INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality 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 apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". 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 with 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 will find a good image of the page 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 equal sections with a small 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 Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan <3109 t I I I 75-7271 VATCHARAKIET, Srichak, 1938THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY FACTORS AND THE ATTITUDE OF PRINCIPALS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOLS TOWARD THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974 Education, administration Xerox University Microfilms, AmArbor, Michigan4aio6 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY FACTORS AND THE ATTITUDE OF PRINCIPALS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOLS TOWARD THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY By Srichak Vatcharakiet A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1974 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY FACTORS AND THE ATTITUDE OF PRINCIPALS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOLS TOWARD THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY By Srichak Vatcharakiet The general purpose of the study was to contribute toward a better understanding of the attitude toward the process of delegation of authority and its relationship to selected personality factors. Principals of junior high school in Michigan in which the school has one assistant principal and the school is in a school district of enrollment over 4500 pupils were asked to respond to survey questionnaires. Upon examination of related literature concerning the delegation of authority/ the author proposed that delegation of authority is composed of four processes: 1. The assignment of responsibility (task) to the subordinate. 2. The giving of freedom to the subordinate to use his own judgment to accomplish the task. 3. The giving of authority to the subordinate along with the task assigned. 4. The notification to others who need to know that the subordinate has been given the authority to accomplish Srichak Vatcharakiet the task. The pilot study had shown that of these four processes, those few that correlated with each other did not correlate very well, while the others showed no correlation with each other. Hence, there is a need to measure them separately and to investigate separately their relationships with other variables that could affect delegation. In this study, the above four processes were investigated to find their relationships with three personality factors (emotional stability, trusting and conservativeness). The author developed the instrument to measure the attitudes toward the four processes. The instrument for measuring the three personality factors were taken from the "16 PF" personality inventory developed by the Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, Illinois. The results, as obtained from survey questionnaires of the principals mentioned earlier, indicated that: 1. There were no relationships between the attitudes toward the four processes and the personality factor emotional stability. Thus, it was concluded that there is no relation between emotional stability and the attitude toward the delegation of authority. 2. Of these four processes, only the second process (the giving of freedom to the subordinate), showed a significant relationship with the personality factor trusting. This finding pointed out that trusting had a relation­ ship only to the freedom given to the subordinate. It implied Srichak Vatcharakiet that people without trust still may be willing to let others work for them, may be willing to give authority to their subordinates, and to let others know of the delegation. 3. There were no relationships between the attitudes toward the four processes and the personality factor 4 conservativeness. It was concluded that there is no relation ship between conservativeness and the delegation of authority The author recommends that the validity and reliability of the instrument may be improved through further research. The author has the opinion that investigation in the area of delegation of authority is still in the infant stage and because of its importance to the administrative functions, further research is needed. The relationships between the attitudes toward the four processes were also investigated. The result of the survey indicated that, for those principals who are willing to let their subordinates work for them, they are not quite willing to give freedom to their subordinates. This was indicated by the negative relationship between the attitudes of the two processes. At the same time the principals who give authority to their subordinates tend to give freedom to their subordinates to use their own judgment to accomplish the task. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is deeply indebted to a number of people for suggestions, criticism, and moral support during the doctoral program and the writing of the dissertation. The author wishes to express his gratitude to: An outstanding committee: Drs. Louis G. Romano Chairman, Archibald B. Shaw, Ann G. Olmsted, and Dale V. Alam, who without their enduring patience, encouragement, and guidance this study might never have been completed. The superintendents and the principals of schools in Michigan for their cooperation in the research study. The Institute of Personality and Ability Testing for giving permission to use the personality inventory. Dr. Maryellen McSweeney and Mr. Joe Wisenbaker for their valuable suggestions on the research methodology. Professors and school administrators for their contributions to the pilot studies. And most of all, the author would like to express his deepest gratitude to his mother and his wife whose faith, patience, and understanding inspired the author to achieve this goal in life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................... ii LIST OF TABLES...................................... V LIST OF FIGURES..................................... vii LIST OF APPENDICES.................................. viii INTRODUCTION.................................. Introduction............................... Statement of the Problem.................. Statement of the Purpose.................. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study.................................... Definition of Terms....................... Hypotheses................... ............. Plan of Presentation...................... 1 1 2 4 CHAPTER I. II. III. RELATED LITERATURE........................... Introduction............................... Leadership and the Delegation of Authority................................ Advantages of Delegation ofAuthority Disadvantages of Delegationof Authority.. Factors Affecting the Delegation of Authority................................ Factors that Involve theSuperior....... Factors that Involve theSubordinate.... Situational Factors..................... Techniques of Delegation.................. Centralization and Decentralization of Decision-Making......................... Researches in Centralization and Decentralization........................ The Assistant Principal................... Summary.................................... PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY............ Population of the Study................... The Instrument............................. iii 4 5 8 11 12 12 16 20 25 27 28 33 33 34 39 40 42 44 48 48 50 Page The Concept of the Delegation of Authority and the Development of the Instrument... The First Pilot Study..................... The Second Pilot Study.................... Results from the Second PilotStudy....... Elimination of Items...................... Basis of Elimination.................... First Elimination of Items................ Group One................................ Group Two................................ Group Three.............................. Group Four............................... Second Elimination of Items............... Group One................................ Group T w o ................................ Group Three.............................. Group Four............................... The Second Part of the Instrument........ Collection of Data........................ 50 51 57 61 67 67 67 67 68 68 69 71 71 72 72 72 77 79 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA......................... Part I— Computation of Data............... Reliability of the Instrument........... Part II— Hypotheses....................... Hypothesis 1 ............................ Hypothesis 2 ............................ Hypothesis 3 .......................... Hypothesis 4 ............................. Hypothesis 5 ............................. Hypothesis 6 ............................ Hypothesis 7 ............................. Hypothesis 8 ............................. Hypothesis 9 ............................. Hypothesis 1 0 ........................... Hypothesis 1 1........................... Hypothesis 1 2........................... Part III— Concommitant Findings........... 81 81 89 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. Interpretation of the Findings............ Discussion and Conclusions................ Recommendations........................... 108 108 110 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... 113 APPENDICES............................................ 11Sr LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 Page Group One. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work.... 62 Group Two. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Freedom to Their Subordinates...... 63 3 Group Three. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Their Authority to Their 64 Subordinates......................... 4 Group Four. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the Delegation. 65 Means and Standard Deviations................. 66 5 6 Group One. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work.... 7 Group Two. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Freedom to Their Subordinates. 70 8 Group Three. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Their Authority to Their 70 Subordinates......................... 9 Group Four. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the Delegation........................... 71 10 11 Group One. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work.... Group Two. The Willingness to Give the Freedom to the Subordinates by the Superior.............................. 7 12 Group Three. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Their Authority to Their Subordinates......................... 74 13 Group Four. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the Delegation. v 69 73 3 74 Table Page 14 Intergroup Correlation......................... 75 15 Group One. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work.... 83 Group Two. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Freedom to Their Subordinates..... 83 Group Three. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Their Authority to Their Subordinates................................ 84 Group Four. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the Delegation. 84 19 Group Five. Emotional Stability.............. 85 20 Group Six. Trusting........................... 86 21 Group Seven. Conservativeness................. 87 22 Intergroup Correlation......................... 88 23 Means and Standard Deviations................. 89 16 17 18 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Page Superiors and Subordinates Expectations of Leaders......................................... 19 2. Correlation - Group One and Group Five......... 90 3. Correlation - Group One and Group Six.......... 91 4. Correlation - Group One and Group Seven........ 92 5. Correlation - Group Two and Group Five......... 93 6. Correlation - Group Two and Group Six.......... 94 7. Correlation - Group Two and Group Seven........ 95 8. Correlation - Group Three and Group Five....... 96 9. Correlation - Group Three and Group Six........ 97 10. Correlation - Group Three and Group Seven...... 98 11. Correlation - Group Four and Group Five........ 99 12. Correlation - Group Four and Group Six......... 100 13. Correlation - Group Four and Group Seven....... 101 vii LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDICES Page A First Pilot Study....................... 118 B Second Pilot Study...................... 125 C The Final Instrument.................... 129 D Related Correspondence.................. 13 3 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the important functions of an administrator is the ability to get things done through others. To do this effectively, the administrator has to understand the process of the delegation of authority, which means more than merely giving his authority to his subordinates. The delegation of authority is the term that iB commonly used, but a significant number of administrators do not understand its real meaning and its value. The present role of the principal is largely management. Even though teachers may gain still greater autonomy in their professionalism in the future, there will always be a need for someone to coordinate the many and diverse managerial and support functions, whether he is called a principal or not. Authority may be decentralized, but it is there, and the subject of how best to delegate the authority, to promote a greater decentralization if one wishes, will never decline in its importance to the managerial function. One of the purposes of the delegation of authority is to initiate effective utilization of available human resources. The principal, as head of the school building, is the person who has the greatest authority and opportunity in his school 2 building to put the delegation of authority into effective use. At the same time, the delegation should spread to the grass-roots of the organization as well. It is he, the principal, who is obligated to set an example and to encourage his subordinates to delegate their own authority. As indicated by various authors, there are numerous advantages to the delegation of authority, if it is done properly. There are some disadvantages to delegation but the authors give much more weight to the advantages. Statement of the Problem Delegation of authority is an important aspect of the leadership functions. This claim is supported by research studies such as those separately conducted by Hemphill,^ Brooks, 2 and that of Gaudet. 3 A research study conducted by NAESP in 1969 pointed out that a significant number of the principals are unwilling to delegate their authority to their assistant principals. It also pointed out the lack of understanding in the staff of 4 the assistant principal's duties and authority. ■^Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs Number 32), p. 27. 2 Brooks, Earl. "What Successful Executives Do," Personnel (Nov. 1955), Vol. 32, pp. 210-225. ^Laird, Donald A. , et al. The Techniques of Delegating (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957), p. 46. 4 NAESP. The Assistant Principalship in Public Elementary Schools— 1969, A Research Study. Washington, D.C., 1970. 3 As indicated by Mawdsley, 5 there are approximately 65 administrative duties within six major areas of educational administration that the principals ought to perform. The major areas are: 1. Finance and Business Management 2. Instruction and Curriculum Development 3. Pupil Personnel 4. School Community Relations 5. School Plant and Services 6. Staff Personnel These point to the diversity of the administrative functions and certainly some functions have a higher priority than the others. Some of these the principal may perform by himself and others he may delegate to his sub­ ordinates. The investigation in the area of the delegation of authority is still in its infant stages. It is difficult to compare or accumulate findings from past investigations. They have rested on widely different concepts of the phenomenon called delegation of authority. There is a strong need for a more precise description of what constitute the necessary aspects of delegation. Aside from this problem, the relationship of the delegation of authority and the factors that could affect the delegation are also largely uninvestigated. 