INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
die most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quelity is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparentiy lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Pags(t)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s| or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image of the paga in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equai sections with a smaii overlap, if necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title , author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zaab Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48100

I

I

74-27,480
SCHUG, Victor Lewis, 1942A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR
OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH USE OF THE LBDQ.

Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974
Education, administration
University M icrofilm s, A XEROX C om pany, A nn A rbor, M ichigan

©

1974

VICTOR LEWIS SCHUG

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR
OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH USE
OF THE LBDQ
By
Victor Lewis Schug

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1974

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR
OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH USE
OF THE LBDQ
By
Victor Lewis Schug
Purpose
It was the writer's purpose in this study to
investigate the perceptions of leadership behavior of
the superintendent of schools as seen by the superin­
tendent, principals, teachers and board members through
the use of the LBDQ.

Further it was attempted in this

study to determine whether these perceptions of leader­
ship by the various groups involved changed as the size
of the school districts increased.

Observation visi­

tations were used to determine if in certain districts
the responses to the LBDQ were reflected by the leader­
ship behavior of the superintendents.

It was hoped that

through the findings of this study a better perception
of the performance of the superintendent and his duties
by the various groups may be developed.

Victor Lewis Schug
Procedure
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBDQ - XII) was selected as the main research tool for
this study.

To reduce the number of subscales used a

pilot study was conducted.

Results of the pilot study

established that the four subscales of Persuasiveness,
Tolerance of Freedom, Production Emphasis, and Predictive
Accuracy were appropriate for use in this study.

These

four subscales also produced a shortened thirty-five item
questionnaire.
Twenty-one superintendents accepted the invitation
to participate in the study representing ten large (10,000
students or more) districts and eleven small (under 3,000
students) districts.

Each supplied three names for each

category of people to be contacted for a total of ten
people from each district.
Through the cooperation of several professional
organizations and respondents, a return of 94 per cent
was realized from the 209 questionnaires solicited.
Findings
1,

Analysis of the leadership dimensions with respect
to school district size involved investigating
only the variable of Persuasiveness which pro­
duced statistical significance.

Further investi­

gation indicated that superintendents in large

Victor Lewis Schug
districts were perceived to be more persuasive
than the superintendents of small districts.
Multivariate analysis of the leadership dimensions
with respect to group position in the school dis­
trict indicated statistical significance only for
the variable of Production Emphasis.

When Scheff&

post hoc comparisons did not yield significant
difference, a t test of mean comparison was com­
puted which suggested that the significance
existed between board member - principal mean
scores, and board member - teacher mean scores.
In each case the board members' scores were higher
than the comparison groups.
With the exception of Tolerance of Freedom board
member mean scores were higher than the other
respondent groups for the variables.

On Tolerance

of Freedom the board members had the lowest scores.
Group respondents from small districts generally
had lower mean scores than their large district
counterparts.
Observation visitations reinforced the LBDQ sub­
scale data suggesting that large district superin­
tendents are more persuasive than small district
superintendents.

Victor Lewis Schug
6.

Based on observations large district superintendents
worked with a greater intensity in areas of abstract
decisions which affect their districts than did
the small district superintendents.

7.

Field observations led the researcher to conclude
that the large district superintendent behavior
was different than the small district superin­
tendent.

Further, it would be difficult if not

impossible to isolate these differences with use
of a situational instrument such as the LBDQ.
Conclusions
The empirical and subjective information collected
in this study support the need for additional exploration
of the role and position of the school superintendent,
not as a theoretical construct but the way by which
these people perceive themselves ana how others perceive
them.

Further studies are needed to inquire into the

school organization as a functioning and ongoing process.

DEDICATION

To my wife, Susan, and the sunshine of our lives
our daughter, Jennifer, who without their counsel and
encouragement this research would have been infinitely
more difficult.

You have made the greatest sacrifices.

To the salient teachers of my life:
Carrie, Aunt Mary and Uncle Harold.

My mother

Their encouragement

love, understanding and financial support can never be
repaid.

Each person should be so fortunate to have

people like this to give moral support to goals and
achievements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer during his program has been indebted
to many people and while many individuals will be
identified here I would be remiss not to mention that
time and space limits recognizing many more.
Keith and Margret Stoner, parents who have
endured through the long and trying period being sup­
portive and understanding.
To Dr. Samuel A. Moore II, with a deep gratitude
I recognize the guidance, support, encouragement, and
pushes he has given me during this project.

His quick

wit, counsel, and intellectual stimulation has made a
very drffrcult task easrer and more uiecmingful.
Thanks are extended to Dr. Frederick R. Ignato­
vich, whose insight and cooperation have been invaluable
to me.

Additionally, appreciation is extended to Dr.

Perry Lanier and Dr. James McKee for serving on my
doctoral committee.

Special appreciation is extended

to Dr. James Snoddy for his cooperation at a critical
stage of the program.

iii

Without the help of Dr. Norman Weinheimer, MSBA
and Dr. Donald Currie, MASA this study could not have been
as successful as it was.

Thank you.

Dr. C. Robert Muth must be credited for the many
educational experiences that he provided to me during this
year of work with Middle Cities Education Association and
Michigan School Business Officials and the flexibility
to enable the writer to complete his work.
This study could not have been completed without
the "super" cooperation extended by the twenty-one super­
intendents and the members of their staffs who participated
in the research.

I am also deeply indebted to the four

superintendents who gave so generously of their time
during visits to the districts that they administer.
Mrs. Lorraine Hull, Mrs. Karen Hearin, and Miss
Mary Guile have given frequently of their time to provide
support that I will never forget.
To Paul S. Wo11am for providing me with my first
experience as a school administrator and the insights
that go with it.
To Dr. David C. Smith for his encouragement during
the early stage of my studies and his interest in my
progress.
It has been my good fortune to have close friends
who have shared my study, listened and become involved,

iv

particularly Bill and Sue Binning, Durrell and Marsha
McKenzie, Dale and Dianne McKenzie, and W. Craig Misner.
Formal education has provided me with teachers
that have promoted insight and questions to answer and
goals to reach for.

Namelys

Edith French, William Timm

Sr., Don Allen, Dr. Gil Mazer, Dr. Roland Strolle, Dr.
Larry Schlack, Dr. Paul Misner, Dr. Ernest Melby, Dr.
Richard Featherstone, and Dr. Avery Craven.

Each of you

has had an effect on this study.
As one student drawing on the strengths of other
students or "misery loves company," my fellow students
have done both for me, their critical thoughts have been
invaluable to me.

Appreciation is extended to:

Dr. Peter

Murk, Dr. John Fallon, Dr. Larry Ditto, Dr. Wally Piper,
Dave Morton, Dave Blomquist, Ray Keech, Bill Kiefer,
Bill Vescolani, and the other members of the bull pen.
Good luck to you all!
Lastly, to Mrs. Virginia Wiseman, who serves so
many students with quiet efficiency that is taken for
granted.

An extension of gratitude and thanks.
These people have taken the farmboy from

Edwards Corners through many happy and successful
experiences.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

Page

THE P R O B L E M ...................................

1

Introduction.
. . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem...................
Need for the Study.........................
Purpose of the S t u d y ......................
Definition of T e r m s ......................
Limitations of the Study...................
The Hypotheses
................
S u m m a r y ..................................

1
13
15
18
19
21
22
27

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

.

28

Introduction...............................
Historical Perspective ...................
The Evolving Michigan Superintendent.
.
Related Research .........................
S u m m a r y ..................................

28
29
39
43
52

METHODS AND P R O C E D U R E S ......................

54

introduction...............................
Instrument Used in This Research . . . .
Pilot S t u d y ...............................
Districts Selected.........................
Subscale Means, Standard Deviations and
R e l i a b i l i t y ..................
Analysis of D a t a .........................
Stage II - Observations...................
S u m m a r y ..................................

54
54
58
59

ANALYSES AND PRESENTATION OF DATA............
Introduction...............................
Interaction Between District Size and
Position . . . . .
School District S i z e ......................
Position in School District................

62
62
62
66
68
68
69
70
71

Chapter

Page
Means and Standard De v i a t i o n s.............
Mean Comparisons for Hypotheses
Acceptance...............................
S u m m a r y ..................................

73
73
91

V. STAGE II - OBSERVATIONS.......................

95

Introduction...............................
95
Demographic Information ...................
96
96
Small District Visits......................
Subscale Relationship......................
98
Large District Visits......................... 100
Subscale Relationship......................... 101
S u m m a r y ...................................... 102
VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN­
DATIONS.....................................

105

S u m m a r y ...................................... 105
Purpose of the S t u d y ......................
Limitations of the Study...................
Review of the Literature...................
Design of the S t u d y ......................

105
106
107
107

F i n d i n g s ...................................... 109
C onclusions................................... Ill
Recommendations................................ 112
APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Contact Letter Sent to Superintendents .

B.

Second Letter to Superintendents .............

C.

Letters to Board Members.......................... 117

D.

Letter to Principals and Teachers.................118

E.

LBDQ Forms:
Superintendents, Board Members,
Principals, Teachers
......................

119

Respondent Comments

131

F.

.

.

..........................

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................

vii

115
116

148

LIST OP TABLES
Table
3.1.
3.2.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.

4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
4.8.
4.9.

4.10.

Page
Means and standard deviations of LBDQ sub­
scales ..................................

63

Reliability coefficients (modified KucerRichardson) of LBDQ subscales. . . .

65

Multivariate analysis of group position—
school district s i z e ...........
Multivariate analysis of leadership
dimensions-— school district size

69

. . .

70

Multivariate analysis of leadership
dimensions— group position in the
school district .........................

71

Scheff£ post-hoc comparison for Production
E m p h a s i s ...............................

72

Means and standard deviations for total
s t u d y ...............................

74

Large district means and standard
deviations...............................

75

Small district means and standard
deviations...............................

76

Superintendent-Board mean comparison on the
dependent variable of Persuasiveness .

80

Large district-small district board mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Tolerance of Freedom ...................

81

Large district superintendent-board mean
comparison on the dependent variable
of Predictive Accuracy...................

81

viii

Large district superintendent-board mean
comparison on the dependent variable
of Production Emphasis ................

82

Large district-small district principal
mean comparisons on the dependent
variable of Persuasiveness............

83

Large district-small district principal mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Tolerance of Freedom...................

84

Large district-small district principal mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Predictive Accuracy ......................

84

Large district superintendent-principal mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Production Emphasis ......................

85

Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Persuasiveness............................

86

Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Tolerance of Freedom......................

87

Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Predictive Accuracy ......................

87

Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of
Production Emphasis ......................

88

Large district-small district superinten­
dents' comparison on the dependent
variables ...............................

89

Large district-small district board members'
comparison on the dependent variables .

90

Large district-small district principalscomparison on the dependent variables .

90

Large district-small district teachers'
comparison on the dependent variables .

91

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
3.

Page
Profile of dependent variable means for
total population study ...................

77

Profile of dependent variable means for
large d i s t r i c t s .........................

78

Profile of dependent variable means for
small d i s t r i c t s .........................

79

x

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In some communities the conditions needed for
educational leadership have been weakened through the
pursuit of factional interests by elements of the con­
stituency.

In these cases the superintendency of schools

has become a virtually uninhabitable position as reflected
in the recent assassination of the Oakland, California
superintendent of schools.^*

Paul B. Salmon, Executive

Secretary of the American Association of School Adminis­
trators, in response to this condition has indicated:
Each school administrator in the nation, particu­
larly the chief executive, must be assured by the
appropriate agency in their community that their
lives and the lives of their families will be
protected from physical harm. Unless this is
done, it will be virtually impossible to continue
to attract high caliber professionals to such
positions.2

1"Threat of Violence Increases for School Admin­
istrators," The School Administrator (December, 1973), p. 2.
2Ibid.

1

2
The demise of leadership may signify victory for
forces incapable of, or disinterested in considering the
best interests of the community as a whole.

The immediate

and most visible victim of this process is the superinten­
dent.

And eventually it is all the people involved in

the process of education who are victimized by the loss
of leadership.
The superintendency is one of the more crucial
and difficult public positions in American society today.
"He is placed in the almost constant position of ordering
actions which someone or some group does not agree with."

3

The occupant of this position more than any other single
person influences the shape of the local public education.
He has a principal role in determining what will become
of the young people of the community, and through them
what will be the future of the community and the nation.
rn ^

^

^

a^

^

^44

^

^

n

^

^

a

a*

XO

n

«a

GLkl

a

m

ta a

.a a

u

1. ^

j

X i l l l C X C l l CXJf

M

-

i?

X i i l W

^

U

l

(

U

and complex position which is further complicated by
changes taking place in American society.

Among these

changes are the financial plight of schools, the right of
all public school employees other than the superintendent
to negotiate, the quest for equal opportunity, a striving
for student rights, technological progress, and the
expansion of knowledge and of its impact on life.

3Ibid.

3
If the superintendent is to be successful in his
position the attitude of the community toward him must
be one of understanding.

The community, the professional

staff, the school board, the taxpayers, and the parents
with the help of the superintendent need to know where they
are going, and the goals they are working toward.

A com­

munity which does not understand, desire, nor support
effective leadership is unlikely to find it.
The present climate in the United States prompted
the National Education Association to develop a position
paper in which it listed tasks which were necessary to
the fulfillment of the superintendent's role.
1.

Consideration of the instructional program of
the schools.
2. Management of the schools.
3. School budgeting.
4. Re-examination of where the school is going.
5. Art of human relations.
6. Leader in teamwork and general agreement.
In short, the superintendent is teacher,
politician, pniiosopner, student of life, public
relations counselor, and businessman. All these
aspects are involved in his central role of
leadership.4
For the superintendent as for the teacher, the
goal of his work is the constant pursuit of the best
possible education for every student.

He is stimulated

by needed concern with school policies, budgets and con­
flicting community opinions and interests.
4

He takes

"The Unique Role of the Superintendent of
Schools," The Educational Policies Commission, National
Education Association and American Association of School
Administrators, 1965.

4
satisfaction in helping to educate the public to the
needs of education.

The superintendent's position affords

him the constant opportunity to learn about people, about
the community, and about the curriculum of the school.
He usually is charged to bring about "esprit de corps"
among the professional staff, the parents, and the stu­
dents.

This esprit contributes to the quality of edu­

cation and the superintendent the support of his con­
stituency.

More than anything else the superintendency

offers to contribute to the public welfare.
The superintendent should possess unique personal
attributes so that he may function effectively in a com­
munity.

With this in mind the Council for Administrative

Leadership (CAL) suggested the following list to be of
merit:
1.

2.

3.

4.

Ability to lead.
Can he get a job done through people?
Does he present well-developed plans to
the board and the faculty?
Does he build good human relations with his
associates?
Ability to perform.
Does the candidate finish each job that he
starts?
Does he know his job?
Ability to bring about desired changes.
Can the candidate bring about changes
without revolution?
Are conditions worse after the change than
before?
Ability to demonstrate inner security.
Can reasonable people disagree with the super­
intendent?
Does he give evidence that another man's selfrespect is as important as his own?

5
5.
6.

Ability to live with uncertainty.
Can the superintendent work under pressure?
Ability to conceptualize.
Can the candidate see the whole picture?
[toes he see the great purpose of education in
the modern world?5
Griffiths attempts to conceptualize administration

further by drawing from the Tridimensional Concept of
Livingston and Davies, and the Three-Skill Concept of
Katz.

The procedure for analyzing the superintendent's

position is to divide the functions into the four cate­
gories and to discuss the three levels of skill required
in each category.

The following is based upon this

approach:
Improving educational opportunity-

Conceptual Skillv
Human Skill
J)
Technical Ski1 1^

Obtaining and developing personnel

Conceptual Skillv
Human Skill
t)
Technical Skill^

nexatmg to tne community

Conceptual SkillN
Human Skill
j)
Technical S k i l l ^

Providing and maintaining
funds and facilities^

Conceptual Skill\
Human Skill
Technical Skill <

Criteria and Procedures Suggested for Use in
Selecting a Chief School Administrator, Albany, New York,
Council for Administrative Leadership, 1961.
^Daniel E. Griffiths, The School Superintendent
{New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education,
Inc., 1966), pp. 70-80.

6
Lazarsfeld also discusses the tasks of the admin­
istrator.

He states that there are four tasks which vary

little from organization to organization:
1.
2.

3.

4.

The administrator must fulfill the goals of the
organization.
The administrator must make use of other people
in fulfilling these goals, not as if they were
machines, but rather in such a way as to release
their initiative and creativity.
The administrator must also face the humanitarian
aspects of his job. He wants people who work
for him to be happy. This is morale--the idea
that under suitable conditions people will do
better work than they will under unsuitable con­
ditions.
The administrator must try to build into his
organization provisions for innovation, for change,
and for development.
In a changing world people
and organizations must adjust to changing con­
ditions. The conditions for change must be
incorporated into the organization so that
there may be a steady process of development
rather than a series of sudden, disruptive
innovations.7
What the "ideal" superintendent should be seems

to evince appreciable agreement among the writers.

How­

ever, while it is an easy matter to typify the ideal
superintendent it is yet another matter to recognize
what is the actual role that the superintendent portrays.
Three commonly held views regarding school administration
are articulated as follows:
1.

There is first the view that administration is
indistinguishable from teaching and scholarship;
the administrator is the statesman, teacher, or

7Paul F. Lazarsfeld, "The Social Sciences and
Administration: A Rationale," in The Social Sciences and
Educational Administration, ed. by Laurence W. Downey and
Frederick Fnns (Edmonton, Canada: The Division of Edu­
cational Administration, The University of Alberta, 1963),
pp. 3-4.

7

2.
3.

scholar who carries the administrative functions
of the organization with his left hand. When
Universities seek a great scholar for president
and when school boards look for extensive teach­
ing experience in their superintendent, this
view would appear to be the controlling one.
A second view of administration holds that the
functions of the administrator can be differen­
tiated from those of the scholar.
A third view holds that organizations and the
milieu in which they exist have become so complex
that only the administrator can comprehend their
purpose and their operation. This concept makes
the administrator not only the implementer of
policy, but also the maker of policy.8
It is clear that the role of the superintendent

varies depending upon which view is controlling.

However,

the role of the modern school superintendent is portrayed
in contemporary literature in the second view.
A common attribute ascribed the superintendent
is that of leadership.
a number of ways.

But leadership may be defined in

Cultural connotations of the term

suggest that leadership is always good or effective.
However, leadership means different things to different
people.

To some good leadership may mean the maintenance

of the status quo.

To others the term leadership brings

forth visions of an authority figure dispensing answers
to his followers and showing them the way they should go.
Expectations as to the leadership functions of the super­
intendent thus vary widely, and by the groups within the
school structure be it the school board, school principals,
Q

Roald F. Campbell, "The Superintendent— His Role
and Professional Status," Teachers College Record, LXV,
No. 8 (May, 1964), 673.

8
teachers, or the community.

The superintendent himself

has expectations or goals that he sees as his role.

Each

superintendent must decide for himself what his personal
role will be.
Dykes suggests that it is necessary for the super­
intendent to understand and perceive his position in the
following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The Staff
Instructional program
Business management
The Community
Communication
g
Advising, Determining, and Initiating
While these are broad areas it does seem

reasonable to believe that this list does encompass most
of the superintendent's jobs.
The introduction to this study points out the
dynamic, much maligned, little understood position of the
superintendent of schools in education.

It is one

position where various emotions and feelings converge,
often with explosive results.

Such an atmosphere prompted

Goldhammer to list six problems which he saw the superin­
tendent in the 70's having.
1.

The civil rights movement, teacher militancy,
and student unrest are part of a general,
culture-wide revolt against paternalism.

9
Archie R. Dykes, School Board and Superintendent
(Danville, 111.: The Interstate Printers & Publishers,
Inc., 1965).

9
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The rapid urbanization of society.
"Ethos of Jeffersonian agrarianism," urbanism
isn't here to stay— that if they close their
eyes it will go away.
Failure of the schools to communicate with
all segments of the population.
Our society seems to lack a sense of community.
Rapidly growing technology and the danger of
mechanization of human services.10
While there is not a great deal of knowledge in

terms of systematic studies which involve the superinten­
dent of schools there are several studies which examine
the expectations and performances of school principals.
These studies have been precipitated by the vast amount
of literature which discusses the role of school princi­
pals in theoretical terms.

While there are differences

in the role and position between school principals and
superintendents, some points of administration can be
generalized across job lines.
The school is an organization made up of people in
interaction with one anoLm±r.

These same people have dif­

ferent personal goals and needs and at the same time they
are there to achieve the goals of the organization.
Administration exists to serve the purpose of the
organization.

