71-11,78*+
BECHARD, Joseph Edward, 1928THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY AS AN ORGANIZATION: A SURVEY OF
THE PERCEPTIONS OF IT'S STUDENTS, FACULTY,
AND ADMINISTRATORS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, administration

University Microfilms, A XJERQXCompany , Ann Arbor, M ichigan

thts

DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
AS AN ORGANIZATION:
A SURVEY OF THE PERCEPTIONS
OF IT'S STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND ADMINISTRATORS
By
Joseph Edvard Bechard

A Thesis
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education
1970

ABSTRACT
THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
AS AN ORGANIZATION: A SURVEY OF THE PERCEPTIONS
OF IT'S STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND ADMINISTRATORS.
by
Joseph Edward Bechard

This study was designed to assess significant agreements
and/or disagreements in perceptions of the organizational cli­
mate of the College of Education at Michigan State University.
A total of 133 individuals participated In the study.

These

Individuals were randomly selected from five populations in
the College;

1) Administrators, 2) Graduate Faculty, 3)

Undergraduate Faculty, 4) Graduate Students, and 5) Under­
graduate Students.
Llkert's Profile of Organizational Characteristics
questionnaires, as developed for colleges, were used to
measure the organizational climate.

These instruments delin­

eate six organizational variables comnon to all organizations,
along an authoritarian-participative continuum.
ables tested were:

The vari­

1) Leadership Process, 2) Character of

Motivational Forces, 3) Character of Communication Process,
4) Interaction-Influence Process, 5) Character of Decision­
making Process, and 6) Character of Goal-Setting Process.
The participants were asked to rank the College on
each variable along the continuum.

Individual scores were

Joseph E. Bechard

calculated for each variable and from that data, mean scores
for each group on each variable were computed.
The analysis of the data was done In three steps:
(1)

Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance technique

found strong agreement within each group about the organiza­
tional climate of the College.
(2)

A three-way analysis of variance for repeated

measures technique found significant differences between
groups across all variables tested.
(3)

A Scheffe post hoc comparison technique was

applied to various combinations of groups to identify specific
differences.
Findings
In the perceptions of the state of the organization
of the College:
(1)

There is substantial agreement within each of

the five groups.
(2)

There is substantial disagreement between the

Administrators and each of the other groups.
(3)

There is substantial disagreement between Faculty

Groups and Student Groups.
(4)

There Is substantial agreement between Graduate

Faculty and the Undergraduate Faculty.
(5)

There is substantial agreement between the .Graduate

Students and the Undergraduate Students.

In ranking the organizational climate of the College on
a continuum from authoritarian to participative, the results
show:
(1)

There is a strong hierarchical flavor to the manner

in which each group ranked the College.
(2)

Administrators, Faculty, and Students, form three

distinct levels of evaluation.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the results
of this study:
(1)

The findings reveal the bureaucratic nature of the

College.
(2)

The extent of participation in organizational life,

as viewed by the Students is at a low level.
(3)

The Faculty's relative position on the continuum

is closer to the Student point of view than to the Administrator
(4)

Differences in perception between the Administrators

and all other groups suggest that the Administrative group is
out of touch with the organizational life of the College.
(5)

Differences in perception between the Faculty and

the Students re-emphasizes the lack of participation in the
organizational life of the College.
Recommendations
The recommendations are:

1.

The College should Implement a "Model College Plan,"

based upon Organizational Development (OD) Principles.

The

basic component of the Model would be pilot groups consisting
of a mixture of Administrators, Faculty, and Students to In­
vestigate all aspects of the organizational life in the
College -- technology, systems and structure, methods, inter­
personal and personal factors, and strategies of change.
2.

The College should encourage all of its Education

classes to be in contact with these pilot groups to Insure a
constant source of feedback to the system.
3.

The College should encourage teams of doctoral stu­

dents, interested in organizations, to write dissertations on
the Model Plan, and other innovative organizational plans.
This will increase the amount of empirical findings available
for educational organizations.
4.

The College should hold regular workshops in organi­

zational diagnosis for people in the field of Education.

The

workshops would be for individuals and/or specific school units.
5.

The College should establish a group made up of

Administrators, Faculty, and Students specifically from the
Administration and Educational Psychology Departments to study
the effect of organization on learning environments.
The objectives of this plan would be:

1.

To create an open problem solving climate throughout

the College.
2.

Locate decision-making and problem-solving responsi­

bilities as close to the Information sources as possible.
3.

Maximize collaborative efforts among Individuals

and between groups.
4.

Increase the sense of "ownership" of College objec­

tives throughout the membership.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people have provided helpful assistance and kindness
in the completion of this study.

Specifically, the writer

would like to express his sincere gratitude to the following
people:
The 133 members of the College who participated in the
Study.
Committee members -- Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. James Heald,
Dr. Everett Rogers, and Dr. Andrew Porter, who not only pro­
vided assistance, but also provided the supportive climate
that is one of the central constructs of learning.
Dr. John H. Suehr, who, as committee chairman and friend,
has had a positive impact on the writer's educational philosophy.
Mrs. Charlene St.Amand, my former secretary, who typed,
proofread, and supplied constructive comments on the study.
m

Dr. Jerry Wyett, a friend, who functioned as a sounding
hoard in the formulation of the proposal.

were

Dr. Rensis Likert, and his secretary, Mrs. Holdren,
kind enough to allow use of the questionnaires.

who

Alex Pirie, a friend, who provided considerable assist­
ance with computational skills in the preparation of the data.
Linda and Whitney Hames, neighbors, who cared for our
children, thus allowing the writer to concentrate.
Mable Bechard, my mother, who has been a great source of
inspiration and courage and without whom I wouldn't have been
possible.

also

The most important group of people to the writer's

life,

made the greatest contribution to this study and to

the

completion of the doctoral program.

11

With a special sense of gratitude and love, the writer
would like to thank his wife, Mitzie, for her understanding
and love through the trials and tribulations of such an under­
taking.

She served as critic, confident, proofreader, and

grammarian, while being a mother, wife, and chief bread-winner
for the family.
six

A special thanks also goes to the writer's

children -- Joseph, Kathryn, David, Michelle, Lisa, and

John.

They put up with a grouchy father for two years with an

understanding that far surpassed their years.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................

it

LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................

vi

CHAPTER
I.

II.

Page
THE PROBLEM.....................................
Introduction ...............................
Theory .....................................
Purpose of the S t u d y ......................
General Questions to be Answered .........
Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . .
Assumptions Underlying this Study.........
Definitions of Key T e r m s ..................
O v e r v i e w ...................................

1
2
9
11
13
14
13
19

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ......................

20

Introduction ...............................
Current Organizational The o r y.............
Organizational Effects on Individuals. . .
Perceptions and their Effects on Behavior.
Summary.....................................
III.

1

DESIGN OF THE STUDY.............................

20
21
37
35
A3
44

Source of the D a t a .......................
AA
Samples of the S t u d y ......................
48
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ....................
83
Organizational Variables ..................
34
Treatment of the D ata.........................101
IV.

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ............................. 107
Introduction ...............................
107
Analysis of the D a t a .........................107
Interpretation of the D a t a .................. 172

iv

chapter

V.

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 141
Introduction ...............................
141
Summary........................................ 141
F i n d i n g s ......................................147
Conclusions................................... 150
Recommendations............................... 152

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ..........................
APPENDICES

157

............................................... 164

V

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table
3.1

Percentage of Participants Completing Questionnaire

70

3.2

Participants of this Study Categorized by Major
Department...........................................

71

Demographic Characteristics of Administrators
Participating in this Study.........................

73

3.3

3.4

Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Members Who
Devote the Greater Part of Their Professional Time
to Graduate Studies (Graduate Faculty) Participating
in this Study........................................
75

3.5

Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Members WTio
Devote the Greater Part of their Professional Time
to Undergraduate Studies (Undergraduate Faculty)
Participating in this Study.........................

77

Demographic Characteristics of Graduate Students
Participating in this Study.........................

79

Demographic Characteristics of Undergraduate
btudents Participating in this Study...............

-1

4.1

Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance...............

119

4.2

/II Subjects with Complete Variable Scores......... 113

4.3

Analysis of Variance Table..........................

115

'4.4

Analysis of Variance Table............

116

4.5

Profile of the College based on means for groups
on each variable..................................... 118

;.r.

Profile of the College based on means for groups
on each variable....................................

3.6

3.7

vi

12 0

Page

T.ihlf*

^.7

Comparison of the W Statistic.......................

173

4.8

Values of Differences in Variable Mean Scores and
Levels of Significance as Calculated for the
Statistic of the Scheffe Post Hoc Comparison.......

178

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Croups or
Each Variable........................................

165

*>

vii

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction
In reviewing the sociological literature on education,
few, if any, attempts have been made to view educational in­
stitutions as formal and informal organizations.

At a point

in history when Increasing pressures and demands are being
made upon educational institutions to serve the needs of an
ever expanding society, it is Important that educators use
all of the knowledge and skill available to them to more
efficiently utilize the potential of their human resource.
Business and Industrial organizations have been
successful in borrowing from the behavioral sciences in
attempts to increase productivity through more effective
diagnosis of organizational structure.

Educational organi­

zations, by and large, have not attempted to develop such
models of internal examination.

As a result, educators have

had to rely upon empirical research that was not explicitly
directed to the uniqueness of the field of education.

1

Most educational organizations have d efined in g eneral
terms by means of statements included in their philosophical
objectives, their goals, expectations, and acceptable behavi­
ors.

As in business and Industry, it is Important to analyze

the organizational framework of educational organizations to
discover the degree of consonance that exists between the
desired outcomes and the ability of the organizational struc­
ture to contribute to the achievement of the desired results.
To understand what educational institutions are like as
organizations, in broad terms, means to understand their
characteristic structure, processes, and functional problems.
This study will focus primarily on determining the characteri­
stic processes of the College of Education at Michigan State
University as perceived by its administration,

faculty, and

students and based on data concerned with leadership processes,
motivational forces, communication processes,

influence-

interaction, decision-making, and goal-setting.

Theory
Several scholars like Likert}

McGregor,2

^Likert, R., New Patterns of Management. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1961) and The Human Organization. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967).
2McGregor, D . , The Human Side of Enterprise. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1960).

Shepard,

1

Bennis,

9

Blake and Mouton,

3

Burns and Stalker,

4

Barnes,'* Lltwak,^ and Argyris,^ who conduct research in org­
anizations have developed theoretical models of effective and
ineffective organizations.

To efficiently categorize his data,

each scholar has developed two polar models.

Each places one

model at each end of a continuum, based upon varying criteria.
Each identifies the extremities of his continuum in different
terms, but the characteristics of the polar models are similar.
For example, Likert refers to authoritative-participation,
Bennis to hablt-problem-solvlng. Barnes to closed and open

Shepard, H . , "Organic and Mechanistic Models of Organi­
zation," presented at the Esso Laboratories, Thayer Hotel,
Summer, 1959.
2

Bennis, W . , "Leadership Theory and Administrative Be­
havior," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 4, No. 3
(December, 1959).

Texas:

Blake, R . , and Mouton, J., The Managerial Grid (Houston,
Gulf, 1964).

^ B u m s , T., and Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innova­
tion. (London:
Tavistock Publications, 1961).
^Barnes, L., Organizational Systems and Engineering
Groups. Graduate School of Business, Harvard Review, 1960.
^Litwak, E., "Models of Bureaucracy which Permit Conflict,
Journal of Sociology. LXVI1, (September, 1961).
^Argyris, C., Integrating the Individual and the Organi­
zation. (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1964).

4
systems, Lltwak to bureaucratic-human-relations. and McGregor
to Theory X and Theory Y organizations.

For simplification,

Shepard, Burns and Stalker, and Argyris have vertically grouped
these separate theories under the headings of mechanistic orga­
nizations (authoritarian, habit, closed system, bureaucratic,
and Theory X), and organic organizations (participative, prob­
lem-solving, open system, human relations, and Theory Y).
Shepard* contrasts the two approaches in the five follow­
ing respects:
1.

Wide participation in decision-making rather
than centralized decision-making.

2.

The face-to-face group rather than the indi­
vidual as the basic unit of organization.

3.

Mutual confidence rather than authority as
the integrative force in organization.

4.

The administrator as the agent for maintaining
intragroup and intergroup communication rather
whan the agent of higher authority.

5.

Growth of members of the organization to
greater responsibility rather than external
control of the members* performance of their
tasks.

Summarizing the major findings of these scholars, the
mechanistic organization is characterized by:

^Shepard, H . , "Superiors and Subordinates in Research,"
Journal of Business. 29 (1956), 261-267.

1.

Decision-making and control exercised by the top
levels of the organization.

2.

An emphasis on unilateral management action, based
upon dependency and passive conformity.

3.

The specialization of tasks so that concern for the
whole organization is lost in greater concern for
the parts.

4.

The centralization of information, rewards and
penalties, and membership.

5.

The top level of management being responsible for
developing and maintaining the loyalty, commit­
ment and responsibility of all participants on as
high a level as possible.

6.

An emphasis on social status,

intergroup and

individual competition, and rivalry.
At the other end of the continuum, organic organizations
are characterized by:
1.

Decision-making widely done throughout the organi­
zation .

2.

An emphasis on mutual dependence and cooperation
based on trust, confidence, and high technical
or professional competence.

6

3.

A constant pressure to enlarge tasks and Inter­
relate them so that concern for the whole organi­
zation is emphasized.

4.

The decentralization of responsibility for, and
use of information, rewards and penalties, and
membership.

5.

Participants at all levels being responsible for
developing and maintaining loyalty and commitment
at as high a level as possible.

6.

An emphasis on status through contribution to the
whole, and intergroup and individual cooperation.

Perhaps the most comprehensive differentiation of types
of organizations has been done by Likert, who has divided the
two broad categories into four.

He differentiates between

the authoritarian and participative systems.

Authoritarian

systems may be further conceptualized as exploitative.
benevolent. and consultative.

The participative system is

conceptualized as the participative group.

Initially, these

systems were devised to illustrate comparative differences
among management systems and have since been adapted to
measure the nature of the organization and are labeled
System 1, 2, 3, and 4.

These systems are placed on a con­

tinuum representing degree of organizational control.

7
System 1 has the most unilateral control, whereas System 4
has more mutual shared control.

Likert's model does not con­

sider the laissez faire organization.
For the dimensions that he considers, Llkert has developed
a detailed table which describes the organizational and perform­
ance characteristics of each system.

Although Llkert is aware

that such tables tend to oversimplify the situation, for ex­
ample, they do not depict how each system blends with the
others, he feels that there are important values to be gained.
The value of these tables, Llkert suggests, lies in the
observable fact that the many operating procedures and the
performance characteristics of the different systems form an
orderly pattern along every horizontal and vertical dimension.
A more important value of the table, according to Llkert,

is

to draw from it the nature of a new form of organization,
which has not been fully developed in practice, namely, the
participative group form of organization.

This new form will

tend to be characterized as an Integrated, Internally consistent
system.

The overlapping group form of organization will be

its primary structure.

In addition to the necessary techni­

cal and administrative skills, administration will also hold
a basic philosophy of leadership that places emphasis on
effective group functioning, a supportive, ego-building climate,

8

and cooperative relationships.
Related findings by these and other behavioral scientists,
as reviewed in part in Chapter II, account for differences in
organizational flexibility, effectiveness in problem solving,
and the ability of an organization to adapt, change, and re­
spond to its environment as contingent with organizational
structure.

These findings also seem to support the view that

the psychological energies of the participants of an organization,
such as individual self-actualization, self-expression, selfawareness, self-esteem, and other indices of psychological
success are to a significant degree influenced by organizations 1
characteristics.
This study assumes that these dimensions as identified
by Llkert can be applied to any type of organization.

Much

of the theory and empirical data on which they are based was
generated in industrial organizations.

We need, however, to

determine the special properties of educational systems which
pre-dispose them to particular types of dysfunctions.

It is

also necessary to examine whether the technologies of organiza­
tion improvement which have proved successful industrially
need adaptation in certain directions before they are likely
to be effective in schools.
It is essential, then, that we accept the possibility

9
chat educational institutions are in fact organizations, and
as such share certain properties with all other organizations•
These assumptions have been instrumental in allowing
Likert to develop the dimensions of educational organizations
used in this study.

Purpose of the Study
The general purpose of this study, which is exploratory
in nature, and not designed to test hypotheses,

is to deter­

mine the prevailing attitudes of administration, faculty, and
students in the College of Education at Michigan State Univer­
sity regarding the organizational system of the said college.
The focus of the study will be on the characteristic processes
of the organization and will to this extent be descriptive in
nature.
More specifically, the purpose of this study shall be
to:
1.

Survey the perceptions

of administrators of

of

the College of

a randomly selected group
Education regarding the

present state of the organization in terms of their experience.
2.
groups of

Survey the perceptions

of

faculty of the College of

two randomly selected
Education regarding the

present state of the organization in terms of their experience.

10
One group will be composed of faculty members who devote the
greater part of their professional time to graduate studies.
The other group will be composed of faculty members who devote
the greater part of their professional time to undergraduate
studies.
3.

Survey the perceptions of a randomly selected group

of graduate students in the College of Education at Michigan
State University regarding the present state of the organiza­
tion in terms of their experience.
4.

Survey the perceptions of a randomly selected group

of undergraduate students majoring in Education at Michigan
State University regarding the present state of the organiza­
tion in terms of their experience.
5.

Determine the areas of shared perceptions of the

present state of the organization of the College of Education
at Michigan State University by graduate faculty and under­
graduate faculty, graduate and under-graduate students.
6.

Determine areas of perceptual dissonance about

the present state of the organization as identified by the
administration, graduate faculty and undergraduate faculty,
graduate and undergraduate students.
7.

Seek answers to a series of questions which are

stated elsewhere under "Questions to be Answered, " relevant

11
to the data gathered.

General Questions to be Answered
Questions answered by this study will include:
1.

Is there a substantial agreement and/or disagreement

among administrators of the College of Education as to their
perceptions of the state of the organization of the College?
2.

Is there a substantial

agreement and/or disagreement

among the graduate faculty members and among the undergraduate
faculty members of the College of Education as to their per­
ceptions of the state of the organization of the College?
3.

Is there a substantial agreement and/or disagreement

among the graduate students as to their perceptions of the
state of

the organization of the

4.

Is there a substantial

College of Education?
agreement and/or disagreement

among the undergraduate students majoring in Education about
their perceptions of the state of the organization of the
College of Education?
Then, depending upon finding within group agreement:
5.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between administrators and the graduate faculty, and between
administrators and the undergraduate faculty in the percep­
tions of each group, as they view the state of the organiza­
tion of the College of Education?

12
6.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between administrators and graduate students in the perceptions
o£ each group, as they view the state of the organization of
the College of Education?
7.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between administrators and undergraduate students in the perceptions of each group, as they view the state of the organiza­
tion of the College of Education?
8.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between the graduate faculty and the undergraduate faculty in
the perceptions of each group, as they view the state of the
organization of the College of Education?
9.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between the graduate faculty and the graduate students in the
perceptions of each group, as they view the state of the
organization of the College of Education?
10.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between the undergraduate faculty and undergraduate students
in the perceptions of each group, as they view the state of
the organization of the College of Education?
11.

Are there substantial agreements and/or disagreements

between the graduate students and the undergraduate students
In the perceptions of each group as they view the state of the

13
organization of the College of Education?

Significance of the Study
The implications of this study are far reaching.

In

diagnosing its problems, every organization faces the similar
problem of understanding the nature of its system, the way
in which its systems function, and the manner in which it
responds to its environment.

The initial significance of

this study is that it will diagnose an educational organiza­
tion in a systematic manner.

Educational organizations, like

all organizations, are in a constant state of change.

Pressures

on educational institutions to change have greatly increased.
These pressures are both external and internal and require
decisions which guide change.

The quality of these decisions

will depend upon the kind of information received and the
accurate analysis of that Information.
This study may prove useful as a model for diagnosing
educational organizations in other settings.

High schools and

elementary schools are in need of ways to diagnose the Impact
of their organizations on their clients and staff.
Hopefully, this study will serve as a springboard for
further research.

Perhaps educators have been laboring long

under the assumption that the manner In which schools are

14
organized creates the best learning climate for the students.
As a result of this study and resultant studies, the existing
organizational patterns for educational purpose may prove
ineffective.

Assumptions underlying this Study
A study effort is, in essence, an argument.

The parti*

cipants in the argument are the writer and the readers.

All

arguments are conducted on the basis of underlying assumptions
that, by agreement, cannot be challenged by those engaged in
the argumentative discussion.

The following assumptions are

essential to this study:
1.

Educational institutions are organizations with

organizational characteristics that can be identified.
2.

Certain kinds of organizational structures arc

more conducive to achieving certain goals and objectives than
other kinds of organizational structure.
3.

Different organizational structures will produce

different psychological and sociological climates for the
participants.
4.

The perceptions of individuals within an organize*

tlon, about that organization will have a significant influ*
ence upon their adaptive behavior.

15
5.

Effective and Ineffective organizations may be

Identified In behavioral terms.
Definitions of Key Terms
An Organization -- A social system made up of a plural­
ity of parts, maintaining themselves through their Inter­
relatedness to achieve specific objectives.
State of an Organization —

The current situation of

an organization with respect to such items as leadership be ­
havior, the motivations of its members, Its communications
and decision-making processes,

its productivity, and other

internal forces that influence the whole.
Characteristics of an Organization -- The sum total of
the organizational processes that would serve to categorize
the organization,

i.e., place it on a continuum as being an

open system or a closed system.
Superior -- For the purpose of this study, an assumption
of the existence of hlerarchal levels in the College of Educa­
tion.

Refers to members of the organization who occupy a

higher position on the hlerarchal ladder than the respondent.
For purposes of this study, the order is assumed to be from
highest to lowest, the Dean of the College of Education,
administrators, faculty, and students.

No distinction is

16
drawn between undergraduates or graduate students, nor faculty
primarily concerned with graduate studies or faculty primarily
concerned with undergraduate studies.
Subordinate -- For the purposes of this study, an
assumption of the existence of hierarchs 1 levels in the College
of Education.

Refers to members of the organization who occupy

a lower position on the hlerarchal ladder than the respondent,
or to members of the same position as the respondent.

See

Superior for definition of the order of levels assumed in this
study.
Academic matters -- Includes course content,

ins true tion.al

plans, teaching methods, textbook selection, and instructional
policies.
Non-academic matters -- Includes student behavior,
discipline, student activities, admlnistrative problems, and
personal problems.
Leadership Process —

The extent to which the leaders of

the organization are able to create a climate of trust and
confidence In relationships with subordinates, the degree to
which they exhibit supportive behavior, and the degree to
which they obtain ideas and opinions of subordinates In problem­
solving activities.

This includes the extent to which subordi­

nates feel free to discuss important matters about their jobs

17
with their immediate superiors, and the degree to which sub­
ordinates have confidence and trust in superiors.
Motivational Forces -- Physical, economical, psychological,
or sociological pressures present within the organization that
influence participants in task performance.

This includes the

amount of responsibility felt by each member of the organiza­
tion for achieving organization goals, the kinds of attitudes
developed toward the organization and toward other members of
the organization, and the extent to which underlying motives
such as physical security, economic needs, status, ego motives,
affiliation, and achievement are utilized.
Communication processes -- The character, amount, and
direction of interaction employed by an organization in deter­
mining the flow of information.

This includes accuracy of

communications, willingness to share information, accuracy of
perceptions of problems and accuracy of perceptions of other
members of the organization, adequacy of upward, downward,
and lateral communications, and the extent to which communi­
cations are accepted by others in the organization.
Interaction-influence processes —

The amount and

character of interaction present, and the extent to which
participants in the organization can influence the goals,
methods, and activities of the organization.

This includes

Che extent to which interaction is free from fear and distrust,
amount of cooperative teamwork present, and the extent to
which an effective structure exists enabling one part of the
organization to exert influence upon other parts.
Decision-making Process -- The procedures used by an
organization in setting priorities, analyzing alternatives
and selecting courses of action.

This Includes levels of the

organization at which decisions are made, the extent to which
decision-makers are aware of the problems, particularly at the
lower levels of the organization, the extent to which subordi­
nates are involved in decision-making, the adequacy and accur­
acy of information available for decision-making at the levels
where decisions are made, and the extent to which the pattern
of decision-making encourages teamwork.
Goal Setting Process -- The procedures employed by an
organization in establishing its purposes and objectives.

This

Includes the extent to which goals are established by means of
group participation as opposed to orders issued, the extent
to which different hlerarchal levels tend to strive for high
performance goals, and the extent to which there exist forces th
resist, accept, or reject goals.
Characteristic element -- A specific attribute that
contributes to the over-all definition of an organizational

19
variable.
Overview
The nature of the problem and supporting theories have
been identified in Chapter I.

In Chapter II a review of

relevant and related literature will be presented.
III is a presentation of the research design,
and techniques used in the study.
ings is included in Chapter IV.

Chapter

instrumentation,

A presentation of the find­
A summary of the findings,

with implications and recommendations are found in the con­
cluding Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction

Increasingly, students of educational administration are
concerned with the relevance of organization to the nature of
education students receive.