5 Mawdsley, Jack K. A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 4 Statement of Purpose The general purpose of the study is to contribute toward the improvement of school administration through an investigation of the relationship between the school principals* attitudes toward various aspects of the delegation of authority and their personality factors (emotional stability, trust and conservativeness). More specifically, it is hoped that the investigation will have direct implications for: 1. A greater understanding of the basic components of delegation of authority and their relation­ ships with selected personalities. 2. A direct contribution to administrative science. 3. The improvement of programs of preparation for school administrators. 4. The promotion of greater use of human resources by the school administrators. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study The validity of this study is affected by the following factors: 1. The nature and validity data which include: the validity of the major sources of of the Michigan Education Directory and the validity of the lists of schools which employ assistant principals furnished by the school districts in Michigan. 5 2. The study is limited to the public junior high schools in Michigan which: A, employ only one assistant principal; B. are in school districts which have a total enrollment of over 4500 pupils. 3. The study assumes the individual will respond to the questionnaire with his true perceptions in regard to the delegation of authority and in regard to his own behavior. 4. The findings of the relationships indicated in the hypotheses are viewed as associational and not causal. 5. Inference to other populations can be made by using the Cornfield-Tukey Argument, that is, inferences can be made if the situation is similar to those studied. Definition of Terms Authority— Authority denotes a power or right to direct the actions or thoughts of others. It is characterized by the willingness of subordinates to suspend their own judgment and follow the directives of the superior. It results largely from social constraints exerted by the collectivity of subordinates and not primarily from the influences of the superior himself. Authority relations can develop only in a group or larger collectivity, and not in isolated pairs, because only group values can legitimate the exercise of social control. Once an authority structure has become institutionalized, 6 however, it can find expression in apparently isolated pair relationships.6 Delegation of Authority— Delegation of Authority is the process in which (1) the responsibility (the task) is given to the subordinate; (2) the subordinate is given freedom for the actions that he feels are necessary to reach the objective; (3) the authority is given to the subordinate along with the responsibility; and (4) those who are subjected to the authority that is to be delegated are notified of the delegation. Emotionally Stable— (Factor C of the "16 PF" inventory). The person who scores high on Factor C tends to be emotionally mature, stable, realistic about life, unruffled, possessing ego strength, better able to maintain solid group morale. Sometimes he may be a person making a resigned adjustment to unsolved emotional problems. Affected by Feelings--(Factor C of the "16 PF" inventory). The person who scores low on Factor C tends to be low in frustration tolerance for unsatisfactory conditions, change­ able and plastic, evading necessary reality demands, neurotically fatigued, fretful, easily emotional and annoyed, active in dissatisfaction, having neurotic symptoms (phobias, g Blau, Peter M. and Scott, Richard W. "The Nature and Types of Formal Organizations," Fred D. Carver, et al. (eds.) Organization and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools (McGrawHill Book, Co., N.Y., 1969) , p. 6"! — 7 sleep disturbances, psychosomatic complaints, etc.). A low Factor C score is common to almost all forms of neurotic and some psychotic disorders. Suspicious— (Factor L of the "16 PF" inventory). The person who scores high on Factor L tends to be mistrusting and doubtful. He is often involved in his own ego, is self- opinionated, and interested in internal, mental life. He is usually deliberate in his actions, unconcerned about other people, a poor team member. Experimenting— (Factor of the "16 PF" inventory). The person who scores high on Factor tends to be interested in intellectual matters and has doubts on fundamental issues. He is skeptical and inquiring regarding ideas, either old or new. He tends to be more well informed, less inclined to moralize, more inclined to experiment in life generally, and more ‘olerant of inconvenience and change. Conservative--(Factor Q1 of the "16 PF" inventory). person who scores low on Factor The is confident in what he has been taught to believe, and accepts the "tried and true," despite inconsistencies, when something else might be better. He is cautious and compromising in regard to new ideas. Thus, he tends to oppose and postpone change, is inclined to go along with tradition, is more conservative in religion and politics, and tends not to be interested in analytical "intellectual" thought.^ 7 Cattell, Raymond and Eber, Herbert W. Manual for Forms A and B— Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, Illinois: The Institute of Personality and Ability Testing). 8 Hypotheses It is a common assumption, often found in the literature, that a person does not delegate his authority because he does not trust others to do the work for him. data to support this claim. As yet, there are no It also may seem logical that the person who likes to experiment with new things would tend to give freedom to his subordinates in doing their work, to leave it to the subordinates to decide what he needs and how to proceed to accomplish the task. Lucas studied selected personal attributes of the chief school administrators in relation to the practice of Q delegation. The result of the study was not as Lucas expected. He found no relationship between cooperativeness, sense of security, confidence in people and the practice of delegation. Quite the reverse from what was expected, the chief school administrators who are high in emotional stability tend to be non-delegators. Lucas concluded that further research is needed in this area. The author did not find any study that involved the personal attributes and the delegation of authority other than that of Lucas. It is felt that the instruments for measuring both the delegation of authority and the personal Q Lucas, Robert E. Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator (Unpublished Doctor 18 Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962). 9 attributes can be improved through refining the concept of the delegation of authority and by the use of a standardized personality inventory. After reviewing the literature, the author proposes that delegation of authority involves four significant processes, namely: 1. The assignment of responsibility (task) to the subordinate. 2. The granting of freedom to the subordinate to use his own judgment to accomplish the task. 3. The delegating of authority along with the responsibility. 4. Notification of all who are subjected to the authority that is delegated. As will be explained in Chapter III, there is a need to measure the extent of these four processes separately. Thus, the hypotheses on the relationships between delegation of authority and personality are set out in the following twelve statements. HI: Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to let their sub­ ordinates do the work for them. H2: Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to give their sub­ ordinates greater freedom to use their own judgment in getting the assigned task done. H3: Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to delegate authority along with the task assigned to their subordinates. H 4 : Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to let others know that their subordinates have that authority. 