiesandohligatims. Iliketobecaledupmbudeugmssandfir puesbetweendlen. Isrmldliketoheateoogniaed 'tyinsomeinb, ptofesiomorfieldolspecialization. Ifeelguiltysvhenererlhavethneaomethinglknow tswrong. Iliketoreadabomthelivesotgrumenaodmnen. IIeeIdIatIahouIdoonfeasthethingsthatIhavedone thatlregardaswmng. A Iliketoflanandorganizethedetaihefanywork nodernke thatlhavesn WhenthingsgowrongfiormeJfieelthatIammore bhlamethananyoneelae. 76 49 51 57 U>U>U>U>U’U>U>U>U>U>U> U>U’U> Iliketouacwordswhichotherpeopleoftendom knowthemeaningof. line! that I am interior soothers in most respects. Iliketoeriticizepeoplcwhoareinapositionofau- thority. Ifieltimidintheptecneeofotherpeoplelregard asmysupenors. Iliketodomyverybestinvhatevcrlundcnake. Iiiketoheipothcrpeoplewhoareicssfortunatethan am. Ilikeenfindmt'lhtgteatmenandwomenhavc lhoughtaboutvariouspdtlemsinwhichiamim crested. Ilikctobegcnerouswithmyfriends. Iliketomakeaplanbeforestartingintodoaome- thingdi‘cult. IIiketodosmaIlfavorsformyft-iends. Iliketotellotherpeoplcaboutadventuresandmnge things that have happened to me. Ilikemyfriendstoconfideinmeandtoteflmdaeis troubles. Iliketosaywhatlthinkaboutthings. Iliketobrgiremyfriendsvhomaymmetimes hurtme. Ilikctobeafletodothingsbetserthanother‘penple can. Iliketoeatinnewandstsangerestaurants. Iliketooubtmtocustomandtoaroiddoingthings dntpeoplelrespectmightennsiderunconventional. Iliketopanicipateinnewhdsandfashions. Iliketohavemyworkotganiaedaodplannedhefore beginning' ' it. Iliketotnvelandtoseethecountry. Ilikepeopletonotioeandtooomment panneewhenlammninpuhlic. “M3374?- Iliketomoseabouttheoounuyandtoliveindifier- utplaoes. Ilikebheindependentofuheninhcidingwhatl wanttodo. Ilike to donew and difierent things. Iflmbnflemnythatlhvedoneatifiuhjob Iliketovarkhudatanyiehlundenake. Ilike d! ' that ha done figmg'gimithirkqthquhave. .M Iliketozlntpleteasingleiobortaskatatimebefore AIfIhavemtakea Ilikebhavethi planned inadtanee. "b. N5 [like ' ihzfiwnguapnnlewpflanmfl A Isanetimesliketodothingsiuntoseewhatefiect itwillhaveonothers. Iliketostickataioborprohlemevenwhenitmay aeemasiflamnotgettinganywherewithit. 65 67 70 71 73 14 75 76 Alliketodothingsthatmherpeopleregardasun- conventional. BIlikctoputinlonghoursonorkwithoutbeing U>U>U>N>U>Ifl> > distracted. I would like to accomplish something of great signifi- cance. Ilike to kiss attractive persons of the opposite sea. lliketopraisesomeoncladmirc. Ilike to be regarded as physically attractive by those ottbeoppositesca. Iliketokeepmythingsneatandorderlyonmydesk «workspace. Iliketobeinlos‘evithsmneoneofdscoppositesca. Ihketotalkahosnmyachies'ements. lliketolistentoortocclljokesinwhichseaplays amajorpart. (I liketodothingsinmyownwayandwithoutregard towhatothersmaythink. Iliketorcadbooksandplaysinvhichseaplaysa mlilltlm'» Iwouldliketowfiteagreatnovclorplay. Iliketoattackpdntsdviewthatarecontraryco mine. Whenlamina Ilikecoacceptthehadership drdaein ' whatthegroupisgoing to B Ifieellikecriticizingmmeonepubliclyifheorshe deserves' It. A Iliketohavemylifiesoarnngedthatitrunssmoothly I?Il> U>U> U>U§U§ andwithoutmuchchangeinmyplans. Igetsoangrythatltoellikethm'ingandbreaking thins!» Ilikecoaskqnesticnswhichlknownoonewillbe mietoanswer. Ilikecotellotherpeoplewhtlthinkofthem. Ilikesoavoidreqonsibilitiesandobligations. Ifeellikemakinghsnoipcoplevhodothingsthat Iregardasmtpid. Ilikecobeloyaltomyfriends. Iliketodomyrerybestinwhateverlundemke. Iliketoobservehouanotherindividualfieelsina Ihkembeahiemmythatlhavedmeafiindt fiweil. Ilihhilcmyfriendsmencoungemewhenlmeetwith ore. Ilikecobesucccssfulinthingsnodertaken. Iliketobeoneofdseleadersintheorganizationsand groupscowhichlbelong. Iliketobeahlecodothingsbettathanotherpeople can. Whenthhppmgfamlieelthatlammore toblamethananyoneelsc. Iliketosolvepuazlesandproblemsthatotherpeople havediicultywith. 77 81 91 U>U’I?U>U>U’U>U}U>U>N>U> U’I’U> > Iliketodothingsformyfriends. Whenplanningsomething.lliketogetsuggcstions from other people whose opinions I respect. Iliketoputmyselfinsomeoneelse'splaceandto imaginehowitvouldtcelinthesamesituation. Iliketoccllmysuperiorsthattbeyhatedmcagood iohonmmethingvhenlthinktheyhave. Ilikemyfriendstobesympatheticandunderstanding vhenIhaveprobIema IIiketoacceptthehadershipotpeopIeIadmire. Whenserfingonaomnndmlliketobeappointcd orelectedchairperson. Wheolaminagrprlikecoaccepttheleadership ofsomeoneeisein mdecidingwhatthegroupisgo- ingtodo. IfIdosomethingthatiswrngfieeIthatIshosdd bepunishediorit. Ihketoconlormcocuscnmandcoavoiddoingthings thatpeopielrespectmight consider uncomentional. Ilikemslnrethtqswithmyfriends. Iliketomakeaplanbdorenartingintodosome- Ihingdificult. Ihkecounderltandhowmyfsiendsieelaboutvari- mnprobletnstheyhavecoface. IfIhavemtakeatrileikecohauthinpplanned inadvance. Ilikemyfriendsmtreatmekindly. Ilietohavemyworkcrganiaedandplannedheforc beginningit. Ilikemberegardedbyothersasaleader. Ihkemkmpmykmbingandotherpapersneady unngedandfiledacoordingmsmnesysscm. Ifeelthatthcpainandmiserythatlharesnfieredhas finememoregoodthan harm. Ilikemhavemylifiesoarrangeddntitrunssmomhly ndwithoutmuchchangeinmyplans. Ilikemhavemongamchmentswnhmyfriends. Iiikemsaythingsthatateregardedas ' and chmbyotherpeople. ““7 IIikemthinkahoutthe 'tiesofmyfriends andtotrytofigureoutw tmakesthemastheyate. Isometimeslikecodothingsjusttoseewhateloa ivillhaveonothers. IIikemyh-iendsmmakeafussovertnewhcnlam hurtorsick. Iliketotakahontmyachievements. Iliketotellotherpooflehowmdotheirioba Ihkembethemimmmioninagroup. Iteeltimidintbpsencedotherpeqdelregard norm Iliketomevorm'hichmherpeopleofsendonnt knowthemeaningof. Iliketodothingswsthmyhiendsratherthanby myself. 