Administration is "the total of the

processes through which appropriate human and material

■^Keith Goldhammer, "Hottest Spot in Town,"
American Education, III (October, 1967), 2-4.

10
resources are made available and made effective for
accomplishing the purposes of an enterprise.
Educational administration is then the process
of coordinating the efforts of the people within the
school to produce and promote the educational process.
It is the attempt to organize and facilitate the students
and teachers in their efforts to achieve effective edu­
cation for students.
Anderson, in an attempt to find out what was
considered to be the most important responsibilities of
school administrators, interviewed twenty superintendents
of schools.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

His findings were as follows:

Working effectively with people (in the com­
munity, on the board of education, within the
professional staff, among the pupils).
Providing efficient business management.
Developing an adequate school plant.
Improving the educational program.
Serving the profession.^2
A further attempt to describe desirable behavior

of school administrators was undertaken by the SchoolDevelopment Study at Ohio State University suggesting:
1.

Setting goals. This is the establishment of
the overall objectives of the educational program
and the lesser and more immediate goals of
individual schools and teachers. The achievement

Staff Relations in School Administration (Wash­
ington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1955), p. 7.
12
Walter A. Anderson, March Beauchamp, and Quill
E. Cope, "Responsibilities of School Administrators" (New
York: Department of Administration and Supervision, New
York University, 1952).
(Mimeographed.)

11

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

and acceptance of common goals by those who are
expected to achieve them. Therefore, one of the
important areas of administrative behavior is the
setting of educational goals.
Making policy. All who are affected by policy
should share in making it. Therefore, an
important area of administrative behavior and
leadership is that of developing educational
policy with all who will operate in keeping
with it.
Determining roles. Personnel in school systems
should have clear assignments.
It is the admin­
istrator's responsibility to clarify and determine
roles for and with the staff members with whom he
works.
Coordinating administrative functions and
structure. The administrator must operate in
such a way that all the educational activities
are coordinated and properly fitted together.
Charting the course and seeing all the elements
in proper perspective is an important area of
administrative behavior.
Appraising effectiveness. The administrator must
provide leadership in the continuous and searching
appraisal of the educational program. Therefore,
preparation programs should provide learning
experience in effective evaluation of educational
programs.
Working with community leadership to promote
improvements in education. An important area
of administrative behavior is in working with
community leaders and agenclp? and in using
community resources to improve educational
programs. These skills and behaviors are
developed best through guided learning exper­
iences in real communities.
Using the educational resources of the community
(See no. 6 above).
Involving people.
"When people share— people
care" is an important maxim in educational
leadership. Support of the educational program
is closely related to the extent of one's par­
ticipation in it. Therefore, among the skills
and behaviors which relate to working with groups
and involving staff and community in educational
planning, development, and appraisal.

12
9.

Communicating. This is "the ebb and flow of
feelings and ideas among people." It is reading,
listening, speaking, writing, depicting.
It is
comprehending and making comprehensible that which
one wishes to communicate.
It is the desire to
make one's feeling and ideas crystal clear to
others.13
The apparent differences which exist between the

way a school administrator operates in his position and
the way he is expected by the community to behave prompted
Fisk to note:
There may be a significant difference between the
definition of the task of educational administration
which is socially desired and that which is seen
by the man-on-the-job.
It would appear logical that
the greater the congruence between the two defi­
nitions, the greater the potential for sound admin­
istration and, more important yet, sound education.
. . . There will be a continuing challenge to the
educational administrators themselves to demonstrate
behavior which points to congruence between the
intellectual and the personal comprehension of the
full dimensions of the organization task. One may
through prior training and experience be able to
verbalize the task in phrases completely consistent
with the socially desired definition. But the
leader's behavior will necessarily reflect his
personal perception of the task. To bring the per­
sonal and the intellectual definitions into reasonable
congruence will require the development of those habits
of mind and behavior which lead the administrator to
be a student of educational administration as well as
practitioner.H

John A. Ramseyer, Lewis E. Harris, Millard Z.
Pond, and Howard Wakefield, Factors Affecting Educational
Administration, CPEA series (Columbus, Ohio: (College of
Education, Ohio State University, 1955), pp. 18-56.
1^Robert S. Fisk, "The Tasks of Educational
Administration," in Administrative Behavior in Education,
ed. by Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg (taew York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 200-01.

13
Fisk further indicates there are three approaches
to the definition of the task of educational administration
by assuming a constant and consistent community philosophy.
It should be noted that this assumption may seldom happen.
He suggests:
1.

2.

3.

A definition arrived at by an outside observer
based on what is happening in the administrative
process as he views it. This may be described as
the observed actuality of educational adminis­
tration.
A definition arrived at by an outside observer
based on what he believes should be the behavior
of educational administration. This may be
described as the socially-desired definition
of educational administration.
A definition arrived at by a school administrator
trying to perceive his responsibilities. This
may be described as the man-on-the-job
de finition.15
Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed in this study was what are

the perceptions of leader behavior in selected Michigan
school districts of the school superintendents with four
subscales of the LBDQ?

In this study the author investi­

gated perceptions of superintendents* of schools leader
behavior in selected subscales of the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) as observed by school
board members, the superintendent, principals, and
teachers.

It was also determined to what extent there

was agreement or consensus among various groups within
the school setting as to these perceptions in given

15Ibid., p. 228.

14
situations.

This study also addressed the question of

whether the perceptions by the individual groups change
as the school district size increases.

The second stage

of this research was to visit selected districts to
determine if there were observable factors for the par­
ticular responses to the LBDQ and if the scores did in
fact represent the district accurately.
The question of group or organizational size is
addressed by Bierstedt who suggests that, "as social
interaction is intensified by increase in size of population, so do the different kinds of relationships
i n c r e a s e . D a v i s notes that, "undoubtedly the char­
acter of the group tends to change with its size . . .
Bidwell in a discussion of schools notes:
Although there is no firm evidence for effects
of system size, as noted, one might expect
larger systems, since they include large numbers
of subunits, and large, and perhaps more diverse,
student bodies, to encounter greater difficulties
of coordination than small systems . . . 18

16
Robert Bierstedt, "The Limitations of Anthro­
pological Methods in Sociology," The American Journal of
Sociology, LIV (July, 1948), 22-3^
17
Kingsley Davis, Human Society (New York:
MacMiIlian Company, 1950), p . 293.

The

18
Charles E. Bidwell, "The School as a Formal
Organization," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. by
James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1965),
P. 997.

15

Studies which have involved school system size
19
20
include those of Gross
and Bowman.
While these
studies did deal with district size, neither addressed
the perceptions of leadership within the districts.
Need for the Study
In recent years the field of educational administration has received much attention from educators and
social scientists and this attention has been centered
largely around the school principal and his relationship
with teachers.

There has been little information gen­

erated with respect to the superintendent and the
behaviors which he exhibits in his work.

The principal

portion of the information which does exist is in the
area of theoretical constructs or opinion and only a
paucim of empirical research.
Bidwell argues this point in stressing:
New studies are needed which systematically inves­
tigate the interaction of variables subsumed
under organizational recruitment, structural con­
tent, and board and superintendent attitude and
action. . . . These studies, moreover, should move
beyond attitudes to give greater attention to per­
formance in office.21
19

Neal Gross, W. S. Mason, and A. W. McEachern,
Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School
(New Vork: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
20

Thomas R. Bowman, "Participation of Superintendents in School Board Decision-Making" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963).
21

Bidwell, o£. cit., p. 1,001.

16
If the superintendent of schools is to be effective
it is essential that he understand the several segments of
his school-community and the expectations that each has
for his position.

The superintendent in the late-twentieth

century faces critical problems and is expected to produce
significant results.

He will be continually confronted

with problems which have social, economic, and political
implications.

A large segment of the public has become

aware of the problems confronting education and some of
these people have expectations which exceed the vision
and capabilities of the school leaders.
These conflicts of ideology eventually permeate
the board level of a school district and frequently cause
serious consequences for the superintendent of schools.
Such a situation prompted Brause to ask school board
presidents why superintendents get fired.

He concluded

that:
The basic job of a superintendent is communicating
with the board. Effective communication is basic
to compatibility and good personal relations.
Once communications have broken down the relation­
ship is doomed. And the superintendent— regardless
of his educational achievements is well on his way
to his next administrative post.22
The point of view is stressed that the differing
opinions between the board and superintendent influence
the view of his role.

22

Dorsey Brause, "Why Superintendents Get Fired,"
School Management, X, No. 99 (April, 1966), 98-99.

17
In defining their relationships with the superin­
tendent, board members are influenced by the
cultural values they hold. . . . when various
board members hold conflicting values it is
probable that they also will hold conflicting
expectations for the role of the administrator.
While the discussion to this point has only dealt
with the superintendent-board relationship, one needs to
observe several others.
The relationship that the superintendent has with
the administrators under his direction also can be one
which causes operational problems both for him and the
school system.
Because of the breadth of the position, the
superintendent of schools frequently has to rely upon
decisions made by one of his assistants or a building
administrator.

A mutual trust and respect needs to exist

between the administrators involved, the one closest to
the situation and the superintendent.

This process also

works where the superintendent makes a decision which
affects the operation of subordinates in the administrative
structure.

Some writers consider this the all-encompassing

umbrella of the "management team concept."

While this

may not always be the case the relationship between the
superintendent and his administrators is crucial.

This

23
Max G. Abbott, "Values and Value-Perceptions in
Superintendent-School Board Relationships," Administrator1s
Notebook, IX, No. 4 (December, 1960) .

18
relationship has been further complicated by some admin­
istrators using collective negotiations as an access to
more power in the decision-making process.
The relationship of the superintendent to teachers
has taken on new importance in Michigan since 1965 when
Public Law 379 allowed teachers to enter into negotiations
regarding working conditions, salary, fringe benefits,
curriculum development, and any other matters which
directly effect teachers.

This relationship has been in

many cases further strained with the teachers having found
new power.

The superintendent who at one time may have

been considered an educator often has become essentially
a management person.
A result of this change for the superintendent is
reflected in the perceptions the teachers have toward
the superintendent.

And the attitudes seem to vary as

Llie aciiooi district: size increases.
Purpose of the Study
The writer's purpose in this study was to investi­
gate the perceptions of leadership behavior of the super­
intendent of schools as seen by the superintendent,
principals, teachers and board members through the use
of the LBDQ-XII.

Further, it was attempted in this

study to determine whether these perceptions of leader­
ship by the various groups involved change as the size
of the school districts increased.

An observation

19
visitation was used to determine if in certain selected
districts the responses to the LBDQ did in fact reflect
the leadership of the district.

It is hoped that through

the findings of this study a better perception of the
performance of the superintendent and his duties by the
various groups may be developed.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of clarification, the following
terms are defined:
Selected District(s).— Those school districts
selected for observation visitation to determine if in
those districts the responses to the LBDQ did in fact
reflect the perceptions of leadership from the data in
Chapter IV.
Large District.— Student enrollment of over
10.000 for the 1973-1974 school year.
Small District.— Student enrollment of less than
3.000 for the 1973-1974 school year.
School Board Member.— Governing board of the
school district whose members are elected by the voters
of the district.

20
Superintendent of Schools.— The executive officer
of the school board who is appointed by the board, being
responsible for the total operation of the district.
Administrators.— Those school executives below
the level of superintendent who are involved in the
administration of the district including assistant
superintendents, directors and principals.
Teachers .— Professionally certified staff of
the school which are involved with classroom operation.
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire—
24
Form XII .— Measures leader behavior within a situational
context.

The LBDQ-XII consists of 100 items which are

grouped into twelve subscales.

Four of these subscales

(Persuasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom, Production
Emphasis, Predictive Accuracy) were selected as the
result of a pilot study where twenty present or recent
school administrators were asked to select the four or
five subscales which were to them the most important,
rather than using the often-used scales of Initiation
of Structure and Consideration.

They are briefly defined

as follows:

24
Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, eds.,
Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, Research
Monograph No. 38, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
1957. Additional information about the LBDQ may be found
in Chapter III.

21
a.

Persuasiveness— Uses persuasion and argument
effectively; exhibits strong convictions.
(10 items)

b.

Tolerance of Freedom"— Allows followers scope for
initiative, decision, and action.

c.

Production Emphasis— Applies pressure for pro­
ductive output.

d.

(10 items)

(10 items)

Predictive Accuracy— Exhibits foresight and
ability to predict outcomes accurately.

(5 items)

Limitations of the Study
This study was concerned with the various per­
ceptions of different groups within the school-community
toward the leadership behavior of the superintendent of
schools.

The study was concerned only with the office

of superintendent in K - 12 districts in Michigan and
how actual behavior is perceived.

It does not involve

county superintendents, the state superintendent, private
or primary school districts.

With the exception of the

school board members this investigation does not involve
noncertified employees of the school systems, i.e., bus
drivers, secretaries, custodians.

No attempt was made

in this study to include people of the community which
the districts serve.
The investigation did not attempt to prove or
disprove any theories of ideal educational administration

22
programs.

This study was not intended nor should it be

considered an evaluative tool to determine the effective­
ness of the superintendent.
Because of its scope the study looked at only a
small number of the total districts in Michigan.

Hence,

generalizations and predictions based on gathered data
and the analysis of this information should not be
assumed to be applicable to other school districts in
Michigan or other states.
The Hypotheses
1.

General H O ;

There will be a difference in the perceptions of
the leader behavior of the superintendents by
board members as the size of the school district
increases.
Sub. HO-j^:
In large districts board members will rate the
superintendents higher in persuasiveness than the
superintendents do themselves. Whereas, there will
be no difference in small districts.
Rational:
The superintendent has less contact with the board
members on a one-to-one basis in the larger districts.
Sub.

HO2 :

Board members in large districts will rate superin­
tendents lower on tolerance of freedom than small
district board members.

23
Rational:
As the size of the district increases it is expected
that the decisions have been made and the recommen­
dations for a vote is all that is necessary.
Sub. HO^i
The board members in larger districts will rate the
superintendents lower in predictive accuracy than
the superintendents will themselves.
Rational;
Because of the many variables within a larger dis­
trict the best planning can go awry? i.e., popu­
lation changes, court orders.
Sub. HO .:
4
Board members in large districts will rate the super­
intendents higher in the area of production emphasis
than the superintendents will themselves.
Rationalr
The superintendents of a large district will be more
critical of his success and expect more of himself
than his governing board will.
II. General H O :
The superintendent's administrators view the leader
behavior of the superintendents differently than the
superintendents do themselves.
Sub. HO^:
In large districts principals will rate the superin­
tendents lower in persuasiveness than principals in
small districts.

24
Rational:
Principals in larger districts will not see themselves
in a situation to be argumentative with the superin­
tendent. Further, decisions in the structure would
be seen as being autocratic in nature.
Sub. HO2 :
Principals in smaller districts will rate the
superintendents lower in tolerance of freedom than
the principals of larger districts.
Rationali
Because of less contact with the superintendent in
a larger district the principals see themselves as
being on their own without the restrains that may
exist in a small district because of the direct
contact with the superintendent.
Sub. HO^:
Principals in small districts will rate the superin­
tendents higher in predictive accuracy than the
principals in large districts.
Rational:
There are less variables in the smaller districts
which would upset long-range planning and a generally
closer communication to principals with respect to
planning.
Sub. H O ^ :

Principals in larger districts will rate the superin­
tendents lower in production emphasis than the
superintendents rating of themselves.

25
Rational:
In larger districts the principal is less likely
to know what is expected of him in an area of pro­
duction. The goals that he is to meet being vague.
III. General H O :
Teachers see the superintendent in a different
behavior than the superintendent views himself.
Sub. H01 :
Teachers in large districts will not rate the superin­
tendents as high in the area of persuasiveness as the
superintendents will themselves.
Rational;
Because of the complexity in a larger district
teachers will have little direct contact with
the superintendent and rather than seeing him as
being persuasive it may be dictatorial.
Sub. H02 :
In the area of tolerance of freedom teachers in
large districts will rate the superintendents higher
than the superintendents will rate themselves.
Rational :
Because of the lack of contact with the superintendent
in a larger district teachers will tend to interpret
this as a grant of freedom in what they do.
Sub. H03 :
Teachers in large districts will score the superin­
tendents lower in predictive accuracy than the
superintendents do themselves.

26
Rational:
Lack of teachers or teaching supplies would be seen
as a poor prediction. Overcrowded school in contrast
to one of few students in the same district would
cause teachers to question the predictiveness of
the superintendent.
Sub. HO^:
Teachers in larger districts will rate the superin­
tendents lower in the area of production emphasis
than the superintendents will themselves.
Rational;
While the superintendent may have strong feelings
of how well he is pushing for production, his
teaching staff because of the distance from him
will not realize this strength.
IV. General H O ;
In a comparison between small and large district
superintendents there will be a disagreement in
the superintendent's scores on the dependent
variables.
Rational;
Because of the difference in the job description of
the superintendent, the complexity of larger districts
and the various groups with expectations placed on him
there will be a variation in the scores from smaller
district superintendents as compared to large district
superintendents.
V. General H Q :
Within group scores will not be congruent as com­
parisons of variables are made between small and
large districts.

27
Rational:
Perceptions and expectations of individual groups
change toward the superintendent's leader behavior
as the school district size increases.
Summary
The intent of Chapter I has been to introduce the
importance of the position of the superintendent of
schools, include a statement of the problem, the need
for the study, a purpose of the study, the limitations
of the study stated.

Finally, concepts and objectives

vital to the study have been explained and defined.
Chapter II presents a review of literature and
related research, including the development of the school
superintendency in the United States and Michigan and
research which is pertinent and relevant to the present
study.

Chapter III includes a rational for the methodology

selected, the setting, instrumental procedures which were
used, and also the statistical treatment.

Chapter IV

describes the examination and study of the results of
data collected and relates them to the hypotheses gen­
erated.

Chapter V includes a discussion of the results

of the observation visitations in the target districts
as related to the LBDQ.

Chapter VI is a summary and

conclusion of the study with implications for further
studies.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
A review of the literature for this study neces­
sitated an historical investigation of the position of
the school superintendent and research of the superin­
tendent of schools, leadership, and the dynamics of
administration.
Section I develops the position of the public
school superintendent in American education and the
emphasis placed on the position through to the present
day.
Section II reviews the position of the Michigan

school superintendent and its evolving character in
relationship to the Michigan school district.
Section III is intended to serve as a basis for
looking at the research which is relevant to the present
s tudy.
Human relations in the schools in many cases is
established by the climate from which the superintendent
of schools operates.

If teachers, administrators,

28

29
parents, community and the superintendent can work
together as partners to assist in the process of edu­
cating children to the best of their ability the common
goal can hopefully be reached— successful educational
experiences for children.
Historical Perspective
It should be noted that the position of superin­
tendent of schools is one of the more important positions
in American education today.

American education existed

for 200 years before the first superintendent of schools
was appointed.

It was yet another sixty years before

any additional number of cities saw fit to follow in
the development and establishment of the position of
superintendent of schools.
From a modest beginning the position of superin­
tendent has grown into one of responsibility and authority
of considerable magnitude.

While there is some doubt as

to the actual power held by the superintendent, it is
clear that he is the administrative head of the local
school district.

He reports to the board of education

and is its chief executive officer.

In most cases the

position has the title of superintendent although some
persons in the position are called supervisory principal
and others are called district superintendent.^"
^"American Association of School Administrators and
Research Division of Education Association, Profile of the
School Superintendent, Washington, D.C., 196ZTI

30
The development of the superintendency in America
has basically three stages as suggested by Griffiths
which are:
1.
2.
3.

1837-1910. During this period the superintendent
was essentially instruction-oriented.
1910-1945. During this period the superintendent
was essentially a businessman more interested
in the budget than in instruction.
1945. The superintendent has now entered a
period wherein his position is viewed as that
of a professional school administrator.2
While there is little question as to the importance

placed on the role of the superintendent at the specified
points in time, the author would suggest that maybe there
is a need for a fourth stage to be added to the list.
This stage incorporates all the suggested responsibilities
and adds the title of community leader.

The superintendent

as seen by some citizens has become the person with the
answer to all the ills that plague the community with
which he works.

The larger the community the more diverse

are the problems that he must face.
The lack of superintendents in the early years of
American education can be traced in part to an anti­
executive attitude prevalent in early America as the
result of activities of royal governors.

As Knezevich

relates:
The royal governors were, more often than not,
spoilsmen and were usually out of sympathy with
the people of the American colonies. The image
2

Daniel E. Griffiths, The School Superintendent
(New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education,
Inc., 1966), p. 2.

