This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF DEANS AND PRESIDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SAUDI ARABIA presented by Mulaihan Mueidh Athubaity has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Higher Education Major professor Date September 25, 1981 M SU is an Affirm ative A ction/E qual Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF DEANS AND PRESIDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SAUDI ARABIA By Mulaihan Mueidh Athubaity The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership behavior of the presidents and deans at the University of Riyadh and the University of Petroleum and Minerals as p e r ­ ceived by the deans and department chairmen at both institu­ tions and to determine the impact of such variables as nationality, type of institution, academic position, and educational background on the respondents' their superiors' perceptions of leadership behavior. The study population consisted of 22 deans and 8 0 department chairmen at both universities. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire— Form XII, which consists of 100 Likert-type items and is divided into 12 subscales, was selected as the survey instrument for the study. null hypotheses were tested at the multivariate analysis of variance All the .05 alpha level using the (MANOVA) procedures. tistical tests resulted in the following findings: Sta­ Mulaihan Mueidh Athubaity 1. No significant differences existed between Saudi and non-Saudi department chairmen in terms of their per­ ceptions of the leadership behavior of the deans at the two universities. 2. Deans and department chairmen did not signifi­ cantly differ in their perceptions of the leadership behavior of the presidents and deans at both universities. 3. There were significant differences between the two universities in terms of the perception of leadership behavior, though the univariate test has failed to identify the nature of the differences. 4. No significant differences were found in the refer­ ent groups' perception of leadership behavior due to educational background. Based on the literature review and the findings of this study, a statement of conclusions and suggested recommen­ dations was made. A N EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF DEANS AND PRESIDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SAUDI ARABIA By Mulaihan Mueidh Athubaity A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 ProQuest Number: 10008704 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10008704 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and most important, High, thanks to God, the Most the Almighty, whose help and guidance were the basis of my success. To my beloved parents who gave me total encouragement and moral support, I sincerely express my heartfelt thanks and deepest appreciation. I am especially indebted to my wife and children for their patience and support. I also wi sh to express my deep appreciation to the members of my doctoral committee: Dr. Max Raines, chair­ person; Dr. Howard Hickey; Dr. Ben Bohnhorst; and Dr. John Useem for their cooperation and professional guidance. Special gratitude is extended to the deans and depart­ me nt chairpeople at the University of Riyadh and the Un iver­ sity of Petroleum and Minerals whose cooperation made the completion of this research possible. Finally, my my friends in Saudi sincere appreciation is extended to all Arabia and at the Saudi Arabian Educ a­ tional Mission in the United States for their significant contributions to this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... V LIST OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S ................................ vi Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .................... Purpose of the S t u d y ......................... Rationale for the S t u d y .................... Significance of the Study .................. Definition of Terms ......................... Research Questions ........................... Research Hypotheses ......................... Limitations and Delimitations .............. Research Assumptions ......................... Design and Methodology ....................... Organization of the S t u d y .................. 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ....................... 15 Higher Education in Saudi Arabia ........... Brief Comparison of Saudi and American Universities ................................ L e a d e r s h i p .................................... Definitions of Leadership ................ Leadership Theory ......................... Leadership Behavior Theory ................ 15 27 39 40 44 48 ............. 63 Introduction .................................. P o p u l a t i o n .................................... Data Collection Procedures .................. Instrumentation ............................. Analysis of the D a t a ......................... Null H y p o t h e s e s ............................. 63 64 65 67 71 73 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY iii Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ............................ Introduction ......................... Sample Distribution Reliability of the LBDQ-XII forthe Sample . Statistical Tests of Null Hypotheses . . . . Hypotheses 1, 2, 2, and 4 ................. Hypotheses 5 and 6 .......................... S u m m a r y .................................. V. S U M M A R Y , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76 76 77 80 82 82 91 97 ... S u m m a r y .................................. 100 Conclusions and Implications ................ Recommendations ............................. 100 103 107 APPENDIX A: LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE .............. 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 121 iv LIST OF TABLES 3.1. Percentage of Returns from Each Institution 3.2. Reliability Coefficients (Modified KuderRichardson) .................................. 70 4.1. Sample Distribution ............................ 78 4.2. Reliability Estimates for the LBDQ-XII S u b s c a l e s .................................... 81 Means and Standard Deviations of LBDQ-XII S u b s c a l e s .................................... 83 Multivariate Analysis of Position and University Factors ........................... 86 4.5. Univariate Analyses for the University Factor 90 4.6. Means and Standard Deviations for University and Educational Background .................. 95 Multivariate Analysis of University and Educational Background ....................... 96 4.3. 4.4. 4.7. v . 67 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. 2. Organizational Structure of Higher Education in Saudi A r a b i a ................................ 35 An Illustrative Figure of the Analysis of the D a t a ............................................. 73 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION According to Edwin Ghiselli (1971) , an organization can be defined as: A social group wherein the individual members are differentiated one from another with respect to the functions they perform in connection with attaining the common goals, their roles being arranged or structured so that their individual actions will be integrated into a total concerted e f f o r t . 1 (p. 5) Organizations are one of the most common elements of almost all contemporary societies. governmental, Of course, States, educational, They may be religious, industrial, or of some other type. in a more industrial society such as the United formal organizations are more prevalent, larger, and mu ch more complicated than they are in a developing country such as Saudi Arabia. orientation, However, regardless of size, complexity, or location of an organization, the fact remains that leadership actions and behaviors of high-ranking adminis­ trators are significant determinants of such organization's effectiveness and efficiency. and Martin Chemers (1974) In this regard, Fred Fiedler have stated that: . . . the impact of effective leaders is dramatically demonstrated over and over again on a national scale in every country's history and on a local scale in every organization's p a s t . 2 (p. l) 1 2 They add that "the organization without effective leadership is in trouble" (p. 1). In his analysis, Michael Maccoby (1979) pointed out that there are two interrelated aspects of the leader's role. One has to do wit h the functions of leadership, while the other has to do wit h presenting an image or model that others want to emulate, if not i m i t a t e . 3 According to Charles Perrow (197 0), one of the enduring truisms of organizations is that they are, after all, made up of people who have different needs, goals, and m o t i v e s . 1* Thus, it can be concluded that without sound leadership which can give those individuals a sense of unity, direction, and common purpose, the effective­ ness and productivity of the organization will be in doubt. This conclusion is supported by Maccoby when he stated that: . . . the primary tasks of leaders are to understand both motives and resistance to change and to establish operating principles that build trust, facilitate cooperation, and explain the significance of the indi­ vidual's role in attaining the common p u r po se .5 (1979, p. 20) Few people who have been associated with institutions of higher education in Saudi Arabia would disagree with the statement that they are complex organizations in their struc­ ture and processes. These institutions are faced with numerous problems such as dependency on foreign professionals, tion of departments and programs, replica­ ambiguity in programs' goals and objectives, unpredictability in enrollment, and high 3 turnover among native Saudi professionals, etc. These problems are considered by many in the field as natural results of the tremendous growth and expansion which these institutions have witnessed during the last decade. Despite the lack of research and empirical studies, conversations wi th people closely associated with colleges and universities in Saudi Arabia and the investigator's own experience and observation support the notion that providing a pattern or style of leadership that can effectively deal w i th these problems and issues, balance the concern for people with the concern for mission, and the concern for quality with the concern for quantity is a major challenge facing executive officers, presidents, and deans of these institutions. Although it is almost impossible to identify what kinds of paths lead people to such jobs as president, vice president, or dean, top leadership positions in higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia are extremely important because that is where the major policy decisions are made. Such decisions always have p ro ­ found effects on the constituents of these institutions, particularly faculty and students. Occupants of those positions are expected to provide a pattern of leadership behavior that can meet the goals of the institutions and the needs of their constituents. Accomplishing such a task is not an easy job. 4 Statement of the Problem Believing in the significance and cruciality of effective institutional leadership, this researcher intends to explore the leadership behavior of presidents and deans at two major universities in Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University and the University of Petroleum and Minerals. Such explora­ tion would provide a clear picture of how leadership operates in those institutions and would serve as a basis for recom­ mending change or improvement in the future. Purpose of the Study The main purpose of this study is to investigate the differences, if any, in presidents' and deans' leadership behavior at Riyadh University and the University of Petroleum and Minerals as perceived by two different groups: ment chairmen toward the deans, presidents. a new theory, 1) depart­ and 2) deans toward the This proposed study does not intend to introduce but rather, it will attempt to provide higher education leaders in Saudi Arabia with an empirical framework within which they can better understand the patterns of their leadership behavior as measured by the subscales of the LBDQ-12 instrument. Such a framework should help top administrators in Saudi colleges and universities take a close look at the way leadership operates in their institutions and give them some insight for making any necessary adjustment or changes 5 in their leadership behavior in order to meet future demands and challenges. Rationale for the Study It is hoped that this study will help Saudi educators, particularly college and university top administrators, become more aware of the various patterns or styles of leadership behavior and their profound impact on individuals' behavior and institutional effectiveness. Furthermore, all of the research which the investigator has reviewed to date and the instruments which have been developed to explore leadership behavior have dealt with organizational phenomena in the Western industrial hemisphere. The investigator's review of the literature regarding higher education in Saudi Arabia for the last ten years revealed no such studies in that country. Thus, it is also hoped that the data, methods, and conclusions of this study will add a substantial piece of reference material to the slowly accumulating body of literature on higher education in Saudi Arabia and provide a solid base for further research in the future. Significance of the Study The research efforts, which are extremely limited in number and scope, pertaining to education in Saudi Arabia have been primarily concerned with the Ministry of Education and public schools. Far less attention has been given to 6 higher education administration, particularly the leadership behavior of the executive officers, these institutions. presidents, and deans of This places a major responsibility on Saudi researchers, who are very few, to direct their attention and efforts to this crucial segment of the national educational system in order to help university leaders become more aware of their strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness. In view of the current need for research and empirical studies, type of study. and subsequently improve their there is a special significance for this If major differences are revealed between referent groups on perceived leadership behavior ratings of presidents and deans, the study serves as a basis for recom­ mending change. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were formulated: P r esident— The chief administrative officer of an institution of higher education who serves as the executive officer of the board of trustees or of other governing authorities. De an — The administrative officer of an independent college or of a division, who is responsible, executive officer, college, or school of a university under direction of the president or other for the administration and supervision of instructional activities or of student relations. 