8 Iliketomywhatlthinkahoutthings. 97 101 102 104 105 1“ 107 1“ 109 111 112 113 114 U? U> Q>U§U>U>W>U>U>U>U>U>U> Ififl>fl> I>U§ lliketostudyandmanalycethehehaviorcfothers. lliketodothingsthatmherpcopletegardasuncon- ventional. llikemyfriendsmfieelsorryfiormewhenlamsick. lliketoavoid situations wherelamexpceted todo thingsinsconrentional way. lliketosupersiseandtodirccttheactionsofmher peopleuheneverlcan. lliketodothingsinmyownvaywithoutregardto whatothersmaythink. lleelthatlaminleriortoothersinmostrespects. llikesoavoidlesponsihiliticsandnhligations. lliketohentccasfulinthingsundetuken. llikemhtrmnewfrimdships. lliketoanalyaemyownmotivesandfeelings. lliketotnakeasmanyfriendsaslcan. llikemyfriendstohelpmewhenlaminu'mshle. lliketndothingsfiormyiriends. llikemarguelnrmypm'ntolviewwhenitisat- tackedhyothers. llikemvriseletserstomyfriends. lfeelguiltywheneverlhavedonesomethinglknow isvrong. lliketohavestronganaehmentswithmyhiends. lliketotharedn'ngssvithmyfriends. llikemnalyzemyownmotives-sdfeelings. lliketoaccepttheleadesshipofpeopleladmire. llikemunderstandhowmyfriendsleelahoutvari- onsprohlemstheyhavemface. llikemyfriendsmdomanysmallfavorsfiorme cheerfully. lliketojudge hywhgtheydostanething— netbywhat When-witha Mumfimllikemmkethe wearegoingtodo. lhkemplediethowmyhiendswilaetinvan'ous m licelhetterwhmlgiveinmtdavoidafighnthm lwouldifltriedtohavemymway. llikemamlynetheHingsandmotivesolothen. llfiemfnrmnewfrienditipa. llikemylriendstohelpmewhenlamintmuhle. llike ' dommethtng—' ufimmfim llikemyh-iendssothowagseatdealcfafioeticn mrdme. llikemhsvemy Hemmgedthstitmns Inootltlyandvithoutmuehchangeinmyplans. llikemyhienskmfieelsnrrybrmewhenlamsiek. llikemheeallednponmsetdeargnmentsandths- pineshetweenothers. llikemyfriendstodomanyunallhvorslnrme cheerfully. 78 115 116 117 110 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 >N>N> U>N>U>U>U>U ll? U>U§N>U§U> I? lfeelthatlshouldcnnfessthethingsthatlhave donethatlregardaswrong. I like my friends to sympathize with me and to cheer meupwhenlamdepresaed. lliketodothingswithmyiriendsrathathanhy myself. lliketoargueformypointofviewwhenitisat- tackedhyothers. llikemthinkahoutthepersnnalitiesol'myfriends and to try to figure out what makes them as they-no [liketoheahletopersuadeusdinfisenceothersm dowhatlvanttodo. llikemyfiiendstosmpathinewithmeandmcheer meupsrhenlamdepressed. WhenwithagroupdpnpleJlikemmakethe fiducnsahoutwhatwearegoingmdo. lliketoaskquesticnswhiehlknownoonewillhe ahlemanswer. lliketotelotherpuqlehowmdotheiriohs. limitimidinthepremncedothespenflelregard asmynsperiors. lliketosuperviseandmditeertheatsinnsofother penplevheneverlmn. llikempanicipateingrotspsin'hiehthemnhers havesmm and friendly findingstnward oneannther. lhelguiltywhenevulhavedenemmethinglkm tsvrnog. llihmamlyuthehzlingsandmotivesdothers. llaelWhymyminfiilitymhanrlevari- “muons. llikemyfr'nndstofmlsotryfiormewhenlamsick. lhelheuerwhmlgiveinandavcidafighgthan lsvouldifluiedcohavemymvay. llikemheahletoperstndeandinfiseneeothersm dowhstlvant. [Hmhymyminahilitymhandlevari- llikesoesiieinepooplevhoareinapontinn of authority. liceltimidinthepresenceofotherpeoplclregard amnesia!» llietopastia'pmein invln'ehthememhets havenrmand ' yfcelingsto'ardoneanother. lliketohelpmyfriendswhentheyareintrouhle. lliketoamlynemymmotivesandfeelings. lliketosympathim-ihmybiendsvhentheyare hunnrn'ek. llikemyh'ienthmkelpme'henlatnintrouhle. lliketotreatotherpeoflevithkindnessandsym. My llikemheoneofotheleadersintheorganiaations ndgroupsmwhiehlhelnng. llikemsympnthiaevithmyfriendsvhmtheyare hitter-1k. 130 131 132 133 134 135 137 136 139 140 141 142 143 144 A lleelthatthepainandmiserythatlhavesttflered hasdonememoregoodthanharm. B lliketothowagreatdcalofaflectiontowardmy friends. A lliketodothingswithmyh'iendsratherthanhy U>U§ myself. llikecoexperimentandtotrynewthings. lliketothinkahoutthepenonaliticscfmyfriends andtotrytofigureomwhatnnkesthemes theyare. lliketotrynewanddifiereotiohs—atherthanto continuedoingthetameolddtings. llikemyfriendstohesympotheticandtmderstand- ingn-henlhaveprohlems. lliketomeetnewpeople. lliketoargueiormypointofviewwhenitisato tackedhyothers. lliketoesperiencenoreltyandchangeinmydaily routine. A liedheuerwhenlgiveinudavoidafighgthanl wotddifltr'ndcolnvemyownwsy. B llikemwemmectntntryandmliveindifler- U’ U> U > U> U> I>I> emplaoes. llikemdothingsfiormyhinds. Whmlhausmneasignmunmdqlliketostart inandkeepworkingonitnntilitiscompleted. llikemanalynethefeelingsandmotivesofothers. lliketoavta'dheingiocerrupcedwhileatmywork. llikemyiriendstodomanysmallfavorsfnrme chmrfully. lliketonayuplateworkinginordercogetaioh fine. llikctoheregarbdhyothcrsasakader. lliketoputinlonghoursofworkwithoutheing W. lfldosmnethingthnhmlhelthatlthould heponishodiorit. llikeconiekataiohorprdslemevenwhenitmay seemasiflamnotgettingaoywherewithit. lliketoheloyaltomyhiends. lliketogootnwithamaetivepersonsoitheop- poise-ea. lliketopredicthowmyfriendswillaetinvarions m lliketopatticipateindiscnsionsahoutsexandsea- ulactivities. llikemyfriendstothowagreatdealoiafloction mwardme. lliketohommemauallyeleimd. Whenwithagrou ofpeople, llletomakethe decisionsahout whatahoutwearegoingtodo. lliketoengageinsocialaetivitieswithpersonsof theoppositesea. 