31
or conception of an administrator as a person with
little concern for the best interests of the people
in general and who was primarily concerned with
"feathering his own nest" led to the development
of a system of courts and juries for law enforce­
ments and/or committees of people to execute the
affairs of people. The frontier condition with
its simplicity of life favored a self-reliant,
self-sufficient, and hence, decentralized system,
rather than one where control rested in some highly
centralized authority.3
In lieu of the school superintendent the schools
were administered by governmental bodies in the larger
cities of the 1800's.

By the 1850's cities such as New

York, Baltimore, Boston, and Philadelphia had populations
of over 120,000

4

and the administration of the schools

was becoming too unwielding for a board of education.
This problem of administering the schools prompted
Gilland to summarize the reason why boards sought pro­
fessional leadership and assistance:
1.
2.

The members of boards of education were engaged
in business pursuits and could not spare the
time from tneir private enterprize.
The growth in the complexity and intensity of
the problems of administration and supervising
had rendered the solution of the problems beyond
the capabilities of lay boards of education.*

^Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public
Education (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 196^) ,
p. 248.
4
U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Population, Vol. 1, 1930, Table II, p. 18, and
Table a, p. 746.
5
Thomas M. Gilland, The Origin and Development of
the Power and Duties of the City School Superintendent
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935 ), p. 15 .

32
Even though lay boards were having a difficult
time in supervising schools, they were not going to give
up without a fight.

When it was apparent that lay super­

vision was not as such the answer, the public school
system of Cleveland in 1837 called for a board of five
school managers whose duties were:

" ...

to provide a

school in such districts, provide expedient and proper
regulations, examine and employ teachers, fix teachers'
salaries subject to the approval of the council, and make
repairs and purchast supplies, subject to the consent of
the council when the supplies or repairs exceed ten
dollars a year."®
As the number of schools increased, the school
managers' duties became more complex.

The managers found

they could no longer perform alltheir tasks.

School

visitations were the first to be dropped; the reasoning
being that since so little time could be spent in each
school to form correct judgments, there was no practical
use in spending any time in this manner.
Clearly a pattern had developed.
first administered the schools.

Local government

As the work became too

onerous, committees or boards were appointed to manage
the affairs of the schools.

When the population rapidly

increased in short periods of time, there was an increase

®Theodore L. Reller, The Development of the City
Superintendency of Schools (Philadelphia: n.p., 1915 ),
pp. 12-13.

33
in the

number of schools and an increase in the complexity

of the

school problems.

ethnic

groups coming to this country.

The latter was predicated by new
As a result,

special committees appointed for school affairs began
to specialize in their duties and in turn assign specific
duties to specific members of these committees.

There

were still strong attempts by citizens to run their own
affairs and to perpetuate the concept of lay supervision
rather than appointing professional superintendents.
The lay supervision system was not to prevail,
however, and cities began to conclude that their lay
systems of administering schools must give way to a new
order.

The following report of a Boston school subcom­

mittee in 1847 gives a complete and concise account of
why a superintendent must be appointed in their city.
The report shows how a school committee, which has
struggled with the job itself, set forth the expec­
tations it held for the superintendency.

It is typical

of the way other committees and boards had felt just
before the appointment of a first superintendent.
There is now no one whose duty is to find the
best and most economical plans for school houses,
their ventilation and warming, and their apparatus,
seats, desks, and other furniture.
There is no one to look out for the best
teacher when a vacancy occurs, or in preparation
for a vacancy.
There is no one to find out what is the most
successful teaching in all the schools, and to
point it out for the benefit of all; or to aid,

34
advise, or cooperate with any teacher who is pur­
suing, or who may wish to pursue, and improved but
untried plan of instruction and discipline.
There is no one to make, from the wisdom of
the most experienced, suggestions of those who are
aiming at perfection; to know, by comparison, the
deficiencies of teachers, and to point out the
means of supplying them.
There is no one to see that proper and sufficient
philosophical apparatus is supplied, and that it is
properly and economically made, used and kept.
There is no one whose special duty it is to see
whether the best course of studies is pursued, or
to suggest improvement from the experiences of the
best schools elsewhere.
There is no one to see whether the schools are
adapted to the population, and all classes of
children brought into them.
There is no one to see that all important busi­
ness is duly brought before the meetings of the
board.
There is no one to supervise the transfer of
children from school to school, and from one set
of schools to another.
There is no one to oversee the organization of
new schools.
There is no one to collect documents appertain­
ing to the Boston and other analogous schools, and
to give full information in regard to them.
There is no one to instruct strangers in regard
to them.
There is no one to say what libraries should be
in the schools, for teachers or for pupils.
There is now no individual or body to exercise
the complete supervision of the schools which is
needed, or to examine them as thoroughly as they
require.7
The subcommittee was unanimous in their agreement
with this lengthly report.

However, it was four years,

until 1851, before Boston hired its first superintendent
O
of schools.
7

Reller, o£. cit., pp. 39-40.

8Ibid., pp. 71-73.

35
In Michigan, Detroit appointed its first superin­
tendent in 1855 when the school enrollment was 5,500 stu9
dents with a teaching staff of 41.
While appointment of a superintendent was seen as
a step in the right direction, there was still a serious
problem in the size of the board of education and the
subcommittees which it appointed.

Board size ranged from

14 to Boston with 217 members in 1855, and the unsurpassed
record of Philadelphia with 444.^®
Gilland points out the problem of size as he cites
the standing committees as established in 1861 as being
typical:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

Committee on School Buildings and Grounds,
three members.
Committee on Testbooks and Course of
Instruction, three members.
Committee on Rules and Regulations, three
members.
Committee on Apparatus and Furniture, three
members.
Committee or. Examination of Teachers, three
members.
Committee on the appointment of Teachers, con­
sisting of the Board President, Committee Chair­
man of the Examination of Teachers, and one other
member.
Committee on Janitors and Supplies, Chairman of
the committees on Building and Grounds and
Auditing, and one other member.
Committee on Medals and Rewards, three members.
Auditing Committee, three members.

9 .
Gilland,

0 £.

cit., p. 15.

^Griffiths, o£. cit. , pp. 13-14.

36
10.
11.

Committee on the High School, three members.
Committee for each one of the District Schools.
Initially the superintendent did not have an easy

job with such large school boards which envisioned them­
selves as administrative bodies and limited the superin­
tendent in his role.
However, as the superintendent - board relation­
ship developed more confidence developed in the superin­
tendent's capabilities.

As the superintendent became

designated as the executive officer of the board, the
size of the boards decreased as did the standing com­
mittees although this was a gradual process.

Such a

designation in some cities did not meet with pleasure
or enthusiasm of the community and the superintendent
was compared to a "pedagogue Pope." 12
After the appointment era of the American superin­
tendent came one of professional development and refinement
to the position.

From 1910-1945 the push was made for

efficiency and progressivism in education.
1 "5

of Cremin

1

and Callahan

The writings

A

depict the evolvement of the

superintendent and American education during this time.
^Gilland,

ojd.

cit.,

p. 146.

12Ibid., p. 155.
13
Laurence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the
School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1961).
14
Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of
Efficiency (Chicago: University o£ Chicago Press, 196^).

37
Throughout the early twentieth century the
emphasis for the position of superintendent has been
one of businessman stereotype.

The advent of a democratic

or humanist concept of administration prompted Newlon,
after a content analysis of eighteen textbooks on school
administration, to conclude that:

" . . .

as far as the

contents and the bibliographies of these texts were con­
cerned, one would have to conclude that the important
disciplines of political science, sociology, and social
psychology with their extensive literature were closed
to the student of school administration."15
This polarization of views suggested above is one
which now some fourty years later commands a great deal
of discussion of the superintendent being a businessman
or more open to the study of people and a humanist
approach to administration in contrast.
Since 1945 the superiniendency has been in a mild
revolution with the advent of the sputnik, Federal and
state aid to education, teacher negotiations and activism,
and a renewed public interest in their schools have
created a new setting for education of today.

It is

difficult to find in the history of the school superin­
tendency a time when it has been under closer scrutiny

15Jesse H. Newlon, Educational Administration as
Social Policy (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934),
P. 96.- - - - - -

38
and study to what the role of the superintendent really
is as the social, political, and economic conditions of
our society change rapidly.
A product of this time period has also been a
closer communication and study by various associations
of professional school administration and development
including:

American Association of School Administrators,

National Council of Professors of Educational Adminis­
tration, Kellogg Foundation, and the Cooperative Program
in Educational Administration.
The result of these various groups, their work
and their output has prompted Moore to optimistically
state that:
It seems safe to say that there is, indeed, a new
breed of leader in school administration. Typi­
cally, he is on the faculty of a multipurpose
university which prepares school administrators,
he is a student of the behavioral sciences, and
he is an interpreter of research applied to
educational processes and institutions. 6
This view is then similar to that of Newlon's
statement some thirty years earlier.

It is suggested by

the author that there has been a move away from the
businessman-superintendent philosophy and while it may
not have been full circle back to the philosophersuperintendent of the 1800's it has brought a new

^H o l l i s A. Moore, Jr., "The Ferment in School
Administration," in Behavioral Science and Educational
Administration, ed. by Daniel E. Griffiths, The sixtythird Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II (1964), p. 23.

39
awareness of people, their feelings and desires.

It

would not be total speculation to suggest that the
superintendency has entered a new age and era of increased
responsibility to the ills that plague our society.
The Evolving Michigan Superintendent
The superintendency in the larger cities of
Michigan was not dissimilar to that described in the
previous section.

However, because of Michigan's agrarian

beginnings, most of the school districts were small and
of the primary or K-8 variety.

It was not until after

the Civil War that high school districts were found in
increasing numbers.

These primary districts for a good

portion of the history of Michigan education had a para­
mount influence.

The "little red schoolhouse" stood

with respect and a certain amount of reverence in the
minds of many people.
The expansion of the primary districts in Michigan
17
developed at such a rate that in 1857 there were 3,731
such districts which later was ballooned to a peak in
1912 of 7,362 18 districts.
This type of expansion gave
Michigan the dubious distinction of being only one of
eight states to have more than 3,000 school districts.

17Report of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Michigan, 1862, p. 3.
18 Donald W. Disbrow, Schools for an Urban Society
(Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1968), pT 30.

40
The other 42 states averaging 660.

19

In perspective the

total count of school districts both secondary and primary
is less than 600 with K-12 comprising 529

20

of that number.

It was not until the late 1950's and the early
60's that there was a concerted effort to consolidate
these districts into larger units or as part of a K-12
system.

This was done in part to:

(1) provide better

service to children of the districts;

(2) eliminate

large amounts of paper work at the state level;

(3)

provide an equal education to children of rural areas;
(4) establish a better financing for these districts;
(5) eliminate some of the expensive duplication of efforts.
A formal attempt was made in 1961 to consolidate
all K-8 school districts when the then state superintendent
for instruction, Lynn Bartlett, sought legislative and
senate approval for a K-12 bill which would have forced
all districts to build or to join a high school district.
The attempt was unsuccessful in part due to the opposition
presented by rural interests under the banner of "the
little red schoolhouse people."

From a time when literally

thousands of primary districts existed in Michigan, there
are now less than fifty.

19, . ,
Ibid.
20 Michigan Department of Education, September,
1973.

41
Where a primary district existed in most cases,
there was no school superintendent and the administration
of the district was a function of a three- or five-member
board of education, a building principal or both.

In

many cases in smaller K-12 districts, the superintendent
had a dual role as a high school teacher and the district's
only administrator.
late 1950's.

Such conditions existed until the

It is still the practice in the exceptionally

small districts that the superintendency-elementary prin­
cipal position is a dual responsibility.
While the early K-8 districts did not have a
modern-day concept of a superintendent, they did use
either a township or intermediate (county) superintendent.
It was not uncommon for intermediate superintendents to
have well over 100 one-room country school districts
under their jurisdiction.
The high school districts did not develop with
any great speed or significance in Michigan until after
the Civil War period.

Their development was encouraged

in the 1870's with special legislation for union schools. 21
The high school districts were further encouraged by the
decision of the Kalamazoo court case of 1873-74, where

21

Charles R. Starring and James O. Knauss, The
Michigan Search for Educational Standards (Lansing:
Michigan Historical Commission, 1969), pp. 33-45.

42
public tax dollars could be used to support high schools
and to employ a school superintendent. 22
The superintendency in Michigan has developed
from a modest and difficult beginning into one of the
more important public offices of the present day.
If there is any date which can be designated to
have placed the superintendency in the prominence it has
in Michigan today, 1965 must be noted.

It was the

inception of Public Law 379 which the Michigan Legislature
passed authorizing public employees to negotiate labor
contracts with the respective governing boards for the
first time.

With the inception of these laws, the

superintendent became a labor negotiator in addition
to his duties which had been inherent in the superin­
tendency.

In the years since 1965 it has not been

uncommon for some school districts not to open for classes
in September because of the lack of a contract settlement
between the school district and its teaching staff.

Never

in the history of Michigan education had there been strikes
and labor negotiations the equal of those that have existed
this past decade.
The consequences of the strikes and strained
labor relations could be predicted, the superintendent
being caught in the center of labor conditions, be it with
teachers or custodians.

Add to this the increased

22Ibid., pp. 175-88.

43
activity by students to have their voice heard and control
of their own destiny for the pursuit of an education.
The list is not limited to the number of school
superintendents who have been replaced or have enjoyed
an early "retirement" for the conflict that exists in
the performance of their duties.
The school superintendency in Michigan has evolved
from a nonexistent position of the 1800's to a position
of ever-increasing responsibility and prominence in
society of the late twentieth century.
Related Research
It is the intent of the author to review the
empirical studies which center on the position of the
school superintendent that lends themselves to the
current study.

Over the years much has been written

on administrative theory in education.

Some has been

based on empirical evidence while still other writings
have been drawn from personal study, practice and syn­
thesis of previous literature.
Most of the studies in the review included as
their core the LBDQ instrument or some variation of it
in the study of the school superintendent or other
administrative position.

Some have studied the relation­

ship of the superintendent with the board of education.
Halpin with the use of the LBDQ compared the
scores of superintendents and aircraft commanders.

44
Using 64 educational administrators and 132 aircraft
commanders.

These administrators answered the LBDQ-

Ideal, and also were described on the LBDQ-Real by 428
members of their respective staffs.
The 132 commanders answered the LBDQ-Ideal and
were described on the LBDQ-Real by 1,099 members of
their respective crews.
1.

2.

Halpin found that:

The aircraft commanders are inclined to show
less consideration than is desirable, whereas
the educational administrators tend to be
remiss in not initiating sufficient structure.
The two groups differ significantly in their
leadership ideology.23
As the result of this research Halpin further

reported:
The findings support the hypothesis that leaders
who function within these two different insti­
tutional settings exhibit differences in their
leadership ideology and differences in their
style of leadership behavior.
Specifically, the
administrators, in both leadership ideology and
leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ, show
m o r e C o n s i d e r a t i o n and less I n i t i a t i o n of

Structure than the commanders. These dif­
ferences are all significant at the .001 level
of confidence.24
Halpin suggests that the reason for the difference
in part for the contrast in scores on the LBDQ is the

2 3Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and
Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and
Aircraft Commanders," Harvard Educational Review, XXV
(Winter, 1955), 18-32.
24 Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Admin­
istration (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971),
pp. 103-04.

45
difference in the philosophy of the public school system
versus the Air Force.

The first being concerned with

placing value upon consideration while the second is
much more interested in the initiation of structure.
A second study completed investigated the per­
formance of fifty Ohio school superintendents from pri­
marily small, rural communities.

In this study Halpin

determined the relationship between the superintendent's
own perception of how he behaves on the Initiating
Structure and Consideration dimension, as contrasted
with board and staff perceptions, and discovered the
corresponding relationship between the superintendent,
the board's, and the staff's beliefs concerning how he
should behave as a leader.

The result of these scores

generated the following:
1.

Staffs and board groups do not agree with each
other on the area of leader behavior dimension.
2 _ Superintendents do not see themselves as either
their staffs or boards see them in respect to
consideration.
Staffs rate the superintendent
low while school boards rate the superintendent
high.
3. Boards rate superintendents higher than the
staffs in the initiating structure.
Further,
they rate the superintendent higher than he
rates himself.
4. Boards tend to rate superintendents higher in
consideration and initiating structure than
either the staffs and the superintendent rating
himself.
5. Boards do not differ significantly from school
district to school district in their expec­
tation of how the superintendent should behave.
6. There is significant difference between boards
and staffs in how a superintendent should
behave on consideration.
The initiating structure
within group agreement for boards and staffs is
about the same for all boards and staffs.

46
7.

8.
9.

Staffs differ little from school to school in
expectation of how much consideration the
superintendent should show. However, there is
a slight difference in the amount of structure
that should be initiated.
Superintendents set a higher standard for
themselves on consideration than either staffs
or boards set for them.
Boards expect stronger initiating structure
than either the superintendent or the staffs.
Staffs prefer less structure than the superin­
tendents believe they should initiate.25
The results of this research prompted Halpin to

summarize:
The leadership ideology of board and staff members,
and of the superintendents themselves, is essen­
tially the same. Effective or desirable leadership
behavior is characterized by high scores on both
Initiating Structure and Consideration. Conversely,
ineffective or undesirable leadership behavior is
marked by low scores on both dimensions. These
findings on the leadership ideology of superin­
tendents, staff members, and board members agree
with the results of an earlier Air Force study in
which it was found that aircraft commanders rated
effective by both superiors and crew score high on
both leader behavior dimensions.
These results are
also consistent with Hemphill's finding that college
departments with a campus reputation for being well
a d m i n i s t e r e d are directed by chairmen who score
high on both leader behavior d i m e n s i o n s . 26

25
Andrew W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of
School Superintendents (Columbus, Ohio: College of Edu­
cation, The Ohio State University, 1956).
26

Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration,
0£. cit., p . 118.

47
Hunter 27 developed his dissertation with the
LBDQ using sixteen metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri school
systems, half of which were "small"— enrolling from 750
to 2,700 pupils, and half which were "large"--enrolling
6,500 to 10,200 pupils.

In contrast to Hunter's proposed

hypotheses that there would be no difference in the size
of,elevations of the LBDQ scores, he found that:

(1)

Teachers and board members in the large school systems
rated their superintendents lower on both dimensions
(initiation of structure and consideration) of leadership
than teachers and board members in the small systems;
(2)

The reverse occurred in the superintendent's self-

ratings; superintendents in the large systems described
themselves as higher in both Initiating Structure and
Consideration than those in the small systems;

(3) In

virtually every large school system the superintendent
i m m i 1
^ M

W

Vi

A

r r U /-s ■*<■»

X
. 4 1 X ^ i i U 4,

W

i

v*
W

M

^ h4

Vi4 m
M

f

******

in virtually every small system he rated himself lower
than the teachers and board members rated him.

These

results were considered to be statistically significant
at the .01 level of confidence by the appropriate t test.

27 Ovid N. Hunter, "Relationship Between School
Size and Discrepancy in Perception of the Superintendent's
Behavior" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington
University, St. Louis, Missouri, 1959).

48
Evenson 28 with the use of the LBDQ evaluated the
leadership behavior of forty Illinois high school princi­
pals.

On the basis of the ten largest and ten smallest

high schools, it was found that there was no consistent
trend with respect to the element of size.
The contrast in LBDQ scores between small and
large districts reported in the Hunter study provided the
inspiration and incentive for Charters to replicate the
earlier research and in some cases be able to use the same
school systems and superintendents which had been respon­
dents in Hunter's work.
The results of Charters' study did not collaborate
the earlier unanticipated findings of Hunter's disser­
tation.
1.
2.

3.

Charters founds
There was no difference in the superintendents'
scores on the LBDQ when comparing larger to
smaller districts.
Teachers in large systems rated their superin­
tendents higher on Initiating Structure than
those in small systems, contrary to Hunter's
observations; no statistically significant
difference appeared with respect to teacher
descriptions of the superintendents' Con­
sideration behavior.
Administrative staff members in large school
systems rated their superintendents signifi­
cantly higher on both Initiating Structure and
Consideration than those in small systems.
Hunter's study furnished no data against which
this finding could be compared.

28

Warren Evenson, "The Leadership Behavior of
High School Principals? Perceptions and Expectations of
Superintendents, Principals and Staff Members" (unpub­
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958).

49
4.

5.

6.