7 Chairman— A faculty member who, in addition to performing some teaching duties in a department, has been designated to carry on certain administrative responsibilities involved in managing the affairs of the department. L eadership--The ability and readiness to inspire, guide and influence the behavior and activities of a group in efforts toward goal achievement. Leadership behavior— The actions, conduct, and manners of an individual, who is in a leadership position, that influ­ ence the behavior of the group toward goal attainment. Pereeption— A consciousness, awareness, or observation of external objects, ships, etc., conditions, acts and behaviors, relation­ as a result of sensory and intellectual stimulation. Research Questions The investigator hopes that the findings and conclu­ sions of this study will provide answers to the following questions: 1. How do department chairmen at the University of Riyadh and the University of Petroleum and Minerals perceive the leadership behavior of the deans? 2. How do the deans at the University of Riyadh and the University of Petroleum and Minerals perceive the leadership behavior of the president of these two institutions? 8 3. Do Saudi chairmen differ in their perception of the leadership behavior of the deans from the non-Saudi chairmen at the two institutions? 4. Do department chairmen at the University of Riyadh differ in their perception of the deans' leadership behavior from the department chairmen at the U niver­ sity of Petroleum and Minerals? 5. To the deans at the University of Riyadh differ in their perceptions of the presidents' leadership behavior from the deans at the University of Petroleum and Minerals? Research Hypotheses In order to determine the extent to which the two specified groups— department chairmen and deans— differ in their perceptions of the leadership behavior of deans and presidents at the University of Riyadh and the University of Petroleum and Minerals, the following hypotheses are posited: Hypothesis 1 There are significant differences between the percep­ tions of the Saudi and non-Saudi department chairmen in regard to the leadership behavior of the deans at the two universities. Hypothesis 2 There are significant differences between the deans' perception of leadership behavior of the presidents and the department chairmen's perception of the leadership behavior of the deans at the two univer­ sities . 9 Hypothesis 3 There are significant differences between the deans at the University of Riyadh and the University of Petroleum and Minerals in terms of their perceptions of the leadership behavior of the presidents at both universities. Hypothesis 4 There are significant differences between the depart­ m en t chairmen at the University of Riyadh and the department chairmen at the University of Petroleum and Minerals in terms of their perceptions of the leadership behavior of the deans at both universities. Hypothesis 5 There are significant differences among the deans based on their educational background in regard to their perceptions of the presidents' leadership behavior at the two universities. Hypothesis 6 There are significant differences among the department chairmen based on their educational background in regard to their perceptions of the deans' leadership behavior at both universities. This group of hypotheses forms the basis for the proposed study. Limitations and Delimitations The findings of this study were limited by the m o ti v a­ tion and objectivity of the participants to make accurate responses in reporting their perceptions of leadership behavior. Therefore, the degree of desirability of leadership behavior was subject to the degree of accuracy of the perceptions given. Measurements of the deans' and presidents' leadership behavior were based on the perceptions of department chairmen 10 and deans as reported on the Leader Behavior Description Quest io nn ai re — Form XII. The sources of the data for this study were limited to individuals from the University of Riyadh and the University of Petroleum and Minerals. fore, inferences, generalizations, T h e re ­ and conclusions reached in this research are limited only to the specified institu­ tions and populations. Research Assumptions It was assumed that the participants in this study would answer the survey instrument in all objectivity and honesty without fear of political pressure or any other con­ straints and that their perceptions of various leadership behaviors reflected their knowledge and understanding of the leadership function in the two Saudi universities. It was further assumed that this study was just a reflection of reality at the two selected institutions. Design and Methodology In order to investigate the leadership behavior of deans and presidents, selected. two distinct Saudi universities were The first was the University of Riyadh which repre­ sents a modern general, tion in Saudi Arabia. typical institution of higher educa­ It is also considered the largest and most prestigious university in the country. The second was the University of Petroleum and Minerals which represents a 11 modern, but specialized, institution. This is a small university which is scientifically oriented and heavily influenced by the American system of higher education. The study population from which the research data were collected consisted of two different groups at the two institutions: about 80 1) all department chairmen, which totalled (64 at the University of Riyadh and 16 at the U n i ­ versity of Petroleum and M i n e r a l s ) , and 2) all deans, 22 totalling (15 at the University of Riyadh and 7 at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. Measurement of deans' and presidents' leadership behavior will be based on the perceptions of the two identi­ fied groups as reported on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII (LBDQ-12). The LBDQ-12 instrument contains 100 items and is divided into twelve subscales. These subscales are: tion; 5) 1) representation; 3) tolerance of uncertainty; initiation of structure; assumption; 11) 4) persuasiveness; 6) tolerance of freedom; 8) consideration; 10) predictive accuracy; 2) demand reconcilia­ 7) role 9) production emphasis; integration; and 12) superior o r i e n t a t i o n .6 Because neither LBDQ-12 nor any comparable instrument exists in the Arabic language, it was necessary for the researcher to translate this questionnaire into Arabic. translated version was given to some Arab professors and The 12 graduate students at Michigan State University for reactions and criticisms in order to assure its accuracy and clarity before it could be administered. The instrument was also pilot-tested with a number of professors from King Abdulaziz University who visited the Saudi Arabian Educational Mission on different occasions; were made. subsequently, necessary modifications The collected data were punched and entered into a computer to facilitate the analysis procedures. cal techniques such as frequency distribution, estimates, mean, standard deviation, Statisti­ reliability analysis of variance, and multivariate analysis were used to test the postulated hypotheses. A more detailed description of the study design will be presented in Chapter III. Organization of the Study The introduction, Chapter I, presents the research problem, purpose, rationale for, and significance of the study, definition of terms, research questions and hypotheses, limitations and delimitations, and finally research design and methodology. Chapter II contains a brief background of higher education in Saudi Arabia and a literature review p er ­ tinent to leadership theories and leadership behavior. P r e­ sented in Chapter III is an overall methodology of the study, including the research design and techniques used to analyze the data. Chapter IV includes the actual data analysis and 13 test of hypotheses. study, conclusions, Chapter V provides a summary of the and recommendations. 14 References rE. Ghiselli, Explorations in Managerial Talent (Pacific Palisades, C a l i f o r n i a : Goodyear Publishing Company, 1971). 2F. Fiedler and M. Chemers, Leadership and Effective Management (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1974) . 3M. Maccoby, "Leadership Needs of the 1 9 8 0 ’s," in Current Issues in Higher Education: Perspectives on Leader­ ship (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1979). ‘’Charles Perrow, Organizational Analysis: A Socio­ logical Vie w (Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 197 0). 5Maccoby, "Leadership Needs of the 1980's." 6R. M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior De scrip­ tion Questionnaire-Form XII (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter will present a systematic review of the related literature on leadership theory and leadership behav­ ior. However, it is first necessary to give an overview of higher education in Saudi Arabia. Higher Education in Saudi Arabia The origins and development of higher education in Saudi Arabia cannot be fully understood without some consid­ eration of that country's natural resources, particular oil. Saudi Arabia is the world's second largest producer of oil as of 1980. 1 The revenues from oil and other minerals have pro­ vided the financial base for the country's economic development and for the development of institutions of higher education. Although oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, utilization of oil revenues for social services, and education, recent. in general, in particular, has been historically somewhat Frank J. Molek (197 5) reported the following st at is t i c s : There were only 38,000 students enrolled at the elementary level, 12 00 in secondary schools, and a few hundred re­ ceiving higher education abroad by 1952. Gradually, however, the oil industry expanded, providing the necessary 15 16 m o netary base upon which a public education was established in 1953, and education at all levels was declared free and open to a l l . 2 (p. 72) As of 197 8, there were approximately 7 00,000 pupils in elementary and secondary schools. At the same time there were 39,866 students enrolled in higher education at the six state universities.3 This indicates that there has been a sizeable increase since 1953 in the number of students at all levels. The history of modern higher education in Saudi Arabia is brief by Western standards. Beginning in 1957, universities have been established. their locations, six state These six universities, and dates of founding are as follows: 1. University of Riyadh in Riyadh— 1957; 2. University of Petroleum and Minerals in Dhahran— 1963; 3. King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah— 1967; 4. Islamic University in Al-Madina— 1961; 5. Islamic University of Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud in Riya dh — 1974; and 6. King Faisal University in Dammam— 197 5. A seventh university is currently under construction in Mecca. This new university will be called the University of Om AlQura and is scheduled to open in 1981. A general discussion of each of the six established universities will be given later in this chapter. 17 The general purpose or orientation of the six existing universities seems to be teaching rather than research or community service. This is documented in part by the fact that only within the past six years have graduate programs been offered at any of the universities. The grad­ uate p r o g r a m s , so far only in certain areas such as Arabic, Islamic Studies, and Education, also do not yet seem to have a strong research emphasis. The organization and hierarchical structure of higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia are somewhat similar to American universities. The chief administrator of the university is called the Rector. Under the Rector are two Vice-Rectors and a Secretary General. One Vice-Rector handles administrative affairs while the other handles academic affairs. The Secretary General has general responsibilities which are administrative in nature. Each of these administrators is appointed by the Ministers' Cabinet of the central government based on the recommendations of the Minister of Higher Educa­ tion. The position of Rector is considered a political appointment and carries no fixed term. The other administra­ tors serve terms of three years, but they may be reappointed. The instructional departments of each university such as physics, geography, colleges. and history are grouped under various While the specific colleges vary somewhat from university to university, generally each university has 18 colleges such as College of Science, College of Arts and Humanities, and College of Education. The administrative head of each college is called the dean. The administrative head of each department within the college is called the chairman. The dean and all chairmen are nominated by the college faculty through an election process. Rector must approve the nominations. The university If approved, the dean serves a three-year term which can be renewed only once, while the chairman serves a two-year term that is renewable unlimited times. nominee, If the Rector does not approve a particular the faculty must elect another candidate. The administrative responsibilities of the chairman include the usual daily operations of the department. The deans are responsible for administrative and financial decisions for the college at large. The chairmen have respon­ sibility over academic matters such as faculty teaching loads and scheduling of all departmental courses. these decisions must be approved by the dean. However, even The deans and chairmen, while serving at the discretion of the Rector, are relatively autonomous in their day-to-day administrative duties. Each university also has a University Council con­ sisting of the Rector, Vice-Rectors, of colleges, Secretary General, deans and an elected faculty member from each college. The University Council is responsible for general university 19 decisions such as degree requirements/ courses, approving new scheduling of final semester examinations, sion of students, admis­ and appointing and promoting faculty m e m b e r s .** When specific issues or problems of importance for a particular university must be resolved, such as establish­ ing new graduate programs or new departments, University Council makes the policy decisions. the Higher This council is chaired by the State Minister of Higher Education. The other members of the council are the Rector of that particular university, two or three Rectors from other universities, and three or four government officials at the ministerial level. All six universities in Saudi Arabia are state univer­ sities. The central government exercises rather close control over each university on important policy matters. For example, appointment of Rectors and university budget allocation, well as establishing a college, governmental level. as are decided on at the central The particular central government members and groups concerned with higher education are the Minister of Higher Education, the Ministers' the Supreme Council of Universities, and Cabinet. All education in Saudi Arabia is financed completely by the central government. wealthy, The central government is quite primarily because of the country's oil revenues. the estimated 71 billion dollars Gross National Product Of (GNP) 20 in 1979, approximately 10 percent was spent on education. In terms of GNP, this amount is quite comparable with what other countries spend. For example, the percent of the GNP spent on education for certain selected countries in 1976 was as follows: France 5.8%; Iraq 4.3%; Iran 5.4%; Kuwait 2.8%; and Sweden 7.7%. 