Abbott states, "it seems obvious

that the structure of the organization has important implica­
tions for the way in which the organization will function."*
Unfortunately, the empirical literature that views edu­
cational Institutions as organizations is fragmentary and dis­
continuous.

Generally, the data educators have had to rely

upon are either extrapolations from other fields of study or
research narrowly focused on some sub system, process, or
activity without being concerned with a more comprehensive
conception of schools as organizations.
The study of human behavior, as a result of organizational
structure also has important implications for the educator.

Most

members of society have or will Inhabit schools at one time or

^Abbott, M.G., and Lovell, J.T., eds., Change Perspectives
in Educational Administration. (Auburn, Ala.: Auburn University,
School of Education, 1965)7 pp. 40.
20

21
another.

Understandably, the manner in which individuals re­

spond to organizational climate will be an Important factor
in determining the success or failure of the institution's
mission.
Pugh defines "organizational theory" as the study of the
structure and the functioning of organizations and the behavior
of groups and individuals within them.^

Pursuant to these ends,

the central purpose of this chapter will be to order the exist­
ing literature to set a framework for inquiry into the study
of educational institutions.

The literature relevant to this

study is divided into three general areas:
zational theories,

(1) Current organi­

(2) Organizational effect on Individuals,

and (3) Perceptions and their effect on Behavior.
I. Current Organizational Theory
Most students of organizations agree that schools are
bureaucratic in nature.

Etzlonl implies it when he says,

"Modern society is to a large degree a bureaucratic society;
that is, many of its functional requirements -- such as allo­
cation of means and social integration —
controlled by complex organizations.

are carried out and

But not only does modern

*Pugh, D.S. " M o d e m Organizational Theory:
A Psycho­
logical and Sociological Study." Psychological Bulletin. 66,
1966, 235-251.

22
society as a whole tend to be bureaucratic,

the most powerful

social units which make up modern societies are bureaucracies."
Bldwell,

2

3
4
Blau and Scott, and Corwin and others specifically

mention schools and education as having bureaucratic characteris­
tics.
The classical analysis of the bureaucratic organization
by Max Weber is still the most important general statement on
formal organization.
According to Weber, bureaucracy has the following char­
acteristics :
1.

Organization tasks are distributed among the
various positions as official duties.
Implied
is a clear cut division of labor among positions
which makes possible a high degree of specializa­
tion.
Specialization, in turn, promotes expert­
ness among the staff, both directly and by enabl­
ing the organization to hire employees on the
basis of their technical qualifications.

^Etzlonl, A. Complex Organizations. (New York:
Rinehart and Winston, 1961), 257.

Holt,

^Bldwell, C.E., "The School as a Formal Organization,"
Handbook of Organization. (Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co.,
1965), 972-1022.
3
Blau, P.M., and Scott, W . R . , Formal Organizations:
A
Comparative Study. (San Francisco:
Chandler Publishing Co.,
1960), 27-45.
a

Corwin, R.G., A Sociology of Education. (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofta Publishing Co., 1965) 35-54.

23
2.

The positions or offices are organized into a
hlerarchal authority structure.
In the usual
case this hierarchy takes on the shape of a
pyramid wherein each official is responsible
for his subordinate's decisions and actions as
well as his own to the superior above him in
the pyramid and wherein each official has
authority over the officials under him. The
scope of authority of superiors over subordin­
ates is clearly circumscribed.

3.

A formally established system of rules and regu­
lations governs official decisions and actions.
In principle, the operations of these general
regulations to particular cases. The regula­
tions insure the uniformity of operations and,
together with the authority structure, make possi­
ble the coordination of the various activities.
They also provide for continuity in operations
regardless of changes in personnel, thus promot­
ing a stability lacking, as we have seen, in
charismatic movements.

4.

Officials are expected to assume an impersonal
orientation in their contacts with clients and
with other officials. Clients are to be treated
as cases, the officials being expected to disre­
gard all personal considerations and to maintain
complete emotional detachment, and subordinates
are to be treated in a similar impersonal fashion.
The social distance between hlerarchal levels and
that between officials and their clients is in­
tended to foster such formality.
Impersonal de­
tachment is designed to prevent the personal
feelings of officials from distorting their
rational judgment in carrying out their duties.

5.

Employment by the organization constitutes a
career for officials. Typically an official is
a full-time employee and looks forward to a life­
long career in the agency. Employment is based
on the technical qualifications of the candidate
rather than on political, family or other connec­
tions. Usually, such qualifications are tested
by examination or by certificates that demonstrate

24
the candidate's educational attainment —
college degrees, for example.
Such educa­
tional qualifications create a certain amount
of homogeneity among officials, since rela­
tively few persons of working class origins
have college degrees, although their number
is increasing.
Officials are appointed to
positions, not elected, and thus are depend­
ent upon superiors in the organization rather
than on a body of constituents. After a trial
period, officials gain tenure of position and
are protected against arbitrary dismissal.
Remuneration is in the form of a salary, and
pensions are provided after retirement.
Career advancements are according to senior­
ity or to achievement, or both.1
Other social scientists have attempted to develop theo­
retical frameworks from which formal organizations could be
studied.

Simon conceives of administrative organizations as

primarily decision-making structures.

He writes:

"What is a

scientifically relevant description of an organization?

It is

a description that, so far as possible, designates for each
person in the organization what decisions that person makes,
and the influence to which he is subjected in making each of
these decisions."

Rational decision-making requires select­

ing the best decision from a series of alternatives.

The

function of organization is, then, to limit the scope of the

^Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (trans. and eds.), From Max
Weber:
Essavs in Sociology. (New York:
Oxford University
Press, 1946), 196-204.
2Slmon, H.A., Administrative Behavior (2nd ed.), (New
York: MacMillan, 19S7), 126-127.

25
decisions each member must make by defining the responsibilities
of each official and supplying him with goals to guide his de­
cisions.

Mechanisms such as formal rules, information channels,

and training programs are employed to narrow the range of alter­
natives the official must consider before making his decisions.
Simon views rational behavior as a series of means--ends
chains.

Given certain ends, appropriate means are selected

for their attainment, but once reached, the ends often be­
come means for the attainment of other means.

The ends of

every member of the organization are defined by directives
of his superior, and his responsibility is primarily to d e ­
cide on the best means for attaining these ends.

Summarily,

each official in the hierarchy has his value premises supplied
by his superior; besides, his search for alternative means is
1
narrowed by procedural regulations.
Talcott Parsons provides another theoretical conception
of formal organization.

2

According to Parsons all social sys­

tems must solve four basic problems:

(1) adaptation —

the

reality demands of the environment coupled with the active
transformation of the external situation,

(2) goal achievement:

1lbid.. XXIV.
2

Parsons, Talcott, Structure and Process in Modern
Societies. (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1960), 16-96.

26
the defining of objectives and the mobilization of resources
to maintain them; (3) integration —

establishing and organiz­

ing a set of relations among the member units of the system to
coordinate and unify them into a single entity; and (4)
latency —

the maintenance over time of the system's motiva­

tional and cultural p a t t e r n s P a r s o n s '

theory includes

organizations as social systems and views all organizations
as having to face these fair problems.

The particular struc­

tures devised to meet them will vary with the type of organi­
zation under consideration.
Three hlerarchal levels in formal organizations are dis­
tinguished by Parsons.

First, the technical level where the

actual "product" of the organization is manufactured or dis­
pensed whose chief concerns are adaptation and goa1-attainment.
Above that level is the managerial level whose function is to
mediate between various parts of the organization and coordi­
nate their efforts.
gration.

This level's chief concern is with inte­

Finally, the institutional level of the organization

connects it with the wider social system functioning to oversee
the operations of the organization in light of its position in

^Parsons, Talcott et al., Working Papers in the Theory
of Action. (Glencoe, 111.:
Free Press, 1953), 183-186.

27
the larger society.

Latency problems are this level's primary

concern.
Having thus defined the hlerarchal lines of authority,
Parsons suggests there are clear-cut breaks between the three
levels.

Only within a level can the superior supervise the

work of subordinates and assume responsibility for ltt since
the differences In function between levels are too great to
make supervision of the lower by the higher possible.*"
In viewing the many elements that combine to make up
the bureaucratic organization, Thompson finds two to be of
particular importance.

These are the social process of

specialization and the cultural institution of hierarchy.
Modern bureaucracy attempts to accommodate specialization within a hlerarchal framework.

2

He further identifies a hierarchy

as a system of roles, which as cultural items are learned
and refer to the patterns of behavior that become appropriate
for a given social position.

Thus, according to Thompson,

current conceptions of organization are clearly based upon
charismatic assumptions concerning these roles.

Merton,

^Parsons, Talcott, "Pattern Variables Revisited,"
American Sociological Review. 25, 1960, 481-482.
2
Thompson, V.A., "Hierarchy, Specialization and Organi­
zational Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly. 5, 1961,
485-521.

28
Selznlck, and Gouldner, while not denying Weber's essential
proposition that bureaucracies are more efficient than are
alternative forms of organizations, have suggested Important
dysfunctional consequences of bureaucratic organization.^
Merton's

2

system of propositions begins with a "demand

for control" made on the organization by the top hierarchy.
This emphasizes rules as a response to the demand for control,
and results in a need for accountability and the predictability
of behavior enforced by standard operating procedures.

The

reduction of personalized relationships, the increased inter­
nalization of rules, and the decreased search for alternatives
inherent in the bureaucratic organization combine to make
the behaviors of members of the organization highly predict­
able, i.e., they result in an increase in the rigidity of b e ­
havior of the participants.

At the same time, the reduction

in personalized relationships facilitates the development of
an esprit de corps, i.e., increases the extent to which goals
are perceived as shared among members of the group.

Such a

sense of consnoness of purpose, interests, and character
increases the propensity of organization members to defend

Siarch, J.G. and Simon, H.A., Organizations. (New York
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958), 36-46.
2

Merton, R.K., "The Unanticipated Consequences of Pur­
posive Social Action," American Sociological Review. 1, 1936,
894-904.

29
each other against outside pressures.

This, In turn, solidi­

fies the tendency toward rigid behavior.
Like Merton, Selznlck^ wishes to show how the use of a
control technique brings about a series of unanticipated conse­
quences.

Selznick's model starts with the demand for control

made by the top hierarchy that results in an increased delega­
tion of authority.
Delegation, however, has several immediate consequences.
As Intended, it increases the amount of training in specialized
competencies.

Restriction of attention to a relatively small

number of problems increases experiences within these limited
areas and Improves the employee's ability to deal with these
problems.

At the same time, delegation results in departmenta­

lization on an increase in the diversity of interests among
sub-units In the organization.
conflict between sub-units.

This diversification leads to

This struggle for internal con­

trol not only affects directly the content of decisions, but
also causes greater elaboration of sub-unit ideologies.

Each

sub-unit seeks success by fitting its policy into official
doctrine to legitimize its demands.
1
Selznlck, P., TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkley:
versity of California Press, 1949),

Uni­

30
In Gouldner's* system, the use of general and impersonal
rules regulating work procedures is part of the response to the
demand for control from the top hierarchy.

The consequences

of such work rules decrease the visibility of power relations
and decreases interpersonal tensions within the group but also
increase knowledge about minimum accepted behavior.

Minimum

level performance, viewed as unacceptable by the hierarchy,
results in closer supervision over the work group.

Which, in

turn increases the visibility of power relations withir the
organization, raises the tension level in the work group, and
thereby upsets the equilibrium originally based on the insti­
tution of rules.

Thus, the intensity of supervision is a

function of the authoritarianism of supervisors and a function
of the punitivity of supervisory role perception.
Contrasting the broad groupings of organizational theory
variously labeled bureaucratic, traditional, classical,
mechanistic, autocratic, or theory X, is another body of
organizational theory categorized as modern, human relations,
democratic, participative, organisroic, or theory Y.
The main thrust of the "human relations" movement over

^■Gouldner, A.W., Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy,
(Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1954).

the past twenty years has been toward what Harold Leavitt

has

called "power equalization/' that is toward a reduction in
power and status differential between supervisors and subordinates.

Strauss

summarizes the movement as, "....a continuing

reaction against the emphasis of programmed work, rigid hierarchal control, and high degree of specialization which were
characteristic of Taylorism and traditional theory.

Its goal

is to cut back excessive hlerarchal control and to encourage
spontaneity on the part of subordinates."
*1

McGregor

suggests a different theory of management and

organization, "based upon more adequate assumptions of human
nature and human motivation."

He identifies management's task

In a conventional view as consisting of three propositions
that are labeled Theory X:
1.

Management Is responsible for organizing the elements
of productive enterprise -- money, materials, equip­
ment, people -- In the interest of economic ends.

^Leavitt, H . , "Applied Organizational Change in Industry,
Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.G. March, (Chicago: Rand,
McNally & Co., 1965) 1153-1167.
^Strauss, G., "Some Notes on Power Equalization," Read­
ings in Organization Theory: A Behavioral Approach, ed. W. A.
Hill and D. Egan, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,1966),374-402
^McGregor, D.M., The Human Side of Enterprise. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1960).

32
2.

With respect to people, this is a process of direct­
ing their efforts* motivating them, controlling their
actions, modifying their behavior to fit the needs
of the organization.

3.

Without this active intervention by management,
people would be passive -- even resistant to organi­
zational needs.

They must, therefore, be persuaded,

rewarded, punished, controlled -- their activities
must be directed.

This is management's task.

We

often sum it up by saying chat management consists
of getting things done through other people.
McGregor further states that behind this conventional theory are
additional beliefs and assumptions that are reflected in con­
ventional organizational structures and managerial policies:
(1)

The average man Is by nature Indolent -- he works as lit.tle

as possible.

(2)

He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility,

prefers to be led. (3)

He is inherently self-centered,

erent to organizational needs.

indiff­

(4) He is by nature resistant

to change. (5) He Is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe
of the charlatan and the demagogue.
Theory Y, as developed by McGregor, clearly implies a
shift from the all powerful superior relationship with

33
subordinates to a more balance of power.
the theory are:

The dimensions of

(1) Management is responsible for organizing

the elements of productive enterprise -- money, materials,
equipment, people -- in the interest of economic ends. (2)
People are not passive by nature or resistant to organizational
needs.

They have become so as a result of experience in organi­

zations. (3) The motivation, the potential for development,
the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to
direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in
people.

Management does not put them there.

It is a responsi­

bility of management to make it possible for people to recog­
nize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.
(4) The essential task of management is to arrange organiza­
tional conditions and methods of operation so th/’t people can
achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts
toward organizational objectives.
Likert'a* development of his Interactlon-lnfluence
Theory (1961) closely parallels McGregor's theory.

Drawing

heavily upon data gathered at the U . of M. Survey Research
Center, Llkert uses his "principle of supportive relation­
ships" as an organizing theme.

He defined the principle as

H,ikert, R . , New Patterns in Management. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1961).

34
follows:

"The leadership and ocher processes of the organi­

zation must be such as to ensure maximum probability that in
all interactions and all relationships with the organization
each member will, in the light of his background, values, and
expectations, view the experience as supportive and one which
builds and maintains his sense of personal worth and importance."
Likert defines organizational units as overlapping sets of groups
rather than individuals.

The highly effective work group is,

consequently, an important component of the newer theory of
management.
Argyrls^ represents a third focus of power equalization
theory.

With an emphasis on relating human fulfillment to

organizational efficiency, Argyrls stresses, "authentic re­
lationships."

These are defined as, "those relationships in

which an individual enhances his self-and other awareness and
acceptance in such a way that others can do the same."

Org­

anizationally, greater authenticity results in improved
decision-making and in performance of tasks.
Argyrls

sets forth a theoretical model of essential

organizational properties that he labels the "Mix Model."

^Argyrls, C ., Interpersonal Competence and Organiza­
tional Effectiveness. (Homewood. 111.:
Irwin. 1962).
2Argyris, C., Integrating the Individual and the Organi­
zation. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964).

35
Organizational effectiveness is determined to the degree that
organizations move toward or away from these essential
properties:

(1) From a situation in which a part directs

organizational activities to the point where core activities
are influenced through interrelationships of parts; (2) from
awareness of the organization as a plurality of parts to aware­
ness of the organization as a pattern of parts; (3) from a
state in which the objectives being achieved are related to
the parts, to a state in which the objectives achieved are
related to the whole; (4) from a state in which the organiza­
tion is unable to influence its internally oriented activities,
to a state in which it can influence these activities as the
organization desires; (5) from a state in which the organiza­
tion is unable to influence its externally oriented activities
to a state in which it can influence these activities as the
organization desires; and (6) from a state In which the nature
of the core activities is largely determined by the present to
a state in which the present core activities are continually
influenced by considerations including the past history, the
present and the anticipated future of the organization.
While power equalization positions can be treated as
attempts to relate personal fulfillment to organizational
problem solving and productivity, many scholars reject the

36
dichotomous a p p r o a c h . l a k e and Mouton refer Co "Integrated
management*1 that maximizes concern for people and task require­
ments.

Blake argues that human-centered and task centered con­

cerns are independent variables, and suggests that both can be
maximized simultaneously.

He thus speaks of "team management"

as an organizational necessity.
Litwak

(1961) suggests that there are two kinds of

events that organizations must consider, the "uniform" and
the "non-uniform".

Uniform events are those that stress tra­

ditional areas of knowledge and non-uniform events are those
that stress social skills.

He further identifies Weber's

bureaucratic model as most efficient in coping with uniform
events, and the human relations models as being most efficient
in dealing with non-uniform events.

His contribution is a

third model, the "professional" model, that "combines the
central and conflicting features from both types.

Since they

are conflicting, what characterizes this third model and dis­
tinguishes it from the other two is a need for 'mechanisms of
segregation'.

These permit mutually antagonistic social forms

^Blake, R.R., and Mouton, J.S., The Managerial Grid.
(Houston, Texas: Gulf, 1964).
^Litwak, E., "Models of Bureaucracy which Permit Con­
flict," American Journal of Sociology. 67, 1961, 177-184.

37
to exist side by side in the same organization without ruinous
friction."

The "mechanisms of segregation" suggest,

(1) role

separation by restricting primary group behavior and formal
relations activities to distinct groups,

(2) physical dis­

tance, such as between pure research activities (non-uniform
events) and production (a uniform event), (3) a set of transferral occupations whose major function would be to switch
from one uniform work area to non-uniform relationship areas
without contaminating either, (4) evaluation procedures that
allow the organization to determine when changes in either
or both sub-systems are advisable.

II.

Organizational Effects on Individuals

The strong people orientation of educational institu­
tions lends critical importance to the understanding of the
effect of structure on human behavior.

In this section, con­

sideration will be given to some of the literature relating
the interdependence of three conceptually distinct levels of
analysis of behavior in organizations -- organizational struc­
ture and functioning, individual personality and behavior,
and interactlon-lnfluence.

Halre^ (1954) traces the historical

^Halre, M . , "Industrial Social Psychology," Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. by G.Lindsey, (Cambridge:
AddlsonWesley, 1954) 1104-1123.

38
development of realistic accounts of behavior in organizations
back to the research begun in 1927 by the Mayo group in the
Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company and especially
to the Interpretation of this research by Roetheljberger and
1
Olckson.
Its emphasis on individual needs, Informal groups,
and social relationships was responsible for the development
of a philosophy of management that stressed human relation­
ships in organizations.
Sullivan's interpersonal theory of psychiatry

2

develops

the premise that each person's personality is the result of
his pattern of accommodation with people who are significant
to him.

How the individual accommodates is strongly influ­

enced by the social setting in which the interpersonal rela­
tions occur.

In this context social values and institutions

play a powerful role.

He argues that most behavior is the

result of the individual's search for relief from tension in3
duced from conforming to authority.
Presthus, in his analysis

^Roethelsberger, F.J., and Dickson, W.J., Management and
the Worker. (.Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1939).
Sullivan, H.S., "Tensions, Interpersonal and Inter­
national," in Tensions that Cause W a r s , ed. by H. Cantrel,
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1950) 95.
3
Presthus, R., The Organizational Society. (New York:
Random House, 1962).

39
of the organizational society draws heavily on Sullivan's
theory.

The big organization, Presthus says, induces anxie­

ties in its members simply because of its fundamental char­
acteristics.

Specifically,

(1)

Size becomes a factor when

an organization becomes so large that any given member does
not have face-to-face contact with most other members.

The

larger the organization, the lower morale drops as Individuals
tend to feel unimportant.

(2)

As organizations increase in

size and complexity, members must begin to specialize.

Such

divisions of labor have both advantages and disadvantages, on
the one hand, the technical quality of the work improves.
On the other hand, Interpersonal relationships deteriorate;
so also does the sense of identification with the organization,
(3) The main functioning of hierarchy is to assign and validate
authority along a descending scale throughout the organization.
The hierarchy is of vital importance, since the individual's
participation in an organization is always affected by his
place in the hierarchy.

The weight attached to suggestions

and the Influence of each member is determined by one's hierarchal position.

(4)

The importance of status and status sym­

bols is continually reinforced In the organization by the way
it distributes rewards and punishments.

(5)

Most bureaucra­

cies are run by a few people; thus they are oligarchies.

The

40
"few" are set off from the rest by their "preponderance of
power."

Their presence In an organization constantly reminds

the members that there Is a small group with more power than
all the others combined.

Their presence tends to accentuate

the anxieties of the other members.

Presthus states that

members accommodate to the demands of the organization In
three ways -- upward-moblllty, Indifference, and ambivalence.
The upward-mobiles are persons who enjoy organization life
and reap Its rewards and benefits.

The lndlfferents refuse

to compete for organizational favors.

"He sells his time

for a certain number of hours and jealously guards the rest."
The ambivalents find it difficult to get along with authority
and cannot play the organizational game.
Argyris, supported by the empirical findings of Farris^, a m

2

Porter, further illustrates a basic dilemma between the needs of
individuals aspiring for psychological success and self-esteem
and the demands of a pyramidal structure.

Identifying the

^Farris, G.F., "Congruency of Scientists' Motives with
their Organizations Provisions for Satisfying them:
Its Rela­
tionship to Motivation, Affective Job Experiences, Styles of
Work, and Performance," Ann Arbor, University of Michigan,
Department of Psychology, November, 1962. (Mimeographed).
^Porter, L .W., "Job Attitudes in Management:
Per­
ceived Deficiencies in Need Fulfillment as a Function of Job
Level," Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 46 (December,1962)
375-384.

41
basic needs to psychological success as chose concerned with
self-concept, a feeling of competence, self-awareness, self­
esteem, and conformation, his position is stated in the form
of several propositions:

(1) There is a lack of congruence

between the needs of individuals aspiring for success and the
demands of the formal organization.

Corollary:

The disturb­

ance will vary in proportion to the degree of Incongruency
between the needs of individuals and the requirements of the
formal organization.

(2)

The resultants of this disturbance

are frustration, failure, short-time perspective, and conflict
and,

(3) Under certain conditions the degree of frustration,

failure and short-time perspective will tend to increase.
Porter's large study of 1916 persons,

in five levels of

management and across several types of organizations, supports
Argyris' assumption that the probability to experience a sense
of self-esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization tends to in­
crease as one goes up the hierarchal ladder and tends to
decrease as one goes down the line.
In other studies that relate behavior to organizational
position, Gurin, Veroff, and Feld^ found that the higher up
the organizational ladder and/or the greater the professionalism,

^Gurin, G . , Veroff, J., and Feld, S., Americans View
their Mental Health. (New York:
Basic Books, 1960) Chap.VI.

42
the higher the probability that people will report intrinsic
work satisfaction,

Kornhauser,^ validates the dimensions for

mental health as (1) an index of anxiety and emotional tension,
(2) an index of hostility,

(3) an index of social participation

and friendly attitudes versus withdrawal,
esteem,

(4) an index of self­

(5) an index of personal morale, and (6) an index of

overall satisfaction with life.

His findings report a con­

sistent correlation with occupational hierarchy.
the level, the better the mental health.

The higher

Kasl and French,

2

in a study of 6000 employees, found that the degree of stress,
as determined by the number of dispensary visits, perceived
monotony and dullness of one's job, and feelings of self-esteem,
were also positively correlated to organizational status.
Mann and Williams

report an interesting corollary, that while

people generally respond favorably to increased responsibility
In their work, more feelings of tension result.

This suggests

^Kornhauser, A., "Mental Health of Factory Workers:
A
Detroit Study," Human Organization. Vol. 21, No. I (Spring,
1962) 43-46.
2

Kasl, S., and French, J.P., Jr., "The Effects of Occu­
pational Status on Physical and Mental Health," Journal of
Social Issues. Vol. XVIII, No. 3, (1962) Chap.III.
-Hlann, F.C. and Williams, L . K . , "Some Effects of the
Changing Work Environment in the Office," in Sven Lundstedt
(Ed.), Mental Health and the Work Environment. Foundation for
Research on Human Behavior, (1962) 16-30.
(Mimeographed).

43
that need-fulfillment and happiness are not necessarily related.
In professional organizations such as educational organi­
zations, conflict between conventional bureaucratic authority
and professional authority constitute a basic distinguishing
feature.

Two studies of public schools, one by Waller^ and

the other by Gordon , point to the conflict teachers face be­
tween official procedures and the affective, personalistic
components of teaching.

