. . Th , 5..“- nuuwwntm...‘ 16932... E .3. Vanurvvwfx... «- . . v .. ,...v9v...r‘ 7., .my, “.5. , r.- ‘ bk;- . 1 ,— 4:333. .‘ . e . , . e. _..-qu...~‘“0....:..'.7. x z ::.;1.._: . 1.... —_d C . . n . r , 13...... v.( 1.34%.. K v ,1- a 3 .3.“ fl a. A; , haw”? £57... :7... sin r r z s... . mauve...‘ .. z. a: T .. .5 P) h, x” ,u_‘- 1.; C... 54.4 . w». 95.: 4. .fl. - v. n, ‘ 975114? .... vi. w 4 5:3 .094}: Witt . uccfi; 1 .. .953? a . a . .xr-v fl vvtfl, J: 4.? (an! if: ‘ :14 ,r ilk-o V univf: 71 as. «1. 1.553151... . «rid pt .u . 1.7:. ..v.~W-.l.r . by ' q if... it E : 5.5.95.5 . .fu 5 u it? «. f: c. k W a Emma 1151.. : 5;;ng éfii—c ' 'a 5! ‘3" a :P‘ 'z’: '4 i c VIE: a 171.; ....Idu,\..awflnlq.! . Vil'"! Vnr I . aha.“ .v Pyrivvltsrw undo... , 7.3.70: . I up ’1 r .. J4. .zlzdilkk lilrtls 1".qu i.» 5. . x. {552 5:83.! . . rvrrbr..71vanr.m. . any» n xmlsrzc.r:$$fl 'nVi’ 3'! III?“ cl! . , $.35. . V." t 159:...“ ’Iniir a... , .. . .. .. v! : xi:- 11‘ a «if? I J 531...?! a» 1”; 4 ‘1. gRIIVI’ b’ I o. ‘ I award/10V , n I: . ltifl [1.7-0 fin-ill . r . 'r'lz’bat’frsyun 19.: .ler W/Wflflvrgmr: V1171”! r7 . ‘ . V610?! filifltoflr 3.. . . , , é . , 97:11!!! .. , . . . . 1!. II. 1' 23:315. . 4&1"! ittranfiO. .”9 .1 l :7; , ‘ - .Vfit V. lr N‘Vr .7 1:1 1- 1/939: v \ I: f... 4 . . , 53:71?) IvaJ .I! ”I! "Itvxzrr. . ,. . IvYIrcfiu ,IAJ/‘JPIII. 11.3.9191»! Zlfl _. 1 ,VII Ill"’ ‘11] I, ‘ ‘ . r r. .13.. 15;? inwhwifiiila? ‘ .v «7. 111:9?! , . 11* YTRIrIOnr (“Huh/Iwhrma 45075:; ”I!!! .45.!!! fr alkyid Lilééflrukm Mtg)?» r). rzvavlivndrfirlr fuyfltrrhtwn‘? «ifv. rt 13., yr?- ‘ 'anhvmlr .94er 19‘ fIVI? .V'Vvdt"t:«fll, H ‘1"? ll luv vivid l "IVD'V‘; V; . l Fl, '; iv”!- pu.1vl:l infill: (fa. 1:5..oll .(LJ... 1 AIJIICE'l .4117/111. I/.t.!rv p.137; .39: ..v.r..;. f»; . r. tub. I 'Il.’ffl ’f.“ .959 tr. I. 11.14 . 1 I) (I . 1‘A.;;:. .17; .1 :Ir. . in I. j. x. 1: 1!. a . r fifinfiflwfinfi . . '- This is to certifi- that the thesis entitled ROLE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE OF TURKISH TEACHER TRAINING SCHOOL PRINCIPALS presented by MUSTAFA AYD IN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D degree in EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION - ,~ ,A f) ’ , :2 -—-%mu$e {LWQ Major professo 6/5/73 Date 0-7639 1- ABSTRACT ROLE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE OF TURKISH TEACHER TRAINING SCHOOL PRINCIPALS BY Mustafa Aydin The Problem This study identified MIs', TTSPs', and TTSTs' expectations for, and TTSPS' and TTSTs' perceptions of a TTSP's performance in given situations, by using empirical data describing behaviors. Administrative Regulations for TTSs were also studied. Procedures "The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire" was adapted and employed in the study. Six LBDQ—XII subscales were selected, and three groups of additional items were developed for this study. The instrument was administered at 76 schools, and it included 76 principals, l772 teachers, and 53 inspectors. The multivariate analysis was used to examine the profiles of role expectation and performance responses for appropriate target populations. The percentage and frequency analysis was conducted on the individual item responses of each target population. "IL Mustafa Aydin The resulting cumulative frequency distributions for each item were then used to compute Leik's statistic of ordinal consensus. All statistical tests (Multivariate F, Univariate F, and Scheffé post-hoc comparisons) were conducted employing an alpha level of .05. Analysis of the data attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Role expectations: a. According to the TTSPs, how frequently should a TTSP behave in a given situation? b. According to the TTSTs, how frequently should a TTSP behave in a given situation? c. According to the MOE Inspectors who are involved in the inspection of TTSs, how frequently should a TTSP behave in a given situation? d. To what extent do expectations of these three groups differ? 2. Role performance: a. How frequently do the TTSPs think they behave in the given situations? b. How frequently do the TTSTs think their principals behave in the given situations? C. To what extent are the TTSPs in consensus with regard to how frequently the TTSPs behave in the given situations? d. To what extent are the TTSTs in consensus with regard to how frequently their principals behave in the given situations? e. To what extent do the TTSPs and TTSTs agree with each other on how frequently the principals behave in the given situations? veer , Mustafa Aydin The Findings A. Regarding role expectations, significant differ- ences were indicated on: Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management subscales between the groups, but the Scheffé post—hoc comparison failed to detect the nature of the differences. No significant differences were observed on the following subscales: Consideration, Superior Orientation, and Impartiality. B. Regarding role_performance: TTSPs and TTSTs significantly differed in their perceptions of principals' performances on all the subscales——Consideration, Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Superior Orientation, Impartiality, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management. Principals perceived their actual performance of the defined items as occurring with greater frequency than the teachers. C. Measures of consensus regarding_role expectations: The groups displayed similarity in the patterns they responded to role expectation items, but they differed from each other with respect to degrees of within group consensus. MIs showed the highest degree of within group consensus of the three groups. Principals were second and teachers third. In terms of frequency, MIs tended to be generally closer to the Mustafa Aydin "Almost Always" point than the other groups. Again, TTSPs were second and TTSTs third. D. Measures of consensus regarding role performance: The principals appeared to be in more agreement about their perceptions of their actual performance than teachers were. Principals' indices of consensus were consistently higher than the teachers'. Teachers did not display high degrees of consensus on any of the subscales. They showed a wide range of distribution over the scale points. In other words, they displayed difference in their perceptions of their principals' actual role performance. ROLE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE OF TURKISH TEACHER TRAINING SCHOOL PRINCIPALS BY Mustafa Aydin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 DEDICATION To my wife, Muzeyyen, and Orhan, Nihan and Bahadir, our children, whose love, patience sacrifice, and encouragement have been the foundation for this study. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the many individuals who helped make this study possible. Particular appreciation is extended to Dr. Frederick R. Ignatovich, chairman of the doctoral committee, who gave his time generously from the beginning to the end and provided the advice and technical assistance which made this study pos— sible. Words cannot express the gratitude which is his due. Sincere appreciation is also extended to Dr. Harry L. Case, who served as chairman of the doctoral committee for almost two years. His understanding, support, and advice have a great part in this success. The writer deeply appreciates the assistance of Dr. Benn Bohnhorst for reading the manuscript in its early forms and offering many invaluable suggestions for improving its style. Thanks go to Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover for his guidance and advice and to Dr. Ernest O. Melby and Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, who served on the doctoral committee. To the many friends and colleagues of the PAKD, appreciation is extended for their assistance in gathering the data used in this study. The writer feels particularly indebted to Bedi Erdem, who as an acting director of PAKD assisted in every way possible. The writer feels grateful to the Ministry Inspectors, Teacher Training School principals and teachers who partici- pated in this study. Particular appreciation is extended to USAID for providing scholarships which enabled the writer to earn his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees. iv LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES FIGURES INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Limitations Delimitations Organization of the Study REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH Turkish Regulations . . Studies Made in Turkey . . Studies Made in the United States . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODS AND PROCEDURES The Instrument Used in This Study Reliability of the Subscales Adaptations for the Present Study Determination of Population . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . Treatment of the Data . . . . . . Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction . . . . . . . . . Role Expectations of the Ministry of National Education . . . . . . . . . Role Expectations . . . . . . . Perceptions of Role Performance . Measures of Ordinal Consensus . . . . . Page vii ix 15 I6 21 25 68 72 72 76 78 79 80 84 84 86 86 87 9O 97 106 Page V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Results of the Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 159 The Findings and Explanation . . . . . . . 163 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Suggested Further Studies . . . . . . . . . 179 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 B. Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 vi 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Reliability of LBDQ-XII Subscales . Multivariate Analysis of Leadership Dimensions--Role Expectations . . Data for Multiple Dependent Variables, Leadership Dimensions—-Role Expectations Differences Between All Possible Pairs of Means on Role Expectations for Initiation of Structure . . . . . Differences Between All Possible Pairs of Means on Role Expectations for Tolerance of Uncertainty . . . . . Differences Between All Possible Pairs of Means on Role Expectations for Tolerance of Freedom . . . . . . . Differences Between All Possible Pairs of Means on Role Expectations for Role Assumption . . . . . . . . Differences Between All Possible Pairs of Means on Role Expectations for Tasks Related to Instruction . . . . Differences Between All Possible Pairs of Means on Role Expectations for Tasks Related to Management . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Leadership Dimensions--Role Performance . . . . Data for Multiple Dependent Variables, Leadership Dimensions--Role Performance Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Consideration" Page 77 91 92 94 95 95 96 96 97 98 99 109 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Initiation of Structure" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Tolerance of Uncertainty" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Tolerance of Freedom" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Role Assumption" Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Superior Orientation" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Impartiality" . Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Tasks Related to Instruction" . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinal Consensus for Role Expectations and Role Performance on "Tasks Related to Management" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range of Consensus Scores-—MIs, TTSPs, TTSTs--for Role Expectation . . . . . . Range of Consensus Scores——TTSPs, TTSTs—— for Role Performance . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 114 118 122 126 130 134 138 144 161 162 II Figure l. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES The Normative and Personal Dimensions of Social Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . Relations of Role Expectations and Need— Dispositions to Effectiveness, Efficiency and Satisfaction . . . . . The Dimensions of Morale . . . . . . . . . Operational Model of Major Dimensions of Social Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . Profile of Multiple Dependent Variable Means for Role Expectations . . . . . . Profile of Multiple Dependent Variable Means for Role Performance . . . . . . . Profile of Consideration Role Expectation-- MIS, TTSPS, TTSTS . . . . . . . . . . Profile of Consideration Role Performance—— TTSPS, TTSTS . . . . . . . . . . Profile of Initiation of Structure Role Expectation-—MIS, TTSPs, TTSTS . . . . . Profile of Initiation of Structure Role Performance——TTSPs, TTSTS . . . . . . . Profile of Tolerance of Uncertainty Role Expectation—~MIs, TTSPs, TTSTS . . . . . Profile of Tolerance of Uncertainty Role Performance—-TTSPS, TTSTS . . . . . . . Profile of Tolerance of Freedom Role Expectation—-MIs,TTSPs, TTSTS . . . . . Profile of Tolerance of Freedom Role Performance—-TTSPs, TTSTS . . . . . . . ix Page 37 39 40 42 93 105 110 111 115 116 119 120 123 124 Figure 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Profile of Role Assumption Role Expectation-—MIs, TTSPs, TTSTs Profile of Role Assumption Role Performance-—TTSPs, TTSTS Profile of Superior Orientation Role Expectation——MIs, TTSPs, TTSTS Profile of Superior Orientation Role Performance——TTSPs, TTSTS . . . . . Profile of Impartiality Role Expectation—~Mls, TTSPs, TTSTs Profile of Impartiality Role Performance—— TTSPS, TTSTS Profile of Tasks Related to Instruction Role Expectation——MIs, TTSPs, TTSTs Profile of Tasks Related to Instruction Role Performance—~TTSPS, TTSTS . . . . Profile of Tasks Related to Management Role Expectation—~MIS, TTSPs, TTSTS Profile of Tasks Related to Management Role Performance——TTSPs, TTSTS Page 127 128 131 132 135 136 141 142 147 148 ll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is a truism that schools are established for the education of children. But schools are not for children only. It is also true that schools serve other institutions in the society, as well as society as a whole. Nations and societies make enormous investments in their educational programs in order to serve the full range of social, economic, national, and individual human needs. Schools are formal organizations established to achieve certain defined objectives (the effective educa- tion of all students), and these objectives are realized by formulating specific roles which individuals perform. Since the roles are interrelated and interdependent in relation to school objectives, how the roles are performed hasanuessential bearing on the way in which the objectives are to be achieved. Two role positions in the school are of particular importance: the role of the principal and the role of the teacher. School administration functions chiefly as a means of organizing and facilitating human efforts and material resources for the purpose of achieving the school objectives. From this standpoint, administration penetrates 1 every phase of school life, and the quality of adminis- trative service within a school may be the most significant determinant of the level of effectiveness of the total edu— cational process. The principal is responsible for the administration of the school and so plays a key role in the achievement of school objectives. The teacher obviously is of crucial importance to objectives, but the degree to which the teacher can fulfill his crucial role is to a considerable extent determined by the administrative role performed by the principal. The principal and teachers interact as individuals, with their unique qualities, their varying social, economic, and educational backgrounds, their differing experience, and their respective need-dispositions and value-orientations. Although the school objectives and roles may be explicitly stated, the individuals interpret and perceive them from the viewpoint of their unique qualities. The individuals are in the school for different reasons and with differ— ent needs, but the objectives of the school are not ordi— narily designed with the individuals' self—interests in mind. So the individuals tend to relate to the objec— tives basically to try to achieve their own goals and sat— isfy their own needs, and the objectives of the school may have only an instrumental interest for them, if they are interested at all. From the vieWpoint of modern management of organiza- tions, it is important that there be "a high level of moti— vation throughout the organization directed toward achieving the objectives of the organization. To obtain a high level of coordinated motivation, the goals of organization must satisfactorily incorporate the needs of its members."1 This is a fundamental task facing the administrator. To succeed, the principal needs to be cognizant of the school objec— tives, and the social reasons behind the financing of edu— cational programs. He also must be cognizant of individual needs of the staff members and their expectations for and perceptions of (a) the school objectives, (b) the princi- pal's functions and performance, and (c) their own role within the system. In this way, he may be better able to achieve the school objectives and at the same time meet the individual needs of the staff members. As Sarbin and Allen contend, "performers do tend to conform to the role expectations. Clarity and consensus of role expectations determine the degree to which role enactment is convincing, . H2 proper and apprOpriate. Rensis Likert, "An Emerging Theory of Organization, Leadership, and Management," condensation of a paper pre- sented at the Symposium on Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior Sponsored by Louisiana State University and the Office of Naval Research, March 3-5, 1959, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Mimeographed.) 2Theodore Jarbin and Vernon Allen, ”Role Theory," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (New York: Addison—Wesley Publishing Co., 1969), p. 506. From this point of view, effective, convincing, and appropriate performance of administrative tasks requires that the rights and obligations of the principal be clearly known by both the principal and teacher. It also requires that the principals' perceptions of their functions and performance, and the teachers' perceptions of the princi— pals' functions and performance, be in agreement and be known by both. It is believed that this awareness of and clarity and agreement regarding the functions and performance of the principal are important determinants of effective and successful school administration and effective educa— tion of students. Statement of the Problem The writer's concern in this thesis is with a limited but very important part of the school system of the govern— ment of Turkey, yiz., the Primary Teacher Training Schools (TTSs), and specifically the tasks of Turkish Teacher Train- ing School Principals (TTSPs) as defined by the Ministry of National Education, and with the behavior of the principals in given situations, as recorded in the opinions of the principals and teachers of the Primary Teacher Training Schools and of the Ministry Inspectors. This study focuses on the following points: 1. Role expectations of the Ministry of National Education for the TTSPs. Role expectations: a. According to the TTSPs, how frequently should a TTSP behave in a given situation? According to the Teacher Training School Teachers (TTSTS), how frequently should a TTSP behave in a given situation? According to the MOE inspectors who are involved in the inspection of TTSs, how fre— quently should a TTSP behave in a given situation? To what extent do eXpectations of these three groups differ? Role performance: a . How frequently do the TTSPs think they behave in the given situations? How frequently do the TTSTS think their prin— cipals behave in the given situations? To what extent are the TTSPs in consensus with regard to how frequently the TTSPs behave in the given situations? To what extent are the TTSTs in consensus with regard to how frequently their principals behave in the given situations? To what extent do the TTSPs and TTSTS agree with each other on how frequently the princi— pals behave in the given situations? Need for the Study In recent decades, the field of educational adminis- tration has received a great deal of attention from educa— tors and social scientists in the United States. Studies which relate to the present study include studies by Sternloff,3 Moyer,4 Halpin,5 Gross and his associates, Sweitzer,7 and Ignatovich.8 There is no doubt that these, plus many other studies made in the fields of education, business, military, hospitals, and government, have made sig- nificant contributions to educational administration as it exists in the United States today. It may be hoped that educational administration may be on the verge of emergence as a profession also in Turkey. Several studies have recently been made in the field of 3Robert E. Sternloff, "The Critical Requirements for School Administrators Based Upon an Analysis of Critical Incidents" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Educa- tion, University of Wisconsin, 1953). 4Donald C. Moyer, "Teachers' Attitudes Toward Leader— ship as They Relate to Teacher Satisfaction” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1954). 5Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Leader— ship Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders," Harvard Educational Review, XXV (Winter, 1955). 6Neal Gross, W.S. Mason, and A. W. McEachern, Explor- ations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958). 7Robert E. Sweitzer, et al., Role Expectations and Perceptions of School Principals (Stillwater, Oklahoma: Research Foundation, Oklahoma State University, January, 1963). 8Frederick R. Ignatovidh,"Typesand Effects of Elemen- tary School Principal-Leaders: A Q-Factor Analysis" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1970). Turkish education which will be cited in the review of related literature in Chapter II. The present study, how- ever, is the first doctoral—level study in Turkey of the role of the school principal in the Turkish education system. It is hoped this study may make significant contributions to existing knowledge about school administration and principal— staff relations—-in Turkish Primary Teacher Training Insti— tutions in particular and in other Turkish schools in gen— eral. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to identify the expec- tations and perceptions of Teacher Training School Principals, Teacher Training School Teachers, and the Ministry Inspectors regarding the principal‘s behavior in given situations. It is intended that the findings of this study might enable the inspectors, principals, and teachers better to understand each others' expectations for the principals' behavior, and that this awareness might help each of these groups of pro— fessionals to take the others' expectations into considera— tion in performing their own roles. Since the principals as "men in the middle" need to know the teachers' and the inspectors' expectations in order to perform their functionsaccordingly,this information is expected to equip the principal especially with increased knowledge, so that he might better play his role with desirable effectiveness and efficiency. It is also expected that this study might broaden the professional vision of the educators to whom it is addressed and lead to their further professional growth. It is hoped that it might make a significant contribution to the achievement of cooperation among these people in order that they might better accomplish their objectives. Definition of Terms The following terms are relevant to this study and are defined as follows: 1. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII (LBDQ-XII)9 which measures leader behavior within a sit— uational context. The LBDQ-XII consists of 100 items which group into twelve subscales. Six of these (Tolerance of Uncertainty, Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Consideration, and Superior Orientation) were translated into Turkish and utilized in this study. They may be briefly defined as follows: A. Tolerance of Uncertainty-—The principal is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset (10 items). B. Initiation of Structure--The principal clearly defines his own role, and lets his staff know what is expected of them (10 items). ' 9Basic information about the LBDQ—XII may be found in Chapter III. C. Tolerance of Freedom—-The principal allows staff members scope for initiative, decision, and action (10 items) D. Role Assumption——The principal actively exercises his leadership role, rather than surrendering leader— ship to others (10 items. E. Consideration—~The principal regards the comfort, well—being, status, and contributions of others (10 items). F. Superior Orientation—~The principal maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; and is striving for higher status for himself (10 items, but for the present study only nine items were used, because a problem of translation in one item was discovered too late to be corrected). Impartiality——The principal treats his staff members and students equally and shows no favoritism (7 items). This subscale was develOped originally for use in this study and was included in the data gathering instrument along with the above six LBDQ—XII subscales. Tasks Related to Instruction-—Fourteen items related to instruction were also developed originally for use in this study and included in the instrument. By these items the writer tried to cover the important aspects of TTSPs' tasks related to instruction. 10 Tasks Related to Management——Nineteen items in connection with management which constitute the third original dimen- sion of the instrument used for collecting the data. The items were so selected that main tasks of TTSPs were related to management behaviors concerning teachers and students. Ministry of National Education—-The organization which is in charge of all general, technical, vocational, and cultural education activities of Turkey. It is headed by the Minister, a member of the cabinet. Primary Teacher Training School—~These schools train students to be primary school teachers. There are two types of schools. One type admits students after primary school (five years) and provides them with seven years of further education. The first three years of this train— ing are equivalent to the first cycle of secondary schools, and the last four years consist of primary teacher training. The other type admits students after middle school (the first cycle of secondary schools) and provides them with a four-year program of primary teacher training. Hence the total education which primary school teachers obtain is twelve years. It used to be eleven years until very recently. Primary Teacher Training School Principal—~The principal is the chief responsible administrator of a given school. He is appointed by the Ministry of National Education 10. 11. 12. 11 from among the teachers. For purposes of this study, only persons were selected who had served as principal a minimum of one year in the school prior to the con— ducting of this investigation. Teacher——A person assigned to a primary teacher training school on a full-time basis who has been for purposes of this study in the same school for at least one school year prior to the conducting of this investigation. Ministry Inspector—-The Ministry Inspector is the person appointed by the Minister of National Education to super- vise instruction and education activities of all levels of schools, excluding university. Inspectors included in this study are those who had inspected Primary Teacher Training Schools within the last three years. Role EXpectation-—Expectations of Ministry Inspectors, school principals, and teachers for the behavior of Primary Teacher Training School Principals in given sit— uations, as recorded by the respondents on the question- naires used in this study. Role Performance——The principals' actual behavior in given situations, as perceived by the principals them— selves and their staff members who have worked together for at least one school year, and as recorded by them on the questionnaires. Group Teachership—-Teachers are assigned as guides for a group of students and they are paid for this. They mediate between administration and students. 12 .13. Abbreviations—— TTSP ——Primary Teacher Training School Principal TTST —-Primary Teacher Training School Teacher MOE -—Ministry of National Education TTSPE—-Primary Teacher Training School Principal's Expectation TTSPP-—Primary Teacher Training School Principal's Perception TTSTE—-Primary Teacher Training School Teacher's Expectation TTSTP-—Primary Teacher Training School Teacher's Perception TTS —-Teacher Training Schools MIE ——Ministry Inspector's Expectation Limitations The conclusions of this study can be statistically generalized only to the Turkish Primary Teacher Training School principals and teachers and Ministry Inspectors included in this study. A major limitation of survey—type investigations conducted by mail has been the percentage of nonrespondents. In this study the questionnaires were not mailed. Groups of schools (there were between seven and ten schools in each group) were assigned to several pretrained investigators, each of whom visited each school and administered the ques— tionnaires. In this way the rate of participation was very high, and the limitation of nonrespondents was slight. Perhaps the major limitation of this study is that six subscales of the LBDQ—XII used in the instrument were 13 translated into Turkish and might not have meant exactly the same in Turkish as in English. Two items especially appeared not to be clear to certain respondents, but there were only a very few who seemed to have this difficulty. Since this study had been introduced to the respon- dents as a study conducted for the Ministry of National Education, this fact might have contaminated the responses in the direction of unrealistically "favorable" responses. The respondents, however, were assured of their anonymity. The chance of bias on the part of the investigators who administered the questionnaires may be another limita— tion of this study. This does not appear, however, to be a serious factor, since the administration procedures were highly objective and the investigators were carefully instructed in them. Delimitations The present study is concerned only with the TTSs, which constitute only one part of the total Turkish educa— tion system at the secondary level. Other types of schools at the same level were not included in this study. Only those principals and teachers who had worked at least one school year together at the same school were included. Two forced—choice questionnaires were developed and used to collect the needed data. ...... 14 The items in the instrument covered only some aspects of the principal's role. Other possibly important aspects of the principal's role, such as school—community relationships, were left out. Organization of the Study Presentations in subsequent chapters are organized as follows: Chapter II presents a review of literature and related research, including discussion of Turkish regula— tions as they bear on the principal's performance of his role, discussion of the relatively few studies made to date in Turkey, and discussion of a selection from among the many U.S. studies, especially research into theoretical aspects of the roles of administrators. Chapter III delineates the methods, design, and instrumental procedures which were used. Chapter IV presents the data and findings of the study. Chapter V, which is the concluding chapter, contains outcomes, conclusions, and implications of the study. A number of appendices and a bibliography are added at the end. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to review related literature and previous studies in order to draw together certain key ideas concerning principals' and teachers' role expectations for the principal, the principal's role per— formance, the tasks of educational administration, and certain theoretical aspects of the principal's role. The overall purpose of the present study is to examine the role expectations and performance of a partic- ular group of principals in the Turkish school system. To the present writer's knowledge, there is no study which has been made in Turkey concerning school principals' role expectations and performance, and the related Turkish lit— erature is therefore very limited. The following review will be based mainly on Ameri— can literature in the field. Since this literature is enormous, the present review will be restricted to a repre- sentative selection of it. First, however, references will be made to certain Turkish sources: to the "Administrative Regulations for Turkish Primary Teacher Training Schools,‘ and to certain I 15 Illi- 16 other indirectly related Turkish sources. Then the discus— sion will turn to recent representative U.S. studies. Turkish Regulations Administrative Regulations for Turkish TTSs have been defined by the MOE of the Republic of Turkey. The tasks of the principal have been expressed in these official regulations. This is the main reference on which the prin- cipal relies in performing his tasks. The English version of these regulations presented here and in the following pages is a literal translation prepared by the author and by Mrs. Ayla Delin, who is a member of the staff of the Ministry's Planning Office. The general statements and rights and obligations of the principal as defined by the MOE are as follows: Administrative Regulations for TTSsl (General Statements) ARTICLE l-—Objectives of Primary TTSs: A-—The general objectives of Turkish National Edu— cation also apply to these schools. B-—Functions of these schools are: (a) to train teachers for primary education; (b) to try to improve primary schools within their regions and to provide primary school teachers with in—service education; (c) to follow up and evaluate their graduates' perfor— mance; (d) to encourage and develOp programs for those who want to finish these schools without attending them. [It is possible that one can finish this school by tak- ing examinations without attending classes.] (e) to assume a role of leadership in their environment with respect to cultural, economic and social development. lIlkogretmen Okullari Idare Yonetmeligi (Ankara: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1966), pp. 5—8, 17 C-—Primary Teacher Training Schools: (a) recogniz— ing the fact that their graduates will at some point in their careers serve in villages, the schools must try to give their students the knowledge, skills and beha— vior which are functional in village school and life and try to gear their education activities to problems of surrounding villages; (b) they must prepare students for service in any part of the country and particularly encourage their welcoming service in remote and hardship villages; (c) they must recognize that creativity and productivity are important measures of real learning and try to provide necessary conditions to achieve productivity and creativity; (d) in order to evaluate the training of students, they must give special impor— tance to the following points: industriousness, produc— tivity, creativity, abstract thinking, patriotism and genuine concern about national problems, unselfish and democratic behavior, ability to cooperate and work with others, seriousness, sincerity, optimism, and other such personality characteristics as well as other aspects of training; (e) they must try to give students the required professional formation for primary teaching and to achieve this they should make use of educational pub- lications, conduct studies on primary school pupils and provide students with opportunities for application of training to real situations in student teaching; (f) they must develop a love and desire for reading among students and help them realize that reading is a fundamental requirement for professional growth, and they must instill in students a belief in freedom of speech, writing and thinking. ARTICLE 2--The position of these schools in the total educational sequence in 6 years beyond primary school [7 years now] or 3 years beyond middle school [4 years now]. These schools will be boarding schools or day schools, for 6 or 3 years, depending upon the regional needs, opportunities, and conditions. Further, they may provide an introductory preparatory year of instruction if necessary [this does not exist now]. Administrative Tasks, Rights, and Obligations of the Principal ARTICLE 3—-The principal is the chief responsible administrator for administration, evaluation and improvement of the school in accordance with its objec— tives. The school is administered in line with democratic principles. The principal insures the effective par— ticipation of all the school's population (teachers, students, and non—instructional staff) in the educational 18 and administrative concerns of the school. Without dis— turbing the existing system, the principal tries in a constructive manner to make modern education, instruc- tion, and administration effective in the school. ARTICLE 4——The principal is the official head of all personnel in his school. He insures that staff performance is in line with regulations, laws and Min— istry orders. Further, he secures cooperation among staff and recommends transfers when necessary. ARTICLE 5——The principal is authorized to implement the following measures in performing his tasks: (a) He holds teachers' meeting before the school begins to plan education and instruction activities to be accomplished in that academic year. (b) He inspects and appraises classrooms, work shops, laboratories, areas of agricultural practice, education and instruction projects, research studies and social work. To evaluate and develop education and instruction activities he may call frequent meetings of staff members, students and their representatives. (c) He maintains records of teachers' annual educa- tion and instruction activities, relying upon his own observations and other records. This information is transferred to personal records of teachers in summary form. Subjective information is not transferred. In these evaluations, the following criteria should be observed: studiousness, productivity, creativity, objectivity, experimentation, unselfish and democratic behavior, patriotism, and national concern. In addition further characteristics should be considered: self— discipline, cooperation with others, personal improve- ment, assistance given for the development of the school and community, seriousness, sincerity and Optimism. (d) The principal is responsible for guidance and counseling of students, staff members, and non— instructional personnel in performance of their tasks. Probational staff guidance and counseling should be gov- erned by Article 4 of Law 1702. ARTICLE 6--The principal is responsible for insuring an atmosphere conducive to students' studies, research, and their constructive use of leisure time, education and instruction. ARTICLE 7-—The following are the staff appointment and supervision rights and obligations of the principal: (a) He certifies authenticity and correctness of students' diplomas, certificates and other records. (b) He is the chief financial officer of the school, authorizing and approving expense records, transactions, and payrolls. Record keeping may be delegated to one 19 of his assistant principals, although the final respon— sibility rests with him. (c) The principal deals with inventory according to related statutes and regulations. He is chiefly respon- sible for upkeep and the best use of school equipment, operation and maintenance. He insures that damage is compensated for. He takes the necessary action for accidental damage according to regulations. (d) The principal convenes meetings of the "Official Property Inventory Commission" according to regulations. He supervises and insures the preparation and forwarding of inventory records to the related office at the Ministry. (e) The principal has the authority to penalize custodial personnel whose appointments are under his jurisdiction, in accordance with regulations, and he makes suggestions or proposals to higher echelons con- cerning their suspension when the situation requires it. He makes preposals to the Ministry and to its related departments concerning those personnel (certain staff members, assistant principals, education, agriculture, work—Shep and health directors, and group teachers) whose appointment is under the Ministry's jurisdiction. The principal may punish these personnel within the limits of related statutes and laws. (f) He is the first to take action when academic and non-academic staff performance does not meet established standards. When personnel problems arise beyond his authority or when unusual circumstances require suspension of staff, the principal must inform higher authorities. (9) The principal recruits and employs qualified substitute staff for occasions when teaching or non- teaching staff are unable to attend their duties. In such cases he must process employment documents accord- ing to Personnel Law—~Article 4 and forward them to the Ministry for approval. ARTICLE 8——The principal is the chief civil defense and military service officer, administering regulations concerning these matters. ARTICLE 9——The principal may consider and approve teacher absences for important reasons not to exceed one day at a time on three occasions in a school year. He may apply rights delegated to him by law concerning unexcused absences. Unexcused absences exceeding three days must be reported to higher authorities. ARTICLE 10-—The principal communicates with higher offices on educational matters in a timely manner during the academic year. In addition: 20 (a) At the beginning of October he forwards a dis— tribution of courses to the Ministry prepared at the beginning of each school year. (b) At the end of May he forwards a current per- sonnel status report to the Ministry for all staff of his school. (c) At the end of September he forwards an evalua— tion concerning the educational and cultural activities of his school and community to the Ministry. (d) At the end of December he forwards a report concerning construction, repairs, clerical and cus— todial staff to the Ministry. In preparation of the above reports the principal should give careful consideration to the studies and evaluations of the teachers' meetings on such matters. ARTICLE ll—-The principal determines what education, instruction and management activities, which may not be indicated by regulations, are to be carried out and by whom, and he officially informs the assigned personnel. The principal keeps all confidential correspondence personally. The above regulations constitute a general frame of reference for the principal. They state what is to be done. They are the guidelines which regulate the principal's role performance. The principal is to perform his functions in accordance with these regulations. The regulations have the tone of orders which the principal is directed to follow in performing his tasks. As a consequence the principal could mainly function as a rule follower, knowing that he would be safe and secure in his position to the degree he complied with regulations. The regulations may not seem to encourage the prin- cipal to exercise leadership. It is desirable nevertheless that the principal should be given opportunity to exercise his leadership qualities. It might be noted in passing that to be autonomous and effective in administrative practice 21 would appear to require professional skills and understand~ ings in group dynamics, sociology, social psychology, human needs, and organizational and administrative operations. The regulations say nothing about these latter matters. Studies Made in Turkey Though not directly related to the present study, 2 . . . . . G. Karagozoglu's doctoral dissertation is worth mentioning, since to the investigator's knowledge, it is the first systematic study of leadership roles (Ministry Supervisors) in the Turkish educational system. Findings of his study are as follows: 1. Teachers generally do not perceive current supervisory activities as helpful. 2. Teachers have little confidence in the objec- tivity of evaluations of teachers by supervisors. 3. Teachers tend to perceive supervisors as not well qualified in subject matter fields, in profes— sional knowledge, and in evaluation techniques. 4. Teachers and supervisors converge generally in perceiving several suggested activities to be impor— tant. 5. Both groups diverge generally in their percep— tions of the frequency of application of the activities. Teachers consistently estimated the frequencies of application of the activities to be lower than the supervisors estimated. 6. There was a generally high—level within-group agreement among teachers and supervisors in their perceptions of the supervisors' role. 7. Supervisors may have an unrealistically high assessment of what they are accomplishing. 8. A large majority of both teachers and super— visors want change in the system. The change which is most emphasized by both groups is to separate the two conflicting roles: (a) supervisors as counsellors or 2Galip Karagozoglu, "The Role of Ministry Supervisors in the Turkish Educational System" (unpublished Ph.D. dis— sertation, Michigan State University, 1972. It 22 helpers to teachers; and (b) supervisors as investigators of teachers' or administrators' breaches of regulations. Karagozoglu reports that "Teachers generally do not perceive current supervisory activities as helpful. The data indicated that teachers may be supervised no more than once a year or once in two years, and therefore may not reg— ularly receive help when they need it."3 This finding sub— stantiates the writer's own experience during his teaching at teacher training schools. He was supervised twice in five years. In the present system of supervision, it is not possible for Ministry supervisors to extend professional help whenever needed. This may be because the Ministry recognizes the principal to be responsible for the total Operation of school, maintenance, operation, supervision, educational leadership, etc. This matter accentuates the importance of the role of school principals. They are charged with a very chal— lenging reSponsibility. Karagozoglu4 also indicates that It appears that teachers emphasize attitudinal aspects of supervisory activities while supervisors seem more to emphasize technical and professional activities as important. . . . Teachers perceive human relations activities as important and . . . frequently applied, while supervisors perceive tech— nical supervisory activities as important. 3Ibid., p. 204. 41bido' pp. 206~207o 23 This shows that teachers and supervisors hold dif— ferent perceptions of the supervision by which one is sup— posed to extend help and the other is to receive it. How can this service be effective when the giver and receiver perceive it differently? Karagozoglu has made, at least to the writer, a significant contribution to the Turkish education system by putting his finger on a very crucial aspect of the educa- tion system, secondary supervision. First, he brought the existing system of secondary supervision into the Open: what it is about, how it is conducted, and how it is perceived by those who carry it out and those who are subject to it. Second, he pointed out the areas of agreement and disagreement between the perceptions of Ministry supervisors and secondary school teachers. Third, he made some recommendations as to how the present system of supervision may be improved so that it can fulfill its vital function in the system. Fourth, and the most important Of all, he made this problem a matter of concern and discussion at the Ministry level. It may be taken as a first spark Of a new era of looking at the Turkish education system in a systematic manner. If Karagozoglu's study has an impact on the system Of Turkish education, it may be said that its impact will 24 not be just on supervision alone but also on other aspects of the system-—school administration, professional training programs, and organization development. Karagozoglu's study also contains valuable refer— ences to other Turkish studies of Ministry supervisors. It has further relevance to the present study in that his data were gathered in the form of perceptions and expectations gleaned from forced choice questionnaires which he developed for his purposes. His is the first study in Turkey to demonstrate the utility of these types Of data in examin— ing interrelationships between teachers and supervisory per— sonnel in Turkish schools. Bursalioglu5 made a study aiming at identifying and assessing factors which affect education administra— tors' behavior, in an attempt to make some contributions to the development of pre—service and in—service training programs, which at present are essentially nonexistent other than brief summer workshOps. The factors, in line with the basic task Of educa— tion, were categorized as social, political, and economic. Further, each category was sub-categorized as internal and external. An attempt was made to find out the degree of effect of the factors on the behavior Of education administrators. Ziya Bursalioglu, Egitim Yoneticisinin Davranis Etkenteri (Ankara Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Yayinlari NO. 31 Sevinc Matbaasi, 1972). 25 The study included 385 administrators at five dif- ferent secondary level schools and provincial directors Of education. Though his study does not employ similar forms Of data or research methods, the following points are among the findings which may be related tO the present study: 1. There was a significant relationship between the sources which administrators make use of in learning administrative behaviors and the degree of benefit from them. 2. Of these sources Of benefit, administrative experience, in-service training, and reading professional publications ranked the highest. Bursalioglu's findings suggest that education admin— istrators be given professional academic preparation in administration, that administrative in—service programs be improved qualitatively and quantitatively, and that admin— istrators be provided with professional literature. Studies Made in the United States In recent decades several significant systematic studies have been conducted in the United States of role expectations and performances of school principals. These studies have grown out of a considerable and growing theoret- ical literature which discusses the role of school principals in theoretical terms. The rest Of this chapter will present references which indicate the nature both of these discussions 26 and Of outcomes of certain key studies. The main points which will be covered are: 1. The tasks of educational administration. 2. Theoretical aspects of the principal's role. 3. The Getzels—Guba Model. 4. The concept Of equilibrium. 5. The concept of compliance. 6. The concept of innovation and change. 7. Characteristics Of effective principals. 8. The concept of role expectation. The last Of these points--role expectation-—is especially important to the rationale of this study, as will be pointed out below. The present study uses as its chief instrument an adaptation Of the LBDQ-XII, referred to in Chapter I. It happens that there is a sizeable literature of studies made in the U.S. using this instrument. Except for one or two references, however, these latter studies will not be included in the present chapter. Instead, when describing in Chapter III in more detail the nature of the LBDQ, ref— erences also will be made to research experience with it. The Tasks of Educational Administration Administration does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in an organizational setting. It exists to serve the purpose of an organization. This is its raison d'étre. 27 It is "the total Of the processes through which appropriate human and material resources are made available and made effective for accomplishing the purposes of an enterprise."6 As the purposes Of organizations change, the tasks of admin- istration change. Educational administration seeks to contribute to the maximization of the educative process. It serves to coordinate the efforts of those interacting in that process. School administration functions primarily as a means Of organizing and facilitating teacher and student effort for the purpose Of achieving the goal of the school——the effective education Of all students. There is no doubt that the tasks of educational administration are complex. One of the most logical approaches to gathering normative data about educational administration is to interview school administrators. A team of invesi~ gators7 of New York University interviewed 20 superin- tendents of schools to determine the most important respon— sibilities Of school administrators. Five important areas of concern were found as follows: 1. Working effectively with people (in the community, on the board of education, within the professional staff, among the pupils). 6American Association of School Administrators, Staff Relations in School Administration (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1955), p, 7. 7Walter A. Anderson, March Beauchamp, and Quill E. COpe, "Responsibilities of School Administrators" (New York: Department of Administration and Supervision, New York Uni- versity, 1952). (Mimeographed.) 28 Providing efficient business management. Developing an adequate school plant. Improving the educational program. Serving the profession. U‘I-D-WN Haskew8 in a paper delivered at a 1951 CPEA (Coop— erative Program in Educational Administration) conference describes eight roles of the good administrator, each of which implies many task elements: The role of prophet. . The role of chairman. The role of organizer. The role of executive. The role of policy formulator. . The role of technical consultant and technician. . The role of decision maker. . The role Of leader. mummwaH The School—DevelOpment Study at Ohio State Univer- sity9 indicates the following areas as desirable behavior of educational administrators. 1. Setting goals. This is the establishment of the overall Objectives Of the education program and the lesser and more immediate goals Of individual schools and teachers. The achievement Of goals is dependent upon the understanding and acceptance Of common goals by those who are expected to achieve them. Therefore, one of the important areas Of administrative behavior is the setting of educational goals. 2. Making policy. All who are affected by policy should share in making it. Therefore, an important area of administrative behavior and leadership is that 8L. D. Haskew, "Description Of a Good Administrator" (paper delivered at the Southwestern CPEA December Confer- ence on Improving Preparation Programs for School Adminis- trators, Austin, Texas, University of Texas, Southwestern CPEA, 1951), pp. 4—9. 9John A. Ramseyer, Lewis E. Harris, Millard Z. Pond, and Howard Wakefield. Factors Affecting Educational Admin- istration, CPEA series (Columbus, Ohio: College of Educa— tion, Ohio State University, 1955), pp. 18—56. 29 of developing educational policy with all who will operate in keeping with it. 3. Determining roles. Personnel in school sys— tems should have clear assignments. It is the adminis- trator‘s responsibility to clarify and determine roles for and with the staff members with whom he works. 4. Coordinating administrative functions and structure. The administrator must operate in such a way that all the educational activities are coordinated and properly fitted together. Charting the course and seeing all the elements in proper perspective is an important area of administrative behavior. 5. Appraising effectiveness. The administrator must provide leadership in the continuous and searching appraisal of the educational program. Therefore, prep- aration programs should provide learning experience in effective evaluation of educational programs. 6. Working with community leadership to promote improvements in education. An important area of admin- istrative behavior is in working with community leaders and agencies and in using community resources to improve educational programs. These skills and behaviors are developed best through guided learning experiences in real communities. 7. Using the educational resources of the commu— nity (see 6 above). 8. Involving people."When people share——people care" is an important maxim in educational leadership. Sup— port Of the educational program is closely related to the extent of one's participation in it. Therefore, among the skills and behaviors the educational adminis— trator needs are those which relate to working with groups and involving staff and community in educational planning, development, and appraisal. 9. Communicating. This is "the ebb and flow of feelings and ideas among people." It is reading, lis— tening, speaking, writing, depicting. It is comprehend- ing and making comprehensible that which one wishes to communicate. It is the desire to make one's feelings and ideas crystal clear to others. Fisk,10 by assuming a constant community philosophy, indicates three approaches to the definition of the task of educational administration. These may be described as: loRobert S. Fisk, "The Tasks of Educational Adminis— tration," in Administrative Behavior in Education, ed. by Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 200-201. 30 l. A definition arrived at by an outside observer based on what is happening in the administrative pro- cess as he views it. This may be described as the observed actuality of educational administration. 2. A definition arrived at by an outside observer based on what he believes should be the behavior of educational administration. This may be described as the socially-desired definition of educational admin- istration. 3. A definition arrived at by a school administra— tor trying to perceive his responsibilities. This may . be described as the man—on-the—job definition. Fiskll also indicates that: There may be a significant difference between the definition of the task of educational administration which is socially desired and that which is seen by the man-on-the-job. It would appear logical that the greater the congruence between the two definitions, the greater the potential for sound administration and, more important yet, sound education. . . . There will be a ‘ continuing challenge to the educational administrators } themselves to demonstrate behavior which points to con- gruence between the intellectual and the personal com- prehension of the full dimensions of the organization task. One may through prior training and experience be able to verbalize the task in phrases completely consistent with the socially desired definition. But the leader's behavior will necessarily reflect his per— sonal perception of the task. To bring the personal and the intellectual definitions into reasonable con— gruence will require the development of those habits of mind and behavior which lead the administrator to be a student of educational administration as well as prac- titioner. Fisk12 lists four major categories of responsibili— ties which are based on a statement prepared by the Middle Atlantic Region Cooperative Program in Educational Adminis- tration: llIbid., p. 226. lzIbid., pp. 211-225. It 31 l. Relating to the community. a. b. C. d. e. f. g. h. Responsibility for community improvement. Responsibility for defining educational need. Responsibility for working with the board of education. Responsibility for interpreting the educational program. Responsibility for encouraging community support of education. Responsibility for interpreting the role of other agencies. Responsibility for interpreting community mores to the professional staff. Responsibility for establishing communication between school and community. 2. Improvement of educational opportunity. a. b. C. d. Responsibility for defining the philosophy and objectives of the schools. Responsibility for continuous evaluation Of the educational program. Responsibility for establishing an appropriate organization. Responsibility for establishing appropriate processes. 3. Obtaining, developing, and improving personnel. a. b. c. d. Responsibility for policy development. Responsibility for continuous professional development. Responsibility for evaluation of performance. Responsibility for consideration of personnel. 4. Providing and maintaining funds and facilities. a. b c. It Responsibility for demonstrating technical competence. Responsibility for balanced judgment. Responsibility for coordination in the area of funds and facilities. needs to be noted that within each of the above major categories Fisk lists numerous specific administrative responsibilities. But since persons may differ within allowable limits Of consensus in the way or manner they carry out the same responsibility, Fisk urges that the above statements should not be taken as all inclusive. They may help one to gain insight into the administrative responsibil- ities and the administrative task. II» 32 In summary, administration as defined above is the process through which appropriate human and material resources are made available and made effective for accomplishing the purposes Of an enterprise. It is a process in which the human element is of vital importance. It is a process of human interaction. The school as an organization is made up of people in interaction with one another. People-—with their unique qualities, their own social, economic, educational back— grounds, their experiences, their need-dispositions, value- orientations and expectations--occupy key positions within the school organization. They are there with many different personal goals and needs, and at the same time they are there to achieve the goals of the organization. Therefore, the essential task of the principal is to arrange organi- zational conditions and methods of operation so that people can best achieve their own goals by directing their efforts toward organizational goals. Theoretical Aspects of the Principal's Role Though no overall theory of school administration has yet been fully developed, there is a growing body of models which might be of help to the principal in his per- formance. Principals may make use of the results of scholarly study Of the phenomena of administration from several dis- ciplines, such as psychology, sociology, political science, 33 and economics. Reported experiences of administrators in other types of institutions——hospitals, military organiza— tions, government agencies, and industry—~may also be Of great help to school principals to re—examine their role expectations and role performance, in an attempt to improve them. There is much available in the literature to aid principals, but it is still the principal's task to deter— mine the relevance Of the data supplied. TO make use of available data requires that principals be able to evaluate theoretical and empirical data in terms of their applicabil— ity to a particular or unique situation: the principalship. Campbelll3 points out that One theory or principle never completely covers a situation. Any wise administrator, for example, will temper his theory of role expectations with a sympathetic understanding of personal and individual needs. Both of these in turn he will stand prepared to adjust to each unique situation. Combinations of theories, adjusted through actual experience, are the ultimate guides to administrator behavior. 4 Saxel Observes: The theoretical basis of the principalship is part of the more inclusive theory Of educational administra— tion. The theory of educational administration is similar to the theories Of other kinds of administration, l3Merton V. Campbell, "Teacher—Principal Agreement on the Teacher Role," Administrator's Notebook, The Univer- sity of Chicago, VIII, 6 (1959). 14Richard W. Saxe, "The Principal and Theory," in Perspectives on the Changing Role of the Principal, ed. by Richard W. Saxe (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1968), p. 5. 34 governmental, industrial or military. All these institutions, wherever found, are confronted with one common dilemma: getting the job done, and at the same time, preserving the good feelings of the workers. This seemingly paradoxical task can be stated in many ways. Perhaps it is more Often presented as the prob- lem Of reconciling the general needs of the larger society with the particular needs of the individual. This point has received attention from scholars in various disciplines. Barnard15 formulated the now—famous concepts Of effectiveness and efficiency: The persistence of cooperation depends upon two conditions: (a) its effectiveness; and (b) its effi— ciency. Effectiveness relates to accomplishment of the COOperative purpose, which is social and non— personal in character. Efficiency relates to the satisfaction of individual motives and is personal in character. The test of effectiveness is the accom— plishmentci a common purpose or purposes; effectiveness can be measured. The test Of efficiency is the elicit- ing of sufficient individual wills to cooperate. Halpin,l6 in defining some of the terms in his study of the dimensions of leader behavior, expresses the same idea as follows: Initiating Structure refers to the leader's beha— vior in delineating the relationship between himself and members Of the work—group, and in endeavoring to establish well—defined patterns of organization, chan- nels Of communication, and methods of procedure. Con- sideration refers to behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and the members of his staff. . . . Leaders must contribute to both, goal achievement and group maintenance. 15Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938), pp. 60-61. 16 Andrew W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior Of School Superintendents (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1959), pp. 4—6. III» 35 The Getzels—Cuba Model The Getzels-Guba Model is a widely known and widely used theoretical approach to administration. It also embraces Barnard's basic idea of efficiency and effective— ness. In the model, administration is considered as a social process. Getzels and Gubal7 define administration as the process of dealing with the conduct Of social behavior in a hierarchical setting. Structurally, they conceive of admin— istration as a series of superordinate—subordinate relation— ships within a social system. Functionally, they describe this hierarchy of relationships as the focus for allocating and integrating roles, personnel, and facilities. The authors describe a social system as having two major dimen- sions, the nomothetic dimension, and the idiographic dimen— sion. Nomothetic aspects of the social system: Each institution set up by society is responsible for a particu- lar function or functions. Each institution is purposive. For instance, schools are established to educate. In order to achieve its goals, human beings are acquired who, in turn, are assigned specific roles to perform. Each human agent is expected to follow his institutional role which may be further defined in a job description. Systems Of 17J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," The School Review, LXV (Winter, 1957), 423-41. 36 reward and punishment are maintained by the institution to assure that the roles are followed or performed. Idiographic aspects of the social system: Similarly, each individual in the social system has his unique personal need-dispositions which are known to be powerful determinants of behavior. Obviously, the personality and personal need— dispositions of the individual may not be in harmony with the role assigned him by the institution. Getzels and Guba suggest further that in order to understand the behavior of any individual within an institu— tion, we need to know both the role expectation of the institution and the need—dispositions Of the individual. When an individual performs up to his role expectation we say he is adjusted to his role and is effective. When he fulfills all his needs, we say he is integrated or effi— cient. Hopefully, each member of an institution such as a school is both effective in his job and efficient as a per— son. Getzels and Guba have represented the relationship pictorially, as indicated in Figure l. The point which Getzels and Guba stress is that satisfaction increases as expectations of the institution become more congruent with individual needs—-Or, in other words, when the individual can satisfy his own needs while fulfilling his institutional role. As Getzels and Guba state, “The unique task of administration, at least with respect to staff relations, 37 .ama .Aamaav >xa .3ma>mm Hoorom was =.mmmooaa m>flumwumecafip< mflp one u0fi>m30m Hoeoom: .mosw .0 .m one mammpow .3 .h “condom .noa>mno3 Hmaoom mo mcoemcmEep assemuoo pcm o>HDoEHoc OQBII.H mudmflm ZOHMZMZHD AOHmmdeOHQHV fidzommmm k\\\\\\coeuHmOQmHOIUOOZATIIIII%ueamsomumm ATIIIIHmspfl>AOQH H0e>mcom Af/////.Emum%m 280m 4/ \\ 380m coflumuowmxm AA) oaom.ATllllllcOausuHumcH ZOHWZMEHQ AUHBMEHOZOZV m>HB¢ZmOZ 38 is just this: to integrate the demands Of the institution and the demands of the staff members in a way that is at once organizationally productive and individually fulfilling."18 It is desirable that the individual be able to meet both the expectations held for him by the institution and the needs Of his own personality. TO achieve this requires that the expectations and needs be perfectly congruent. Such an ideal situation is never realized. Needs and expectations rarely if ever exactly coincide. It can safely be argued that a varying amount of strain or conflict is almost inev— itable. The maintenance of staff effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction can be considered as continual administra— tive problems in organizations, and the Getzels—Guba Model attempts to clarify these vague and interchangeably used terms. The model views the significant distinctions and interactions among effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfac— tion in terms Of the relationships among the primary ele— ments Of the model: i.e. role—expectations and need— dispositions. The relation of role—expectations and need—dispositions is depicted in Figure 2. (More detailed discussion may be found in the Getzels and associates studies.lg) 18Ibid., pp. 423—41. 1 . 9Jacob W. Getzels, James M. Lipham, and Roald F. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), pp. 108—155. 39 Role ;:Expectations Satisfaction BEHAVIOR P . ‘M 1‘L ' . ///////r ersonality rweed—DispOSitions Figure 2.