5 Complete funding of education by the central govern­ ment has removed the necessity of public taxation to support education. In a society that cannot afford to pay taxes, this can be considered a positive aspect of governmental financing. However, the absence of local control over finan­ cial expenditures on higher education seems to have limited public input into the decisions affecting education. This lack of public involvement and public accountability is, at least in the author's opinion, possibly the most negative aspect of the current educational system. The central government of Saudi Arabia establishes, maintains, country. and, of course, accredits all universities in the Degrees awarded by universities in Saudi Arabia are recognized and accepted by universities and governments in other Arabic countries. The acceptance of degrees for advan­ ced work at universities in non-Arabic countries seems to be increasingly common. For example, in 1980 there were about 3,000 students from Saudi Arabia pursuing graduate degrees at universities in non-Arabic countries. Most of these 21 students were studying in the United States or Europe. these graduate students, Of about 90% received their under­ graduate degrees from universities in Saudi A r a b i a . 6 The first university degree awarded by universities in Saudi Arabia, degree. grams. as in the United States, is the bachelor's Most bachelor's degree programs are four-year p ro ­ However, programs, engineering and pharmacy are five-year and medicine is an eight-year program. As previously noted, master's degree programs have only been offered during the past six years. The programs selected so far seem to be in areas somewhat unique to the needs of the country, as Arabic, Islamic Studies, and Education. such These programs have generally not been available outside Arabic universities or, as in education, have not met the local needs of the country even when available at foreign universities. However, in view of the universities' emphasis on teaching as opposed to research in Saudi Arabia, it remains to be seen whether the new master's degree programs overextend the universities' faculties and physical resources. The faculties of the six universities are quite varied in their educational training and experience. At the present time, more than 60 percent of these faculties are foreign. Since instruction is generally in Arabic, about 90 percent of the foreign faculty is from Arabic countries. The largest number of faculty from other Arabic countries comes from Egypt.7 22 Admission to undergraduate degree programs in each university requires first that a prospective student graduate from a secondary school, institute. either a high school or technical While not all graduates from secondary schools seek university enrollment, generally are admitted, those graduates who do apply although not necessarily in the particular degree program that they selected as their first preference. In 1978, there were approximately 28,125 full­ time students in undergraduate degree programs at the six universities. Of these students, 23,296 were male and 4,829 were f e m a l e . 8 An applicant to a graduate degree program must have completed a bachelor's degree program. Each university selects and admits students into its own graduate program. The degree of selectivity depends to a great extent on the program and university. Until 1974, the school term at the universities was September through June. adopted. After 1974, the semester system was Under this plan, the first semester starts in early September and terminates toward the end of December. second semester then lasts until early June. begin and end at the same time. However, The All universities the newer semester system has caused some problems with respect to the registra­ tion process. Since the universities follow the Islamic calendar, certain holidays influence the starting and ending dates, and these vary somewhat from year to year. The six universities in Saudi Arabia bear the primary responsibility for training the skilled and technical w o r k ­ force needed to industrialize and modernize the country. Therefore, the universities have increasingly been pressured by the central government to increase the number of university graduates. Unfortunately, the effort to increase the number of graduates by expanding the number of university students and faculty seems to have lowered the perceived quality of higher education in Saudi Arabia. Reasons frequently cited or given for this perceived decline in quality include out­ side interference and nepotism, rapid change in leadership, poor quality of foreign instructors, unexpected rate of ex­ pansion and the general policy of emphasizing quantity rather than quality. Next, a brief description of each of the six univer­ sities in Saudi Arabia will be given. These descriptions will document the diversity of programs and goals of the v a r ­ ious universities. The University of Riyadh was established in 1957. During the first year there were 9 instructors and 21 students This was the first general institution of higher education in Saudi Arabia. The university curriculum and organization were initially modelled after Egyptian universities which were 24 in turn, modelled, West, at least in part, on universities in the primarily in France and England. Since 1957, University of Riyadh has grown considerably. has the following colleges: Arts, the It currently Science, Pharmacy, Gr ad ­ uate Studies, Agriculture, Engineering, Education, Medicine, Administrative Science, Dentistry, Nursing and Public Health, and Arabic Language Institute. Today, the University of Riyadh is the largest university in the country. It has a faculty of 1,400 and an enrollment of over 14,500 students.10 It is also considered the most prestigious university in the country. The Islamic University was established in Al-Madina in 1961. This is a religious university and has as its p u r­ pose the promotion of the Islamic faith. The university provides training and scholarships for students throughout the Islamic world who are interested in university-level training in Islamic Studies. Of the six universities, the Islamic University has the largest enrollment of international students, most of whom come from Islamic countries. These foreign students generally return to their native countries as preachers or scholars of the Islamic faith. Today, the Islamic University has six colleges, with an enrollment of 1,655 students and a faculty of 201. The University of Petroleum and Minerals was esta­ blished in 1963. Initially it was a college and had less than 25 100 students. In 197 5 it became a university and now has the following colleges: Management, Science, Engineering, and Graduate Studies. Industrial This university seems to be modelled after American universities in terms of its curriculum and organization. The main focus of this institu­ tion is on the petroleum industry and related technical fields. The language of instruction is English, and there are a large number of faculty members from Western countries. Although the university primarily is an undergraduate institu­ tion, a master's degree program in engineering has been esta­ blished. This university currently has an enrollment of over 3,000 students and a faculty of 4 7 0 . 11 King Abdulaziz University was founded in Jeddah in 1967. Initially it was a private institution with the college of Economics and Administration. institution with two campuses, In 1971, it became a public one in Jeddah and one in Mecca. The Jeddah campus currently consists of the following colleges and institutes: College of Engineering, College of Medicine, Institute of Applied Geology, the Institute of Oceanography. has two colleges: Institute of Meteorology, and The Mecca campus currently the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies and the College of Education. In 1981, the Mecca campus will become an independent university called the University of Om Al-Qura. King Abdulaziz University has a rather broad, general curriculum. This university was one of the first to offer graduate programs, degree. and it was the first to grant the Ph.D. It was also the first university to grant an honorary doctorate degree. However, it does not have the reputation of being the best university. Today, King Abdulaziz U n iver­ sity has an enrollment of 20,182 students and a faculty of about 1 , 0 5 5 . 12 The Islamic University of Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud was established in Riyadh in 1974. from three earlier colleges: in 1953, This university developed the College of Sharia established the College of Arabic Language established in 1954, and the Higher Judicial Institute established in 1965. Since these three institutions were combined in 1974 to form the university, there has been rapid growth in the number of pr o­ grams offered. In addition to the original three colleges, the university currently has the following colleges: College of Social Sciences, tions, the the College of Religious Founda­ the Higher Institute of Islamic Dawa, and a number of colleges located outside Riyadh. The university also offers master's degree programs in Islamic Studies and in Arabic Language. This university has a religious orientation and is traditionally managed, but it is an influential institution. It has an enrollment of about 5,299 students and a faculty of 27 King Faisal University was authorized in the Fall of 1975 by a royal decree. The university was opened in 1975 in D a m m a m in the Eastern Province of the country with 120 s t u d e n t s . 14 These students were enrolled in three colleges: the College of Architecture, cine, the College of Veterinary M e d i ­ and the College of Agriculture. In the future, this university will expand to include another campus at Al-Hasa. The new campus will consist of a College of Medicine, College of Education, a and a College of Management Sciences. The university currently has an enrollment of 614 students and a faculty of 2 0 0 . 15 The faculty is composed predominantly of foreigners. Additionally, there are a number of military colleges in Riyadh and community colleges which are scattered all over the country. All are financed and controlled by the govern­ ment of Saudi Arabia. Brief Comparison of Saudi and American Universities This study is not meant to compare the Saudi univer­ sity system with any other university system. However, the principal research instrument to be used in the study, LBDQXII, was developed and evaluated primarily through research conducted in American institutions. This instrument and re­ lated research will be discussed in some detail in the following sections. However, in this section it will be 28 useful to briefly compare the organizational structure and administration of Saudi universities and American universities. W hil e there are differences, the purpose of the comparison is to argue that sufficient similarities exist to warrant the use of a leadership assessment instrument developed with American institutions in a study of leadership of higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. The previous sections of this chapter detailed the history and nature of the six Saudi universities. section, In this the organizational structure and administration of these universities will be considered and related to their counterparts in American universities. Several important characteristics of the Saudi universities seem particularly important in any comparison between Saudi and American univer­ sities. These characteristics, which have been briefly m e n ­ tioned in the previous discussions, 1. are as follows: The six Saudi universities are all state universities, completely funded and controlled by the central government. 2. The Saudi universities are all primarily concerned with teaching, not with research. 3. Saudi Arabia, like any other developing country, has an acute shortage of trained, professional personnel, and the universities are the primary institutions in the country to train the needed personnel for 29 administrative, economic, and social development of the society. Each of these three characteristics will be considered separately to show how each likely affects the Saudi univer­ sity organizational structure and/or administration. Because all universities are state funded by the central government in Saudi Arabia, the diverse private and religious universities existing in America have no counterpart in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the comparisons made in this section will primarily apply to the major state-supported American universities. When compared with the major state-supported American universities, certain similarities immediately become apparent between the Saudi and American university systems. For example, there seems to be continual efforts by the central government to limit or cut university funding. There also seems to be a lot of bureaucratic work and red tape in these institutions. The present organizational structure of the Saudi universities has been patterned largely after that used in major American state universities. This organizational structure will be discussed in somewhat more detail later in this section. However, there are certain differences in the organizational structures of the two university systems. Because the central government completely funds the univer­ sities, there is no student tuition. Therefore, Saudi univer­ sities to not require special administrative units in the 30 organizational structure concerned with matters such as student financial support, fund raising from alumni or insti­ tutions, or grant solicitation. In addition, the financial support of a particular Saudi university is not tied directly to the number of students enrolled. Saudi universities are less concerned with the recruitment of students than American universities. Also, there is little student transferring between Saudi universities. Thus, they do not have the elaborate organizational units that exist in American univer­ sities for the recruitment of students or for the handling of transfer students. There are several additional consequences of direct funding of Saudi universities by the central government that need to be noted. The universities are under little, if any, economic pressure to respond quickly to any new student interests or new social needs of the local community. Thus, new degree programs and new emphasis in existing programs are influenced little by student input. serve on no university committees. For example, students The Saudi central govern­ ment is also concerned with planning for the entire country's needs, but there is often little planning for the specific need s and programs of any particular university. the planning is centralized, In short, and input by the individual u n i ­ versities is somewhat limited when compared with the input major American universities seem to have in the planning of 31 future programs and committments. faculty, Finally, in terms of the the central government funding also considerably limits the degree of genuine academic freedom that exists within a Saudi university. This is perhaps the major differ­ ence from the American system brought about by the nature of the funding. There is one positive aspect, however, that should be noted when the Saudi universities are compared with American universities. Because the Saudi universities are under little, if any, pressure to recruit additional students for the fin­ ancial health of the institution, there is no pressure to recruit less qualified students if enrollments in some p r o ­ grams fall at a university. The second characteristic to note in this comparison is that Saudi universities are primarily devoted to teaching rather than research. Qubain (1966) stated that "for all practical purposes, universities in the Arab world are still transmitters rather than producers of knowledge. Their main function has been the training of students at the undergraduate level. Comparatively speaking, very little graduate work and research is undertaken" (p. 5 3 ) . 