79 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 153 154 155 156 157 159 160 161 U>U§ U>I>U> U’U}U)lfl§ U> U>U> U) N>U>U> I} lbeldepretaedbymyowninahilitytolnndlevari- oussituations. lltkemrcadhooksandplaysinwhichsexplaysa majorpart. llikecowriteletterstomyfricods. lliketoreadnewspapetaccountsofmurdersand otherfortnsofviolence. lliketoprediethowmyfriendswillactinvarious lliketoattackpointsofvhthatarecootrarym mine. llikemyfriendstomakeahtstovermewhenl amhurtorsick. lifiajlikehlamingothcrswhenthingsgowmg me. llikemtellotherpeoplehowmdodseirims. lieellikegettingrevengcwhenmmconehasin- mltedme. lfcclthatluninferiortoothersinmostrespeets. lidlieullingothapeopledwhenldsaagree' withthem. llikemhelpmyiriendswhentheyareintmuhh. lliketodomyveryhestinwhteverlundestake. lliketotrsvelandtosoethecounny. llikemamomplishtasksthatothersrecogniaeas requiringtkillandefiort. lliketoworkhardatanyimluohtake. lwouldliketnacmmplishtomethingofgreattig- nificanne. lliketogoootwitham-aetivepersonsoftheop- poaitesea. llikemhentcecssfulinthingsttndet'takcn. llikemreadnewspaperacoonntsofmurdersand otherformsofviolencc. lwouldliketowriceagreatnovelorplay. llikembnnallfaronformyirieods. Whenflanmng lhkemgetmggestioos fsunotherpeoplemwhoaeopinimsltespoct. llikemexperiencenovdtyndchngeinmyhily llike superiorsthat havedone :lmnifllgmg.wholth:‘kytlteyha\re.."lad lliemnayuplneworkinginordertogetaioh lliketnpraiseaomeoneladmite. lliketoheoomeseluallyeacited. lliketomptthelmdershipefpeopleladmire. lzfleptingsevmgewheaaomeonehasinsnlted Whilmhamlliketoacmpttheleadership ofaomooneelse 'mhadngwhatthegroupis pingtodo. likebhmswithmyhbds. llikemmakeaflanheforestartingintodosome. 162 164 165 167 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 I? I? lliketotneetnewpeople. Anywrittenworkthstldollikecohavepreeise, neogsndwdlorganined. lliketofinishanyinhortaskthatlhegin. llikecokoepmythingsneatandorderlyonmydctk A lliketohcregardedssphysicallysttraetivehythose U>U>U§U>U I>U> I>U}fl> ofthc oppositescx. lliketoplansndorganiaethedetailsolsnywork thstllnvetn lliketotellothcrpeoplewhatlthinkdthem. lliketohsvemytnealscrgsniaedsndsdefinice timcsetssideiorcating. lliketoshowsgteatdealofsfiectionmwsrdmy friends. lliketossythingsthatareregardedaswittyand cleverhyotherpeople. lliketotrynewanddifierentiohs—smherthanto continuedoingthemmeoldthings. lsometimesliketodothingsjuntoseewhatefiect itwillhavennmhert. llikemnickatsiohorprohlemevenwhenitnny seemssifllnnotgettingsoywherewithit. llikepnopletonoticeandtocommentnponmyap pearancewhenlunotninpuliic. lliketoreadhookssndplsysinwhichuplayss majorpn. lliketohethecenmrofstentioninsgroup. 12:1 likehlamingotherswhenthingsgowrong me. lliketoaskqnestionswhichlknownoonewill heahlemsnswer. lliketosympsthisewithmyfriendswhentheyare hunorsick. lliketosaywhtlthinkmotnthings. llikesoeninnewsndmu'ereatatnnts. llikecodothingstlntotherpooplesegsrdssnn- mnventional. lliketocompletessingleiohortaskatstimehe- ioretakingcnothers. lliketoiselireesodowlntlwmttodo. lliketopartieipateindisemahoutsessndses- mlsetivities. lliketodothingsinmyownwaywithotnsegard towhatothessmsythink. lgetsosngrythatlieellikethrowingsndhreak- Nihilist» lliketosvoidresponsihilitiessndnhligations. lliketohelpmyhiendswhentheyueinttouhle. lliketoheloysltomyiriends. llikecodonewsnddifierentthings. lliketoiotmnewiriendships. 80 173 179 160 131 182 163 104 106 167 160 N’IDN?H?U>U?U}D> I? U> N?!’ 1NA 191 193 U>U> 01> Whmlhasesnmesssignmenttodo,lliketostart insndkeepworkingonituntilitiscompleted. lhketoprtieipatein psinwhichthe members havewannandfnenngelingstowardoneanother. llikemgootttwithattractivepersonsoltheop- pmitesea. lliketomakeasmnnyiriendsaslcan. lliketoattackptintsdviewthatarecontraryto nu'ne. lliketowriteletterstomyiriends. llikesohegenerouswithmyfriends. liketodsservehnwnnothcrindividttalfeelsins givensittsation. llikemeatinnewandstrangerestaursots. lliemputmyselfinsomeoneelse'splscesndto hsginebwlwouldieelinthesamesitustion. llikemstaytsplateworkin inorderto aioh I I“ llikemnderstandhowmyfrtendsieelshoutvsri- onspsohhnntheyhavesoiaee. lflemhemmeseauallyesciod. llhmmtdyandtoanalyaethehehsviordothers. lfllikemak'mghtnnfpeoplewhodothingsthat liegat'dasmspid. llikempsedicthowmyiriendswillaetinvarious moon lliem klgive my friends who may mmetimu haunt. llkemyiriendstoenoonrgemewhenlmeetwith failure. lliemeaperimentandmtrynewthings. llikemyirimdstohesympatheticsndnnderstaod— ingwhenlhvepmhlems. likemkoepworkingatapsnlenrllohlemuntil i'nsolvcd. lliemyhindsmtteatmekindly. liebhesegardedssphyn’callysttrsctivehythose (the opposstesea. llikemyfriendstoshowsgrestdealoisleen'on cowardme. lidlikeaiiciningsomcnnepuhlidyifheordte intuit. llikemyfriendstomakesfussovermewhenlsrn httrtnrfik. llikemshowsgrcstdealoisfioctiootowardmy friends. lliemhetegardcdhytnhensssleader. llietotrynewsndfiflerentiohs—ratherthnto motinuedoingthemmeeldthings. WhenservingonseommitueJliketohesppointnd ordeetcdehsirpessoo. . lliketnfinishsnyiohortaskthatlhegin. llikemheahletoperwaadeandinflnenceothersto dowhatlwant. 