-—Re1ations of role expectations and need- dispositions to effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Source: J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," The School Review, LXV (1957), 433. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell20 consider the concept Of morale and explain that Morale is generally taken to refer to a feeling- tone of belongingness in a group and identification with the goals of the group. In the present formula- tion, it is seen as the pattern of affect underlying effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. This viewpoint takes into account the two elements most Often included in the literature on morale, namely, belongingness and identification, and suggests a third element, rationality, which, although Often over— looked, is as vital as the other two. The nature Of morale from this standpoint may be comprehended by reference to Figure 3, which presents the relationship between role expectations and need—dispositions and the goals Of the system. This vieWpoint presents the idea that, when the needs Of the individual and the goals of the system are congruent, there is a feeling of identification with the ZOIbid., pp. 130-131. 40 system. When the needs of the individual and the expecta— tions of the role—set are congruent, there is a feeling of satisfaction and belongingness in the system. When the expectations of the roles and the goals of the system are congruent, there is a feeling of rationality regarding the system.(Again, a detailed discussion of the matter may be found in Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell'le book.) Role Expectations la E L O N G I joals of the System N G N E S Sr Need- Dispositions Figure 3.——The dimensions of morale. Source: J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, ”Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," The School Review, LXV (1957), 437. Getzels, thinking that both the institutional expec- tation and the individual dispositions have, at least to 2libid., pp. 132—145. III» 41 some extent, their source in and are related to the culture in which the system operates, added another dimension, culture, to his model. The model is shown in Figure 4. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell,22 in discussing the applicability of the model to administrative dilemmas, state that: Although models cannot indicate what needs to be done-—these must come from the administrator's judgment and resources applied to his understanding--they can contribute to understanding. If we may return to the map analogy, a map cannot tell one the goals or the vehicle, but it can clarify the nature of the terrain to be covered and the problems involved so that a more informed decision about goals and vehicles can be made. From this point Of view, the model can be applied to immediate and concrete problems facing the administrator. Hill,23 in his article, "A New Concept Of Staff Relations," presents the Getzels and Guba Model and suggests: As Getzels and Guba have indicated, a knowledge or a manipulation of concepts of the sort described here will not automatically improve administrative practice. We firmly believe, however, that the application of systematic social science concepts can be of consider— able assistance to the practicing school administrator. First, it can provide the administrator with a frame- work within which he may systematize many seemingly unrelated experiences and observations. It can provide a reference point, a bench mark as it were, to which he may relate a wide range of knowledge. Second, the clar— ity and precision with which these concepts are defined can enable the administrator to think about and discuss ideas which, while already intuitively known to him, were somewhat vague and ambiguous. Third, the adminis— trator may find such concepts useful in revealing his blind spots--situations and factors to which he might profitably devote more attention. 221bid., p. 407. 23R. J. Hills, "A New Concept of Staff Relations," in Administrator's Notebook, The University of Chicago, VIII, 7 (1960). 42 .mam .a .Amaaa .aoomm mam amaaa "zonmomv menu .a .z cam ..Hh .mHOpucnu .3 .3 kn .pm .QOADMOSGM wo hmoaocuwwm Hmeoom one be mmdflpmmm CH :.mcflwuom Hchflpmocpm OLD Ge HOH>mcom oaom pcm DOHHWCOO: .mammumw .3 .h "condom .Hofl>mcog Hmeoom mo chemcmEHU HonmE mo HopoE HmQOHDMHOQOII.v musmem mosam> A monumimwouasu fi 7 r A , chepHmommfloucomzAilhpaamsom Hem AIIIHMDUCVHUGH , , , wofl>mnom Emumwm Hofloom Hafioom J 1 .1 chepwpommxm.lTl. maom.4lllllllcofluzpepmcH . , : $33, A monum i 9.835 43 The Getzels and Guba Model presents a systematic way Of looking at the social system and social behavior. The institution and individual (institutional expectations and personal need—dispositions) are viewed as two basic elements Of the social system and the social behavior is explained in terms of these two primary elements and their constant interactions within their own culture. The model gives distinctions to the terms "effec- tiveness," "efficiency," and ”satisfaction,‘ and tries to explain these concepts and their interactions from the point of View Of the basic elements of the model—-institutional expectations and personal need-dispositions. The model also discusses the concepts "belongingness,” "identification," "rationality,' and ”goals of the system,” and points to the relationships between these concepts and institutional expectations and personal need-dispositions, the primary factors of the social system. In short, institutional expectations and need- dispositions are the two key elements Of the model by which effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, the perennial administrative problems, are illuminated. The Concept of Equilibrium Equilibrium is a concept of importance to educational administration. Chin distinguishes between different types Of equilibrium as follows: "A stationary equilibrium exists when there is a fixed point or level of balance to which the III» 44 system returns after disturbance. . . . A dynamic equilibrium exists when the equilibrium shifts to a new position Of bal- ance after disturbance."24 Current literature on systems theory usually refers to stationary equilibrium as "equili- brium, and to dynamic equilibrium as "steady state." Chin theorized that a system in equilibrium reacts to outside impingements by: (l) resisting the influence of the disturbance, refusing to acknowledge its existence, or by building a protective wall against the intrusion, and by other defensive maneuvers. . . ; (2) By resisting the distur- bance through bringing into Operation the homeostatic forces that restore or re—create a balance. (3) By accommodating the disturbance through achieving a new equilibrium. Strategies (1) and (2) are designed to attain a stationary equilibrium without making changes; strategy (3) is designed to attain a dynamic equilibrium or steady state by making changes. Morphet, Johns, and Reller26 state that The concepts Of stationary equilibrium and dynamic equilibrium or steady state are Of great significance to educational administrators because of the conse— quences of alternate strategies to the social system called the school system, which is at the present time 24Robert Chin, "The Utility of Systems Models and Developmental Models for Practitioners," in Planning of Change, ed. by Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), P. 205. 251bid., p. 205. 26Edgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller, Educational Organization and Administration (Engle— wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), p. 69. 45 receiving more signals from its environment than ever before. 27 . . . . The authors continue their discuSSion: The concept of "feedback" is closely related to the concept of equilibrium. "Cybernetics" is the study of feedback control. Lonsdale defines feedback as fol- lows: "As applied to organization, feedback is the process through which the organization learns: it is the input from the environment to the system telling it how it is doing as a result of its output to the environ— ment." It is hypothesized that if any social system fails to learn from its environment, it will eventually fail to survive in that environment or the environ- ment will force changes in the system. If research sustains this hypothesis, what will be the eventual fate Of a school system that makes continuous use of strate- gies to maintain stationary equilibrium. After discussing other concepts of equilibrium, . . 2 Morphet and his assoc1ates 8 conclude that Any living system, including such social systems as the school system, has a precarious existence. It needs feedback in order to receive the information necessary for the syStem to serve the environment and to adjust to it, if the system is to survive. But the feedback disturbs the equilibrium and if the steady state cannot be restored, the system will break down. Change is necessary for the survival of the system, but it usually causes stress and strain. These times, which require a rate of change greater than ever before, present an unparalleled challenge to the educational administrator to provide leadership for making desirable innovations and at the same time maintain a dynamic equilibrium in the school system. The Concept of Compliance "Compliance Relationship" is another concept related to educational administration. The following presentation of this concept, which was formulated by Amitai Etzioni, is 27Ibid., p. 69. 281bid. 46 based on the discussion of the concept found in Morphet and associates.29 It is assumed that any formal organization must ful- fill its purposes at least to the extent required by its environment or it will cease to exist or be substantially restructured. It is also assumed that the actors in an organization must accept the organizational roles assigned to them and comply with the directives of superordinates, if the organization is to accomplish its purpose. Etzioni has formulated a middle-range theory Of organization, utilizing compliance as the primary variable for the classifications in his typology. He defines com— pliance as "a relation in which an actor behaves in accor- dance with a directive supported by another actor's power, and the orientation of the subordinated actor to the power applied."3O Etzioni assumed that the exercise of power involved the manipulation of physical, material, and symbolic means to secure rewards and deprivations, depending upon a person's perception of the legitimacy of the exercise of power by his superordinate and the need—disposition of his subordinate. These factors determine the involvement of the individual 29 Ibid., pp. 70-71. 3OAmitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis Of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), p. 3. 47 in the organization, ranging on a continuum from positive to negative. Another basic assumption of Etzioni's middle—range theory is that social order in an organization is accounted for by three sources Of control: coercion, economic assets, and normative values. . .31 . . . EtZioni further theorized that organizations exhibiting similar compliance structures exhibit similar goals. Goals are classified as "order, economic, and cul— tural." Organizations with economic goals produce commodi- ties and services supplied to outsiders. Organizations with order goals attempt to control actors who are deviants in the eyes of some social unit the organization is serving. Organizations with cultural goals attempt to preserve and create culture and to create or reinforce commitments to these ends. . 32 Morphet and aSSOCiates argue that Etzioni's theories have many applications to edu- cational administration. Should the same means of power be used on all classes Of actors in an educational organization to Obtain compliance? For example, should there be any differences in the types Of power used with teachers, custodians, secretaries, and students? Assum— ing that the goal Of the total school system is cultural, can it be assumed that the goal of each subsystem is cultural? If a new principal uses normative power at the first meeting Of his faculty, coercive power at the second meeting, and normative power again at the third meeting, what kind of involvement on the part of the faculty can he anticipate at the third faculty meeting? 3lIbid., pp. 72-73. 32Morphet, Op. cit., p. 71. 48 The Concept Of Innovation and Change Another concept related to administration is "inno— vation and change." Presthus has developed a theory relat- ing to the individual's reaction to the organization in which he finds himself. He assumes that organizations have manifest as well as latent goals. "The manifest goal of private cor— porations is to produce and sell certain products at a profit. Their latent or 'unofficial' goals, however, include all the aspirations of their members for security, recognition, and self—realization."33 Presthus hypothesized that the attain- ment Of the manifest goals would be promoted by recognition Of the legitimacy Of the latent goals of the actors in the organization. As he put it, Such latent goals and the methods used to gain them are Often regarded as aberrations. They seem to subvert organizational ends. However, a major assumption here is not only that such aspirations and methods are legitimate, but that they ofpin help the organization achieve its manifest goals. It is noteworthy that Presthus' assumption bears a close resemblance to the assumption on which the Getzels and Guba Model is built. Thompson has theorized that the bureaucratic, hier— archical type Of organization advocated by Max Weber retards 33Robert Presthus, The Organizational Sociepy (New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, Inc., 1962), p. 4. 34Ibid., p. 4. 49 innovation. He hypothesized that "other things being equal, the less bureaucratized (monocratic) the organization, the more conflict and uncertainty and the more innovation."35 Based on this hypothesis, Thompson36 proposed that the hier— archical organization be "loosened up" and made less tidy, if innovation and change were desired: In the innovative organization, departmentalization must be arranged so as to keep parochialism to a mini— mum. Some overlapping and duplication, some vagueness about jurisdictions, make a gOOd deal Of communication necessary. People have to define and re—define their responsibilities continually, case after case. They have to probe and seek for help. New problems cannot with certainty be rejected as ultra vires. Morphet and associates have commented on the Thompson model that ”Thompson assumed in his organizational model that some immediate production must be sacrificed in order to assure innovation within the organization."37 Another theoretical model which may be related to administration and for the purposes of the present study may be helpful in the analyses to follow is the Gouldner Model.38 This model attempts to explain the phenomenon referred to as unanticipated consequences. Planned change may be described as a conscious effort to improve the Operation Of a social system. For 5 . . 3 Victor A. Thompson, "Bureaucracy and Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, X, l (1965), 4. 36Ibid., p. 15. 37Morphet, Op. cit., p. 73. James G. March and Herbert Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), pp. 44—46. 50 example, certain techniques may be applied to increase the effectiveness Of the organization or efficiency of the indi- vidual. It is assumed that the techniques will lead to specific predictable results. However, planned change may result in either anticipated or unanticipated results, or both. The Gouldner model focuses our attention on the existence Of the phenomenon and an explanation Of it based on principles of human behavior. Cruickshank comments on the Gouldner model and states that "The ability Of the administrator to effect intended or planned change is at least a partial function of his awareness of and ability to cope with the phenomenon Of unanticipated change,"39 and it may fairly be said that the principal's awareness of existing theories in the field Of administration may very well help him to better play his role to achieve both the institutional and personal Objec— tives Of the school organization. The Characteristics Of Effective Principals The principal is the chief responsible administrator in the school. He is in a position to affect attitude, social climate, morale, progress, cooperation, and direction 9Donald R. Cruickshank, "The Use of Theory in Edu— cational Administration," The National Elementary Principal, XLIV, 6 (1965), 50. 1| 51 Of efforts in the school. From this point of view, principal— ship and leadership may be considered synonymous. It is a commonly shared belief that leadership beha- vior is closely related to society, culture, organization, and the group in which it functions. In other words, leadership behavior cannot be discussed or viewed apart from the purpose and the nature Of organizations, the nature of the task, and cultural values Of the time. . 4 Lane, CorWin, and Monahan 0 state that It is inescapable fact that the nature Of leader- ship cannot be understood apart from its complex, bureaucratic context and the "power" environment. For although leaders deal directly with individuals, ultimately it is organizations-—that is, group tradi— tions, established relationships, and vested interests groups——which are their main concern. Clearly, the problems, dilemmas, and inconsistencies of the organi— zation and of the society are the problems of the leaders. They constitute the leadership setting. Halpin says that ”The behavior of the leader and the behavior Of group members are inextricably interwoven, and the behavior Of both is determined to a great degree by for- mal requirements imposed by the institution of which the . "41 group is a part. 4 . . OWillard R. Lane, R. G. CorWin, and W. G. Monahan, Foundations of Educational Administration (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 301. 1Andrew W. Halpin, "How Leaders Behave," in Organi- zations and Human Behavior, ed. by Fred D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1969), p. 288. 52 Sanford42 has summarized the situation: (a) there are either no general leadership traits or if they do exist, they are not to be described in any of our familiar psychological or common—sense terms, (b) in a specific situation, leaders do have traits which set them apart from what followers will vary from situation to situation. The same point of view stated above is also shared by Fiedler.43 He indicates that Leadership effectiveness, that is, effective group performance, depends just as much on the group situation as it does on the leader. One style of leadership is not in itself better than the other, nor is one type of leadership behavior appropriate for all conditions. Hence, almost everyone should be able to succeed as a leader in some situations and almost everyone is likely to fail in others. . . . And if leadership performance is in fact a product of both the individual‘s leadership style and the leadership situation then it is logically impossible that one leadership style could serve in every context. Cummings discusses the same point, and concludes that "The most effective style of leadership will vary with the situation and that perhaps the most successful general style will encompass some combinations of the behaviors character~ istic of both the employee and production-centered manager."44 The underlying idea of the above arguments is that leadership behavior is determined and conditioned by the 4 . . . 2Fillmore H. Sanford, "Research on Military Leader— ship," in Psychology in the World Emergency, ed. by John C. Flanagan (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1952), p. 51. 43Fred B. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effective— ness (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967), p. 247. 44L. L. Cummings, "The Manager as a Leader," in Edue cational Administration, ed. by W. G. Hack, et al. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), p. 187. 53 nature and purpose of the organization or group in which it functions. Therefore it needs to be viewed in its context and environment. In discussing the human factor in social systems, Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell45 state that Social systems are inhabited by living people with hates and loves, fears and aspirations, and roles are filled by flesh—and—blood individuals, no two of whom are quite the same. Each stamps the particular role he occupies with the unique style of his own characteris— tic pattern of expressive behavior. Not all adminis- trators "administer," not all workers "work," not all teachers "teach," not all students "study"——at least not in the same way. The findings of the study conducted by Lipham46 por— tray the effective principal . . . as inclined to engage in strong and purpose— ful activity, concerned with achieving success and positions of higher status, able to relate well to others, secure in interpersonal relationships, and stable in the face of highly affective stimuli. In discussing the requirements of the administrator's job, Griffiths47 points out a "three skill" approach. He identifies these skills as technical, human, and conceptual. In evaluating the relative values of the various skills, Griffiths concludes that human and conceptual skills are more important to successful administration than are technical 45Getzels, et al., op. cit., p. 78. 46James M. Lipham, "Personal Variables of Effective Administrators," Administrator's Notebook, The University of Chicago, IX, 1 (1960). 7Daniel E. Griffiths, Human Relations in School Administration (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1956), pp. 8-20. 54 skills. He goes on to argue that the effective principal knows what goes on in his school. He is alert to problem situations and aware of personal difficulties, and once aware of them, he takes steps toward their solution. In addition, he must be able to interpret his school and his program to the community. In these areas, the administrator needs all of his "human—skills," to employ his best human relations. "Human relations" are, in effect, democracy in action, a firm belief in the worth of the individual. The ideal principal translates such beliefs into action, build- ing on a foundation of mutual respect, good will, and faith in the individual. According to Jack R. Gibb,48 The most effective leader is one who acts as a catalyst, a consultant, and a resource to the group. His jcfl> is to help the group to grow, to emerge, and to become more free. He serves the group best when he is a whole person, is direct, real, open, spontaneous, permissive, emotional and highly personal. The leader at his best is an effec- tive member. He acts in such a way as to facilitate group strength, individual responsibility, diversity, non- conformity and aggressiveness. Effective leadership grows with communication in depth. Effective leadership is hampered by all forces which inhibit or restrain communication in depth. Ingils49 states that 48Jack R. Gibb, "Dynamics of Leadership," in Organiza- tions and Human Behavior, ed. by Fred D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1969), pp. 316—324. 49Chester Ingils, ”Advice to Administrators: Clues for Success," The Clearing House, September, 1967, p. 445. 55 The effective administrator should be more concerned with the development of people in the light of the objec- tives than with the technical problems of the operation of the organization. The administrator who has made the psychological transition from the attitudes of the teacher who is always exclusively concerned with his own performance to the role of the administrator who is concerned with the direction of the organization and the development of the personnel to guarantee the success of the unit, has attained the image of leader. This is the administrative leader who will be favored with increas- ingly competent employees and a healthy, vital organi— zation. Brown50 suggested that school staffs tend to dis— tinguish three clusters of effective principals: (a) those responding chiefly to system needs (high scores on initiating structure, production emphasis, representation, role assumption); (b) those responding chiefly to the need for effective transaction between the institution and the person (high integration, predictive accuracy, superior orientation, demand reconciliation scores); and (c) those responding chiefly to idiosyncratic needs of staff (high tolerance of freedom, tolerance of uncertainty, and consideration). Moyer51 studied "Teachers' Attitudes Toward Leader— ship as They Relate to Teacher Satisfaction." His findings indicate that: They [teachers] suggest that the principal or superintendent, to be the leader, must be aware of the attitudes of the teachers, their individual, subgroup, and collective differences and similarities. Equipped with this knowledge of the nature of his group, he could increase the effectiveness of the group and his function by seeking to unify and harmonize the prevail- ing differences among them and, at the same time, 50Alan F. Brown, "Reactions to Leadership," Educa— tional Administration Quarterly, III, 1 (1967). 51Donald C. Moyer, "Leadership That Teachers Want," Administrator's Notebook, The University of Chicago, III, 1 (1955). 56 attempt to bring his own leadership attitudes into a compatible relationship with his group. His posi— tion of leadership will probably be even stronger if his attitudes are beyond the aspirational tendencies of the group. . . . The school administrator must be keenly aware of his subordinates' attitudes toward authority and leadership, whether they be socially or personality dictated. He must identify their nature and direction. . . trying to unify these attitudes among the various groups and taking steps to modify his own behavior to match and perhaps exceed the aspirations of his subordinates. Campbell's52 study reveals that The highly satisfied teachers consistently referred to certain attributes of their principals, such as scholarly attitude, general competency, making the teachers feel worthy, guidance without interference, making it easy for teachers to teach, maintaining good discipline, patience, understanding, fine personality, and courteous manner. Becker53 found a definite set of expectations of Chicago teachers with respect to the principal. Among these are that the principal: (1) should protect the teachers' authority Vis—a—Vis parents and pupils, always upholding the teacher, no matter who is at fault; (2) should not ”spy" on teachers or give arbitrary orders; (3) should allocate rights and duties "fairly." Scully54 reported that the most frequently mentioned contributor to satisfaction was that teachers were "permitted 52Merton V. Campbell, "Teacher—Principal Agreement on the Teacher Role," Administrator's Notebook, The University of Chicago, VII, 6 (1959). 53H. S. Becker, "Role and Career Problems of the Chicago Public School Teacher" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, 1951). 54Emily Marie Scully, "Personnel Administration in Public Education: A Study in Human Relationships" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School, University of Wisconsin, 1945). 57 freedom from interference." It was stressed that the prin- cipal's availability and willingness to cooperate, and his tendency to regard teachers as fellow workers rather than as subordinates facilitated freedom from interference. Chase55 found that teachers, in their comments on relationships with the principals, emphasize such things as: (1) helpfulness in solving problems of instruction and pupil adjustment; (2) contributions to the profes— sional growth of teachers; (3) respect for the teacher's competence and "democratic" administration; and (4) friendliness, understanding, and interest in the teacher's work. Prince indicated that "the degree of congruence in values between teachers and principals is directly related to the teacher's confidence in leadership and to the teacher's rating of the principal's effectiveness."56 The findings of the study by R. E. Sternhoff as reported by Savage and Beem,57 in terms of describing the characteristics of the effective principal, encompass the views and findings stated above and are as follows: 1. Interprets adequately the status, needs, problems, policies, and plans for the school. 2. Provides pertinent information concerning school 5Francis S. Chase, "Professional Leadership and Teacher Morale," Administrator's Notebook, The University of Chicago, I, 8 (1953). 6Richard Prince, "Individual Values and Administra- tive Effectiveness," Administrator's Notebook, The University of Chicago, VI, 4 (1957). 57William W. Savage and Harlan D. Beem, "The Effec- tive Administrator," Administrator's Notebook, The Univer- sity of Chicago, II, 2 (1953). \lm 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 58 problems, and suspends judgement until the per— tinent facts have been examined. Conducts all school affairs in an honest, ethical, and tactful manner. Utilizes consultants and specialists outside the school and c00perates with them in solving educa- tional problems. Encourages all persons who will be affected to participate in policy development, and stimulates COOperative planning. Administers discipline effectively. Deals impartially and equitably with all individuals and groups. Shows a sincere interest in the welfare of school personnel. Organizes citizen or parent advisory groups, and cooperates with them in study and solution of school problems. Willingly devotes extra time to important school affairs. Thoroughly understands the important requirements of jobs under his supervision, selects and assigns per- sons according to the requirements, and promotes growth of personnel. Courageously demands that recommendations he con— siders necessary for the welfare of the school be accepted and holds to these recommendations in the face of unjust pressures and influences, in spite of jeopardy to his personal position. Accepts criticism gracefully. Conducts meetings and conferences effectively. Organizes the schools to offer community services and provides for community use of school facilities. Accepts full responsibility for achieving the edu- cational objectives of the school system. Ably defends the school, school personnel, and himself from unwarranted criticism and unjust action. Safeguards the health of school personnel and pro— vides for their personal safety. Sets a good example by his own personal behavior. Encourages interested persons to visit the schools and board meetings. Provides counseling and other guidance services for school personnel. Administers the budget prudently and keeps accurate financial records. Speaks effectively. Initiates action promptly in cases of emergency. Familiarizes himself with school board policy before making public statements or taking action. 59 26. Identifies himself with the policies of the school system, and supports those policies. 27. Utilizes parents, and cooperates with them, to solve pupil problems satisfactorily. These several points may be considered to constitute a rough behavioral description of effective school principals. These points can also be interpreted by school principals in performing their roles as the expectations of their relevant others. Since the concept of role expectation is crucial for the present study, the rest of this chapter will be devoted to a discussion of this concept. The Concept of Role Expectation The basic premise is that an individual is most effective in his group when he perceives he is behaving as he believes he should and when he perceives that his beha- vior is in agreement with what relevant others expect of him. Fosket58 makes this point as follows: . . . From a sociological perspective there are two basic dimensions to the conception that individuals have of their position in a given social system. One dimension consists of what the individual himself regards as prOper behavior and the other dimension con- Sists of the perceptions he has of the views of relevant others regarding prOper conduct for one in his position. Thus, a principal's View of his position as principal will include both what he believes he should do in a given situation and what he believes to be the views of such relevant others as teachers, parents, citizens, community leaders, members of the school board, and the superintendent of schools. . . . 58John M. Foskett, The Normative World of the Elemen— tary School Principal (Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1967), pp. 15—16. 60 The ways of acting or norms that individuals come to accept as proper for themselves are in part a result of the internalization of what they think others expect of them. Also, the way individuals View their own position involves an awareness of differences between self expectations and expectations of others as well as an awareness of differences between the expec- tations of different categories of others. . . . If an individual sees relevant others as having the same normative views as his own, there will tend to be a reinforcement of his views and a tendency to act in accordance with such views. . . Further, if the perceptions that an individual has of the normative views of relevant others are accurate, any modification of his own views or his actual behavior may lead to normative integration and more effective relationships. But if perceptions are incorrect, the individual may be led to modify his own views or beha- vior on the basis of a fiction and hence decrease rather than increase normative integration and add to conflict. The underlying idea of Fosket's argument, which also constitutes the rationale of the present study, is that an individual's view of his position as principal is made up of what he believes he should do in a given situation and what he believes to be the views of significant or relevant others. Norms that are accepted by the principal as proper are, to some degree, results of the internalization of rele— vant others' expectations. The principal's view of his position also involves an awareness of differences between self—expectations and expectations of relevant others, as well as an awareness of differences between the various expectations of relevant others. If the principal sees relevant others holding the same views as his own, this will reinforce his own views and he will act in accordance with such views. If the principal has a perception that the Views of some relevant others, though different from his own, 61 are nevertheless accurate or influential, he may modify his own views or actual behavior, and this may lead to more effective interpersonal relationships and more effective school administration. Sarbin and Allen's59 argument on the same point is in agreement with Fosket. As Sarbin and Allen state: To the extent that role expectations are unclear and ambiguous behavior will be less readily predict- able, resulting in effective and dissatisfying social interaction. In short, if role expectations are unclear the person does not know what role enactments are appropriate and cannot forecast the complementary con— duct of other interactants. Clarity of role expectations can be defined as the difference between the Optimal amount of information needed about role expectations and the amount actually available to a person. role expectation is a central concept in role theory which integrates the individual with the social struc— ture. Role expectations refer to a set of cognitions pertaining to performance (for example, rights and obligations) and qualities which the occupant of a social position ought to display. As an independent variable, role expectations affect the dependent vari- able, role enactment. Since performers do tend to conform to the role expectations, clarity and consensus of role expectations determine the degree to which role enactment is convincing, proper, and appropriate. As may be noted, the central idea of Sarbin and Allen's discussion is that clarity and consensus of role expectations are determining factors of convincing, proper, and appropriate role enactment. It is based on the idea that role performers tend to conform to the role expectations of relevant others. 