Naegle

3

and Wilson,

A

from a theoreti­

cal viewpoint, argue that since teaching is a form of sociali­
zation, the teacher must, in the nature of the process, inter­
act affectively with students and develop particularistic re­
lations with them.

At the same time, his organizational and

broader social obligation to produce competency, and the need
for classroom order, impose on him the necessity to punish
impartially and universally.

The teacher is required to be

both interested and disinterested, concerned and disengaged.

Hfaller, W.,
Wiley, 1932).

The Sociology of Teaching. (New York:

^Gordon, C.W., The Social System of the High School.
(Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957).
3
Naegle, K.D., "Clergyman, Teachers, and Psychiatrists:
A Study in Roles and Socialization," Canadian Journal of
Economics and Political Science. 22, 11956) 46-62.
Sfilson, B.R., "The Teacher's Role: A Sociological
Analysis," British Journal of Sociology. 13 (1962) 15-32.

44
The act of teaching Is at once compatible and incompatible
with the bureaucratic setting.
Corwin,*" in a study of professlonal-employee tension in
public schools, found that schools with higher professionalism
rankings also had higher rates of conflict behavior existing
between teachers and between teachers and administrators.
The findings of this study suggest that there is a consistent
pattern of conflict between teachers and administrators over
the control of work, and that professionalization is a mill*
tant process.
The interactlon-influence system of an organization
consists of those patterns of administrative behavior and
dimensions of the administrative process which interacts with
the dynamics of organization and people as the organization
attempts to pursue its goals and Influence its environment.

2

Organizations in achieving goals are concerned with leader­
ship behavior, group processes, and decision-making.

These

components are Interdependent and permeate and stimulate the

^Corwin, R . , "Professional Persons in Public Organiza­
tions," Educational Administration Quarterly. 1 (1965) 1-22.
o
Carter, F.D., and Serglovanni, T.J. (ed), Organizetions and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1969) 283-284.

45
interchange which exists between individuals and organizations.
Halpin

1

and Glbb

leadership behavior.

2

present complimentary viewpoints of

Halpin identifies the two dimensions of

leadership as concern for job (as measured by task effectiveness, goal achievement and concern for production) as con­
trasted to concern for people (as measured by interaction
effectiveness, group maintenance, and concern for individuals).
Through extensive use of his Leadership Behavior Description
Questionnaire, Halpin found that individuals who exhibited
desirable leadership behavior achieved high scores on both
task dimensions and person dimensions.
Glbb proposes leadership behavior is based upon the
leader's concept of self.

He argues that the prevalence of

a given style orientation will depend largely upon the leader's
feelings of openness and self-adequacy.
Fiedler

3

suggests that effective leadership style depends

upon the situation.

He identifies three major dimensions that

^Halpin, A.W. Theory and Research in Administration.
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966) 81-130.
2
Gibb, J.R., "In Search of Leaders," American Association
for Higher Education. (Washington, D . C . : N.E.A., 1967) 55-66.
^Fiedler, F.E., "Styles of Leadership," in Current Per­
spectives in Social Psychology, ed. E.Hollander and R.Hunt,
(New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967) 498-504.

46
determine the kind of leadership style called for by different
situations as:

the degree to which the group members like him

and are willing to follow his guidance; the degree of struc­
ture present in the task; and the power associated with his
position to hire, fire, promote, demote, tenure, etc.

His

research findings indicate that both the directive, managing,
task-oriented leaders and the non-directive, human relations
oriented leaders are successful under some conditions.
Generally, the more routinely the organization operates, the
more directive the leadership, but when routines are no longer
adequate, the task becomes ambiguous and unstructured, or
planning and research are necessary, non-directive leadership
is sepn as superior.
The differences among the democratic, autocratic, and
laissez faire climates as a function of style of leadership
were specified in the famous experimental studies of White
and Llppitt^.

Groups of boys in leisure-time activities were

exposed to the three different group climates that were in­
duced through the variable of leadership behavior.

The demo­

cratic group climate produced more favorable responses on the
part of the boys in terms of reduced aggression, more enjoyment

^White, R.K., and Lippitt, R . , Autocracy and Democracy.
(New York:
Harper, 1960).

47
the absence of scape-goatlng, and more Imaginative productivity.
A study by Bowers and Seashore^ of seventy-eight sales
offices, offers evidence that peer-leadership can make a sub­
stantial contribution to organizational success.

They report

that the total quantity of peer leadership is at least as
great as the total quantity of supervisory leadership, and,
with respect to the issue of relative potency, the peer l£?adership variables are at least as potent as supervisory leadership
variables, and possibly more so, in predicting group achieve­
ment of goals.

Very few studies are available that demon-

2
strate peer-leadership effect (Coch and French, 1948),
3
(Morse and Reimer, 1956),
however,data gathered from comp­
anies employing the Scanlon plan (Lesieur, 1959),^ strongly
support its impact.

Essentially, the Scanlon Plan is a ur-ion-

managemcnt cooperation plan of organization that operates on
profit-sharing and a system of work improvement committees

^Bowers, D.G., and Seashore, S.E., Peer Leadership with­
in Work Groups. Paper read at International Congress of
Applied Psychology, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, August, 1964.
^Coch, L . , and French, J.R., Jr., "Overcoming Resistance
to Change," Human Relations. (1948) Vol. 1 (4),
512-532.
•*Morse, N . , and Reimer, E., "The Experimental Change of
a Major Organizational Variable," Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology. Vol. 52 (1956)
120-129.
^Lesieur, F., The Scanlon Plan. (Cambridge:
Press of M.I.T.).

Technology

48
that cross organizational levels.

Where the plan has been

Introduced, its Impact has often been very great, not only
in efficiency, but on the nature of interpersonal relations
between managers and workers and among workers themselves.
In general, the direction of movement is toward greater re­
sponsibility by lower levels and greater sharing of responsi­
bility by higher with lower groups in the hierarchy.
Leadership behavior has a regulatory effect on decision­
making in an organization.

Griffith's^ theoretically states,

"The specific function of administration is to develop and
regulate the decision-making process in the most effective
manner.

(An effective manner ia one which results in the

accomplishment of a stated objective)."

Leadership styles

will vary In the willingness to allow members to participate
in decision making.

For example, Parker

ship varied with the needs of the group.

?

reports that leaderRoss and Hendry

3

also conclude that various leadership styles may be effective
under different conditions.

Directive leadership may lead to

^Griffiths, D.E., Administrative Theory. (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959) Chap. 5.
2
Parker, T.C., "Relationships among Measures of Super­
visory Behavior, Group Behavior, and Situational Characteris­
tics," Personnel Psychology. Vol. 16 (1963) 319-344.
Ross, M.G., and Hendry, C., New Understandings of
Leadership. (New York; Association Press, 1957) 47-72.

49
high productivity b u t low morale and poor commitment to work.
Also larger groups seem to tolerate and use authoritarian
leadership more effectively than small groups.

French, Kay,

and Meyer^ found that not all individuals will tend to react
in the s a m e manner to the various types of leadership.

An

increase in the degree o f participation will tend to have
favorable effects to the extent that,

(a) the participants

are high on the need for independence, and (h) they are low
on a need for authoritarianism.
The key to types of organizational structure is rn uncVrstanding of the decision-making processes.

Griffiths*

states,

"A business organization does not differ primarily from a
school organization in that one is a profit-making organic.itLon and the other is not; the difference resides in disslmiInritfos in the decision-making process.”
the term management as administration,

Livingston,

using

concurs; "if we ..\t.<i.i 1

the concept of decision-making to include, on the one L-in T Liu
proc.:ss by which the decision is arrived at, and, on r-h -

th*i

^French, J.R.P., Kay, E., and Meyer, H.H., "A S t u d y o r
Throat and Participation in an Industrial Performance Appraisal
Program," Behavioral Research Service Report. General Electric
Company (1962)
118-119.
‘‘Griffiths, Administrative Theory. 78.
Livingston, R.T., "The Theory of Organiz.itloo ind
Management," Transactions of the A.S.M.E. (May, 195?) 659.

50
hand to include the process by which we implement or make the
decision "work", and if we further recognize that this is a
continuing, dynamic process rather than an occasional event,
then decisloning means something quite different than hereto­
fore, and becomes the basis of all managerial action."

The

concept that organizations are built In terms of the way in
which decisions are to be made is put to use by Dale^ in de­
termining the degree of decentralization existing in an insti­
tution.

"We may say that the degree of managerial decentrali­

zation in a company is greater:

(1) The greater the number

of decisions made lower down the management hierarchy. (2)
The more important the decisions made lower down the manage­
ment hierarchy.

(3) The more functions affected by decisions

made at lower levels.

(4) The less checking required on the

decision.
Many theorists are convinced that questions of commit­
ment, involvement, consensus, unanimity, and motivation, the
humanistic variables in decision-making, are best answered by
increased participation across organizational lines.

Leavitt

2

^Dale, E., Planning and Developing the Company Organiza­
tion Structure. (New York: American Management Association,
1952) 107.
2

Leavitt, Handbook of Organizations. 1165.

51
summarizes this point of view:

(a) Involvement in decision­

making yields commitment to the decision, and since most de­
cisions become meaningless in their execution unless they are
supported, commitment becomes*necessary condition for effective
decision-making.

(b)

in an organization.

It is useful to lower decision points
(c)

It is reasonable for groups to make

decisions; it is not necessary that decisions be made only by
individuals."
M u c h of the support for such a position are extrapolations

from small group theory generalized to organizations.
Schneider*’ calls "participation" one of the most prominent
2
constructs in the group dynamics literature.

Simon writes,

"significant changes in human behavior can be brought about
rapidly only if the persons who are expected to change partici­
pate in deciding what the change shall be and how it shall be
3

made."

Studies by Radke and Klesurich

with housewives have

shown group decision-making to be more effective in changing

^Schneider, L.A., "A Proposed Conceptual Integration of
Group Dynamics and Group Therapy," Journal of Social Psychology.
Vol. 42 (1955) 173-187.
2
Simon, H.A., "Recent Advances in Organization Theory,"
In Brookings Lectures. Research Frontiers in Politics and
Government (Washington, D . C . : Brookings, 1955) 28-29.
3
Radke, M.J., and Klesurich, D., "Experiments In Chang­
ing Food Habits," Journal of American Diet Association. Vol.
23 (1947) 403-409.

52
behavior and attitudes than such techniques as the use of
lecture or Individual instruction.

A study by Hamblin, Miller,

and Wiggins** suggests the importance of the discussion leader
In group decision-making.

They noted that group decision­

making led to high morale and this in turn was related posi­
tively to the "perceived competence" of the leader.
2
Golembiewski , in a plea for more research in the field,
suggests two techniques, other than group decision-making as
a means for increasing the degree of structural and style
integration of small group with formal organisation -- peer
ratings and self-choice of work-team members.
studies of peer ratings Dugan (1953)

3

Based upon two

and (Wherry and Fryer

^

(1949) Golembiewski finds the rationale straight-forward:
"the success of an Individual as a supervisor in part will be
determined by confidence his subordinates have in him; and
organizational higher ups often are in a poor position to

^Hamblin, R.S., Miller, K . , and Wiggins, J.A.,"Group
Morale and Competence of the Leader."
Socioroetrv. 24 (1961),
294-311.

2

Golembiewski, R.T., "Small Groups and Large Organiza­
tions," Handbook of Organizations, ed. J. G. March (Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1965) 121-125.
Dugan, R.D., "Comparison of Evaluation of B-29 Crews
in Training and Combat."Amer. Psychology. 8 (1953) 343-444.
(Abstract).
^Wherry, R.J., and Fryer, D .H., "Buddy-ratings: Popu­
larity Contest or Leadership Criteria?" Socioroetrv. 12,(1949)

53
judge.

Consequently, other factors being equal, peer ratings

prove more useful indicators of future success in an organiza­
tion environment than choices of superiors."

A limited study

by VanZelst^ of the sociometric choices of bricklayers as
related to productivity, found that self-choice crews working
on a housing project were happier, more productive, and
resulted in a five per cent savings in total cost.
Homans

2

views channels of communication Inherent in the

decision-making process.

In the small group, communication

flows naturally toward the leader, and he cannot do his job
unless he is well informed in this way.

Centralization im­

plies lengthening the channels of communication in large
organizations.

Even in the small group the seeds of break­

down are latent in the emotional relation between leader and
follower, and with every lengthening of channels of communicatlon, the difficulties increase.

3

Roethelsberger, building on

Homans' view, points out that subordinates may filter the flow
of information to superiors to protect their own position.

^VanZelst, R . H . ,"Socioroetrlcally Selected Work Teams
Increase Productivity," Personnel Psychology. 5 (1952) 175-185.
2
Homans, G.C., The Human Group (New York: Harcourt,Brace,
and World, Inc., 1950) 461-462.
3
Roethelsberger, F.J., "The Foreman:
Master and Victim
of Double-taik," Harvard Business Review. XXIII (1945),283-^98.

54
Consequently, It Is not enough that good communication should
exist between most neighboring positions in the communication
lines.

If only one link is weak, the flow of information from

bottom to top will be impaired.
Communication characteristics, such as whether messages
are formally prescribed or more informal in their origin may
be related organizational characteristics, such as line and
staff and level-in-hierarchy.

A study by Zajonc and Wolfe^

found that "staff employees have wider formal communication
contacts than line employees; within each function high hier­
archs 1 levels have wider formal communication contacts than
low hierarchal levels."
Barnlund and Harland

2

in summarizing experimental work

in small groups by a number of researchers state, "In general,
the larger the status differential, the more restricted the
channels of communication, the greater the tendency for in­
formation to flow from low to high status persons, and the
more distorted the content of the messages."

^Zajonc, R.B., and Wolfe, D.M., "Cognitive Consequences
of a Person's Position in a Formal Organization." Tech. Report
No. 23 (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Institute for
Social Research, Research Center for Group Dynamics, 1963).
2

Barnlund, D.C. and Harland, C., "Propinquity and Pres­
tige as Determinants of Communications Networks," Soclometrv.
26 (1963) 467-479.

55
III.

Perceptions and their Effects on Behavior.

Human Interaction is one of the central themes of this
study.

In looking at phenomena of interaction, the processes

of perception are of central importance.

Perceptual psycholo­

gists have stated, as a basic axiom, that all behavior is a
product of the perceptual field of the behaver at the moment
of action.

Perception, in turn, depends upon the characteristics

of the person himself and upon the Information communicated to
him, intentionally and unintentionally,

in the situation.

As

Tagiuri^ noted, a person's impressions of a situation includ­
ing another person are a result of three major elements:
situation,

the other person, and the perceiver.

the

There are

other conditions of a less personalized nature that can and
do mold Interaction.

They are inherent in the social system,

its modal patterns of conduct, and in the general life style
of the system.

Specifically, these are concepts of status

and role, and their relation to personality.

All of these are

considered In the review of the literature in this section.
In working toward a definition of perception, a study
2
by Ittleson and Cantrel list* the three major characteristics

^Tagiuri, R . , "Perceptual Sociometry:
Introduction."
In J.L. Moreno, et al. (eds.) The Socioroetrv Reader (Glencoe,
111.:
Free Press, 1960).
Ittleson, W.|f.» and Cantrel, H . , Perception (New York:
Random House, 1954).

56
of human perception:

(1) Perception can be studied only in

terms of transactions, that is concrete individuals dealing
with concrete situations.

(2) Perception comes into the trans­

action from the unique personal behavioral center of the perceiver,

(3) Perception occurs as the perceiver creates his

own psychological environment by identifying certain aspects
of his own experience to an environment which he believes
exists independent of his own experience.
carries a double implication,

The term transaction

(1) that all parts of the situa­

tion enter into it as active participants, and (2) that they
owe their very existence as encountered In the situation to
this fact of active participation and do not appear as already
existing entities merely interacting with each other without
affecting their own Identity.

The concept of the personal

behavior center has as its meaning the fact that the person
enters into a transaction from his own unique position.

This

study points out that each situation will be perceived differ­
ently by different individuals and that each Individual will
assume to be real that which he perceives.

This supports

Lewln's^ theory that personality and environment are not
independent, since one defines the other one, environment is

*Lewin, K., A Dynamic Theory of Personality (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1935) Chap. ill.

57
defined by the perception of the person.
1
Getzels, in his analysis of interpersonal relationships
between subordinates and superordinates, differs from Lewin
in that role and personality are treated as independent.
Roles, as defined, is the environment defined in expectations
of individuals in that role, and personality is defined by the
role Incumbents needs-disposition.

He argues that the role

expectations are the "givens" in the situation prior to any
idiosyncratic role perceptions or role-behavtors of the actual
role incumbents.

Although the expectations may be misperceived

or may serve only as points of departure for the actual role
incumbents, the crucial significance of the expectations as
"blueprints" for what should be done is not nullified.
That personality characteristics have an effect upon
2
perception is stated by Murphy, "There is a rather bewildering
mass of evidence, both clinical and experimental, relating to
the ability to shut out of a clear awareness those stimuli
which threaten us; some of these studies seem to Indicate that,

^Getzels, J., "Administration as a Social Process," in
The Planning of Change. Bennls, W . , Benne, K.D., and Chin, R.,
eds. (New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961) 376-384.
^Murphy, G . , "Knows and Unknowns in the Dynamics of
Social Perception," in Sherlf, M.A., and Wilson, M.O., eds.,
Group Relations at the Crossroads (New York: Harper, 1953) 148.

58
as vague awareness of a situation tends to become defined, we
can arrest the process, so that sharp and explicit awareness
does not follow; and perhaps that, after reaching this criti­
cal point and effecting this rejection, we actually demolish
(repress?) what has begun to take place."
Research at the University of Kentucky points out that
administrators who may perceive a problem and not be threatened
have a personality structure which allows them to "accept
their own worth and believe that other people are equally or
more accepting of their worth."

These confident administrators

are contrasted to another type who constantly change or screen
their perceptions.

The personality structures of the latter

are those who "accept themselves and believe that other people
are less accepting of themselves."^
Rogers, in his discussion of selective perception (the
tendency for individuals to Interpret a new idea in terms of
their past experience and existing opinions) makes the impor­
tant point that decisions are made by the individual on the
basis of his perceptions, whether they are accurate or not.

^Hopper, R.L., and Bills, R.E., "What's a Good Admini­
strator Made Of?," School Executive. Vol. 74, No. 7 (March,
1955) 94.
2
Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The
Free Press, 1962).

59
Kelley* sees one of the most revealing facts about perception
is that it is selective.

Thus, he concludes that what the

self takes in will suit individual purposes and fit into past
experiences.
Combs
ing.

2

arranges perceptions in order of increasing mean­

He speaks of seeing, knowing; of understanding, belief,

and conviction.

The deeper, more personally significant the

perception, the more likely it is to affect behavior.

He

further identifies four characteristics of the perceptual field
which underlie behavior of adequate persons:
of self,

(a) positive view

(b) Identification with others, (c) openness to ex­

perience and acceptance, and (d) a rich and available per­
ceptual field.
Contributions to the development of self and personality
in terms of parts one plays in society were recognized by
3

James

in his distinction between the self as known (me) and

the self as knower (X) and by Cooley^ in his notion of the

*Kelley, E.C., Education for What is Real. (New York:
Harper arid Brothers, 1947).
2
Combs, A.W., and Snygg, D., Individual Behavior: A
Perceptual Approach to Behavior. Revised ed. (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1959).
3
James, W . , Psychology: Briefer Course. (New York:
Henry Holt, 1892).
^Cooley, C.H., Human Nature and Social Order. (New York:
Scribners', 1902 - Revised ed., 1922).

60
"looking glass self."

Both realized that one's conceptions of

self, derived, partly at least, from the ways others responded
to him and that this in turn related to social expectancies.
Cantril* draws out the importance of "self" as a key to
social relations in that it serves as an "anchor point" in
perception.

The self is important because what one "brings to

the situation" is a primary basis for "what is out there."
With his strong educational background, Combs

2

sees

learning as a function of meaning and that learning has not
really occurred until some change has taken place in the
learner's perceptual field.

The fact that meanings lie in­

side the learner, they cannot be directly manipulated and
controlled externally.

This, he prescribes,

is the basis of

an educational philosophy in strong support of the school be­
coming a place where exploring and discovering meaning is the
central activity.
If behavior of organization members is determined in
part by their perceptions of the organizational environment,

^Cantril, H . , "Perception and Interpersonal Relations,"
American Journal of Psychiatry. 113 (1957) 119-127.
^Combs, A.W., "Personality Theory and Its Implication
for Curriculum Development," in Learning More About Learning.
(Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, a Department of the National Education Associa­
tion, 1959) 5-20.

61
then behavior will be influenced by variations in the objects
or events available to be perceived, that is, in stimuli.*
Arnoult describes a social stimulus as follows:

(a) it may

have motivational properties; (b) it is the occasion rather
than the cause of a response; (c) it must frequently be de­
fined In terms of the response it elicits; (d) it exists in
the environment and not just in the receptors; (e) it can be
a pattern or sequence of events; (f) its structure must often
be inferred from the structure of the response which it
elicits; and (g) it carries information about its source in
2
the environment.
The emphasis of this section is on property (b) above
and as such is concerned with organizational variations that
bring about variation in the occasion of a response.

Studies

of interpersonal perception have indicated that social judg­
ments are influenced by a number of properties of the per­
ceived, including status, role, and visibility of the trait

^Forehand, G., and Gilmer, B. von H., "Environmental
Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior, in Readings
in Organization Theory; A Behavioral Approacht Hill and Egan,
eds., (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1966) 621-623.
^Arnoult, M.D., "The Specification of a Social Stimulus,"
in Stimulus Determinants of Behavior. Sells, S.B., ed. (New
York: The Ronald Press Company, 1963).

There ts evidence that perceptions are influenced by
abilities, values, and personality traits of the perceiver
and by his organizational role.

March and Simon

2

found that

individuals are expected to be differentially sensitive to
organizational stimuli.

They claim a positive relationship

exists between success as an administrator and the ability
to perceive subtle variations in standard operating procedures,
sources of influence, and status, when this information is
made available, informally, Inaccurately, or not at all,
rather than when disseminated systematically in bulletins and
memos.
Other behavioral effects of variations are found in in­
formation transmission, and withholding information practices.
Argyris^ found that regardless of the motivational and
freedom of choice variables in a situation, some behaviors
never occur because the stimuli that would elicit them are
never presented.

^Costello, T.W., and Zalkind, S.S., Psychology in Admini­
stration: A Research Orientation. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Ha11, Inc., 1963).
2

March, J.G., and Simon, H.A., Organizations (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959).
n
Argyris, C., Interpersonal Comoetance and Organizational
Effectiveness (Homewood:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962).

63
Summa rv
Section I of this review of the literature is concerned
with theories and related analyses of contrasting organizational
structures.

Using Weber's classical analysis of a bureaucracy,

as a point of departure other models are examined and character­
istic elements noted.

Organizations place themselves on a

continuum based upon degree of control.

There is general

agreement that educational institutions are presently organi­
zed with highly bureaucratic tendencies.

The literature

supports the view that the structure of an organization will
have important implications for the way in which the organi­
zation will function.

Educational administrators should now

he confronted with the task of formulating the type of organi­
zation most congruent to the attainment of educational goals
and objectives.
Section II deals with the effect of organizational
characteristics on the behavior of members of the organization.
Elements such as size, specialization, authority, status, and
power are viewed as to their psychological consequence.

The

literature suggests that self-actualization, awareness, self­
esteem, and other endices of psychological success, are to a
significant degree Influenced by organizational characteristics.

64
Other conditions mentioned include the effects of leader­
ship behavior, participative decision-making as opposed to
authoritarianism, peer-group leadership and conflict.
Communication is reviewed in the context of its effect
on decision-makers, and its relationship to status differential.
As in Section 1, contrasting organizational structures
are used as a reference for comparison.

The literature im­

plies that the organizational framework of educational insti­
tutions are in need of analyses to determine the degree of
consonance that exists between the desired outcomes in terms
of behaviors, and the ability of organizational structure to
contribute to the achievement of desired results.
Section III presents a review of the literature of
perception and its relationship to behavior.

The literature

supports the idea that what an individual will do on the basis
of his own personal characteristics often lead to the conclu­
sion that behavior depends upon the situation as perceived by
that individual.

Thus, if the behavior of organization

members is determined in part by their perceptions of the
organizational climate, variations will be Influenced by
variations in availability of events to be perceived.
The causal variables (structure, objectives, supervisory
practices, etc.) interact with personality to produce

65
perceptions, and It Is through perceptions that the relation­
ship between causal and end-result variables are understood.
There is general agreement that the measurement of
climate indirectly through the perception of the individuals
Involved is viable because such perceptions are based upon
experience that Is both more extensive and personal than
those of outside observers.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Source of the Data.
The source of data for the study Is composed of five
randomly selected groups of individuals in the College of Edu­
cation at Michigan State University.
1.

The five groups are:

'Imlnlstrators of the College of Education, as

operationally defined by the Office of the Provost of
Michigan State University, that have been employed by the
College as admlnlstrators for at least one calendar year
prior to responding to the questionnaire.
2.

Full time faculty members of the College of Educa­

tion who devote over half of their professional time to
graduate studies, and have been employed by the College for
at least one calendar year prior to responding to the question­
naire.
3.