194A 195 197 lliketoporticipateindiscunionsahotnseasndsea- ualactis'itics. B lliketohecalledupontosettlesrgumentsanddisp I>lfl> puteshetween others. lgetsosngrythatlfeellkethrowingsndhteaking things. lliketotellotherpeoplehowmdotheirioha. lliketoshowagrcatdealoislectiontowardmy friends. “’henthinppwmoghrmlfeelthstlsmmote tohlamethananyoneelse. A llikemmoveahoutthecountryandtoliveindifler- 1UA 199 ml emplaccs. lfldosomethsng' thstiswrongJieelthatlshould hepnnishediorit. llikesonickatsiohorpohlemevenwhenitmsy umasiflsmnotgettingsnywherewithit. lflthatthepm'nandmiserythatlhsvesuhred hdmememtlegnndthanhnrm. A lliketoreadhooksandflaysinwhichsexplays U>U> U a) smaiorpart. lbelthatlshonldcnnbsthethingsthatlhsve donethatlregardaswroq. ltllikehlamingotherswhentln'ngsgowrong me. lhelthatlsm'mieriormmhetsinmostrespects. llikemdomyveryhsninwhteverlnnthtake. likemupmherpeopkwhosselewbrtunate thanlsm. llikemhnewsnddifiesemth'mgs. lliketotreatotherpooplewithkindnesaandsym- A Whenlhavemmessdgnmemmdqllikemstart ll!’ I? I’U’U’ insndkoepworkingonitnntilitiscmnfletcd. lliketoiorgivetnyfriendswhomsysometimes hurtme. llikemsnaekpoinnofviewthmuecnmruym mine. llikensyirienthtomfideinmesndmtellme theirtrouhles. llikesoneatotherpsoflewithkindnensndsym- lliketinavelsodtossetheesunn-y. liketocnnfnrmtocusmmandcosvniddoingthings thatpeoplelsespectmightcnnn'firunconventionsl. 1lietopm'a'pateinnewfadssndfash'mns. llikemworkhsrdstsnyiohlunb‘take. llike'toezperienceno'eltynndchnngeinmyhily routine. Bl 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 213 219 221 U>U’U>U>U>I’ U>U>Ufi U>U> U> U> I? ID I, U’ lliketokissattractivepcrsonsoftheoppositemx. lliketoexperimentsndtotrynewthings. lfcclliketellingotherpeopleolfwhenldisagrce withthem. lliketopnrticipsteinnewfadsaodfashions. lliketohelpotlnrpoflewhoarelcssiottunate thnnlam. lliketofinishanyifictaskthatlhegin. lliketomoveshoutheconntryandtoliveindifier- emplams. lliketoputinlonghoursofworkwithouthdog lflhavemtakestrileiketohsvethinpplanned inadvance. lliketotgworkingstspunleorptohlemnntil 'nissol llikecoheinlovewithsomeonedtheoppotken. llikemcranplecessingleiohormskhefnretaking catchers. lliketoullotherpeoplewhatlthinkofthem. llikemsrnidheingimerruptedwhileatmywork. lliketodonnallfamfumyfiiends. [likemengageinsnc'ulnctir'nieswithpasnnsd theoppnsiteses. lliketo-ltnewpmple. lliketokisssttrsctivepersonsdtheoppon‘tesex. llikemwcrkingstspnnleorprdemsmtil 'nis lliketoheinlovewithsnmnnnedtheopposheu. lliketotalkahoutmyachiesements. llikecoliatentoorcotelljokesiawhichsexphys amaiorpart. lfeellikemakingfunnfpeoplewhodothsngs' mat lsegardasstupid. llikesolistentoormmlliokesinwhiehsexplsys anniorpart. 11ikemyfrienbtocnn5deinmeandmdlme dieirtrouhles. lliketosesd mherbrmsnf' lliketopatticipmeinnewfamandfmhinna. lioellikecriticiaingslmsonnepuhliclyifhenrdse bruit. lliketosvoidheinginterruptedwhilettmywork. laliketelling mhupmflenflwhenlsksagree' persccountsofmurdersmd llikesolitentommmlliokuinwhteh' sesflays smasorpart. lbllhgettingtevm'whensommnehasio- ndtedme. llikemsvoidtesponsiiilitiesandéhganons.’ ' lfeellikemsk' funf ‘ 1 ‘tng. opeoplewhodothtngsthat soslunsunuflunsnoancoe APPENDIX B INQUIRY MODE QUESTIONNAIRE 82 83 1 PREFERENCES IN WAYS OF ASKING QUESTIONS AND MAKING DECISIONS ByAllonF. Harbon.M.PA&RcbonM. Bronson. PhD. DIRECTIONS Thisqnflamiohosmfldflawrmgmflbotodwfldwcmhobywbuflym wmmaming.mkmwm.mdmdtmdocmmbodmvomm younnkrpabflmVourospmdasooqmblympomblohmaflnwymWym ocluoltybohavo. notosyoumlnk youshould. Each itanhhbquesflmbnndomdommbyflvopoubhondnos Wmmhmmwmmmmumehmbmmromm doodionding.flllinthemrbor5.4.3.2or1.hdoamothodooloetowmchmordrolsm Iikoyw(5)orleastlikeywm Donotmomymnbamofimmcobmymdflvo ordnos EvonflMoormaomdnossoomomdwukoyw.raittmmwav.Eoohm Mboukod.5.4,3.2or1. EXAMPLE Pleasoflllhfl'isemrrplez. WIREADAREPORTJAMMOSTLKELYTOPAYAUMONTO: LThocsidlfydmwmlno .......................................... m 2.1homohldoosmholepon ....................................... m‘ 3.173“:de ............................................. a AThebook-tpmdofldsmdtdalos ................................. m 5.Tholhdnosmdrooommondaflons ............................. m Onooywaomywmdovslmdmodrocflonsolmcbm. pbmomtiopoqnmdpmonod W in 1977 W. PARLEITE, mammonssocms 2WWAVO. Md” “94704 (415) mu 84 PAGE ONE A. "BEN THERE IS CONFLICT BETHEEN PEOPLE OVER IDEAS, I TEND TO FAVOR THE SIDE