59Theodore R. Sarbin and Vernon L. Allen, "Role Theory,‘ in The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (New York: Addison—Wesley Pub- lishing Co., 1969), pp. 503—506. 62 Several educational research studies have in recent years fruitfully explored the relationships between role behaviors and role expectations as they bear on effective school leadership. Many of these studies have utilized versions of the LBDQ, which was also utilized in the present study. Below are some representative studies which have employed this concept. Halpin conducted two different studies employing a version of an LBDQ form. The sample for his first study60 was composed of two groups of subjects: 64 educational administrators and 132 aircraft commanders. These adminis— trators answered the LBDQ—Ideal, and also were described on the LBDQ-Real by 428 members of their respective staffs. The 132 commanders answered the LBDQ—Ideal and were described on the LBDQ—Real by 1099 members of their respec— tive crews. The findings reported by Halpin61 are as follows: The findings support the hypothesis that leaders who function within these two different institutional settings exhibit differences in their leadership ideol— ogy and differences in their style of leadership beha— vior. Specifically, the administrators, in both leader- ship ideology and leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ, show more Consideration and less Initiation of Structure than the commanders. These differences are all significant at the .001 level of confidence. 0Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Leader— ship Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders," Harvard Educational Review, XXV (1955), 18—32. 1Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Adminis— tration (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971), pp. 103-104. 63 The leaders in both samples indicate that they should show more Consideration and greater Initiation of struc— ture than their group members perceive them as doing. These differences, too, are significant at the .001 level of confidence. These differences between the two samples on the Ideal are in the same direction as those on the Real, so that the pattern of Ideal means corres— ponds to the pattern of Real means. Halpin's62 second study aimed at determining the relationship between Unasuperintendent's own perception of how he behaves on the Initiating Structure and Consideration dimensions, as contrasted with board and staff perceptions; and, furthermore, to discover the corresponding relationship between his, the board's, and the staff's beliefs concerning how he should behave as a leader. The study covered 50 Ohio school superintendents. The findings reported by Halpin63 are: The leadership ideology of board and staff members, and of the superintendents themselves, is essentially the same. Effective or desirable leadership behavior is characterized by high scores on both Initiating Structure and Consideration. Conversely, ineffective or undesirable leadership behavior is marked by low scores on both dimensions. These findings on the leadership ideology of superintendents, staff members, and board members agree with the results of the earlier Air Force study in which it was found that aircraft commanders rated effective both by superiors and crew score high on both leader behavior dimensions. These results are also consistent with Hemphill's finding that college departments with a campus reputation for being well administered are directed by chairmen who score high on both leader behavior dimensions. 62A. W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents (Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1956. 63Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration, op. cit., p. 118. 64 Halpin's findings from his first study on educational administrators and aircraft commanders indicate that these two groups of administrators in different settings show dif— ferences in their leadership ideology and in their style of leadership behavior. This finding is consistent with the concept of leadership behavior discussed earlier in this chapter, that leadership behavior is related to and determined by its "power" environment and its social and organizational setting. Halpin's second study shows effective leadership behavior as characterized by high scores on both Initiating Structure and Consideration. Board and staff members and the superintendents showed similar leadership ideology. In other words, their expectations for leadership behavior were essentially the same and in favor of Initiating Structure and Consideration. Sweitzer64 made a study, which was conducted in 1963 in 21 different school systems in Oklahoma. Subjects included 23 superintendents, 23 elementary and 23 secondary princi— pals, and all of the teachers in each school headed by a participating principal (1044 teachers). School systems were chosen on the basis of size, type of community, and area economy . 4 . . 6 Robert E. Sweitzer, et al., Role Expectations and Perceptions of School Principals (Stillwater, Oklahoma: Research Foundation, Oklahoma State University, January, 1963. 65 The hypotheses tested concerned the responses of sub— jects as to what a specific principal should do (role expec— tations), what he does in carrying out his administrative role (role perceptions), and the relationship between these responses (fulfillment of role expectations); plus the relationship between each subject's responses and his inter— personal needs, general social values, morale, consistency of decision preferences, and the importance he gives to selected administrative tasks. The findings of the study65 with respect to the role expectations were as follows: I. Significant correlations between: A. Elementary and secondary principals with respect to the ideal behavior of elementary principals (r=.7143). B. Superintendents and elementary principals with respect to the ideal behavior of elementary principals (r=.9524). C. Superintendents and secondary principals with respect to the ideal behavior of secondary prin- cipals (r—.8155). D. Superintendents' expectations for elementary principals' and secondary principals' ideal behavior (r=.9941). 6SIbid., pp. 186—187. 66 E. Elementary teachers and elementary principals with respect to the ideal behavior of elementary principals (r=.7203). F. Secondary teachers and secondary principals with respect to the ideal behavior of secondary prin— cipals (r=.8857). G. Secondary teachers and superintendents with respect to the ideal behavior of secondary principals (r=.8889). II. Nonsignificant correlations between: A. Elementary and secondary teachers with respect to the ideal behavior of their principals (r=.6745). B. Elementary teachers and superintendents with respect to the ideal behavior of elementary prin— cipals (r=.6369). The above summary indicates that there was a signifi- cant positive correlation between the expectations of super— intendents and principals, between the expectations of elementary and secondary principals, and between the expec— tations of principals and their teachers regarding the principal's role. However, no significant correlation was found between the expectations of elementary teachers for their principal and the expectations of secondary teachers for their principal. These findings suggest that school administrators hold similar expectations regarding the principal's role but that level of school (elementary versus 67 secondary) differentiates between expectations that teachers at the two levels hold for their respective principals. Below are the rank order correlations on role per— ceptions presented in the study: I. Significant correlations between: A. Elementary and secondary principals with respect to their real behavior (r=.7143). B. Superintendents and elementary principals with reSpect to the real behavior of elementary prin— cipals. C. Superintendents and secondary principals with respect to the real behavior of secondary prin— cipals (r=.9782). D. Superintendents' perceptions of the real behavior of elementary and secondary principals (r=.9782). The above summary suggests that there was a significant positive relationship between the perceptions of superin- tendents and principals, and between the perceptions of ele- mentary and secondary principals, regarding the relative emphasis actually exhibited by principals regarding Nomothetic and Idiographic behavior in four task areas. LBDQ "should—does" differences regarding the school principal by superintendent, secondary principal, elementary principal, secondary and elementary teachers, as summarized in the study66 were: 66Ibid., pp. 206—207. 68 l. Superintendents see elementary and secondary principals giving less emphasis to Initiating Structure and Consideration than they should. 2. Principals see themselves as giving less emphasis to both Initiating Structure and Consideration than they think they should. 3. Both elementary and secondary teachers think their principals give less attention to both Initiating Structure and Consideration than they should. Summary This chapter has tried to point out that: 1. School administration may be viewed as a social process, a process of human interaction. 2. The school as an organization is made up of people with many different personal goals and needs. At the same time they are there to achieve the goals of the organization. Therefore, the essential task of the school principal is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of Operation in such a way that staff members can best achieve their own goals by directing their efforts toward organiza- tional goals. 3. There are several models and concepts which have been developed in the field of administration which may pro- vide a frame of reference for the practitioners in their role performance. The school as a social organization may be conceived as having two basic dimensions: institutional 69 expectations, and individuals' need—dispositions. These are considered to be closely related to organizational effective- ness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The principal's aware— ness of these models and concepts might help him perform his role more effectively and efficiently. 4. The characteristics of effective school principals which have been pointed out by several studies may also con- stitute a frame of reference for the principal in his role performance. These characteristics may be summarized as follows: a. To interpret adequately the status, needs, prob- lems, policies, and the plans for the school. b. To be honest, impartial, ethical, and tactful in role performance. c. To demonstrate effective human relations skills. d. To establish and maintain sound communication channels. e. To involve staff members in the decision—making process. f. To be an effective member of the staff. g. To be interested in the welfare of the school and the school personnel's work. h. To be aware of the attitudes of the staff members and to identify their nature and direction. i. To protect the staff members' authority and be fair in allocating rights and duties. 70 j. To be willing to cooperate with the staff members and to regard them as his equals. k. To be competent and able to contribute to the professional growth of the staff. 1. To believe in and respect the staff members' competence. These points may also be regarded by the principal as the expectations of his relevant others. The relevant others' expectations for the principal's role behavior are of particular importance with regard to the principal's View of his position and role performance. This argument is based on the idea that the principal's view of his position is made up of what he believes he should do in a given situ— ation, and what he believes to be the views of his relevant others. In order to have an accurate view of his position, the principal needs to be cognizant of the relevant others' expectations for his role behavior. The clarity and consensus of role expectations are conceived of as important factors of convincing, proper, and apprOpriate role performance and this may require that the expectations of the relevant others for the principal's role behavior be clearly known by the principal if he is to perform his task effectively, efficiently, and convincingly. The present research investigates consensus and congruency in role perceptions and expectations between 71 (a) Turkish teacher training school principalsFHTTSPs, and (b) two groups of their "relevant others,‘ viz., teachers with whom they have worked and inspectors who have eval- uated the performances of TTSPs. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES In this chapter a description of the methods and procedures utilized in the study is presented. This des— cription includes the instrument used in the collection of the data, and a selection of studies which utilized the instrument, the target population, the selection of the samples, the collection of data, and the analysis of the data. The Instrument Used in This Study "The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire" was adapted and employed in the present study. It is referred to as LBDQ-XII. The LBDQ was developed for use in obtaining descrip- tions of a supervisor by the group members whom he super— vises. Stogdill indicates that "it can be used to describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in any type of group or organization, provided the followers have had an oppor— tunity to observe the leader in action as the leader of their "1 group. 1Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Des— cription Questionnaire——Form XII (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of BuSiness Research, College or Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963), p. 1. 72 73 The LBDO grew out of work initiated by Hemphill2 and further developed by the staff of the Ohio State Leadership Studies Project. Shartle3 has outlined the theoretical con— siderations underlying the descriptive methods employed in the develOpment of the instrument. Halpin and Winer "conducted a factor analysis study of the LBDQ items and found two clearly defined factors——'Con— sideration' and 'Initiating Structure' and two weaker factors——'Production Emphasis' and 'Sensitiveness' or 'Social Awareness.'"4 These two subscales, Consideration and Initiation of Structure, have been widely used in empirical research, 2 . . . . . J. K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research, Monograph No. 32, 1949). 3C. L. Shartle, "Introduction," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957). 4Quoted in F. R. Ignatovich,'Types and Effects of Elementary School Principal—Leaders: A Q—Factor Analysis" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1970), P. 31. 74 in military organizations,5 in industry,6 and in edu— cation. Stogdill8 conducted a survey, the findings of which appeared to support his theory of role differentiation and group achievement and suggested ten additional factors to the LBDQ: Representation, Demand Reconciliation, Toler— ance of Uncertainty, Persuasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Production Emphasis, Predictive Accuracy, Integration, and Superior Orientation. 5A. W. Halpin, "The Leadership Behavior and Combat Performance of Airplane Commanders," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLIX (1954), 19—22; A. W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders," Harvard Educational Review, XXV (1955), 18—32. 6E. A. Fleishman, "The Description of Supervisory Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology} XXXVII (1963), 1-6; E. A. Fleishman, "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry,” in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measure- ment, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957); E. A. Fleishman, E. F. Harris, and H. E. Burtt, Leadership and Supervision in Industry (Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research, Monograph No. 33, 1956). 7A. W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Com— manders," Harvard Educational Review, XXV (1955), 18-32; A. W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School Superinten— dents: A Study of 50 Ohio Superintendents (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1958); J. K. Hemphill and A. E. Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. CoonsiIColumbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957). 8R. M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Achieve- ment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959). 75 Items were developed for the hypothesized subscales. Questionnaires incorporating the new items were adminis- tered to successive groups. After item analysis, the ques— tionnaires were revised, administered again, re-analyzed, and revised. Day9 used a revised form of the questionnaire in his study of an industrial organization. Other revisions were employed by Stogdill, Goode, and Daylo in the study of ministers, leaders in community development, United States senators, and presidents of corporations. Stogdillll has used the new scales in the study of industrial and govern- mental organizations. Form XII represents the fourth revision of the questionnaire. In Chapter II references were made to Halpin's and Sweitzer's studies which utilized versions of the LBDQ form. Other scholars who have productively utilized versions of the LBDQ form include the following: 9D. R. Day, "Basic Dimensions of Leadership in a Selected Industrial Organization" (unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, The Ohio State University, 1961). 10R. M. Stogdill, O. S. Goode, and D. R. Day, "New Leader Behavior Description Subscale," J. Psychol., LIV (1962), 259—269; R. M. Stogdill, O. S. Goode, and D. R. Day, "The Leader Behavior of United States Senators," J. Psychol., LVI (1963), 3—8; R. M. Stogdill, O. S. Goode, and D. R. Day, "The Leader Behavior of Corporation Presidents," Personnel Psychology; XVI (1963), 127—132. llR. M. Stogdill, Managers, Employees, Organizations (Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1965). 76 Mathews12 investigated the relationship between the‘ consideration and initiating structure behavior of elemen— tary school principals with the Group Dimension Descriptions developed by Hemphill. Bowmanl3 compared the rating of chief school officers on initiating structure and consideration and principals' perception of responsibility, authority, and delegation. Ignatovichl4 studied the relationships between types of principal-leaders and selected aspects of the organiza— tional behavior of teachers, size of staff, and congruence of perceived leader behavior between principal and teachers in large district Iowa elementary schools. The LBDQ—XII and OCDQ (the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire) were utilized. Reliability of the Subscales Stogdill15 indicates in his LBDQ manual the reliabil- ities of the LBDQ—XII subscales, which were determined by a modified Kuder—Richardson formula. The reliability coef- ficients16 are shown in Table 1. les reported by Ignatovich, op. cit., p. 34. 13Ibid., p. 35. l4Ibid., pp. 3—4. 15 Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, p. 8. 16Ibid., p. 11. 77 .. ow. .. ow. .. .. Hm. me. we. soflpmpcmfluo uoflnmmsm .ma 0. O. 00 .0 .0 O. .0 on. MRI. HHOI-H# Imnmmch .HH .. .. em. am. mm. mm. Ha. mm. we. momnsoua m>flp0HpmHm .oa mm. we. mm. an. mm. mm. on. me. on. mflmmgmfim coeuosponm .m mm. mm. mm. we. mm. mm. em. em. on. coflu Imumpflmcoo .m me. me. em. em. mm. me. am. em. mm. goflumesmma waom .n «0. mm. mm. em. mm. mm. mm. me. am. Eopmmum mocmumaoe .m me. om. we. we. mm. on. mm. mm. mm. musuosuum manumwpwsH .m mm. on. om. mm. me. we. em. mm. vm. mmmc Im>flmmsmumm .w mm. om. mm. mm. mm. em. mm. mm. mm. sucflmunmoca mocmnmaoe .m Hm. .. Hm. mm. mm. me. me. .. .. coapmflafloco teem panama .m om. we. on. em. mm. mm. we. mm. mm. coflpmu Icmmmuamm .H muou mpcmp mucop mpsmp mwepemq mueumfl me>flu Monumm .>HQ mamomnsm Imcem lfimeum Iflmenm lemmhm %uflc (CH2 nsoexm mmBQmHm hEum mmeaaou Hoamq coflu IDEEOO uwmwo [muomnou them .mmamomnsm HHxloomu mo sneaflnmflamMuu.H manme 78 Adaptations for the Present Study The original form of LBDQ—XII consists of 12 sub— scales. Of these 12 subscales, six were translated into Turkish and used in this study: Consideration, Initiation of Structure, Role Assumption, Superior Orientation, Toler- ance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom. In addition, one subscale, titled "Impartiality," consisting of seven items, plus another 33 items, of which 19 were conceived to relate to ”management" and 14 to "instruction," were develOped by the author especially for use in this study. In the original form the general frame of reference employed in the LBDQ-XII instrument is "group-supervisor." The LBDQ—XII was adapted for the Turkish primary teacher training school setting by changing "group" to "staff or I teachers,‘ and ”supervisor” to "principal" whenever they occurred in the LBDQ—XII items. This was taken into cone sideration in the translation of the items into Turkish. Since the instrument was to be used with teachers, principals, and Ministry inspectors, parallel forms of the LBDQ—XII were adapted for each group so that they could address the respondents in each group properly. The adapted instrument was administered to a group of teachers at the Ankara—Cebeci Middle School, and to division directors in the General Directorate for Teacher Training of the MOE who had served as principals at TTSs before. On the basis of this pre—test, some minor changes were made 79 in the instructions and the terms used in the five—point scale. In the original LBDQ—XII, subjects are requested to select the response which best describes the frequency of the behavior contained in the item with respect to the leader being described. This five—point scale is: (a) always, (b) often, (c) occasionally, (d) seldom, (e) never. It was felt that the ”always" and "never" categories might have been taken by Turkish readers as points too extreme to reflect leaders' behavior. These two categories, "always" and "never," were changed to "almost always" and "almost never." The final forms of the instrument for principals, teachers, and inspectors may be found in Appendix A. Determination of Population The pOpulations for this study were drawn from TTSs in which the principals and teachers had worked together at least one school year and were still working together at the time of this investigation. The reason for this delim- itation was the nature of the instrument and the assumption that in order to provide accurate descriptions of "others" behavior, an apprOpriate period of time (at least one school year) was deemed to be necessary. The total number of TTSs in Turkey in 1972 was 89, of which 76 schools met the requirement for inclusion, since the principals in these 76 schools had already worked at least one school year and were still working at their 80 present schools at the time of conducting this study. Teachers in these schools who had worked there at least one school year and were still working at the same school with the same principal were the target population for teachers. The pOpulation of Ministry Inspectors consisted of those who had inspected TTSs during the last three years prior to the present study. Collection of Data In order to collect the data, permission to conduct the study was secured from the MOE, and the school princi— pals were informed through the general directorate of TTSs of the MOE. COpies of this official correspondence may be found in Appendix B. The instrument, composed of six subscales of the LBDQ-XII and 40 originally developed items, was written and printed in booklet form by the office of P1anning-—Research and Coordination of the MOE. Three different booklets (Questionnaire—-I, Questionnaire——II, and Questionnaire--III) were prepared. "Questionnaire-—I" was for teachers, prin— cipals, and inspectors, for each of the three groups of the target pOpulations. "Questionnaire-—II" was only for principals, and "Questionnaire--III" was only for teachers. Copies of these forms in Turkish and English may be found in Appendix A. During the first and second weeks of October, 1972, investigators from the Office of Planning—~Research and 81 Coordination of the MOE were sent out to visit the schools assigned to them, to administer the questionnaires. The writer visited ten of the schools for this purpose.17 Further— more, the investigator had personally trained eight other investigators who visited the other 66 schools, a given investigator having been assigned from seven to ten schools in a particular locality. All the investigators returned from their field work in the last week of October, 1972. As stated above, "Questionnaires I and II" were admin- istered to principals, "Questionnaires I and III" were admin- istered to teachers, and "Questionnaire I" was administered to Ministry Inspectors. The investigators were instructed to keep the two forms answered by the same respondent together. The forms were coded with a ten—digit identification number which identified the province, school, the form of the ques- tionnaire, and whether the respondent was a principal or teacher. The questionnaires for Ministry Inspectors were officially sent to the chief of the Board of Inspection of the MOE to be given each member of the board, and the inspec- tors, in the last week of September, 1972. At the end of October, 1972, out of 110, 55 inspectors had returned the forms. Follow—up letters were written by the Board of 17Dr. Kenneth Neff, professor at M.S.U. and presently working as an advisor in the Planning——Research and Coordina— tion Office of the MOE, accompanied the writer on this trip and observed practices in collecting the data. 82 Inspection to the inspectors who did not return the question— naires. After this follow up, 12 more forms were received by November 30, 1972, which was the deadline to receive questionnaires to include in the study. It was decided to include in the study those Ministry Inspectors who had visited TTSs during the last three years but there was no way to determine who those inspectors were and therefore questionnaires were sent to every Ministry Inspector with a question asking whether he had inspected or visited TTSs during the last three school years. Of the 67 who had returned the forms, 53 inspectors indicated that they had inspected TTSs and were included in the study. The following are sample reactions observed during the administration of the instrument, which may give some idea to the reader about the respondents: 1. It was sensed that teachers did not think that the present study would do any good with respect to its effect on the present system. 2. Teachers indicated that this kind of study was new in the Turkish education system and expressed their feeling of happiness that they were being asked to express their ideas and perceptions. 3. Some respondents showed some fear and suspicion. They pointed out that "Questionnaire I" was good and Could be answered freely and objectively, but "Questionnaire III," which was asking them to express their perceptions of their 83 principals' behavior in given situations, was not to be answered freely and objectively. Some teacher came up to the investigator to ask how he, the investigator, could guarantee that the Ministry would not use their responses against them. 4. Two teachers at different schools did not want to answer the questionnaires. 5. It was pointed out that there were some other important points related to school administration which were not included in the questionnaire. 6. It was also indicated that there were some repetitions in items. The researcher explained to the respondents that the present study aimed at finding out teachers', principals', and Ministry Inspectors' expectations of the principals' behavior in given situations. The respondents were also told that this study was a scientific approach directed to a segment of the Turkish education system for the purpose stated above. They were assured that the data would be used only at the Office of Planning—-Research and Coordination of the Ministry of National Education in accordance with professional ethics and integrity, and that the names of the respondents would be kept anonymous. It was also indicated that the investigator did not intend to study every aspect of TTSPs' functions. He 84 intended to look at the TTSPs' behavior only from given points of view. Therefore the present study would by no means cover all aspects of the principal's role. Treatment of the Data The identification number and questionnaire responses for each form (the instrument consisted of three forms) were punched on IBM data processing cards in the Office of Planning——Research and Coordination of the MOE at Ankara, Turkey. Four data processing cards, two for each form, were used for every respondent. Since the LBDQ—XII contains items which are nega— tively scored, a Fortran program was written to reverse the scales of apprOpriate items. A second Fortran program edited the data files and produced subscale scores for each respondent. Scores for schools were derived by computing the mean score of teacher responses for role expectation and performance multiple subscales. Analysis of the Data Since the MOE office did not have the needed computer programs, the data were put on magnetic tape and sent to Michigan State University. At Michigan State University, two computer programs, FINN (Multivariate Analysis of Variance), and PFCOUNT (Percentage and Frequency Count) provided the necessary com— putational routines. 85 The multivariate analysis was used to examine the profiles of role expectation and performance responses for appropriate target populations. The percentage and frequency analysis was conducted on the individual item responses of each target population. The resulting cumulative frequency distributions for each item were then used to compute Leik's statistic of ordinal consensus. All statistical tests (Multivariate F — Univariate F and Scheffé post hoc comparisons) were conducted employing an alpha level of .05. The results of the analyses were sent back to Ankara and the analysis of the findings was made in the Planning Research and Coordination Office of the MOE. The results of the analyses are in Chapter IV, and the conclusions in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction As indicated in Chapter I, this study aimed at find- ing answers to the following questions, using the methods of analysis set forth in Chapter III. 1. 2. What are the a. According behave in b. According behave in c. According role expectations of the MOE for the TTSPs? to the TTSPs, how frequently should a TTSP a given way in the given situations? to the TTSTS, how frequently should a TTSP a given way in the given situations? to the MOE Inspectors who are involved in the inspection of TTSs, hOw frequently should a TTSP behave in a given way in the given situations? d. To what extent do expectations of these three groups differ? e. To what extent are these three groups in consensus with regard to how frequently a TTSP should behave in a given way in the given situations? a. How frequently do the TTSPs think they behave in a given way in the given situations? b. How frequently do the TTSTS think their principals behave in a given way in the given situations? 86 87 c. To what extent are the TTSPs in consensus with regard to how frequently they behave in a given way in the given situations? d. To what extent are the TTSTs in consensus with regard to how frequently their principals behave in a given way in the given situations? e. To what extent do the TTSPs and TTSTS agree with each other on how frequently the principals behave in a given way in the given situations? In the following pages, descriptions are presented of the results of analyses as they bear on the above ques- tions. Discussions of the results, which include many interesting differences, will be presented in Chapter V. First a summary of the explicit MOE expectations will be presented as they are stated in the regulations. Then descriptions will be given of the differences contained in the three groups' responses to the six LBDQ—XII subscales and to the special subscales on Impartiality, Instructional Tasks, and Management Tasks. The results of the MANOVA analysis will be presented, followed by tabulations of measures of ordinal consensus. Role Expectations of the Ministry of National Education Role expectations of the Ministry of National Edu— cation for TTSPs are expressed in Administrative Regulations as set forth in Chapter II. These regulations are the main 88 frame of reference for the principal in performing his tasks. A summary of the provisions indicates that a TTSP is expected to perform the following roles: I. The principal is the chief responsible administrator for administration, evaluation, and improvement of the school in accordance with its objectives. The principal is the official head of all personnel in his school. He insures that staff performance is in line with regulations, laws, and Ministry orders. The principal is authorized to implement the following measures in performing his tasks: a. To hold teachers' meetings in order to plan education and instruction activities which are to be accomp- lished in a given school year. b. To inspect and appraise facilities and activities. c. To maintain records of teachers' annual education and instruction activities. d. TO provide guidance and counseling for students, staff members, and others. The principal is responsible for insuring an atmosphere conducive to productive work. The principal is authorized to certify official documents. He is the chief financial officer of the school. He is chiefly responsible for upkeep and the best use of school equipment, Operation, and maintenance. III» 89 8. He has the authority tO penalize custodial personnel whose appointments are under his jurisdiction. 9. He is the first to take action when academic and non- academic staff performance does not meet established standards. When the situation is beyond his authority, he informs higher authorities. 10. He recruits and employs qualified substitute staff when needed and forwards employment documents to the Ministry for approval. 