16 This characteristic of Saudi universities affects the students also. in a study of students in Saudi universities, Khayat (1981), found that " . . . students perceived the least emphasis to be on scholar­ ship. There is little indication that rigorous and vigorous 32 pursuit of intellectual knowledge exists on the campus. Emphasis on competitive academic achievement and scholarship is not perceived as very evident by students" (p. 12 1 ) . 17 The specific reasons for the teaching and non-research orientation of the Saudi universities are not clear. However, the reasons likely involve some or all of the following: 1. The relative newness of these universities; 2. The lack of adequate research facilities such as libraries and laboratories; 3. The lack of indigenous qualified professionals in the areas of research; and 4. The lack of a perceived need by the society for research and the resulting lack of reward for any research efforts that have been attempted. Because there are few graduate programs and little, if any, research, the faculty serves either as teachers or adminis­ trators. There is no separate faculty with major interest in research. Thus, Saudi universities do not have the research facilities and support units that exist in American univer­ sities. For example, there are no organizational units devoted to fund raising for research, evaluating or monitoring research activities, or to assisting in the writing or publishing of research results. In terms of administrators, a less obvious aspect of the lack of research in Saudi universities is that administrators are not selected on the basis of their research 33 contributions. In American universities, research is usually one of the most important criteria in the selection of p er ­ sonnel for administrative positions or university committees. The third characteristic noted in this comparison is that Saudi Arabia is a developing country with a critical shortage of trained, professional personnel in almost all technical fields. In the universities, professionals is apparent, this shortage of as almost 60 percent of the univer­ sity faculty are non-Saudi. As administrators tend to be native Saudis, many administrators hold lower academic ranks than their American counterparts since rank is, in part, a function of the length of time in university teaching. example, in the sample of this study For (see Chapter I V ) , 4 0 percent of the deans had the academic rank of assistant p r o­ fessor. sity. This could hardly occur at a major American univer­ Another aspect of the shortage of trained personnel in the universities is in terms of job security for Saudi faculty. This shortage implies that at the present time job security is not a major problem, except in the most unusual circumstances. faculty members. There is no problem with tenure for Saudi Clearly, tenure is a major problem for most A merican university faculty. For foreign faculty, however, there is a desire by the government to replace these faculty when possible with Saudi nationals. Thus, the foreign faculty members"in the universities tend to be concentrated at the 34 higher faculty levels although, as noted, administrators are native Saudis. the highest level Since American universities do not have a comparable faculty composed of foreigners in such high percentages as the Saudi universities, it is not clear how this difference affects differences in leadership between the two university systems. One final aspect of the shortage of trained profes­ sional personnel in the university should be noted. In the technical fields that have industrial applications, part i­ cularly those relating to the oil industry, it is economically very difficult for the universities to compete with the private sector companies. Thus, there is a rather high turn­ over in the universities among trained native faculty who leave the university to work in the private sector for con­ siderably higher pay. In spite of the differences cited between the American and Saudi universities, the two university systems are very similar in many ways, particularly in terms of organizational structure and administration. Figure 1 summarizes the organi­ zation of the Saudi universities. The specific organizational units are, with some exceptions, similar to those in an A m er i ­ can state-supported university. The major exceptions appear to be that the Higher Council of each university is chaired by the Minister of Higher Education. Also, the Supreme Council of Universities, which is presided over by the crown prince, 35 Supreme Council of Universities Ministry of Higher Education Coordinating Agency University Higher Council University Council Rector Vice Rector for Admini strative Affairs Department Chairmen F-ig. 1. Saudi Arabia. Vice Rector for Academic Affairs Secretary General Dean Institute Director Department Chairmen Department Chairmen Department Chairmen Organizational structure of higher education in is the central organizational unit for major decisions of all universities in the country and recommends state policies of higher education for the entire university system. The functions and responsibilities of these governing bodies and the other organizational units have been discussed earlier in this chapter. However, it is important to note the similari­ ties between the American and Saudi university organizations. Knowles (197 8) commented on this similarity and noted that the Saudi university organization consists of "colleges, institutes, council, and departments; a university council, a college and departmental meetings; university presidents (always called rectors) who preside over the university coun­ cil, deans who chair the college council, and directors of institutes and chairmen of departments" (p. 365).18 This organization is quite similar to that of the major American universities, with the board of trustees, president, vice presidents, deans, and department chairmen. From the administrative viewpoint, there used to be a great deal of centralization in the decision-making process in higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia, with top administrators and senior professors making all decisions. Such centralized authority in decision making assured the consistency with which major decisions were reached, but it also delayed decisions and made them less responsive to specific institutional p ro b l e m s . 19 37 However, it became apparent that such an administrative practice would not be appropriate in meeting the growing needs, demands, Therefore, and problems of rapidly expanding institutions. since the early 1970s the trend has been to decen­ tralize the decision-making process in Saudi colleges and universities and to delegate responsibility and authority to various units in each institution. in this respect, The model being followed at least theoretically, has been the American model, which is organized on a line-staff basis. In this type of organization, decision-making responsibility and authority are delegated to decision-making entities, with professional members making recommendations on decisions to be made by the line officers of the university.20 This movement has given faculty members a good oppor­ tunity to participate and get involved in the decision-making process and is considered a good step in the right direction toward democratization of Saudi higher education at all levels. In spite of the organizational differences which exist between the state-supported American universities and the Saudi universities, and in spite of the differences which exist between the two countries, there remains a great deal of organizational similarity between the two university systems. Thus, the leadership roles and responsibilities in the two university systems should have much in common. Veri­ fication of the specific similarities and differences would, 38 of course, come only from a true cross-cultural study of the two university systems. However, the common organizational structure and administrative aspects of the two systems would seem to indicate that it is reasonable to attempt to study leadership in the Saudi universities using a leadership assessment instrument, LBDQ-XII, developed in large part by A merican researchers through studies on American institutions. A more complete review of the research on the actual instru­ m en t used in this study will be given in the following sec­ tions of this chapter. All of the research related to the LBDQ-XII has been conducted in American institutions. As this study attempts to use the LBDQ-XII in a non-American institution, some attention must be given to the question of whether such a use of the instrument seems likely to yield valid data on the perception of leadership behavior. Ralph Stegdill (1963), in his discussion of the conditions under which it is reason­ able to use the LBDQ-XII (see page 57), placed no cultural or national restrictions on where the LBDQ-XII can be used. The actual research data to date also supports the belief that the LBDQ-XII can be used in non-American institutions to produce valid data on the perception of leadership behavior. Some specific research studies done in non-American institu­ tions using the LBDQ-XII include the following: (1974) in Turkey; Meed (1976) in Jamaica; Cinco Mustafa Aydin (1975) in 39 the Philippines; and Paul (1978) in Sweden. The author personally contacted Dr. Ignatovich at Michigan State Univ e r­ sity and Drs. Podsakoff and Tedor at Ohio State University. Each researcher has worked extensively with the LBDQ-XII and expressed the belief that to date no evidence exists that indicates that the LBDQ-XII is culturally biased, and they saw no reason to question the use of the instrument in a study of leadership in a Saudi university. The evidence then seems to support the belief that the LBDQ-XII is an appro­ priate research instrument to use in an initial study of leadership in Saudi universities. Any stronger endorsement of the use of the instrument in this setting would seem depen­ dent on the result of the analysis of the actual data obtained from a study actually done in Saudi Arabia. This study will also attempt to provide such evidence regarding the useful­ ness of the LBDQ-XII in this non-American setting. Leadership "Leadership" the English language. is certainly not a recent addition to For example, the Oxford English D i c ­ tionary of 1933 indicates that the word "leader" appeared in the English language about 1300, while the word "leadership" did not appear until the late 1700s (p. 7).21 In spite of the age of the words, the concept of leadership has generated considerable research from behavioral scientists in the past half century. Andrew Durbin (1974) indicated that no other 40 single topic, except for worker motivation, has received as mu c h attention from organizational behavior writers as le a de rs hi p. 22 The writers and researchers on leadership have proposed numerous theories in an attempt to answer the important question of what the differences are between suc­ cessful and unsuccessful leaders. However, to date none of the proposed theories have provided an entirely satisfactory answer. Part of the problem may be an empirical one. fically, it is often very difficult to quantify the numerous variables likely to relate to effective leadership. Speci­ It is also difficult to compare various studies, as many of these variables vary considerably from study to study. However, a more fundamental problem is possibly the lack of a commonly accepted definition for leadership. Different definitions stress different aspects of leadership. Thus, different researchers study different variables and use different fac­ tors in their theories on leaderhsip. In the following section, some of the more common definitions of leadership are given. Then, the major theories of leadership are discussed. Definitions of Leadership Early writers define and consequently attempt to ex­ plain leadership predominately in terms of personality varia­ bles. For example, C. M. Cox (1926) defined a leader as a person in a group who possesses the greatest number of 41 "desirable traits" such as originality, imagination, alertness, knowledge, and persistence.23 dus defined leadership simply as the possession of (1934) In a similar way, E. S. Bogar- exceptional personal characteristics to which people r e s p o n d .2 h Other writers have preferred not to view leadership simply in terms of the characteristics of the leader. Rather, they have concentrated on the specific actions or behaviors of the leader. Andrew Halpin (1958) defined leadership as the behavior of an individual who is directing the activities of a group toward achieving shared goal s. 25 More recently, this same perspective was taken by Rensis Likert (1967) who defined leadership as the leader's behaviors and actions which are perceived by the followers as being supportive of their efforts and of their sense of self-worth.26 However, even when writers consider the specific actions or behaviors of the leader, group goal(s) are often included, the group and the common though usually indirectly, as a part of the definition of leadership. Some writers have elected to make the ability of a leader to influence group behavior in order to attain the common group goal(s) tral element in their definitions of leadership. (1951) the cen­ F. S. Haiman simply defined leadership as a process by which an individual influences the behavior of others in order to attain some given end or goal.27 E. P. Hollander and W. B. Webb This view was echoed by (1955) who defined a leader as 42 an individual with the status to influence other individuals.28 In a similar manner, R. M. Bellows (1959) defined leadership as the coordination of activities that are necessary to achieve common group goals with an efficient use of both time and e f f o r t . 29 K. Davis (1967) defined leadership as "the human factor which binds a group together and motivates it toward its goals" and R. Khan (p. 3 ) . 30 (1966) In a more theoretical statement, D. Katz argued that organizational leadership is essentially determined by the amount of influence of a super­ visor on the group for attaining organizational goals and o b j e c t i v e s .31 Other writers have attempted to define leadership as a persuasive process. For example, N. Copeland (1944) defined leadership as the management of individuals by persuasion and inspiration rathe r than by coercion.32 and C. O'Donnel Similarly, H. Koontz (1968) considered leadership as a process by w h ic h the leader attempts to persuade people to cooperate in order to attain group goals and objectives.33 Such defini­ tions seem to require that the group accepts or is persuaded to accept the goal(s). goal(s) None of the definitions permit the to be externally imposed by threats or by coercion on the group. Finally, some writers have viewed leadership in terms of initiation of structure. For example, J. K. Hemphill (19 54) defined leadership as the actions of the leader which initiate 43 a structure for group interaction to solve mutual problem(s) or to achieve common goa l( s) .34 Ralph Stogdill fined leadership in a similar way. (1959) d e ­ He argued that the leader is the individual who is able to stimulate the group and initiate a structure of interaction that leads to the achieve­ ment of group g o a l s . 