10 H5: Principals who show a greater are more willing to let their the work for them. degree of trust subordinates do H6: Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to give their subordinates greater freedom to use their own judgment in getting the assigned task done. H7: Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to delegate authority along with the task assigned to their subordinates. H8: H9: Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to let others know that their subordinates have that authority. Principals who show a greater degree of conservative­ ness are less willing to let their subordinates do the work for them. H10: Principals who show a greater degree of conservative­ ness are less willing to give their subordinates greater freedom to use their own judgment in getting the assigned task done. Hll: Principals who show a greater degree of conservative­ ness are less willing to delegate authority along with the task assigned to their subordinates. H12: Principals who show a greater degree of conservative­ ness are less willing to let others know that their subordinates have that authority. The author decided to measure the attitudes toward the delegation of authority instead of actual practice for the following reasons: 1. Attitudes are more independent of the situation than the actual practice, thus would have greater validity if the relationship between the delegation of authority and person­ alities are to be investigated. In actual environment, the principals would have different kinds of subordinates, different school programs, different amounts of work, different kinds of organization and other factors that could influence their behaviors. 11 2. In actual delegation, if the first aspect of delegation, the discharge of responsibility (task), is not practiced, then asking about other aspects of delegation becomes irrelevant to the respondent. Plan of Presentation Chapter I is a general introduction to the study, a statement of the problem, a statement of purpose, the assumptions and limitations of the study, a listing of definitions, and a setting out of the hypotheses to be tested. Chapter II which is a review of the related literature, presents a reference to management thought and a summary of the related studies in the area of the delegation of authority. It includes definitions of delegation of authority, studies concerning the leadership and the delegation of authority, advantages and disadvantages of the delegation, and the centralization and decentralization of decision-making. Chapter II is concluded with a report on a study regarding the delegation of authority by the principals to the assistant principals. Chapter III describes the planning and conducting of the study, including the selection of the population, the method of investigation, the instrument utilized, and the methodology in the analysis of the pilot studies. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data, while Chapter V consummates the study with the author's conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II Introduction The necessity of sharing responsibilities in any organized effort, from the family unit to the largest society, is as old as the history of man. As recorded in the Bible.- So Hoses gave heed to the voice of his fatherin-law and did all that he had said. Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, ruler of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Hoses, but any small matter they decided themselves.^ As yet not all people realize that authority must go with responsibility. Giving up one's authority to a subordinate is by no means a completely natural act; having contrived to secure it, our instinct is to hold on to it, even though we may concede to the logic that the delegation of authority will result in benefits.2 From review of the literature, it is concluded that delegation of authority involves: (1) the passing of responsibilities (job to be done) to the subordinate. 1 The Holy Bible-Revised Standard Version & Sons, N.Y. 1952) Exodus 18:17, 24-26. (Thomas Nelson 2 Valentine, Raymond F. Initiative and Managerial Power (AMACOM, A Division of American Management Associations, Inc., New York 1973) p. 3. 12 13 (2) the passing of authority along with the responsi­ bilities to be discharged. (3) the notification of those who are subjected to the authority that is to be delegated, that the delegation of authority has taken place. (4) the realization that the person who receives delegation must have freedom to act as he feels is necessary to reach the objective. (5) the realization that the superior still holds responsibility for the action taken by his subordinate. (6) the realization that control is necessary. The following are the definitions of the delegation of authority as found in the literature: Delegation is the entrustment of responsibilities and authority to another and the creation of account­ ability for performance.3 Delegation is the assigning of duties by a superior to a subordinate; where the superior is obligated to provide coordination, and a degree of control within policy boundaries. The subordinate is accountable to the superior for assigned tasks; the superior is always ultimately accountable for all performance of his organization.4 3 Allen, Louis A. "Management and Organization" New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958 as cited by Robert E. Lucas in Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1962) . 4 Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University Administration {California: Stanford University Press, 1958) p. 37. 14 A true delegation (1) Responsibility is shared with the subordinate. (2) Authority is passed along to him to help get it done. (3) Decision making is shared with him, or left largely to him. (4) He is given freedom for 5 actions he thinks are needed to reach the objective. Delegation means letting someone else make decisions for which you are responsible.® Delegation requires one person (the delegator) to assign part of his authority to make decisionsbut none of his final responsibility for those decisions to another person (the delegate).? To delegate means to invest with responsibility, authority and accountability. It means to entrust the responsibility and authority. The one who entrusts does not give up completely his responsibility, however. He really entrusts a part of his responsi­ bility, retaining the broad overview of the delegation and leaving the higher responsibility to his superior.8 Newman distinguishes three chief aspects in the delegating process: 5 Laird, Donald A. et. al. The Techniques of Delegating (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , N.Y.) p"! 108. 6IBM Management Briefing, a publication issued by International Business Machines Corporation for its managers as cited in "Delegation: Don't be a Back-Seat Driver" Supervisory Management, Vol. V, May I960, p. 11. 7 Rosenberger, Homer T. "Delegation: Who? What? When? How? How Much?," Supervisory Management (December 1959) pp. 22-30. ^Walters, J. E. "Basic Administration," (Paterson, New Jersey: Cleford Adams & Co., 1959) p. 187 as cited by Robert E. Lucas, Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962). 15 (1) the assignment of duties by an executive to his immediate subordinates; (2) the granting of permission (authority) to make commitments, use resources, and take over necessary actions; and (3) the creation of an obligation (responsibility) on the part of each subordinate to the executive for satisfactory performance of the duties.9 According to Blau, one of 'authority's' fundamental characteristics is the subordinate's willingness to suspend his own judgment in advance and follow the directives of his superior and the fact that this results from the social constraints of fellow subordinates rather than from the influence of the superior himself. — Authority relations can develop only in a group or larger collectivity, and not in isolated pairs, because only group values can legitimate the exercise of social control and only group norms can serve as an independent basis for enforcing the pattern of compliance. Once an authority structure has become institutionalized, however, it can find expression in apparently isolated pair relationships.10 Valentine-1-1 stated that authority, once established, is a permanent asset that: -continually energizes the people who move an organization toward its goals. -does not depreciate through hard usage. -maintain its full potential even when occasionally abused. -does not deteriorate from age or through passage from hand to hand down through the organization. 