11. He may consider and approve teacher absences for important reasons not to exceed one day at a time on three occasions in a school year. 12. He communicates with higher offices on educational matters in a timely manner during the academic year. 13. The principal determines who is to carry out any addi- tional education, instruction, and management activities which may not be covered by regulations, and he Officially informs the assigned personnel. Though these regulations specify an essential set of responsibilities, they do not specify which of the variety of sets of possible leadership behaviors a TTSP should employ. These latter perceptions reside instead in the minds of those who are carrying out the roles, and in the minds of those "significant others" who are related to the TTSPs as they perform their roles, yi§., the MIs and TTSTS. This research seeks to investigate and compare the role expectations and 9O perceptions of role performance among these three interrelated professional groups. The presentation in the remainder Of this chapter will be in the following order: A. Role Expectations (the three groups' responses to the subscales on Form I—-"Should Be"). B. Perceptions of Role Performance (TTSPs' and TTSTs' responses to the subscales on Forms II and III—~ "15"). C. Measures of Ordinal Consensus within and between MIs, TTSPs and TTSTs. D. A summary of these findings. Role Expectations The data on the MANOVA analyses of role expectations may be presented by means Of the following tables. Comments will be made on each table. These analyses bear on answers to questions 2. a, b, c, and d. Table 2 simply lists the multivariate and univariate F—test results. It may be noted that the results indicate the pres— ence of significant difference between MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTS profiles of dependent variables and on Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assump- tion, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management taken one at a time. 91 Table 2.-—Multivariate analysis of leadership dimensions—— role expectations. F—Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors = 6.7491 D.F. — l8. and 388.0000 p less than .0001a Variable Mean Square Univariate p less than Consideration .03 .51 .6021 Initiation of Structure .65 8.82 .0003* Tolerance of Uncertainty .67 5.91 .0033* Tolerance of Freedom .83 9.61 .0002* Role Assumption 1.69 9.14 .0002* Superior Orientation .24 2.40 .0929 Impartiality .14 1.46 .2353 Tasks Related to Instruction .36 9.41 .0002* Tasks Related to Management .15 3.27 .0402* *Significant at a = .05. Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 2 Degrees Of Freedom for Error 2 202. Table 3 summarizes mean scores on role expectations for all subscales. Since there appears to be no signifi— cance in differences between principals, teachers, and inspectors with respect to their role expectations for Consideration, Spperior Orientation, and Impartialioy, multiple comparisons were not computed. The analyses sug— gest that principals, teachers, and inspectors may have similar expectations for considerate, superior—oriented, and 92 mom mm as me u 2 use. new. mom.H Hmo. soo.m mmm. Hem.a usmsmemsmz op emanamm mxmme mmo. cam. omm.a Hao. omm.a mmm. ¢SN.H conuosnnmsH on emumamm mxmme sac. cam. mam.a ems. mom.a was. mmm.a suflnmaunmmse was. mos. ass.a ass. oeo.a mam. msm.a soflnmuamflno Hoenmmsm man. «mm. mom.a ama. mmm.m mam. mea.m scenassmma maom ems. 4mm. sam.m mma. emo.m 0mm. omm.m soemmns mo mosmuoaoe «as. mes. mmm.m mma. mes.m Hem. Hmm.m sucamunmoca mo mocmumaoe sea. mom. woe.s has. moa.H msm. mes.a mnsposnum sea. «mm. ama.a was. msa.H mom. msm.s aoflpmumeflmaoo mocmflum> m>eo ppm cmez m>mo ppm new: m>mo ppm com: mHQMHHm> mHHmU cflzuflz muouoemmcH wumcomwe mammflocflum EHmB uouum .mQOHumuommxe maou Ilmcoflmcmaflo mflnmumpwma ~meanmfiflg pampcommp eHQHwHSE How mumoll.m magma 93 .msoflpmuommxm eaou MOM mamme manoeum> wamocmmmp wamfluase mo mHflMOHmII.m .umEmmB .QHmMH .HMQEH .Homdm .mmHom r QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ mumnomme mammflocflum wuouommmcH .CSHOB bf .Osuum Li musmflm .QOU Ni. as A q u w 1 d 4! 94 impartiality types of behavior by the principal, all groups expecting them to occur frequently (between the "almost always" and "often" scale points on a scale ranging from l=almost always to 5=a1most never). Where the univariate F-test results indicated sig— nificant difference, multiple comparisons were computed. The Scheffé Test results are as follows: Tables 4 through 9 show the multiple comparisons results on the subscales, Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management. Table 4.--Differences between all possible pairs of means on role expectations for Initiation of Structure. Principals Inspectors Teachers Principals .. .069 .127 Inspectors .. .196 Teachers .. .. .. *Significant at d = .05 Scheffé Test 95 Table 5 shows the multiple comparisons results on the subscale, Tolerance of Uncertainty. Table 5.——Differences between all possible pairs of means on role expectations for Tolerance of Uncertainty. Principals Teachers Inspectors Principals .. .144 .191 Teachers .. .. .047 Inspectors *Significant at a = .05 Scheffé Test Table 6 shows the multiple comparisons results on the subscale, Tolerance Of Freedom. Table 6.--Differences between all possible pairs Of means on role expectations for Tolerance of Freedom. Teachers Principals Inspectors Teachers . .. .153 .217 Principals .. .. .064 Inspectors .. .. .. *Significant at a = .05 Scheffé Test 96 Table 7 presents the Scheffé Test results on the subscale, Role Assumption. Table 7.--Differences between all possible pairs of means on role expectations for Role Assumption. Inspectors Principals Teachers Inspectors ... .243 .323 Principals .. .. .080 Teachers .. .. .. *Significant at d .05 Scheffé Test Table 8 gives the Scheffé Test results on the subscale, Tasks Related to Instruction. Table 8.-—Differences between all possible pairs of means on role expectations for Tasks Related to Instruction. Inspectors Principals Teachers Inspectors .. .014 .130 Principals .. .. .116 Teachers .. .. .. *Significant at d .05 Scheffé Test 'I. 97 Table 9 presents the Scheffé Test results on the subscale, Tasks Related to Management. Table 9.——Differences between all possible pairs of means on role expectations for Tasks Related to Management. Inspectors Principals Teachers Inspectors .. .066 .099 Principals .. .. .033 Teachers .. .. *Significant at a = .05 Scheffé Test Although the univariate F—test (see Table 2) indi— cates that significant differences exist between the groups on the subscales Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncer— tainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management, the Scheffé post—hoc comparison failed tO detect the nature of the dif- ferences. This may be due to the conservative nature of the Scheffé procedure. Perceptions Of Role Performance The results of the MANOVA analysis on perceptions of actual performance are presented in this section. These results provide answers to questions 3. a, b, c, d, and e. Table 10 lists the multivariate and univariate F—test results. 'I 98 Table lO.——Mu1tivariate analysis of leadership dimensions—— role performance. F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors = 37.4039 D.F. = 9. and 142.0000 p less than .0001* Variable Mean Square Univariate F p less than Consideration 34.15 148.38 .0001* Initiation of Structure 6.80 53.48 .0001* Tolerance of Uncertainty 9.90 74.09 .0001* Tolerance Of Freedom 9.07 41.77 .0001* Role Assumption 12.07 51.54 .0001* Superior Orientation 11.05 67.55 .0001* Impartiality 37.53 225.56 .0001* Tasks Related to Instruction 33.95 215.33 .0001* Tasks Related to Management 15.60 148.05 .0001* *Significant at a = .05 Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1 Degrees of Freedom for Error = 150 Table 11 shows mean differences of principals and teachers on each subscale. These data indicate the presence Of significant differences on all the subscales. The observed mean scores for principals are notably and consistently lower (i.e., more in the direction of "almost always" occurs) than for teachers. 99 mma on on n 2 was new. mos. mum. Hms.m mom. oma.a newsmamcms on pmpmamm mxmme mm» mem. mma. new. omm.m mam. mem.a coflposnnmaH on pmumamm mxmme mm» mam. was. one. mmm.m mmm. smm.H spasmsunmesH was amm. sea. mos. sem.m sow. mms.a coflumncmflno nosumesm mm» mom. 4mm. was. mas.m mam. mmm.s cofludsamma maom mm» was. Ram. mas. msm.m Hms. emo.m soemmns mo mocmuoaoe mm» cam. ems. ksm. mom.m mam. mmm.m suqflmunmoa: wO mOQMHmHOB was mas. ems. 4am. mmm.m ass. mma.a mnsnonwpm mo COHuwfluflcH was mea. 0mm. new. mms.m mkm. oms.a cospmnmeflmqoo uaommm mMIflm oOQMHHm> m>oa ppm cmmz m>eo ppm cmmz mmHQMHHm> umme .wmflo mHHmU mnecomme mamaflocflum .eflsmflm cam: caress Esme Houum .oosmEHOwHem oaou (ImGOHQOEHp mflflmhmpmma .mmanmeum> pampcmmmp mamflpHDE MOM opmoll.aa maflme 100 Why is this so? Attempts will be made in Chapter V to suggest answers to this question. Below are the descriptions of the differences between principals and teachers on each subscale. Of course, the null hypothesis for all subscales is that there is no difference between observed scores for TTSPs' and TTSTs' perceptions of the principals' actual perfor— mance. Points of interest lie where the null hypothesis was rejected. Consideration As indicated in Tables 10 and 11, the test of differences between principals and teachers indicates that the groups do express significant difference in their per— ceptions of considerate type behaviors in actual perfor— mance. That is, the result warrants rejection of the null hypothesis. Principals apparently feel that they exhibit a high frequency of considerate type behaviors (between the "almost always" and "often" occurs scale points—-close to "often" occurs), while teachers feel that principals exhibit a lower frequency of these behaviors (between the "Often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points—~close to "occasionally" occurs). 101 Initiation of Structure The result on this subscale is also significant and indicates rejection of the null hypothesis. Principals appear to be between the "almost always" and "often" occurs scale points-—close to "Often" occurs, while teachers stand between the "often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points, indicating that principals exhibit a lower frequency of these behaviors. Moreover, principals perceive themselves as more frequently exhibiting initiation of structure type behaviors than teachers feel that the principals do. Tolerance of Uncertainty Again, the result is significant and therefore the null hypothesis may be rejected. Teachers again feel that principals do not exhibit tolerance of uncertainty type behaviors as frequently as principals believe they do. Principals feel that they exhibit tolerance of uncertainty type behaviors more frequently than teachers indicate that principals do. Principals stand between the "often" and "occasionally" scale points—~close to the "often" occurs scale point, whereas teachers stand between the "often" and "occasionally" scale points——close to the "occasionally" occurs scale point. 102 Tolerance of Freedom Principals and teachers also differ in their per— ceptions on this subscale. Principals appear to be between the "often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points-—close to "often" occurs scale point, whereas teachers stand between the "Often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points--close to "occasionally" occurs scale point. The result indicates rejection of the null hypothesis. Role Assumption Results on this subscale again indicate statistically significant differences. Principals perceived themselves exhibiting a high frequency of role assumption type behaviors (between the "almost always" and "often" occurs scale points——close to "often" occurs), while teachers perceived principals exhibit— ing a lower frequency (between the "Often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points-—close to the midpoint). Superior Orientation Tests Of the Observed mean score difference for principals and teachers on this subscale also indicate sig— nificant difference between these two groups in their per- ceptions of the principals' actual performance. The groups stand in two different intervals. Principals stand between the "almost always" and "often" 103 scale points, whereas 'teachers stand between the "often" and "occasionally” scale points. Impartiality Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, principals and teachers displayed significant difference on this subscale. As a matter of fact, this is the subscale on which the observed difference between principals and teachers was the greatest (see Table 11 and FigureES). One may wonder why this particular measure should have registered the widest discrepancy between the two groups. Principals perceived themselves exhibiting a high frequency Of impartiality type behaviors (between the "almost always" and "Often" occurs scale points-—close to ”almost always" occurs), while teachers perceived principals exhibiting a lower frequency (between the "often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points--close to the midpoint). What are the possible implications of this dis- crepancy in perception, in terms of the nomothetic and ideographic dimensions of a teacher training school? Is it really possible for principals to be as consistently impartial as they perceive themselves to be, when they have to compromise different needs and try to maintain balance among different forces? On the other hand, can principals ever hope to be perceived by teachers as performing as 104 "impartially" as the teachers would wish? These and other related questions will be considered in Chapter V. Tasks Related to Instruction This is another subscale of great discrepancy. The groups showed significant difference in their perceptions Of the principals' actual performance. Principals indicated that they exhibit instruction type behaviors with a high frequency (between the "almost always" and "often" occurs scale points-—close to the midpoint), while teachers per— ceived principals exhibiting a lower frequency (between the "often" and "occasionally” occurs scale points——close to the midpoint). Tasks Related to Management Results on this subscale also showed significant difference. Principals perceive themselves exhibiting high frequency Of management type behaviors (between the "almost always" and "Often" occurs scale points—-close to "Often" occurs), whereas teachers again see them exhibiting a much lower frequency (between the "Often" and "occasionally" occurs scale points—~close to "occasionally" occurs). These discrepancies are also intriguing in terms of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Figure 6 summarizes the mean scores of principals and teachers on the several subscales. The principals' Observed mean score on each subscale is notably and 105 .mosmEHOmumm mach How mammE manoeum> usepsmmmp mamfluasa mo maflmoum||.m musmwm mumnomme lllllllll mammflocflum .umEmme .Qflmme .HMQEH .womsm .mmHom .uwaoe .coaoe .Oouum .coo ? ? Li mic HLV 1H d a m a 4 q 1 . 106 consistently lower than the teachers'. In other words, the principals perceive themselves as performing these beha- viors with greater frequency than the teachers do. Princi- pals tend to see themselves performing these behaviors "almost always" or "often." Teachers, on the other hand, do not see them happening that frequently. Measures of Ordinal Consensus This section presents analyses of the extent to which the responses of the three groups display consensus: (a) whether the members of each group are in agreement with one another, (b) if so, what level of consensus exists for each group, and (c) whether the patterns of agreement differ from group to group. The following descriptions may help the reader understand what these consensus data mean. Leik'sl statistic was used, and produces an index which may vary in value from 1.00 to 0.00. The higher (.60, .70, .80, .90) the index, the greater the clustering of responses in fewer categories adjacent to one another. Therefore, high consensus indi- cates that the responses cluster on one or only a few of the scale points which are adjacent to one another. It could be any of the scale points. An index of .90 might indicate: (a), or (b), or (c), etc. Robert K. Leik, "A Measure of Ordinal Consensus," Pacific Sociological Review, IX (Fall, 1966), 86—90. 107 (a) (b) (C) f% f% f% l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Scale Points Scale Points Scale Points An index of approximately .40 (.30, .40, .50) indi— cates that the responses distribute among several of the scale points with an approximately uniform (rectangular) distribution: f% l 2 3 4 5 Scale Points The lower (.30, .20, .10) the index the lower the consensus (actually a case of dissensus or bi—polar split), and therefore the clustering of responses is on fewer cate- gories separated from one another (a U-shaped distribution): 108 f% 1 2 3 4 5 Scale Points Unfortunately, variation in Leik's index is not subject to statistical tests of significance. Therefore, it is not possible to conduct tests for inferential purposes. Nevertheless, the Leik's index is an effective descriptive statistic for distinguishing between different patterns of groups consensus. In the following pages, measures of ordinal con— sensus are presented for each of the items on each form and subscale for each of the groups. They are grouped and pre— sented to facilitate comparisons between groups for role expectations and performance. Consideration Table 12 summarizes consensus results on the Consid— eration items. Index figures are presented for each group on each item for each form. Beneath each index figure is a number in parentheses which represents the mean response to that item. For example, on Item 1, the first figures entered in the table are .679 and (1.64). These are the 109 .cmmue>mu mamom Kpmnoom mamsflmpmmmz Q .mmmonpcmumm cm cmmE EmpHm smm.mv Asm.av som.av Ams.Hv Amm.av .mumnsms meapm map mo mes. sas. mmm. 4mm. ass. anaemma Hchmnmm may Hoe #50 mxooq .oa smm.mv Amm.av Amm.HV Amm.mv AHm.HV .psmsmesm Hmcoflmmmeone msm. cam. 4mm. mew. mew. .msmnsms mmmum map mpommwmm .m Amm.mc Aom.av Aom.av Asm.Hv Ams.av .smmsm masom msommn msmupms pampuomss mms. oms. oos. sms. msm. so mnmnsms mmmpm may mumsmsoo .m Amm.mv Amm.av Ams.av Aam.av Ama.sv .mthm are so nmnsms m an on Ame. oms. oms. mes. mas. ncmmmmma as mess on manage mmuuaa mmoa .s niam.mo nimm.av nAmH.mv nima.mv nflqm.mv .emmpm men mme. msm. was. msm. ems. assuasmcoo escapes whoa .m nxmm.mv nimm.av nimo.mv nlmm.ac aims.av sea. msm. mom. mem. aom. .mcofluom ms: assadxm on mmmsmmm .m Asm.mv 1mm.Ho Asm.av Amm.av Aom.av .mnaemooua was mosses as mms. sms. mms. Has. oms. mmmcmso mo mosses mosm>em mm>so .4 Aom.mv Amv.mv Aww.mv Amm.av Amm.av .mamsvm men we mms. sms. mss. sms. mms. msmnsms memum Ham mpmmne .m 14m.mv Ace.mv Ass.mv Asm.mv Aos.mv .coflumnmdo onus emmum mmm. sss. osm. mes. omm. may sh meme mcoflummamsm mp5s .m Amm.mv Ass.sv Amm.av Amm.av alvm.av «Hm. sms. mmm. Has. msm. .manmaomosaam mam saeamflum mm .H wnmzomee mama mumzomee mama muou Imocmum Imocmum Iommmcm EmuH mocmEHOwumm maom mcompmuoemxm maom GO wOQmEHOmHmQ maou paw :.cOmpmumpmchU: chHDMDoemxw mHOH How mdmcwmcoo Hemmpuo|l.ma wanme 110 OH .mBmBB .mmmee bu .mHzllcomumuommxm maou COHemumpmchU mo mamwoumll.h musmmm d) ....-.C II-.. 0......‘. m E m B H '0 mHOpommmsH mammmocmum mumnomme +0] on- OH. om. om. ow. om. cm. on. om. om. 002m 111 .mBmBB .mmmeellmosmEHOmumm maou GOmumumpHmcoo mo mammoumll.m mudmmm mumsomme I. lllllll mammflosmum mEMBH om m m s o m w m m a j m 4 w m + *7 J. v ,1 j om. 1 om. r om. n ow. I. 7' ‘7 ' 1.0m. 112 measures for the inspectors' responses to the item on the Role Expectations (Should Be) Form. They indicate a fairly lflrfli measure of consensus (.679), which means that the inspectors' responses tended to cluster around adjacent scale points. The number in parenthesis (1.64) indicates where on the scale their responses tended to fall (between "almost always” and "Often" should occur). Notice on this item that all three groups responded similarly on the Role Expectation Form, but on the Role Performance Form, the teachers' responses showed a much lower degree of consensus (index=.514), which means that their responses were more evenly distributed among the choices. They were less in agreement with one another. Their mean response (2.35) was between "Often” and "occasionally" occurs. When the measures for role expectations are exam— ined, it may be noted that Ministry Inspectors displayed similar responses on seven items out of ten. Their responses clustered around different categories on items 2, 5, and 6 (but item 5 is a "negative" item, and shows that the inspectors are in favor of the principal's explaining his actions). On item 6, the inspectors were not in agree- ment (index=.490) on whether the principal should act fre- quently without consulting his staff. Principals responded to the role expectation items in a manner very similar to the inspectors, except that they were in somewhat less agreement on item 5 (index-.546) as to whether a principal needs to explain his actions. 113 The teachers were in still less agreement on this item (index=.505). Otherwise, the teachers' responses on expectations are comparable to the other two groups on this subscale. In short, the three groups tend to express the same patterns of agreement within themselves and between groups. Regarding role performance, principals tend to agree as a group on their perceptions of the actual role performance. They tend to cluster between the "almost always" and "Often" categories (only item 2‘s mean is greater than 2.00). All their consensus indices are above .650. It is worth noting that principals' perceptions of their actual performance and Of their role expectations also are very similar to each other. It may therefore be said that principals think they do perform their tasks in the way they think they should. Teachers are very much less in agreement as a group as to how frequently principals do actually perform consid— eration type behaviors. All of their index scores are below .650, and most of their mean responses are above 2.50. Initiation of Structure Table 13 lists the indices of ordinal consensus for role expectations and role performance on the items for the subscale Initiation of Structure. With respect to role expectations, it may be stated that all three groups tend to respond in the same _ 114 pomHm>wu mamom .pmnoom mam>mummmzm Amm.mv Amm.mv Aom.mv smm.mv Amm.mv .mcomummsmmn mam mamas enmesmum mmm. mmm. mes. mom. mam. BOHHOM whensms emmum has“ mxms .om mieo.mv mAmH.HV asam.HV msmo.mv mime.mv mma. mmm. Hmm. Hmm. mmm. .cmmd m nsosufls mxuoz .m Amm.mv Amm.mv Aas.mv sos.mv Asm.mv .smsu MOM mmnmchQmmn ms or; was segues smm. mmm. Ham. mam. emm. Isms an on mum mxmmu has; mesmsumpmo .m Aom.mv Amm.mv Amm.mv smm.mv Asa.mv .sms: on mm amen ummao m mmm. mmm. mmm. msm. mmm. has: meow an on xuos msu mmHsemsom .s som.mo Aom.mv Aoa.mv Amm.mv .ewmum msu an wooumnmess mm moosom omm. msm. oms. mom. oem. mg» as puma men has» musm mmxmz .m Amm.mv Aem.mv Ame.mv Ama.mv Amo.mv .mcoe an mmmsm um 30s paw 4mm. msm. mom. mas. mam. mace an mmmsm pass mammomo .m Amm.mv Ase.mv smm.HV Asm.av Ase.mv .mmmum esp on nmmmo mmm. mms. mms. amm. ems. pommnsm a so meanness mes mmxmz .4 Aem.mv Amm.av Amm.av Ams.av Amm.mv .emmum map so mas. oms. mmm. oms. sas. mamas 362 mss uso mmmue .m Ama.mv Aam.av Amm.ac Amm.av 1mm.HV .mmnswmoona guesses Hem. mmm. cam. mmm. ssm. mo mm: are mmmmusoocm .m Aom.mv Amm.av Aos.mv Aom.av Amm.mv .smsn mo empomdxm mm para smm. msm. 0mm. mew. mam. zone mnmnsms ewmum map mums .H muozomoe mama muonoome mama muou ImOCmnm (mommum loemmsH EmuH mocmEquHmm eaom mGOmpmuommxm waom :.®Hsuosuum mo COmumHumcHz GO mocmEHOmHem eaon paw chmboyommxo maou How mSmGOmQOO HmcmpuOIl.mH wanes .mBmBB .mmmBB .mHzlucOmumuommxm maou ousuosnum mo QOHDMHpHcH mo mammoumll.m musmmm mumzomme .IIIIII mammmocmum .:Ei:::::. muouommmcH mEmHBH .\. o m w m N H m 4| a j) A m m 115 \ ne‘sootoocooooooo,l s. OO.H 116 .memee .mmmeellmocmEMOMMmm maon muouosuum mo COHumfluHcH mo mammoumll.om musmmm mumnomme IIIIIII mammmosmnm WEMBH ‘1? -1 4» .. + «L A) -1) .) # om. f 001m 117 ways—-both within each group and across groups. The patterns are consistent in all three columns. Item 5 is especially interesting. The mean expecta— tion score for all three groups was above 3.00, while the indices of consensus were the lowest for each group (.613, .413, and .505, respectively). These patterns suggest that none of the three groups is firmly sure of the decision— making role of the principal, and that perhaps at best is an ”occasionally" thing. Regarding role performance, principals' measures of consensus and mean scores are almost the same as for their own role expectations, but they are different from teachers' perceptions of the principal‘s performance. Indices Of consensus for teachers are generally lower than for principals. The largest discrepancy is on item 9, where the principals surprisingly are very much in agreement that they "almost always" work with a plan (index=.939), whereas the teachers are not in consensus on this point (index=.482) with a mean score indicating that the principal ”often" works With a plan. Tolerance of Uncertainty Table 14 presents the results for the items of the Tolerance of Uncertainty subscale. Role expectation measures show a greater variability in this table than in previous tables. There are more items on which the groups have 118 pomnm>mm mamom .pmnoom mam>mummmzm mimo.mv mimm.mc Amm.me Ama.mo Amm.mc .es mzoan gasp mm4. mam. msm4. moom. mm4m. .aQOH 0m swam pflmz smo .om msos.mv mAmH.mv on.mv Amm.mv Awm.mv .mnscmoouo Soc mam mo mom. mvm. os4m. womm. ease. mEoopso may usonm mmmnuoz .m Asm.mv noo.mv Amm.mo Amo.mv Aoo.mv .mnsooo msmn nmdond map mmm. mmm. mmm. mmm. msm. Hens: cemuom seams on mans mm .m Ass.mv Aam.av Amm.ao Asm.av Amm.av .muam>m massoo usonm mom. M4s. mmm. ems. mos. ammuumocs cmLB Eamo mchEmm .s 1mm.mv AmH.mV 1mm.mv Amo.mv As4.mc .sucflmunmoc: was hams cam. m4s. 4mm. sms. msm. -maoaumOQ mumummou on mmnm mm .m mxmm.mv mimm.mv Asm.mv Amm.mv Amm.mv .mucmsmoam>me 3mg How mmm. mmm. mmm4. msm4. mmmm. manusmz cess mnemxcm mmsoomm .m Amm.mc Amo.mv smm.mv sm4.mv Amm.mv .nmmds acmsoomn mmm. Has. mmm. msm. mam. scores: msmame muamooa .4 Amm.mo A44.m1 A04.41 Amm.mv Am4.mv mmm. oms. m4m. msm. mms. .meflnum as pmmmme mudmoom .m mA4H.mV aims.mv Amm.mv Amm.mv Aom.mv .nxmc msflsoo we pass uso ease mom. msm. mmv. sea. mmm. uosceo on Gena mSOmxcm mmgoomm .m 1mm.mv Asm.HV Amm.av Am4.4V Amm.mv .cOAmflome a mo muasmmu msm. sas. moms. msms. asam. man now mancmfluma when: .H muozomme mama mnezomoe mama mnou Imocmnm (museum loommcH EmpH mocmEqume eaom mcoHumwommxm oaom =.%ucmmuneoso mo mosmneaoez so oosmEHOuHem eHOH one chmpmuommxm maou MOM momcemsoo HMQHpHOII.vH manme 119 .mmmee .mHEIIc0mumuommxm mHOH mesmmuumoco MO museumaoe Mo maMMOHMII.HH mnsmmm .mBmBB llllllll. mumnomme IIIIIII mammmocmum 2::::::: muouommmcH mEHMBH om m m s m 4 m m M j. 4 4 (4 +1 (i v m 4 120 .mmmeellmosmEHoMumm waou mucflmuumoso MO museummoe MO mHHMOHMII.NH musmmm .memee mumzomme IIIIIIII mammmocmum mZmMBH om m m s m m 4 m m a 41 m 1% m 4 >1 4 J, J» 4 TI .I r C / \IIO—H— I I \\ ll/ 7 \O/ \O” \\ I, \\ I, \ I, \ I \ II, \\\ II, \\. [I 1 CI \\ I. ''''''' o\\ I], \ o Aw I \ I/ \\ / \\ I. x x v 1‘ OH. om. om. ow. om. om. on. om. om. oo.H 121 relatively low consensus. The principals' responses to item 2, however, are particularly interesting. The index .167 indi— cates a bi—polar split in the group as to whether principals should or should not become anxious when they cannot find out what is coming. Role performance indices again are consistently higher for principals than they are for teachers. Principals are more in agreement about what they think does happen than teachers. It is interesting to contrast the principals' indices on two items for both expectation and performance—-items 2 and 9. On item 2, where the principals show a bi—polar split as to whether they should or should not become anxious, they are more evenly distributed (index=.572) as to whether they do become anxious. On item 9, on the other hand, they are relatively evenly distributed (index=.526) as to whether they should worry about new procedures, but they are Very much in agreement (index=.849) that they do worry. Tolerance Of Freedom Table 15 gives the findings for the items Of this subscale. Items 3, 8, and 9 (having to do with staff initia— tive and judgment) display interesting patterns. All three groups are strongly in consensus that the principal should give initiative to staff ("almost always" on item 3, all indices .830 or above; "often" on items 8 and 9, all indices above .700) and trust their judgment. 122 pmmnm>mn mamom toouoom mao>mpmmmzm Amm.mv smo.mv A44.mv Amm.mv 14m.mv .momd :30 nmmsu new omm. mmm. smm. mam. mos. on whensms Manm men mumsumm .om Ams.mv Ama.mv Amo.mv A4m.mv Amm.mv .ncmsaesm poem ammonmxm mmm. sms. mms. mss. mom. on meansms Manm man mumsue .m Ams.mv 14s.Hv Amm.41 Ams.sc Amm.av .m>nnmsnflcs Mo mmnmme ms4. mms. Hos. oms. oms. sans m meansms Memum man m30ma< .m mics.mv mimo.mv mx4m.mv mxmm.mc aims.mv .coflnom Mo soemmuM mam msmnsms ms4. 4mm. om4. msm. osm. MMmum msu scams on ncmposmmn mm .s 1mm.mv Asm.mv miom.mv miam.mv mimm.mv .ufl on om Earn when was .nom msm. mam. ~04. mm4. mmm. m so mmOOH mnmnsms MMmum man mange .m A04.mv som.ac som.av Amm.4V Aoo.mv .us masses meansms MMmum 4mm. Has. mam. mms. msm. may mama swan .xmmu m mammmms .m Amm.mv Aom.mv Amm.mv Am4.mv 1mm.mv .ummn sassy menu mas ms» egos mmm. oms. 40s. 40s. mmm. Hews» op mumnsms MMmum was when .4 Amm.mv Amm.41 Amm.ao A4m.Hv 14m.av .mnmnsms MMmum mm4. mmm. 4mm. omm. omm. asp as m>mummnflcm mmmmusoocm .m s4m.mv Asm.av Ams.41 Ams.av Amm.mv .msmanoud acfi>40m as usmsaesm s30 nflmsu mmm. mms. 4sm. mms. 0mm. mm: on whensms Manm asp mussnmm .m Amm.mv ism.av Amm.41 Aam.mv 10m.mv .xnos usage as soemmnM Ham. mms. mmm. oms. m4m. msmnsws Mmmum msu monHa .H mumsomme mama mnmcomoe mama muou Imogene umocmum noedmsH EmuH mOGmEHOMHmm maom mcoMumuoemxm eaom =.EOpmeum MO mocwnoaoez so mocmEMOMneQ mMoH Use mcomumuommxe maou MOM newcomcoo mesmouoll.ma manme 123 .mBmBE .mmmee .mHzllcOmpmuommxm maou Eoommnm MO mocmnmaoe MO mHMMOHm|I.ma musmmm muonomme llllll mammmoamnm .: ............ mu0pommmcH m 2 m B H m 1T '1 q j at 124 .mBmBB .mmmeeunmocmEHOMumm maon 80pmmum MO mocmumaoe MO mHmMOHmII.vH musmmm mumnomme mammmocmum —) -0 -0 .4 125 Principals think they "almost always" or "often" do (indices=.862, .789, and .787, respectively). But the teachers are not nearly so closely in agreement as to whether principals in fact do give them initiative and trust their judgment (indices=.483, .472, and .553, respectively). Role Assumption Indices of consensus and mean scores on role expecta— tions and role performance for Role Assumption items are given in Table 16. The groups' indices of consensus for both role expec- tations and role performance are notably low for several items on this subscale. Under role expectations, the groups' responses to items 3, 4, 5, and 7 are interesting to note. Principals' responses to items 3 and 4, and the teachers' responses to items 4, 5, and 7 display bi-polar splits as to whether principals should or should not let some members take advan- tage of them, should or should not let other persons take away their leadership in the staff, should or should not be the leader of the staff in name only, and should or should not let some members have authority that they should keep. The inspectors' responses to these items also indicate very low consensus. Under role performance, in most cases the teachers' indices Of consensus are notably lower than the principals' 126 .pmmM®>mM msmom spmMOOm msm>mpmmmzw Amm.mv Amm.av A4m.sv Aos.sv AV4.sV .Memsm as» M0 smemms was 4m4. sms. mmm. mmm. mss. mm emmscaooms sssmmm ms .os 14s.mv A44.NV Amm.mv Amm.mv Amm.sv .assmsmemms msn mmcmssmno ms4. som. mm4. mmm. 44m. on mews mndsmppm mmsoosm>o .m smm.mv smm.so Aom.sv Amm.sv 1m4.sv .mmssm masocmasmsm mm4. sss. smm. smm. mms. smsz masmso sssm mmsme .m aims.mv mimm.sv Amm.mv Amm.mv Asm.mv .ammx mssosm ms sass sm4. mam. osm. mmm. mmm. ssssosssm m>ms msmnsms mEOm mums .s mism.mv msmm.sv Am4.sv smm.sv Amm.sv .sssM ecmum on mm4. msm. mms. m4m. mmm. ssmso ms swag szoe mxomm .m mism.mv msos.mv miss.mv msmm.mv msmo.mv .ssco mama as msm. mm4. mms. m4m. om4. Manm man so smemms msn ms .m mioo.mv msom.sv Ams.mv ism.mv 1mm.mv .sss Mo mmmnqm>em mm4. oms. oms. sms. ssm. mxmu msmnsms ms0m msms .4 msmm.sv mimm.mv Aos.mv 14m.mv Am4.mv .MMmum ms» as assmsmemms mss msm. mm4. msm. mmm. 04m. swam mean mQOmsmm umsno mums .m smm.mv Asm.sv sos.sv smm.sv Am4.sc .cospom whammmomq mmm. sss. m4m. 40s. mms. mxas on ssmM soc mmoo .m mimm.mv aims.sv 1mm.sv Ams.sv 1mm.sv .Memum mss as m>ssMsuscs smm. 0mm. smm. mmm. mms. masses nsonm pawnsmms ms .s mesommB msmm mMosomme mama mMou IMOQMMM IMOQMMM noemmcH EmuH GUCGEHOWHOAH @HOZ mQOMMmuoemxm msom :.QOMMQESmm¢ maom: so eOQmEMOMMeQ msOM can chmuwuoemxo OHOM MOM mdmcmmsoo swampMOII.ms manme 127 .mBmBB .mmmee .mHEIIGOMmeommxm msOM GOMMQESmmm msom MO mHMMOanl.mH mMsmHm 4 oo .0 4+ mMmaommB llllll msmmmocMMm mMOMommmcH mZmBH db 4» .1» om. om. om. ov. om. om. on. ow. om. OO.H 128 .mamee .mmmeellmoquMoMMmm wHOM cOMMmESmmd msom MO msMMOMmun.ma mMsmmm manommB IIIIIII mHMQMOCMMm m 2 m B H 0H m m s o m w m N a Jil fl J? fl fl » ”I w + #1 O > x./ x x x x . x x / \o \ z/ z/ \/ \ / \ / \\ / \ \ / x / I \ / s / JI\ I s /o\\ \ / \ OH. om. om. ow. om. ow. on. om. om. OO.H 129 (all teachers' indices are below .600). On items 3, 5, and 7 the principals' indices also are low (.459, .452, and .599, respectively). Superior Orientation Table 17 gives indices of consensus and mean scores on role expectations and role performance items for Superior Orientation. Under role expectations, all groups' responses indi- cate generally high level consensus on this subscale (all indices above .600, except for inspectors' responses to item 2—-.585, which may mean inspectors are not in strong agreement on whether principals should try to keep their staff members in good standing with higher authority). The groups otherwise seem to be in favor of high frequency of superior orientation type behavior. Or role performance, principals indicate fairly strong agreement on all items (indices all above .600) that they "often" or ”almost always" perform these behaviors. Teachers' responses indicate a lack of agreement among them as to whether principals do or do not frequently perform superior orientation type behaviors (items 2—9 with indices all below .600). The exceptions are items 1 and 10 (.682 and .662, respectively), which indicate that teachers gen- erally agree their principals do try to get along with and have cordial relations with their superiors. l30 .hpdpm mflflp How HMQOHponwsoc wmz Emufl Haasowpumm mflzBm Aoo.mv Amq.av Amm.av Amm.av Amm.av .mnoflummsm sung Now. can. mms. mom. mms. mgoflpmHmu Hmflwuoo mcflMpcflmz .OH Aao.mv AH».HV Aos.av Amm.av Ams.fiv .moa map on msm. new. Hmo. who. «as. s63 mfls mcflxuoz ma mm .m Amo.mv Aqo.ms Adm.as Amm.av Asm.av .muoflummsm mflg souw msm. mms. was. 0mm. own. new mxmm mg pug: mumo .m Amv.mv Awm.as Am©.Hs Amm.ao Asm.av .muoflummsm mflz msm. New. mms. ems. Hm». 