Full time faculty members of the College of Educa­

tion who devote over half of their professional time to
undergraduate studies, and have been employed by the College
for at least one calendar year prior to responding to the
que s tionna ire.

66

67
4.

Graduate students enrolled in the College of Educa­

tion, who have taken graduate courses for at least one year
prior to the date of responding to the questionnaire.
5.

Undergraduate students enrolled in the College for

at least one year prior to the date of responding to the
questionnaire and having achieved senior status.
The focus of this study is on the perceptions of these
individuals as they view the organization of the College of
Education.

A requirement of one year's contact with the

College of Education insures respondent's having sufficient
background of information about the College of Education to
respond to the questionnaire.

Faculty members and students

are identified by the amount of time spent devoted to under­
graduate or graduate studies.

Thus, their responses would

be more clearly defined, and areas of mutual interest and
mutual concern could be more easily identified.
The data for this study were gathered from three sepa­
rate sets of questionnaires.

The faculty questionnaire and

the student questionnaire were developed by Dr. Rensls Likert,
Director of the Institute for Social Research at the University
of Michigan.

At the time of this study the administrator forms

had not been completed.

The administrator questionnaire was

designed by the researcher from similar questionnaires

68
developed by Llkert for analyses of public school administra­
tion .
Permission to use the questionnaires and to construct
the third questionnaire was granted by Llkert.

The question­

naires have not been used prior to this study;

therefore,

statistical data of other studies are not available.

Samples of the Study
The five sample groups consist of administrators,
graduate faculty, undergraduate faculty, graduate students,
and undergraduate students.

The participants of these groups

were randomly selected from their respective populations which
meet the criteria described earlier in Source of the Data.
Nineteen administrators and thirty participants from each of
the other four groups were In the original sample.

Only six

of the total sample did not participate for various reasons.
The administrators' sample was drawn from a population
of twenty administrators.

The faculty sample was drawn from

the 306 full-time faculty members of the College of Education.
Graduate students were selected from a population of about
4,000 graduate students enrolled in the College of Education
during the winter term of 1970.

Undergraduate students were

69

selected from a population of 500 students enrolled in Educa­
tion 450 during the winter of 1970.
By randomly selecting the sample, it Is possible to
make statements about characteristics of interest generalised
to the population of the College of Education.

The limita­

tions of time in contact with the College are set forth to
insure sufficient background on the part of the respondents
and add to the validity of the findings.
Additional demographic data for each of the sample
groups is found in Table 3.1 through Table 3.7, which follow.

70

TABLE 3.1
Percentage of Participants Completing Questionnaire
No.Asked to
complete
Questionnaire

No. who
completed the
Questionnaire

Percentage

Administrators

19

17

89

Graduate
Faculty

30

29

97

Undergraduate
Faculty

30

29

97

Graduate
Students

30

29

97

Undergraduate
Students

30

29

97

139

133

Totals

Percentage of participants completing the questionnaire 3 95.6.

71
TABLE 3.2
Participants of this Study Categorized
by Major Department

Department

No. of
Admin.«

No.of
Grad.
Fac.

No.of
Undergrad.
Fac.«
*

1. Admini­
stration &
Higher Ed.

3

9

0

4

0

16

2. Counsel­
ing, Person­
nel Services,
and Educ.
1
Psychology

8

1

6

0

16

3. Elem. and
Spec. Educ.

0

1

11

11

9

32

4. Health,
Physical Ed.
and Recrea­
tion

1

0

7

0

1

9

5. Secondary
Educ. and
Curriculum

1

8

1

5

6

21

6. Faculty in
Student Teach­
1
ing

0

3

0

0

4

7. Faculty
in Teacher
Education

2

0

2

2

0

6

8. Institute
for Inter­
national
Studies

1

0

0

0

0

1

kMl A

ll

No.of
No.of
UnderGrad.
grad.
Students Students

Total

72
TABLE 3.2 continued

No. of
Under­
grad.
Fac.

No. of
No. of
Under­
grad.
Grad.
Students Students

Department

No. of
Admin.

No. of
Grad.
Fac.

9. Science
and Math
Teaching
Center

0

2

0

1

4

7

10. Human
Learning
Research
Institute

0

0

0

0

0

0

11. Learning
Systems Insti­
tute
0

1

0

0

0

1

12. Mott
Institute for
Coimnunity
Improvement
0

0

3

0

0

3

13. Social
Science Teach­
ing Institute 1

0

0

0

6

7

14. Humanities
Teaching Inst.l

0

0

0

2

3

15. Admini­
strators of
the College
of Educ.

4

0

0

0

0

4

16. Not
Specified

1

0

1

0

1

3

17

29

29

29

29

133

Totals

Total

73
TABLE 3.3
Demographic Characteristics of Administrators
Participating in this Study
Under 30
a.

Age

0

Male
b.

Rank

d.

Tenure
Status

7

3

5

2

1

Teaching

Research

1

1

2

13

Not Tenure but
Subject to
Appointment not Subject
Tenure Rules_______ to Rules of Tenure

1

B.A.
Highest
degree
awarded

2

16

e . Ares to
which the
greater part
of professional time
is devoted.

f.

6CH-

Asst.Prof._____ Assoc.Prof.____ Professor

0

Tenured
Faculty

50-59

0

Inatr.
c.

40-49

Female

17

Sex

30-39

M.A.

1

0

Service

Administration

4

11

Ph.D. or Ed.D.

15

74
TABLE 3.3 continued
0-5
g. No. of
years since
highest degree was
awarded.

h. No. of
years em­
ployed by
M.S.U.

6-10

11-15

16- 20

21-25

25*

1

4

5

2

2

0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-25

Not specified

4

2

5

2

3

1

3

On campus
1. Location
of most work
load.

13

1

Do teach
j. No. of
administra­
tors who
also teach.

14

Equally divided

3

Do not teach

3

Undergradyafes
k.
If yes
to Mj",group
of students
for which
primarily
responsible.

Off campus

1

Graduates

12

Eauallv divided

1

75
TABLE 3.4
Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Members
Who Devote the Greater Part of Their
Professional Time to Graduate Studies
(Graduate Faculty Participating
in this Study.
Under 30______ 30-39______ 40-49______ 50-59
a.

Age

2

7

Male
b.

c.

Sex

29

Instructor

Asst.Prof.

Assoc.Prof.

1

2

11

Rank

Tenure
Status

25

e . Area to
which the
greater part
of professIona1 time
is devoted.

Highest
degree
awarded

3

0

Not Tenure but
Subject to
Tenure Rules

Appointment not Subject
to Rules of Tenure

1

Research

Service

3

22

Professor
15

3

Teachina

f.

5

Female

Tenured
Faculty
d.

12

60+-

4

B.A.

M.A.

Ph.D. or Ed.D.

1

0

28

76
TABLE 3.4 continued
0-5
g. No. of
years since
highest degree was
awarded.

8

0-5
h. No. of
years em­
ployed by
M.S.U.

6-10

4

6-10

12

5

On campus
1. Location
of most work
load.

22

11-15

16-20

21-24

8

4

1

11-15

7

16-20

1

1

21-25

Specified

3

Not Specified

2

Off camous
1

25+

2

Eouallv divided
6

77
TABLE 3.5
Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Members
Who Devote the Greater Part of Their Pro*
fesalonal Time to Undergraduate Studies
(Undergraduate Faculty) Participating
in this Study.
Under 30
a

.

b.

Age

Sex

30-39

1

.

Male

Female

22

7

Rank

d.

Tenure
Status

13

SO*-

7

2

4

Asst.Prof.
10

9

Tenured
Faculty

50*59

14

Instructor
c

40*49

Not Tenure but
Subject to
Tenure Rules

f.

Highest
degree
awarded

1

1

Assoc.Prof.

Professor

5

5

Appointment not Subject
to Tenure Rules

8

8

Teaching
e. Area to
which is de­
voted the
greater part
15
of profes­
sional time.
B.A,

Not Specified

Research

Service

1

M.A.
15

13

Ph.D. or Ed.D.
13

78
TABLE 3.5 continued
0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-24

6

4

1

11-15

16-20

21-25

g. No. of
years since
highest de- 11
5
gree was
__________________
awarded.
0-5
h. No. of
years em­
ployed by
M.S.U.

6-10

18
2
___________________

5

1

25+

2

26+

1
2
______________

On campus________ Off campus________ Equally Divided
i. Location
of most work
22
load.
__________

5

2

79
TABLE 3.6
Demographic Characteristics of Graduate Students
Participating in this Study.
Under 25_________ 26-30_________ 31-35__________35+
a.

b.

Age

8

9

Male

Female

16

13

Sex

Full-time

Part-time

21

8

c. No. of
full-time
students.

Employed
d. No. of
students em
ployed by
M.S.U.

Not employed

11

18

Graduate Assistant
e . Type of
Employment

Instructor

8

2

On campus__________ Off campus
f. Location
of most
course work
taken on
present pro­
gram.

26

Masters
g. Degree
working
toward.

14

3

Doctoral
15

Fellowships
1

80
TABLE 3.6 continued

h. No. of
years spent
on current
program.

1 vr.

2 vrs.

3 vrs.

4 vrs.

5 vrs.

6 vrs.

6

12

8

2

0

1

1971

1972

1970
1. Year of
anticipated
completion
of degree
program.

18

9

2

81
TABLE 3.7
Demographic Characteristics of Undergraduate Students
Participating in this Study.
Under 25
a.

b.

Age

2

0

0

Female

10

19

Full-time

Part-time

28

1

Employed
d. No. of
students em­
ployed by
M.S.U.

Not employed

7

22

Graduate
Assistant

Laboratory
Assistant

Fellowships

Work not
related to
Collette

1

1

0

5

On campus
29

Off campus
0

Bachelor*s Degree
g. Degree
working
toward.

35*-

Male

c . N o . of
full-time
students.

f. Location
of most work
on present
program.

31-35

27

Sex

e. Type of
Employment

26-20

29

Mas t e r ’s Degree
0

82
TABLE 3.7 continued
1 vr._____ 2 vrs._____ 3 vrs.
h. No. of
years spent
on current
program.

0

3

1970
1971
1972
1. Year of
anticipated
completion
29
of degree
program.
_________________ ^ _ _ _

3

4 vrs.

21

5 vrs.

2

83
Instrumentation
Each questionnaire is a graphic rating scale on which each
respondent is asked to rate the College of Education at Michigan
State University on each of six organizational variables.

The

variables are Identified by Llkert, and supported by other
scholars in the field, as being essential processes present
in all organizations.

The organizational variables are:

(1) Leadership processes,

(2) Character of motivational forces,

(3) Character of communication processes,
interaction-influence processes,

(4) Character of

(5) Character of decision*

making processes, and (6) Character of goal-setting processes.
(See definition of key terms pp.15-18).
Each set of questionnaires is Identical to each of the
other two sets in form (type of rating scale), but are not
identical in the selection of Items used.

Llkert, however,

has identified characteristic elements in a definition of each
variable.

Items on each questionnaire were assigned tc one or

more of the characteristic elements and these elements, in
turn were assigned to one or more of the six organizational
variables.
A list of each organizational variable with the character­
istic elements and Items that contribute to that variable, are
found elsewhere in this chapter.

84
The organizational variables used In this study,
and the characteristic elements and Items from
the three sets of questionnaires^-assigned
to each variable.
Listed below are the six organizational variables con­
sidered In this study, and the characteristic elements and
items assigned to each variable.

Scores on each variable for

each of the five groups were computed as described in Treat­
ment of the D ata. found elsewhere In this chapter.

See also

Definition of key terms found In Chapter I, p. 15-18.
Let A * item numbers selected from the Administrator1s
Questionnaire.
F * item numbers selected from the Faculty Question­
naire.
S “ item numbers selected from the Student Question­
naire.

Data Set 1
Leadership Process Variable
(a) extent to which superiors have confidence and trust
in subordinates.
A - 5
F - 3
S ---Samples of the Questionnaires are found in the Appendix.

85
(b) extent to which subordinates feel that superiors have
confidence and trust In them.
A - 34
F - 28, 29
S - 22, 23
(c) extent to which subordinates have confidence and
trust in superiors.
A - 35
F - 42, 43
S - 24, 25
(d) extent to which superiors feel that subordinates
have confidence in them and trust them.
A - 6
F - 4
S - -(e) extent to which superiors try to exhibit friendly
and supportive behavior toward subordinates.
A - 3, 4
F - 2, 5, 8, 9, 10

86
(f)

extent to which subordinates perceive the behavior
of superiors as friendly and supportive.
A - 33
F - 26, 27
S - 1

(g) extent to which superiors perceive their behavior
toward subordinates as warm and supportive.
A - 1, 2
F - 1
S - —
(h) extent to which subordinates try to behave in a
friendly and supportive manner toward superiors.
A - 39
F - -S - 3, 4
(1) extent to which subordinates try to behave in a
friendly and supportive manner toward others.
A - 40
F - 10
S - 2

87
(j) extent to which superiors perceive that subordinates
feel free to talk to them about academic matters.
A - 7
F - 6
S - -(k) extent to which superiors perceive that subordinates
feel free to talk to them about non-academic matters.
A - 8, 9
F - 7
S - -(1) extent to which subordinates feel free to discuss
academic matters with superiors.
A - 36
F - 51
S - 26
(m) extent to which subordinates feel free to discuss
non-academic matters with superiors.
A - 37, 38
F - 51
S - 27

(n)

extent to which superiors ask for ideas from

sub­

ordinates concerning problems about academic
matters.
A - 10, 12, 41
F - 8, 30, 33, 38
S - 10, 14
(o)

extent to which superiors ask for ideas from

sub­

ordinates concerning problems about non-academic
matters.
A - 11, 13, 42, 43
F - 9, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39
S - 11, 15
(p) extent to which subordinates feel that superiors
are interested in their success.
A - -F - 5, 40
S - 5, 7
Motivational Forces Variable
(a) extent to which superiors perceive that subordinates
work cooperatively.

89
(b) extent to which individuals perceive that there
is cooperative teamwork within the college.
A - 49
F - 21, 50
S - 36
(c) extent to which superiors perceive subordinates as
liking the College as a place to work or go to
school.
A - 18
F - 14
S - —
(d) extent to which individuals like the College as a
place to work or go to school.
A - 50
F - 41
S - 37
(e) extent to which subordinates feel peers are in­
terested in their success.
A - --

F - -S - 6

(f) extent to which responsibility for achieving high
performance is shared.
A - 55
F - 57
S - 40
(g) extent to which involvement in decision-making in­
creases motivation to strive for better performance.
A - 30
F - 24
S - 35
(h) extent to which individuals are involved in the
major decisions related to their work.
A - 52
F - 53
S - 32
Communication Process Variable
(a) extent to which superiors feel they know the prob­
lems faced by subordinates.

91

(b) extent to which subordinates feel that superiors
know the problems faced by subordinates.
A - 47
F - 46, 45
S - 8, 9
(c) extent to which upward communication Is accurate.
A - 22, 46
F - 15, 44
S - 28
(d) extent to which superiors see the direction of In­
formation as one-way or two about academic matters
(down, up, or laterally).
A - 19, 44
F

-

—

S - -(e) extent to which superiors see the direction of In­
formation as one way or two way about non-academic
matters (down, up, or laterally).
A - 20, 44
F ---S - --

92

(f) extent to which superiors see subordinates accepting
communication from superiors (from suspiciously to
accepted).
A - 21
F - 16, 17, 18
S --(g) extent to which subordinates accept communications
from superiors (from suspiciously to accepted).
A - 45
F - 42, 43
S - 29, 30
(h) extent to which subordinates feel superiors really
try to help with their problems.
A - -F - 51
S - 38
(1) extent to which ideas are sought by superiors from
subordinates about academic matters.
A - 10, 12, 41
F - 8, 30, 33
S - 10, 14

93
(J) extent to which ideas are sought by superiors from
subordinates about non-academic matters.
A - 11, 13, 42, 43
F - 9, 31, 32, 34, 35
S - 11, 15
(k) extent to which decision-making is shared by all
members of the organization (extent to which informs
tlon is willingly shared).
A - 53
F - 52
S - 32
Character of Interaction-Influence Process Variable
(a) extent of influence superiors felt that subordinates
have in decisions related to their work.
A - -F - 22
S --(b) extent of Influence subordinates feel they have in
decisions related to their work.
A ---F --S - 33

94
(c) extent to which Interaction between members of the
college is friendly with a high degree of confi­
dence and trust.
A

- 24,

25, 26, 48

F

- 20,

47, 48, 49

S

- 31

(d) extent of Influence superiors feel that subordinates
should have in making decisions related to their
work.
A

-- -

F

- 23

S

- --

(e^ extent of influence subordinates feel they should
have in making decisions related to their work.
A

- --

F

- --

S

- 34

(f) extent to which the belief exists that having an
Influence on decision-making makes people work
harder.
A - 30
F - 24, 54
S - 35

95
(g) extent to which members feel they can Influence
goals and methods and other academic decisions.
A

- 44, 36, 37, 38

F

- 30, 33

S

- 10, 14, 31, 32, 33,

(h) extent

26

to which members feel they can influence

decisions about non-academic matters.
A

- 42,

43, 37, 38

F

- 31,

32, 34, 35

S

- 11,

15, 31, 32, 27

(i) extent to which members perceive cooperative team
work present.
A - 49
F - 21, 50
S - 36
(j) extent of actual Influence members exercise in
major decisions related to their work.
A

- 52

F

- 53

S - 32, 33

96

Character of Decision-Making Variable
(a) extent to which superiors feel subordinates should
have a say about academic matters.
A - 14, 16
F - 11
S - 12, 16
(b) extent to which subordinates feel that they should
have a say about academic matters.
A - -F - 36
S - 18, 20
(c) extent to which superiors feel subordinates should
have a say about non-academic matters that affect
them.
A - 15, 17
F - 12
S - 13, 17
(d) extent to which subordinates feel they should have
a say about non-academic matters.
A - —
F - 37
S - 19, 21

97
(e) extent to which superiors see subordinates as being
involved in major decisions related to their work.
A - 29
F - 13
S - —
(f) extent to which subordinates feel they are involved
in major decisions affecting them.
A - 52
F - 53
S - 32, 33
(g) at what level of the organization are decisions made.
A - 28, 51, 53
F - 52
S - 33, 32
(h) extent to which superiors feel that involving sub­
ordinates in decision-making contributes to higher
performance.
A - 30
F - 25, 55
S ----

98
(i) extent to which superiors are aware of the problems
at the lower levels of the organization.
A - 47
F - 46, 45
S - 8, 9
(j) extent to which decision-making is shared by all
members of the organization (extent to which informs
tion is willingly shared).
A - 53
F - 52
S - 32
(k) extent to which upward communications are accurate.
A - 22, 46
F - 15, 44
S - 28
(1) extent to which ideas are sought by superiors from
subordinates about academic matters.
A - 10, 12, 41
F -

8, 30, 33

S - 10, 14

99

(m) extent to which ideas are sought by superiors from
subordinates about non-academic matters.
A - 11, 13, 42, 43
F -

9, 31, 32, 34, 35

S - 11, 15
Goal Setting Variable
(a) extent to which individuals feel that the organize'
tlon cooperatively holds high performance goals.
A - 31, 54
F - 56
S - 39
(b) extent to which individuals determine who shall be
responsible for achieving high performance goals.
A - 32, 55
F - 57
S - 40
(c) extent to which individuals feel that there is
resistance to achieving high performance goals.
A - 56
F - 58
S - 41
(d) extent of ordering in decision-making.
A - 53, 49
F - 52

100
Data Set 2
This Data Set contains the following characteristic
elements that consist of items across all of the five groups
as described for Data Set 1:
Leadership Process Variable - elements b, c, f, i, 1„
n, and o.
Motivational Forces Variable - elements b, d, f, g, and
h.
Communication Process Variable - elements b, c, g, i, j,
and k.
Interaction-Influence Variable - elements c, f, g, h, i,
and j .
Decision"Making Variable - elements a, c, f, g, i» j, k,
1, and m.
Goal Setting Variable - elements a, b, and c.

101
Treatment of the Data
In order to answer the basic questions of this study In
the section entitled, Questions to be Answered, the following
approach was used:
Llkert Identifies four general types of organizations,
each with Identifiable characteristics, on a continuum of from
least effective (System 1) through most effective (System 4).
Each questionnaire Item Is accompanied by a horizontal
line divided Into twenty segments by short vertical marks.

Five

segments are located directly under each of the above described
systems, for a total of twenty segments In all.
By assigning a value of one through twenty to each seg­
ment, scores were computed for each of the participants on
each Item.

Items were assigned to one or more characteristic

elements.
A mean element response for each characteristic element
for each Individual was computed by adding the scores of the
Items of the characteristic element and dividing by the
number of Items.
The standard deviation of the mean element responses of
the Individuals were calculated to welgtfc the contribution of
each characteristic element to th
each Individual.

:ore of the variable for

The weighting was accomplished by dividing the indivi­
dual's mean element score by the standard deviation of the
element.
The individual's score on a variable was then the mean
of these weighted means.
The following equations represent the calculation of the
score

on
Let:

each variable for each individual:
X^

- the individual's score on item i

n

■ the number of items in element j .

N

■ the number of individuals,

m

* the number of characteristic elements per
variable

Calculate the individual's mean element response to
element j :
— >

Sxi

Xj -

n

Calculate the mean of the element across all individuals
_
Xi
X. - N
Calculate standard deviation of each element:

Then each individual's score on a variable *

103
Missing data vere treated in two distinct ways:
(1) Only subjects with complete data were Included
in one analysis of the data.
(2) Only variables with complete data were Included
in the other analysis of the data.
Missing data on variable scores and individuals occured only
within variable six, the goal-setting variable.

Data con­

sidered in all of the treatments where variable scores were
incomplete, were calculated without the inclusion of this
variable.
There were two sets of data that were treated.

Data Set I

included all of the characteristic elements on each variable
whether or not they Included contributing items across all five
groups.

Data Set 2 included only those characteristic elements

which contained items across all five groups.
were analyzed separately.

Both sets of data

This was done because a number of

items were not identical for all three questionnaires.

The

high degree of similarity in the findings of both Data Set 1
and Data Set 2 Indicate that they are parallel, and increase
the

validity

of the findings.

Data Set 1 and Data Set 2 are

further described in the Instrumentation section of this chap­
ter.

104
Analysis of the data was done In three steps:

First,

Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance technique was applied to
each of the five groups to determine the extent to which there
was within group agreement.

A significant value of the co­

efficient of concordance, W, is interpreted as meaning that
the members of each group are applying the same standard in
ranking the variables under study.

A significant value of W

does not mean that the ordering of the variables is correct.
only the extent of agreement.

A W value of 1.0 would be

perfect agreement and a value of 0.0 would be perfect disagree­
ment .
The test of significance of W is found by applying
the formula:
* k(N-l)W with d.f.*N-i where,
k

“ the number of subjects within a group

N

* the number of organizational variables

The implied null hypothesis is that the ratings by the
subjects within each group are unrelated.

The Kendall tech­

nique also yields a rank order consensus of each variable
within each group.

These results Indicate the tendency of the

group to agree on the value score on a variable, and does not
represent a value judgment attached to the ranking.

The find­

ings suggested a high degree of agreement within all five

105
groups in both Data Set 1 and Data Set 2, using both methods
of handling missing data described earlier in this section.
Second, this being the case, a three-way analysis of
variance for repeated measures design was applied to individu­
al scores so that Inferences pertaining to the significance
of differences between group means could be established.
Thirdly, since there were significant differences between
groups, the Scheffe'-type post hoc comparison technique was
used to determine in which ways the groups differed.
In this way, a composite profile of the organization
of the College of Education as perceived by the five groups
based upon the defined variables was ascertained.

By an

analysis of the data, the findings of the study will serve
as a source of information about the organizational climate
of the College of Education.

This information can be used by

the College in determining whether or not the organizational
climate is a desirable one or not, and if not, it will Identify
those areas in need of attention.
The results of the findings of this study are discussed
in detail in Chapter IV.
Collection of the Data
During the month of February, 1970, each participant in
the study was contacted personally by the researcher.

After

the purpose of the study was explained, each participant was

106
given a copy of the instructions,
questionnaire to complete.

(See Appendix) and a

The researcher collected the

questionnaires within a period of two weeks.
The rights of anonymity of the respondents were
respected and the names of the participants are known only
to the researcher.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction
The statistical analysis of all data for this study
were done at the Computer Center at Michigan State University.
Three separate techniques were used in analyzing the data;
1) the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance, 2) a three-way
analysis of variance for repeated measures, and 3) a Scheffepost hoc comparison.

The findings of each technique are pre­

sented in table form as each of the Questions to be Answered
by this study is presented

I.

Analysis of the Data

The first four questions in the Questions to be Answered
section of Chapter I, focus upon finding the extent of agree­
ment and/or disagreement within each of five groups; Admini­
strators, Graduate Faculty, Undergraduate Faculty, Graduate
Students, and Undergraduate Students, as to their perceptions
of the state of the organization of the College of Education
at Michigan State University.
107

108
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance Technique was applied
to each of the five groups for both Data Set 1 and Data Set 2,
and two methods of treating missing data as described in Treat­
ment of the Data in Chapter III.