9 McFarland, Dalton E. Management Principles and Practices, (The Macmillan Company, N.Y. 1959) p. 212. 10Blau, Peter M. and Scott, Richard W. "The Nature and Types of Formal Organizations," Fred D. Carver, et al. (eds) Organization and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y. 1969, p. 6 . ■^Valentine, p. 1. 16 Weber refers to authority as traditional when the subjects accept the orders of superiors as justified on the grounds that this is the way things have always been done; and as rational-legal, or bureaucratic, when the subjects accept a ruling as justified because it agrees with a set of more abstract rules which they consider legitimate, and from which the ruling is "derived." Weber points to charismatic authority in which the subjects accept a superior's orders as justified because of the influence of his personality, with which they identify. 12 Leadership and the Delegation of Authority 13 Hemphill, in his study involving 500 face-to-face groups which were quite different in their characteristics, found that:*4 25 % of the leaders always delegated 39 % frequently delegated 15 % occasionally delegated 7 % seldom delegated 2 % never delegated 9 % did not apply 3 % could not tell 12 Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations (Prentice-Hall Foundations of Modern Sociology Series, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1964) pp. 51-52. 13 Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership, (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs Number 32) p. 27. *4Hemphill, p. 61. 17 These groups were characterized according to 15 dimensions.^5 Homogeneity They are: (1) Size (4) Flexibility (2) Viscidity (5) Permeability (3) (6) Polarization (7) Stability (8) Intimacy (9) (10) Control (11) Position (12) Potency (13) Hedonic tones (14) Participation Autonomy (15) Dependence. Hemphill also found that the good and excellent leaders were found to be the ones who made the most use of delegating. (Good or excellent leaders 73%, fair or poor or bad leaders 27%) .^ Using seventy different leadership characteristics, Hemphill measured the effect of these characteristics in relation to leadership ability and success. Delegating was apparent in the top fourth. Following are the lists of some of the seventy leader­ ship characteristics and how they rank along with delegation. The lists go in order of decreasing significance with the top characteristic having the most bearing on leaderships success. More significant than delegating: Making good plans Making good decisions Being counted on in the tough spots Seeing both sides of a question Making rules and regulations clear A willing cooperator Remembering when a follower did a good job ■^Hemphill, pp. 34-35 ^6Hemphill, pp. 66-67 18 Leas significant than delegating: Showing moral courage Liking people in general Easy to talk to Sticking to his word Very interested in the group's success Trying to do a good job Working harder and longer than others Keeping his group informed about things concerning them Sticking his neck out for the group Believing in the group's purpose Showing physical courage Putting the job before anything else Having confidence in one's own decisions Having plenty of time to spend with the group A research project was developed in February 1954 by Cornell University in cooperation with the Eastern Division of Moore Business Forms, Inc. 17 It was an attempt to find answers to many management problems. Ninety-six executives and supervisors who were engaged in production, finance, sales, and industrial relations, from vice president to and including superintendants, cooperated in the study. Similar rating of these executives' performances were reported by their immediate superiors and their subordinates. Of the 96 executives, 12 were rated "excellent" by their superiors, 74 "very good" or "average" and 10 "below" average. The following shows how delegating functions were carried out by the "excellent" leaders and by the "below average" ones. 17 Brooks, Earl. "What Successful Executives Do,” Personnel (November 1955) Vol. 32, pp. 210-225. 19 Performance of Executive Functions as Reported by Superiors Frequency of Performance Excellent Below Average Executives Executives [%5 — m ------------ Function He effectively delegates responsibility and authority 75 He sees that authority of each member is clearly understood 83 10 Subordinates rated 41 of the executives as "excellent" and 18 as "average" or "below average." Subordinates also considered the delegation function to be important as shown in the exhibit below. in M 0) TJ (3 a> O 4J o a> & Results Initiation Planning Communication Developments Relationships Delegation Understanding Know-how Teamwork a» in M o M a) Cu o to +J nJ Recognition Opportunity Consideration Approachability Encouragement Representation JC What subordinates expect of leaders Figure 1.— Superiors and Subordinates Expectations of Leaders 20 Brooks described the difference between superior and subordinate expectations as follows: A comparison of the report on leadership effective­ ness with the report on the frequency with which executives performed various functions indicated that superiors gave more weight to certain functions than did subordinates and vice-versa. For example, superiors were most interested in functions related to results, initiation, planning, firmness, and structure. Subordinates associated effective leader­ ship with what their supervisors do to show recognition, appreciation, opportunity, consideration, encouragement, and representation. Fortunately both superiors and subordinates considered functions in the fields of communications, development, delegation, relationships, understanding, know-how, and teamwork to be important. 18 Frederick J. Gaudet, of the Laboratory of Psychological Studies at Stevens Institute of Technology asked 200 firms the following question:- "Why did one particular executive in your company fail?" There were three main reasons given: Not delegating responsibility Lack of breadth of knowledge Failure to analyze and evaluate Of lesser importance, and in decreasing order as listed were: Poor in judging people Not cooperating with others Weakness in making decisions Weakness in knowledge of organization and administration Advantages of the Delegation of Authority There are advantages and disadvantages in the delegation of authority. Whether or not one outweighs the other depends on the situation. ^®Laird, p. 46. 21 The advantages may be listed as follows: (1) It is, simply, that work cannot be accomplished if the authority has not been delegated along with the responsibility. example:19 The following serves as an illustrative The Curriculum Leader Without Authority The Branchville Consolidated Schools had an active thriving curriculum improvement program. Thirteen curriculum committees and five study groups were under way in the eight schools of this consolidated rural district. The curriculum coordinator, Lilian Dinsmoor, was busier than usual now: she had recently helped the superintendent make a cooperative arrangement with the state university to begin curriculum experimentation for which the school district and the university would share the costs. Mrs. Dinsmoor had many responsibilities, but the superintendent saw to it that she was strictly a staff officer. At 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon, Mrs. Dinsmoor telephoned three of the principals of the Branchville Schools to ask whether they could find substitutes for a previously-selected teacher from each of their schools for the full day one week from the following Monday. The purpose, Mrs. Dinsmoor explained, was to secure teacher representation on a new committee which would help her and Dr. Campbell, of the state university staff, plan for curriculum experimentation in Branchville. The first two principals whom Mrs. Dinsmoor calledreadily agreed to release their teachers. Mr. McKay, the third principal, refused. ’’What kind of school do you think I ’m operating” Mr. McKay asked. "We have important things for Mrs. Fineman, our representative on your committee, to do here on that day.” Mrs. Dinsmoor knew that she had the responsibility for organizing the committee, which was to meet partly on school time, but no one had told her what to do when principals refused to release teachers to serve during the school day. She concluded the telephone conversation with Mr. McKay as quickly and as graciously as she could. 