66H: ugmflmx mmflnumo who; mum .s Asm.mv Amm.HV Aam.av Aso.av Amm.HV .uwmum map mo mummamz map nmq. man. msm. Has. mos. Hob pom ou mnoflummsm mug mpmo .6 Amfl.mv Aam.av “HF.HV Amq.av Amm.mv m.cofluflmom mug mo 6mm. «Hm. mam. mus. mom. mmmmafl>flum mgu mmoflcm .m Amm.mv Amm.av Amm.av Aos.av A¢O.Nv .maoflpmmmmsm mflg mo umoa Ham. mms. mos. mms. mms. co manmno>mm pom mnoflnmmsm mum .v Amo.mv Amm.av Amm.as Aom.av Aoo.av .coflposoum 6 How msm. mom. 0mm. mom. Hum. mama mcflxuoz mfl mm .m “mo.mv Asm.HV Aom.as Amm.av Amm.mv .sufluogpsm umgmflg 66H: acflwcmum mms. son. now. How. msm. woos cH mnmnsme mmmum mamms .m Avw.av Amm.av Amw.av AmH.HV AmO.HV .eflg m>onm madomm mms. mms. Has. mom. ohm. 6gp gpflz Ham; acofim mpmu .H mHmLommB mama whosowoe mama muou EmuH Iflocflum [flocflum loommcH mocmEHOMHom oaom maoflumuommxm oaom lull. .ll. IllI'l 1 I‘ :.soflpmusofluo Moenofldm: so oonEHOMHoQ maou paw mcofluawoomxo maou MOM msmcmmmoo HMQHUHOII.5H manme l3l .szllcoflgmuommxo maou coapmucmfluo Hofluomsm mo maflwoumll.ha musmflm .mBmBB .mmmBB mumnomme llllll mammflocflnm :::::::E. muouommmcH m E m B H 0H m w m o m w m m a «1 d w 1+1 w T ”I w 4r 0? T ca. r om. .. f om. 132 .mmmefilnoocmEuOMHmm mHOM coasmucmfluo Hosummsm wo maflmoumll.ma musmflm .mBmBB mumnomme a: llllll mammflocflum mZMEH oa m m n w m w m m a 4i u w s w #‘ (m w + v OH. om. om. 0v. 133 Impartiality Indices of consensus and mean scores for Impartiality items are listed in Table l8. As may be seen, the groups display very high within and between group consensus for role expectations. By and large, indices of consensus for all the groups are above .80 for role expectations. Ministry Inspectors' measures of consensus are higher than the others, and the inspectors' mean scores are very close to the ”almost always" scale point. Item 6 is the exception. Here all three groups' responses indicate relatively lower consensus on whether principals should treat all students the same, irrespective of their parents' social, economic, and political posi- tions. All three groups' mean scores fall near the "often" scale point. Under role performance, principals and teachers differ from each other. With the exception noted on item 6, the principals are in strong agreement that they "almost always" perform these behaviors, but the teachers' indices vary between .466 and .578, indicating they are less in agreement on these items with a lower level of impartial behaviors. 134 Av~.~v Avm.av Amo.ae Aom.av AHN.HV .mpqoosom coo msm. mmm. mms. mms. emm. muonsoe ommum cooauoo musomflo m nuflz mcflammp CH AHHMHuHmmEH muod .5 .mcowuflmom Amv.mv Asm.av Aom.ae flow.av Anm.av Hmofiuflaom mom .oflsocooo .Hmwoom Ham. pom. omm. mam. mms. .musmumm snoop mo o>fluooomouufl roEMm may mpcmosum Ham mgmeB .m Aqv.mv ANH.HV Aom.Hv Ama.av AMH.HV .muoneoe wmoum cooapoo ousmmflo m mms. Hem. oom. «mm. mmm. :uflz moflamoo an saamfipumosfl mpo< .m .moflufl>fluom Amm.mv Asm.av Amm.Hv Amm.as Amm.av Hoooom Monuo 6cm moaoomoom xuo3 Hmm. new. 6mm. mmm. sum. saxooz .mucoscmflmmo poohosm amazon ou poommwu suHB maamswm Umummnu mum mHmwQEwE wwmum mflp umgu. GfiMHHQU mwxmz .v va.mv AoH.HV Aom.ae Aom.av AmH.Hv .Hoosom map so ooumwmo mmmoafl>fiuo mow. 0mm. mom. Hem. mmm. on» mohco saamsoo muooeoe wmoum onu poop ousm moxmz .m Ama.mv lam.ae Aom.av on.av Aom.av .uqoooum muo>o op ooflaooo msm. new. Ohm. mms. mom. maauowflcs mum mcoflumasmou mcflamflomfip umcu cflmuuwo mmxmz .N Aom.mv AHN.HV Amm.as Amm.av AHH.HV .Hooeos wmoum suo>m ou sasuowflcs mow. mam. 5mm. mom. mvm. mcofluoasoou can mods“ moflamma .H mumcommB mama wumflomme mama wuou EmuH Iflocfium Ifioqflum loommcH mocmEROMHom oaom msofiumuommxm oaom =.NuflamfluummeH= so mocmEHOMHmm maon paw mcoflumuommxm waou wow momcmmaoo Hmcflpuolu.ma magma 135 .memee .mmmee .mquiqofluouoooxo oaou muflaofluomosH mo washoumun.ma ousmflm mnmnommB llllll mammflocflum :zz. .......... mHOpomdmcH mzmeH s o m s m m + s 4 (w >1 (q OH. om. om. 0v. om. ow. on. om. oo.a 136 .mBmBB .mmmeellmocmEHOMHom oaon muflHMHuHmmEH mo maflmoumll.om ousmflm wumcomme lllllll mammflocflnm mEMBH n w m v m m H i» 4 .w J? )fi )1 1 A 0H. om. om. om. ow. on. om. om. QQ.H l37 Tasks Related to Instruction Table 19 lists the indices of consensus and mean scores for Tasks Related to Instruction items. Role expectation responses display within and between group consensus. Indices of consensus are notably high for all three groups. The groups' mean scores tend to be between the "almost always" and "often" categories. On items 5, 6, 8, and 9, the groups display the highest consensus (each expectation index is above .900). These items have to do with making sure that the school library is Open at the times when it can be used best by the teachers and students (item 5); with making certain that the school library is so arranged and prepared that it can serve its purpose and is a comfortable place (item 6); with demonstrating in actions that every subject matter is important in the achievement of the school objectives (item 8); and lastly, with making certain that with respect to light, heat, and arrangement, classrooms are comfortable places for students and teachers to work in (item 9). But teachers' responses under role performance again indicate that they are in less agreement than the principals on whether the principals do or do not exhibit these types of behavior frequently. 138 .momam oHQMpHowEoo m ma Apm.mv Amm.pv Asp.pv Amo.pv Amp.pv ooo omoopoo opp o>pom coo pp poop ohm. mmm. mam. vmm. «mm. popmmopm paw pomnmupm Om ma mpmunfla Hoonom map pmnp cflmpumo mmxmz .m .mpcmpspm Aoa.mv Amm.Hv Ava.av AMH.HV Amo.av paw muonomop map wn pomp poms on mmm. mmm. Nmm. wmm. Hum. coo pp chB moEHp ocp pm ammo mH humpgfla Hoocom mcp pmgp mpsm mmxmz .m .oocmEpowpom mpg paw coHpUSHpmcfl loo.mv Asm.pv Asm.pv Amm.pv Amm.pv oopopooooo app pppg sop> po woe. om». spa. New. ppm. mpopoo monopoxo op popoomp opp pppg mpooE .pflmfl> EOOHmmmao mpg Hmpmd .v . .coflposupmcfl Aos.mv Amo.pv Apo.ps Apm.ps ppm.pv po pooEo>opoep opp op oopooppo omw. wow. wow. man. one. mmflpfl>flpom onu ca mo>flpmpcwmmu loop .mpcmpspm paw mpmcommp mm>ao>cH .m .meOHHOM mcflmg mp swam ponmflanmpmm Amm.mv on.av Avv.av Aqm.av Avo.Hv opp pmgp mHSm mome paw xpoa pflocp mom. mom. mms. mmm. Hmm. opmcflopooo 0p mmflpp cam mpoppma pooh 135m oEmm map mo mpocomop cpHB mummz .m Amm.mv Amm.av Avm.av Awm.av AOH.HV .mpcoGSpm Op mocmpflsm mo mcoHpUQSM mom. ems. mms. 0mm. mms. mpg pppppop goo op pmpp mmz m pogo cfl :mflnmpogowmp msoum: mnu mmeMHud .H mpocomos mama muonomoe mama mpOp EmpH neocflpm Iflocflpm loommcH oocmEH0wpmm oaom mcofluopomgxm oaom ll| =.copposppmcH op oopmpom ozone: so oocmEHOMHOQ maop paw mQOHpMpoomxo maou HOW mdmcomcoo HmcflUHOII.mH manme 139 Amm.mv ANN.HV Aom.av AmN.HV Amm.av .mpcopspm paw mquEmE mmMpm on» ma mom. mmm. mow. mmm. mmm. OoEpowpmm paw Umpmmmum moapfi>flpom Hoozom CH pmopmpcfl OQflscom mzozm .NH Amm.mv Avm.av Avm.av Aom.av Ama.av .mpcoampflsvop paw ousumc mpfl SpHB oom. mmm. omm. mom. mam. mocmppooom SH pgmsmu popme pommnsm zoom o>ms op mopsmmoa xpmmmoooc mmxme .HH .mcoflpmasmou Avm.av AHN.HV Aom.av Ama.av Avo.av paw mOHSM Oogmflanmpmo cpfl3 oocmp moo. mmm. mow. mom. 0mm. upooom cfl QO>HO OCHOQ mum uco8m>mflnom .mpcopspm mumsHm>o Op mcoflpmcflamxm coupflHB paw ammo pmgp mpsm mwxmz .oa .OH MHOS Op muosommp paw mpcmpspm ANH.NV Amm.av Ama.av ANH.HV Amo.av MOM moomHm maamppowfioo mum mEOOH mam. mvm. mam. Hom. mom. Immwao .pcoEmwcmuum paw .pmmn .pzmfla Op pommmwu gpflz umnp GHMpumo moxmz .m Amm.mv Amo.av Ama.av Amo.av Amo.av .mo>flpooflno HOOLOm mnp wo pcoEO>mHLom vvm. Hem. Ham. vmm. 0mm. ogp as pamppomEH mp pmpme pomhnsm %po>m pmzu mpmupmcoEop mcoflpom mflm .m Amm.mv Aam.pv Amv.av Amm.av Amv.av .Ompooc mamflpmme moo. men. men. omm. was. pooopposppmop ocpopooooo ooppme coflmfloop CH mpdflommp mm>ao>cH .5 mpozoooe mama mpmxowoe mama mpOp EmuH Iflocflpm [Hocflpm loommcH mUcmEHOwHGAH OHOZ mcoflpMpoogxm Odom .ooscppcoo|n.mp mnpme 140 Amm.mv Aom.av Aom.av Amm.HV Anm.av .QOppOdppmcH O>OHQEH paw mpms mom. mmm. pmn. mam. ppm. upo>o op mooppoos .mpopommp mom: .op .QOHp . . . . . IOOpmefl paw coflpmospm mcflcpmocoo Avm WV Anm wv flow we Amm %V “mm HV m3Ofl> omsmpoxo Op paw mcoflmmsompp mam was who emu own amcoflmmOMOHQ Ca mommco Op mmflppc lsppommo ppHB mpogomop mpfl>0pm Op mmcflpooE .mpmzommp mpaom .ma mpogomwe mama mpozomoe mama mpOp EmpH [Hocfipm Iflocflpm IowmmcH OOQMEpOwHom maom mcoflpmpoomwm oaom .OmscflpCOUIl.mH magma l4l .memse .mmmee .mp2 Ilaoflpmpommxm OHOH coHpODHpmcH Op Ompmaom mxmme wo mHflwOpmli mumpomme IIIII I. mammHOCHpm ................ mHOpummmaH m 2 m B H mp Ha op m m n w m o m N am mpsmflm 4rd 4)- -r a» 4» 1)’ 4» q» q T 00.4 142 .mBmBB .mmmBB IlmocmEpowpmm OHOH COHpOSpmeH Op Ompmaom mxmme mo OHHMOHmII.NN mpsmpm mpmnomme lllllll mammpocflpm m E m H. H va ma N4 Ha OH m m w o m w m N H \. .H. \/c \/\9|||l. . O \/ \\\ // .\I\\\\o// Aw \ o o \\ / \ l/ \\ // \\o // x l/ \ ./.\\ x I \ ’0“‘I\‘.l/ \O/ \ 'I” \ //1c\\\ / \ on / x / x /\ OH. om. om. ow. om. om. 143 Tasks Related to Management Table 20 gives measures of consensus and mean scores on role expectations and role performance items for this subscale. There appear to be variations within each group. For example, on items 9, ll, 15, and 19, all groups are agreed strongly that principals should "almost always" per— form these behaviors. But on items 4 and l3 none of the groups are strongly in consensus with regard to their expectations. Interesting differences again may be observed between principals' and teachers' responses to role per— formance items. The principals' indices range from .572 upward to .934, showing that principals tend to agree that they do these behaviors "often” or "almost always." Teachers' indices range from .653 downward to .382, showing that they are generally more widely distributed in their perceptions as to the frequencies of principals' performance and therefore the lower level of role performance item means . In summary, on role expectations, it may be said that all three groups' responses display interestingly gimp ilar patterns. All three groups' mean scores appear to be near the same scale point for the same item for 86 items out of 100. The mean scores tend to be between the "almost always" and "often" occurs scale points for 63 items. They 144 .mmep O>HpmppmflcflEOm Amp.mv App.ms Amm.me Amm.pv Amm.pv op mpooan ppppm oopoopmmm mmv owe mmo own wmn CH mflpmpflpo OmgmHHQMpmm mmmD .n .mOOppmasmmp mcflamflomflp Awo.mv Aos.pv Aos.pv loo.pv pom.mv ocpmo psooppa ppmpm opp moosm mow. ppm. moo. 5mm. owe. mmpsmmpp mapcmg Op poppo CH ppmpm Opp mo pmpEoE Happpmmafl cm mm mpom .o Amw.mv Anv.av Amm.av Amm.av Amv.av .mmep O>Hpmppmflcflfipm pmq. mos. mos. omm. mms. op opoosos ppopm ocpcopmmm op mmooosm pcm pflpoe Op mpflpoflpm mm>flw .m Amm.mv 1pm.mv Ams.mv Aoq.mv Amo.mv .mcoppmpooop ooo mopop ooppppg 0mm. omo. mom. mmo. msm. opp op oopppomop poooppz mama IQOHQ ocflamflomflp .mpcOOSpm moapcmm .v Avm.mv Aom.mv Amm.mv Aam.mv “om.mv .mmep o>flpMHpchflEpm Op mpopEmE mmv. New. mmm. who. mom. wwdpm mcflcmpmmm CH Hoonom mflpp cfl wpppoflcmm Op xpflpoflpm mm>flo .m Aoa.mv Amm.pv Amm.pv Amn.av Amm.pv .mEOHQOHQ .mpCOOSpm mmo. mms. mos. mms. oqm. ooppoomo op pozoppop opsp m mH .m .aoopOm mppp . . . . . CH wpflpoflcom O>O£ poc op wmzp pH Amo mv pom WV Ame WV Aom WV Amp He cm>o mmep O>HpmppchHEpm Op mpmp cow was pop 0mm own nfioE wwflpm mcflcgflmmm CH wocmflpmmxm HocoflmmOwopQ Op MpHHOHpQ mm>flo .H mpozomoe mad; mpopomoe mada mpOp EOpH Iflocflpa Iflocflpm noogmcH OOCOEMprom anz mcoflpmpooaxm anm :.pcoEommcmz Op pmpmpmm mxmmez co oocpr0mpoa OHOH tam macepmpOOAxo OHOp pOw mzmcmmcoo Hmcflppoll.om mapme It. 145 .moz opp EOHM mumppo BOC me psopm mpOCOMOp EpowCH Op OCm pCmEomm Aom.mv Hom.fiv Amm.mv AHm.HV Amv.mv ICmE pCm CoHpmospw mCHCHOOCoo mHmOpo 0mm mum mmo mom vmw CmppHpB pCO .mCOHpmHsmmp .mmHsp map 3oH>mp Op mmCHpooE .mpmzomop mOHom .vH . . . . . .mOHpDO m>HpmppmHCHEOm OCm OH: Amo we Amo He prom We ofimo we mpmm We -oopom ppoz ooomppoopmo opp soppop vmo «on mom mom mHo COQEoE mpppm >pm>o pmnp mmpHsgom .mH .Eonp mo pso mmsmmH AHo.mv Aqo.me AmH.HV Amw.HV pom.pv Hopopppo ooppoe poopppz mpcoo mom. mum. Hum. on». mms. IOpm pCm mHOLOOOp Cmmzpop mopsmme mmecmL xHo>Hpomwwm pCm wHszmmmoosm .NH . . . . . .m>@p pCMpHOQEH HOCpo OCm HMCoHpMC Amm HV AMH Hv AmH HV Ame fiv Ave My pOm oEHp CH pmpmmmpm Hoonom opp mmo «mm mmm mom Hmm o>mp Op mopSmmmE mummmmomC moxme .HH . . . . . .mpCmOSpm OCm mmeommp Ame we Ass We Ame we Amwome lam HM ooospoo mopoompo psz ocppooo op Hmm mmw mwm own mCoHpMHCOOH OCO OOHSH opp mBOHHom .oH . . . . . .xpoz pHmpp mmeHOpooo Op mmep pCm Aom WV Awm MV Amm Hy AmH Hy AHH My mpopEoE mpflpm mCOEm mQHCmCOHpMHmp wow wow mmm vmm mom o>Hpospmeoo CmHHQMpmm Op mQHmm .m . . . . . .mpopEmE MMMpm Amo my Amo mv “om WV pom WV Amm we OCoEm mOpsmmHO ppHB OCHHMOO CH wmm who wow wow mHo mCOHpmHCmou OCm mOHSp opp mBOHHom .m mpocomme mHOQ mpogomme mHOQ mpOp EmpH IHOCHpm IHOCHpm IommmCH OOCOEpprom OHom mCOHpmpooaxm OHom .OOCCHpCOOII.om OHQMH 146 .Ommpm>OC OHMOm .Ompoom wHo>Hpmmmzm .OEHp OpCmHmH pHon OCOQm OCm xCOB Op COHCB CH mpmflommp OCm mpCmOCpm pow OOMHQ OHQMCHOOU Amm.mv Amm.Hv ANN.HV Amo.Hv AVH.HV m mH HOOCOm Opp .mmeHHHOMw ppomm mmm. com. mom. «mm. Hmm. poo .moppoppspoo .msoop oopopo .mpCOOCpm .mEOOpmmMHO .hppppHH opp Op pommmmp CpHB .pmnp OHCm mmxmz .mH .mEmHQOCQ pHOCp O>H0m Eonp QHOC Op Aoo.mv Amm.HV Amw.Hv Amv.Hv va.Hv mOpr pCm mEOHQOCQ HMCOHmmmmopm moo. mow. mmo. mms. mom. OCw HMCOmme pHOCp Op mCmpmHH pCm mpmpEmE wprm HMCOH>HOCH CpHB mpmoz .mH .mOHHQmCm pozpo pCm . . . . . .mCproHo .poow pOw OmpmeQOHmmm ppm my 1H0 We pom He Ame we App We sooog opp sax opopmmoo poop opp op mmm won 0mm haw mmm mCHpCOQm CH mm>HpMpCmmmpmmp pCmO 15pm OCm mumpEoE ppMpm mO>HO>CH .mH .xpoz pHOCp Op popMpr Amp.mv Amo.pv Aqs.pv Amo.pv Aqm.pe mconHooo CH opoCHoprmC op «mm. pso. moo. omo. Hm». Mppcoppoooo opp mpmpooop o>Ho op poppo CH mmCHpooE .mmeOMOp mOHom .mH .mCOHpMHCOOC Mnm.mv Amm.Hv Anm.Hv mom.HV Aoo.Hv OOLmHHpmpmo opp Op mCHhHQEOO Op nmm. mom. vow. Hom. Hum. poommOp CpH3 BOHHOw Op mumpEmE mpppm mHC COM mOHmmeo poom mpom .mH mpozomoe mHma mpopooos mHmm mpOp EmpH IHOCHCm IHOCHHC IOOQmCH oocmEp0ppom oHom mCOHpOpoomxm OHom .oosoHpcoous.om oppme .meBB .mmmee .mHZIICOHpmpommxm OHOC pCoEOOMsz Op OmpmHmm mxwme mo OHHp0pmn|.mm mpCmHm ‘ mpmnomoe IIIIII. mHmmHOCHpm oooooooooooooooo mHOpUQOCH 147 mH mp. + J\ [\ 4’- -0- If) «r O) «r OH. ON. om. om. om. OQ.H 148 .mBmBB .mmmBBIIOOCmEp0mHmm OHOC pCoEOOMsz Op UmpMHmm mxmme mo OHHp0pmll.vm mpCmHm mHOCOMOB .ll|.|ll mHmmHOCHpm m S. m E H cH HH ”H MH NH HH OH m m w m m w m N H Tl'Ti w w 4P 1“ ¢ in w w p 1+ A 3 1 J1 \/\A\ H. fix |. \I!. I \ O o \ O I ‘/ ’l. \ \ / C x. x z \I I!!! xx s I s p z/ s I \ Is I s 1.x / s l s 0H. om. om. ow. om. on. om. om. col... 149 stand between the "often" and "occasionally" scale points for l6 items, and between the "occasionally" and "seldom" categories for seven items. As may be noted, all three groups tend to expect high frequency on these items. It should be noted that the groups' responses dis— play differences regarding the measures of consensus and mean scores. Of the three groups, MIs indicate the highest measures of within group consensus. Principals are second. Again, as a group, MIs' responses appear to be closer to the "almost always" scale points on most of the items than the other groups. Similarly, principals come second and teachers are third. On role performance, principals' and teachers' responses consistently differ from each other. The groups' mean scores tend to fall around different scale points on 77 items out of 100. On 72 of the.lm)items, principals' mean scores fall between the "almost always" and "often" categories, whereas teachers' mean scores fall around the same scale points on only six items. On 77 items, teachers' responses tend to fall between the "often" and "occasionally" scale points. Measures of consensus for principals are generally higher than for teachers. Principals' mean scores indicate more frequency of behaviors than the teachers'. There appears to be high similarity between the principals' role expectations and their perceptions of the 150 actual performance, meaning that they think they perform their tasks in the way they think they should. Types of behaviors which all three groups appear to expect the principal to exhibit "occasionally" or "seldom" 1. The principal should decide what shall be done and how it shall be done. The principal should accept delays without becoming upset. The principal should be able to delay action until the proper time occurs. The principal should turn the staff members loose on a job, and let them go to it. The principal should handle students' discipline problems without resorting to the written rules and regulations. The principal should require that every staff member follow the established work schedule and administrative duties. The principal should refuse to explain his actions (the groups expect this behavior to occur "seldom" or "almost never"). Types of behaviors in which all three groups appear to be in high consensus (above .80) and expect the princi- pal to exhibit "almost always" or "often" are: IIDL 151 The principal should: 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. respect the staff members' professional judgment. encourage the use of uniform procedures. try out his new ideas in the staff. encourage initiative in the staff members. work hard for a promotion. apply rules and regulations uniformly to every staff member. make sure that the staff members equally enjoy the privileges offered by the school. make certain that the staff members are treated equally with respect to annual subject assign— ments, weekly work schedules, and other school activities. act impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members. arrange the "group teachership" in such a way that he can fulfill his functions of guidance to students. make sure that the school library is open at the times when it can be used best by the teachers and students. make certain that the school library is so arranged and prepared that it can serve its purpose and is a comfortable place. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 152 demonstrate that every subject matter is impor- tant in the achievement of the school objectives. make certain that with respect to light, heat, and arrangement, classrooms are comfortable places for students and teachers to work in. make sure that oral and written examinations to evaluate students' achievement are being given in accordance with established rules and regu- lations. take necessary measures to have each subject matter taught in accordance with its nature and requirements. show genuine interest in school activities pre— pared and performed by the staff members and students. help to establish constructive relationships among staff members and try to coordinate their work. take necessary measures to have the school prepared in time for national and other important days. set good examples for his staff members to follow with respect to complying with the established regulations. make sure that, with respect to its library, classrooms, students' dining rooms, dormitories, 153 and sport facilities, the school is a desir- able place for students and teachers in which to work and spend their leisure time. When principals' and teachers' responses to these same items on role performance are examined, it may be observed that the teachers' mean scores differ from the principals' on all these items except two, tending to fall between the "Often" and "occasionally" scale points, whereas principals' responses stand between the "almost always" and "often" categories. The teachers consistently tended to distribute their perceptions of their principals‘ behavior over much wider ranges of frequency than the principals did in perceiving their own behavior. Tables 12—20 show measures of consensus of the three groups on all subscale items separately for role expectations. Tables 12—20 also show measures of consensus of the TTSPs and TTSTS on all subscale items separately for role performance. This chapter aimed at presenting and describing the findings which the analyses have produced, in an attempt to provide answers for the questions stated at the outset of the chapter. Presentation focused on three points: (a) the MOE expectations for TTSPs; (b) MIs', TTSPs', and TTSTs' responses to the LBDQ—XII subscales and to additional 154 items in two forms, "Should Be" and "Is"; (c) measures of consensus within each group on role expectations and role performance. The findings may be summarized as follows: 1. Regulations reflect the expectations of the MOE for TTSPs and state what the principal is supposed to do. However, they do not provide the principal with specific "how to" guidance in carrying out his tasks. 2. Regarding role expectations, significant differ- ences were indicated on: Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management subscales between the groups, but the Scheffé post—hoc com— parison failed to detect the nature of the differences. The groups did not show significant difference on Consideration, Superior Orientation, and Impartiality subscales. Regarding role performance, only principals and teachers responded to the "Is” forms. The findings indicate that the principals generally perceive themselves as per— forming the behaviors with greater frequency than teachers. 3. The three groups' measures of consensus may be summarized as shown on the following page: 155 Numbers of Items on Which Measures of Consensus Are Above .60 Inspectors Principals Teachers Total Items Role Expectations 86 items 81 items 76 items 100 Role Performance ... 87 items 16 items 100 Numbers of Items on Which Measures of Consensus Are Above .70 Inspectors Principals Teachers Total Items Role Expectations 66 items 64 items 47 items 100 Role Performance ... 72 items none 100 As may be noted, MIs tend to be in more agreement about their expectations in the given situations. TTSPs also show high consensus on their role expec- tations as a group. It is interesting to note that TTSPs appear to have higher consensus on their perceptions of their actual performance than on their expectations. TTSTS also show high consensus (though their measures of consensus are generally lower than MIs' and TTSPs') on role expectations, but indices of consensus on role per— formance are notably low. They display consensus above .60 156 on only 16 items out of 100,and above .70 on none. In terms of their distribution over the several categories of choice, they tend to display a wider spread of responses approximat- ing rectangular distributions. What these various findings may suggest or imply regarding leadership roles in Turkish Primary Teacher Train— ing Schools is the subject of the next chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study, as indicated in Chapter I, is a pioneer- ing one intended to look at the expectations and perceptions of three key professional figures involved in the educational process at the secondary school level in Turkey. The underlying concepts which have been stated in Chapter II are that: l. The permanence of an organization depends on its effectiveness (accomplishment of the cooperative purpose) and its efficiency (satisfaction of individual need—dispositions); 2. Satisfaction increases as expectations of the institution become more congruent with personal need— dispositions; 3. Individuals' views of their positions are made up of what they believe they should do and what they believe to be the views of significant or relevant others. Indi— viduals' views of their positions also involve an awareness of differences between self—expectations and expectations of relevant others, as well as an awareness of differences between the various expectations of relevant others; 4. Clarity and consensus of role expectations are determining factors of convincing, proper, and appropriate 157 158 role enactment. Having these concepts as bases, the writer aimed at looking at the expectations and perceptions which ministerial inspectors, principals, and teachers have for school principals' task performance by looking at a partic— ular type of institution in the Turkish educational system—- primary teacher training schools. This was an exploratory study which may lead to other studies in Turkish education. The problem, as stated in Chapter I, was to study the role behaviors of Turkish Teacher Training School Prin- cipals——as defined by the MOE and as expected and perceived in given situations by MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTS. The problem was formulated in several questions, which have been stated in Chapter I, and restated in Chapter IV. The LBDQ—XII form, which has been described in Chapter III, was the main instrument used for collecting data in this study. The instrument, as stated in Chapter III, has been used with success in previous leadership behavior descrip— tion studies. It was considered appropriate for the present study. Six LBDQ—XII subscales in particular were selected for this study, and three groups of additional items were d€3VelOped by the writer. It was assumed that a reasonable period of time of Paacticipation in the activities of the school would be inIportant in conditioning teachers' perceptions of the 159 principals' actual performance and for that reason primary teacher training schools where principals and teachers had worked together for at least one school year constituted the population for this study. Populations were drawn from 76 primary teacher training schools where there were 76 principals and 1772 teachers. Ministry Inspectors who participated were 53 in number. The instrument was administered at 76 schools by nine personnel from the MOE's Office of Planning, Research and Coordination. They were pre—trained regarding the administration Of the instrument before they were sent to field. As stated in Chapter III, the data were put on a tape and were sent to Michigan State University to be analyzed. MANOVA analyses and computations for ordinal consensus were made at Michigan State University and were sent back to Ankara for incorporation in the present study. Results of the Analyses Regarding role expectations, significant differences ‘were indicated on: Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of .Egcertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Tasks 3Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management Eflibscales between the groups, but the Scheffé post—hoc CKbmparison failed to detect the nature of the differences. 160 No significant differences were observed on the following subscales: Consideration, Superior Orientation, and Impartiality. Regarding role performance: The test of differences between principals and teachers revealed significant differ— ences between TTSPs and TTSTS in their perceptions of principals' performances on all the subscales——Consideration, Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Superior Orientation, Imparti— alipy, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management. The principals' observed mean score on each subscale was consistently lower than the teachers', which indicates that principals perceive their actual performance of the defined items as occurring with greater frequency than the teachers. On measures of consensus regarding role expectations: MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTS displayed interestingly similar pat- terns in their responses to role expectations items. Though the groups indicated a general similarity in over-all pattern, they showed differences with respect to degrees of Consensus. MIs' indices of consensus were generally higher and generally closer to the "Almost Always" scale point than either the principals' or the teachers'. Moreover, MIs displayed the highest indices of within group consensus 161 on all the subscale items. Principals were second and teachers third with respect to measures of consensus. Table 21 shows the lowest and the highest indices of consensus for MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTS for all subscales items. Table 21.--Range of consensus scores—~MIs, TTSPs, TTSTs—— for role expectation. Inspectors Principals Teachers Subscale Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Consideration .490 .846 .546 .842 .492 .834 Initiation of Structure .613 .913 .413 .961 .505 .881 Tolerance of Uncertainty .358 .811 .167 .875 .418 .845 Tolerance of Freedom .632 .830 .493 .880 .402 .834 Role Assumption .311 .858 .167 .842 .190 .752 Superior Orientation .585 .971 .678 .905 .601 .836 Impartiality .623 .953 .599 .934 .550 .902 Tasks Related to Instruc. .670 .990 .713 .954 .673 .932 Tasks Related to Mgt. .413 .981 .309 .967 .302 .925 On measures of consensus regarding role performance: The items with the highest and lowest measures of consensus 162 for each subscale are tabulated below. Measures of consensus on the remaining items on each subscale varied between these two indices. Table 22.-—Range of consensus scores——TTSPs, TTSTs——for role performance. Principals Teachers Subscale Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Consideration .671 .840 .431 .632 Initiation of Structure .533 .939 .482 .666 Tolerance of Uncertainty .572 .849 .492 .638 Tolerance of Freedom .599 .862 .472 .634 Role Assumption .452 .822 .316 .583 Superior Orientation .647 .855 .472 .682 Impartiality .567 .941 .466 .578 Instruction .704 .961 .404 .643 Management .572 .934 .382 .653 Principals' indices of consensus, as seen above, were consistently higher than the teachers', indicating that principals are in more agreement about their percep— tions of their actual performance than teachers. Teachers did not seem to be very much in agreement among themselves in their perceptions of the principals performance. 163 The Findings and Explanation The findings of this study have been presented and summarized above. The question now is: What do these find- ings mean? What do they imply? In order to summarize and classify the findings of this study, the following sections will consist of (a) pre- sentation of the basic points which emerged from the analy— ses, and to offer conjectures as to why they are present, and (b) to consider possible implications for the existing teacher training schools. Five basic points emerged from the analyses: 1. The groups hold similar expectations. 2. Within group consensus. 3. Teachers differ from principals in their per- ceptions of Performance. 4. Items of high within and between group consensus. 5. Items of high dispersion. The groups hold similar expectations: It emerged from the analyses that the groups, MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTS, hold similar expectations for leadership behaviors for the principal. It needs to be noted that statistically signif- icant difference in the groups' profile was observed on six subscales——Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Uncer— taiupy, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Tasks Related to Instruction, and Tasks Related to Management, but the post—hoe Scheffé test failed to detect the nature of 1,, 1 7 h. - -~--T—; " IL 164 differences. This may be interpreted to mean that some differences exist in the groups' profile but these differ— ences become minimal on the individual subscales. It may be seen in the profile that the groups' expectations vary from subscale to subscale with respect to the level of fre— quency, but the groups show notable similarity on the indi— vidual subscales. To state it differently, there is no great discrepancy between the groups' expectations for leadership behaviors on the individual subscales. The groups tend to favor Tasks Related to Instruc— tion, Impartiality, and Superior Orientation types of beha— viors more than Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom types of behaviors in terms of frequency. From the point of view of closeness to the "almost always" point on the scale, the subscales may be ranked as follows: 1. Tasks Related to Instruction 2. Impartiality 3. Superior Orientation 4. Initiation of Structure 5. Tasks Related to Management 6. Consideration 7. Role Assumption 8. Tolerance of Freedom 9. Tolerance of Uncertainty 165 This may be interpreted to mean that MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTs want the principal to exhibit Instruction, Impartiality, and Superior Orientation types of behaviors more frequently than Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom types of behaviors. To put it in a different way, MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTs take Instruction, Impartiality, and Superior Orienta— tion types of behaviors as more crucial than Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom for principals' task performance. Based on the groups' responses to the subscales, it may be argued that these three groups of Turkish educators seem to be organizational oriented (regulation oriented) rather than person oriented. These similarities in expectations of these profes- sionals may be explained as follows: Turkey has a central— ized educational system. Decisions are made and regula— tions are formulated at the central Office in Ankara, and local institutions are asked to Operate by conforming to regulations. Principals and teachers are assigned to administra— tive and teaching positions and are asked to operate or to perform their tasks in line with regulations. Ministry Inspectors are assigned to supervise the schools. Their main function is to see to it that schools are being administered and educational activities are being carried out in accordance with regulations. 166 Tasks are performed in compliance with the uniform rules and regulations. To state it differently, role per— formance requires interaction with the rules and regulations, and therefore MIs, TTSPs, and TTSTs interact with each other on the basis of rules and regulations. Since rules and regulations become the guidelines for these people to per— form their tasks, it may be argued that the regulations have a significant influence on the formulation of their expecta— tions for leadership behaviors. The image of leadership behaviors for principals imbedded in the regulations is very narrow in scope and emphasizes reSponsibility for seeing to it that minimum regulations are met. Uniformity and conformity constitute the essence of the regulations, and during the interactions between and among these professionals these qualities are accentuated and as a consequence of this they become prom- inent determiners of these people's expectations for leader~ ship behaviors. This may account for the similarity of expectations for TTSPs between members of the role set. Within group consensus: The groups displayed some differences of Opinion within themselves with respect to their eXpectations and perceptions for leadership behaviors. The data indicated that MIs constitute the most homogeneous groups in terms of the degree of within group consensus regarding their expectations for leadership behavior. 