When certain school systems in the replication
study were discarded so that the remaining
systems would conform more closely to Hunter1s
size categories, the LBDQ scores for superin­
tendents and teachers did not manifest the size
differences observed by Hunter.
Teacher and superintendent scores in precisely
the same school systems Hunter had studied three
years previously, still served by the same
superintendents, failed to show the striking
size differences which had appeared in these
systems earlier. Rank difference correlations
of scores between 1958 and 1961 did not differ
significantly from chance, demonstrating an
absence of stability in superintendent self­
descriptions and teacher descriptions of the
superintendent over the three-year period.
Restricting the analysis only to teachers who
returned their questionnaire forms promptly
and in complete form, thereby approximating the
conditions of Hunter's sample, the anticipated
size difference did not a p p e a r . 29
In short, as Charters stresses, "the replication

study unequivocally disconfirmed the findings from Hunter's
1958 investigation."^

The author would question the

strength of this statement by Charters.

29 W. W. Charters, Jr., Teacher Perceptions of
Administrator Behavior, Washington University, Research
Project No. 929 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Edu­
cation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1961).
^Ibid. , p. 70.

50
Moser 31 and Bowman 32 attempted to provide addi­
tional information on the position of superintendent
through their research on the relationship to the princi­
pals and board of education.
A study which deserves attention although it did
not use the LBDQ is that conducted by Gross.

Gross used

the interview process to explore the role of the superin­
tendent of schools in Massachusetts.

Data were collected

by interviewing 105 of a possible 217 superintendents
in the state and 508 school board members of the same
districts as represented by superintendents.

The

responses to the study enabled Gross to conclude the
following:
1.

2.

School board members and superintendents in
defining the division of responsibilities
between their two positions, would each assign
greater responsibility than the other to his
own position.
Superintendents would be more willing to
4 - «

3.

O

W

4 *1 ^ - l

«

9 V

O

school board members.
Because of their different tasks, superintendents
and school board members would express expec­
tations which reflected a greater degree of
felt obligation to incumbents of different
counter positions.

Robert P. Moser, "A Study of the Effects of
Superintendent-Principal Interaction upon PrincipalTeacher Interaction in Selected Middle-Sized School Sys­
tems" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1957).
32 Thomas R. Bowman, "The Participation of the
Superintendent in School Board Decision-Making" (unpub­
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1962).

51
4.

Board members are more likely to accept by­
passes of the superintendent, than the superin­
tendent, and the superintendent is more likely
to accept by-passes of the board than the
school board.33
Gross depended mainly on the interview process.

This process was an interview of some eight hours in
length for the superintendent while the school board
members had a two-hour interview in their home communi­
ties.

It should also be noted that Gross' study was con­

cerned only with the superintendent-school board relation­
ship.

Bidwell notes, "the work of Gross constitutes the

only systematic study of large numbers of superintendents
and their boards and provides a substantial quantity of
important data." 34
Most of the studies which have been referred to
in this section have the commonality of the use of the
LBDQ instrumentor an adaptation of it as the tool
f hrt i A.
v> J.
vo
r»o i
Vote# W U

P

W j

w

^

* * M

ie

find a common ground in either

in +• i
f
^
w

iO

H
1 f ^ 1r*111 +“
M M X — m v v i m - v

of
f
n
- —

the results or the pur­

poses for the studies.
This problem is further compounded by the fact
that the research procedures differed from one study to

33 Neal Gross, Exploration in Role Analysis;
Studies of the School Superlntendency Role (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956).
34
Charles E. Bidwell, "The School as a Formal
Organization," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James
G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1965), p. 997.

52
the next.

The sample characteristics were for the most

part not similar between the school systems studied.
The goals and interest of the individual studies dif­
fered.

A final point to consider as Charters found in

his study was, "Data from the replication study show that
they cannot be generalized to closely comparable situations
nor to the same school systems three years later." 35
Summary
The author in this chapter has tried to present
the following:
(1) The historical perspective of the school superin­
tendent in the scheme of American education,
its development and refinement;
(2) A historical presentation of the development of
the Michigan school districts and the position of
4— ^

1 ■*

U

■!
4—
A A A

yi ^

rt y s ^
W

W

-P
-A-

r* *"■ V*

1

*“» •

(3) Previous research which has centered on the
position of the school superintendentand
leader behavior with others.

his

Further, related

research which used the superintendent as the
focal point for the study was cited.
Because the author only wanted to look at the
position of school superintendents literature from other

35

Charters, o£. cit., p. 70.

53
administrative fields, i.e., public administration,
hospital administration, industrial management, church
and military was not reviewed for this section of the
research.
The present research study investigated the per­
ceptions of leadership behavior by the superintendents
in districts of less than 3,000 pupil enrollment compared
to districts of over 10,000 pupil enrollment as observed
by school board members, principals, teachers, and the
superintendents.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
The writer's purpose in this chapter is to
describe the methods and procedures used in conducting
this study.

Included in this chapter is a description

of the LBDQ—XII, selection of the subscales used, school
districts which were contacted, collection of the data,
treatment of the data and the analysis of data.
Instrument Used in This Research
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBDQ-XII) was selected as the main research tool for
this study.

The LBDQ was developed for use in obtaining

descriptions of a supervisor by group members who he
supervises or leads.

Stogdill states that "it can be

used to describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders,
in any type of group or organization."'*'

Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire - Form xTT (Columbus,
Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce
and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963), p. 1.

54

55
The LBDQ grew out of work initiated by Hemphill

2

and further development by staff of the Ohio State
Leadership Studies described by Hemphill and Coons.

3

With little help from previous theory and research
the Ohio researchers began with a minimum number of
assumptions about leadership.

Focusing on how leaders

operate, the approach was from the beginning essentially
psychometric.

Many of the items relating to nine supposed

dimensions of leader behavior were contributed by an
interdisciplinary team of social scientists.

From that

point the development of the LBDQ was essentially a pro­
cess of simplification.

The original 1,700 items were

reduced to obtain a brief, easily administered question­
naire which would provide scales characterizing the
behavior of the leader in a given group.
The final process of reducing the number of items
4
was completed by Halpin and Winer who factor analyzed
2

J. K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership
(Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of
Educational Research, Monograph No. 32, 1949).
3

J. K. Hemphill and A. E. Coons, "Development of
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," in Leader
Behavior;
Its Description and Measurement, ed. by R. M.
Stogdill and A. e "I Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State Uni­
versity, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88,
1957) .
4
Andrew W. Halpin and B. James Winer, "A Factorial
Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions," in Leader
Behavior;
Its Description and Measurement, e d . by R . M.
Stogdill and A. E^ Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State Uni­
versity, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88,
1957) .

56
previous forms of the questionnaire to produce a thirtyitem form composed of the well-known dimensions of Con­
sideration and Initiating Structure.
Stogdill, who had been an early worker in the
Ohio Studies, later produced the present expanded and
multidimensional LBDQ - Form XII.

Stogdill states, "It

has not seemed reasonable to believe that two factors
are sufficient to account for all the observable variance
in leader behavior."'*

In light of this statement, it

should be noted that Shartle observed, "no theory was
available to suggest additional factors."**
Based on theory and empirical research, Stogdill
suggested ten additional factors for the LBDQ.

After the

new items were incorporated into a questionnaire, it was
administered to groups.

The results were then subject

to item analysis, the questionnaires were revised,
administered again, re-analyzed, and revised.
Subsequent research with the twelve subscale
LBDQ - Form XII has studied an army air division and

5

Stogdill, Manual, o p . cit., p. 2.

^Carroll L. Shartle, in Ibid., p. 1.
7

7

Ralph M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and
Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press,
1955) .

57
highway patrol, 8 industrial organization, 9 while other
revisions have studied ministers and community leaders,1**
United States senators,

11

and corporation presidents.

12

The present form of the LBDQ - Form XII used by the author
represents the fourth revision.

All twelve subscales can

be found on pages 57-58.
LBDQ - Form XII
Subscales and Definitions
Each subscale is composed of either five or ten
items. A subscale is necessarily defined by its
component items, and represents a complex pattern
of behaviors. Brief definitions of the subscales
are listed below. Subscales with an asterisk (*)
were used in the present study.
1. Representation - speaks and acts as the repre­
sentative of the group. (5 items)
2. Demand Reconciliation - reconciles conflicting
demands and reduces disorder to system. (5 items)

Q
E. Marder, "Leader Behavior as Perceived by Sub­
ordinates as a Function of Organizational Level" (unpub­
lished M.A. thesis, Columbus, The Ohio State University,
1960)
9

David R. Day, "Basic Dimensions of Leadership in
a Selected Industrial Organization" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbus, The Ohio State University, 1961).
*"**Ralph M. Stogdill, Omar S. Goode, and David R.
Day, "New Leader Behavior Description Subscale," Journal
of Psychology, LIV, No. 2 (October, 1962), 259-69.
11Ralph M. Stogdill, Omar S. Goode, and David R.
Day, "The Leader Behavior of United States Senators,"
Journal of Psychology, LVI, No. 1 (July, 1963), 3-8.
12

Ralph M. Stogdill, Omar S. Goode, and David R.
Day, "The Leader Behavior of Corporation Presidents,"
Personnel Psychology, XVI, No. 2 (Summer, 1963), 127-32.

58
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
*10.
11.
12.

Tolerance of Uncertainty - is able to tolerate
uncertainty and postponement without anxiety
or upset. (10 items)
Persuasiveness - uses persuasion and argument
effectively; exhibits strong convictions.
(10 items)
Initiation of Structure - clearly defines own
role, and lets followers know what is expected.
Tolerance of Freedom - allows followers scope for
initiative, decision, and action. (10 items)
Role Assumption - actively exercises the leader­
ship role rather than surrendering leadership to
others. (10 items)
Consideration - regards the comfort, well being,
status, and contributions of followers. (10 items)
Production Emphasis - applies pressure for pro­
ductive output. (10 items)
Predictive accuracy - exhibits foresight and
ability to predict outcomes accurately. (5 items)
Integration - maintain a closely knit organization;
resolves intermember conflicts. (5 items)
Superior Orientation - maintains cordial relations
with superiors; has influence with them; is
striving for status. (10 items)13
Pilot Study
Because of the length of the twelve subscale LBDQ -

XII it was decided to use a shortened form of the question­
naire with only a few subscales.

The author contacted

people who were either presently or had recently been
school administrators to select the three or four sub­
scales which were the most important to them rather than
using the often-used scales of Initiation of Structure
and Consideration.

The result of this pilot established

the four subscales of Persuasiveness, Tolerance of
Freedom, Production Emphasis, and Predictive Accuracy

13 Stogdill, Manual, o p . cit., p. 3.

59
to be used in this study.

The use of these four sub­

scales also produced a shortened thirty-five item
questionnaire.
Districts Selected
Because of the desire to study superintendents who
had been working for a length of time in their position,
only those superintendents were contacted who had been
the superintendent of their respective district for at
least one year.
With the cooperation of Dr. Donald Currie, Execu­
tive Secretary of the Michigan Association of School
Administrators (MASA) letters were sent to school super­
intendents of the selected districts (see Appendix A ) .
The letter explained the research design and a response
form for the superintendent to indicate his willingness
to cooperate or not.

If the superintendent did indicate

his willingness, he was asked to list nine people with
whom he worked who could be contacted.

Included in the

list were three school board members, three principals,
and three teachers.
In the original fifteen large (10,000 students
or more) districts contacted, ten superintendents
accepted the invitation to participate.

At the same

time fourteen small (under 3,000 students) districts
were contacted with eleven superintendents assenting to

60
help in the study.

The following is a breakdown of

district enrollments, each entry representing a district
participating s
Large
Districts

Small
Districts

34.000
31,500
22.000
21.000
17.000
12.000
11,000
10,300
10.000

2,900
2,600
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,100
1,800
1,700
1,300

10.000

1,200
1,000

The author modified the LBDQ - XII items so the
questionnaire would make sense to the different respondent
groups.

As a result of this modification, there were

four forms used in the research:

Superintendents Form,

School Board Members Form, Principal - Administrators
Form, and Teachers Form.

While the form was modified

effort was made to assure that the context of each item
was not changed (see Appendix E ) .
When a response form was returned with nine names
listed, the following procedure was followed:

A second

letter was (Appendix B) mailed to the superintendent
thanking him for his cooperation, along with his
questionnaire with a stamped self-addressed envelope.
To school board members a letter (Appendix C) was sent

61
in cooperation with Dr. Donald Currie, and Dr. Norman
Weinheimer, Executive Director, Michigan Association of
School Boards (MASB) with the Board Members Form of the
LBDQ and a self-addressed envelope.

Principals and

teachers were sent a letter (Appendix D) from the author
along with their respective questionnaires and selfaddressed envelopes.

After a period of two and one-half

months had elapsed, follow-up post cards were sent to
remind people who had not done so to return the question­
naire.

In fifteen cases this was followed by a telephone

call.
The following is the time line that was followed:
1973 - 1974
November 1
November 7
January 20
February 11
February 13
March 1

-

Request letter to Superintendents
Mailings start as responses come in
Reminder post cards
Reminder telephone calls where needed
Remailings when needed
Closing date for returns

A total of 209 questionnaires were sent and a
return of better than 90 per cent was realized.

The

breakdown of responses follows:
Potential
Superintendents
21
Board Members
63
62
Principals
Teachers
63
Totals 269

Returned
21
56
60
60
T 5T

Percentage
100
89
97
95
“ 9T

62
Subscale Means. Standard Deviations
and Reliability
In his manual on the LBDQ Stogdill reported the
respective means and standard deviations for the subscales
used with various groups.

Table 3.1 provides this infor­

mation while Table 3.2 shows the reliability of the
LBDQ - XII subscales.
Analysis of Data
Data were studied within groups and compared
between large and small districts.

The Jeremy D. Finn

(Multivariate Analysis of Variance) computer program was
used to provide computational routine.

Where the dif­

ferences between groups or the comparisons of district
size were found to be significant, the Scheff£ post hoc
procedure for comparison between groups was used.
All statistical tests (Multivariate F - Univariate
F and Schtsffe post hoc comparisons) were conducted using
an alpha level of .05.
Stage II - Observations
Based on the results of the analysis of data of
the study, the author chose four districts for obser­
vational visits to determine if the results of the
responses to the LBDQ with respect to school district
size would be reflected.

Because the visits were

structured to "shadow1* the superintendents, little could
be determined on the factors of position for comparison.

TABLE 3.1.— Means and standard deviations oJ: LBDQ subscales

diJSL.

•*«»**

Ministers

Community
Leaders

Elementary®
Principals

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

20.0

3.0

19.9

2.8

19.8

2.8

20.4

2.4

19.6

2.4

17.8

2.8

19.2

2.8

19.8

3.1

19.7

3.3

18.6

2.3

1.

Representat ion

2.

Demand Reconciliation

3.

Tolerance Uncertainty

36.2

4.7

35.6

4.6

33.2

6.2

37.5

6.3

37.7

5.6

34.9

4.1

4.

Persuasiveness*3

38.3

6.2

37.9

5.9

36.5

5.5

42.1

4.7

39.5

5.5

34.1

4.1

5.

Initiating Structure

38.6

5.7

39.7

4.5

36.6

5.4

38.7

4.9

37.2

5.7

36.3

3.6

6.

Tolerance Freedom*3

35.9

6.5

36.3

5.3

38.0

5.9

37.5

6.0

36.4

5.0

40.3

3.4

7.

Pole Assumption

42.7

6.1

42.7

5.3

40.9

5.6

41.5

5.4

39.8

5.6

38.6

4.8

8.

Consideration

37.1

5.6

36.9

6.5

37.1

5.8

42.5

5.8

41.1

4.7

41.7

3.4

9.

Production Emphasis*3

36.3

5.1

35.8

5.7

36.1

5.6

34.9

5.1

35.4

6.8

31.0

4.0

10.

Predictive Accuracy*5

18.1

2.1

17.8

2.1

19.2

2.6

20.5

2.3

19.8

2.5

18.2

2.3

11.

Integration

19.5

2.6

19.1

2.7

18.8

2.7

12.

Superior Orientation

39.9

4.9

39.1

5.1

34.6

4.0

Number of Cases

235

185

4.2

38.6
165

103

57

99

o\

u>

TABLE 3*1.— Continued

Subscale

Corporation
Presidents

Labor
Presidents

College
Presidents

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

21.4

1.9

20.7

2.5

20.7

3.5

Senators

1.

Representation

20.5

1.8

22.2

2.2

2.

Demand Reconciliation

20.6

2.7

21.5

3.2

3.

Tolerance Uncertainty

3!>.9

5.4

40.4

5.6

37.2

5.5

35.3

7.6

4.

Persuasiveness*3

40.1

4.2

43.1

4.8

41.1

4.2

42.5

4.6

5.

Initiating Structure

30.5

5.0

38.3

5.6

37.7

4.2

38.8

5.5

6.

Tolerance Freedom*3

30.9

4.9

38.0

4.0

39.6

3.9

36.6

6.2

7.

Role Assumption

42.7

3.5

43.3

5.5

43.5

4.5

41.0

5.7

8.

Consideration

41.5

4.0

42.3

5.5

41.3

4.1

41.1

5.9

9.

Production Emphasis*3

30.9

4.4

36.0

5.0

36.2

5.0

41.2

5.2

10.

Predictive Accuracy*3

20.1

1.8

20.9

2.0

11.

Integration

12.

Superior Orientation

43.2

3.1

42.9

2.9

Number of Cases
Source:

55

44

55

From Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual, op* cit., p. 9.

aData on Elementary Principals as reported by Dr. Frederick R. Ignatovich,
Michigan State University.
^Subscales used in this srudy.

44

TABLE 3.2.--Reliability coefficient* (modified Kucer-Richardson) of LBDQ subacales

Subacale

Army
Diviaion

Highway
Patrol

Labor
Presidents

Ministers

Coamnity
Leaders

Corporation
Presidents

.74

.55

.59

.54

,70

.74

.77

.58

.59

.81

College
Presidents

Senators

1.

Repreaentation

2.

Demand Reconciliation

3.

Tolerance Uncertainty

.58

.66

.82

.84

.85

.79

.82

.80

.83

4.

Persuasiveness8

.84

.85

.84

.77

.79

.69

.80

.76

.82

5.

Initiating Structure

.79

.75

.78

.70

.72

.77

.78

.80

.72

6.

Tolerance Freedom8

.81

.79

.86

.75

.86

.84

.58

.73

.64

7.

Hble Aaaumption

.85

.84

.84

.75

.83

.57

.86

.75

.65

e.

Conaideration

.76

.87

.84

.85

.77

.78

.83

.76

.85

9.

Production Emphasis8

.70

.79

.79

.59

.79

.71

.65

.74

.38

10.

Predictive Accuracy8

.76

.82

.91

.83

.62

.84

.87

11.

Integration

.73

.79

12.

Superior Orientation

.64

.75

Source:

.82

Mrcraft
executives

.85

.81

From Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual, op. cit., p. 11.
aSubscales uaed in thia atudy.

.66

.66

.80
.81

.60

66
These observations included one-day visits to
two large districts and two small districts.

Additionally

the visits included observations of a large district
school board meeting and a small district board meeting.
Lutz and Iannaccone stress that a researcher
who undertakes a participant observation study may
assume one of three roles:
1.

2.

3.

The participant as an observer:
In this case
the researcher already has his group member­
ship before he undertakes a study and
therefore his role as observer or researcher
would be unknown to his subjects.
The observer as a limited participant: The
observer would join a group for the expressed
purpose of studying it. The members would,
perhaps more than likely, know of the
researcher's intent in joining the group.
The observer as a non-participant: That is,
without group membership. Here the presence
of the observer may not even be known to the
group and if it were known, he would still be
outside the group.14
In this second stage of the research, the author

chose to use predominately the second role, although
there were occasions where the last role description
was appropriate.
Summary
The purpose of Chapter III was to present infor­
mation about the instrument used in this study— the LBDQ

14 Frank W. Lutz and Laurence Iannaccone, Under­
standing Educational Organizations: A Field Study
Approach (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, T569),
p. 108.

67
including descriptions of the subscales, reliability,
means and standard deviations of the subscales from
previous research using the LBDQ.
A pilot study using twenty present or former
school administrators was described enabling the researcher
to choose the four subscales used in the present research.
An explanation was given of how districts were chosen
and recognition to those professional organizations which
cooperated to make this study a reality.
Enrollment figures were presented of those dis­
tricts which participated in the study and the procedures
for contacting individuals participating from the dis­
tricts.

The time line followed was presented as well

as a breakdown of the size of the respondent districts.
Analysis of data and the observations section
of this research were discussed.

The results of the

analyses are presented in Chapter IV, and conclusions
in Chapter VI.
in Chapter V.