35 It is possible to group the numerous definitions for leadership in other ways. For example, Ralph Stogdill (1974), who has done extensive research on leadership, argued that the various definitions of leadership can be placed into one of the following eleven categories: (1) group processes, (2) personality and personality effects, inducing compliance, act or behavior, tion, (3) processes of (4) the exercise of influence, (6) a form of persuasion, (7) a power rel a­ (8) an instrument of goal achievement, action effect, (10) a differential role, and initiation of structure.36 However, seem to have considerable overlap. (5) an (9) an inter­ (11) the these eleven categories For example, categories 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are clearly interdependent and difficult to distinctly characterize. The numerous definitions of leadership clearly demon­ strate the variety of perspectives through which leadership can be and has been viewed. aspect of most, Leadership likely involves some if not all, of the definitions given. C on ­ sidering the variety of different ways in which leadership 44 has been viewed, it is perhaps unlikely that any one single definition of leadership will ever become widely accepted. Leadership Theory The major theories of organizational leadership tend to concentrate on one of three different approaches. a somewhat simplified, general characterization, approaches are leadership traits, leadership situations. Using these leadership behavior and Each of these three general approaches to leadership theory will be considered. Ralph Stogdill (1974) argued that the trait theory of leadership evolved from the great man theory. He felt that this approach attempts to identify the superior qualities that differentiate the leader from the followers.37 Leader­ ship trait theory in general is based upon the premise that there exist certain personality traits, intellectual abilities and physical attributes that characterize successful leaders.38 Tead (1929) explicitly stated this view as follows " . . . leadership is a combination of traits which enables an indivi­ dual to induce others to accomplish a given task" (p. 8 ) . 39 Using a similar theoretical position, Ross and Hendry (1957) saw leadership as "something that resides in an indi­ vidual, something that he brings to the group, and something presumably that is capable, under almost any circumstances, of producing the same results in different situations" (p. 21 ). 1+0 Using this same perspective of leadership, Dowd 45 (193 6) argued that, whatever the masses do, they are always influenced and led by those individuals who are few in number but superior in their leadership characteristics.1*1 In general, leadership trait theory certainly has some intuitive appeal. However, research has failed to identify any universal set of traits essential to success­ ful leadership. Litterer (1973) argued that "studying leadership by studying the traits of leaders has proven to be an intellectual dry well" (p. 168) .1+2 C. A. Cribb (1969) shared this pessimistic view of leadership trait theory and suggested the failure to identify a set of leadership traits is due to one or more of the following factors. 1. Personality studies are not complete. It may be the case that leadership research has not considered the really significant aspects of personality. 2. Leadership research has involved widely different groups. This wide diversity between groups may conceal relations that exist between personality and leadership for more homogeneous groups. 3. Situational factors may, and probably sometimes do, override personality factors. 4. Leadership is known to be a complex and probably inconsistent pattern of functional r o le s. 1*3 (p. 227) The failure to find a consistent pattern of leader­ ship traits has caused researchers to discard the leadership trait theory and search for alternative theories. The two mo s t important alternative theories of leadership are the behavioral theory and the situational theory. While the 46 situational theory is more recent, it is yet to be resolved which theory is more successful at explaining and predicting leadership. Beginning in the 1930s, Lewin ship. some writers, e.g., Kurt (1939), began to develop a behavioral theory of leader­ This theory considered the specific behavior of the leader rather than the traits of the leader.1*1* Supporters of this theory argue that specific behaviors rather than traits best describe a leader and best distinguish the leader from the followers. Robert Fulmer (1978), a current suppor­ ter of this theory, argued that the unique and special characteristics of a leader are the ways in which the leader accomplishes objectives and not the physical, mental, and personality traits of the leader. **5 Thus, the theory holds that the leader may be best characterized or understood by behavior patterns rather than by specific individual traits. The behavioral theory of leadership will be used as the theoretical basis for this study. A more detailed discussion of the leader behavior theory will be presented later in this chapter. Beginning in the late 1950s, some researchers began to consider the situational factors surrounding the leader and the followers. The resulting theory is called situa­ tional theory of leadership.1"6 This theory attempts to explain leadership by using the interactive relationships 47 between the l e a d e r , the followers, and the situational factors. For example, Weber and Weber (1955) argued that "leadership is a function of the situation with all its complexities; it is just as much a function of the complex situation as it is a function of the personality of the leader" (p. 51). ^7 Gerth and Mills (1974) similarly argued that any understanding of leadership requires that attention be paid to the following: leader, (1) the traits and motives of the (2) the impressions the followers have of the leader and what motives they have for following the leader, (3) the characteristics of the role that the leader plays, and (4) the institutional setting in which the leader and the followers may find themselves.1*8 Fred Fiedler (1974) is perhaps one of the most p er ­ suasive advocates of the situational theory of leadership. He has identified three important situational variables that he feels influence the effectiveness of the potential leader. These three variables are: (1) the work group, (2) the needs structure of the leader, and (3) the general favorableness of the situation.49 (1974), who calls his theory the Fiedler contingency model of leadership, argued that "the performance of a group is contingent upon the motivational system of the leader and the situational favorableness" (p. 7 3 ) . 50 The ma in emphasis of the contingency leadership model is on the interaction between the leader's style and the situational 48 variables. The leader's style may be viewed as varying between a highly task-oriented approach and a highly relationship-oriented approach. The task-oriented leader tends to be more effective in easy and difficult situations. On the other hand, the relationship-oriented leader tends to be more effective in situations that require moderate leadership d e m a n d s . 51 Situational leadership theory, in essence, argues that leadership can be explained only if the interaction and the relationship between the leader and the many variables of the work situation are considered. This theory has, in part, helped researchers explain why some individuals are success­ ful leaders in some organizations but not in others. It has also helped researchers study why leaders succeed on certain tasks but not on others, even within the same organization. Leadership Behavior Theory As noted in the previous section, the behavioral theory of leadership was initially proposed in the late 193 0s, e.g., Kurt Lewin (1939).52 Supporters of this theory argue that the specific behaviors of the leader of a group best explain leadership and not the traits of the leader or speci­ fic situational factors influencing the leader and the followers. Much of the writing by supporters of this theory has been devoted to identifying and categorizing the specific 49 behaviors or styles of behavior of the leader. As this is the theory upon which this study is based, a more complete analysis of the research on the leader's behavior theory will be given. The first systematic study relating to leadership behavior seems to have been done by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939).53 In this well-known study, which has been widely referenced by other researchers, an attempt was made to characterize leadership behavior or style as being either autocratic, democratic or laissez-faire. et al. According to Lewin (193 9), the autocratic leader makes extensive use of power and authority when directing the group actions and activities. Subordinates thus have minimal, if any, input into the decision-making process and usually no control of the actual decisions that are made. An autocratic leader attempts to maintain complete control over the work environ­ me nt and to assume full responsibility for the group's a c t i o n s . 5 ** Lewin et al. (1939) argued that the democratic leader tends to share the managerial responsibilities with the group members and opens up the decision-making process for their participation. The democratic leader attempts to develop some general sense of responsibility among his followers in order to achieve group goals and objectives. However, while the democratic leader attempts to facilitate group decisions, the 50 ultimate responsibility for the decision and for the overall effectiveness of the group remains with the leader. For the laissez-faire style of leadership, Lewin et al. (1939) argued that the leader attempts to transfer almost completely the decision-making responsibility to the group. The laissez-faire leader usually attempts to join the group as a participating member and gives little or no direc­ tion or advise to subordinates. Consequently, the group members have considerable freedom with little or no formal organizational leadership. In a very real sense, the laissez- faire leader allows the group to operate in most decision­ making situations without a leader. The designated leader attempts to relinquish and disperse all power and control back to the g r o u p . 55 The laissez-faire style of leadership has received little attention from researchers interested in leadership. However, both the autocratic and democratic styles of leader­ ship have generated considerable research. This research has tended to confirm the existance of these two leadership styles. For example, Rensis Likert (1961) and his associates at the University of Michigan conducted a series of empirical studies on leadership. Data relating to leadership styles was collected from a number of different organizations, e.g., business, government, and hospitals.56 According to Likert (1961), these data suggest that leadership styles could be 51 sorted into two distinct styles. One style he terms "employee-centered" and the other "work-centered". Support for these two styles came in part from interview data from the actual leaders. The employee-centered leaders talked about the needs, hopes, aspirations, members of the group, hand, and problems of the i.e., the employees. On the other the work-centered leaders talked about work deadlines, operational efficiency, operating costs, and production.57 Thus, there is a remarkable similarity between the employee- centered and work-centered styles of Likert (1961) and the democratic and autocratic styles of Lewin et al. (1939). Other supporters of the leader behavior theory have suggested additional styles or categories for leadership. Working at the Midwest Administrative Center of the University of Chicago, Getzels and Guba (1957) have suggested that leader­ ship styles can be characterized as either normative, pe r­ sonal, or transactional.58 (1957), According to Getzels and Guba the normative style of leadership emphasizes a nomo­ thetic dimension of behavior that concerns the requirements, roles, and expectations of the institution. hand, On the other the personal style emphasizes the idiographic dimension of behavior, and accordingly, dispositions of group members. the personality and the need The transactional leader attempts to maintain a flexible leadership style. This type of leader ma y use a normative style for some tasks or under 52 some conditions while using a personal style for other tasks or under other c o n di ti on s .59 While it is not always clear what actually causes a leader to select a particular style, the transactional style leader usually makes the decision as to which style to use. Studies in the field of educational administration have found this typology useful in analyzing and understanding leader behavior. Robert Black and Jane Mouton (1964) have suggested a somewhat similar analysis of leadership behavior. They argued that leadership style can be conceptualized as a point in a two-dimensional grid, "the managerial gr i d . " 60 One axis of the grid corresponds to the leader's concern for production, while the other axis corresponds to the leader's concern for people. A particular leader may be high on one scale or axis and low on the other scale, or he may be high or low on both scales. Black and Mouton (1964) argued that when the leader is high on both scales, the followers become highly motivated and the relationship between the followers and the leader tends to be characterized by mutual trust and r e s p e c t . 61 However, the leadership typology suggested by the managerial grid has become extremely popular as a training model for leadership seminars and workshops sponsored by business, industry, and government for administrative personnel. 53 The m o s t complete, systematic study of leadership styles is m os t certainly that done by Hemphill, Coons, Halpin, Stegdill, and their associates at the Personnel Research Board of Ohio State University. More than thirty years ago, Hemphill and Coons undertook a large number of empirical studies on leadership in an attempt to better understand and identify the various dimensions of leadership b e h a v i o r . 62 A major contribution of the research efforts of this group has been the development of the first measurement instrument for the study of leadership behavior, D escription Questionnaire, naire, the Leadership Behavior or simply the L B D Q . This question­ first developed about 194 5, represents an attempt to quantify some of the complex aspects of the l e a d e r ’s behav­ i o r . 