THAT: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identifies and tries to bring out the conflict...............................I Dent expresses the values and ideals involved................................. Dent reflects ny personal opinions and experience............................. Approaches the situation with the anst logic and consistency.................. Expresses the ergunent aost forcefully and concisely.......................... i "HEN I BEGIN WORK ON A GROUP PROJECT, HEAT IS MOST IMPORTANT T0 HE IS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I ABSOIB I!" IDEAS BEST 3!: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. POI HE, STATISTICAL.HMT!RIAL I! A IIPOIT IS USUALLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Understanding the purposes and value of the project........................... Discovering the goals and values of individuals in the group.................. Determining how we are to go about doing the project.......................... Understanding how the project can he of benefit to the group.................l Getting the project organised and under way................................... Deleting then to current or future ectivities................................ ”plying M to cert. '1tut1m000OOOOOOOOOOOIOO0.00IOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO. mutt.t1m m w‘ful m1"1.0000....OOOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO'OOOOOOOOOOOI Understanding how they are sinilar to faniliar ideas......................... Mtrutm‘ an to 0th.: “m.IOOOOOOOOOOICOOIOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO Very inportant if it deaonstretes the validity of findings.................... Inportant in checking on the accuracy of the conclusions...................... Useful. if supported and explained by the narrative..........................fi : Inportant only in terns of the inferences to be node from it..................[;; Do note and no less important than other natarial............................. IF I WERE ASKED TO DO A RESEARCH PIDJECT, I WOULD PROBABLY START BY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Trying to fit the project into a broad perspective............................ Deciding if I can do it alone or will need help............................... Speculating about what the possible outcones night he......................... Deternining whether or not the project should be done......................... Trying to fornulate the prohlen so thoroughly as possible..................... I WIRE TO CAT!!! INPOIHATION PIOH.PBOPLE AT "DIX, I WOULD PRIPER T0: Meet with then individually and ask specific questions........................ Hold an open naeting and ask than to air their viewa.......................... Interview then in snall groups and ask general questions...................... fleet informally with key people to get their ideas............................ Aak than to bring no all the relevant inforaation that they have.............. 85 PAGE THO C. I. J. I AM LIKELY TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE IP IT: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. GIVEN A CHOICE OF ASSIGNMENTS. I WOULD CONTRIBUTE THE'HOST IE I HERE TO: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. “HE! I READ A.REPORT, I AEILIEELT TO PA! THE‘IDST ATTEETION TO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WHEN I HAVE.A TASK TO DO, THE FIRST THING I DIET TO EEO" IS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I USUALLY LEARN THE‘EOST ABOUT HOH'TO DO SOMETHING HEW ET: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. IE I HERE TO DE TESTED 0R EEAHIEED, I WOULD PREEER: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Has held up against opposition............................................. Pits with other things that I believe...................................... m hm .m to bald up in "utic..00.00.0000...OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO “Uh” IMO 10‘13d1’ “d .c1-t1f1Cd1yeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeseeeeesesseeseeee Can be personally verified by observable facts............................. Identify the goals and objectives of a project............................. Identify priorities between conpeting projects............................. Identify the costs and tine require-ents for a project..................... Idflltlfy Eh. ”DWI: Il'plctl 0f D prOjIct...u...-...............ou...... Identify and assign resources to carry out a project....................... The relation of the conclusions to up own experience....................... Whether or not the reconnendations can be accouplidhed..................... The validity of the findings. backed up by data............................ the writer‘s understanding of goals and objectives......................... The inferences that are drawn froa the data................................ [3:133:ch ' UIJII IIIDD DDDU] "hat the best wathod is for getting the task done.......................... Who wants the task done and when........................................... Why the task.is worth doing................................................ Uhat effect it any have on other tasks that have to be done................ "hat the innediate benefit is for doing the task........................... Understanding how it is related to other things I know..................... Starting in to practice it as soon as possible............................. Listening to differing views about how it is done.......................... Having sonnone show as how to do it........................................ Analysing how to do it the best way........................................ DUI]: ELLLIJ DDUI] UIII] [DUI] An objective. problen—oriented set of questions on the aubjeet............. A debate with others who are also being tested............................. An oral-visual presentation covering what I know........................... An inforaal report on how I have applied what I have learned............... A written report covering background, theory and sethod.................... DEDU] 86 PACE THREE 0. P. Q. PEOPLE‘HHOSE ABILITIES I RESPECT THE HOST ARE LIKELY TO BE: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CEHERALLI SPEAKING, I PIHD A THEORI USEPUL IE IT: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. HHEH SOHEOIE'HAEES.A RECOHHEIDATIOI IE A.REPOET. I PREPER.THAT HE OR SHE: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. IE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WHEN I PIRST APPROACH A.TECHHICAL PROHLEH, I AHfiHOST LIKELY TO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CEHERALLI SPEAEIHC. I AETlOST IECLHHHI‘DO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Philosophers and states-en.............................................. Writers and teachers.................................................... business and governnent leaders......................................... Icononists and engineers................................................ Par-era and journalists................................................. Can systenatically explain a nuiber of related situations............... Serves to clarify ay own experience and observations.................... Has a practical and concrete application................................ Show clearly what benefits will be realised............................. Show how the reconnendation can be inplnnented.......................... ”Ck up m rumtim 71th at. m . pluseeeeoeeeeseseeseeeeeeese Show how the reconnendation‘will support overall goels.................. take into account the drawbacks as well as the benefits................. UIIU] UIIID UIIII DUIJIUIJIJ DDUI] FUJI] EDZDD I READ A.EOOE OUTSIDE'HY PIELD, I AEUIOST LIEELI TO‘DO SO BECAUSE OP: An interest in iaproving up professional knowledge...................... Having been told it would be useful by soaeone I respect................ A desire to extend ay general knowledge................................. A desire to get outside sy field for a change........................... Curiosity to learn sore about the specific subject...................... Senna related to other theories or ideas that I have learned............ kph“. thin” to ” 1n . n" ”’OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO Look for ways to get the problea solved quickly......................... Think of a nt-ber of opposing ways to solve it.......................... Look for ways that others night have solved it.......................... Try to relate it to a broader problen or theory......................... Try to find the best procedure for solving it........................... kind existing'nethnds that work. and use then as well as possible....... Speculate about how'dissiailar sethods light work together.............. DEICO‘VCT I" “d Mtttt ”tMDesensessenseseeeseseeeseseeeeeeeeeeeeeese Find ways to sake existing aethods work in a new and better way......... tint. “t M wt“. ICEDOCI mt to mkeeeesesooeseeeseoeeswsssese DDUI] DDDU] DUIIZ- UIIUIZI .DHHHUEHUDD BHUHBUHEU UH—UHU DDHHD UHHUD EEO BBB APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC CHECKLIST 88 89 DEMOGRAPHIC CHECKLIST What is your age? ( ) a. 20-29 ( ) b. 30-39 ( ) c. 40-49 ( ) d. over 50 What is your marital status? ( ) a. single ( ) b. married ( ) c. widowed ( ) d. separated What is your present administrative position? ( ) a. Assistant Principal ( ) b. Principal ( ) c. Superintendent ( ) d. Other What is your racial group? ( ) a. Native American ( ) b. Black ( ) c. Asian ( ) d. Caucasian ( ) e. Latino ( ) f. Other What level of education have you completed? ( ) a. Doctorate ( ) b. Educational Specialist ( ) c. Master's degree ( ) d. Bachelor's degree How many years were you a classroom teacher? ( ) a. 0 ( ) b. l-5 ( ) c. 6-10 ( ) d. ll-lS ( ) e. 15 or more BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY Altman, I. Reciprocity of interpersonal exchange. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 1973, 3, 249-261. Baskett, G. D. Interpersonal attraction as a function of attitude similarity-dissimilarity and cognitive complexity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1968. Baskett, G. D. Interview decisions as determined by competency and attitude similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 51, 343-345. Bem, D. J. Self-perception: The dependent variable of human per- formance. ggganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2. 105-121. Bieri, J. Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 263-268. Bowditch, J. L. Biographical similarityyand interpersonal choice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1969. Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. The perception of people. In G. Lindsey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 11). Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Bundza, K. A., & Simonson, N. R. Therapist self-disclosure: Its effect on impressions of therapist and willingness to disclose. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1973, 19, 215-217. Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, gg, 713-715. Byrne, D. Response to attitude similarity and dissimilarity as a function of affiliation needs. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30. 161-177. Byrne, D. Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1969. Byrne, D., Clore, G., & Worchel, P. Effect of economic similarity- dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 220-224. 91 92 Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, 1968. Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969, 3, 179:186. Byrne, 0., London, 0., & Reeves, K. The effects of physical attrac- tiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attrac- tion. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 259-271. Carter, V., Good, 0., & Scates, E. Methods of research: Educational, psychological, sociolggjcal. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts,gl954. Castetter, W. B. The personnel function in educational administra- tion. New York: Macmillan, 1976. Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Self-disclosure. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, Chelune, G. J. Self-disclosure: An elaboration of its basic dimen- sions. Psychological Reports, 1975, 33, 79-85. Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure, reciprocity and liking. Sociometry, 1972, 33, 151-160. Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 13, 73-91. Cronbach, L. J. Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others" and "assumed similarity." Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 33, 1977-1993. Derlega, V. J., Walmer, J., & Furman, G. Mutual disclosure in social interactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 39, 159-160. Downs, C., Linkugel, W. A., & Berg, D. M. The organizational commu- nicator. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Drake, J. D. Interviewin for managers. New York: American Manage- ment Association, 19 . Edmonds,. R.. Programs of school improvement: Overview. Educational Leadership, 1982, 59, 4-11. 93 Edmonds, R. Effective schools for urban poor. Educational Leader- ship, 31,1, 15-18, 20-24. Edwards, A. L. Social desirability and the description of others. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1959, 33, 434-436. Ehrlich, H., & Graven, D. Reciprocal self-disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental Social Psychologx. 1971, Z, 389-400. Engel, R. A., & Friedrichs, D. Interview can be a reliable process. NASSP Bulletin, 1980, 33, 85-91. Feijenbaum, W. M. Reciprocity in self-disclosure within the psy- chological interview. Psychological Repgrts, 1977, 59, 15-26. Festinger, R. I. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 2, 117-140. Ghiselli, E. E. The validity of personnel interview. Personnel Esychologx. 1966, 5, 389-394. Giannandrea, V., 8 Murphy, K. C. Similarity of self-disclosure and return for a second interview. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 39, 545-548. Gilbert, S. J. Self-disclosure, intimacy, and communication in families. Family Coordinator, 1976, 33, 221-231. Gilbert, 5. J. Effects of unanticipated self-disclosure on recipi- ents of varying levels of self-esteem: A research note. Human Communication Research, 1977, 3, 368-371. Golightly, C., Huffman, P. M., & Byrne, D. Liking and loaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 33, 521-523. Goral, J. R. Cognitive complexity, accuracy of impressions, and ability to differentiate amongfive independent personality dimensions. Unpublished master‘s thesis, The Ohio State University, 1970. Gorden, R. L. Interviewingstrategy, techniques and tactics. Homewood, 111.: ‘The Dorsey Press, 1980. Hakel, M. 0. Significance of implicit personality theories for personality research and theory. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, 1969, 403-404. Hakel, M. D. Similarity of post-interview trait intercorrelations as a contributor to interrater agreement in a structural employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 33, 443-448. 