This technique was used to

ascertain the extent of over-all agreement within each group
across all the organizational variables tested.
As can be seen by examining Table 4.1 and Table 4.2,
the implied null hypothesis the subject's ratings of
the organizational variables within each group is unrelated,
is rejected at the .001 level of significance.

This is true

regardless of the data set or missing data procedure tested.
Thus, the conclusion is reached that there is a strong agree­
ment of perception within each of the five groups about the
organizational climate of the College of Education.
Since there was

strong within group agreement, a three-

way analysis of variance for repeated measures technique was
applied to all data.

The results of this technique as seen

in Table 4.3 show differences existing between groups and
across all variables at the .01 level of significance.
Table 4.4 is a graphic representation of the mean vari­
able scores for each group, calculated for each of the four
treatments.

The graphs present a composite profile of the

College, showing the relationship of each group on each variable.

109
This overview locates each group's perceptions of the
organization of the college on a continuum from authoritarian
to participative as defined by Likert In Chapter I.

The

higher the variable mean score for a group, the higher that
group ranks the College as a participative organization.
A Scheffe^post hoc comparison was then done to more
specifically identify significant differences existing
between various combinations of groups on each variable.
Table 6 in the Appendix represents the values of the differ­
ence in mean scores between specific groups as calculated
for the V

statistic of the Scheffe^test.

ficance for each variable are also noted.

Levels of signi­

110
TABLE 4.1
KENDALL'S COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE
(All Subjects with Complete Data)
ADMINISTRATORS

(N-17)

(V-6)

Data Set 1
Leadershlp
Process

MotlvaIntertlonal Conmuni- action
Decision
Forces cation____Influence Making

Goal
Setting

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

Consensus
of Rank

4

5

2

1

3

6

W - 0.8652

X 2 - 73.54*

df - 5

Data Set 2
Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

Consensus
of Rank

4

5

2

1

3

6

W - 0.8742

df - 5

X 2 - 74.31*

GRADUATE FACULTY (N-29) (V - 6)
Data Set 1
Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

Consensus
of Rank

6

4

1

2

3

1

w - 0.6499

X z-

94.24*

df

5

Data Set 2
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

4

3

5

1

2

W - 0.3764

X 2 - 50.81*

*Signifleant at the .001 level.

df - 5

Ill
TABLE 4.1 (continued)
UNDERGRADUATE FACULTY (N - 29) (V - 6)
Data Set 1
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

5

6

W - 0.4142

3
1
X 2 - 60.06*

4

5

6

3

2

4

df

Si

5

Data Set 2
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1
1
W - 0.6626

2
6

3
3
X 2 - 96.08*

4

5

6

4

2

5

df - 5

GRADUATE STUDENTS (N - 24) (V - 6)
Data Set 1
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1
1
W - 0.3687

2

3

4

2

4

3

X 2 - 44.24*

5
5
df - 5

6
6

Data Set 2
Variable

1

2

3

Consensus
of Rank

2

4

1

W - 0.4395

4
......

X 4 - 54.94*

*Signifleant at the .001 level.

3

5
1
df - 5

6
6

112
TABLE 4.1 (continued)

Data Set 1
Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

Consensus
of Rank

1

3

2

4

5

6

W - 0.5381

X 2 - 67.26*

df - 5

Data Set 2
Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

Consensus
of Rank

2

4

3

5

1

6

W - 0.4496

X 2 - 56.20*

♦Signifleant at the .001 level.

df

113
TABLE 4.2
ALL SUBJECTS WITH COMPLETE VARIABLE SCORES
ADMINISTRATORS (N - 17) (V - 5)
Data Set 1
Leader
ship
Process

Motivational
Forces

Variable

1

2

Consensus
of Rank

4

5

W - 0.8796
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

Communication

Inter­
action
Influence

Decision
Making

3

4

5

1

3

X2

2
- 59.81*

1

Data Set 2
2
3

4

5

W - 0.8256

X2

2
- 56.81*

df =* 4
4

5

1

3
df - 4

GRADUATE FACULTY (N - 29) (V - 5)
Data Set 1
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

5

3

W - 0.6485

3
,
X2

4
- 75.23*

4

5

1

2
df - 4

Data Set 2
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

3

4

5

5

3

2

4

1

W - 0.4457

X 2 - 51.70*

♦Significant at the .001 level.

df * 4

114
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
UNDERGRADUATE FACULTY (N - 29) (V - 5)
Data Set 1
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1
4

_

2

3

4

5

5

7
1
X* - 56.05*

3

2

W - 0.4832

df - 4

Data Set 2
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1
1.5
W - 0.7851

2
5

3
3
X 2 - 91.07

4

5

4

1.5
df - 4

GRADUATE ;
STUDENTS (N - 29) (V - 5)
Data Set 1
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

4
X 2 - 22.56*

3

5

W - 0.1945

df - 4

Data Set 2
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

2

4

W - 0.3803

*signifleant at the .001 level

3
5
- 44.11*

4

5

3

1
df

115
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS (N - 29) (V - 5)
Data Set 1
Variable

1

2

3

4

5

Consensus
of Rank

1

3

2

4

5

W - 0.4423

X 2 - 39.03*

df - 4

Data Set 2
Variable
Consensus
of Rank

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

2

5

1

W * 0.3365

X* - 39.03*

df - 4

*Signlfleant at the .001 level.

TABLE 4.3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
(All Subjects with Complete Data)
Data Set 1
Source
GrouDS

Sums of Squares

DF

Mean Squares

F
181.06*(4.119)**

1083.0909

4

270.7727

S:G
Repeated
Measures

177.9528

119

1.4954

31.6766

?

6.3353

43.138*(4.119)**

RG

162.7472

20

8.1374

55.410*(4.119)**

87.3853

595

.1469

RS;G

Total
1542.853
743
2.0765
*Signlfleant at the .01 level.
**Conservatlve estimates of d.f. not requiring the off diagonal
elements of repeated measures by repeated measures Inter*
correlation matrix being equal.

1X6
TABLE 4.3 (continued)
Data Set 2
Source

Sums of Sauares

DF

F

Mean Squares

117.50*(4.119)**

GrouDS

937.8326

4

234.4581

S:G
Repeated
Measures

235.4411

119

1.9953

83.3578

5

16.6716

90.94*(4.119)**

RG

120.1947

20

6.010

32.78*(4.119)**

RS:G

108.1576

590

.1833

1484.9838

737

2.0149

Total

TABLE 4 .4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
(All Subjects with Complete Variable Scores)
Data Set 1
Source

Sums of Sauares

DF

Mean Squares

F

Groups

977.1036

4

244.2759

S:G
Repeated
Measures

179.4089

128

1.4016

20.1778

4

5.0445

52.63*(4.512)**

RG

100.9271

16

6.3079

65.81*(16.512j*^

49.0775

512

.0959

RS:G

174.28*(4.128)**

Total
1326.6950
664
1.9980
*Signifleant at the .01 level.
^Conservative estimates of d.f. not requiring the off diagonal
elements of repeated measures by repeated measures intercorrelation matrix being equal.

117
TABLE 4.4 (continued)
Data Set 2
Source

Sums of Squares

DF

Mean Squares___________ F

GrouDS

785.0771

4

196.2693

S:G
Repeated
Measures

231.3993

128

1.8078

41.3052

4

10.3263

RG

74.4364

16

4.6523

RS:G

54.1227

512

.1057

108.56^(4.1 2 8 ) ^

97.69^(4.512)^
44.01^(16.512)**

Total
1.7867
1186.3408
664
♦Significant at the .01 level.
♦♦Conservative estimates of d.f. not requiring the off diagonal
elements of repeated measures by repeated measures lntercorrelation matrix being equal.

PROFILE OF THE COLLEGE BASED
ON MEANS FOR GROUPS
ON EACH VARIABLE

KEY
Administrators

•

Graduate Faculty
Undergraduate Faculty
Graduate Students
Undergraduate Students

TABLE 4.5
Data Set 1
(All Subjects with Complete Data)
Participative
Group

10'

9

'

8

-

7Mean Scores

6
5
4
3

2
Authoritarian

1
4-

t

Leader*
ship
Process

Motivational
Forces

Communi'
cation
Process

t

t

f

Interaction
Influence

Decision
Making
Process

Goal
Setting
Process

Variables

TABLE 4.5 (continued)
Data Set 2
(All Subjects with Complete Data)
Participative
Group

10
9
8

7
Mean Scores

6
/

\

_______________________

5
4
3

2
Authoritarian

1

H
Leadership
Process

i

Motivational
Forces

J—
Communication
Process

*

Interaction
Influence

Variables

Decision
Making
Process

I

Goal
Setting
Process

TABLE 4.6
Data Set 1
(All Subjects with Complete Variable Scores)
Participative
Group

10

9H
8
7
Mean Scores

6

120

5
4
3

2
Authoritarian

1
Leadership
Process

Motivational
Forces

Comnunication
Process
Variables

4
InterDecision
action
Making
Influence Process

TABLE 4.6 (continued)
Data Set 2
(All Subjects with Complete Variable Scores)
Participative
Group

109-

Mean Scores

Authoritarian
1
Leader*
ship
Process

2
3
Motiva- Communitional cation
Forces Process
Variables

4
Inter*
action
Influence

5
Decision
Making
Process

122
II.

Interpretation of the Data

The literature on organizations supports the theory
that Individual accommodation is strongly Influenced by the
social setting in which interpersonal relations occur.

In

this context, it is not surprising to find that the Admini­
strators show a higher degree of wlthin-group agreement than
any other group.

Equally predictable are the findings that

show less agreement within both Student Groups.

Specifically,

the size of populations from which each group was selected is
a factor.

Differences In the extent of agreement between the

groups increase as opportunities for face-to-face contact
decrease. A comparison on the W statistic is found in Table 4.7.
As a group, the Administrators are representative of
the smallest population and have more opportunity to Interact
with each other.

The possibility also exists that their

appointments to administrative positions were based in part
on the tendency to view the College of Education in a manner
similar to those who made the appointments.
The Graduate Faculty and Undergraduate Faculty groups
were next highest in agreement within their respective groups.
These groups represent the second largest populations, with
greater variations in academic interests, tenure, rank, and
appointment procedures.

Departmentalization and physical

123
TABLE 4.7
COMPARISON OF THE W STATISTIC
Administrators
Data Set 1
Sublect with complete data
All subjects with complete
variable scores

0.8652

0.8742

0.8796

0.8256

Graduate Faculty
Data Set 1
Sublect with complete data
All subjects with complete
variable scores

0.3764

0.6485

0.4457

0.6626

0.4832

0.7851

Data Set 2

0.3687

0.4395

0.1954

0.3803

Undergraduate Students
Data Set 1
Sublect with complete data
All subjects with complete
variable scores

Data Set 2

0.4142

Graduate Students
Data Set 1
Sublect with complete data
All subjects with complete
variable scores

Data Set 2

0.6499

Undergraduate Faculty
Data Set 1
Sublect with complete data
All subjects with complete
variable scores

Data Set 2

Data Set 2

0.5381

0.4496

0.4423

0.3365

124
location are also seen as contributing factors to a lower
degree of agreement.

The Graduate Faculty were in greater

agreement than the Undergraduate Faculty on Data Set 1 and
the reverse was true when Data Set 2 was considered.

The

Under-graduate Faculty tended to agree more when the GoalSetting Variable was not used in the calculations.

This

indicates a disagreement over which levels of the organiza­
tion feel most responsible for goal-setting, and the amount
of resistance that exlsto in goal attainment.
Graduate Students and Undergraduate Students were in
substantial agreement within their respective groups, but not
to the degree to which agreement existed in the Administrator
and Faculty Groups.

The lowest "w" statistic for all groups

was found for Graduate Students in Data Set 1,

The extent of

agreement nearly doubled for this group when the Goal-Setting
Variable was included in the calculations.

The relatively

low mean score on this variable by the Graduate Students indi­
cates high agreement on the low ranking.
These groups are representative of the largest popula­
tions considered in the study.

The effect of fewer opportuni­

ties for inter-action because of population size, diversity of
Interests, departmentalization, physical location and other
segratory factors are apparent in the lesser degree of

125
agreement with both groups.
The most striking result of this analysis shows that,
while there is a hierarchy In degree of agreement between
groups, wlthin-group agreement Is significantly high for all
groups.

This is so, despite the potential for disagreement

inherent in large organizations.

These findings lend strong

support to the additional results of the analysis of the data.
Gach group's ranking of the College can now be viewed as
clearly representative of the group's perceptions, and
Indicative of viewpoints generalized to the populations they
represent.
Five major points are emphasized by Tables 4.3 and 4.4:
1.

The degree to which each group perceives the College

as a participative organization is related to that group's
hierarchal level.
2.

The greatest differences between groups occur be­

tween the Administrators and each of the other groups.
3.

There Is little difference between the Graduate

Faculty and the Undergraduate Faculty in the perceptions of
each group as it views the College.
4.

There is little difference between the Graduate Stu­

dents and Undergraduate Students in the perceptions of each
group as it views the College.

126
5.

There ia a significant difference between each of

the faculty groups and each of the student groups.
The results Illustrated In Tables 4.5 and 4.6 suggest
that this College of Education Is bureaucratically organized.
Research studies, that relate behavior to organizational
position, indicate that the probability to experience a sense
of self-esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization tend to in­
crease as one goes up the hierarchal ladder and tend to de­
crease as one goes down the line.

Other studies indicate

that the degree of intrinsic work satisfaction will be
related to the degree of professionalism and/or position on
the organizational ladder.
The findings of this study support the results of other
organizational research.
The Faculty Groups, by their relative position between
the Student Groups and Administrators, illustrate the con­
flict between conventional bureaucratic authority and pro­
fessional authority.

From a theoretical viewpoint, if teach­

ing is a form of socialization, the faculty must interact
affectively with students.

On the other hand, the organiza­

tional obligation to produce competency impose a need for
impartiality and control.
Both Student Groups view the College in the least

127
favorable manner.

There doesn't appear to be much difference

in this viewpoint based upon Graduate or Undergraduate status.
This is a disturbing finding because one of the primary
responsibilities of an educational institution is toward its
students.

That such differences in perceptions exist between

the Student Groups and the other groups, is a source of
Immediate concern.
The Scheffe^post hoc comparison technique was applied to
various combinations of groups to more specifically determine
significant differences between groups on each variable.
Contrasts between pairs of groups are presented separately.
Values for these comparisons and accompanying significance
levels are found in Table 4.8.

Administrators and Graduate Faculty
There are significant differences between the Admini­
strators and Graduate Faculty at the .01 level on all of the
variables tested.

The Administrators' variable mean scores

are consistently higher than the variable mean scores
recorded by the Graduate Faculty.

The greatest differences

between these two groups occur on the Goal-Setting Variable
and the Motivational Forces Variable.

128
TABLE 4.8
VALUES OF DIFFERENCES IN VARIABLE MEAN SCORES AND
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AS CALCULATED FOR THE
X STATISTIC OF THE SCHEFFE'POST HOC
COMPARISON

1
2
3
4
5
6

Administrators and Graduate Faculty
All subjects with
Subjects with completed
data
complete variable scores.
Data Set 2
Data Set 1
Data Set 2
Data Set 1
1.702*
2.171*
1.700*
2.171*
3.773*
3.615*
3.773*
3.627*
1.536*
1.686*
1.686*
1.533*
1.070*
1.339*
1.064*
1.339*
2.269*
2.237*
2.281*
2.237*
4.373*
4.603*
Administrators and Undergraduate Faculty

1
2
3
4
5
6

2.820*
3.357*
5.473*
1.320*
2.264*
4.021*

2.724*
3.216*
2.151*
1.153*
2.614*
3.862*

2.820*
3.357*
2.257*
1.320*
2.264*

2.724*
3.216*
2.151*
1.153*
2.614*

Administrators and Graduate Students
1
2
3
4
5
6

4.390*
4.849*
2.878*
2.122*
2.961*
4.148*

1
2
3
4
5
6

Administrators and Undergraduate Students
4.821*
5.277*
3.477*
5.304*
5.021*
5.368*
3.622*
3.550*
3.108*
2.360*
2.280*
2.223*
3.113*
3.490*
3.213*
4.657*
4.766*

3.151*
4.579*
2.340*
2.140*
3.058*
4.413*

*Significant at the .01 level •

4.519*
5.001*
3.050*
2.290*
3.105*

3.234*
4.714*
2.471*
2.272*
3.188*

3.529*
5.110*
3.185*
2.314*
3.582*

TABLE 4.8(continued)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Graduate Faculty and Undergraduate Faculty
All subjects with
Subjects with completed
complete variable scores
data
Data Set 2
Data
Set 1
Data
Set
2
Data Set 1
1.022*
.649*
1.024*
.649^
.399
.416
.416
.411
.615**
.571**
.571*^
.618**
.083
.019
.089
.019
.345
.027
.027
.333
.582^
.511
Graduate Faculty and Graduate Students

1
2
3
4
5
6

2.219^
1.076^
1.192^
.783^
.724^
.455

1.451*
.952*
.807*
1.066*
.777♦
.040

2.348*
1.228*
1.364*
.951♦
.868*

1.532*
1.099*
.935*
1.202*
.919*

Graduate Faculty and Undergraduate Students
1
2
3
4
5
6

2.606*
1.531*
1.864*
.941*
.876*
.054

1.777♦
1.3<*4*
1.575*
1.159*
1.209*
.393

2.650*
1.595*
1.936*
1.021*
.976*

1.827*
1.495*
1.649*
1.244*
1.313*

Undergraduate Facultv and Graduate Students
1
2
3
4
5
6

1.570*
1.492*
.621*
.802*
.697*
.127

.427
1.363*
.189
.987*
.444
.551

♦Significant at .01 level.
♦♦Significant at .05 level.

1.699*
1.644*
.793*
.970*
.84 !♦

.510
1.498*
.320
1.119*
.574**

130
TABLE 4.8(continued)

1
2
3
A
5
6

Undergraduate Faculty and Undergraduate Students
Subjects with completed
All subjects with
complete variable scores
data____________
Data Set
Data Set 1
Data Set 2
Data Set 1
.805*
1.957*
.753*
2.001*
1.947*
1.894*
2.011*
1.805*
1.034*
1.293*
.957*
1.365*
.960*
1.040*
1.161*
1.070*
.968*
.849*
.876*
.949*
.636*
.904*
Graduate Students and Undergraduate Students

1
2
3
4
5
6

.387
.455
.672*
.158
.152
.509

.326
.442
.768*
.83
.432
.353

.302
.367
.572*
.070
.108

.295
.396
.714*
.042
.394

Administrators and Faculty
1
2
3
4
5
6

2.821*
5.612*
1.972*
1.330*
2.251*
4.312*

2.213*
3.422*
1.842*
1.109*
2.448*
4.118*

2.496*
3.566*
1.972*
1.330*
2.251*

2.214*
3.416*
1.844*
1.112*
2.442*

Administrators and Students
1
2
3
4
5
6

4.584*
5.077*
3.214*
2.201*
3.038*
4.403*

3.315*
4.800*
2.725*
2.182*
3.275*
4.590*

♦Significant at .01 level.

4.670*
5.185*
3.336*
2.325*
3.160*

3.382*
4.913*
2.828*
2.293*
3.386*

131
TABLE 4.8(continued)
Faculty and Students
All subjects with
Subjects with completed
complete variable scores
da ta
Data Set 1
Data Set 2
Data Set 2
Data Set 1
2.174*
1.168*
1 .101*
2.088*
1.511*
1.497*
1.378*
1.511*
1.364*
.984*
1.242*
.883*
.995*
1.181*
.871*
1.073*
.909*
.944*
.827*
.787*
.472
.091

132
Administrators and Undergraduate Faculty
The differences between these two groups is significant
at the .01 level on all variables tested.

The Administrators

rank the College higher on all variables than do the Under*
graduate Faculty.

The greatest differences between these two

groups were on the Communication Process Variable, the Motiva­
tional Forces Variable, and the Goal-Setting Variable.

As

with the Graduate Faculty, the Administrators come closest to
agreement with the Undergraduate Faculty on the InteractionXnfluence variable.
Administrators and Graduate Students
Significant differences between these two groups are
recorded on all variables tested at the .01 level.

Greater

differences exist between the Administrators and the Graduate
Students, than between the Administrators and either Faculty
Group.

The greater differences occur on the Motivational

Forces Variable, the Leadership Process Variable, and the
Goal-Setting Variable.

The Administrators rank the College

higher than the Graduate Students on all variables.
Administrators and Undergraduate Students
The differences in perceptions of the College between
these two groups represent the greatest distance of any pair
of groups in the Study.

These differences are significant at

133
the .01 level on all variables tested.

The Undergraduate Stu­

dents rank the College lowest of all the groups on all variables
and the Administrators rank the College highest on all variables.
Largest differences occur on the Leadership Process Variable,
the Motivational Forces Variable, and the Goal-Setting Variable.
Summarizing the comparison of Administrators and each of
the other groups, the results show great differences in per­
ception of the organizational climate on every variable.

The

larger differences occur on the Goal-Setting Process Variable,
the Motivational Forces Variable, and the Leadership Process
Variable.

The Goal-Setting Process had the highest ranking

among the Administrators, with the Motivational Forces second,
and Leadership Process, third.

These findings indicate that

the Administrators feel a high degree of satisfaction in the
participative character of the organization of the College.
The high rating of the Motivational Faces Variable indicate
that the Administrators feel that the responsibility for
achieving organizational goals is shared by all levels of the
College.

They view the College as a favorable place to work,

and enjoy their relationships with colleagues and subordinates.
A high ranking by the Administrators, of the Leadership
Process indicate satisfaction with their ability to establish

134
a climate of trust and confidence In relationships with subordi­
nates.

This Includes the degree to which they exhibit suppor­

tive behavior, obtain Ideas and opinions of subordinates, and
the degree to which subordinates feel free to discuss matters
about their jobs.
On the other hand, examination of the data reveal that
each group, when compared to the Administrators, report
significantly lower degrees of satisfaction.
For a more complete definition of organizational variables
refer to Definitions of Key Terms in Chapter I.

Specific items

from the questionnaire for each variable are listed in the
Instrumentation section of Chapter II.

Copies of the Question­

naire used in the Study are found in the Appendix.

Graduate Faculty and Undergraduate Faculty
The Graduate Faculty and the Undergraduate Faculty are
in substantial agreement in locating the College on the con­
tinuum of organizational characteristics.

These two groups

differ significantly on only two variables, and their respec­
tive values of variable mean scores are similar.

The Under­

graduate Faculty rank the College significantly lower on the
Leadership Process than does the Graduate Faculty at the .01
level.

The Graduate Faculty rates the Communication Process

135
more favorably, with the difference significant at the .05 level.
Graduate Faculty and Graduate Students
The Graduate Faculty and the Graduate Students exhibit
significant differences on all variables at the .01 level, with
the exception of the Goal-Setting Process Variable.

Generally,

the Graduate Faculty view the College more favorably than do
the Graduate Students.

The greatest differences In perception

occur on three variables -- Leadership Process, Motivational
Forces, and Communication Process.
Graduate Faculty and Undergraduate Students
Larger differences exist between these two groups than
between the Graduate Faculty and the Graduate Students.

These

differences are significant at the .01 level for all but the
Goal-Setting Process Variable.

Mean scores between groups on

Goal-Setting show no significant differences.

The Graduate

Faculty rank the College more favorably than do the Under­
graduate Students.

Note the mean scores for these groups on

the Goal-Setting Process.

This is the only incidence in the

study where the Students rated the College more favorably than
did the Faculty.
Undergraduate Faculty and Graduate Students
Significant differences between the Undergraduate Faculty
and the Graduate Students are not as sharply defined as

136
differences between the Graduate Faculty and the Undergraduate
Students.

Differences, as measured by Data Set 1 with both

missing data procedures, are significant at the .01 level for
all but the Goal-Setting Process Variable.

Data Set 2 Indi­

cate significant differences on the Motivational Forces Variable
and the Interaction-Influence Variable at the .01 level, and
on the Decision-Making Process Variable at the .05 level.
The greatest differences between these two groups are reported
on two variables, Leadership Process and Motivational Forces.
Undergraduate Faculty and Undergraduate Students
Significant differences between these two groups are
reported at the .01 level for all variables tested.

The

Undergraduate Faculty view the College more favorably than do
the Undergraduate Students.

The largest differences occur

on three variables, Leadership Process, Motivational Forces,
and Communication Process.

The differences between these two

groups are only slightly less than between the Graduate
Faculty and the Graduate Students.
Graduate Students and Undergraduate Students
The two Student groups differ significantly at the .01
level on the Communication Process Variable.

Otherwise, there

were no significant differences on any variable between the
groups.

They were in substantial agreement in ranking the

137
College

the least favorably of all groups.

Undergraduate

Students recorded the lowest variable mean scores In the Study.

In reviewing this series of contrasts, the findings point
up three distinct levels:

Administrators, Faculty, and Students.

The Administrators, who are in agreement within-group are sig­
nificantly In disagreement when compared to each of the other
groups.

The Faculty, who agree within group, and report little

significant differences between Faculty groups, are in signifi­
cant disagreement with both the Administrators, and Student
Groups.