The stage II - observations are presented

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
OF DATA
Introduction
The author in Chapter I indicated a series of
hypotheses which were to be tested in this study, using
the methodology described in Chapter III.
While these hypotheses
sons tobe studied, there were
be tested in this study.
1.

mention specific compari­
three major questions to

Briefly stated they were:

Will there be significant differences in LBDQ
subscale scores between large and small dis­
tricts?

2.

Will there be significant differences in the
LBDQ subscale scores between positions the
persons have in the school districts?

3.

Is there an interaction between positions and
the size of districts?
Based on the above questions and the hypotheses

generated in Chapter I, data will be presented in the
following order:

(1) testing hypotheses statistically
68

69
for significance with respect to school district size,
position, and interaction of size and position factors
and (2) mean comparisons for acceptance or rejection of
hypotheses presented in Chapter I.
Interaction Between District
Size and Position
Table 4.1 presents the results of a MANOVA
analysis of interaction between group position and
school district size.

TABLE 4.1.— Multivariate analysis of group position—
school district size
Univariate F

p less than

Variable

Mean Square

Persuasiveness

23.5740

.4709

.7030

Tolerance of
Freedom

8.3281

.2331

.8733

Production
Emphasis

6.8812

.1788

.9107

Predictive
Accuracy

5.5440

.5344

.6593

F Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean
vectors = .2310
Degrees of freedom 12 and 492.4012
p < .9969
Degrees of freedom for Hypothesis = 3
Degrees of freedom for Error = 189

70
Note that there is no indication of interaction
between school district size and position on the depen­
dent variables.

The results of this test indicate that

there is no statistical significance in the data with
respect to the interaction of these factors.
School District Size
The data in Table 4.2 represent a MANOVA analysis
of subscales as affected by school district size.
TABLE 4.2.— Multivariate analysis of leadership dimensions—
school district size
Variable

Mean Square

Univariate F

p less than

Persuasiveness
Tolerance of
Freedom
Production
Emphasis
piredicti ve
Accuracy

518.1524

10.3494

.0016a

2.5471

.0713

.7898

91.2107

2.3696

.1254

27.2752

2.6289

.1067

F Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of mean
vectors = 3.9302
Degrees of freedom 4 and 186.0000
p < .0044a
Degrees of freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of freedom for Error = 189
Significant at a = .05.
While there is no statistically significant dif­
ference for the variables of Tolerance of Freedom, Pro­
duction Emphasis, and Predictive Accuracy associated with

71
district size, the variable of Persuasiveness does indi­
cate a significant difference between large and small
school districts.

Superintendents in large districts

are perceived to be significantly more persuasive than
the superintendents of small districts.
Position in School District
The data presented in Table 4.3 represent the
results of a MANOVA analysis of the LBDQ subscales and
group position in the school district.
TABLE 4.3.— Multivariate analysis of leadership dimensions—
group position in the school district
Variable

Mean Square

Univariate F

p less than

Persuasiveness
Tolerance of
Freedom
Production
Emphasis
Predictive
Accuracy

94.3503

1.8845

.1337

80.3099

2.2475

.0843

110.3182

2.8660

.0380a

21.8812

2.1090

.1006

F Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of mean
vectors = 2.4409
Degrees of freedom 12 and 492.4012
p < ,0044a
Degrees of freedom for Hypothesis = 3
Degrees of freedom for Error = 189
aSignificant at a =.05.
Data in Table 4.3 indicate that there is no sig­
nificant difference for the variables of Persuasiveness,

72
Tolerance of Freedom, or Predictive Accuracy.

However,

for the variable of Production Emphasis a significant
difference by group position in the school districts is
indicated.
A Scheffe post-hoc comparison was applied to the
variable of Production Emphasis.

The results of this

comparison are found in Table 4.4.

TABLE 4.4.— Scheff€ post-hoc comparison for Production
Emphasis

Xi-Xj

Lower and
Upper
Limits

-1.17

(-5.60, 3.26)

no

Supt. - Princ.

1.58

(-2.82, 5.98)

no

Supt. - Teach.

1.91

(-2.49, 6.31)

no

Board - Prin.

2.73

(- .50, 5.96)

no

Board - Teach.

3.06

(- .17, 6.29)

no

Prin. - Teach.

.33

(-2.85, 3.51)

no

Contrast

Supt. - Board

Mean
Difference

Significant
Result

The Scheffe post-hoc comparison failed to detect
the nature of difference.

Because the Scheffe is a con­

servative procedure the researcher applied a t test to
these same data.

Significant differences were found

between the contrasts of Board member - Principal means,
and the Board member - Teacher means.

73
Because of the possible lack of proportionality
of numbers within cells affecting the variable of Pro­
duction Emphasis, data were re-analyzed after propor­
tionality had been established.

The variable of Pro­

duction Emphasis remained statistically significant.
Means and Standard Deviations
The following tables present data which are the
base for analyses and comparisons for the remainder of
Chapter IV.
Data in Table 4.5 are displayed by district types
in Table 4.6— Large districts, and Table 4.7— Small dis­
tricts.

Data from these tables (4.5, 4.6, 4.7) are

visually presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
Mean Comparisons for Hypotheses
Acceptance
The author in Chapter I generated a series of
hypotheses which have been analyzed on the basis of data
presented in Tables 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 with the t test
at the .05 level.
I. Sub. H O ^ :

In large districts board members will rate the
superintendents higher in persuasiveness than
the superintendents do themselves. Whereas,
there will be no difference in small districts.

TABLE 4.5.— Means and standard deviations for total study

Variable

Supt.

Board

Prin.

Teach.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Persuasion

37.66

5.59

40.71

6.31

38.83

8.05

37.73

7.57

Tolerance of
Freedom

43.23

4.79

39.60

5.07

40.85

6.06

39.76

6.80

Production
Emphasis

37.80

5.35

38,96

5.05

36.23

6.72

35.90 6.80

Predictive
Accuracy

20.76

1.94

21,08

2.76

20.36

3.70

19.60 3.44

n = 21

n = 56

n = 60

n - 60

•u

TABLE 4.6.— Large district means and standard deviations

Variable

Supt.

Board

Prin.

Teach.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Persuasion

39.60

5.04

41.63

6.76

41.31

7.74

39.26

6.33

Tolerance of
Freedom

42.90

6.67

39.19

5.30

41.28

5.16

39.41

6.30

Production
Emphasis

38.00

6.01

39.70

6.17

37.34

7.13

36.30

6.21

Predictive
Accuracy

21.00

1.49

21.15

3.29

21.17

3.40

19.89

3.24

n = 10

n = 27

n = 29

n = 27

TABLE 4.7.— Small district means and standard deviations

Variable

Supt.

Board

Prin.

Teach.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Persuasion

35.91

5.92

39,86

5.87

36.52

7.75

36.48

8.35

Tolerance of
Freedom

43.55

2.38

40.00

4.92

40.45

6.87

40.06

7.27

-j

<r»

Production
Emphasis

37.64

4.97

38.28

3.73

35.19

6.26

35.58

7.34

Predictive
Accuracy

20.55

2.34

21.03

2.23

19.61

3.86

19.36

3.63

n = 11

n = 29

n = 31

n - 33

HIGH

5

5 HIGH

-4

1 LOW

LOW
Per.

Tol.

Pro.

Pred.

Fig. 1.— Profile of dependent variable means for total population study
Superintendents
School board members
—

Principals
Teachers

HIGH

Large districts (n=10)
HIGH

5

5

1 LOW

LOW
Per.

Tol.

Pro.

Pred.

Fig. 2.— Profile of dependent variable means for large districts

Small districts (n=ll)
HIGH

5

4

3

2

1

1 LOW
Per.

Tol.

Pro.

Pred.

Fig. 3.— Profile of dependent variable means for small districts

80
TABLE 4.8.— Superintendent-Board mean comparison on the
dependent variable of Persuasiveness
Large District
Supt.

Small District

Board Member

39.60

Supt.

41.63

35.91

Difference 2.03

Board Member
39.86

Difference 3.95

Significant at a - .05
While board members did rate the superintendents
higher than the superintendents did themselves on the
variable of Persuasiveness in both large and small dis­
tricts, the hypothesis cannot be retained.

Even though

board members rated the superintendents higher, the
trend is away from the stated hypothesis and the dif­
ference is not significant.
retained.

The hypothesis is not

The results indipate that hoard members and

superintendents perceive similar levels of Persuasiveness
in both district sizes.
I. Sub. HC>2 i
Board members in large districts will rate superin­
tendents lower on tolerance of freedom than small
district board members.
Board members in both large and small districts
rated the superintendents lower than the superintendents
rated themselves on the variable of Tolerance of Freedom.

81
TABLE 4.9.— Large district-small district board mean com­
parison on the dependent variable of Tolerance of Freedom
Large District

Small District

Board Members

Board Members

39.19

40.00
•

H
00

Difference
Significant at a = .05

When the mean score comparison is made no significant
difference is found.
retained.

As a result the hypothesis is not

The indication is that board members in both

district groups perceive their superintendents in much
the same way on tolerance of freedom.
I. Sub. H03 :
The board members in larger districts will rate the
superintendents lower in predictive accuracy than
the superintendents will themselves.
TABLE 4.10.— Large district superintendent-board mean com­
parison on the dependent variable of Predictive Accuracy
Large District
Supt.

Board Member

21.00

21.15

Difference .15

aSignificant at a = .05

82
The board members' scores are higher than those
of the superintendents of large districts without sig­
nificant difference.

With the outcome of this comparison

the hypothesis may be rejected.
no difference is accepted.

An alternative HO of

Board members and superin­

tendents of large districts perceive similar levels of
predictive accuracy.
I. Sub. HO.:
__________
4
Board members in large districts will rate the
superintendents higher in the area of production
emphasis than the superintendents will themselves.
TABLE 4.11.— Large district superintendent-board mean com­
parison on the dependent variable of Production Emphasis
Large District
Supt.

Board Member

38.00

39.70

Difference 1.70

Significant at a = .05
It can be seen that the board members in large
districts rated the superintendents higher in Production
Emphasis than the superintendents did themselves.
ever, there was no significant difference.

How­

Based on the

information of Table 4.11 the hypothesis is rejected.
The level of perception of production emphasis is similar
for the large district board members and superintendents.

83
II. Sub. H01 :
In large districts principals will rate the superin­
tendents lower in persuasiveness than principals in
small districts.
TABLE 4.12,— Large district-small district principal mean
comparisons on the dependent variable of Persuasiveness
Large District

Small District

Principals

Principals

41.31

36.52
Difference 4.79a

Significant at a = .05
The comparison of the mean scores for the princi­
pals on Persuasiveness provided statistical significant
result.

However, because the results indicate a trend

away from the stated hypothesis, it is not retained.
While the HO was rejected the result was significant in
the opposite direction for the comparison.

This result

was unexpected and will be discussed at the end of the
chapter.
II. Sub. H02 :
Principals in smaller districts will rate the
superintendents lower in tolerance of freedom
than the principals of larger districts.

84
TABLE 4.13.— Large district-small district principal mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Tolerance of Free­
dom
Large District

Small District

Principals

Principals

41.27

40.45
Difference .82

a

Significant at a == .05
The small district principals mean score on
Tolerance of Freedom is lower than the score of the
large district principals, but without significant dif­
ference.

Table 4.13 suggests that the hypothesis cannot

be retained, as there is no difference between groups.
The level of perception for this dimension of leadership
by the principals from the two district sizes is the same.
II. Sub. H03 :
Principals in small districts will rate the superin­
tendents higher in predictive accuracy than the
principals in large districts.
TABLE 4.14.— Large district-small district principal mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Predictive Accuracy
Large District

Small District

Principals

Principals

21.17

19.61
Difference 1.56

Significant at a = .05

85
The principals of the large districts rated the
superintendents at a higher mean score than the small
district principals.

The difference was not significant

for this comparison on Predictive Accuracy and therefore
the hypothesis was not retained.

The perceptions of pre­

dictive accuracy by the principals was at a similar level.
II. Sub. H04 :
Principals in larger districts will rate the
superintendents lower in production emphasis than
the superintendents rating of themselves.
TABLE 4.15.— Large district superintendent-principal mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Production Emphasis
Large District
Supt.

Principals

38.00

37.34

Difference .66

aSignificant at a = .05
The large district principals mean score on Pro­
duction Emphasis was lower than the mean score of the
large district superintendents.

The difference on this

comparison cannot be considered as significant and the
hypothesis as stated may be rejected.

Large district

superintendents and principals' perception level of pro­
duction emphasis is similar to each other, as indicated
by the results.

86
III. Sub. HC^:
Teachers in large districts will not rate the
superintendents as high in the area of per­
suasiveness as the superintendents will themselves.
TABLE 4.16.— Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Persuasiveness
Large District
Supt.
39.60

Teachers
39.26

Difference .34

Significant at a = .05
Teachers in large districts rated the superin­
tendents lower on the variable of Persuasiveness, but
without significant difference in the comparison.

The

hypothesis based on this data may be rejected as stated.
The result of this comparison would indicate that large
district superintendents and teachers perceive the
superintendent's behavior for persuasiveness the same.
III. Sub. HC>2 :
In the area of tolerance of freedom teachers in
large districts will rate the superintendents
higher than the superintendents will rate them­
selves .

87
TABLE 4.17.— Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Tolerance of
Freedom
Large District
Supt.

Teachers

42.90

39.40

Difference 3.50

aSignificant at a = .05
The mean score for Tolerance of Freedom by teachers
in large districts was lower than the mean score of the
superintendents of large districts.

The difference was

not significant and the hypothesis as stated is not
retained.

This would suggest that the superintendent's

behavior for tolerance of freedom is similarly perceived
by both groups.
III. Sub. H03 :
Teachers in large districts will score the superin­
tendents lower in predictive accuracy than the
superintendents do themselves.
TABLE 4.18.— Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Predictive Accuracy
Large District
Supt.

Teachers

21.00
19.88
Difference 1.12
Significant at a — .05

88
Teachers in large districts rated the superin­
tendents lower in Predictive Accuracy than the superin­
tendents do themselves.

The difference, however, is not

significant and the hypothesis as a result of this data
is rejected.

The level of perception for predictive

accuracy is indicated to be similar by the superintendent
and teachers from large districts.
III. Sub. H04 :
Teachers in larger districts will rate the superin­
tendents lower in the area of production emphasis
than the superintendents will themselves.
TABLE 4.19.— Large district superintendent-teacher mean
comparison on the dependent variable of Production Emphasis
Large District
Supt.

Teachers

38.00

36.30

Difference 1.70

aSignificant at a = .05
Large district teachers rated their superinten­
dents lower in Production Emphasis than the superinten­
dents rated themselves.

The difference is not significant

and the hypothesis based on this information is rejected.
Large district superintendents and teachers perceive the
leader behavior for production much the same.

89
IV. H O ;
In a comparison between small and large district
superintendents there will be a disagreement in
the superintendent's scores on the dependent
variables.
TABLE 4.20.— Large district-small district superintendents'
comparison on the dependent variables

Large n = 10
Small n = 11

Predict.

Persuas.

Tolerance

39.60
34.91

42.90
43.54

38.00
37.64

21.00
20.55

3.69

.64

.36

.45

Differences

Product.

aSignificant at a = .05
The hypothesis cannot be retained as the dif­
ferences on the variables are not significant.

While the

Multivariate analysis detected significance for mean
score comparison between the large and small districts
on Persuasiveness.

However^ the superintendents' com­

parison does not produce this significance.

It can be

suggested that other respondent groups account for this
overall significance.
V. H Q ;
Within group scores will not be congruent as
comparisons of variables are made between small
and large districts.

TABLE 4.21.— Large district-small district board members*
comparison on the dependent variables
Persuas.
Large n = 27
Small n = 29

Tolerance

Product.

Predict.

41.63
39.86

39.18
40.00

39.70
38.27

21.15
21.03

1.77

.82

1.43

.12

Differences

Significant at a = .05
Board members from the large districts tend to
have higher mean scores than the board members from small
districts.

None of the differences show significance.

The hypothesis for school board members' scores cannot
be retained.

The results would indicate that board

members from both size districts perceive their superin­
tendents about the same for the four subscales.
TABLE 4.22.— Large district-small district principals-> v

4

a

w

Persuas.
Large n = 29
Small n = 31

41.27
40.45
(N

4.79a

Tolerance

00
•

Differences

41.31
36.52

aKI

a

e t a

Product.

Predict.

37.34
35.19

21.17
19.61

2.15

1.55

Significant at a = .05
The mean score comparisons for all dependent
variables based on the hypothesis cannot be retained
except Persuasiveness.

Because there are significant

91
differences in Persuasiveness, the hypothesis can be
retained only in that comparison.

For the other

variables the level of perception is about the same
for both district groups.
TABLE 4.23.— Large district-small district teachers' cornparison on the dependent variables

Large n = 27
Small n = 33
Differences

Persuas.

Tolerance

39.26
36.48

39.40
40.06

36.30
35.57

19.88
19.36

2.78

.66

.73

.52

Product.

Predict.

significant at a = .05
The comparison of teacher scores between large
and small districts on the dependent variables points
out that there is no significant difference in the
scores.

Therefore, the hypothesis is not retained.

The results would indicate that teachers from both
district sizes perceived their superintendents about
the same for the four subscales.
Summary
The three major underlying questions to be tested
in the study have been restated.
Question 1 :
Is there interaction between the factors of
positions and the size of districts?

92
Table 4.1 of Multivariate Analysis of group
position to the size of school district indicates the
absence of interaction effect.

The data presented give

no sign of statistical significance to the variables as
the result of the interaction.
Question 2 :
Will there be significant differences in Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire subscale
scores between large and small districts?
The Multivariate Analysis of School district size
presented in Table 4.2 suggests the only significant
subscale was Persuasiveness to be affected by school dis­
trict size.

When the data were analyzed for the direction

of this significance, the superintendents from large
districts were perceived to be significantly more per­
suasive than the superintendents of small districts
based on total group perception.
Question 3 :
Will there be significant differences in the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire subscale scores
between positions the person have in the school
district?
The result of Multivariate Analysis of group
position and its effect on dependent variables established
statistical significance in the subscale of Production
Emphasis.

When post-hoc comparisons were made to discover

93
the nature of the differences, it was found to exist
between the contrasts of Board member - Principal mean
scores, and the Board member - Teacher means for t tests
but not Scnefffe.
The balance of Chapter IV directed attention
toward the analysis of the hypotheses the author developed
in the beginning of this study.
The testing of these hypotheses resulted in
rejection of each one because of the lack of significance
or direction away from the stated hypothesis.

The results

would indicate that the respondents perceived leadership
behavior in the same way for the comparisons.

Only when

the comparison between large district principals - small
district principals was made was significance found.
This may have been the result of chance or the superin­
tendents are perceived in large districts by the princi­
pals to be mo r e persuasive in their r e l a t i o n s h i p s with

them.
Because of the content of comments made by the
respondents on their returned questionnaires, the author
has placed these comments in Appendix F for the reader's
inspection.
The results of Chapter IV indicate few statisti­
cally significant differences with close mean scores
for the respective groups.

However, it can be seen

94
that the mean scores of the large district respondents
are somewhat higher than their small district cousins.
The clearcut differences anticipated in a study
between large and small districts did not appear.

In

Chapter V the author will discuss the results of obser­
vation visitations to four of the districts that par­
ticipated in this study including two small districts
and two large districts.

CHAPTER V
STAGE II - OBSERVATIONS
Introduction
The author in Chapter III suggested a rationale
for the districts visited in this section of the study.
The purpose was to determine if the observations would
reflect the results of the data in Chapter IV.

Because

superintendents were not observed extensively in inter­
actions with board members, principals and teachers, only
the dimension of large district-small district superin­
tendent leader behavior seemed worthy of observation.

As

a result the researcher arbitrarily selected two dis­
tricts upon per m i s s i o n oi

i_he respective superintendents.

Each of the four superintendents was contacted
by telephone and asked for permission to be "shadowed”
for a work day by the author.

In each case the superin­

tendents were very receptive to the request.

It was

stressed in the conversation to retain a normal work day
and not to make adjustments because of the researcher's
presence.

It should be mentioned that again the anonymity

of the superintendent and the district were stressed in

95

96
the reporting of the results of the observations.

How­

ever, it can be stated that the four districts represent
rural, suburban, and metropolitan types.
The fundamental question that was asked in the
observation as was the case of Chapter IV was:

"Is there

difference in the behavior of superintendents of schools
between large and small districts?"
Because the LBDQ contained the subscales of Per­
suasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom, Production Emphasis,
and Predictive Accuracy, the observations were related
to these areas when possible.
Demographic Information
The superintendents visited in this phase of the
study were in the forty-five to fifty age span.