63 The questionnaire allows the leadership researcher, for the first time, to study leadership behavior in an empiri­ cal, and hence, more objective manner than was possible before the instrument was developed. A few empirical studies were done immediately after the LBDQ was developed. However, Shartle (1957) strongly criticised these initial studies as lacking any theoretical framework or any satisfactory conceptualization or definition of leadership. 614 In perhaps the first systematic and well-done study of leadership behavior using the LBDQ, Halpin and Winer (1957) used a factor analysis on questionnaire data obtained from 54 various groups. The factor analysis identified two factors that seemed to describe leadership style as measured by the LBDQ. They called the two factors "initiating structure" and "co ns id er a ti on ." 65 The initiating structure factor refers to behavior of the leader that is designed to facili­ tate the completion of the group's task. effect, refers to the specific This factor, actions or behaviors in of the leader designed to ensure that the group effort, be it for the production of some product or for the rendering service, is satisfactorily completed. of some The consideration fac­ tor refers to behavior of the leader that is designed to show concern for the members of the group. Specific actions relating to this factor usually are characterized by warm, friendly, and supportive actions of the leader toward the group as a whole or toward specific members of the g r o u p . 66 (In addition to identifying these two factors that seem to j Characterize leadership behavior, Halpin and Winer (1957) 1 / / / found" that these two dimensions of leadership behavior were independent of each other. ^ They found that some leaders extensively structure the activities of the group members but provide very little personal support or consideration for the group members. Other leaders seem very considerate of the j group members but provide little structure for the group's activities. However, they also found that many leaders do not fit into these two simple categories. Many leaders were 55 high on bo th initiating structure and consideration. were low on both, Many and many were fairly average on b o t h . 67 However, Ralph Stogdill the existing evidence, (1959) argued that even with leadership behavior was not adequately characterized and explained satisfactorily by the two factors, initiation of structure and consideration. Therefore, in an extensive empirical study, Stogdill was able to modify and expand the initial LBDQ and demonstrate the existance of twelve dimensions of leadership behavior. The resulting m o d i ­ fied questionnaire is called the Leader Behavior Description Q uestionnaire— Form XII and is often simply denoted the LBDQX I I . 68 The twelve leadership behavior subscales of this modified questionnaire are as follows: 1. Representation--speaks and acts as the representative of the group. (5 items) 2. Demand Reconciliation— reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system. (5 items) 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty— is able to tolerate u n ­ certainty and postponement without anxiety or upset. (10 items) 4. Persuasiveness— uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions. (10 items) 5. Initiation of Structure--clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected. (10 items) 6. Tolerance of Freedom--allows followers scope for initiative, decision and action. (10 items) 7. Role Assump ti on — actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. (10 items) 56 8. Consi de r at io n— regards the comfort, well being, status and contributions of followers. (10 items) 9. Production Emph as is — applies pressure for productive output. (10 items) 10. Predictive A c c u r a c y — exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. (5 items) 11. Integration— maintains a closely knit organization; resolves inter-member conflicts. (5 items) 12. Superior Orientation— maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; is striving for higher status. (10 items ) 69 The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire— Form XII is the principal measurement instrument used in this study. This instrument has been extensively used in leader­ ship research. The research with LBDQ-XII has primarily been completed in military, industrial, governmental or educa­ tional organizations in the United States. This research study will use the LBDQ-XII in a foreign educational setting. The questionnaire provides a method of quantifying a par ti ­ cular leader's behavior in any organization on each of the twelve dimensions. The questionnaire asks specific questions about leader's behavior. The questionnaire is completed either by the members of the leader's group or by the leader's superiors. Thus, the only requirement for using the question­ naire is that the leader must have acted or served as the leader and that the people completing the questionnaire must have observed the leader in the leadership role. (1963) Stegdill made these same observations in the following manner: 57 The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire . . . can be used to describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in any type of group or organization, provided the followers have an opportunity to observe the leader in action as a leader of their group (p. 1). . . . However, the questionnaire can be used by peers or superiors to describe a given leader whom they know well enough to describe accurately (p. 12 ) . 70 A n important property of the LBDQ-XII is pointed out by Halpin (1966). This property is that the questionnaire allows the researcher to quantify certain specific aspects of the leader's b e h a v i o r . 71 The reliability of the LBDQ-XII has been studied for several different populations. The specific studies and reliability estimates will be discussed in Chapter III. Stegdill (1963) found that each questionnaire item had a higher correlation wi th items on the same subscale than with items from different subscales. Buros (1978) evaluated the relia­ bility and the validity of the LBDQ-XII as follows: The LBDQ-12 would seem to possess reasonably good inter­ nal consistency across all the twelve scales. The LBDQ-12 appears to possess concurrent validity and is capable of distinguishing between persons displaying behaviors corresponding to the dimensions. The instru­ ment appears to be the best of the Ohio State Leadership Scales in that it provides a multifaceted measure of leader be h av i o r s . 7 (p. 1751) Thus, the LBDQ-XII seems to be both a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in a wide variety of institutions to quantify a number of dimensions that characterize a leader's behavior. It appears to be the best instrument that has been developed for quantifying the important dimen­ sions of a leader's behavior. • 58 References JMartin Bacheller, ed., Hammond Almanac N ew Jersey: Hammond Almanac, Inc., 1981). (Maplewood, 2Frank J. Molek, e d ., The Admission and Academic Placement of Students from Selected Arab Countries, A W o r k ­ shop Report (Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1975). 3Ministry of Higher Education, Statistics of Higher Education (Riyadh: National Offset Printing Press, 1978). ^Asa S. Knowles, ed,, The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education, Volume 8 (San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978). 5Bacheller, Hammond A l m a n a c . 6Saudi Arabian Educational Mission, Saudi Arabian Educational Scholarships in the United States of A m e r i c a : A Statistical Study (Houston, Texas: Saudi Arabian Edu ca ­ tional Mission, 1980). 7Ministry of Higher Education, Statistics of Higher Education. 8 Ibid. 9Bacheller, Hammond A l m a n a c . 1 °University of Riyadh, Statistical Report University of Riyadh Press, 1980). (Riyadh: ^ U n i v e r s i t y of Petroleum and Minerals, University of Petroleum and Minerals: Facts and Figures (Riyadh: Al-Mutawa Press C o ., 1980). 12Ministry of Higher Education, Statistics of Higher Education. 13 I b i d . 1‘‘B a c h e l l e r , Hammond A l m a n a c . 59 1 5Ministry of Higher Education, Statistics of Higher Education. World 16Fah im I. Qubain, Education and Science in the Arab (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1966). 17Abdulaziz Khayat, "A Study of Institutional Environ­ ment at King Abdulaziz University as Perceived by Upper Division Students" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State U n i ­ versity, 1981). 18Knowles, The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education. 19 Ibid. 2 0 Ibid. 21 The Oxford English Dictionary U niversity Press, 1933). (London: Oxford 22Andr ew Durbin, Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1974). 23C. M. Cox, The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1926). 2 ^E . S. Bogardus, Leaders and Leadership A pp le to n- C en tu ry -C ro f ts , 1934). (New York: 25A n dr ew Halpin, Administrative Theory in Education (Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center, University of Chicago, 1958). 2eRensis Likert, The Human Organization: m e n t and Valu e (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 27 Its Manag e­ Inc., 1967). , F. S. Haiman, Group Leadership and Democratic Action (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951). 2eE. P. Hollander and W. B. Webb, "Leadership, Fellow­ ship and Friendship," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 50 (1955):163-167. 2 9R . M. Bellows, Creative Leadership Cliffs, N ew Jersey: P r e n t i ce - Ha ll , 1959). 3 °K. Davis, Human Relations at Work Hill Book Co., 1967). (Englewood (New York: McGraw- 60 31D . Katz and R. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: Willey, 1966). Allen, 3 2N . Copeland, The Art of Leadership 1944). (London: 33H. Koontz and C. O'Donnel, Principles of M a n a g e m e n t : A n Analysis of Managerial Functions (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1968). 3I*J. K. Hemphill, A Proposed Theory of Leadership in Small G r o u p s , Personnel Research Board, Ohio State University, in Handbook of L e a d e r s h i p , by Ralph Stogdill (New York: The Free Press, 1974). 35Ralph Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959). 36Ralph Stogdill, Handbook of Leadership The Free Press, 1974). (New York: 3 7 Ibid. 38Robert Fulmer, The New Management Macmillan Publishing Co., 1978). (New York: 390. Tead, "The Technique of Creative Leadership," in Handbook of L e a d e r s h i p , by Ralph Stogdill (New York: The Free Press, 1974). '*°M. G. Ross and C. E. Hendry, New Understandings of Leadership (New York: Associated Press, 1957). 1+1J. Dowd, Control in Human Societies A pp le to n- Ce n tu ry -C ro ft s , 1936). (New York: k2Joseph A. Litterer, The Analysis of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1973). 43C. A. Cribb, "Leadership," in The Handbook of Social P s y c h o l o g y , eds. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969). ^ K u r t Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Robert White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology X (1939): 271-99. lf5Fulmer, The N e w Management. 61 **60rlando Behling and Chester Schrieshem, Organizational Behavior: Theory Research and Application (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976). lf7C. A. Weber and M. E. Weber, Fundamentals of Educa­ tional Leadership (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1955). lf8H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, "A Sociological Note on Leadership," in Handbook of Leadership by Ralph Stogdill (New York: The Free Press, 1974). 4 9Fred Fiedler and Martin Chemers, Leadership and Effective Management (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1974). 5 °Ibid. 51Ibid. 52Lewin, Lippitt, and White, B e h a v i o r ." "Patterns of Aggressive 5 3Ibid. 5 4I b i d . 5 5I b i d . 56Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1961). (New York: 57 Ibid. 58J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," School Review 65 (1957):423-441. 59Ibid. 60Robert Black and Jane Mouton, The Managerial Grid (Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964). 6 xIbid. 62J. K. Hemphill and A. E. Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," in Leader B e h a v i o r : Its Description and M e a s u r e m e n t , by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957). 63 Ibid. 62 6i*C. L. Shartle, Introduction to Leader B e h a v i o r : Its Description and M e a s u r e m e n t ,, by R. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. 6 5A nd re w Halpin and B. J. Winer, "A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Description," in Leader B e h a v i o r : Its Description and M e a s u r e m e n t , by R. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Ac hi e v e m e n t . 69Ralph Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII; An Experimental Revision (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963). 7 0Ibid. 71Andrew Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1966). book 720. K. Buros, The Eighth Mental Measurements Y e a r ­ (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1978). CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction After deciding upon the research problem to be investigated in this study (see Chapter I ) , an appropriate research design was selected. to Kerlinger (1964), The research design, according should do several things. Research designs are invented to enable the researcher to answer research questions as validly, objectively, accurately, and economically as possible. Any research plan is deliberately and specifically conceived and executed to bring empirical evidence to bear on the research p r o b l e m . 