The Student Groups are not substantially different

from each other, but are in significant disagreement with the
Administrators and both Faculty Groups.
The following comparisons combine the Graduate Faculty
and Undergraduate Faculty into a Faculty Group, and combine
Graduate and Undergraduate Students into a Student Group.
Comparisons are then made between Administrators and Faculty,
Administrators and Students, and Faculty and Students.
Values listed for these three comparisons are also
found in Table 4*8and were calculated for the W statistic
of the Scheffe test with levels of significance noted.
Administrators and Faculty
Significant differences at the .01 level on all variables

138
were reported between Administrators and Faculty.

The

Faculty ranked the College lower d s n the Administrators on
all variables.

The greatest differences between the two

groups existed on three variables, Motivational Forces, GoalSetting Process, and Leadership Process.

This represents

little change from separate comparisons of Administrators and
each of the Faculty Groups.
Administrators and Students
The Administrators and the Students differed signifi­
cantly on all variables at the .01 level.

The difference

scores between these two groups represent the largest differ­
ences of rankings in this set of comparisons.

The greatest

differences occured on three variables, Leadership Process,
Motivational Process, and the Goal-Setting Process.

These

findings represent little change in differences reported be­
tween Administrators and each of the Student Groups.

The

Administrators ranked the College substantially higher than
did the Students.
Faculty and Students
The Faculty and Student Groups were significantly
different in their perceptions of the organizational climate
of the College.

These differences were significant at the

.01 level for all variables except the Goal-Setting Process

139
Variable.

The Faculty viewed the College more favorably than

did the Students, but the differences between

the Faculty and

the Students were

not as great as the differences

tween the Faculty

and the Administrators.

The greater

differences between Faculty

reported be­

and Student

Groups occur on three variables, Leadership Process, Motiva­
tional Forces, and Communication Process.
The results of these three comparisons are essentially
the same as the comparisons made between the various pairs of
groups discussed earlier.

There are three levels of satis­

faction about the effectiveness of the organization of the
College.

These levels are defined along hlerarchal lines and

there are clear-cut differences in perceptions between the
levels.
The literature on organizations categorize organizations
by the degree to which certain characteristic processes are
present.

That the College of Education has strong bureau­

cratic tendencies is evidenced by several findings of this
study:
1.

Differences of perception on the Leadership Process

Variable point to a reduction of personalized relationships
between groups down the line.
2.

Differences in perceptions about the character of

140
Motivational Forces employed Indicate that the human fulfill­
ment needs of people In the College are being met in relation­
ship to hierarchal position.
3.

Differences in perceptions on the character of the

Communication Process Variable indicate a lack of sharing in­
formation between levels, and a feeling of a lack of sensitiv­
ity to problems existing at successive lower levels of the
College.
4.

Differences in the perceptions on the Interaction-

Influence Process Variable point to an increasing sense of
powerlessness to influence the goals, methods, and activities
of the College as one goes down the hierarchal ladder.
5.

Differences In the perceptions on the Decision-Making

Process Variable indicate a reluctance on the part of higher
levels to allow decisions to be made by lower levels of the
College.

Indications also point to disagreements as to the

amount of participation in decision-making that should be
sanctioned.
6.

Differences in perceptions on the Goal-Setting

Process Variable indicate a disagreement as to the extent of
shared responsibility for goal setting as felt by the various
levels of the College.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
In this chapter, central Ideas and elements of this
study are extracted from the preceding chapters and pre­
sented in a summary of the research design, findings, con­
clusions, and recommendations based upon the results of the
Study.
Summary
This study was designed to assess significant agreements
and/or disagreements in perceptions of the organizational cli­
mate of the College of Education at Michigan State University.
A total of 133 individuals participated in the study.

These

individuals were randomly selected from five populations in
the College; (1) Administrators,

(2) Graduate Faculty,

(3)

Undergraduate Faculty, (4) Graduate Students, and (5) Under­
graduate Students.
Llkert's Profile of Organizational Characteristics
questionnaires as developed for colleges, were used for the
first time

to measure the organizational climate.
141

These

142
Instruments delineate six organizational variables common to
all organizations, along an authoritarian-participative con­
tinuum.

The variables tested were:

(1) Leadership Process,

(2) Character of Motivational Forces, (3) Character of
Communication Process, (4) Interaction-Influence Process,
(3) Character of Decision-making Process, and (6) Character
of Goal-Setting Process.
The participants were asked to rank the College on each
variable along the continuum.

Individual scores were calcu­

lated for each variable and from that data, mean scores for
each group on each variable were computed.

Because items on

the three questionnaires were parallel but not Identical, two
sets of data were used in the analysis to substantiate the
findings.

Data Set 1 contains all of the items from all

questionnaires.

Data Set 2 contains only those items that

occured across all groups.

There was little difference in the

results of each Data Set.
The analysis of data was done In three steps:
(1) Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance technique
found strong agreement within each group about the organiza­
tional climate of the College.
(2) A three-way analysis of variance for repeated

143
measures technique found significant differences between groups
across all variables tested.

Group mean scores on each vari­

able, calculated from this technique, were used to chart the
relative position of each group on the continuum to provide a
profile of the College.
(3)

A Scheffex post hoc comparison technique was

applied to various combinations of groups to specifically
identify significant differences between combinations of groups
on each variable.
A review of the literature on organizational climate
emphasized the following points:
1.

Most large organizations in American society,

including schools, are bureaucracies.
2.

Bureaucratic organizations are extremely

efficient in handling uniform events, but are not
effective in coping with non-uniform events.
3.

Organizational structure will influence org­

anizational climate, and organizational climate will,
in turn, influence the behavior of the members of the
organization.
4.

An individual's perception of a situation will

influence that individual's accommodation to that situ­
ation.

144
5.

Alternative organizational structures to the

bureaucratic model are possible and eminent.
6.

The organizational structure should be such

that it facilitates the achievement of stated goals and
objectives, and maximizes the use of the human resource
of its members.
Further review of the literature revealed that the
degree of bureaucracy present in an organization will be
dependent upon the extent to which the organization exhibits
certain characteristics:
1.

Impersonal orientation in contacts with people

within the organization.
2.

Social distance between hierarchal levels with

the resultant emphasis on formality of relationships.
3.

Demand for control at the top levels of m a n a g e ­

ment that result in Increased delegation of authority,
which Increases departmentalization.
4.

Increased departmentalization increases sub­

unit loyalty and leads to conflict and struggle for
internal control.

This, in turn, affects the content

of decision-making, in order for sub-groups to legiti­
mize their demands.

145
5.

The number and importance of decisions made at

the upper levels of the organization.

The number of

functions affected by those decisions at the lower
levels and the amount of checking required on decisions.
6.

Large status differentials between levels that

result in the lengthening and restricting of communica­
tion channels that increase distortion of messages.
7.

Opportunity for members of the organization

to share in goal-setting and influencing decisions that
affect them.
8.

Existence of an effective structure that

enables one part of the organization to exert influence
upon other parts.
The literature on behavior resulting from organizational
structure and climate emphasizes:
1.

The pyramidal structure of a hierarchy conflict

with the needs for psychological success of the members
of an organization.
2.

The morale of members of an organization tends

to decrease as the size of an organization increases be­
cause of reduced face-to-face contact, and as individuals
begin to lose identity with the organization.
3.

The individual's participation in the organization

146
Is always affected by his position in the hierarchy.
4.

The probability to experience a sense of self­

esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization tends to in­
crease as one ascends the hierarchal ladder and tends
to decrease as one descends.
5.

The higher a person is on the organizational

ladder, the greater the probability he will express
intrinsic work satisfaction.
6.

Increased responsibility generally results in

increased tension.
7.

In professional organizations, such as educa­

tional institutions, conflict exists between bureau­
cratic authority and professional authority.
8.

In professional organizations, higher degrees

of professionalism generally result in higher rates of
conflict over control of work within professional groups
and between such groups and the administration.
9.

Leadership style will depend upon the leader's

concept of self, the situation, and the leader's per­
ception of the situation.
10.

The more democratically an organization functions

the more favorable the responses of individuals will be
in terms of reduced aggression, more enjoyment, and more

147
Imaginative productivity.
11.

Increased participation across organizational

lines in decision-making will result in greater commit­
ment, involvement, consensus, unanimity of purpose, and
motivation.
A total of six variables of organizational climate were
rated

by five groups within the College of Education.

The

results of this assessment were analyzed to provide the data
for the findings of this study.
Findings
The results of this study produced several interesting
findings.

In the perceptions of the state of the organiza­

tion of the College:
1.
the five groups.

There is substantial agreement within each
This finding strengthens the study.

Had

there been no significant agreement within groups, accurate
comparison between groups would not have been possible.

It

also added substance as each group ranked the College on the
authoritarian-participative continuum.

Within group agreement

adds support to positioning on the continuum, and Increases
confidence that each group represents the viewpoints of the
population they represent.
As with roost of the study, a definite relationship

148
exists between hierarchal level and the findings.
Administrators

The

report the highest rate of agreement, on down

the line to Student groups, who report the lowest rate.
Several factors contribute to the groups varying in degree of
agreement.

Each group represents differences in size, oppor­

tunity for within group Interaction, psychological and socio­
logical factors, and selection procedures.

Physical proximity

and other biographic differences are also potential causes for
disagreement.

In spite of these differences, within group

agreement existed for all groups at a high level of signifi­
cance .
2.

There is substantial disagreement between the

Administrators and each of the other groups on all six vari­
ables.

The extent of disagreement increases the farther each

group is down the organizational ladder.
3.

There Is substantial disagreement between the

Faculty Groups and the Student Groups on five organiza­
tional variables.

Comparisons of various combinations of

each Faculty Group and each Student Group did not alter the
findings.
4.

There is substantial agreement between the

Graduate Faculty and the Undergraduate Faculty.

Significant

differences between these two groups were recorded on the

149
Leadership Process and Communication Process Variables.
Graduate Faculty reported greater satisfaction.
relationship between the two variables.

The

There is a

The amount and

character of communication will influence the degree of con*
fldence and trust, and the direction and flow of information
will have a bearing on the number of ideas sought by superiors.
From these findings it is suggested that the Graduate Faculty
has greater access to the Administrators than does the Under*
graduate Faculty.
5.

There is substantial agreement between the

Graduate Students and the Undergraduate Students.

Generally,

the Graduate Students view the College as slightly more par*
tlclpatlve than do the Undergraduate Students.

A significant

difference on the Communication Variable was the only disagree­
ment between these groups.

The fact that Graduate Students

have more contact with Faculty, and have greater autonomy
probably account for such a difference.

In ranking the organizational climate of the College on
a continuum of from authoritarian to participatory, examina­
tion of Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 show:
1.

There is a strong hierarchal flavor to the

in which each group ranked the College.

Administrators view

150
the organization of the College as a highly participative one.
This view decreases down the ladder to the Students who view
the climate as more authoritarian.
2.

Administrators, Faculty, and Students form

three distinct levels of evaluation.

The Interesting finding

connected with this result, Is that significant differences
occur between each of these levels on five variables.

Conclusions
The scholars In the field of organizetlonal research
agree that the nature of an organization will have an effect
on the behaviors of Its members.

This study makes no comment

on the Identification of specific behaviors.

The findings

represent the perceptions of Individuals about organizational
climate and by Implication Identifies the existence of a
certain type of organization.

The researcher, with support

from the literature, assumes resultant behavior characteristic
of the type of organization.

Within these limitations,

the

following conclusions seem warranted:
1.

The findings reveal the bureaucratic nature

of the College.

Evidence, that as one descends the

organizational ladder, the increase of impersonal
relationships, lack of involvement In decision-making,

151
lengthening communication channels, inability to
influence events, lack of a feeling of teamwork,
and other characteristics of a bureaucratic organi­
zation

are present to a significantly greater

degree in the College.
2.

The extent of participation in organizational

life, as viewed by the Students is at a lower level.
Implications from these findings are made that low
commitment,

low morale, decreased motivational level,

and lower feelings of psychological success exist
among these groups.

Since Students are one of the

principal reasons for the existence of any educa­
tional institution such negative factors may

seriously

affect their performance and consequently affect the
quality of students produced by the College.
3.

The Faculty represent a more moderate position

than do the Students.

Their relative position on the

continuum is closer to the Student point of view than
to the Administrators.

The distance from the Admini­

strators and from the Students is accounted for in the
conflict mentioned in Chapter IV between professional
authority and bureaucratic authority.
4.

The differences in perceptions between the

152
Administrators and all other groups suggests that this
group is out of touch with the organizational life of
the College.

Their evaluation of the College as highly

participative is not shared by the other groups.

There

seems to be great discrepancies between the manner in
which they perceive their behavior to others, and the
way others perceive that behavior.

Other disagreements

In perceptions occur in the processes of organization.
The administrators see others as highly Involved in
decisions, goal-setting, and communications.

The

members who are supposed to be Involved, do not see
themselves involved to the same degree.

Similar claims

can be made between Faculty and Students, but the
greatest differences in the study involve Administrators.
Recommendations
The findings of this study suggest the need for further
investigation Into the organizational processes of the College.
The general nature of the definitions of each variable makes
the identification of specific differences difficult.

However,

the overall results indicate that the College should review
all of its organizational processes in order to maximize its
human resource.
Recommendations, based on the findings, are made with a

153
College-wide emphasis on developing a strategy for organiza­
tional Inquiry.

One of the most promising approaches,

Organizational Development or OD, has enjoyed considerable
success in industry.

The application of OD principles

to educational organizations Is relatively new, but the results
from a limited number of programs give evidence of success.
Such a program would provide:

(1) an opportunity for all

members to be involved in the organizational processes of the
College,

(2) valuable in-service training possibilities for

students and faculty alike,

(3) a ,,vehicle,, for interaction

between departments, and across levels of the college,

(4) a

model for educational institutions who are searching for
effective diagnostic procedures, and (5) an opportunity to
experiment with, plan, and evaluate alternative organiza­
tional models.

The College, In undertaking an OD approach,

would go through the following process:
of problems,
nosis,

(1) Identification

(2) Setting problem priorities,

(3) Problem diag­

(4) Development and sharing of data concerning these

problems,

(5) Joint action planning, emphasizing alternatives,

(6) Implementation and testing of selected alternatives, and
(7) Periodic review and further action.
Operationally, the recommendations are:
1.

The College should Implement a •'Model College Plan

154
This Plan to be organized using Organizational Development
principles.

Initially, using a college within a college

format, the "Model College" would be a number of pilot groups,
each consisting of a mixture of Administrators, Faculty, and
Students.

For the members of the groups, these OD activities

would replace present responsibilities.
Students would receive Education credits in keeping with their
regular programs.

Administrators and Faculty would assume

these activities as a part of their responsibility, sharing
previous commitments with other staff members.
The curriculum would cover all aspects of organiza­
tional life in the Gollege:

technology, systems and structure,

methods, interpersonal and personal factors, and strategies
of change.

From these pilot groups would come suggestions

and recommendations to be considered by the college at large.
Eventually, as these procedures become more refined, a part
of each member's obligation to the college would be the on­
going study and evaluation of the system.
2.

The College allow time In all

classes for contact with the pilot groups.

Initially, this

would Increase the amount of input into the problem-solving
nature of the Model.

The long-range goal of such contact

would be to supply the college with a constant flow of feedback

155
Information.

In this way, the communications network would

be more adequate in sensing Internal stress and insuring that
enough information
3.

be available to make adequate diagnosis.

Teams of doctoral students, Interested in organi­

zations, be encouraged to assist in the evaluation of new
procedures, thereby increasing the amount of empirical findings
available.

Dissertations could be based upon data gathered

from the Model Plan, or from other Innovative organizational
plans.

A second contribution from these teams could be to

assist school systems, and/or Individual school units in
organizational analysis.
4.

The College hold regular workshops in organiza­

tional diagnosis for people in the field of education.

These

workshops would be held both on and off-campus, for credit or
not, and with specific school units, If requested.

The consult­

ants for the workshops would include as many members from all
levels of the College as feasible.
5.

The College establish a group made up of Admini­

strators, Faculty, and Students specifically from the Admini­
stration and Educational Psychology Departments to study the
effect of organization on learning environments.

Much of the

literature on organizational effect is drawn from industry,
little, if any, empirical research is based on determining which
organizational patterns produce optimum learning opportunities.

156
In summary, Likert's definition of "the principle of
supportive relationships" warrants re-emphasis.

"The

leadership and other processes of the organization must be
such as to ensure maximum probability that, in all interactions
and in all relationships with the organization, each member
will, in the light of his background, values, and expectations,
view the experience as supportive, and one which builds and
maintains his sense of personal worth and importance."
The recommendations made here are a beginning.

The

objectives of the Plan are based on the needs of the college
as determined by this study:
1.

Create an open, problem-solving climate,

throughout the College.
2.

Locate decision-making and problem-solving

responsibilities as close to the information sources
as possible.
3. Maximize collaborative efforts among
individuals and between groups.
4. Increase the sense of "ownership" of
College objectives throughout the membership.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AbbotL, M.G. and Lovell, J.T., eds. Change Perspectives In
Educational Administration, Auburn, Alabama:
Auburn
University. School of Education. 1964.
Argyrls, C.
Interpersonal Competance and Organizational
Effectiveness. Homewood, Illinois:
Irwin. 1962.
Argyrls, C.
Integrating the Individual and the Organization.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1964.
Barnlund, D.C. and Harland, C. P r o p i n q u i t y and Prestige as
Determinants of Communications Networks." Sociometrv.
1963. Vol. 26.
Bidwell, C.E. "The School as a Formal Organization."
Handbook of Organization. J.G. March, ed. Chicago:
Rand McNally & Co. 1965.
Rlnko, R.R. and Mouton, J.S.
Texas:
Gulf. 1964.

The Managerial Grid. Houston,

Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. Formal Organizations:
A Compara­
tive Study. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.1960.
Bowers, D.C. and Seashore, S.E. "Peer Leadership within work
groups." Paper read at International Congress of
Applied Psychology.
Ljubljana, Yugoslavia: 1964.
Cantril, H. "Perception and Interpersonal Relations."
American Journal of Psychiatry. 1957. Vol. 113.
Carter, F.D. and Sergiovannl, T.J. (ed). Organizations and
Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1969.
Coch, L. and French, J.R., Jr. "Overcoming Resistance to
Change." Human Relations. 1948.
Combs, A.I*, and Snygg, D.
Individual Behavior: a Perceptual
Approach to Behavior. Revised ed. New York:
Harper c*
Brothers. 1959.

158
C o m b a, A.K.

"Personality Theory and Its Implication for
Curriculum Development." In Learning More About Learn­
ing. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, a department of the National
Education Association. 1959.
C.ll. Human Nature and Social Order.
Scribner’s. 1902. (Rev. ed. 1922).

Cooley,

New York:

R.C. A Sociology of Education. New York:
Century-Crofts Publishing Co. 1965.

Corwin,

Appleton-

Corwin, R. "Professional Persons in Public Organizations."
Educational Administration Quarterly. 1965.
Dale E . Planning and Developing the Company Organization
Structure. New York: American Management Association.
1952.
Dugan, R.D. "Comparison of Evaluation of B-29 Crews in Train­
ing and Combat." American Psychological. 1953.
Ctzioni, A. Complex Organizations.
and Winston. 1961.

New York:

Holt.Rinehart

Farris, G.F.
"Congruency of Scientists’ Motives with their
Organizations Provisions for Satisfying Them:
I t ’s
Relationships to Motivation, Affective Job Experiences,
Styles of Work, and Performance." University of Michigan,
Department of Psychology. 1962. (mimeographed)
Fiedler, F.E.
"Styles of Leadership." Current Perspectives
in Social Psychology. Hollander, E. and Hunt, R . , Ed.
New York:
Oxford University Press. 1967.
French, J.R.P., Kay, E. and Meyer, H.H. "A Study of Threat
and Participation in an Industrial Performance Appraisal
Program." Behavioral Research Service Report. General
Electric Company. 1962.
Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (trans. and eds.).
From Max Weber:
Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
1946.

159
Getzels, J. "Administration as a Social Process." The Plan­
ning of Change. Bennis, W., Benne, K.D., and Chin, R . ,
(eds.) New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1961.
Cibb, J.R. "In Search of Leaders." American Association for
Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:
N.E.A.
1967.
Golembiewski, R.T. "Small Groups and Large Organizations."
Handbook of Organizations. March, J.G. (ed.) Chicago:
Rand McNally & Co. 1965.
Gordon, C.W. The Social System
111.: Free Press. 1957.

of the High School. Glencoe,

Gouldner, A.W.
Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe,
111.: Free Press, 1954.
Griffiths, D.E. Administrative Theory.
Century-Crofts, Inc. 1959.

New York:

Appleton-

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., and Feld, S., Americans View their
Mental Health. New York:
Basic Books. 1960.
Haire, M. "Industrial Social Psychology." Handbook of
Social Psychology. Lindzey, G., ed. Cambridge:
AddisonWesley. 1954.
Halpin, A.W. Theory and Research in Administration.
The Macmillan Company. 1966.

New York:

Hamblin, R.S., Miller, K . , and Wiggins, J.A.
"Group Morale
and Competance of the Leader." Sociometrv. 1961.
Homans, G.C. The Human Group. New York:
World, Inc. 1950.

Harcourt, Brace &

Hopper, R.L. and Bills, R.E.
"What*s a Good Administrator
Made Of?" School Executive. (March) 1955. Vol. 74.
Ittleson, W.H. and Cantril, H.
House. 1959.
James, W. Psychology:
1892.

Perception. New York:

Briefer Course.

New York:

Random

Henry Holt.

160
Kasl, S. and French, J.P., Jr. "The Effects of Occupational
Status on Physical and Mental Health." Journal of
Social Issues. 1962. Vol. XVIII.
Kelley, E.C. Education for What is Real. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1947.
Kornhauser, A. "Mental Health of Factory Workers: A Detroit
Study."
Human Organization. Spring, 1962. Vol. 21.
Leavitt, H. "Applied Organizational Change in Industry."
Handbook of Organizations. March, J.G., ed. Chicago:
Rand, McNally & Co. 1965.
Lesieur, F. The Scanlon Plan. Cambridge: Technology Press of
M.I.T.
Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York:Mc-Graw
Hill. 1935.
Likert, R. The Human Organization:
It*s Management and
Value. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967.
Likert, R. New Patterns in Management. New York:
1961.

McGraw-Hill.

Litwak, E. "Models of Bureaucracy which Permit Conflict."
American Journal of Sociology. 1961. Vol. 67.
Livingston, R.T. "The Theory of Organization and Management."
Transactions of the A.S.M.E. (May) 1953.
Mann, F.C. and Williams, L.K. "Some Effects of the Changing
Work Environment in the Office." Mental Health and the
Work Environment, Lundstedt, Sven (ed). 1962. mimeographed.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A, Organlzations.
Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1958.

New York: John

McGregor, D.M. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill. I960.
Merton, R.K.
"The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive
Social Action." Amarlcan Sociological Review. 1936.

161
Morse, N. and Reimer, E. "The Experimental Change of a Major
Organizational Variable." Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology. 1956.
Murphy, G. "Knowns and Unknowns In the Dynamics of Social
Perception." Sherlf, M.A. and Wilson, M.O., eds.
Group Relations at the Crossroads. New York:
Harper. 1953.
Naegle, K..D. "Clergyman, Teachers, and Psychiatrists: A
Study in Roles and Socialization." Canadian Journal of
Economics and Political Science. 1956.
Padke, M.J. and Klisurich, D. "Experiments in Changing Food
Habits." Journal American Diet Association. 1947.
Parker, T.C. "Relationships among measures of supervisory
behavior, group behavior, and situational characteristics."
Personnel Psychology. 1963. vol. 16.
Parsons, Talcott.
Structure and Process in Modern Societies.
Glencoe, 111.: Free Press. 1960.
Parsons, Talcott, et al. Working. Papers in the Theory of
Action. Glencoe, 111.:
Free Press. 1953.
Parsons, Talcott.
"Pattern Variables Revisited."
Sociological Review. 1960.

American

Porter, L.W.
"Job Attitudes in Management:
Perceived
Deficiencies in Need Fulfillment as a Function of Job
Level." Journal of Applied Psychology. (December) 1962.
Presthus, R. The Organizational Society. New York:
House. 1962*

Random

Pugh, D.S, "Modern Organizational Theory: A Psychological
and Sociological Study." Psychological Bulletin 6 6 .
1966.
Roethelsberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. Management and the
Worker. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. 1939.
Roethelsberger, F.J. "The Foreman: Master and Victim of
Double-Talk."
Harvard Business Review. 1945. XXIII.

162
Rogers, E.M.
1962.

Diffusion of Innovations. New York:

Free Press.

Ross, M.G. and Hendry, C.
New Understandings of Leadership.
New York:
Association Press. 1957.
Schneider, L.A.
"A Proposed Conceptual Integration of Group
Dynamics and Group Therapy." Journal of Social Psychology.
1955.
Selznik, P. TVA and the Grass R o o t s .
California Press. 1949.

Berkley:

Simon, H.A.
Administrative Behavior. (2nd e d ) .
Macmillan. 1957.