Their

superintendency position in three cases was at least the
second with one being his first.

The educational back­

ground of the men ranged from the Master's degree level
to the Doctorate.

Three of the superintendents had both

educational and administrative experience predominately
in Michigan institutions.
Small District Visits
The small districts visited represented rural
farm communities outside urban centers.
not seem to affect

While this did

the general operation of the districts

97
as one might expect in this setting most employees came
from the urban centers especially the professional staff.
The superintendents were experienced people who
tried to establish an informal atmosphere in their dis­
tricts with a low profile to community and staff.

This

does not mean that they were not visible to these people.
The superintendents made special efforts to be visible
and suggested this was a priority item in their philosophy.
To achieve this goal the superintendents retained member­
ship in several of the local service clubs and attended
more than one of the churches represented in the districts.
To further enhance the visibility goal attendance at
athletic activities, suppers for fund raising, band
concerts, and plays is needed.
The actual visits to the districts were found to
be very informal and because of the mechanics of these
districts, the superintendent was involved in the
financial aspect of the district operation handling
several business matters during the process of the day.
In each case the superintendent gave me a tour
of the district discussing the future plans for the
district as well as visiting the individual buildings.
During these tours there was continual discussion of the
present and future problems facing the superintendent
and the district.

98
A degree of pride was indicated by each superin­
tendent in the involvement by himself in the curriculum
of the district.

Later the indications were that the

building principal had free hand in the types of things
' that were going on in the buildings and that in some
cases they had done as they pleased, ignoring what the
superintendent would like to see happen.

The superin­

tendents saw themselves as team management oriented
involving their building administrators in what was
going on in the district.

Both agree that they had

few publics to please and that in general there was
no diverse number of groups to please.
The researcher would note that the pace in each
district was easy going with little intensity in the
types of decisions that had to be made.

But the

superintendents were involved in a wide range of
activities from curriculum to transportation.
Subscale Relationship
The researcher in his visits tried to keep in
mind the subscales used in this study and apply them
to the superintendents as they were observed.

This was

a subjective process and while the perceptions are
accurate for the visitation may be somewhat different
for the day-to-day operation of the districts.
Neither superintendent seemed to be strong in
the area of Persuasiveness with the situations that they

99
encountered during the time that the researcher spent
with them.

They seemed to in fact shy away from personal

contact or confrontation with people.

However, I think

that each superintendent felt that he was strong in this
area and this lent to his success in the district.

Both

superintendents felt that they were quite Tolerant of
Freedom and took pride in being team managers or leaders.
I am not sure if their administrators felt the same way
on this area.
The area of production emphasis was not stressed
during the visits and while each had interest in the
achievement rate of children, I doubt that there is a
great push for improvement or that it would be in char­
acter for these men.
Predictive Accuracy for the researcher was not
an observable activity as such.

However, various pro­

grams (i.e. building and growth patterns) would indicate
that the superintendents have had some success in pre­
dicting the needs and future course of events in their
districts.
While observing the small district superintendents
in action, it could be reflected that neither would be
scored highly on the LBDQ subscales that were used in
this study.

This would not reflect the effectiveness

of the job that the men were doing and it seemed that
the people encountered during the days of visits were

100

satisfied as well as being receptive to the superinten­
dents.

The lack of formality and intensity of problems

to solve would characterize the small district visits.
Large District Visits
The large districts represented an urban city
district and a suburban city district.

The student

make-up would be characterized as biracial and pre­
dominantly white respectively.
The superintendents were experienced in edu­
cational administration and had to some degree
reorganized the administrative structure of their dis­
tricts.

In each case the purpose was to reduce the

number of people reporting directly to the superin­
tendent, place many of the day-to-day decisions at
the local level (principals), free the superintendents
to make many of the abstract decisions which effect the
overall operation of their districts.

Both men felt

that they were strong in the area of business affairs
even though they had financial experts on the staff.
They were strongly involved in the politics which govern
school operation at the local and state level.

The

superintendents indicated that they made attempts to
stay knowledgeable of new laws and court rulings which
might effect the school operation.

Each superintendent

was visible to local groups like the Chamber of Commerce,

101

Lions Club, Rotary Club, etc.

These groups, though, did

not always represent local citizenry and therefore
membership in these groups was not stressed.
The superintendents were quite knowledgeable of
their respective communities and were anticipating future
problems that they might experience.

While the superin­

tendents seemed to be having successful tenures in the
districts, neither seemed to feel that they would spend
a long length of time in the present job.

Each man

had alternatives which they could draw from in fields
away from the superintendency.
Subscale Relationship
The large district superintendents were strong
in the area of Persuasiveness when they spoke of activi­
ties which they had to take a stand on.

Both had strong

feelings when they discussed a position with others, be
it fellow superintendents or their subordinates.

At

the same time their astuteness showed through when
working with assistants.

Their goals were brought to

a position where the superintendent had been all along,
the assistants feeling that they had counseled the
superintendent to this position.

It seemed that the

political minds of these men were very adept.
When the superintendents are perceived in the
area of Tolerance of Freedom, it could be seen that
their subordinates have latitude to do their work but

102

by the same token are responsible for the results of the
actions which they undertake.

The building adminis­

trators find this difficult to a degree according to
the superintendents, I suspect partly having worked for
many years without administrative powers.
Predictive accuracy was not observed to a great
extent in the large districts.

However, there were

indications that the superintendents had some success
in this dimension in the enrollment and budgetary
allocations.
Production Emphasis for the large districts
appeared to being evenly split with one superintendent
interested in higher achievement of students, broader
experiences for children, etc.

In the other district

this was a commonplace result and there was little need
to push for it.

Both had goals that were to be achieved

during the school year.
Summary
As the researcher reviewed the notes of the
visits and went over the discussions that went on during
the days of observations to compare the large and small
districts, it seemed that obvious differences do exist
beyond the size of the organization.

It is apparent

that in a small district the superintendent is a
jack of all trades.

He is involved in the budget,

103
curriculum, transportation, negotiations, civic activi­
ties, millage, bond issue, and student discipline*

The

involvement in these and many more activities may not
be great but he is involved.

The pace of this type of

organization is low key and may be characterized best
by a lack of intensity.

The superintendents in the

large districts observed may have been involved in the
same activities but not in a direct sense, the subordi­
nates were responsible for the special areas and made
the decisions while operating within a philosophy
established by the superintendent.

At the same time

the superintendents in the large districts seemed to
have had an intensity with the schedule that they kept
and the abstract decisions that they had to make.

There

was an awareness of formal organizational structure that
the superintendents worked for with only a handful of
employees reporting directly to them.
of command was very much in vogue.

Follow the chain

Looping was not

perceived to be an acceptable activity by the large
district superintendents.
The superintendents also may be characterized as
being more politically astute than their small district
brothers.

This does not mean to imply the internal

politics of their district, but more the external
(state) politics and its effect on the local unit.

104
The observation visitations reinforced the
results of the statistical data of Chapter IV with
respect to large-small district relationships.
The researcher observed that the large district
superintendents were much more persuasive in the visits
than were the small district superintendents.

It seemed

that this was a characteristic of the person which was
necessary to the large district job and may be the
reason these people are in large districts.
The variables of Tolerance of Freedom, Predictive
Accuracy, and Production Emphasis did not represent
great differences in the two groups observed.

There was

some indication that the large urban districts may lean
more in the direction of this dimension of production.
The researcher would indicate that this may be accounted
for by the interest of the citizens of these districts
in the achxevement of the children on the various tests
and the special state and federal grants which have
some form of accountability based on production.
To the researcher these observations may be the
most productive aspect of the research and may be the
only way the school superintendency can be studied.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this the final chapter attention has been
devoted to a summary of the study, followed by a dis­
cussion of findings and conclusions generated from the
analysis of the data and recommendations for areas of
further study.
Summary
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
perceptions of leader behavior of the superintendent of
schools as seen by the superintendent, principals,
teachers, and board members through the use of the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire - Form XII.
It was attempted in this study to determine whether
these perceptions of leader behavior by the various
groups changed as the size of the school districts
increased.

An observation visitation was used to

determine if in certain districts the direct observations

105

106
would reflect the results of the LBDQ data.

It was hoped

that through the findings of this study a better per­
ception of the behavior of the superintendent and his
duties by the various groups could be developed.
Limitations of the Study
As is true in any study, the validity of this
research is affected by the frankness and sincerity of
the respondents to the LBDQ.

The respondent comments in

Appendix F suggest the credence of responses received.
This study was concerned with within district
perceptions of the leadership behavior of the superin­
tendent of schools in K - 12 districts in Michigan and
how actual behavior was perceived.

The study did not

involve county superintendents, the state superintendent,
private or primary school districts.

With the exception

of the school board members, this investigation did not
involve noncertified employees of the school systems.
Other than board member respondents, no attempt was made
to include people of the community which the districts
serve.
No attempt was made to prove or disprove any
theories of ideal educational administration.

Further,

this study was not intended nor should it be considered
an evaluative tool to determine the effectiveness of the
superintendents.

107
Review of the Literature
A review of the literature was conducted to
explore the historical development of the school superin­
tendency, leadership and the dynamics of administration.
First, the public school superintendency in American edu­
cation was examined from its early beginnings in the
1850's to the present with a special concern for its
evolving character and problems vested in the position.
Second, the Michigan school superintendency was analyzed
for its evolving character in relationship to Michigan
i

school districts.
Third, attention was focused on research in which
the LBDQ was used to study the school superintendency
and other research which centered upon the position of
superintendent of schools.
Because the author was only interested in literature
centered on the school superintendency, no attempt was made
to cite from other administrative fields, i.e., public
administration, business management, church and military,
or hospital administration.
Design of the Study
Because of the length of the twelve subscale
LBDQ - XII, it was decided a shortened form of the
questionnaire with only selected subscales should be
used.
scales.

A pilot study enabled the selection of four sub­
Persuasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom, Production

108
Emphasis, and Predictive Accuracy were selected for the
thirty-five item questionnaire which was used in the
study.
Because of the desire to study superintendents
who had been working for a length of time in their
present position, only those superintendents were con­
tacted who had been superintendents of their respective
district for at least one year.

The school districts

were characterized as either large (10,000 students or
more) districts or small (under 3,000 students) districts.
The respondents from each district included:
three school board members, the superintendent, three
principals, and three teachers.

So the questionnaire

would make sense to the different respondent groups the
author modified the LBDQ - XII items to produce four
respective forms while retaining the context of each item.
The Finn (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) com­
puter program was employed to determine if significant
differences existed on the dependent variables between
school district size and position held in the school
districts.

Where the differences on the variables or

the comparisons of district size were found to be sig­
nificant, the Scheffe post hoc procedure for comparison
between groups was used.

All statistical tests and

Scheff£ post hoc comparisons were conducted using an
alpha level of .05.

109
Finally, observation visitations were scheduled
in two districts from each size classification.

These

visits were conducted with the permission of the respec­
tive superintendents.

The purpose of this portion of the

study was to subjectively answer the fundamental question
of this research:

Is there difference in the leadership

behavior of superintendents of schools between large
and small districts?

Notes recorded as a result of

these visits were also related to the responses on the
four LBDQ subscales where it seemed reasonable.
Findings
1.

Based on a multivariate analysis of group position school district size produced no statistically
significant interaction on any of the dependent
variables (Persuasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom,
»—»v\

2.

^ 2 j.5

Pj T S u x C

UxVc

j

When a multivariate analysis of the leadership
dimensions with respect to school district size
was conducted only the variable of Persuasiveness
was found to be statistically significant.
Further investigation indicated that superin­
tendents in large districts are perceived to be
significantly more persuasive than the superin­
tendents in small districts.

A multivariate analysis of the leadership
dimensions with respect to group position in
the school district indicated statistical sig­
nificance only for the variable of Production
Emphasis.

Post hoc comparisons suggested this

significance existed between board member principal mean scores, and board member - teacher
means.

In each case the board members' scores

were higher than the comparison group.
With the exception of Tolerance of Freedom board
member observed mean scores were higher than the
other respondent groups for the variables.

On

Tolerance of Freedom board members had the lowest
scores.
Group respondents from small districts generally
had lower mean scores than their large district
counterparts, although they were not significantly
different.
Observation visitations reinforced the LBDQ data
which had been collected and suggested that large
district superintendents were more persuasive
than small district superintendents.
Observation visitations suggested that large dis­
trict superintendents were engaged in more politi­
cal activities of the school districts than were
the small district superintendents.

Ill
8.

Visitations indicated that for the variables
studied in this research the large district
superintendents would rate higher than the small
district superintendents.

9.

Based on these observations large district
superintendents work with a greater intensity
in areas of abstract decisions which affect
their districts than do small district superin­
tendents .
Conclusions
The results of this study enabled the researcher

to draw several conclusions from the research.
Because the differences which were hypothesized
did not occur from the analysis of these data, it must
be concluded that there were no differences in the per­
ceptions of leadership behavior because of Llie

s of

the district or the position a person holds within the
district.

It should be mentioned that the subscales

used may not have been sufficiently sensitive to these
differences and that the use of other subscales might
have been of benefit in identifying differences.

Because

of the situational nature of the instrument, the LBDQ
may not be the most appropriate instrument to use in
testing for differences in perceptions.

112
Most of the hypotheses which were generated by
the author were not retained.

In-district observations

by the author led him to believe that there are dif­
ferences in leader behaviors between the large and small
district superintendents.

Further, it would appear to

be difficult if not impossible to isolate fully these
differences with use of a situational instrument such
as the LBDQ.

Subjective observations may be a more

sensitive approach to identifying these differences.
The present research did tend to support the
notion that there is much empirical work yet to be done
regarding perceptions of the position of superintendent
of schools.

The present study may, it is hoped, serve as

a partial foundation for future research dealing with
perceptions of the school superintendent.
Recommendations
1.

Little research has been undertaken to study the
executive officers of the school board and head
of the school system.

The need is great for

empirical research to generate new knowledge of
the practitioner.

While research alone will

not solve the problems which generate conflict,
knowledge of group differences and sources of
tension may be a means of preventing large-scale
alienation and hostility.

113
2.

The time may be here for a re-evaluation of
research tools such as the LBDQ.

There may be

more appropriate indicators for situational
statements in educational organizations.
3.

Replication of the present study with fewer
districts and a larger number of respondents
from the board of education, principals and
teachers (particularly in the large districts)
might be useful.

At the same time other sub­

scales from the LBDQ - XZI might be used.
4.

The potential for diagnostic use of the LBDQ
has not been explored extensively in education.
It might provide data for research, giving prac­
titioners insights into leadership theory and
feedback about their own leader behavior,
otherwise unavailable to them.

5.

The present study only sliced through organi­
zations at a given point in time.

If a better

understanding of educational administration and
organization is to be gained, there is a need
to study them as continuing processes.

This

will necessitate longitudinal studies of organi­
zations.

In light of this the following questions

may have merit for future study:

a.

Does the perception of leadership change when
there is a change in the superintendency of a
district?

b.

Does a labor conflict (i.e., strike) affect the
way leadership is perceived in districts?

c.

Do the perceptions of leadership differ between
school employees and citizens of the community
which the district serves?

d.

Does perception of leadership change as the result
of a unique event (i.e., strike, millage failure
or passage, racial strife, court suit, negoti­
ations, and mandated rules)?
These questions might best be answered through

longitudinal study.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
CONTACT LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS

APPENDIX A
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

e a s t l a n s i n g • M ic h ig a n

4M 2)

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION A ND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

TO:
FROM:

Victor L. Schug, Doctoral Student

SUBJECT:

Help!!!!!

Your help Is needed by a fellow administrator now on his doctoral
studies at MSU. I am presently Involved in a research project to
study the perception of the leadership behavior of school superintendents,
and I hope that you and members of your school can help me with the study.
It's my interest to find what happens to these perceptions when the
school district size increases. I hope that this study will reveal
Information which can help the public school superintendent.
The methodology for this study necessitates that you as the
superintendent complete the questionnaire and the following people
from your district with at least one year of experience in serving
with you do the same: three (3) of your board members; three (3) of
your principals; and three (3) of your teachers.
Dr. Don Currie, Executive Secretary MASA, has been a great resource
to me in planning and has suggested your name for possible help.
The purpose of this letter is to
the data-gatherlng instrument developed for this study.
The
Instrument to be used is a modified form of the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) developed at Ohio State University
and would require less than 30 minutes to complete.

Enclosed is an addressed envelope and a form for you toindicate
your
response to this request as well as the names of those people Ican
contact to complete the LBDQ.
You can rest assured of your anonymity in this research and that the
highest professional and ethical standards will be adhered to
throughtout the study. Neither you as an individual nor your school
district will be identified in the reporting of the results of this
study.
Let me thank you in advance for taking the time to consider this matter
and I hope that you will be able to participate in this investigation.

Sincerely,

115

APPENDIX B
SECOND LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

e a s t l a n s i n g • M ic h ig a n

4 *2 3

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION A ND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Dear
Enclosed is the superintendent's form of the LBDQ
for you to complete and a stamped, self-addressed
envelope for return mailing.
If you are interested
in c'ne resulcs of c'ne research, I will be glad to
send you a copy upon completion of the study.
Let me thank you again for your help and cooperation
on this research.
Sincerely,

Victor L. Schug
Doctoral Student
VS/mg
Enclosures

116

APPENDIX C
LETTERS TO BOARD MEMBERS

APPENDIX C
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

f a s t l a n s i n c • M ic h ig a n

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION A ND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Dear School Board Member,

Your superintendent has consented to cooperate in a
doctoral research project to study leadership behavior
of school superintendents in selected Michigan school
districts. He has indicated that you. as a board
member, would be able to respond to the enclosed
questionnaire describing his leadership behavior.
Dr. Norman Welnheimer, Executive Director, M.A.S.B., and
Dr. Donald Currie, Executive Secretary, M.A.S.A., have
been great resources to me in planning this study.
Enclosed is the questionnaire with-directions and a
self-addressed envelope for return mailing.
You can rest assured of your anonymity In this research
and that the highest professional and ethical standards will
be adhered to throughout this study. Neither you as an
individual nor your school district will be identified In
reporting the results of this study.

Let me thank you in advance for taking the time to complete
the questionnaire.
Sincerely,

Victor L. Schug
Doctoral Student

117

APPENDIX D
LETTER TO PRINCIPALS AND
TEACHERS

APPENDIX D
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

e a s t l a n s i n c • M i c h ig a n

mn

COLLEGE Of EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OP ADMINISTRATION A N D HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Dear Colleague:
Your achool superintendent has consented to cooperate In
a doctoral research project to study leadership behavior of
school superintendents In selected Michigan school districts.
He has indicated that you, as either a teacher or principal,
would be able to respond to the enclosed questionnaire
describing his leadership behavior.
You can rest assured of your anonymity in this research and
that the highest professional and ethical standards will be
adhered to throughout this study. Neither you as an Individual
nor your school district will be identified in reporting the
results of this study.
Enclosed Is the questionnaire with directions and a selfaddressed envelope for return mailing.
Let me thank you in advance for taking the time to complete
the questionnaire.
Sincerely,

Victor L. Schug
Doctoral Student
VLS/lh

118

APPENDIX E
LBDQ FORMS:
SUPERINTENDENTS
BOARD MEMBERS
PRINCIPALS
TEACHERS

APPENDIX E
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE - FORM XII *
Superintendent Form

Purpose of the Questionnaire:
On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe
your behavior. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior, but it
does not ask you to Judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable.
Although some items may seem similar, they express differences that are
important in the description of leadership. Each item should be
considered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or
consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to surice it possible
for you to describe, as accurately as you can, your behavior as
superintendent.
DIRECTIONS:
1.

READ each item carefully.

2.

THINK about how frequently you engage in the behavior described
by the item.

3.

DECIDE whether you (A) Very Frequently, (B) Often, (C) Occasionally,
(D) Seldom, or (E) Very Rarely act as described by them.

4.

DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A, B, C, D, E)
following the item to show the answer you have selected.
A = Very Frequently
R

5=

Oft?”

C - Occasionally
D = Seldom
E = Very Rarely
5.

6.

MARK your answers as shown in the examples below.
Example:

You Often act as described............

A ( b) C

D

Example:

You Very Rarely act as described. . . .

A

B

D Q

Example:

You Occasionally act as described . . .

A

B (?) D

ANSWER EACH QUESTION.

* Copyright - 1962 by The Ohio State University

119

C

E

E

120

A
Very F req uen tly

B
Often

C
O ccasionally

1.