94 Hobart, R. Effective interviewing: Key to selecting qualified staff. NASSP Bulletin, 1979, 33, 29-34. Huffman, D. M. Interpersonal attraction as a function of behavioral similarit . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1969. Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure and other cathexis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 33, 428-431. Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 13, 278-282. Jourard, S. M., & Jaffee, P. E. Influence of an interviewer's dis- closure on the self-disclosing behavior of interviewees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 11, 252-257. Jourard, S. M., & Landsman, M. Cognition, cathexis, and the dyadic effect in men's self-disclosing behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 3, 178-186. Kiestler, C., Kiestler, S., & Pallak, M. The effects of commitment to future interaction on reactions to norm violations. Journal of Personality, 1967, 33, 385-399. Korman, A. K. Self esteem variable in vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1966, 33, 479-486. Korman, A. K. Self esteem as a moderator of the relationship between self-perceived abilities and vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 31, 65-67. (a) Korman, A. K. Relevance of personal need satisfaction for overall satisfaction as a function of self esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 31, 533-538. (b) Korman, A. Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 33, 31-41. Korman, A. K. Expectancies as determinants of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 33, 218-222. Latham, 0., Wexley, K., & Pursell, L. Rating error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 33, 550-555. Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1957. 95 Lopez, F. M. Personnel interviewing, theory and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,i1975. Mann, 8., & Murphy, K. C. Timing of self-disclosure, reciprocity of self-disclosure, and reactions to an initial interview. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 33, 304-308. Mayfield, E. C. The selection interview--Re-eva1uation of published research. Personnel Psychology, 1964, 11, 239-260. Mowrer, 0. H. The newygroup therapy. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. Norman, W. T. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 33, 574-583. Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 681-691. Passini, F. T., & Norman, W. T. A universal conception of personality structure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4. 44-49. Powell, W. J. Differential effectiveness of interviewer interven- tions in an experimental interview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 33, 210-215. Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N. The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance rating in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 1983, 33, 129-139. Raben, C. 5., & Klimoski, R. J. A self consistency interpretation to some recent equity theory findings. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, 1971. Rogers, C. R. 0n becoming a person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1961. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. Secondary schools and their effect on children. London: Open Books, 1979. Simons, H. W., Moyer, R. J., & Berkowitz, N. N. Similarity, credi- bility, and attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, in press. Simonson, N. R.. & Bahr, S. Self-disclosure by the professional and paraprofessional therapist. Journal of Consultingyand Clinical Psychology, 1974, 33, 359-363. 96 Sizer, T. R. Three major frustrations: Ruminations of a retiring dean. Phi Delta Kappan, June 1972, 632-635. Strong, 5. R. Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 13, 215-224. Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Client and therapist transparency in the psychotherapeutic encounter. Journal of Counselipg Psychology. 1965, 13, 3-9. Tucker, P. H., & Rowe, P. M. Relationship between expectancy, casual attributions, and final hiring decisions in the employment inter- view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 33, 33. Vondracek, F. W. The study of self-disclosure in experimental inter- views. Journal of Psychology, 1969, 13, 55-59. Wexley, K. N., Alexander, R. A., Greenwalt, J. P., & Couch, M. A. Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interper- sonal evaluations in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 1980, 33, 320-330. Wexley, K. N., & Numeroff, W. F. The effects of racial prejudice, race of applicant, and biographical similarity on the inter- viewer evaluation of job applicants. Journal of Social and Behavioral Science, 1974, 33, 66-78. Wexley, K. N., & Rand, T. M. Demonstration of the effect, 'similar to me' in simulated employment interviews. Psychological Reports, 1975, 33, 535-544. Wright, 0. R. Summary of research on the selection interview since 1964. Personnel Psychology, 1969, 33, 391-413. HICHIGQN TATE UN S IV. LIBRARIES 11 1|! |“Ill1111!!HIIHHIIVIIIHII 0 256971 312931 I 6