University of

New York:

Simon, H.A.
"Recent Advances in Organization Theory."
In
Brookings Lectures. Research Frontiers in Politics and
Government.
Washington, D . C . : Brookings.
1955.
Strauss, G. "Some Notes on Power Equalization." Readings in
Organization Theory: A Behavioral Approach. Hill, W.A.
and Egan, D., eds.
Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1966.
Sullivan, H.S.
"Tensions, Interpersonal and International."
Tensions that Cause W a r s . Cantrll, H . , ed. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press. 1950.
Tngiuri, R. "Perceptual Sociometry:
Introduction." The
Sociometrv Reader. Glencoe, 111.:
Free Press. 1960.
Thompson, V.A.
"Hierarchy, Specialization and Organizational
Conflict." Administrative Science Quarterly. 1961. 5.
VanZelst, R.H.
"Sociometrically Selected Work Teams Increase
Productivity." Personnel Psychology. 1952. 5.
Waller, W.

The Sociology of Teaching.

New York: Wiley. 1932.

Wherry, R.J. and Fryer, D.H.
"Buddy*ratings: Popularity
Contest or Leadership Criteria?"
Sociometrv. 1949. 12.
White, R.K. and Lippitt, R.
Harper. 1960.

Autocracy and Democracy.

New York:

163
Wilson, B.R. "The Teacher's Role: A Sociological Analysis."
British Journal of Sociology. 1962. 13.
Zajonc, R.B. and Wolfe, D.M. "Cognitive Consequences of a
Person's Position in a Formal Organization." Tech.
Report No. 23. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Institute for Social Research. Research Center for
Group Dynamics. 1963.

APPEN D I X

APPENDICES

1

.APPENDIX I
TABLE 5

164

MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIOINS FOR GROUPS ON EACH VARIABLE
Motivation
Communication
Leadership
3
2
1
Groups
)ata Set )ata Set Data Set Data Set Data Set Data Set
2
2
1
1
1
2
Subjects with completed data
7.777
7.866
6.046
X
7.227
6.023
5.643
drain.
s 0.603
0.531
N - 17 V - 6
0.444
0.485
0.585
1.013
All subjects with complete
7.866
7.777
6.046
>17)
x 7.227
5.643
6.023
variable scores. N*17 V*5
0.485
0.531
1.013
0.444
s 0.603
0.585
Subjects with completed data
4.150
4.360
4.110
X
5.056
4.093
4.323
Jrad.
s 0.562
N » 29 V - 6
0.711
0.623
0.648
0.563
0.765
4.321
4.162
All subjects with complete
4.360
faculty
x 5.056
4.107
4.093
variable scores. N»29 V*5
fN-29)
s 0.562
0.692
0.563
0.635
0.648
0.739
Subjects with completed data
X
4.407
4.561
3.492
3.299
4.509
3.789
Jndergrad. s 0.583
0.527
0.742
N - 29 V - 6
0.764
0.698
0.595
All subjects with complete
3.299
4.561
3.492
Faculty
x 4.407
4.509
3.789
variable scores. N“29 V*5
0.742
0.764
0.527
0.698
fN-29)
s 0.583
0.595
Subjects with completed data
2.837
2.872
3.017
X
3.198
3.303
3.168
3rad.
s 0.666
N * 25 V - 6
0.654
0.489
0.591
0.503
0.625
All subjects with complete
3.063
3.172
2.789
2.996
Students
x 2.708
2.865
variable scores. N*29 V*5
0.672
0.711
0.620
0.650
0.588
(N*29)
s 0.702
Subjects with completed data
X
2.450
2.546
2.562
2.756
2.496
2.535
N - 25 V - 6
0.624
0.460
0.587
Undergrad, s 0.648
0.607
0.513
All subjects with complete
Students
X 2.406
2.667
2.424
2.494
2.498
2.458
variable scores. N*29 V*5
0.650
0.641
(N*29)
s : 0.663
0.479
0.543
0.623

1

TABLE 5 (confirmed)

Subjects with completed data
N * 17 V - 6
M l subjects with complete
variable scores. N*17 V»5
Subjects with completed data
N * 29 V * 6
All subjects with complete
variable scores. N*29 V-5
Subjects with completed data
N - 29 V - 6
M l subjects with complete
variable scores. N*29 V*5
Subjects with completed data
N - 25 V - 6
All subjects with complete
variable scores. N»29 V»5
Subjects with completed data
N » 25 V - 6
All subjects with complete
variable scores. N * 29 V*5

165

Goal-Setting
Interaction-Infl. Decision-making
6
Groups
4
5
)ata Set Data Set )ata Set Data Set )ata Set Data Set
2
1
1
1
2
2
x 5.252
8.164
5.252
5.949
6.192
8.055
Admin.
s 0.544
0.544
0.712
0.461
0.839
0.551
6.192
5.949
(N-17)
x 5.252
5.252
0.544
0.461
s 0.544
0.551
3.452
X
3.913
4.188
3.668
3.791
3.955
Grad.
s 0.564
0.540
0.922
0.671
0.626
0.898
4.182
3.680
Faculty
x 3.913
3.955
0.540
0.654
(N-29)
a 0.564
0.611
3.932
4.034
4.302
4.099
3.928
X
3.335
0.697
0.851
0.689
0.615
Undergrad, s 0.637
0.525
4.099
3.928
3.335
Faculty
x 3.932
0.689
0.525
0.615
(N-29)
s 0.637
3.907
3.130
X
3.112
3.231
2.891
3.751
1.117
Grad.
s 0.726
0.517
0.767
0.816
0,494
2.980
Students
x 2.962
3.087
2.761
0.604
0.820
0.569
CN-29)
_ s 0.795
2.972
3.398
X
3.029
2.459
3.398
3.079
0.657
0.657
0.621
0.456
Undergrad, s 0.514
0.626
Students
x 2.892
2.938
2.979
2.367
0.670
i(N-29)
s 0.563
0.688
0.535

A P P E N D I X II
Q U E S TIONNAIRES

February, 1970
PROFILE OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
(Administrators' Form)
General information:

1.

This questionnaire is being used to collect data for my dissertation, "The College of
Education at Michigan State University as an Organization: A Survey of the Perceptions
of its Students, Faculty, and Administrators."

2. You have been selected at random from a list of administrators of the College of Educa­
tion at Michigan State University. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated.
3. It is not necessary to sign the questionnaire.
known only to the researcher.

The names of the respondents will be

4. Copies of the study will be available upon request.
5. Please return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible, either to me (Room 409,
Erickson Hall) or Mrs. Jacquelyn Fenn, secretary, located next to Room 410A. If pos­
sible, I would like to have them returned in three days.
Instructions:
1.

On the lines below each item, please place an (n) at the point which, in your exper­
ience, describes the Michigan State University College of Education at the present time
(n*now). Treat each horizontal line as a continuum from the extreme at one end to the
extreme at the other, i.e., do not think of the vertical lines as barriers.

2.

Since each faculty member and student differs one from the other, answer the questions
as describing the average situation or reaction. The terms "faculty member," and "pro­
fessor" are intended to include all persons who teach. "College administrators" as used
here refers primarily to deans, department chairmen, and other academic administrators.

Instructions.— Continued

3.

In responding to items concerning students, use as your frame of reference, those
students to which you are responsible for and come in contact with most frequently.

4.

In completing the questionnaire, it is important that each individual answer each
question as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. There are no right or wrong answers.
The important thing is that you answer each question the way you see things or the way
you feel about them.

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name

1.1

under 30

Ages

30-39

_____ Male

(optional)

40-49

50-59

60+

Female

1.2

Department s_________________________________________

1.3

Ranks

Instructor

Asst. Professor

Assoc. Professor

Professor

1.4

1.5

Tenure:__ ____ Ten u r e d faculty
to tenure rules

A ppoint m e n t not subject

to rules of tenure

To which area do you devote the greater part of your p r o f e s ­
sional time?
T eaching

1.6

Not tenure, but subject

Research

Service

Other

(specify)

Do you give the greater part of your professional time to:
Undergraduate Studies

Graduate Studies

Equal time

1.7

Your highest degree ______________________________________________

1.8

Year degree awarded _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.9

Years employed by Michigan State University __________________

1.10

Is m o st of your work load

on campus

o ff campus

equally divided*

1.11

If you are an administrator, do you also teach?

yes

If yes, which group of students are you primarily r e s p o n ­
sible for?
undergraduates

graduate students

168

both equally

no

Item
No.

Rarely

How often is your behavior seen
as friendly and supportive by:
a.

faculty?

i i i i

b.

students?

L 1. i -I

a.

faculty?

b.

students?

II x

I

I iiii

Practically
1 none
1 1 l 1 1

A slight
| amount
1 1 1 1 1

How much confidence and trust
does your faculty have in you?

Practically
none

A slight
. amount

a.

b.

c.

i

1

non-academic school matters,
such as student behavior,
emotional problems of
students, discipline,
student activities, etc.

1

iiii

1

i i i i i i i

3

i i

i i i i i i i

4

A great
A moderate
deal
amount
1
i
1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1
A moderate
amount

«
| III!

iiii i

.1

2

i i i

i i

1 1

I 1

i i i i. ! i i i i t i l l
. I.J
_L .J ,J_X_l J 1
.1

L±

1

Almost always

Moderately
free
Jot very free Slightly free

academic matters, such as
course content,instructional
plans,teaching methods, thei
work, etc.?

their personal problems?

1
Li _l_i

1— L J L

1 1 1 1

I
1
169

How much confidence and trust
do you have in your faculty?

How free does your faculty feel
to talk to you about:

1 I

Often

Sometimes

i i i i

1 1

Almost always

1 J ,11

i i i i

1 1 1

LI

J

Rarely

How often do you seek to be
friendly and supportive to:

Often

Sometimes

A great
deal

j
i iiil

Very free

iiii

1

i i ill
M

i

l

8

!

9

1
item
No.

2
Sometimes

Rarely

How often do you seek and use
your faculty ideas about;
a.

academic matters?

1 11 i 1 i i i i 1 | 1 1 1

b.

non-academic school matters?

1 1 | 1 L i i i i 1 | i i j
Rarely

How often do you seek and use
students1 ideas about:

Very
frequently

Often

1
_

1 1 1 110

I I I !

11

Sometimes

often

Very
frequently

i i i

1 I III

j

i ii

1 I 111

i

i i i 113

.

a.

academic matters?

1 1 1 1 1 j

b.

non-academic school matters?

|

Practically
none

i

A slight
amount

A moderate
amount

A great
deal

a.

academic matters?

I i i i i 1 j i i i

| 1 1 1

i i i i

14

b.

non-academic school matters?

1 1 I L 1 L i i i i

, * 1 L_

i i i i

15

A moderate
amount

A great
deal

How much say do you think students
should have about:

Practically
none

a.

academic matters?

I i iii

b.

non-academic school matters?

l_J

What is the general attitude of
faculty toward the College of
Education as a place to work?

A slight
amount

1 1 1 1 l

|

1 1 i

L J_L. 1.._1.1 _1-1 - .1 i j .1J
Hate it

I I I *

Sometimes hate Usually
it; sometimes
like it
like it
I
I I I I I I I I I

1 1 1 1

16

1 1 ! 1—

17

Like it
very much
i i i i

18

170

How much say do you think faculty
should have about?

1 1 1 1 i ii

12

1

Item
No.

,Li

a.

academic matters

b.

non-academic school
matters?

■

i

i

Lt

How does the faculty
view communications
from you and the
administration?

1

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

f
I

I

Usually
inaccurate
I i 1 1

i
1

Often
inaccurate 1
1 1 1 1 1

Fairly
accurate
1 I I
L

L _L

b.

among faculty?

■

c.

between adminis­
trators and
ofndante?

l_i.

L

i i i l

i

L

20

Almost always
accepted. If not
openly and candidly questione

£ J

1

21

L- L

Almost always
I accurate
1 1 1 1 1
1

Hell
I-L.l

I

19

22

Very well
J__ 1__ 1__ ! _

23

Moderate in- Extensive,
teraction;
friendly interoften with
action with high
fair amount degree of confidence and trust
of confi­
dence and
trust
I-- 1__ 1__ 1__ 1__ 1__ I
__ 1__ 1__ 1__ 1__ 1 i i— i— i— i

What is the character and
Very little
amount of interaction in
interaction;
your department
usually with
fear and dis­
trust
between adminis­
trators and faculty

1_J

I

I

Not very
Moderately
How well do you know the
well
|
1
well
1
problems faced by your
faculty?
L- i ._ l .-I lJ _ 1 1 L J J J

a.

I

Communications Some accepted, Usually acsome viewed
cepted,someviewed with
times caugreat suspicion with suspi­
tiously
cion.
i i i i I
i -L . 1 1
|
1

Down, up, and
between admin­
istrators ,
faculty,and beween students
i i . i i

171

How accurate is upward
communication?

Down and up

Mostly
downward

What is the direction of
Downward from
the flow of information
administrators
in your department about? to faculty to
student

Little interaction; levels
usually maintain distance
from each
other

I

t

1

l .1 .1---1__ 1 J. J

1

I

1

1

1

! i . 1 . 1 .. i

1

i

J_X

1

l

24

1

25

J- J — l

26

Item
No.

In your department is
it "every man for him­
self" or does the de­
partment chairman,
faculty, and students
work as a team?
At what level are
decisions made about
educational matters,
such as course con­
tent, instructional
plans, teaching
methods, student
activities, etc.?

"Every man
for him­
self"

J

I

_L J - J

J

..L

1— 1

L

I

27

I

L

I

I

I

I

Never in­
volved in de­
cisions re­
lated to their
work;occasionally consulted,

Not at all

1

1

I

I

I

I 1 .L 1 .. ..1. 1 _ 1 _ L

I

Usually con­
sulted but
ordinarily
not involved
in decisions
related to
.their work.

1 1 1 1 1 1

Not very much, Relatively
little
often weakens
it.

I

1 1

Some contri­
bution.

1

t 1

1 1

I I

28

I . L i ___

172

I

1
1 1 1 1
In general, what does
the decision-making
process contribute to
the desire of faculty
and students to do a
good job?

L

A very sub­
stantial
amount of cooperative
team-work

. 1 .1 , 1 — L
Bulk at top by Policy at top; Broad policy
Throughout Coll
administrators specific deci- at top; more
ege of Educ.,
sions by fac- specific deci- administrators,
ulty,but usu- sions at lower faculty, and
students parti­
ally checked by levels,
cipating
in de­
administrators
cisions affectbefore action.
ling them.

I
To what extent are the
faculty involved in
major decisions
related to their
work?

I

A moderate
amount of
cooperative
team-work

Relatively
little coop­
erative team­
work

Fully involved
in decisions
related to
their work.

|

11

|

1 1 1

I

29

Substantial
contribution

1

i. i

J

30

1

Item
No.

Who holds high performance goals
for your department?

Department Department
Department
Chairman
Chairman and Chairman,
only
some faculty most faculty,
and some
I
students

I
Who feels responsible for
achieving high performance
goals for your department?

Department
Chairman,
faculty, and
students
I

I > 1 1 I I I I-L-l I I I- I L I L L

Department Department
Chairman
Chairman
only
and some
faculty
i

I -I -I -L

Department
Chairman,
faculty, and
students

I

I

32
i i i i

i i i i

173

■ i i

Department
Chairman,
most faculty,
and some
students

31

I
PROFILE OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
(Form for Administrators)
Part II
Rarely

How often do you see the
behavior of the Dean of the
College of Education as
friendly and supportive?

J-J

i

i

J, J . 1

How much confidence and trust Practically
do you have in the Dean of
none
the College of Education?
«
1 i 1 i 1

■L J

i i

i

i i i

1 i i

i

i i i

L i—i

i i

1 i i

i i

1

administrative matters
such as budget, hiring
of faculty?

c.

b.

1

1

I

1 34

1 1

|

1 1

L

36

i

i_J

37

L

I-L LI

1- L J - l

.1

i i

i

i .

i

i

I 1 I 1

i

i t .

I

1 1 1_

I 1 1 I _

1 1 1 1_

your Dean of the
College of Education?

1 I 1 L 1

Other administrators
in the College of
Education?

I i i

i

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

i

I -i
i

35

I ..I

I

i i

1

Very free

J I

4 i i

How often do you try to be
friendly and supportive to:
a.

I

)

174

b.

instructional matters,
such as textbook
selection; instruc­
tional policies?

33

A great
deal

How free do you feel to talk Not very free Slightly free Moderately free
to the Dean about:
a.

i

A great
deal

A moderate
amount

A slight
amount

1

i 1

A moderate
amount

A slight
amount

How much confidence and trust Practically
does the Dean of the College
none
of Education have in you?
i

• 11

i

Almost always

Often

Sometimes

I

Item
No.

i

38

Almost always

1-1. 1- I

i i

i i

. L .1 _L _1_1

39

i

i i

ii

I I i i

40

i i

I

Item
No.

Very
Frequently

Often

Sometimes

Rarely
How often are your ideas
sought and used by the
Dean of the College of
Education?
a.

instructional and
curricular matters?

i

i

i

n

b.

administrative
matters?

|

i

i

i

c.

discipline and other
non-academic matters

i

i

i

1

1

What is the direction of
the flow of information ini
the College of Education?

L

1 i

i

i

i

1

i

i

i

i

1

i

1 i

i

i

i

1 i

i

i

i

1

1

I i i

i

i

1 i

i

i

i

1.1

Downward
I

i

i

i

i

I

I .1 J _ J _ ! _ 1 1

1

1

1

How do you view communica-Communications Some accepted, Usually actions from the Dean of
viewed with
some viewed
cepted,somethe College of Education? great suspicion with suspitimes caucion
itiously
I I i
Usually
. inaccurate

J_l
l_i
Often
. inaccurate

I 1 1 1 1
Not very well
I
l _L L 1 1

1 .

,1

How accurate is upward
communication in the
College of Education?
How well does the Dean
know the problems you
face?

i_ j

j

| 41

.

.

,

| 42

1

1

,

| 43

Down, up
and between
peers

Down and Up

Mostly
Downward

.

1

1.1

|

L .. 1 _ 1

| 44

Almost always
accepted.If not,
openly and candidly questioned i

L. J ■ J. L I i i i l J
Almost always
Fairly
accurate
■ accurate
,
|
_I1 1

Moderately
|
well
L J J . 1__

L

1 1
Well

L-L

1

1

1

1

1

Very well

1
1. J . 1 J

l-L

L

45

46

1
1 _ 1 47

What is the character
and amount of interaction among administrators in the
College of Education?

Little interaction;usually
with fear and
distrust

Little inter­
action. Dean,
administrators
usually main­
tain distance
from one
Ianother

Moderate interaction;often
with fair
amount of confidence and
trust

I__ L
In the College of
Education is "every
man for himself" or
does the Dean,
administrators, and
faculty work as a
team?

Relatively
little coop­
erative team­
work

"Every man
for him­
self"

I .J___l _ L J _ 1 1 J . L. L_
Hate it
Sometimes hate
What is your general
it; sometimes
attitude toward the
like it
College of Education
as a place to work?

J_ l
What is the character
of the decision­
making process in
the College of
Education?

L

Decisions made
by top admin­
istrators.
Orders issued

L-l
To what extent are
you involved in
major decisions
related to your work?

I

-I . 1

Not at all

J

I

I

I—

1

I

i

j

A moderate
amount of coop­
erative team­
work

A very sub­
stantial amount of coop­
erative team­
work

1

I .L J . L I J
Like it
very much

t

J

i i
Usually
like it

i

L -l —L

Decisions made
by top admin­
istrators with
some chance for
reactions by
lower levels

Decisions made
at top after
consultation
with appropri­
ate lower
levels

INever
I i I t_
involved

J
I L 1
Usually con­
sulted but
ordinarily
not involved
in decisions
related to my
work

in decisions
related to my
work;occas ionally consulted

Extensive,
friendly interaction with high
degree of confidence and trust
48

49

50
j
I i .i
Lower levels
involved in
decisions affect­
ing them.
Decisions usually
made through con­
sensus
51
1
I I X
Fully involved
in decisions
related to my
work

Item
No.

Decisions
Decisions Decisions made Decisions made
by means of
by Dean after
made by the made by
Dean
Dean with extensive dis- group partici­
pation,usually
cussion with
t
,____
some
opportunity administrators through confor admin- and faculty
sensus
istrators
and faculty
to comment
-L I I i 1 V i
i i i
i I i i i i
i i

How are decisions made in the
College of Education?

Dean, admin­
istrators,
faculty and
students

Dean, admin­
Dean of the Dean and
College of the admin- istrators and
Education
istrators some faculty

Who holds high performance
goals for the College of
Education?

i

i i i

i

j

i

i

Dean, admin­
Dean of the Dean and
College of the admin- istrators
Education
istrators and some
•acuity
^acji]
I I - I -1
j I L
,i i i

Who feels responsible for
seeing that high performance
goals are achieved?

Strong
resistance

How much resistance is there
in the College of Education
to achieving high performance
goals?

i

i

J 1,— L. 1.

Dean, admin­
istrators,
faculty and
students
i i “ I i i

54

55

Moderate Some resistance Little or no
resistance and some coop- resistance and
eration
much coopera-

1 1 1 1 i1 ■1 i1 ,1 ■1 11 11 ,1 ■1 .i ir i

i i—i

56

177

i i i

53

February, 1970
PROFILE OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
(Faculty Form)
Part I
General Information:
1. This questionnaire is being used to collect data for my dissertation, "The College of
Education at Michigan State University as an Organization: A Survey of the Perceptions
of its Students, Faculty, and Administrators."
2. You have been selected at random from the faculty at the College of Education, and your
anticipated cooperation is sincerely appreciated.
The names of the respondents will be

4. Copies of the study will be available upon request.
5. Please return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible, either to me (Room 409,
Erickson Hall) or Mrs. Jacquelyn Fenn, secretary, located next to Room 410A. If pos­
sible, I would like to have them returned in three days.
Instructions:
1.

On the
ience ,
time.
to the

lines below each item, please place an (n) at the point which, in your exper­
describes the College of Education at Michigan State University at the present
(n=now). Treat each horizontal line as a continuum from the extreme at one end
extreme at the other, i.e., do not think of the vertical lines as barriers.

2.

Since each faculty member and student differs one from the other, answer the questions
as describing the average situation or reaction. The term "faculty member" is intended
to include all persons who teach.

3.

In responding to items concerning students, use as your frame of reference, either
graduate or undergraduate student, depending upon which group you devote the greater
part of your professional time.

178

3. It is not necessary to sign the questionnaire.
known only to the researcher.

Instructions.— Continued

4.

In completing the questionnaire it is important that each individual answer each
question as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. There are no right or wrong
answers. The important thing is that you answer each question the way you see things
or the way you feel about them.

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name
1.1

_____ un d e r

Age:

(optional)

30 ______ 30-39 ______ 40-49

_____ Male

50-59

60+

______F emale

1.2

D e p a r t m e n t :___________________________________________

1.3

Rank:

______In s t r u c t o r

Asst.

Professor

Assoc. Professor

______P r o f e s s o r

1.4

Tenure:

______T e n u r e d faculty
______N o t tenure,

b u t subject to tenure

rules

_____ A p p o i n t m e n t not s u b j e c t to rules of tenure

1.5

To w h i c h area do you d e v o t e the g r e a t e r p a r t of y o u r p r o f e s ­
sional time?
_____ T e a c h i n g

1.6

Research

Service

O t h e r (specify)

Do you give the greater part of your professional time to:
Undergraduate Studies

Graduate Studies

Equal time

1.7

Your highest degree_____________________________________________

1.8

Year degree awarded_____________________________________________

1.9

Years employed by Michigan State University__________________

1.10

Is most of your work load

on campus

off campus

equally divided
1.11

If you are an administrator, do you also teach?

yes

If yes, which group of students are you primarily respon­
sible for?
undergraduates

graduate students

180

both equally

no

>w often is your behavior
sen by your students as
riendly and supportive?

>w often do you seek to
i friendly and supportive
> your students?

3v much confidence and
rust do yon have in
our students?

|

i

i

i

Rarely

Sometimes

|

i

i

i

t

i

i

i

i l l

i

_i

l

l

i

I

1

t

1

i

i

1

1

1

l

t

Not interested

1__ J ___ 1___ I___ 1__ i

I

i

i

l

!

l

1 _1

l

i

t

i

l

!

i

1

i

I

l

1

1

l

11

1 1

1_ i ± _ j_ j J

l

l

1

Quite
interested

Slightly
interested

1

1

1

1

i

1 1

I

l

l _ 1

2

l

I

1 . 1

3

l

1

«

1

s

A very
great deal

A consider­
able amount

1

1

A very
great deal

A consider­
able amount
I

l

Almost always

Often

A slight
amount
1

i

Item
No.

Almost always

Often

A slight
amount

Practically none

i

i

System 4

System 3

Sometimes

Practically none

|

;ov such do your students
eel that you are interested
.n their success as students?

System 2

Rarely

|

ow much confidence and
rust do your students
ave in you?

System 1

i

l

l

Very interested

1

l

1

1

1

System 1

w free do your students feel
talk to you about:
a.

b.

p

System 3

System 2

Not free

Slightly free

academic matters, such
as course content,
instructional plans,
teaching methods, their
work, etc.?

i

j

i

System 4

Quite free

i

I

Item
No.