Make pep ta lk s to s tim u la te the g r o u p

2.

D

!
Seldom

Very R arely

1.

A

B

C

D

K

A llow th e p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f cowplete freedom
In t h e ir w o r k ................................... ....................................................... 2 .

A

B

C

D

B

3.

Encourage a fte r-s c h o o l w o r k ................................................................3 .

A

B

C

D

1

A.

Make accurate d e c is io n s .........................................................................A. A

B C

D g

3.

Arguments are convincing

5. A

B C

D E

A.

Permits th e p ro fe s s io n a l iMobers to use t h e ir
own Judgeent In so lv in g problesM.

6. A

B C

D g

7.

Stress being ahaad o f competing s c h o o ls .......................................7 . A

B G

0 g

8.

Argus p ersu asively fo r your p o in t o f view . . . . . . . . 8 .

A

B C

D g

9.

Encourage i n i t i a t i v e In the p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f ..........................9 , A

B C

D B

10,

Push s t a f f fo r g re a te r e f f o r t

B C

D B

11.

Able to p re d ic t what Is coming n e x t

A

B C

D g

12,

A very persuasive t a l k e r .......................................................................12. A

B C

D g

13.

L et th e s t a f f do t h e ir work th e way they th in k best

1A.

Keep th e work moving a t a ra p id pace............................................. 1A. A B O D E

13.

Vary s k i l l f u l In an argument................................................... .1 5 .

16.

Assign a ta s k , then l e t the s t a f f membershandle i t

17.

Push fo r increased p r o d u c tio n .......................................................... 17. A

18.

Things u s u a lly tu rn out as you p r e d i c t . ......................... .... .1 8 .

10. A
.1 1 .

. .

. .

.1 3 . A B O D E

A B O D E
.1 6 . A B O D E
B C

D E

A B O D E

121

A
Very F req uen tly

B
O ften

C
O ccasionally

D
Seldom

E
Vary E a re ly

B

C

D

E

B

c

D

E

Aak the a t a f f to work h a rd e r. . .......................................

B

c

D

E

22.

Accurate In p re d ic tin g th e trend o f events..................

B

c

D

E

23,

Speak w ith a strong Inner c o n v ic tio n ...............................

B

c

D

E

24.

R eluctant to a l l o t the s t a f f members any
freedom o f a c t i o n .....................................................................

B

c

D

E

25.

P enalt the s t a f f to ta k e I t easy In t h e ir work. . .

B

c

D

It

26.

An in s p irin g ta lk e r .................................................................

B

c

D

E

27.

A llow the fa c u lty a high degree o f I n i t i a t i v e , . .

B

c

D

E

28.

D rive hard when th e re is a Job to be done . . . . .

B

c

D E

___ _ s . ukitvi
_11 . „ ■
_ >
.1. .a /uuA
..
. eL
tuigugwu
tiuii.
tu««e asaos e
ew
biMAt
a d v a n ta g e .............................................................................. ....

B

c

D

E

30.

T ru st the s t a f f to e x e rc is e good Judgment ..................

B

c

D

E

31.

Urge the fa c u lty to beat i t s previous e ff o r ts . . .

B

c

D

E

32.

A n tic ip a te problems and plan fo r t h e * ..........................

B

c

D

E

33.

In s p ire enthusiasm fo r a p r o je c t.......................................

B

c

D

E

34.

Permit the fa c u lty to set I t s own pace..........................

B

c

D

E

35.

Keep the group working up to I t s p o t e n t ia l..................

B

c

D

E

19.

Are a very convincing t a l k e r ................................................

20.

Turn awebers loose on a Job, and l e t th ee go a t I t .

21.

THANK YOU FOE YOUR T D f AND HELP!
CGMCNTS:

(P leaae w r it e on back)

V .L .S .

. . .

20.

. . . 33.

122
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE -

FORM XII *

School Board Members Form

Purpose of the Questionnaire:
On the following pages Is a list of Items that may be used to describe
the behavior of your superintendent of schools* Each item describes a
specific kind of behavior, but It does not ask you to judge whether the
behavior Is desirable or undesirable. Although some Items may seem
similar, they express differences that are Important in the description
of leadership. Each Item should be considered as a separate description.
This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its
only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately
as you can, the behavior of your superintendent of schools.

DIRECTIONS:
1.

READ each item carefully.

2.

THINK about how frequently the superintendent engages in behavior
described by the item.

3.

DECIDE whether he (A) Very Frequently, (B) Often, (C) Occasionally,
(D) Seldom, or (E) Very Rarely acts as described by them.

4.

DRAW A CIRCUS around one of the five letters (A, B, C, D, E)
following the item to show the answer you have selected.
A - Very Frequently
B * Often
C - Occasionally
D * Seldom
E ■ Very Rarely

5.

6.

MARK your answered as shown in the examples below.
Example:

He Often acts as described

Example:

He Very Rarely acts as described.

A

Example:

He Occasionally acts as described

A

ANSWER EACH QUESTION.

* Copyright - 1962 by The Ohio State University

D
B

C

E

D Q
E

123

A
Very F r t q u w t ly

B

C
O ften

O ccasionally

D
Saldow

E
Vary R arely

I.

Ha wakes pap ta lk s to s tip u la te tha group...........................................

A

B

C

0

g

2.

Ha allows th a aaabars complete fraadoai In t h a lr w o r k ..................

A

B

C

D

I

3.

Encourages a fte r-s c h o o l work ................................... . ..........................

A

B

c

0

1

4.

Ha faakas accurate d e c is io n s .........................................................................

A

B

c

D

E

5.

His argiPMnts e ra convincing .....................................................................

A

B

c

D

E

Ha la ta th a swwbers use t h a lr own Judgpant In s o lving
problasp.................................................................................................................

A

B

c

D

E

7.

Ha straasaa being ahead o f eowpetlng schools . . . . . . . . .

A

B

c

D

E

8.

Ha argues p e rs u a s iv e ly fo r h is p o in t o f view ...................................

A

B

c

0

E

9.

He encourages I n i t i a t i v e In tha group aaSbsrs...................................

A

B c

D

E

10.

Ha pushes s t a f f fo r g re a te r e f f o r t . . . .

.......................................

A

B

c

D

E

11.

Ha sssws a b le to p re d ic t what Is cowing newt ...................................

A

B

c

D

E

12.

Ha Is a vary persuasive ta lk e r .................................................................

A

B

c

0

E

13.

Ha le ts tha washers do t h a lr work th a way they th in k h a s t. .

A

B c

D

E

14.

Ha keeps th a work wovlng a t a ra p id pace ..................

A

B

c

D

E

IS .

He is vary s k i l l f u l In an arguwant ........................................................

A

B

c

D

E

16. Ha recowwsnda a ta s k , than le t s ths wewbers handle I t ..................

A

B

c

D

E

6

.

. . 13.

17.

Ha pushes fo r Increased production . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A

B

c

D

E

18.

Things u s u a lly tu rn out as ha p re d ic ts ................................................

A

B

c

D

E

124

A
Very Frequently

19.

C
O ccealonelly

l i not • very convincing

D
Seldom

ta lk e r

I
Very B arely

19.

A

B

C D B

He
turns s e r iM ti loose on a
jo b , than le t s than
go a t I t ...............................................................................................................2 0 .

A

B

C

D B

21.

Haasks members to work h a r d ..................................................................... 21.

A

B

C

D B

22.

Hela accurate In p re d ic tin g the trend o f e v e n t s ....................... 22.

A

B

C

D E

23.

Hespeaks from a strong In n er c o n v ic t io n ........................................ 23.

A

B

C

D B

24.

He Is re lu c ta n t to allo w th e w a f e r s any freedom
o f a c tio n ...............................................................................................................24.

A

B

C

D E

23. AB C

D B

20.

He

B
Often

23.

He

perw lta th e SHnbera to take I t easyIn t h e ir work . . . .

26.

He

Is an In s p irin g t a l k e r

26.

A

B

C

D B

27.

He

allows th e group a high degree o f I n i t i a t i v e

27.

A

B

C

D B

C

D B

26.

He d riv e s hard whan th e re le a Job to be done..........................

29.

Ha persuades others th a t h ie Ideas a re to th e ir
advantage.................................................................................

. 28.

29.

30 .

He

tru s ts th e sssbers to exe rc is e good Judgment. . . . . . .

31.

He

urges th e group to beat I t s previous e f f o r t s ..............3 1 .

32.

Ha a n tic ip a te s problens and plana fo r then

..........................

. 32.

A

A

B

B

C

D B

3 0 . ABC D B
A
A

B
B

C

0 B

C

D B

33.

He

can in s p ire enthusiasm fo r a p r o je c t...............................3 3 .

A

B

C

D B

34.

He

allows the group to s e t I t s own pace...............................3 4 .

A

B

C

D B

33.

Ha

keeps th e group working up to p o t e n t i a l

A

B C

D B

THANK YOU FOR YOUR T D C AND HELP I
COMBNTS:

(Please w r ite on back)

VLS

33.

125
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE -

FORM XII *

Principal - Administrator Form

Purpose of the Questionnaire:
On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe
the behavior of your superintendent of schools. Each item describes a
specific kind of behavior, but it does not ask you to judge whether the
behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may seem
similar, they express differences that are important in the description
of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description.
This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its
only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately
as you can, the behavior of your superintendent of schools.

DIRECTIONS:
1.

READ each item carefully.

2.

THINK about how frequently the superintendent engages In behavior
described by the item.

3„

DECIDE whether he (A) Very Frequently, (B) Often, (C) Occasionally,
(D) Seldom, or (E) Very Rarely acts as described by them.

4.

DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A, B, C, D, E)
following the item to show the answer you have selected.
A ™ 1
B ■ Often
C ■ Occasionally
D • Seldom
E - Very Rarely

5.

6.

MARK your answered as shown in the examples below.
Example:

He Often acts as described

Example:

He Very Rarely acts as described.

Example:

He Occasionally acts as described

ANSWER EACH QUESTION.

* Copyright - 1962 by The Ohio State University

126

A
Very Frequently

1.

B
O ften

C
O ccasionally

D
Seldom

E
Very R arely

1.

A

B C

He allow s the a d m in is tra to rs c o l l a t e freedom
In t h e ir work........................................................................................................ 2 .

A

B

3.

He encourages a fte r-s c h o o l w o r k . .............................................................. 3 .

A

B C

D E

4.

He makes accurate d e c is io n s ...........................................................................4 .

A

B C

D E

5.

His arguments are convincing

5.

A B

6.

He permits the a d m in is tra to rs to use t h e ir own
Judgment in s o lving p ro b ls m s .......................................................

6.

A

2.

He makes pep te lk a to s tlm ila te tha group. . . . . . . . . .

..............................

C

D E

D

C D

B

C

E

D

7.

He stresses being ahead o f coatpeting s c h o o ls ................................... 7 .

A B C D E

8.

He argues p ersu asively fo r h is p o in t o f v i e w ................................... 8 .

A B C D E

9.

He encourages I n i t i a t i v e in th e a d m ln ls tre to ra . . . . . . .

9.

A B C D E

10.

He pushes a d m in is tra to rs fo r g re a te r e ff o r ts

10.

A B C D E

11.

He seems able to p re d ic t what le coming n e a t

11.

A B C D E

12.

Hais a very persuasive t a l k e r

12,

A B C D E

13.

Hele ts Che a t a f f do t h e ir work the way they th in k b e s t. . . 1 3 .

A B C D E

14.

Hekeeps the work moving a t a ra p id p a c e

14.

A B C D E

15.

HeIs very s k i l l f u l in an a r g w e n t

15.

A B C D E

16.

Heassigns a ta s k , then le t s the s t a f f handle i t

16.

A B C D E

17.

Hepuahea fo r Increased p ro d u c tio n

17.

A B C D E

18.

A B C D E

18.

Things u s u a lly turn out as he p r e d i c t s

E

E

127

A

B

Very Frequently

C
O ften

D

E

O ccasionally

Seldom

Very R arely

19.

He la not a very convincing t a l k e r ................................................19.

20.

He turns Beakers loose on a jo b , than le ts then go to I t

21.

He asks ■ ast e r s to work h a r d e r ........................................................ 21.

A B C D E

22.

He Is accurate in p re d ic tin g th e trend o f e v e n t s ..................22.

A B C D E

23.

He speaka fro a a strong in n er c o n v ic t io n ...................................23.

A B C D E

24.

A B C D E

. .

20.

He is re lu c ta n t to a llo w a d a in is tra to rs any freedoa
o f a c tio n ............................................................................................................... 24.

23.

He perm its the masters to take I t easy In t h e ir work. . . .

23.

26.

He is an in s p irin g t a l k e r ..................................................................... 26.

A B C D E

A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E

27.

Ha allow s tha group a high degree o f I n i t i a t i v e ..............................27.

A B C D E

28.

He d riv e s hard when th ere is a Job to be done

28.

A B C D E

29.

He persuades others th a t h is ideas a re to t h e ir advantage. . 29.

A B C D E

4A
wv •

He
sew

JW #

A

31.

He urges th e group to beat i t s previous e f f o r t s

31.

A B C D E

32.

He a n tic ip a te s probleaa and plana fo r th e m

32,

A B C D E

33.

He can in s p ire enthusiasm fo r a p r o je c t

33.

A B C D E

34.

He perm its the s t a f f to set i t s own p a c e

34.

A B C D E

33.

He keeps the s t a f f working up to p o t e n t i a l ..................................... 33.

A B C D E

*-v » e « -e 6 k n
ee w « em e taw

■naoww ee

bw

n . n w e d . . » — -*
M bw ew aaw

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TU B AND COOPERATION I
COMCNTS:

(P lease w r ite on back)

* - • - * ---------------------ju w ^ M U b i e

e

e

a

*

e

a

ta

V

ft

128
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE -

FORM XII *

Teacher Form

Purpose of the Questionnaire:
On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe
the behavior of your superintendent of schools. Each item describes a
specific kind of behavior, but it does not ask you to judge whether the
behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may seem
similar, they express differences that are Important in the description
of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description.
This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its
only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately
as you can, the behavior of your superintendent of schools.

DIRECTIONS:
1.

READ each item carefully.

2.

THINK about how frequently the superintendent engages in behavior
described by the item.

3.

DECIDE whether he (A) Very Frequently, (B) Often, (C) Occasionally,
(D) Seldom, or (E) Very Rarely acts as described by them.

4.

DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A, B, C, D, E)
following the item to show the answer you have selected.
A * Very Frequently
B ■ Often
C » Occasionally
D * Seldom
E = Very Rarely

5.

6.

MARK your answered as shown in the examples below.
Example:

He Often acts as described

Example:

He Very Rarely acts as described.

Example:

He Occasionally acts as described

ANSWER EACH QUESTION.

* Copyright - 1962 by The Ohio State University

129

A
Vary Praquantly

B
Often

C
O ccealonally

D
Seldom

E
Very R arely

1.

He aakaa pep ta lk a to s tim u la te

the f a c u l t y ....................................1 . A

2.

Ha allow a the teachere coaplete freedom In t h e ir work . . . .

3.

Heencouragea a fta r-a c h o o l work by t e a c h a r a .........................................3 .

A

B C

D E

4.

Ha makae accu rate d e c la lo n a .........................................................................4 ,

A

B C

D E

5.

Hia arguments a re convincing......................................................................... 5 .

A B

C

D E

A.

Hep erw lta th e teachers to use t h e ir own judgawnt
In ao lvlng p r o b l e m ............................................................................................6 .

A

2.

B C

D E

A B C D E

B

C

D

E

7.

Ha atraaaea being ahead o f cowpetlng achoola.........................................7 . A

B C

D E

8.

He arguaa p erau aaively fo r h la p o in t o f v ie w .........................................8 . A

B C

D E

9.

Haencouragea i n i t i a t i v e In th e taa c h e ra .................................................. 9 .

A B C D E

10.

Hepuehea a t a f f fo r g re a te r e f f o r t

A B C D E

11.

Ha eeame able to predict what la rialn * n a rr

12.

He la a very parauaalve t a l k e r

13.

He la ta the teachere do t h e ir work th e way they th in k b e a t, , 13.

A B C D E

14.

Ha keepa the work moving a t a ra p id pace

14.

A B C D E

13.

Hela very a k l l l f u l In an argument

15.

A B C D E

16.

He aaalgna a ta n k , then le t a the taachera handle I t

16.

A

10.

....... M t
12.

»

a £

« J

A B C D E

B C

D E

17.

He puehea fo r Increased production

17.

A B C D E

18.

Things u a u a lly tu rn out aa he p re d ic ts

18.

A B C D E

130

A
Very Frequently

8
Often

C
O ccasionally

D
Seldom

K
Very R arely

19.

He la not a vary convincing t a l k e r ............................................................... 19. A B C D E

20.

He turns teachers loose on a jo b , and le ts them goto i t .

21.

He asks the teachers to work h a r d e r

22.

He is accurate in p re d ic tin g the trend o f events..................................22. A B C D E

23.

He speaks from a strong in n er c o n v ic tio n .................................................. 23. A B C D E

24.

He is re lu c ta n t to allo w the teachers any freedom o f a c tio n . . 2 4 .

23.

Ha p en site the teachers to take i t easy in t h e ir w o r k .................... 23. A B C D E

26.

Ha is an in s p irin g t a l k e r .................................................................................26. A B C D E

27.

He allows the fa c u lty a high degree o f I n i t i a t i v e .............................2 7 . A B C D E

28.

He d riv e s hard whan th ere is a Job to be d o n e

29.

Ha persuades

30.
31.
32.

21.

28.

others th a t h is ideas are to th e ir advantage . . . 29.

He tr u s ts the s t a f f to exercise good Judgm ent
He urges the

. . . 20.

fa c u lty to beat i t s previous e f f o r t s

He a n tic ip a te s problaaw and plans fo r th ee.

A

B

C

D

I

A B C D E

A B C D E

A B C D E
A B C D E

30.

A B C D E

31.

A

32.

A B C D E

B

C

D

E

33. He can in s p ire enthusiasm fo r a p r o j e c t ..........................................................3 3 . A B C D E
34. He perm its the teachers to set t h e ir own p a c e ............................................. 34. A B C D E
35.

He keeps the

fa c u lty working up to p o t e n t ia l

FRANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP!
COHEIRS:

(P lease w r ite on back)

33.

A

B

C

D

E

APPENDIX F
RESPONDENT COMMENTS

APPENDIX F
RESPONDENT COMMENTS
Large District
Board member.— Items using terms "group" "members"
should designate if they mean board members or school
personnel.
Should inquire if superintendent tries to "lead"
board, or follow board.
Board member.— Good luck in your project1

I

truly hope that it will help make you a better adminis­
trator and afford better educational opportunities for
the youngsters.

Always remember that is the only reason

you are in the educational business.
Board member.— I find the questionnaire confusing
by the apparent interchangeability of "members" "group"
and "staff."

Since the questions on "members" generally

do not fit the relationship of superintendent to school
board members, I have answered all the questions as I
see our superintendent's relationship to his staff.

I

also found some questions that I would like to hedge on
such as #2 - routine?

Special assignments? - aspects of

job that have particular importance in current environ­
ment? (ala bussing in current energy crisis).
131

132
Board member.— Our superintendent thinks so
quickly and predicts so accurately that he often does
not give a person time to finish a statement.

Even

though the superintendent knows what is coming next,
this trait gives the person a feeling of not being
listened to.

However, the superintendent's persuasive­

ness usually gets him out of any difficult situation
which would arise.
The superintendent gives 150 per cent effort and
demands that of his staff.
Our superintendent is definitely a politician
in addition to an educator with conviction.
Board member.— No judgment is made in these
questions of consistency of performance, availability
for counsel, maintaining and evidencing a sense of con­
cern and a willingness to face any problems squarely
without compromise of principle.
The person here rated would have ratings of A or
B in all of the above.
Board member.— Replying to your request for com­
pletion of the questionnaire you will find that I have
answered all your questions and in some instances have
added a footnote because it seemed only fair that such
a footnote was required.

133
For example, your question #3 "encourages after­
school work"— I would have preferred to have you ask
this question relative to the administrative force or
the teachers.

There are teacher contracts these days,

and in Michigan we have teacher tenure, and if I can be
very honest with you— I don't find very many teachers who
are doing anything that is not stipulated in the contract.
Administrators— Yes!
I would like to point out that the superintendent
is what I consider one of the finest superintendents in
the state of Michigan.