19 Doll, C. Ronald. Curriculum Improvement, (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts 1970) p~. TTs. 22 (2) Time is saved. This includes the executive's time, the subordinate's time, the organization's time and the client's time. When work is not delegated, the sub­ ordinate cannot make decisions by himself and constant consultations will result. of the executive's time. This result is an interruption The subordinate also has to spend time waiting for executive decision or waiting for an opportunity to consult the executive. The organization's time is lost because of the above result and also because of the time spent for communication up and down the organization, which could involve more than one hierarchical level. Because the decision has to go up the hierarchical level, those outside the organization also have to spend time waiting for a decision which can be made at the contact level. This unnecessary time consuming decision making is one of the aspects of the organization's inefficiency. When delegation is done properly, it will relieve the executive to work on more important functions, such as planning, coordinating, developing or evaluating those under his direction. He also will be able to offer direct help to his immediate superior. 20 20 Kosenberger, p. 30. 23 It should be mentioned here, also that since the executive's time is more expensive to purchase and since the communication up and down is not necessary, the cost of operation will be less. 21 This, however, is subject to research study. (3) Delegation of authority helps develop human resources in the organization. Giving the subordinate freedom to act in the work that he has to do will open the opportunity for him to initiate new ideas and give him the opportunity to work in full capacity. In the beginning, he will be able to make decisions under supervision. This will give him the confidence to do the job, to learn by his mistakes without serious consequences. When the subordinates are unable to make decisions by themselves, they will have to depend on their boss for decisions. When their superior is absent or has to leave the job, problems could result. A sudden death of a strong leader of a country could result in disorganization of the government, if he had not delegated properly when he was still alive. The same is true for other organizations. (4) Developing others (subordinates) increases the opportunity for an executive to move up. It is harder for the executive to be promoted to the new job if he hasn't developed someone to take his place. 21 As quoted from Scott: Scott, Don H. "Hoarding Authority and Responsibility" Sales Management (May 6 , 1960) p. 56. 24 ...men who deserve raises are men who develop others. In today's business, a doer is worth peanuts. A developer has unlimited value. The man who can distribute a great work load over many employees is on his way. So are his e m p l o y e e s . 22 However, one also could say that he can also be removed from his job more easily if someone else can take care of his job. There is no research to support which direction would be more likely to be taken. This is one of the factors that deter delegation for many people. (5) Delegation of authority helps increase participation from those who are involved with the organization. Parents participation will be much less if decisions concerning schools are too centralized or have to go up the ladder too many steps. Complaining about the red tape is a result of the fact that the person at the point of contact with the parents has no authority to make decisions by himself. (6) Delegating authority close to the actual work being done sharpens decision making because of the closeness to the actual fact. It also allows the flexibility of the decision to suit the situation. (7) Delegation helps reduce bossing because of the freedom to act given to the employees. In a survey of fifteen hundred middle-management personnel, all claimed that their highest ideal of good working conditions was to be free to do the job without constant supervision. 23 22Scott, p. 56. 22Scott, p. 57. 25 (8) The subordinate will have the opportunity to get recognition for performance. Recognition will be given by his superior and those around him, because of the subordinate's own performance, to get the work done in his own way and by his own thinking. (9) It helps to correct undesirable behaviors. Care­ less workers are given safety delegations or delegate a problem drinker to keep the other men from overdrinking. (10) It raises the morale of the subordinate with 2i important, new responsibilities. Disadvantage of Delegation of Authority (1) Delegation of authority creates hierarchies. The lowest level employee cannot talk to the top executive because he delegates work concern to his subordinate and his subordinate redelegates to the next level and so on. This could take away the democratic leadership of the executive. (2) Delegating results in dividing functions which result in creating special interests. Selznich mentioned that delegation results in bifurcation of interests among the sub-units in the organization. Stress is placed more on the maintenance needs and sub-unit goals as compared to the to the contribution to the entire organization program. ^Heintze, R. A. "Delegation! Help or Hindrance," Management Methods, Vol. XVII (November 1959), p. 65. Many 26 people rely heavily on the continued success and growth of the sub-unit. Conflict is increased among opposing sub-units 25 due to bifurcation within the organization. (3) Delegation of authority, if not done properly, can give painful results to the executives. President Nixon and the Watergate incident is a well known example. He has to be responsible for what went wrong as a result of his delegation. In his television speech on April 31, 19 73, he said, "In any organization, the man at the top must bear the responsibility. That responsibility therefore belongs here in this office. I accept it ." He acknowledged that in the past he has always closely supervised his own campaigns. But he insisted that 1972 was different because he had determined to concentrate on the presidency before politics, extensively delegating the campaign operations to his subordinates. (4) Delegation of authority, if it involves more than a one pair relationship as in decentralization of organization, creates communication and coordination problems. 26 ^%larch, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. "Dysfunctions in Organizations" Fred D. Carver, et al. (eds.) Organization and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y. 1969, pp. 66-67. 2*touth, Robert C . A Study to Develop a Decentralized Organization Model for Urban School Systems and to Demonstrate a Process of Decentralization of Decision-Making at the Elementary School Level. (unpublished Doctor1s Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). 27 (5) It creates the possibility of "empire building" among subordinates.^ (6) Operational costs might go up. Howes found that fewer personnel are required in management positions in a more "centralized" organizational structure. 28 King, in his study concerning the decentralized form of school administration found that per pupil costs increased with decentralization. (7) There is a certain degree of risk involved even though delegation is done properly. Risk, even though accept­ able, still can make the superior feel uneasy about what's going on. Factors Effecting the Delegation of Authority Many executives or administrators are champions in getting things done by themselves, running from one thing to another. Some even develop a nervous breakdown because the tension of overwork is so high. 29 the following example: Laird, in his book, gave 2 7King, Robert E. Jr. An Evaluation of the Decentralized Form of School Administration (unpublished Doctor’s Dissertation, George Washington University, 1966). 28 Howes, Merle Lee. Centralization of Decision-Making and Organizational Effectiveness in the Cooperative Extension Service (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1963). ^Laird, p. 16. 