1 (p. 276) In this study, the survey research technique is used to obtain the data. Survey research is used because the focus of the study is on the behavior, perceptions, ions of people in a particular target population. (1964) and opin­ Kerlinger argued that "survey research is primarily interested in what people think and what they do" (p. 3 94) .2 In order to conduct survey research, it is necessary to select a method for systematically measuring the attitudes, perceptions, or actions of the population of interest. The principal methods of collecting survey data are, of course, by questionnaires, interviews, and direct observation, usually 63 by the experimenter. for use in this study. The questionnaire method was selected Sax (1968) described the question­ naire as "a means of eliciting the feelings, beliefs, iences, or attitudes of some sample of individuals" exper­ (p. 234).3 A l though the personal interview permits the experimenter to ask the same questions as on a questionnaire, the question­ naire is more economical and less time consuming. Furthermore the questionnaire gives the same information as the interview and minimizes the experimenter-subject interaction which can affect the data (Sax 1968). Finally, direct observation by the investigator was not feasible due to the time, cost and sensitive nature of the subject under investigation. In the remainder of this chapter, interest, the collection of the data, the population of the questionnaire, the analyses of the data, and the research hypotheses will be presented. Population The site for this study is two institutions of higher education in Saudi Arabia. One is the University of Riyadh which is located in Riyadh, the capitol city of Saudi Arabia. This university represents a modern, general, typical insti­ tution of higher learning that was initially patterned after the Egyptian system which is, in turn, B ritish and French models. influenced by the It is considered by many people 65 to be the oldest, in the country. largest, and most prestigious university It consists of eleven colleges and one institute, with about sixty-four departments providing a v ariety of programs and degrees. The other one is the University of Petroleum and Minerals which is located in Dhahran, the heart of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia. It represents a small modern institution that is scientifically oriented and highly influenced by the American system of higher education. It consists of four major colleges and about sixteen different departments. Both institutions are financed and controlled by the government of Saudi Arabia and represented in the Ministry of Higher Education. The total population for this study consisted of 22 deans and 8 0 department chairmen. The names of participating deans and chairmen were obtained from the 198 0 University Directory of each institution. Data Collection Procedures Prior to administration of the research instrument, the investigator made a few initial personal contacts with some officials from higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia while he was working at the Saudi Arabian Education Mission in Houston, Texas. The purpose of such contacts was to explore the feasibility of conducting such research in Saudi Arabia. encouraging. Most of the responses were supportive and 66 In Spring, 1981, the researcher traveled to Saudi Arabia and the questionnaire was administered in a five-week period to all deans and chairmen at the two selected insti­ tutions. The survey instrument was hand-delivered by the investigator to all the participants. The subjects were given a packet of material containing a cover letter which explained the nature and purpose of the study, a sheet r e ­ questing specific demographic information, and the L B D Q - 1 2 . In an effort to assure maximum responses, both deans and chairmen were assured that strict anonymity would be m a i n ­ tained, that at no time would the names of either persons, colleges or departments be mentioned, and that the instru­ ments would be identified by number only to facilitate statistical analysis. Furthermore, participants were informed that the purpose of the study was not an evaluation of their colleges or departments. A return of 60 percent of the population was consi­ dered desirable in order to provide the data necessary to achieve the purpose of the study. bution of the questionnaires, After the original distri­ follow-up personal contacts were made to encourage a high rate of return. A total of 8 4 deans and chairmen responded, representing 82.4 percent of the total population. were usable. were chairmen. All of the returned questionnaires Of the total respondents, 17 were deans and 67 Table 3.1 shows the number and percentage of returns from each institution. 67 TABLE 3.1 PERCENTAGE OF RETURNS FROM EACH INSTITUTION Number Surveyed Number Who Returned Questionnaire Percentage 15 11 73.3 Deans at U n i v e r ­ sity of Petroleum and Minerals 7 6 85.7 Chairmen at U n i ­ versity of Riyadh 64 53 82.8 Chairmen at U n i ­ versity of Pet ro ­ leum and Minerals 16 14 87.5 102 84 82.4 Population Deans at Un i v e r ­ sity of Riyadh Total As shown in Table 3.1, a total of 102 deans and chair­ men were surveyed at both institutions. Riyadh, At the University of 73 percent of the deans and 83 percent of the chairmen responded, while at the University of Petroleum and Minerals 8 6 percent of the deans and 87 percent of the chairmen responded. Instrumentation Given the nature and purpose of this study, the instrument has to provide the necessary means of describing leadership behavior in numerical form. Differences in the number of dimensions that are used in different theories of leadership behavior document the diversity in the descriptive 68 power of each theory and related instruments. However, the review of the literature on leadership behavior Chapter II) (see strongly suggests that the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire— Form XII (LBDQ-XII) provides a more comprehensive measure of leadership behavior. The LBDQ- XII was selected as the survey measurement instrument for this study. The LBDQ-XII used in this study is the fourth revision of the original questionnaire. Likert-type items, It has one hundred each of which is on one of twelve subI , scales. Thus, for each subject the questionnaire gives thirteen scores— the twelve subscale scores and the total questionnaire score. Each subscale measures an aspect or dimension of leadership behavior. are as follows: tion, (1) representation, (3) tolerance of uncertainty, (5) initiation of structure, (7) role assumption, sis, The particular dimensions (2) demand reconcilia­ (4) persuasiveness, (6) tolerance of freedom, (8) consideration, (10) predictive accuracy, superior orientation. (11) (9) production empha­ integration, and (12) A more detailed discussion of the LBDQ-XII and an explanation of each subscale is given in Chapter II. The actual questionnaire is given in Appendix A. When completing the LBDQ-XII, each respondent was instructed to mark one of the five alternatives on each of the one hundred items. (A) always, (B) often, The five alternatives are designated (C) occasionally, (D) seldom, and 69 (E) never. Generally, the item score is 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1, respectively, depending on which of the alternatives are marked, i.e., alternative while alternative (A) usually received 5 points, (E) usually received 1 point. However, the scoring on some items was reversed so that alternative (A) received 1 point while alternative on these items. (E) received 5 points The subscale score is then computed as the sum of the item scores for the items making up the subscale. Stogdill (1963) attempted to assess the reliability of the twelve subscales. In this study, a modified Kuder- Richardson formula was used to obtain internal consistency reliability estimates for each of the twelve subscales. The procedure used gives a conservative estimate of the true reliability. The average of the reliability estimates o b ­ tained for the twelve subscales was 75. Table 3.2 gives the actual reliability estimates for each subscale obtained by Stogdill Buros (1963). (1978) In his discussion of the instrument, Oscar said that "the LBDQ-12 would seem to possess reasonably good internal consistency across all the twelve subscales" (p. 1951). ** Punch (1967) also attempted to study the reliability of the twelve subscales using a split-half procedure to estimate the internal consistency reliability of each subscale. was from 55 to 89. The range of these reliability estimates 70 01 (H O o H co CN CN 3 CO • CO CO CO P CD o co CO ID P o co CO P P G ID • in in CO ID CO CO XII 3 CO X m P co t ID • CO • o CO 00 • 00 • p 01 01 p P CO I--1 in • in • p ID • p 00 • in • p • P• CO • CO in Ci P CN P CD 00 co CO P P Cl CO CN CD P P O P> in p4 in in CO in • m in in p p 'd* p• 3 CO CO • CN CO • CO p• • CN CO • CO CO LO • p • co p CD CO m p p 00 • 01 p rH 00 m 00 • p 00 • ci ID ID • CO in• 00 • 01 1—1 rH 00 CO P CTi p CTi P CN 00 CTi P co p O P CD P p w ^ rH a o •H K J +j * p m 00 • CD CD CN CO * in • in 00 • • oi • 00 • in P G O e m < CO CO CO CO CD * > •rH Q G O •H P (d G O • CD •rH 01 (0 3 oi e k TO CD CD P in tji S -H P CO ■H P k •r| CD G H EH ft CO "Cf • CN P O 3 0 M P CD U G (0 M CD iH 0 EH ■H 01 G 0 •H P ft P CD G 0 •H P 3 3 P & € 3 G 0 •rH P O 3 3 k P G 3 •rH 3 o o 3 3 > •rH G 0 3 3 TO ■rH CD m O G 0 ft u •rH P O 3 TJ O !h ft ft ■rH P 3 !h (O' 3 P G H P # oo oi , o I —1 rH rH in in <—i # m G 0 tn k ■H k P U •rH b 3 k , 0 n 0 •H SH 3 ft 3 00 , CN rH Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire— Form of Business Research, 1963). l 3 O ID o ID Stogdill, Manual for the State University, Bureau 01 c CM nH cn CO "tf* oo in CM 1 ro o oV> r~ o r- o o tn G rtf cu P CD o CD o o o\° CM rH CM rH in ro cn by 84. co tfH 0) SAMPLE D IS T R IB U T IO N CM number P ■CJ1 cm in rH rH co o ro ro rH m i —i in co in xt P fl} I •H ■pH PS (tf 3 4H 4 u o >1 in -p •H tn P (AO G D tn c (tf 0) P is, the s tn P a) > ■H C sample; that ■P ■ P c -H are 0 divided H for the total p £ *H a) (0 43 e O G (0 10 CO I G o rH Cn G w s >1 -p •H rH 43 rtf •H p rtf > p o tn tn o 4H O p CM rH p ctf G G G o o rd g o •H P •P tn (tf a; ■P (0 s G ccS P 43 w ■rH G cd •P tn P o tn tn tu ■rH mh C cm tn tn O P *All percentages P -P tn tf in • • in r" 01 i—i tf to co CO o cn CM 00 in H • • • • o in o 01 00 ID 10 CM 10 r~ CO tO 00 ID o CO o -tf o r- o C0 'tf r- o r- CM cn 'tf • • in to CO CO rH rH CD in • 9 in o in o ID o tf tO CO CO CO CM o in in oo to i— t CD CM o CM o CM o CM O to O -tf O CM ro to CO r- CO CO co OI rH rH CM CM O O cn tf CO w Q IX o to t— 1 t o O O o to I— 1 9 to 00 1— I t o cn O o O o • • CM rH CM rH rH • • ro rH ro C O He G -rH g X 1 13 0 G -rl g X 1 13 0 G •H g ,G 1 13 0 -rl CD cd ft •rH CD • cn cn 00 CO CO o • 00 CO • rH tf CO CO 9 in ro o 9 r- o tf 9 * rH • 00 rH to 01 CM • o tf co tf H rH rH rH tf G •H g G -rl g X 1 13 0 G -rl g X 1 13 0 G ■r| g X 1 13 0 •H ■rl CD f t ft § < Q Eh CO < CO z < H g >1 -p •rl U3 G CD > •H G D cd G >H -P -rl CD OS f t cd G >i ■P cd G >i ■P ft ft G ■rH g 1 13 O cd G -P ■H CD G ■H g rG 1 13 0 G •rl g X 1 13 0 G *r| g X 1 13 0 G •rl g X 1 -rl •rH CD •rl ■H 0) ft f t id G >i -P CD cd G >i •P cd G ■P CD ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 13 0 cd G ■P X i 13 0 cd G -P ■rl CD ft ft cd G -P CD f t ft cd G >i -P cd G r-l -P -rH CD ft ft (d G 1 -p CD G O •rl G cd cd -P CD CD Q G G CD i—1 0 Eh • CM CO 1 CD > -H W co G CD G G G •rH >1 ■P u I G +J G ■P tn Ed 0 )G 0) CD He d o c •H In 13 CD G ft o' rH e G G r i P O •rl ID \ CM to Sh CD > rH •rl G p o a ca in cri • CO I-" • CO $ $ ■rl 10 sh d) > 00 00 in• in 00 CO • 00 LO CO • VO CM Cl « f"• CO >o in in in Cl ft oo • • CO• • vO r~ CO II ft P G X CD P CM CO • m CD rH in g vo O ft Sh • P rH o Sh p ■H 0) IX G ft ft o o in in o <3* VO * • o• co* ft• VO• o C'- CM 00 vO VO CM rH CO CO CO CO co • CO VO ft ft • vO• rH• in C" r- CO CO CO rH 00 rH • 00 co VO • 00 o rH co FOR THE U N IV E R S IT Y FACTOR CO CM » CO CM CO P G CD ft G CD G P O td f t ■H CO Sh CD td Sh II > ■rl O P CM p o ft in in CM • co vO in • m on • CO CO m * VO in i"• in CM CM • CD ft co » LO co « vO in • in ft CM * CO 00 n» co CM VO • in G u * •H G r—1 G G G £ td Q) -G O ! P G td - IX ft cn i—l • vO CM • 00 CM rH o CM ft • CM CO co 00 • VO CO in 00 • 00 CO CO • rCO o 1— 1 • 00 CO r-'rH « VO CO CO VO • VO co ft CO « 00 rH ft t" - • 00 rH co in • CO co Sh ■rH O ft P u id p P 0 >H >i P ■rl p ■rl CO to Sh p G 0 •rl P id P G a) CO 0) 0) rH td l> to A G in Sh ft CD G 0 •rH P td •rl rH •rl o G 0 U CD Sh G G td g CD ft a « 1 -1 CM • G •rH td P Sh CD O G G to Ul 0) M G P a G Sh p CO p CD G CD o u •r| id td •r| P td •rl P P O aj c sh CD rH 0 Eh • CO > to G CO SH CD ft G 0 •H G H CD > g O G CD CD Sh P P O CD U G H CD rH O Eh • • in VO CO •rl CO td G O •rl P ft 3 10 to td CD rH Q ft « c- X G O •rl P td SH CD G •rl CO G 0 U * 00 o td Sh G O & O £ td CD G O •rl P CD > •H P u G G •H ft ft ft O 0 Sh U G CD Sh , i —1 G O •rl P td Sh ft ■rl •H G G ft G CD CD o ; rG p P SH O ft g 0 Sh P to •• P w G Eh CD O G s G O ft to CD SH vO P [D (1) P CD P (0 •rl Sh (0 •>H G G Pi U id CD U O P CO CO p G * 91 leadership behavior, none of the twelve s u b s c a l e s 1 univariate analyses has a significant F-test. Thus, on none of the twelve subscales does the univariate analysis indicate a significant university effect. point, From the researcher's v i e w ­ this is due to the nature of the instrument, because these subscales seem to highly correlate with each other and that makes it difficult to identify the source of the diff er ­ ence between the two universities. Hypotheses 5 and 6 Null hypotheses 5 and 6 are concerned with the effects of the respondents' educational background, i.e., where a respondent's Ph.D. degree was awarded. the country Educational background was not added to the two-way analysis used with null hypotheses 1 through 4 (see Figure 2) because empty cells would have resulted in a three-way design. However, the results of the statistical tests of these null hypotheses were used to determine the specific multivariate analyses used to test null hypotheses 5 and 6. Specifically, the statistical tests of null hypotheses 1 and 2 did not indicate any significant differences in the perception of leadership behavior between the Saudi and non-Saudi department chairmen or between the department chairmen and the deans. Thus, the department chairmen and the deans were combined in the remaining analyses. However, the statistical tests for null 92 hypotheses 3 and 4 indicate that there is a significant university effect on the perception of leadership behavior. The university factor was thus used in the analyses of the remaining null hypotheses. Null Hypothesis 5 There are no significant differences among the deans based on their educational background in regard to their perceptions of the presidents' leadership behavior at the two universities. Null Hypothesis 6 There are no significant differences among the depart­ me nt chairmen based on their educational background in regard to their perceptions of the d e a n s ' leader­ ship behavior at both universities. Null Hypotheses 5 and 6 are considered together in the analysis because the statistical tests of the previous null hypotheses indicate no significant differences in the percep­ tion of leadership behavior between the deans and chairmen. In the analysis of null hypotheses 5 and 6, only 79 of the 84 completed questionnaires were considered. A total of 5 questionnaires were deleted in the analysis because of lack of comparable groups at the two universities. dent with a Ph.D. The one respon­ from an Egyptian university was at the University of Petroleum and Minerals, and there was no respon­ dent with a Ph.D. sity of Riyadh. Riyadh, from an Egyptian university at the Unive r ­ Four respondents, all at the University of received Ph.D. degrees from universities in countries other than the United States, Great Britain, or Egypt. For 93 these four respondents, there was no comparable group at the U niversity of Petroleum and Minerals. Thus, the five questionnaires were simply deleted in the analysis. The 7 9 respondents used in the statistical tests of null hypotheses 5 and 6 were grouped into three groups. One group consisted of respondents at the University of Riyadh who received Ph.D. degrees from universities in the United States. A second group consisted of respondents at the U niversity of Riyadh who received Ph.D. degrees from univer­ sities in Great Britain. The final group consisted of respon­ dents at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. All of the 19 respondents in the third group received Ph.D. degrees from universities in the United States. These three groups were used to make up the three levels of a one-way m u l t i ­ variate analysis of variance design. It was anticipated that the three groups would significantly differ on the respondents' perception of leadership behavior because of the previously identified university effect. Specifically, the university effect should cause the means for the first and third groups to be significantly different. That is, the means of the respondents wi t h Ph.D. degrees awarded