He's thoroughly imaginative, has

great initiative, is a capable leader and continuously
directs his attention to the problems of the school dis­
trict.
He is, without question, a straightforward indi­
vidual and has the kind of sense of humor that makes it
possible for a superintendent in these trying times to
understand and smile at those things that should not be
allowed to become boring.
He has an extremely fine political sense which
is encumbered upon any successful superintendent these
days.

One of his amazing features is his conviction that

problems should be solved today— not tomorrow.

There are

no boxes on his desk and no trays in his office to hold
those things "that can wait for an answer."

134
I have been a member of the School Board for x
years.

The superintendent has been here x years.

We

have accomplished a great deal more under his leadership
during these past * years than we accomplished during the
previous * years.
Board member.— He effectively capitalizes on the
positive items to move the schools ahead rather than
giving too much of his energy and ability toward over­
coming negative aspects.

He tends not to try convincing

illogical negative opponents, rather he often appears
to confront them thus continuing the polarization that
may exist.

I think he enjoys a little combat.

I find it difficult being objective about a man
for whom I have great respect and admiration 1
Board member.— Question 24 is worded that it could
be interpreted either way.
As a board member I am very happy with our Superin­
tendent of Schools.

We think he is good or we wouldn't

have given him a new multi-year contract and a substantial
raise.
Board member.— A board member's view of the
superintendent is at best a limited one, simply because
contact between the board and the superintendent is for
the most part confined to those formal occasions such as
public meetings and staff reports to the board.

No

135
doubt one who attains the position of school superintendent
is an administrator of some refinement.

An analysis of

this refinement I suppose is important for those whose
interest is educational administration.

I would submit,

however, that identifying administrative styles and
techniques is quite irrelevant in the face of a growing
need to provide public education with executive officials
who are skilled in the politics of education.

In general

I've found school administrators to be poorly trained in
the art of community leadership.

Advanced degrees are

perhaps in academic circles deserving of some attention—
but in the midst of a millage campaign or a bonding issue
they are paper and usually end up blowing away.

I have

a B .A. degree, an M.A. degree, a Juris Doctor degree and
except for the required paper I have completed all courses
for an Ed.S. degree in education and on the whole I've
found tnat none of them give me any more right to ignore
or manipulate average people.

School administrators and

teachers should receive in their education a dose of the
same awareness.
Superintendent.— If you have the opportunity to
visit, we think we have as fine a program and staff as
there is to be found.

w
136
Principal.— Superintendents rarely meet their
staff to indicate these answers directly, but through
his assistants and philosophy he has expressed--I would
indicate the answers enclosed.
Principal.--After having read through and com­
pleting your questionnaire, it seems to me you could
have had perhaps only 20 items had you not repeated some
of the questions over and over.
Principal.— The superintendent has done a great
job here.

He has been very supportive of individual and

group efforts.

He has promoted the "delegation of

responsibility" theory but has been kept informed and
is knowledgeable of events.

We have access to him when

needed, he listens, and willingly comments when asked.
He is a firm believer in teacher and administrator
responsibility and accountability.
new ideas and to let you try yours.
relations.

He is willing to try
He is adept at public

He provides us with the tools— inservice pro­

grams, conferences, directives, etc., and expects us to
initiate.

He utilizes his personnel for the purpose for

which they were hired.
Teacher.— I found it extremely difficult to
answer this questionnaire as I have only seen the superin­
tendent once in person although I have been with the board
15 years.

I have seen him on T.V. but he brings a very

137
irate voice to his viewers.

I can only judge his attitude

toward teachers by the new policies he has set up.

His

idea of teacher freedom and actual freedom he allows are
two different things.

He advocates building autonomy

but gives us less to operate on.

His freedoms always

have other items of framework attached.
I did the best I could under the circumstances;
I do hope it is of help.
Teacher.— We have a very innovative superintendent
who is not afraid to make mistakes.
the

same leeway.

And we are allowed

Better to fail than not try.

Teacher.— Our superintendent has little opportunity
for direct contact with teachers.
Teacher.— I feel, perhaps, this questionnaire
appears to be very one sided, but I feel our administration
is doing a very fine job.

Our top administrators have

very deep convictions regarding their duties to our citi­
zens and are quite eager in their desires to improve our
system.

They are at most times 100 per cent behind the

mark we attempt in the classroom and make every effort
to maintain contact with those of us who deal most
directly with students.
Teacher.— I hope you realize that as a teacher
in a large system I have very little contact with the

138
Superintendent.

He visits our building rarely and has

personal contact with administrators rather than teachers
unless we work on a special committee with him.

This

is very rare as his assistants usually handle these.
Teacher.— Some responses are only a guess.

The

questions infer a superintendent who actively makes
direct contact with his teachers on a more than infre­
quent basis.

This is not so in our system.

The superin­

tendent very rarely enters individual school buildings/
especially with the purpose of speaking to individual
or groups of teachers.

Contact only occurs through

comments in a monthly publication to the staff.

How

he feels on specific points can only be inferred by the
attitudes of those who report to him and are responsible
for these areas in an administrative way.

In short, he

is a very remote individual in terms of teacher contact,
preferring to work through his assistants.

His most

direct contact on a regular basis is with these assistants
and with the school board.

Certainly this remoteness

does little ro foster the "captain and team" relationship
implied in these questions.
Small District
Board member.— As of the present time, I am
involved in "marking and grading."

Now I understand

how difficult it is to evaluate someone by only using

139
a letter.

I am sure I look at things differently than

my fellow board members may.

Likewise there is also a

discrepancy among the teaching staff.
Good luck, Mr. Schug, on your Doctoral research.
Board member.— Our superintendent is very devoted
to his position.

We feel he does a very good job.

He

is very conscientious and with a great feeling of the
responsibility for the job he holds as No. 1 man of our
system.

He does realize the importance of his decisions

for the purpose of educating our children in the best
possible manner that our district can afford.
Board member.— The group I assume to be those
under his control not the school board.

The members

referred to I also assume to be school employees.
Board member.— Even though I am happy to cooperate.
I did not feel adequately prepared to answer all the
questions.

I see him once a month at Board meetings and

do not see him working with the teachers.
Board member.— I am deeply grateful to you for
this opportunity to complete this survey.
Our superintendent is unique in that he has the
deep respect of every member of our school board.
I wish you great success on your doctoral
research project.

I personally would be deeply interested

140
in what your research revealed.

Unfortunately the

variance of a school board— relative to the talents,
education and personality of its individuals or members—
will affect the conclusiveness of your project.
Board member.— I answered but I don't know what
it means.

Encourages after-school work by who?

members always work "rfter school."

Board

Teachers are covered

by contract as to what hours they work as are most other
school personnel.
I don't know if or how he "pushes" staff for
greater effort.

Do you mean board members, teachers,

administrators or everyone?

He is not a pushy type

with board members.
He gives very complete information to the Board
and is ready with facts but lets the members of the Board
make the decisions.

He doesn't argue or try to persuade

the Board.
Board member.— He is able to accomplish #8 with­
out being good at #12.
Superintendent.— I feel I have many shortcomings
as a Superintendent but have used the same philosophy as
I had as a coach and principal.

Many inadequacies can

be overcome through effort and attitude.

However, lack

of financial knowledge or negotiation finesse in this
challenging position can be very cruel.

I feel two

141
things work best, no matter how hard it may sometimes
seem, and that is honesty and the willingness to admit
error.
It is hard to really know how a faculty feels
toward a superintendent but I believe where there is
loyalty and harmony there is also an attitude toward
accepting the challenge of teaching children in a way
of meeting their individual needs.

I am fortunate to

have an excellent faculty without animosity which
develops through strikes, fact-finding, etc.

I would

like to believe this is because of my work as a superin­
tendent but maybe our school district will become the
next Target for the MEA and my image would immediately
change.
I hope this information will be useful in your
doctoral work.
Principal.— I notice several items concerning
talking and arguments.

I don't know where you got these

items but they are highly irrelevant to a good adminis­
trator.

People have become too militant and sophisti­

cated to persuade anyone by talking and arguing.

A good

administrator must study problems think out logical
solutions and act.
Principal.— Please excuse the delay in returning
the form.

We have an outstanding superintendent.

He is

142
the finest man I have ever worked for and I feel he
has done a very good job in our community.
Principal.— Excellent superintendent11
Principal.— We in our district are fortunate in
having probably the best superintendent in the state.

I

always held ---- of schools in very high regard but this
guy is as good if not better.

I would like to see the

results of your study.
Principal.— This business of freedom for members
of staff to exercise their judgment is a touchy question
in terms of interpretation.
Yes the superintendent "turns members loose on a
job, then lets them go to it."

However, we have a couple

of administrators who are incompetent.

They botch a

project up then the superintendent understandably clamps
down and takes over the decision-making.

It limits those

of us who feel we were doing our job effectively.

On

the other hand, we*re the first ones to complain if he
doesn't do something about the ones who are goofing
things up.

It's really quite a vicious circle.

I believe

this superintendent gives an understandable amount of
decision-making freedom and would give more if we were
more "together" as an administrative team.

The interest­

ing question that comes up is what's going to be done
about those few incompetents?

143
Principal.--This question can be answered on sub­
jectively with the person answering the question defining
both the question and answer.

I don't believe the questions

can be answered without each person applying his own value
system when determining the answer.

I also question A,

B, C, being used in any way with educators because our
traditional marking system has ingrained in all of us
that "A" is excellent and BE" is failure and therefore
these two letters especially have meanings which the
questionnaire may not have intended.
Principal.— My Superintendent:
1.

Devotes his attention to matters that cross his
desk;

2.

Gives little attention to curriculum development—
we are not goal oriented.

3.

as

principal 1 reel free to do what 1 wish mostly

because the Superintendent doesn't concern himself
with supervision constructively in the H.S. pro­
gram.

I tend to take advantage of this freedom

to the point of occasionally going too far with
my own initiative.
4.

Administration and staff don't trust him.

Strong

credibility gap I
5.

Prepares poorly for conferences with administration
of board.

144
6.

Interpersonal relationships are poor.

I believe

he is sensitive to attitudes toward him by all
personnel and consequently spends most time in
his office or at meetings outside the district.
7. I don't think

he is competent to advise me about

school operation, curriculum, or most any

school

matter.
Teacher.— I hesitate to return this form as it
is so lacking in describing what I feel are the (1) neces­
sary characteristics in any superintendent and (2) essential
characteristics in our superintendent.
One important question missing concerning relation­
ships with teachers is the superintendent's awareness of
the teacher's performance.
36.

He is concerned with changes in

37.

He observes classroo^a au eVcxy

38. He serves on
the needs of
< 39,

departments . . .
auc

xevex . . .

committees with teachers to study
the schools . ..

He has a good working relationship with the
building principals . . .
Teacher.— Our superintendent is exceptionally

well organized.

When we attend a meeting in which he

is in charge, he seems to have a complete knowledge of
everything to be discussed and has a pre-determined
goal in mind.

145
Teacher.— Our chief administrator is an unusually
well-qualified and talented person.

We are fortunate to

have a person of his qualities in the public schools.
Teacher.— I answered the questionnaire as candidly
as possible.

However, I do not think that this question­

naire is very appropriate for a high school superintendent.
It would seem to "fit” very well on a principal.
Teacher.— Our superintendent has been with us
only one year and three months.

We seldom see him except

on the rare occasions when he visits our elementary
building.

I do feel that he is trying to do a good job

in that he does not get too personal with teachers, has
a warm, friendly approach and says a lot in a few words.
I do not know him well enough to answer some of
the questions fairly, but I have done my best.
Teacher.— I enjoy my work in this school system
very much, partly because of our pleasant associations
with our superintendent.

He encourages us to use the

latest or most satisfactory materials and methods, but
allows us much freedom in accomplishing our goals.
I feel that our superintendent wants students
in our schools to get as good an education as possible.
However, I do not feel that the teachers are under
pressure to "push for achievement."

146
Our superintendent is a sincere person and I
feel he will use good judgment in making decisions.

I

feel that his arguments are convincing but that he is
willing to listen to others and to do what is best.
Teacher.— Having come into an already difficult
situation I think he is doing a pretty good job.

He is

having problems that anyone would have had here.

Once he

has made a decision he sticks by it.

Is very much the

captain of his ship.
Teacher.— He is a very effective administrator
and offers the faculty a great deal of freedom in the
classroom.

He is interested in creating an atmosphere

most conducive to learning, so tries to keep abreast
with new programs.

He emphasizes this idea to the

faculty.
Teacher.— I do not know if this questionnaire is
very accurate, because I seldom see or work with our
superintendent.

I tried to answer as I know him as a

person.
Teacher.— He is very dogmatic and only gives the
teachers a semblance of having a sayso in school affairs.
He asks for opinions and guidelines from teachers and pro­
ceeds to ignore the results.

He initiates new programs

147
or rulings over vacations when teachers are away, so
there can be no discussion from them.

Very plainly,

he does not work well and in unison with the staff.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
American Association of School Administrators.
Politics
and Education. Washington, D.C., 1971.
Profiles of the Administrative Team.
-------- ton7"D.C., 1371.----------------------________ . Profile of the School Superintendent.
ton^ D.C. , 19(50.

WashingWashing­

Selecting a SchoolSuperintendent.Washington,
D.C.', 1968.
. Staff Relations in School Administration.
Washington, D.C., 1955.
Bidwell, Charles E. "The School as a Formal Organization."
Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G.
March. Chicago:
Rand McNally & Company, 1965.
Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Campbell, Roald F.; Cunningham, Luvern L.; and McPhee,
Roderick F. The Organization and Control of
American Schools. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill
Books, Inc., 19^5.
Campbell, Roald F., and Layton, Donald H. Policy Making
for American Education. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center, University of Chicago,
1969.
Carver, Fred D., and Sergiovanni, Thomas J . , eds.
Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on
Schools! New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
Charters, W. W. Teacher Perceptions of Administrator
Behavior. St. Louis: WashingtonUniversity,
Research Project No. 929, United States Office
of Education, 1961.
148

149
Council for Administrative Leadership. Criteria and
Procedures Suggested for Use in Selecting a~
Chief School Administrator. Albany, New York,

TKT.----------------------------

Cremin, Laurence A. The Transformation of the School.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1961.
Oavis, Kingsley. Human Society.
MiIlian C o ~ 1930.

New York:

The Mac-

Oisbrow, Donald W. Schools Tor an Urban Society.
Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1968.
Dykes, Archie R. School Board and Superintendent. Dan­
ville: The Interstate Printers & Publishers,
Inc., 1965.
Fisk, Robert S. "The Tasks of Educational Administration."
Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by
Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957.
Foskett, John M. The Normative World of the Elementary
School Principal. Eugene: University of Oregon,
T

O

—

----------

Gilland, Thomas M. The Origin and Development of the
Power and Duties or the City Superintendent.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935.
Hi aee

f

^ an o
W W * * W

T7
«

«

/

■
»

Cf anl air

W

t e M A A A W j r

f

Tnl 4

W

Z1

V

ff

C 4-^ 4-■
{^ ^ i
A

W

V*

1

Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.
Gouldner, A. W. "Organizational Analysis." Sociology
Today. Edited by Rogert Merton et al~ New "York:
Basic Books, 1959.
Griffiths, Daniel E. The School Superintendent. New
York: The Center for Applied Research in Edu­
cation, Inc., 1966.
Gross, Meal; Mason, W. S.; and McEachern, A. W. Explor­
ations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School
Superintendency Role. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1958.
Gross, Neal, and Herriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership in
Public Schools: A Sociological"Inquiry. flew
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965.

150
Halpin, Andrew W.
New York:

Theory and Research in Administration,
The Macmillan Co., 1971.

The Leadership Behavior of School Superinten­
dents . Columbus: The Ohio State University,

TTC57
Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership.
Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1^49.
Knezevich, Stephen J . , ed. Administrative Technology and
the School Executive" Washington, D.C.: American
Association of School Administrators, 1969.
________ . The American School Superintendent. Washington,
D.cTl American Association of School Adminis­
trators, 1971.
Administration of Public Education.
"Harper & Row, 1962.

New York:

Lazarsfeld, Paul F. "The Social Sciences and Adminis­
tration: A Rationale." The Social Sciences and
Educational Administration. Edited by Laurence
W. Downey and Frederick Enns. Edmonton: The
University of Alberta, 1963.
Lutz, Frank W . , and Iannaccone, Laurence. Understanding
Educational Organizations: A Field ^tudy Approach,
Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1969.
Moore,

a .
:The ferment in School AuiuinioLrciuioii.
Behavioral Science and Educational Administration,
Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths. The Sixty-third
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part II. 1964.

Hollis

Newlon, Jesse H. Educational Administration as Social
Policy. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, T 9 34
Ramseyer, John A.; Harris, Lewis E.; Pond, Millard Z.;
and Wakefield, Howard. Factors Affecting Edu­
cational Administration." Columbus: The Ohio
State University, 1955.
of the City SuperinReller, Theodore L. The Development
_
tendency of Schools. Philadelphia: n.p., 1935.
Starring, Charles R., and Knauss, James O. The Michigan
Search for Educational Standards. Lansing: The
Michigan Historical Commission, 1969.

151
Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group
Achievement. New Yorks Oxford University
Press/"195?.
________ , and Coons, Alvin E . , eds. Leader Behavior:
Its Description and Measurement. Columbus:
The Ohio State University, 1957.
Sweitzer, Robert E., ed. Role Expectations and Per­
ceptions of School Principals. Stillwaters
Oklahoma State University, HT63.
Unknown. Report of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. Lansing: 1&62.
Periodicals
Abbott, Max G.
"Values and Value-Preceptions in
Superintendent-School Board Relationships."
Administrator's Notebook, IX, No. 4 (December,
I960) .
Bierstedt, Robert.
"The Limitations of Anthropological
Methods in Sociology." The American Journal of
Sociology, LIV (July, 1948).
Brause, Dorsey.
"Why Superintendents Get Fired."
Management, X, No. 99 (April, 1966).

School

Campbell, Roald F. "The Superintendent— His Role and
Professional Status.” Teachers college Record,
LXV, No. 8 (May, 1964).
Getzels, J. W . , and Guba, Egon G. "Social Behavior and
the Administrative Process." School Review,
LXV (December, 1957).
Goldhammer, Keith.
"Hottest Spot in Town."
Education, III (October, 1967).

American

Greenfield, T. B. "Research on the Behavior of Edu­
cational Leaders: Critique of a Tradition."
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XIV,
No. I (March, 1968).
Halpin, Andrew W. "The Leader Behavior and Leadership
Ideology of Educational Administrators and Air­
craft Commenders." Harvard Educational Review,
XXV (Winter, 1955).

152
Hemphill, J. K. "Relations Between the Size of the
Group and the Behavior of Superior Leaders."
Journal of Social Psychology, XXXII (1950).
Moore, Samuel A. "Leaders Are Leavers." The Journal of
General Education, XX, No. 4 (January, l9f>9) .
Stogdill, Ralph M . ; Goode, Omar S.; and Day, David R.
"New Leader Behavior Description Subscale."
Journal of Psychology, LII, No. 2 (October, 1962).
________ . "The Leader Behavior of Corporation Presidents."
Personnel Psychology, XVI, No. 2 (Summer, 1963) .
"The Leader Behavior of United States Senators."
Journal of Psychology, LVI, No. 1 (July, 1963).
"Threat of Violence Increases for School Administrators.”
The School Administrator (December, 1973).
Unpublished Material
Bowman, Thomas R. "The Participation of the Superintendent
in School Board Decision-Making." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1962.
Day, David R. "Basic Dimensions of Leadership in a
Selected Industrial Organization." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University,
1961.
Evenson, Warren.
"The Leadership Behavior of High School
Principals; Perceptions and Expectations of
Superintendents, Principals and Staff Members."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Chicago, 1958.
Hunter, Ovid N. "Relationship Between School Size and
Discrepancy in Perception of the Superintendent's
Behavior." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Washington University, 1959.
Ignatovich, Frederick R. "Types of Effects of Elementary
School Principal-Leaders: A Q-Factor Analysis."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University
of Iowa, 1970.
Marder, E. "Leader Behavior as Perceived by Subordinates
as a Function of Organizational Level." Unpub­
lished Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University,
1960.

153
Moser, Robert P. "A Study of the Effects of SuperintendentPrincipal Interaction upon Principal-Teacher Inter­
action in Selected Middle-Sized School Systems."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1957.
Papers and Pamphlets
Anderson, Walter A.; Beauchamp, March; and Cope, Quill E.
"Responsibilities of School Administrators.”
Department of Administration and Supervision,
New York University, 1952.
(Mimeographed.)
Stogdill, Ralph M. "Manual for the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire - Form XII." Columbus:
The Ohio State University, 1963.