28 Prank W. Woolworth, after several failures, was just turning his five-and-dime-store idea around the corner to success when a nervous breakdown knocked him out. He did not have robust health to begin with, and this breakdown was attributed to overwork. During his slow recovery he reached a conclusion which he later called his most important discovery: ,fI lost my conceit that nobody could do anything as well as I could. So long as I had the idea that I must attend personally to everything, large-scale operation was impossible." There are many factors that either stimulate or deter delegation. These factors may be grouped into 3 different areas. (1) The factors that involve the superior These are more or less the factors that are involved with their own personality, characteristics, past experience, educational background, etc. (2) The factors that involve the subordinate These are similar to factors that involve the superior. {3) Situational factors These are factors pertaining to the particular situation. These include, for example, the relationships between the superior and the subordinate, the climate of the organization, the job description and external influences. The factors that involve the superior Lucas 30 studied selected personal attributes of the chief school administrators in relation to the practice of delegation. The result of the study was not as Lucas expected. He found no relationship between cooperativeness, sense of security, 30 Lucas, Robert E. Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator (unpublished Doctor’s Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962). 29 confidence in people and the practice of delegation. There were some significant relationships in boldness and differentiation but the Chi-Square test did not indicate this at the one percent level of significance. Quite the reverse from what was expected, the chief school administrators who are high in emotional stability tend to be non-delegators. Lucas concluded that further research is needed in this area. Regarding the sense of security, however, Oslund had presented a case study to support the claim that the insecure person tends not to delegate. The case is as follows: A female elementary school principal indicated that she had reached the age of voluntary retirement and was considering retiring at the end of the next school year. On the basis of her announcement, the Superintendent of Schools recruited an outstanding candidate for vice-principal who could be groomed for the principalship and possibly superintendent upon the retirement of the present superintendent three years hence. The individual recruited has served as vice­ principal of another school district and was chosen on the basis of his youth, experience, and high recommendations. He was given to understand that if he accepted the position of vice-principal, he would be made principal after one year when the present principal retired. The current principal was apprised of the new assignment and she was asked to assume the responsibility of training her replacement. She was specifically asked to delegate authority and responsibi­ lity commensurate with the trainee's training and maturity. A month after the beginning of the school term, the trainee came to the superintendent complaining that the principal not only was refusing to delegate any responsibility but was isolating him from all administration and supervision. When the superintendent contacted the principal, she indicated that she was not delegating responsibility to the trainee because, in her opinion, he was not sufficiently capable of carrying out the required tasks without jeopardizing the high standards of her school. She indicated that the trainee had yet to demonstrate his ability to her. 30 By the second month, the superintendent determined that the principal had developed an intense animosity toward the trainee which could not be explained by any apparent motive. Finally, the superintendent perceived, by questioning the principal, that she was less certain of her desire to retire and felt that the trainee represented a threat to her continuance as principal. Fear that credit for accomplishment will be given to his subordinate is another factor. 32 In fact, most executives are praised for their accomplishment, not by what they accomplish themselves, but for what has been accomplished by those under them and under their direction. Some executives may have tried delegation in the past 33 and found that it only added to disorganization. They may overlook the many factors involved in delegation such as choosing the wrong man for a particular job, not delegating in easy stages, not giving clear objective. In other words it might well be the fault of the executives themselves for the negative result they received. Many executives believe that there are only two ways to 34 do anything: their way and the wrong way. 31 Oslund, Margaret Gregory. Elements of Organized Behavior: A Study of Delegation (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964). ^Heintze, p. 64. 33 Herntze, p. 64. *2 j| I.B.M. Management Briefing, p. 11. 31 There*s the manager who: ...gives you your assignment, then proceeds to tell you precisely how to carry it out. If necessary, he'll gladly do it for you. He expects you to do it exactly as he would. ...is interested only in your success, can't bear to have you make a mistake that might hurt your career. Saves you three or four times daily from your own folly. When you hook into a big one, he pushes you aside with "You'd better let me handle this one, son." ...doesn't tell you how to do your job, but when you finish, does it as it should have been done in the first place. Can't read a report without a red pencil. As mentioned by Heintze, the executive may avoid delegating certain pet problems he enjoys solving himself. He prides himself on his skill with his old specialty and likes to give his ego a boost by keeping his hand in. This may be fine for his ego but it is of questionable value to his efficiency since it diverts his attention from other more important matters.35 Fear that employees will not do the job well enough, fear that employee's lack of know-how will reflect on them and fear that employees are not capable enough to learn are 3G additional factors given by Scott. As a result, the executives are hesitant to put themselves in the position of accounting for the performance of their employees j.f the job gets out of their hands. executive: ^Heintze, p. 64. 36Scott, p. 56. He further mentioned that the 32 - may be afraid that their employees already have too much to d o . - may believe it is quicker to do than toteach. - may not do enough planning. 37 Traylor, in his thesis entitled "The Delegation of Authority and Responsibility as Practiced by Junior College Chief Administrators," found that the factor most frequently considered by public and private junior college administrators prior to delegation is the ability and competency of a delegate to accomplish a given task. The primary inhibition of delegation felt by junior college administrators was a lack of confidence in a person to accomplish the task. Lack of knowledge of the delegation of authority and lack of courage to use delegation are important factors also mentioned by Scott. However, he presented a different point of view as he stated: Most trouble in the area of delegation seems to stem from the manager's inability to understand himself. The principles behind delegation were discussed with many do-it-yourselfers. They all agreed wholeheartedly with the idea of delegation. They even pointed out violations by many of their peers. They related incidents proving that this never happened to them. They criticized others at length for not delegating to, and using, their personnel. It didn't occur to one of them that he himself was a case in point.38 37 Traylor, Dale E. The Delegation of Authority and Responsibility as Practiced by Junior College Chier Admin is tra tors (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967). 38Scott, p- 58. 