by universities in the United States at the University of Riyadh should differ from the means of the respondents with Ph.D. degrees awarded by universities in the United States at the University of Petro­ leum and Minerals. If educational background had a 94 significant effect on the perception of leadership behavior, then the means for the first and second groups should differ. That is, the means of the respondents with Ph.D. degrees awarded by universities in the United States at the University of Riyadh should differ from the means of the respondents with Ph.D. degrees awarded by universities in Great Britain at the U niversity of Riyadh. Table 4.6 gives the means and standard deviations for the three groups on each of the twelve subscales. To statistically test whether there is a significant educational background effect on the perception of leadership behavior, linear contrasts were used in addition to the one­ way multivariate analysis of variance of the three groups. For a LBDQ-XII subscale, let yR _u s * u r -g b ' and yPM-US denote mean scores for the University of Riyadh respondents with Ph.D. degrees from universities in the United States, for the University of Riyadh respondents with Ph.D. degrees from u n i ­ versities in Great Britain, and for the University of Petro­ leum and Minerals respondents (all of whom received Ph.D. degrees from universities in the United States), respectively. Consider the two (orthogonal) ®1 = 1 *yR-US contrasts: ”1 ’yR-GB + °*yPM-US and 22 = 1 *yR-US +1 *yR-GB “ yPM-US 95 w Q 03 r-04 • d in • d LO o VO 00 • 04 03 CO • VO r'04 • m d O 00 m 03 • o rH • OI rH ro 03 00 P rH • ro 00 • ro in r-' CO • 00 • in d in 00 • • O' o o • n- 03 CO • 03 • vO H 04 • VO ro 03 • VO 00 o • ro d ro 00 O 00 O d in rH • d • O' • VO 00 04 • d in O' d OJ CO O' • a a 00 rH 00 ro O' ro co ro ro ro O' rH O ro • rH 04 CO « O d vo • ro vo « i— 1 d VO d « in d O' m 10 d ro ro in CN 03 CM 04 04 rH 00 d • 04 03 • d in o o- t 1 o- 00 00 O' ro vO ro rH ro rH 03 • ro d 00 • in rH VO o ro 03 iH c ■P td p "p p Q 03 ro 04 a ■ • CQ ■§ P td td tu ■H p os IX o f'P • O 04 r- *—i 00 • d ro ro ro rH rH r-' ro 03 O CO • r" • vo • 03 i—1 a r~ ro • 00 OI rH 04 00 • co CM P o >i p ■H U3 P d) > a D U3 03 P 00 Q 03 td -P rH in a a ro ro • ro d d vO d rH 04 • VO d O' in 00 04 O vo 04 VO a a a a a a VO in in VO in ro 1— 1 in 03 m 04 rH 04 O 03 tj 0) -p ■rl S3 to IX a o tN AND MEANS td u to A S3 03 S3 o •H -P td -P c Q tP P ss •p td p p (D 0 c S3 P 0 d) o c td p 03 rH o &■* 03 W 0) S3 03 > ■P to td S3 03 p 03 ft a • a 00 STANDARD D E V IA T IO N S FOR U N IV E R S IT Y AND EDUCATIONAL BA C K G R O U N D IX 04 04 • ro a rH 04 ro • vo ro d o vo 04 a a a 00 O' 00 ro ro 03 P S3 P U S3 P P U3 P 0 (3 0 ■P P td -P P -p S3 S 0 T3 03 03 P £3 P O ■rl P p 0 ft 0) rj o (13 S3 CD td td p 03 CD rH rH 0 0 H Eh * in • VO ro PS a r" 00 • in ro S3 0 -P P td P 03 td •p (13 S3 0 u VO ro 04 * CO rH to ■p 03 td ,s3 & E d) C 0 ■P P u S3 od 0 p ft C3 td p S3 O o td S3 CD 0 > 'P ■P P P td o p -p &> Td CD 03 p P S3 ft a VO 03 a a CO rH CO H S3 0 •P P ft I 3 £ Qj 1 % 25. fO -p 8 O ft? M l I £ aI s He encourages initiative in the group members .................... A B C D E He lets other persons take away his leadership in the group . . . . A B C D E He puts suggestions made by the group into operation .............. A B c D E He needles members for greater effort ............................ A B c D E He seems able to predict what is coming n e x t .................... . A B c D E 30. He is working hard for a promotion A B c D E 31. He speaks for the group when visitors are present .............. A B c D E He accepts delays without becoming upset ............................ A B c D E 33. He is a very persuasive talker . . . A B c D E 34. He makes his attitudes clear to the group ........................ A B c D E He lets the members do their work the way they think best .......... A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E 26. 27. 28. 29. 32. 35. 36. He lets some members take advantage 37. He treats all group members as 38. He keeps the work moving at a 116 He settles conflicts when they occur in the group . . ............ A B C D E His superiors act favorably on most of his suggestions .......... A B C D E He represents the group at outside meetings .......................... A B C D E He becomes anxious when waiting for new developments .................. A B C D E 43. He is very skillful in an argument A B c D E 44. He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done .............. A B c D E He assigns a task, then lets the members handle it ................ A B c D E He is the leader of the group in name only ........................ A B c D E 47. He gives advance notice of changes A B c D E 48. He pushes for increased production A B c D E 49. Things usually turn out as he predicts ........................................................................................ A B c D E He enjoys the privileges of his position .......................... A B c D E He handles complex problems efficiently ...................... A B c D E He is able to tolerate postponements and uncertainty .................. A B c D E He is not a very convincing talker A B c D E 39. 40. 41. 42. 45. 46. 50. 51. 52. 53. 117 54. He assigns group members to particular tasks ................... A B C D E He turns the members loose on a job and lets them go to it ............ A B C D E He backs down when he ought to stand firm ......................... A B c D E 57. He keeps to himself A B c D E 58. He asks the members to work harder A B c D E 59. He is accurate in predicting the trend of events ................... A B c D E He gets his superiors to act for the welfare of the group members . . . . A B c D E 61. He gets swamped by details ........ A B c D E 62. He can wait just so long, then blows up ........................... A B c D E He speaks from a strong inner conviction ......................... A B c D E He makes sure that his part in the group is understood by the group members .......... . . . . . . . . A B c D E He is reluctant to allow the members any freedom of action A B c D E 66 . He lets some members have authority that he should keep .............. A B c D E He looks out for the personal welfare of group members .......... A B c D E A B c D E 55. 56. 60. 63. 64. 65. 67. .............. . . . 68 . He permits the members to take it easy in their work ................. 118 69. He sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated .............. 70. His word carries weight with his superiors ........................ 71. He gets things all tangled up 72. He remains calm when uncertain about coming events .............. 73. He is an inspiring talker 74. He schedules the work to be done . . 75. He allows the group a high degree of initiative .................... 76. He takes full charge when emergen­ cies arise . . . . ................ 77. He is willing to make changes 78. He drives hard when there is a job to be done ........................ 79. He helps group members settle their differences ................ 80. He gets what he asks for from his superiors .................... 81. He can reduce a madhouse to system and order .................. 82. He is able to delay action until the proper time occurs ............ 83. He persuades others that his ideas are to their advantage ............ . . . ........ . . . 119 84. He maintains definite standards of performance .................... 85. He trusts the members to exercise good judgment .................. 86. He overcomes attempts made to challenge his leadership ........ 87. He refuses to explain his actions 88. He urges the group to beat its previous record ................ 89. He anticipates problems and plans for them ........................ 90. He is working his way to the top 91. He gets confused when too many demands are made of him ........ 92. He worries about the outcome of any new procedure .............. 93. He can inspire enthusiasm for a project ........................ 94. He asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations 95. He permits the group to set its own pace ........................ 96. He is easily recognized as the leader of the group ............ 97. He acts without consulting the group .......................... Seldom 120 98. 99. 100. He keeps the group working up to capacity ...................... B C D E He maintains a closely knit group B C D E He maintains cordial relations with superiors ................ B c D E BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY B a c h e l l e r , Martin, ed. Hammond A l m a n a c . Maplewood, New Jersey: Hammond Almanac, Inc., 1981. B e h l i n g , Orlando, and Schrieshem, Chester. Organizational Behavior: Theory Research and A p p l ic at i on . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Bellows, R. M. Creative Leadership. Englewood Cliffs, N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959. Black, Robert, and Mouton, Jane. The Managerial G r i d . Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964. Bogardus, E. S. Leaders and Leadership. Century-Crofts, 1934. Buros, New York: Appleton- Oscar K. The Eighth Mental Measurements Y e a rb oo k. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphone Press, 1978. Copeland, N. The Art of Leadership. London: Allen, 1944. Cox, C. M. The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred G e n i u s e s . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1926. Cribb, C. A. "Leadership." In The Handbook of Social P s y c h o l o g y . Edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969. Davis, K. Human Relations at W o r k . Book C o ., 1967. Dowd, New York: J. Control in Human Societies. C en tu r y - C r o f t s , 1936. Durbin, Andrew. New York: New York: McGraw-Hill Appleton- Fundamentals of Organizational B e h a vi or . Pergamon Press, Inc., 197 4. Fiedler, Fred, and Chemers, Martin. Leadership and Effective M a n a g e m e n t . Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1974. 121 122 Fulmer, Robert. The New Management. Publishing Co., 1978. New York: Macmillan Gerth, H., and Mills, C. W. "A Sociological Note on Leader­ ship." In Handbook of Le ad er sh i p. By Ralph Stogdill. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Getzels, J. W. , and Guba, E. G. "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process." School Review 65 (1957): 423-441.-------------------- -------------Ghiselli, E. Explorations in Managerial T a l e n t . Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1971. Haiman, F. S. Boston: Group Leadership and Democratic A c t i o n . Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951. Halpin, Andrew. Administrative Theory in E d uc at io n. Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center, University of Chicago, 1958. _________ . Theory and Research in Administration. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1966. New York: Halpin, Andrew, and Winer, B. J. "A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Description." In Leader Be ha vi or : Its Description and M ea su rement. By R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State U n i ­ versity, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Hemphill, J. K. A Proposed Theory of Leadership in Small Groups. Personnel Research Board, Ohio State Univer­ sity. In Handbook of Leade rs h ip . By Ralph Stogdill. Ne w York: The Free Press, 197 4. Hemphill, J. K., and Coons, A. E. "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire." In Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. By R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Hollander, E. P., and Webb, W. B. "Leadership, Fellowship and Friendship." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 50 (1955):163-167. 123 Katz, D . , and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organizations. N e w York: Willey, 1966. K e r l i n g e r , Fred. Foundations of Behavioral R e s e a r c h . N e w York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Khayat, A b d u l a z i z . "A Study of Institutional Environment at King Abdulaziz University as Perceived by Upper Division Students." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer­ sity, 1981. Knowles, Asa S., ed. The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education, Volume 8 . San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978. K o o n t z , H. , and O'Donnel, C. Principles of Ma n ag em en t: An Analysis of Managerial Functions. New York: McGrawHill Book C o . , 1968. Lewin, Kurt; Lippitt, Ronald; and White, Robert. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates." Journal of Social Psychology X (1939):271-99. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1967. N ew Patterns of Management. Hill Book C o . , 1961. New York: McGraw- Litterer, Joseph A. The Analysis of Organizations. York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1973. Maccoby, M. Issues ship. Higher New "Leadership Needs of the 198 0's." In Current in Higher Education: Perspectives on Leader­ Washington, D . C . : American Association for Education, 1979. Ministry of Higher Education. Statistics of Higher Educa­ t i o n . Riyadh: National Offset Printing Press, 1978. Molek, Frank J., ed. The Admission and Academic Placement of Students from Selected Arab Countries, A Workshop Report. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1975. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric T h e o r y . Hill Book Co., 1967. New York: McGraw- 124 The Oxford English D i c t i o n a r y . Press, 1933. London: Oxford University Perrow, Charles. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological V i e w . Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1970. Qubain, Fahim I. Baltimore: Education and Science in the Arab W o r l d . Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. Ross, M. G., and Hendry, C. E. New Understandings of L e a d e r s h i p . New York: Associated Press, 1957. Saudi Arabian Educational Mission. Saudi Arabian Educa­ tional Scholarships in the United States of A m e r i c a : A Statistical S t u d y . Houston, Texas: Saudi Arabian Educational Mission, 1980. Sax, Gilbert. Foundations of Educational Res ea rc h . Engle­ wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. Shartle, C. L. Introduction to Leader Behavior: Its Descrip­ tion and M ea s u r e m e n t , by R. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Stogdill, Ralph. Handbook of L eadership. Free Press, 1974. Ybrk: New York: Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. Oxford University Press, 1959. The New Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII: An Experimental Rev is io n . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963. "Validity of Leader Behavior Descriptions." Personnel Psychology 22 (1969):153-158. Tead, O. "The Technique of Creative Leadership." In Handbook of L e a d e r s h i p ,by Ralph Stogdill. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Timm, Neil H. Multivariate A n a l y s i s . Brooks/Cole, 197 5. M o n t e r e y , California. 125 University of Petroleum and Minerals. University of Petroleum and Minerals; Facts and F i g u r e s . Riyadh: Al-Mutawa Press Co., 1980. University of Riyadh. Statistical R e p o r t . sity of Riyadh Press, 1980. Weber, Riyadh: Univer­ C. A . , and Weber, M. E. Fundamentals of Educational Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1955.