167 TTSPs also indicated a high degree of within group consensus on their expectations. It is very interesting to note that principals have displayed higher degrees of within group consensus on their perceptions of their own actual performance than on their expectations. TTSTs indicated dispersed opinions on both their expectations and perceptions. The degree of within group consensus for teachers was higher on their expectations than on their perceptions of the principals' actual behaviors. Teachers displayed widely distributed perceptions as to how frequently their principals do exhibit given behaviors. The within group consensus that MIs displayed may be explained from the point of view of MIs' frame of refer— ence which is deemed to be a function of (a) interaction which the inspectors have, (b) their structural positions, and (c) regulations which prescribe the inspectors' role performance. Regarding the social interaction, as discussed before, social interaction is considered as a vehicle by which the groups' expectations are developed and reinforced. Through social interaction the members of the group exchange views, influence each other, and this way the group develops and reinforces its own expectations which may serve as a frame of reference for the members in performing their roles. With respect to the position of Ministry Inspectors, it may be said that a role position requires certain role -——-’ I: 168 behaviors. Occupants of similar positions are expected to exhibit similar behaviors in order to fulfill their func— tions. In this way the position becomes one of determining factors of the occupants' expectations. In terms of regulations, MIs function in line with the same regulations—-regulations of inspection. Uniformity and conformity constitute the essence of the regulations. Regulations suggest conformity and uniformity and M18 follow regulations as guides for task performance and this may likely lead to similarity in the understandings and ways of looking at matters among the people involved. TTSPs also present within group consensus on their expectations and perceptions of the leadership behavior. Principals' within group consensus may also be explained from the points of view of the position and regulations. The position of the principal requires certain norms and duties which the principals are to follow and accom— plish. And so, the position is considered to be one of the determining factors of the principals' role expectations. Since principals occupy similar positions, they are expected to behave similarly and have similar expectations. Regulations are the written requirements of the posi- tion and play the role of guidance for principals to perform their tasks. Since the principals are to conform to regula- tions, this may also have a homogenizing effect with regard to expectations. "' 169 TTSTs' within group consensus regarding their expectations for leadership behaviors for principals (though teachers' within groups consensus is not as high as MIs‘ or TTSPs') may be explained from the point of view of their social interaction among themselves. It is believed that through the process of social interaction members of the group develop similar expectations which may distinguish the group from others. Teachers differ from principals in their perceptions: It emerged from the analyses of the data that teachers sig— nificantly differ from principals in their perceptions of the principals' task performance. Significant differences were observed on all subscales. Principals indicated that they exhibit the given behaviors frequently, but teachers indicated that principals do not exhibit these behaviors as frequently. The difference between principals' and teachers' perceptions is not surprising. It is not surprising because perceptions are affected by several factors. The difference between these two groups of professionals may be explained from the points of view of (a) the effects of teachers' cog- nitive structure, their likes or dislikes for principals; (b) the effects of teachers' previous information whether true or not; and (c) the effects of motivation and emotion On perception. 170 From the point of view of teachers' cognitive struc— ture, it may be said that if teachers like or dislike their principals, their judgments become systematically affected. It is natural that in their role performance principals may gain some of their staff members' likes and others' dis- likes. This is possible, for principals are to achieve organizational objectives and so they function accordingly. Of course, they need to take staff members' needs into con— sideration while performing their roles, but it is not pos- sible for principals to achieve school objectives and meet everybody's needs since organizational objectives and indi— viduals' need—dispositions are not completely reconcilable. Regarding the effects of teachers' previous infor- mation, it is possible that teachers' previous information about their principals might have affected their perceptions of principals' role performance in given situations. Teachers' perceptions might also have been affected by their motivation and emotion. The difference may also come from the principals' over—estimation of their actual performance. The data indi— cate that principals' expectations and perceptions are very much alike. It is likely that principals might have tried to indicate that they live up to their expectations in their role performance. It needs to be noted that although teachers signifi- cantly differ from principals in their perceptions, they 171 (teachers) also display dispersion within the group regarding their perceptions of the principals' role performance. In other words, teachers differ from principals in their per— ceptions but they do not show within group agreement in their perceptions. The matter, or the discrepancy between principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' actual perfor— mance can also be looked at from another point of view, from the point of view of organizational conflict. It was stated several times that therexmaxano observed significant differ- ences between principals' and teachers' expectations for leadership behavior, but the groups expressed significant differences in their perceptions of the principals' actual performance. It is believed that consensus between principals and teachers on their expectations for leadership behavior is an important factor for the principal to perform his tasks effectively. In other words, the principal needs to live up to his significant others' expectations to be effective in his role performance. As findings indicate, principals and teachers have similar expectations for leadership behaviors which may be deemed as the foundation for effective task performance, but the groups indicated significant differ- ence in their perceptions of the principals' actual per— formance. This discrepancy between the principals and teachers' perceptions might operate as a source of conflict. 172 Since principals and teachers consistently differ from each other in their perceptions of the principals' actual perfor~ mance, this might indicate that principals may not be per— forming their tasks in the way they and teachers believe they should. This may be taken as a problematic area to focus on very carefully. Principals might benefit from professional training in order to re—examine their role performance more carefully and objectively in order to be able to perform their tasks more effectively. Items of high consensus within and between groups: All three groups indicated a high degree of within group consensus and expected high frequency on the behaviors which are generally related to Impartiality, Initiation of Struc— ture, Instruction, and Management. These areas may be con— sidered as areas of common agreement regarding leadership behaviors for principals. Areas of marked dispersion: All three groups indi— cated marked dispersion or dissensus in their expectations for leadership behavior for principals on the behaviors mostly related to Role Assumption. There was one item related to Tolerance of Uncertainty and one item related to Tasks Related to Management on which the groups also indi— cated dissensus. One might explain this marked dissensus in their expectations by supposing that these professionals in the 173 Turkish centralized system might not have been so familiar with these types of behaviors as to have a clear idea as to how frequently the principal should exhibit them. Implications 1. There is no provision or encouragement for inno— vations, experimentation or research in the regulations. Turkey has a centralized educational system which is experi- encing a rapid expansion. This expansion or growth is taking place at every level and type of education. It is of utmost importance to note that this expansion is very costly for Turkey. Turkey urgently needs to make the best use of the limited resources which are allocated to education. There— fore every measure needs to be taken to value every "lira" invested in education and to control the growth to make it occur in a planned way and toward national objectives. This entails scientific studies and investigations. In other words, educational growth should be based on research— based plans and programs. If so, the present system needs to make provisions for scientific inquiries and studies, and to seek innovations leading to greater effectiveness and efficiency. 2. The need for innovation and research creates another problem. In order to make innovations and investi- gations imaginative, meaningful, valuable, and productive the system needs to have more and better qualified pro— fessionals. People who are in positions to initiate 174 innovations and conduct investigations need to be well qual— ified in order to be able to make use of study findings, to carry out research, to understand and interpret find— ings correctly, and to apply them to the existing system. Far more in the way of professional training is needed on the part of these administrators (TTSPs). Professional preparation programs at universities are not fully estab— lished yet. The Ministry of Education organizes summer sem— inars and courses, but these are not sufficient from the point of view of needed academic growth and professionally qualified personnel. Needed professional training programs should include the following areas of studies: organizational theories, administrative theories, economics of education, educational planning, curriculum development, educational leadership, educational research, sociology of education, social- psychology, organizational psychology, group dynamics and a foreign language (English, German, French). This list is by no means complete, but indicates the kinds of content needed in professional training programs. In preparation of these programs it is suggested that findings be taken into account of studies like the present one made in Turkey on actual field problems of education. It is believed that in this way training programs can be geared to our own sys- tem to meet our system's specific needs. 3. Development of professional leadership training programs is likely to require changes in the recruitment 175 policies for school principals. A recruitment policy based on future requirements of school administration should be established. Points which are fundamental to such policy will of course include experience in teaching and school administration as at present, but should also include advanced academic training in leadership theory and in research. In selecting school administrators, the following may be suggested: a. A qualification examination and interview be utilized to select assistant principals. These leaders should be chosen from among teachers who are still teaching and who have had at least three years of experience in teaching. Teachers who are selected this way may be appointed to schools as assistant principals. b. A qualification examination and interview should be established to select candidates for advanced academic professional training programs from among assistant princi— pals who have had at least three years of experience in administration. Those who are qualified may attend uni— versities to follow designed programs in educational admin- istration. These programs should lead to advanced degrees, such as masters or doctoral degrees. c. Those who complete the required program should be assigned to schools as principals. d. Seminars and workshops should be organized to keep these administrators professionally up to date and to 176 provide them with Opportunity to exchange their views and ideas with each other. 4. Necessary measures should be taken to make school administration attractive in financial terms. Future salary scale for school administration should be commensurate with the responsibilities and required advanced degrees for prin— cipals. This may be one starting point toward making school administration a profession and having more qualified and competent professionals for school administration in Turkey. 5. These training programs and recruitment policies also may help Turkey to move from centralization to decen- tralization. The present system is administered from the center. The central office is the decision maker and the local administrators are the rule followers. Participation from the local administrators in decision making at the central office is not a common practice. By and large the center gives, and the local administrators take it as it comes (one—way communication process). Several questions come to mind: How can local administrators grow profes- sionally, when they just follow rather than doing something creative and original (which may require breaking away from established rules and regulations)? How can these profes— sionals get the satisfaction of doing something by them— selves, which may contribute to their professional growth? 177 Is current practice not likely to cause local administrators to stagnate? The present organizational structure of the educa— tional system was designed decades ago when the system was small and simple. Now the system is too large to be admin— istered effectively and efficiently by the existing organi- zational structure. It is believed that the time has come for the system to take a critical look at itself, in the light of modern organizational and administrative theories and research findings, in an attempt to renew or reorganize its structure and attain the more effective and functional organizational structure which the present educational needs demand. It is believed that decentralization may provide answers to some of the problems which are believed to come from centralization. Decentralization, however, may also require certain fundamental qualities on the part of local administrators which are now lacking but would be essential. As indicated before, suggested professional training programs and improved recruitment policies should help to qualify local administrators of the sorts which decentralization requires. 6. It is believed that social interaction is impor— tant in developing the expectations of people who are involved in the process of achieving common goals. It is also believed that clarity and consensus of role expecta- tions are important for effective and convincing role Was—7 178 enactment. The inspectors' role in the process of education at secondary schools including teacher training schools is very important. In order to be able to play this role effectively and properly, MIs need to have close contact and constant social interaction with the people whom they supervise and try to provide leadership. Through this social interaction these three groups of professionals may be able to exchange views and become aware of each other's expec- tations and may take each other's expectations into account in their respective task performance. The consensus which is believed to be achieved through social interaction may help occupants of these three positions perform their tasks effectively and properly. What the above argument suggests is that there needs to be some change in the present structure of inspection. MIs should be assigned to provinces where they can work with principals and teachers very closely in order to perform their function of leadership and inspection more effectively. This way, MIs, not once a year or once in three years but every day, every week, can be with and among principals and teachers and this may help all the parties give and take for the purpose of effective education. 7. Some aspects of the homogeneity observed in the responses of M15 and TTSPs in the present study may be con- sidered important from the point of view of continuity, harmony, and maintenance of high levels of reinforcement in 179 performance. Types of leadership behaviors which are com— monly expected by the majority of all types of professionals should be accentuated. These commonly expected leadership behaviors may be taken as starting points from which to strengthen group solidarity and upon which to build new dimensions to the expectations of these professionals and enlarge their visions and horizons directed toward better— ment and more effective education and educational adminis- tration. Types of leadership behaviors on which the groups did not indicate consensus or displayed dispersed feelings may be taken as problematic areas to focus on. Since similarity in expectations and perceptions among the members of a given group is considered to be important in order for the group to achieve a common goal, it may be suggested that necessary measures be taken to elucidate the differences which might be the source of conflict and frustration and to try to mitigate or minimize them. Again, it may be said that sound professional training programs may help to establish a professional foundation on which to build. Advanced pro— fessional training may thus play a unifying role. Suggested Further Studies 1. It was stated several times in Chapter IV and Chapter V that TTSTS displayed divided feelings in their expectations and perceptions. There were teachers who showed expectations and perceptions similar to the principals' 180 It may be suggested that a follow—up study be conducted to find out the likelihood for the teachers, who were in agree- ment with the principals in their expectations and percep- tions, to become administrators. In other words, do the expectations and perceptions of teachers have any effect on their careers? Or does teachers' being in agreement with principals in their expectations have any influence on their becoming administrators? 2. The present design should be extended to other secondary level schools to confirm the findings of the present study. 3. In order to go deeper into the data collected by the current writer, a study should be carried out to see if there is any relationship between the variables—~educa- tional background, age, eXperience in teaching, experience in administration, and major area of specialization and the professionals' expectations for leadership behaviors for principals. 4. It may also be suggested that the present data be further studied in order to find out if there is any relationship between teachers' and principals' expectations and the organizational context. Schools may be looked at from the point of view of their types, as 7—year schools, 4-year schools, schools for boys and schools for girls, etc. 5. A similar study should be conducted to find out external groups' expectations for leadership behaviors for school principals. It is groups, from the point of school, the P.T.A. should should be included in the 181 suggested that, among the external view of its close contact with the be given priority, or at least suggested study. BIBLIOGRAPHY 182 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators. Staff Rela— tions in School Administration. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1955. Anderson, Walter A.; Beauchamp, March; and Cope, Quill E. Responsibilities of School Administrators. New York: Department of Administration and Supervision, New York University, 1952. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938. Becker, H. S. “Role and Career Problems of the Chicago Public School Teacher." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, 1951. Brown, Allan F. "Reactions to Leadership." Educational Administration Quarterly, III, 1 (1967). Bursalioglu, Ziya. Egitim Yoneticisinin Davranis Etkenleri. Ankara Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Yayinlari No. 31, Sevinc Matbaasi, 1972. Campbell, Merton V. "Teacher—Principal Agreement on the Teacher Role." Administrator's Notebook. The University of Chicago, VIII (February, 1959). Chase, Francis S. "Professional Leadership and Teacher Morale.” Administrator's Notebook. The University of Chicago, I, 8 (1953). Chin, Robert. "The Utility of Systems Models and Develop— mental Models for Practitioners." Planning of Change. Edited by Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1961. Cruickshank, Donald R. "The Use of Theory in Educational Administration. The National Elementary Principal, XLIV, 6 (1965). 183 . r—i 184 Cummings, L. L. "The Manager as a Leader." Educational Administration. Edited by W. G. Hack, et al. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Day, D. R. ”Basic Dimensions of Leadership in a Selected Industrial Organization." Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University Library, 1961. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organi— zations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw—Hill, Inc., 1967. Fisk, Robert S. "The Tasks of Educational Administration." Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Fleishman, E. A. ”The Description of Supervisory Behavior." J. Appl. Psychology: XXXVII (1953). "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry." Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Edited by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph NO. 88, 1957. . Harris, E. F.; and Burtt, H. E. Leadership and Supervision in Industry. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research, Monograph No. 33, 1956. Foskett, John M. The Normative World of the Elementapy School Principal. Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1967. Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process." The School Review, LXV (Winter, 1957). ; Lipham, James M.; and Campbell, Roald F. Educa— tional Administration as a Social Process. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968. Gibb, Jack R. "Dynamics of Leadership." Organizations and Human Behavior. Edited by Fred D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1969. 185 Griffiths, Daniel E. Human Relations in School Administra— tion. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1956. Gross, Neal; Mason, W. S.: and McEachern, A. W. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superinten— dency Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Halpin, Andrew W. "How Leaders Behave." Organizations and Human Behavior. Edited by Fred D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1969. "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders." Harvard Educational Review, XXV (Winter, 1955). "The Leadership Behavior and Combat Performance of Airplane Commanders." J. Abnorm. and Soc. Psychology, XLIX (1954). The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1959. Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971. Haskew, L. D. "Description of a Good Administrator." Southwestern CPEA December Conference on Improving Preparation Programs for School Administrators. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, Southwestern CPEA, 1951. Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership. Colum- bus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research, Monograph No. 32, 1949. , and Coons, A. E. "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire." Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Edited by R. M. Stog» dill and A. E. Coons. Columbus: The Ohio State Uni- versity, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Hills, R. J. "A New Concept of Staff Relations." Adminis- trator's Notebook. The University of Chicago, VIII (March, 1960). Ignatovich, Frederick R. "Types of Effects of Elementary School Principal—Leaders: A Q-Factor Analysis." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Iowa, 1970. 186 Inglis, Chester. ”Advice to Administrators: Clues for Success." The Clearing House, September, 1967. Karagozoglu, Galip. "The Role of Ministry Supervisors in the Turkish Educational System." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Lane, Willard R.; Corwin, R. G.; and Monahan, W. G. Founda— tions of Educational Administration. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1970. Leik, Robert K. "A Measure of Ordinal Consensus." Pacific Sociological Review, IX (Fall, 1966). Likert, Rensis. "An Emerging Theory of Organization, Leadership, and Management." Condensation of a paper presented at the Symposium on Leadership and Inter- personal Behavior sponsored by Louisiana State Univer- sity and the Office of Naval Research, March 3-5, 1959, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Mimeographed.) Lipham, James M. "Personal Variables of Effective Adminis— trators." Administrator's Notebook. The University of Chicago, IX, 1 (1960). March, James G., and Simon, Herbert. Organizations. New York: John Wiley, 1959. Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Ilkogretmen Okullari Yonetmeligi. Milli Egitim Basimevi-Ankara, 1966. Morphet, Edgar L.; Johns, Roe L.; and Reller, Theodore L. Educational Organization and Administration. New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1967. Moyer, Donald C. "Teachers' Attitudes Toward Leadership as They Relate to Teacher Satisfaction." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1954. Presthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, Inc., 1962. Prince, Richard. "Individual Values and Administrative Effectiveness." Administrator's Notebook. The Univer— sity of Chicago, VI, 4 (1957). Ramseyer, John A.; Harris, Lewis E.; Pond, Millard Z.; and Wakefield, Howard. Factors Affecting Educational Admin— istration. CPEA series. Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1955. 187 Sanford, Fillmore H. "Research on Military Leadership." Psychology in the World Emergency. Edited by John C. Flanagan. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1952. Sarbin, Theodore R., and Allen, Vernon L. "Role Theory." The Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. New York: Addison—Wesley Publishing Co., 1969. Savage, William W., and Been, Harlan D. "The Effective Administrator." Administrator's Notebook. The Univer— sity of Chicago, II, 2 (1953). Saxe, Richard W. "The Principal and Theory." Perspectives on the Changing Role of the Principal. Edited by Richard W. Saxe. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1968. Scully, Emily Marie. "Personnel Administration in Public Education: A Study in Human Relationships." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School, University of Wisconsin, 1945. Shartle, C. L. "Introduction." Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Edited by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Sternloff, Robert E. ”The Critical Requirements for School Administrators Based Upon an Analysis of Critical Incidents." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Wisconsin, 1953. Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. "The Leader Behavior of Corporation Presidents." Personnel Psychol., XVI (1963). "The Leader Behavior of United States Senators." J. Psychol., LVI (1963). . Managers, Employees, Organizations. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1965. . Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Ques- tionnaire——Form XII. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963. ' 188 ; Goode, O. 8.; and Day, D. R. "New Leader Behavior Description Subscale." J. Psychol., LIV (1962). Sweitzer, Robert E., et al. Role Expectations and Percep~ tions of School Principals. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Research Foundation, Oklahoma State University, 1963. Thompson, Victor A. "Bureaucracy and Innovation." Adminis— trative Science Quarterly, X, l (1965). APPENDICES 189 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES 190 FORM I (Inspectors-—Principals-—Teachers) Purpose of the Questionnaire: On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the behavior of the principal, as you think he should act. This is not a test of ability. It simply asks you to describe how the principal should act in situations as described by the items. Please keep it in mind that you are not being asked how many times or how frequently the situations described by the items should arise but when they do arise how fre- quently the principal should behave in situations as des- cribed by the items. DIRECTIONS: l. READ each item carefully. 2 THINK about how frequently the principal should engage in the behavior described by the item. 3. DECIDE whether he SHOULD almost always, often, occasion— ally, seldom, or almost never act as described by the item. 4. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five figures following the item to show the answer you have. 1 = Almost always 2 = Often 3 = Occasionally 4 = Seldom 5 = Almost never 5. Mark your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: He should often act as described. l(:)3 4 5 Example: He should almost always act as described. CD.2 3 4 5 6. ANSWER EACH QUESTION. 191 192 1 2 3 4 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never The principal should be friendly and approachable. The principal should let the staff members know what is expected of them. The principal should wait patiently for the results of a decision. The principal should allow the staff members freedom in their work. The principal should not be hesitant about taking initiative in the staff. The principal should apply rules and regu— lations uniformly to every staff member. The principal should get along well with the peOple above him. The principal should use teachers' meet- ings to evaluate and improve instruction. The principal should arrange the "group teachership" in such a way that he can fulfill his functions of guidance to students. The principal should give priority to professional experience in assigning staff members to administrative tasks even if they do not have seniority in this school. The principal should put suggestions made by the staff into operation. The principal should encourage the use of uniform procedures. The principal should become anxious when he cannot find out what is coming next. The principal should permit the staff members to use their own judgment in solving problems. The principal should not fail to take necessary action. The principal should make certain that discipline regulations are uni- formly applied to every student. The principal should keep staff members in good standing with higher authority. U1 Almost always 193 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never 1-28. The principal should meet with teachers of the same subject matters and try to coordinate their work and make sure that the established plan is being followed. In handling students' problems the principal should be a rule follower. The principal should give priority to seniority in this school in assigning staff members to administrative tasks. The principal should treat all staff members as his equals. The principal should try out his new ideas in the staff. The principal should accept defeat in stride. The principal should encourage initia— tive in the staff members. The principal should not let other persons take away his leadership in the staff. The principal should make sure that the staff members equally enjoy the privi- leges offered by the school. The principal should work hard for a promotion. The principal should involve teachers and student representatives in the activities directed to the improvement of instruction. The principal should handle students' discipline problems without resorting to the written rules and regulations. The principal should give priority to merit and success in assigning staff members to administrative tasks. The principal should give advance notice of changes in policy and procedure. The principal should make his attitude on a subject clear to the staff. Almost always 194 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom The principal should accept delays without becoming upset. The principal should let the staff members do their work the way they think best. The principal should not let some members take advantage of him. The principal should make certain that the staff members are treated equally with rOSpect to annual subject assign— ments, weekly work schedules and other school activities. The principal's superiors should act favorably on most of his suggestions. After classroom visit the principal should meet with the teacher to exchange points of view with him concerning instruction and his performance. The principal should act as an impartial member of the staff in order to handle disputes among the staff without using discipline regulations. The principal should use established criteria in assigning staff members to administrative tasks. The principal should not refuse to explain his actions. The principal should decide what shall be done and how it shall be done. The principal should become anxious when waiting for new developments. The principal should assign a task, then let the staff members handle it. The principal should be the leader of the staff in name only. The principal should act impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members. The principal should enjoy the privileges of his position. Almost never Almost always 195 1 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never The principal should make sure that the school library is open at the times when it can be used best by the teachers and students. The principal should follow the rules and regulations in dealing with dis— putes among staff members. The principal should help to establish constructive relationships among staff members and try to coordinate their work. The principal should act without con— sulting the staff. The principal should make sure that his part in the school is understood by the staff. The principal should be able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty. The principal should not turn the staff members loose on a job, and let them go to it. The principal should not back down when he ought to stand firm. The principal should treat all students the same irresepctive of their parents' social, economic and poitical positions. The principal should get his superiors to act for the welfare of the staff. The principal should make certain that the school library is so arranged and prepared that it can serve its purpose and is a comfortable place. The principal should follow the rules and regulations in dealing with dis— putes between teachers and students. The principal should measures to have the in time for national important days. take necessary school prepared and other The principal should do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the staff. 