1

Very free

--- >

■J

1 .,!■

1. 1

6

non-academic college
matters, such as
student behavior,

|

activities, etc.?

1

>

1

1

1

. non-academic college
matters?

1

1 1

l l i l

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

l

I

1 1

1

1

1

_J

1 1

1

1

1

I

I

[ . , 1 —L.... ± .....L

1

_

1

1

1

t

1

i

l

1 , L

1

1

1

1

1

1.

.1 .

I

1

1

1

L

1

J

7

I

1

I I I

8

1

I

1

1

9

1 J

Very much

1 1 .

_1

I

1

1

1

1.1

1

1

1

10

A very great deal

A consider­
able amount

l

1

Very frequently

I __1

1

A slight
amount
1

1

Quite a bit

1

t

1

Often

Somewhat

Practically none

1

1

Sometimes

Very little

much say do you think
ents should have about:

>. non-academic college
matters?

1

182

, academic matters?

academic matters?

1

Rarely

>ften do you seek and use
students' ideas about:

nuch do your students
that you are really
ng to help them with
r problems?

1

i

i

i

i

1

11

1

i .. i___ i—

i—

1

12

i

System 1

Item

System 4

System 3

System 2

No.

I

i

>

>

I1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
i

1

t

1

1 J 1 . 1

1

Communications
viewed with
great suspicion

How do students view communi­
cations from:

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 _

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

.1

1

I

Some accepted,
some viewed
with suspicion

I

1

1 ....1

I

13

Like it
very much

I I

1

1

1

1 1 .

1

1*

1

15

Almost always
accurate

Fairly
accurate
1

I

Usually
like it

Often
inaccurate

Usually
inaccurate
1

!

Sometimes dis­
like it, some­
times like it

Dislike it

fliat is the general
attitude of students
:ovard your college?

Sow accurate is information
given to you by your students
concerning class, college, or
personal natters?

<

Fully involved
in decisions
affecting them

Usually con­
sulted, but
ordinarily
not involved
in decisions
affecting
them

Never involved
in decisions
affecting them;
occasionally
consulted

Not at all

o what extent are
tudents involved in
lajor decisions
effecting them?

I

I

1

1

1

1

1

Almost always
accepted. If
not, openly
and candidly
questioned

Usually
accepted,
sometimes
cautiously

a.

you?

I

1

1

1

1

1 _ 1

1

.1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

16

b.

the department
chairman?

1

1

1

[

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

17

the administration?

1.1

1

1

1

1I

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

18

1

I

19

c.

\
How well co you know the
problems faced by your
students in their college
work?

Somewhat

Not well

1

1

1

1

1

1!

1

1

1

Quite well

1

I

1

1

1

1

Very well

I

1

1

1

iat is the character
;d amount of inter:tion in your classes?

i

l

1

low much influence do you
hink students should
iave in decisions concern.ng the subject matter of
:heir courses?
To what extent does having
Influence on decisions
:onceming the subject
tatter of their courses
take students want to
work harder?

System 2

System 3

System 4

Very little
interaction,
usually with
fear and
distrust

Little inter­
action, teacher
usually main­
tains distance
from students

Moderate inter­
action, often
with fair amount
of confidence
and trust

Extensive
friendly
interaction
with high
degree of
confidence
and trust

I

1

1

1

1.1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

l

l

I.

1 20

Very sub­
stantial
amount of
cooperative
teamwork

A moderate
amount of
cooperative
teamwork

22

1 - - I ___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I----- 1----- 1----- 1----- 1

23

1

1,

i_j

1

I I

1 _1

A slight
amount

,1

1

1

1-

1 _1

i..

. I._. 1

1

1

1

L ...J__ 1.

1 ..1

1 . L.

1

1

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

A very great
deal

A very great
deal

A consider­
able amount

1

1

A very great
deal

A consider­
able amount

A slight
amount

J

I I

A consider­
able amount

A slight
amount

Practically none

1. .1 ..i.

1

1

,,l

1 -1

1

21

1

I

Practically none

1

1

Item
No.

I
1

I

Practically none

I.

1

Relatively
little
cooperative
teamwork

"Every man
for himself"

i your classes, is it
svery man for himself"
r do students work
ooperatively as a team?

ow much influence do
tuaents have in deciions concerning the
ubject matter of their
ourses?

System 1

1

1 1

l

1

1

24

How much does the class
decision-making process con­
tribute to the desire of
students to do a good job?

Not very much;
often weakens it

1

1 - 1 ___I___I___I

Relatively
little
I

1

1 1

System 4

System 3

System 2

System 1

Some contribution

1

I

I

1

1

Item
No.

Substantial
contribution

1 - 1 ___ I___ 1___ L J

25

Part II

iw often do you see the
:havior of your dean as
iendly and supportive?

1

System 1

System 2

Rarely

Sometimes

I

I

I

J

)v much confidence and
rust does your dean
ive in you?

I

L

1.

I

I

Practically none

ov often are your ideas
ought and used by your
ean about:

Rarely

I

1

1

1

b.

administrative matters?

1 - 1 . 1

c.

discipline and other
non-academic matters?

l _ l

1

I

I

1

t

L

I

I

J _ l

I

L J

I

J

I

I

J

L

_ i

1_ _ 1 - 1

I_ _ 1 1 - 1

1

1

1

1 1
1 - 1 __ 1 1

L

J

I

I

l _ l

L

I

1 - 1 ___ I
1

I

I

1

J

L

26

1

I

27

L

I

L

|

29

Very frequently

1

1 1

J

A great deal

Often

1

L

L

f

I

I

A great deal

A moderate
amount

Sometimes

1

I

I

Almost always

A moderate
amount

A slight
amount

L

i

t

Often

A slight
amount

L

much confidence and
rust does your departm­
ent chairman have in
ou?

instructional and
curricular matters?

I

Practically none

J

I

Almost always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

>v often do you see the
shavior of your departmt chairman as friendly
id supportive?

a.

1

L

Item
No.

System 4

System 3

1

1____________I_________ 1__________I_________ I--------- 1

3 0

I_ _ I_ _ I_ _ _ I_ _ 1_ _ I_ _ 1- - 1 3 1
1

I

1_ _ I_ _ I_ _ I_ _ 1 3 2

v often are your ideas

System 1

System 2

Rarely

Sometimes

Item
No.

System 4

System 3

Very frequently

Often

ught and used by your
partment chairman about:
a
a.

instructional and
curricular matters?

1

i

t

i

t

b.

administrative matters?

1

i

i

i

i

c.

discipline and other
non-academic matters?

1

i

i

l

i

I

I

1-

i

|

1

l

l

I.

i

i

i

i

i

|

33

|

i

1

1

i

|

i

i

f

I

I

i

i

i

i

1

34

|

|

l

l

i

|

|

i

(

I.

1

i

*

i

1

1

35

A very great deal

A consider­
able amount

A slight
amount

Practically
none

>w much say do you think
iculty members should have
>out:
a.

academic matters?

1

-

'

i

|

1

1

36

b.

non-academic college
natters?

1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- ___ i___ i—

i—

.

1—

1--- 1--- 1
--- L— J --- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1

37

i

b*

non-academic college
matters?

[ow much do you feel that
-our department chairman
.s interested in your
success?

i

i

i

i

i

1

1

4

!

1

187

academic natters?

i

Rarely

ov often are students1 ideas
ought and used by the
dministration about:
a.

i

1

1

1 1

1

1

L

1

Not interested

1

i

Very frequently

Often

Sometimes

.

.

i

.

!

i

|

i

i

1 1

Slightly
interested

L — l--- 1
--- L-a-J--- ___ 1___ 1___ 1___ 1___

1

I _ 1.. 1

l

l

i

1

1

1

I

l

I

1

1

1

Quite
interested

I

Very interested

J_ -J___ 1
___ 1
--- 1___1___ 1--- 1--- 1--- 1

-8System 2

System 1

System 4

System 3

Item

No.

1
1

the administration?

b.

your department
chairman?

1

j _I

i

1

I_

1

I

1_ L . 1

1 1

Usually
accepted.
sometimes
cautiously

Some accepted,
some viewed
with suspicion

J

I

1

L

J

I

I__

X — I

Not very well

-I

I

I

L

Not very well

I

I

I

I

I

L

x

J

L

I

X

L

I

J

1--- 1—

Moderately well
_J

I

I

I

L

X

J

J

41

1.1

I

I

L

J

J

- X . 1.

1

42
43

1----- 1----- L

L

44

X

Very well

J

I

45

L

Very well

Well

L

X

Almost always
accurate

Well

Moderately well
—I

I

Fairly
accurate

Often
inaccurate

Usually
inaccurate

L

I

Almost always
accepted. If
not, openly
and candidly
questioned

__ I . I
--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1 -,l___ L __ 1__ X___ 1-.-J___ 1___ I___ 1

J

How well does your depart­
ment chairman know the
problems you face?

i

V

Sow accurate is upward
tosaunication?

How well does your dean
know the problems you face?

i

Cosmtunications
viewed with
great suspicion

ow do you view communications
rom:

a.

i.i

Like it
very much

Usually
like it

Sometimes dis­
like it. some­
times like it

Dislike it

hat is the general attitude
f faculty members toward your
ollege as a place to work?

L

J

J

I

L

J

46

-9System 2

System 1

System 4

System ‘3

No.
Very little
interaction,
usually with
fear and
distrust

lat is the character and
aount of interaction
l your college between
>u and:

a.

the administration

j _ i

j

b.

your department
chairman

\

i___ |___ L

I

i

I

i

1_

I

J

1

i

i

i

1

l

J

l

l

l

l

1

....

1

Very little
I

i

i

i

i

i_ _ |_ _ L

,1 „J___ I

1

1 , 1 _ _ I_ _ I_ _ I_ _ I_ _ I_ _ I_ _ _ L —

i

i

l

l

1

1

1 . 1 1

I

i. i

1

1.1

Somewhat

1

l

1

l

I

1

I

i

i

i

i

l

1-

l

1

A very sub­
stantial
amount of
cooperative
teamwork
I

l

l

l

l

!

Very much

Quite a bit
i

Extensive,
friendly
interaction
with high
degree of
confidence
and trust

A moderate
amount of
cooperative
teamwork

l.l

J 47

i___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ L
Moderate inter­
action, often
with fair amount
of confidence
and trust

Relatively
little
cooperative
teamwork

"Every man
for himself"

[n your college is it "every
aan for himself" or do depart­
ment chairmen, other faculty
tembers and students work as
i team?

i

Extensive,
friendly
interaction
with high
degree of
confidence
and trust

Moderate inter­
action, often
with fair amount
of confidence
and trust

Little inter­
action,pro­
fessors usually
maintain dis­
tance from one
another

Very little
interaction,
usually with
fear and
distrust

hat is the character and
mount of interaction in
our college among faculty
.embers?

How much dees your department
chaimar. really try to help
you with your problems?

i

Little inter­
action, usually
maintain dis­
tance from one
another

I.

i .i

i

i

1 51

1

i

1

i general, how much does
le decision-making process
sntribute to the desire of
tudents to do a good job?

i

i

i

j

i

i

i

i

I

t

1

1

i

f

i

1

I

Not very much,
often weakens
it

l

I

i

1

!

i

l.

i

i

Relatively little

Decisions made
by dean after
extensive
discussion with
department chair­
man and faculty
i

i

i

i

l

1

I

l

i

l

l

1

Decisions made by
means of group
participation,
usually through
consensus

1

I

i

i

I
1 52

1 1

i

(

i

1

I

53

Substantial
contribution

Some
contribution

1

Item
No.

Fully involved
in decisions
related to my
work

Usually con­
sulted, but
ordinarily
not involved
in decisions
related to
my work

Relatively little

Not very much,
often weakens
it

I

t

Never involved
in decisions
related to my
work; ocasionally consulted

Not at all

what extent are you
volved in major decions related to your
rk?

i general, how much does
le decision-making process
mtribute to the desire of
iculty members to do a good
)b?

Decisions made by
dean with some
opportunity for
department chair­
man and faculty to
comment

Decisions mad$
by dean

# are decisions made
your college?

System 4

System 3

System 2

System 1

i.l

Some
contribution

1___ 1___ 1__ J ____ 1___ J___ i___ i___ i___ i___ L -J___ 1___1___ 1___L

I

i

I . lI

i

54

Substantial
contribution

t

i

l

l

J

55

1

1_ . 1

1

1

1

1

L I

1

1

]

]

1 -1

1

Strong
resistance

J--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1—

1

1

1

1

Moderate
resistance

1—

1—

1—

1

1

1

1

1

Administration,
department chair­
men, most other
faculty members,
some students
i

1

1

1

L

Some resis­
tance and
some coop­
eration

1—

Item
No.

Administration,
department
chairmen, other
faculty members,
students

Administration,
department chair­
men, roost other
faculty members,
some students

I -- 1

Administration,
department chair­
men and some other
faculty members

Administration
only

0 feels responsible for
hieving high performance
als?

>v much resistance is
tere to achieving high
irformance goals in
tur college?

Administration,
department chair­
men and some other
faculty members

Administration
only

to holds high performance
ils for your college?

System 4

System 3

System 2

System 1

L — 1_ _ 1_ _ 1_ _ 1_ _ L

1

56

1

57

™J--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1

58

|

1

l

1

Administration,
department
chairmen, other
faculty members,
students
1

1

1

1

Little or
no resis­
tance and
ouch coop­
eration

If no one expects a high level of performance, place a check mark here ___ and skip items 56, 57 and 58.

February, 1970
PROFILE OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
(College Student Form)
General Information:
1.

This questionnaire is being used to collect data for my disseration, "The College of
Education at Michigan State University as an Organization: A Survey of the Perceptions
of its Students, Faculty, and Administrators."

2.

You have been selected at random from (undergraduate/graduate) list of students major­
ing in Education in the College of Education, and your cooperation is sincerely
appreciated.

3.

It is not necessary to sign the questionnaire.
known only to the researcher.

4.

Copies of the study will be available upon request.

5.

Please return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible, either to me (Room 409,
Erickson Hall) or Mrs. Jacquelyn Fenn, secretary, located next to Room 410A. If pos­
sible, I would like to have them returned in three days.

The names of the respondents will be

Instructions:
1.

On the
ience,
time.
end to

lines below each item, please place an (n) at the point which, in your exper­
describes the College of Education at Michigan State University at the present
(n=now). Treat each horizontal line as a continuum from the extreme at one
the extreme at t tie other, i.e., do not think of the vertical lines as barriers.

2.

Since each faculty member and student differs one from the other, answer the questions
as describing the average situation or reaction. The terms "faculty member" and
"professor" are intended to include all persons who teach; the term "college adminis­
trators" as used here refers primarily to deans, department chairmen, and other
academic administrators.

Instructions.— Continued
In completing the questionnaire it is important that each individual answer each
question as thoughfully and frankly as possible. There are not right or wrong
answers. The important thing is that you answer each question the way you see
things or the way you feel about them.

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Name

(optional)

1.1

Age: _____under 25 ______26-30 _____ 31-35______ over 35

1.2

Sex: _____Male___________ Female

1.3

Graduate Student

Undergraduate Student

1.4

Major Department______________________________________________

1.5

Are you a full time student? _____ yes

1.6

Are you employed by Michigan State University? _____ yes

no
no

If yes, in what capacity?_________________________________________
1.7

Where have you taken most of the course work on your present
program?
_____ on campus _____ off campus
Which degree are you presently working for?_____________________

1.8

In what year did you begin your program?________________________

1.9

In what year do you hope to receive your degree?________________

194

System 1

System 3

System 4

1___ t _ -1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1-- J--- L __ \___ i___ i__ i_.

j

i . i--- j ---1

Almost always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

w often do you try to be
iendly and supportive to:

Item
Ko.

Almost always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

j often is the behavior

faculty members friendly
d supportive?

System 2

a.

other students?

1

1

1

J

1

1

i

i

i

i

1

i

l

1

1

1

i

i

i

i

i

b.

faculty members?

1

,

,

,

.

i

l

i

i

i

1

i

1

l

1

1

i

>

.

i

]
1

c.

the administration?

1

,

i

i

l l

1

i

1

1

1

1

!

i ...1.

i the average, hov much
> you feel that your
rofessors are interested
i your success as a
:udent?

the average, how much do
du feel that other students
re interested in your
uccess as a student?

ov well do your professors
now the problems you face

i

l

Not interested

|

,

|

i

|

I

|

i

i

i

|

I

|

I ,_l__ 1 . l — l

Not well

i

i i _

1

i

I.l

I _ l

l . i.l.

i

l

l

Quite
interested
1

i

1.

l

J ____ i .

Somewhat

1.

1

.. I„

i

1

i

<

i

i

l

l

l 1

l

3

1

1

.

1

Very interested

1

i

Quite well

I

A

Very interested

Quite
interep* id

Slightly
interested
1

l_

i _ JJ

Very interested

Quite
interested

Slightly
interested

Not interested

1

i

Slightly
interested

Not interested

i

dv much do you feel that
he college administrators
re interested in your
uccess as a student?

t

3

l

l

l

l

i

J

Very well

i

I

i

i

i

8

-2-

tow well do the college admin*
Lstrators know the problems
rou face in your course work?

i

i

b.

System 2

System 3

System 4

Not well

Somewhat

Quite well

Very well

i

i

)

1

i

Rarely

low often do your professors
ask for and use your ideas
about:
a.

System 1

1

I

I

l

j

1

i

non-academic school
matters, such as
discipline and
student activities?

i

I

l

J

l

1

1

1

1

1

J

i__ i

i

J

1

1

1.1

1

l

b.

non-academic college
matters?

J___ 1___ 1___ 1___J__ l._ i

-J

1

l

1

l

L. ™ L

I

. I,.__ i

1_ 1

.J . i_

I

1

I. I

1_ 1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

J 11

A consider­
able amount

l

1

Very frequently

Often

1

1

i

_1

1

academic matters?

t

1 1

l

l

a.

i

1

j

A slight amount

Practically none

1

I

Sometimes

academic matters, such
as course content,
subjects to be studied,
books?

How much say do the professors,
on the average, think students
should have in what goes on in
your college as to:

i

Item
No.

10

j

A very great deal

I

1

1

I

I..

I . l)

. 1

1

1

1

1-

1

12

-3System 4

System 3

System 2

System 1

Item

No.

a.

academic matters?

I__ L

b.

non-academic college
matters?

I

ov much say does the admini­
stration think students
hould have in what goes on
n your college as to:
a.

academic matters

b.

non-academic college
matters?

low much say do students, on
:he average, think they should
lave in what goes on in your
:ollege as to:
a.

academic matters?

b.

non-academic college
matters?

■

,1 . J
i

J

I

L

I

L
J

I

I

L

I

I

I

L

I

I

J _ l

I

I

J

I

L

I

I

L

I

I

L

1

l -1

L

I

L

J

I

L

A considerable amount

J

J

I

I

L

I

14

J

15

A very great deal

16

L

17

A considerable amount

A slight amount

Practically none

J

I

A slight amount

Practically none

J

I

Very frequently

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

)v often does the administraLon ask for and use your ideas
bout:

A very great deal

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I 18

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

19

-4-

How much say do you think
student should have in
what goes on in your
college as to:

Practically none

a.

academic matters?

1 ,.L. .1 ,.J.

b.

non-academic college
matters?

I . l

In general, how much
confidence and trust do
your professors have in you?

How much confidence and
trust do the college
administrators have in
you?

How much confidence and
trust do you have in
your professors?

l

I . l

1

I

1

I.l.

I _L. ..J--- L_

1

1

1

1

1

1

I . l

1

1

1

1

I . L

1

1

l

l

I

l

i

l

l

l

l

1

1

1

1

1 . l

1. _ 1

1

1

1

1

! _ 1

1

.j

1

1

l

1

.

l

l

l

l

.

.

1

l

l

l

l

.

.

1

.1

1

1

21

1.1

1

1

1

1

1

I

1. 1

I 23
1

A very great deal

1

I

1

1

1

1 24

A very great deal

A consider­
able amount

L .J

J 20

l

A very great deal

A consider­
able amount

I.l

-j___ L _ a

l

A consider­
able amount

A slight amount

1

l

l

A very great deal

A consider­
able amount

A slight amount

Practically none

1 , J__ L

I

l

A slight amount

Practically none

1

1

Item
No.

A very great deal

l

A slight amount

Practically none

1

A considerable amount

A slight amount

Practically none

1

How much confidence and
trust do you have in
the administration?

_ i l

System 4

System 3

1

i

i

i .. j___ 1

flfiT

System 2

System 1

System 2

System 1

a.

b.

Slightly free

Not free

low free do you feel to
:alk to your professors
ibout:

System 3

System 4

Quite free

Very free

problems associated
with your work?

|

1

1

l

l

1

1

1

1

1

1

i.l

non-academic college
matters?

|

i

i

I

1

1

1

l

l

t

1

I

Usually
inaccurate
|

i

i

i

1

the administration?

1

i

b.

your professors?

1

1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1_

Kov much discussion do you
have with your professors
about college and other
matters?

i

l

Very little
discussion;
usually with
fear and
distrust

i

f_

l

t

i ...1

J

11

1

1

1

I . 1 26

l

1

1

1

1

1

1 . 1 27

Almost always
accurate

i

1

l

l

i

J

I

1

.1 . J___I

Little discusion; distance
usually maintained

l

l

1„... 1

l
.!

l

t

1

1

J 28

Almost always
accepted. If
not, openly
and candidly
questioned

Usually
accepted;
sometimes
cautiously

1

l

199

a.

i

i

Some accepted;
some viewed
with suspicion

Communicat ions
viewed with
great suspicion

How do you view communi­
cations from:

l

1__

Fairly
accurate

Often
inaccurate
l

1

1

dow accurate is the infor3ation you give to your
professors concerning class
Dr college matters?

i

Item
No.

| 29

:

1

1

1

1

1

J_

.1

1

I

t

J _

Moderate discusion; often with
fair amount of
confidence and
trust

Extensive,
friendly
discussion
with high
degree of
confidence
and trust

J 30

•6“

1

low much influence do you
lave in decisions coneera­
ng the subject matter of
rour courses?

To what extent does having
influence on decisions
concerning the subject
satter of your courses
sake you want to work
harder?
(If you have no say, put
a check mark here
)

i

i

1

__

1

i

|

i

i

i _ 1

Practically none

1

1

i i

1 __ 1

Practically none

L

i.

i .i___i_

1 __ I

1

l

Some

Practically none

|

1

l

1

l

1

I

1

1

i

1

l

l

1

l

1I

A consider­
able amount

1

A slight amount

1

1

1

1

I _l!

A consider­
able amount

1 1

l

I

1
I 32

A very great deal

A consider­
able amount

Some

1 _ 1

1

i

1 1

i

A very great deal

i

i

i

i

1
i 33
200

■low much influence do you
:hink students should have
Ln decisions concerning
the subject matter of their
:ourses?

i

Item
No.

Fully involved
in decisions
affecting me

Usually con­
sulted, but
ordinarily
not involved
in decisions
affecting me

Never involved
in decisions
affecting me;
occasionally
consulted

Not at all

o what e x te n t are you
nvolved in major deciions affecting you?

System 4

System 3

System 2

System 1

I
1 34

A very great deal

I I 1 L . J __.i___ 1___ 1--- 1___ I
1 35

System 1

"Every man
for himself"

your course work, is it
very man for himself" or
students and professors
rk cooperatively as a team?

J

I

i

i

1

1

1

i

A moderate
amount of
cooperative
teamwork

L

1- . 1 „ . I

X

J

1

1. .J

1.

L

-J

1

I

1

l

l

Quite a bit
l

l

The administra­
tion, department
chairmen and some
professors

1

kIf no one expects a high level of performance, place a check mark here

1

I

L

J 36

i

I »

Like it
very much

l_i
Somewhat

Item
No.

A very substan­
tial amount of
cooperative
teamwork

Usually
like It

i_i

The administration

Who holds high performance
oals for your college?

Relatively
little
cooperative
teamwork

Sometimes dis­
like it, some­
times like it

Very little
1

System 3

I

L

Dislike it

iv do you feel toward
>ur college?

ow much do your professors
sally try to help you with
our problems?

I

System 4

System 2

i

i

Very much

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
The administra­
tion, department
chairmen, most
professors, some
students

_ I _

J

The administra­
tion, department
chairmen, pro­
fessors, students

i . i . i i_ L 1 1 1 . L . J
and skip items 39, 40 and 41.

-8-

> feels responsible for
ileving high performance
sis?

The administration

J I 1 1 1 L
v much resistance is there
achieving high performance
als?

i

1

l

I

I

i l l !
Some resis­
tance and
some coop­
eration

Moderate
resistance

L

J

I

I

I

I

J

L

.1

Item
Mo.

The administra­
tlon, department
chairmen, pro­
fessors, students

I

I

I

I

I 40

L

J 41

Little or no
resistance
and much
cooperation

J

I

I

202

I

i

System 4

The administration, department
chairmen, most
professors, some
students

The administrationt department
chairmen and some
professors

Strong
resistance

J

System 3

System 2

System 1