196 1 2 3 4 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never The principal should schedule the work to be done with a clear idea as to when. The principal should wait just so long, then blow up. The principal should be reluctant to to allow the staff members any freedom of action. The principal should not let some members have authority that he should keep. The principal should act impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members and students. The principal's word should carry weight with his superiors. The principal should involve teachers in decision making concerning instructional materials needed. The principal should successfully and effectively handle disputes between teachers and students without making official issues out of them. The principal should not require that every staff member follow the estab— lished work schedule and administrative duties. The principal should consult the staff members on important matters before going ahead. The principal should determine what tasks are to be performed and who is responsible for them. The principal should remain calm when uncertain about coming events. The principal should allow the staff members a high degree of initiative. The principal should take full charge when emergencies arise. The principal's actions should demon— strate that every subject matter is important in the achievement of the school objectives. Almost always 197 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never 2-26. 2-27. The principal should get what he asks for from his superiors. The principal should make certain that with reSpect to light, heat and arrange- ment classrooms are comfortable places for students and teachers to work in. The principal should hold teachers' meet- ings to review the rules, regulations and written orders concerning education, instruction and management and to inform teachers about the new orders from the central government. The principal should set good examples for his staff members to follow with respect to complying to the established rules and regulations. The principal should respect the staff members' professional judgment. The principal should work without a plan. The principal should be able to delay action until the proper time occurs. The principal should trust the staff members to exercise good judgment. The principal should overcome attempts made to challenge his leadership. The principal should take necessary measures to have each subject matter taught in accordance with its nature and requirements. The principal should be working his way to the top. The principal should make sure that oral and written examinations to eval- uate students' achievement are being given in accordance with established rules and regulations. The principal should hold teachers' meetings in order to give teachers the opportunity to participate in decisions which are related to their work. 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always 198 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never 2-34. The principal should involve staff members and student representatives in spending in the best possible way the money appropriated for food, clothing and other supplies. for the members. staff and The principal should look out personal welfare of the staff The principal should ask that members follow standard rules regulations. The principal should worry about the outcome of any new procedure. The principal should permit the staff members to set their own pace. The principal should easily be recog- nized as the leader of the staff. The principal should show genuine interest in school activities prepared and performed by the staff members and students. The principal should maintain cordial relations with superiors. The principal should hold teachers' meetings to provide teachers with opportunities to engage in professional discussions and to exchange views con- cerning education and instruction. The principal should meet with individ- ual staff members and listen to their personal and professional problems and try to help them solve their problems. The principal should make sure that with respect to its library, classrooms, students' dining rooms, dormitories, and sport facilities, the school is a desir— able place for students and teachers in which to work and spend their leisure time. 199 (INSPECTORS) You have already answered the questions; we appreciate your cooperation greatly. Now, you are requested to take a few more minutes of your time to answer the following ques- tions related to yourself. Please put an (X) in the square which fits your situation. 2-46. [\J I Your age: 1. 1_ less than 3O —— 2. 4_ 31—40 3. 4:7 41—50 51-60 4:. \l —— over 60 9 \. \| Your sex: l. [:7 Female 2. (:7 Male The last school ypu graduated from: 1. [:7 University 2. [:7 Teachers College 3. [:7 Technical Institutions of Higher Learning 4. 1:7 Institute of Education 5. [:7 Foreign College or University 6. [:7 Secondary level Vocational Schools 7. [:7 Course or Proficiency Examinations 8. /—7 Others (Specify) l 200 Your field of specialization (major area) in the last institution ypu attended: 1. 2. {—7 Turkish—Literature Social Studies (History, Geography, Civics) E: El Mathematics and Science (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Natural Science) Foreign Language (English, French, German, etc.) CI CI Arts and Handcrafts (Drawing, Handcrafts, Music, Physical Education) Education and Philosophy groups Cl C: Technical Professional subjects for boys C1 Technical Professional subjects for girls 1:7 Others (Specify) Years of experience as teacher: 1. 2. 1:7 1—5 4:7 6—10 ;:7 11—15 1:7 16—20 [:7 21 and over Years of experience as principal at secondapy schools: 1. 2. [:7 1—5 1:7 6—10 1:7 11—15 4:7 16-20 4:7 21 and over N I 52. 201 Years of experience as inspector: l. /—7 less than 2 years -——-n 2. 4:7 2—4 3. 4:7 5—9 4. 4:7 10—14 5. 1:7 15—19 6. 1:7 20 and over Have you inspected TTSs during the last three school years? 1. /_7 Yes 2. 1:7 No FORM II (Principals) Purpose of the questionnaire: On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe your behavior as principal. Each item des— cribes a specific kind of behavior, but it does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar they express differ- ences that are important in the description of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making ans— wers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, your behavior as prin— cipal. Please keep it in mind that you are not being asked how many times or how frequently the situations described by the items arise but when they do arise how frequently you behave the way you describe. DIRECTIONS: l. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently you engage in the behavior described by the item. 3. DECIDE whether you (1) Almost always, (2) Often, (3) Occa— sionally, (4) Seldom, or (5) Almost never act as des- cribed by the item. 4. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five figures (1-2—3-4-5) following the item to show the answer you have selected. 1 = Almost always 2 = Often 3 = Occasionally 4 = Seldom 5 = Almost never 5. MARK your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: I often act as described. Example: I almost never act as described. 6. ANSWER EACH QUESTION. FJH NO map bub O 202 203 l 2 3 4 5 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never 1-11. I am friendly and approachable. l 2 3 4 5 1-12. I let the staff members know what is expected of them. 1 2 3 4 5 l-13. I wait patiently for the results of a decision. 1 2 3 4 5 l—l4. I allow the staff members freedom in their work. 1 2 3 4 5 1-15. I am hesitant about taking initiative in the staff. 1 2 3 4 5 1—16. I apply rules and regulations uniformly to every staff member. 1 2 3 4 5 l—l7. I get along well with the people above me. 1 2 3 4 5 l—18. I use teachers' meetings to evaluate and improve instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 1-19. I arrange the "group teachership" in such a way that he can fulfill his functions of guidance to students. 1 2 3 4 5 1—20. I give priority to professional eXperi- ence in assigning staff members to administrative tasks even if they do not have seniority in the school. 1 2 3 4 5 1-21. I put suggestions made by the staff into operation. 1 2 3 4 5 1-22. I encourage the use of uniform procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 1-23. I become anxious when I can not find out what is coming next. 1 2 3 4 5 1-24. I permit the staff members to use their own judgment in solving problems. 1 2 3 4 1—25. I fail to take necessary action. 1 2 3 4 1—26. I make certain that discipline regula— tions are uniformly applied to every student. 1 2 3 4 5 1—27. I keep staff members in good standing with higher authority. 1 2 3 4 5 1—28. I meet with teachers of the same subject matters and try to coordinate their work and make sure that the established plan is being followed. 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always 204 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never 1-31. 1-32. 1—33. 1-34. 1-43. 1-44. 1-45. 1-46. In handling students' a rule follower. problems I am I give priority to merit and success in assigning staff members to adminis- trative tasks. I treat all staff members as my equals. I try out my new ideas in the staff. I accept defeat in stride. I encourage initiative in the staff members. I let other persons take away my leadership in the staff. I make sure that the staff members equally enjoy the privileges offered by the school. I work hard for a promotion. I involve teachers and student repre- sentatives in the activities directed to the improvement of instruction. I handle students' discipline problems without resorting to the written rules and regulations. I give priority to merit and success in assigning staff members to admin- istrative tasks. I give advance notice of changes in policy and procedure. I make my attitude on a subject clear to the staff. I accept dealys without becoming upset. I let the staff members do their work the way they think best. I let some members take advantage of me. I make certain that the staff members are treated equally with respect to annual subject assignments, weekly work schedules and other school activities. My superiors act favorably on most of my suggestions. H FJF4 H NNNN 3 wwww 4 sharps U'IU1U1U‘I Almost always 205 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never 1-51. 1-52. 1-57. 1-58. 1—61. 1-62. 1—65. After classroom visit I meet with the teacher to exchange points of view with him concerning instruction and his performance. I act as an impartial member of the staff in order to handle disputes among the staff without using dis~ cipline regulations. I use established criteria in assigning staff members to administrative tasks. I refuse to explain my actions. I decide what shall be done and how it shall be done. I become anxious when waiting for new developments. I assign a task, then let the staff members handle it. I am the leader of the staff in name only. I act impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members. I enjoy the privileges of my position. I make sure that the school library is open at the times when it can be used best by the teachers and students. I follow the rules and regulations in dealing with disputes among staff members. I help to establish constructive rela— tionships among staff members and try to coordinate their work. I act without consulting the staff. I make sure that my part in the school is understood by the staff. I am able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty. I turn the staff members loose on a job, and let them go to it. I back down when I ought to stand firm. Almost always 206 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never 1-66. 1-73. 1-74. I treat all students the same irrespec— tive of their parents' social, economic and political positions. I get my superiors to act for the welfare of the staff. I make certain that the school library is so arranged and prepared that it can serve its purpose and is a comfortable place. I follow the rules and regulations in dealing with disputes between teachers and students. I take necessary measures to have the school prepared in time for national and other important days. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of staff. I schedule the work to be done with a clear idea as to when. I can wait just so long, then blow up. I am reluctant to allow the staff mem- bers any freedom of action. I let some members have authority that I should keep. I act impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members and students. . My word carries weight with my superiors. I involve teachers in decision making concerning instructional materials needed. I successfully and effectively handle disputes between teachers and students without making official issues out of them. I require that every staff member follow the established work schedule and admin— istrative duties. I consult the staff members on important matters before going ahead. 207 l 2 3 4 5 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never 2-16. I determine what tasks are to be per— formed and who is responsible for them. 1 2 3 4 5 2-17 I remain calm when uncertain about coming events. 1 2 3 4 5 2—18. I allow the staff members a high degree of initiative. 1 2 3 4 5 2—19 I take full charge when emergencies arise. l 2 3 4 5 2—20 My actions demonstrate that every sub- ject matter is important in the achieve— ment of the school's objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 2—21. I get what I ask for from my superiors. l 2 3 2-22. I make certain that with respect to light, heat and arrangement classrooms are comfortable places for students and teachers to work in. l 2 3 4 5 2—23. I hold teachers' meetings to review the rules, regulations and written orders concerning education, instruction and management and to inform teachers about the new orders from the central government. 1 2 3 4 5 2-24 I set good examples for my staff members to follow with respect to complying to the established rules and regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 2-25 I respect the staff members' pro— fessional judgment. 1 2 2-26 I work without a plan. 1 2 3 4 5 2—27 I am able to delay action until the proper time occurs. 1 2 3 4 5 2-28 I trust the staff members to exercise good judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 2-29 I overcome attempts made to challenge my leadership. 1 2 3 4 5 2—30 I take necessary measures to have each subject matter taught in accordance with its nature and requirements. 2—31. I am working my way to the top. 2—32. I make sure that oral and written exam— inations to evaluate students' achieve— ment are being given in accordance with established rules and regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always 208 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never 2-33. I hold teachers' meetings in order to give teachers the opportunity to par— ticipate in decisions which are related to their work. I involve staff members and student representatives in spending in the best possible way the money approp- riated for food, clothing and other SUpplies. I look out for the personal welfare of the staff members. I ask that staff members follow standard rules and regulations. I worry about the outcome of any new procedure. I permit the staff members to set their own pace. I am easily recognized as the leader of the staff. I show genuine interest in school activities prepared and performed by the staff members and students. I maintain cordial relations with superiors. I hold teachers' meetings to provide teachers with Opportunities to engage in professional discussions and to exchange views concerning education and instruction. I meet with individual staff members and listen to their personal and pro- fessional problems and try to help them solve their problems. I make sure that with respect to its library, classrooms, students' dining rooms, dormitories, and sport facili— ties, the school is a desirable place for students and teachers in which to work and spend their leisure time. 209 (PRINCIPALS) You have already answered the questions; we appreciate your cooperation greatly. Now, you are requested to take a few more minutes of your time to answer the following ques- tions related to yourself. Please put an (X) in the square which fits your situation. 2-46. Your age: 1. 4:7 less than 23 2. 4:7 26-30 3. 4:7 31-35 4. 4:: 36—40 5. 4:7 41—45 6. 4_ 46-50 7. f7 51 and over Your sex: 1. 4:7 Female 2. /_7 Male , The last school you graduated from: 1. 2. 4:7 University [:7 Teachers College 4:7 Technical Institutions of Higher Learning 4:7 Institute of Education Foreign College or University Secondary level Vocational Schools I '\| RI |\ \ Courses or Proficiency examinations 4_7 Others (Specify) 210 Your field of specialization (major area) in the last institution you attended: 1. /_7 Turkish-Literature 2. [:7 Social Studies (History, Geography, Civics) 3. 4:7 Mathematics and Science (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Natural Science) .9. \ \l Foreign Language (English, French, German, etc.) 01 \ \ Art and Handcrafts (Drawing, Handcrafts, Music, Physical Education) 6. 4:7 Education and PhilOSOphy groups 7. 4:7 Technical Professional subjects for boys 8. 4:7 Technical Professional subjects for girls. 9. 4:7 Others (Specify) How long have you taught or years of experience as a teacher? 1. \ less than 2 years 2-4 \. \l 2. 5-9 (p \ \| 10-19 CI' 20—29 9 \. \l 30 and over D' Years of experience as assistant principal: l. 4_/ one year 2. 47 2-4 3. £7 5—9 4. 4:7 10 and over 211 Years of experience as principal: 1. 4:7 1-5 2. 4:7 6-10 3. 4:7 11—15 4. 4:7 16-20 5. 4:7 21 and over How many times have you attended seminars in adminis— tration conducted by the Ministry? 1. 4:7 None 2. 4_ Once 4. 4:7 Three times FORM III (TEACHERS) Purpose of the Questionnaire: This is a questionnaire on which you may describe the behavior of your principal. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior without invoking any judgment about the desirability or undesirability of that behavior. These questions in no way constitute a "test of the ability" of the person who answers the items. Nor do they involve an evaluation of the effectiveness of the principal‘s performance. It is possible, however, from this straight- forward description of the frequency with which the principal engages in Specific kinds of behavior to identify certain distinct leadership styles. Your answer will N9: be seen by the principal. This questionnaire will be scored and the results analyzed at the Planning, Research and Coordination Office of the Ministry of National Education. The report of the findings will preserve the anonymity of your answers. Please keep it in mind that you are not being asked how many times or how frequently the situations described by the items arise but when they do arise how frequently your prin— cipal behaves in situations as described by the items. Thank you. DIRECTIONS: l. READ each item carefully. 2 THINK about how frequently your principal engages in the behavior described by the item. 3. DECIDE whether he almost always, often, occasionally, seldom, or almost never acts as described by the item. 4. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters following the item to show the answer you have selected. 5. MARK your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: The principal in my school often acts as described. 1.@D3 4 5 Example: The principal in my school almost never acts as described. 1 2 3 4(:) 6. ANSWER each question. 212 213 l 2 3 4 5 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never The principal in my school: 1-11. Is friendly and approachable. 1 2 3 4 5 1—12. Lets the staff members know what is expected of them. 1 2 3 4 5 l—13. Waits patiently for the results of a decision. 1 2 3 4 5 1—14. Allows the staff members freedom in their work. 1 2 3 4 5 1-15. Is hesitant about taking initiative in the staff. 1 2 3 4 5 1-16. Applies rules and regulations uniformly to every staff member. 1 2 3 4 1-17. Gets along well with the people above him. 1-18. Uses teachers' meetings to evaluate and improve instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 l-19. Arranges the "group teachership" in such a way that he can fulfill his functions of guidance to students. 1 2 3 4 5 1-20. Gives priority to professional experi— ence in assigning staff members to administrative tasks even if they do not have seniority in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 1-21. Puts suggestions made by the staff into Operation. 1 2 3 4 5 1-22. Encourages the use of uniform procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 l-23. Becomes anxious when he cannot find out what is coming next. 1 2 3 4 5 1-24. Permits the staff members to use their own judgment in solving problems. 1-25. Does not fail to take necessary action. 1—26. Makes certain that discipline regula- tions are uniformly applied to every student. 1 2 3 4 5 1-27. Keeps staff members in good standing with higher authority. 1 2 3 4 5 1-28. Meets with teachers of the same subject matters and tries to coordinate their work and makes sure that the established plan is being followed. 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always 214 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never The principal in my school: 1-29. 1-30. 1-31. 1-32. 1-33. 1-34. 1-37. 1—38. 1-43. 1~44. 1—45. 1—46. Is a rule follower in handling students' problems. Gives priority to seniority in this school in assigning staff members to administrative tasks. Treats all staff members as his equals. Tries out his new ideas in the staff. Accepts defeat in stride. Encourages initiative in the staff members. Lets other persons take away his leadership in the staff. Makes sure that the staff members equally enjoy the privileges offered by the school. He is working hard for a promotion. Involves teachers and student repre- sentatives in the activities directed to the improvement of instruction. Handles students' discipline problems without resorting to the written rules and regulations. Gives priority to merit and success in assigning staff members to admin- istrative tasks. Gives advance notice of changes in policy and procedure. Makes his attitude on a subject clear to the staff. Accepts delays without becoming upset. Lets the staff members do their work the way they think best. Lets some members take advantage of him. Makes certain that the staff members are treated equally with respect to annual subject assignments, weekly work schedules and other school activities. r4 H r4 H NNNN wwww vbIDI-bsb U'IU1U'IU‘I 215 1 2 3 4 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never The principal in my school: 1-47. 1-55. 1-56. 1-57. 1—58. His superiors act favorably on most of his suggestions. After hiscflassroomvisit meets with the teacher to exchange points of view with him concerning instruction and his per- formance. Acts as an impartial member of the staff in order to handle disputes among the staff without using discipline regula— tions. Uses established criteria in assigning staff members to administrative tasks. Refuses to explain his actions. Decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. Becomes anxious when waiting for new developments. Assigns a task, then lets the staff members handle it. Is the leader of the staff in name only. Acts impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members. Enjoys the privileges of his position. Makes sure that the school library is Open at the times when it can be used best by the teachers and students. Follows the rules and regulations in dealing with disputes among staff members. Helps to establish constructive rela— tionships among staff members and tries to coordinate their work. Acts without consulting the staff. Makes sure that his part in the school is understood by the staff. Is able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty. Almost always 216 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never The principal in my school: 1—64. 1-65. 1-66. Turns the staff members loose on a job, and lets them go to it. Backs down when he ought to stand firm. Treats all students the same irre— spective of their parents' social, economic and political positions. Gets his superiors to act for the welfare of the staff. Makes certain that the school library is so arranged and prepared that it can serve its purpose and is a comfortable place. Follows the rules and regulations in dealing with disputes between teachers and students. Takes necessary measures to have the school prepared in time for national and other important days. Does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the staff. Schedules the work to be done with a clear idea as to when. Can wait just so long, then blows up. Is reluctant to allow the staff mem— bers any freedom of action. Lets some members have authority that he should keep. Acts impartially in dealing with a dispute between staff members and students. His word carries weight with his superiors. Involves teachers in decision making concerning instructional materials needed. Successfully and effectively handles disputes between teachers and students without making official issues out of them. 217 l 2 3 4 5 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never The principal in my school: 2—14. Requires that every staff member follow the established work schedule and administrative duties. 1 2 3 4 5 2—15. Consults the staff members on important qfifi matters before going ahead. 1 2 3 4 5 1‘ 2—16. Determines what tasks are to be per— formed and who is responsible for them. 1 2 3 4 5 2—17. Remains calm when uncertain about coming events. 1 2 3 4 5 2—18. Allows the staff members a high degree 4 of initiative. 1 2 3 4 5 2—19. Takes full charge when emergencies arise. l 2 3 4 5 2-20. His actions demonstrate that every subject matter is important in the achievement of the school objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 2—21. Gets what he asks for from his superiors. 1 2 3 4 5 2—22. Makes certain that with respect to light, heat and arrangement classrooms are com— fortable places for students and teach- ers to work in. l 2 3 4 5 2-23. Holds teachers' meetings to review the rules, regulations and written orders concerning education and management and to inform teachers about the new orders from the central government. 1 2 3 4 5 2—24. Sets good examples for his staff members to follow with respect to complying to the established rules and regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 2—25. Respects the staff members' profes- sional judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 2-26. Works without a plan. 1 2 3 4 5 2—27. Is able to delay action until the proper time occurs. 1 2 3 4 5 2—28. Trusts the staff members to exercise good judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 2—29. Overcomes attempts made to challenge his leadership. 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always 218 l 2 3 4 Often Occasionally Seldom 5 Almost never The principal in my school: 2-30. 2-31. 2-32. Takes necessary measures to have each subject matter taught in accordance with its nature and requirements. Is working his way to the top. Makes sure that oral and written exami— nations to evaluate students' achievement are being given in accordance with established rules and regulations. Holds teachers' meetings in order to give teachers the Opportunity to participate in decisions which are related to their work. Involves staff members and student rep— resentatives in spending in the best possible way the money apprOpriated for food, clothing and other supplies. Looks out for the personal welfare of the staff members. Asks that staff members follow standard rules and regulations. Worries about the outcome of any new procedure. Permits the staff members to set their own pace. Is easily recognized as the leader of the staff. Shows genuine interest in school activi- ties prepared and performed by the staff members and students. Maintains cordial relations with superiors. Holds teachers' meetings to provide teachers with Opportunities to engage in professional discussions and to exchange views concerning education and instruction. 219 l 2 3 4 5 Almost always Often Occasionally Seldom Almost never The principal in my school: 2—43. Meets with individual staff members and listens to their personal and professional problems and tries to help them solve their problems. 1 2 3 4 5 2—44. Makes sure that, with respect to its library, classrooms, students' dining rooms, dormitories, and sport facilities, the school is a desirable place for students and teachers in which to work and spend their leisure time. 1 2 3 4 5 220 (TEACHERS) You have already answered the questions; we appreciate your cooperation greatly. Now, you are requested to take a few more minutes of your time to answer the following ques- tions related to yourself. Please put an (X) in the square which fits your situation. 2-46. Your age: 1. 4:7 less than 25 2. 4:7 25-30 3. 4:7 31—35 4 4:7 36-40 5. 4:7 41-45 6. 4_ 46-50 7. 4:7 51 and over 2—47. Your sex: 1. 4:7 Female 2. 4:7 Male 2-48. The last school you graduated from: 1. 1:7 University 2. 4:7 Teachers College 3. 4:7 Technical Institutions of Higher Learning 4. 4_/ Institute of Education 5. 4_/ Foreign College or University 6. 4:7 Secondary level Vocational Schools 7. /—7 Courses or Proficiency Examinations 8. 4—7 Others (Specify) 221 Your field of specialization (major area) in the last institution you attended: 1. 4:7 Turkish—Literature 2. [:7 Social Studies (History, Geography, Civics) 3. 4:7 Mathematics and Science (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Natural Science) 4. 4:7 Foreign Language (English, French, German, etc.) 5. 4:7 Art and Handcrafts (Drawing, Handcrafts, Music, Physical Education) 6. 4:7 Education and Philosophy groups 7. 4:7 Technical Professional subjects for boys 8. 1:7 Technical Professional subjects for girls. 9. 4:7 Others (Specify) Years of experience as a teacher: 1. 4:7 less than 2 years 2. 4:7 2-4 3. 4:7 5-9 4. 4:7 10—19 5. 4:7 20—29 6. /_7 30 and over Years of teaching at the present school: 1. 4:7 2 years 2. 4:7 2—4 3. 4:7 5-9 4. 4_/ 10—15 5. 4—7'16 and over 222 Years of experience in administration, as assistant principal or principal: 1. 4:7 One year 2. /__7 2—3 3. _/_—7 4-5 4. 4:7 6—7 5. 4_7 8 and over 6. 4:7None How many times have you attended seminars in adminis- tration conducted by the Ministry? 1. 4:7 None 2. 4:7 once 3. 4:7 twice 4. 4—7 three times and more CONSIDERATION INITIATION OF STRUCTURE TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM ROLE ASSUMPTION SUPERIOR ORIENTATION INPARTIALITY TASK RELATED TO INSTRUCTION: RASK RELATED TO MANAGEMENT 223 SUBSCALES AND RELATED ITEMS lull 2-15 1-12 2-16 1-13 2—17 1-14 2-18 1-15 2-19 1-17 2-11 1—16 1-18 2-12 1—20 1-59 2-24 1-21 2-25 1-22 2-26 1—23 2-27 1-24 2—28 1-25 2-29 1-27 2—21 1-26 1-19 2-20 1-29 1—60 2-33 1—31 2-35 1-32 2-36 1-33 2-37 1-34 2—38 1-35 2-39 1-37 2-31 1-36 1-28 2—22 1-30 1-69 2-34 1-41 1—43 1—38 2—30 1-39 1-70 2—43 1-51 1-48 2-32 1-40 2-13 2-44 1-58 2—40 1—49 2-14 1-72 1-68 2—42 1-50 2-23 224 NEGATIVE ITEMS In Form I (Should Be) Items: 1-23 1-51 1-53 1-55 1-61 1-64 1-73 1-74 2—14 2—26 2-37 In Forms II and III (Is) Items: 1-15 1-23 1-35 1-45 1-51 1-53 1-55 1-61 1-65 1-73 1—74 1-75 2-26 2-37 APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE 225 226 August 17, 1972 To the Ministry of National Education, A research related to the task performance of Teacher Training School principals is being conducted in the Office of Planning-Research and Coordination. The purpose of the study is to find out Teacher Training School Principals', teachers', and Ministry Inspectors' expectations for and perceptions of the principals' behavior in given situations. If it is approved by the Ministry, nine staff members of our office will be sent to the Teacher Training Schools for two weeks in October, 1972, to administer the question— naires designed for this purpose. Your permission is requested to refer the matter to the General Directorate of Personnel to complete the neces- sary paper work concerning the assigned personnel's per diem and travel expenses. Respectfully yours, Bedi Erdem Acting Chief of the Planning—Research— Coordination Office of the MOE Approved: 7/8/1972 To the General Directorate of Personnel, Minister of the National Education. 227 August 18, 1972 To the General Directorate of Teacher Training Schools, A research, "The Behavior of Teacher Training School Principals in Given Situations," based on approval by the Ministry of Education dated August 17, 1972, and numbered 010/3146, is being conducted in our office. Names of the principals and teachers at the Teacher Training Schools are needed for this study. Mustafa Aydin, who is a member of our staff and the researcher for this study, will be working in the record division of your office to collect the needed data. Please provide him with the help necessary to complete the needed data. Sincerely yours, Bedi Erdem Acting Chief of the Planning—Research and Coordination Office of the MOE 228 September 15, 1972 To the Chairmanship of the Board of Inspection of the Ministry of National Education, A research, "The Behavior of Teacher Training School Principals in Given Situations," based on approval by the Ministry of Education dated August 17, 1972, and numbered 010/3146, is being conducted in our office. Ministry Inspectors constitute one of the three target populations for this study. Enclosed are 120 ques— tionnaires to be given to the members of the Board. Your concern to the matter is kindly requested. Please make sure that the questionnaires are sent back after they are filled out. Respectfully yours, Bedi Erdem Acting Chief of the Planning—Research and Coordination Office of the MOE 229 September 15, 1972 To the General Directorate of Teacher Training Schools, A research, ”The Behavior of Teacher Training School Principals in Given Situations," based on the approval of the Ministry of National Education dated August 17, 1972, and numbered 010/3146, is being conducted in our office. Nine members of our staff will be sent to the Teacher Training Schools in October, 1972, to administer the ques— tionnaires prepared for this study. Names of the assigned staff members and the schools assigned to them are shown on the attached sheet. The questionnaires will be administered to all the teachers who meet the requirements of the study. Please notify the school principals regarding the study and ask them to provide the researchers with necessary assistance to complete their job. Sincerely yours, Bedi Erdem Acting Chief of the Planning—Research and Coordination Office of the MOE 230 September 30, 1972 To the Teacher Training School Principalship, Add. A research, "The Behavior of Teacher Training School Principals in Given Situations," based on approval by the Ministry of Education dated August 17, 1972, and numbered 010/3146, is being conducted in our office. The questionnaires designed for this purpose will be administered at your school by our assigned staff member. It is urgently requested that you be COOperative and provide him with necessary help to complete his assignment. Sincerely yours, Bedi Erdem Acting Chief of the Planning—Research and Coordination Office of the MOE 231 Number: 9898 November 3, 1972 Cahit Kulebi Rifat Sance Cevdet Arun Kamil Su Rifat Gokgol Ziver Tezeren Resat Oguz Chief Inspectors of the MOE The questionnaires in connection with the research, "The Behavior of Teacher Training School Principals in Given Situations,” which is being conducted at the Office of Plan- ning, Research and Coordination of the MOE, had been dis- tributed to the inspectors at the annual meeting. Some of these questionnaires have not been returned to our chairman- ship yet. It is requested that the inspectors in your groups be informed to return the questionnaires. Cevat Tinic Chief of the Board of Inspectors "11111111111111