33 The factors that involve the subordinates As a matter of fact, there is much less literature regarding the factors involving the subordinates that cause the deterrent to delegation. Unwillingness to accept delegation is one factor. reason might be insecurity on their part. The The insecurity may arise from the fear that the job is too big, responsibility is too much or he may fear the criticism that may arise as the result of his mistake. Another factor might be that there isn't sufficient compensation for the subordinate to take on additional responsibility or he may think that he already is doing a full load of work and cannot accept additional responsibility. 39 The job also may not be challenging enough and he may feel it is not worth working for. Situational factors Morse and her associates have conducted a controlled study at the University of Michigan Survey Research Center 40 on the importance of human climate in job situations. The study was taken in a large financial institution to show effects of delegating to the rank and file of semiskilled clerks. In some offices, delegating was more successful than others which showed that the degree of success relied largely 39 W. R. "Do You Delegate the Whole Job?" Supervisory Management, Vol. Ill (September, 1958) , pp. 2-9. ^Laird, p. 20. 34 upon the climate that the supervisor encouraged. Those offices showing the greatest amount of success with delegation had human climate that was permissive, democratic, and equalitarian as opposed to smothering and secretive. 41 According to Selznich, the degree of training in specialized competence is enhanced through delegation. Because of specialization, one can pay more attention to a small number of problems which gives him more competency in this area, thus stimulating more delegation. There are policies and procedures that limit delegating. A top executive may set a bad example so that his subordinates may be afraid to delegate for themselves. Techniques in Delegation One management consultant sets out what he considers effective techniques, in detail he says should start with a position breakdown. Consider what should be delegated and what should be retained. Management by exemption emphasizes that the scope of the authority and responsibility of an executive is greater than the scope of the authority and responsibility of his immediate subordinate. Any irregularity, unusualness or exemption from the subordinate's authority should be referred to him, which should be in the scope of his authority. If not, it will be referred to the next higher level until it falls into the scope of higher executives. ^March, pp. 66-67 35 Thus the scope of authority and responsibility of each level of hierarchy will cover those below him. does not delegate all of his responsibility. The executive The following are the functions that should be retained. 1. Coordinating and evaluating those under him. 42 2. Coordinating with outside authority. 3. Responsiblity for reporting to those above him. 4. Critical functions, too important to delegate or if he is best qualified to handle them. 43 5. Functions that take more time to teach than to do it himself. The following are the functions that should be delegated. 1. Functions that would take less of his time to train 44 the subordinate than to do it himself. 2. Something that needs the least supervision. 3. Something routine. 45 4. Details that recur. 5. Parts of the job that the executive is least qualified to handle. 6. Details that make the executive underspecialized (if specialization is desired) 42 Rosenberger, p. 24 4 3Rosenberger, p. 26 44 45 Rosenberger, p. 25. Rosenberger, p. 24. 36 7. Details that make the executive overspecialized (if broader management skill is needed). 8- Duties that the subordinate is interested in, if possible. 9. 10. Details that provide more variety. Experiences that the subordinate needs to develop his full value. 11. Responsibilities that could be related to the job that he is doing already. Authority should be delegated commensurate with the responsibility to be discharged. 46 According to McFarland, there will be a force to balance or to equate the responsibility and authority. A "1 When authority is less than responsibility, it is hard to get the job done and will result in frustration for the subordinate. earlier will illustrate this point. The example given (The Curriculum Leader Without Authority). At the same time, if the authority is greater than the responsibility, misuse of authority may occur. The degree of delegation should be proportional to the availability of effective controls. If the delegation involves many subordinates as in the case of decentralization in an organization, the degree of delegation would depend ^Scott, p. 57. 47 McFarland, p. 221. 37 also on the ability to communicate and the ability to coordinate various functions and personnels. As indicated by Muth and Thompson, decentralization creates communication and coordination problems. 4 8 Authority should always be delegated clearly and concisely and in writing if possible. 49 The whole job should be explained to the subordinate so that he will be able to see its scope. If possible, the relationship of the task to the main objective should be explained. This will help the subordinate to know what direction he should take. It should be made clear that one should delegate the objective or goal to be accomplished and leave largely to the subordinate the means to accomplish the desired objective. However the superior should contribute experience if needed and should keep abreast of the subordinate's activity. To prevent the subordinate from being discouraged by not being able to accomplish the job, delegation should be by easy stages, but enough challenges. The risk from possible failure can be reduced if the first delegations to a man are made self-terminating or short time span. He should be able to make mistakes without serious consequences. Another thing that one should be aware of, is that improper delegation can cause the detriment of proper line 48Muth, p. 79. 49 Rosenberger, p. 27. 38 and staff relationships 50 or among the line relationships. One should delegate only to one's immediate subordinate. Delegation to those below the immediate subordinate is detri­ mental to the line relationship. Improper delegation of authority or responsiblity to the staff is detrimental to the staff and line relationship. Reward is also important. Extrinsic reward should be given if the task delegated has no intrinsic value to the subordinate. If the executive believes in delegation, he should also give the freedom to his subordinate to redelegate some of the functions to the next level subordinate. 52 Decision making should be pushed to the level at which facts are available to make the decisions. Decisions that affect the man's job should be passed along to the man concerned. While normally it does not make much difference whether a part or the whole work is delegated, it is advisable that if the delegated work involves the study of a problem and a recommendation of a solution is needed, the whole work should be delegated.53 50 Rosenberger, p. 28. 51 52 Rosenberger, p. 26. Rosenberger, p. 27. 53W. R., pp. 2-9. 51 39 Dual subordination should also be avoided. In the words of the scriptures, no man can serve two masters. That is, a 54 subordinate should be accountable to only one person. Centralization and Decentralization of Decision-Making Decentralization requires delegation of responsibility 5 5 and freedom of action.^8 authority is delegated. Decentralization reflects how much Decentralization designates the delegation of authority which involves more than a pair relationship {between a superior and a subordinate). One does not talk about decentralization between a boss and a secretary, but rather for a group or organization which consists of more than two people. 57 Marsh and Simon stated that decentralization is necessary to increase rationality because of the complexity of many organizations. However, according to Muth and CQ Thompson, decentralization creates problems in communication 54 Newman, William H. Administrative Action - The Technique of Organization & Management (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963) pp. 193-194. 55 Davis, Ralph C. The Fundamentals of Top Management (New York: Harper and Row^ Inc., 1951) 304. 56 Newman, William H . , et al The Process of Management (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 208. 57 March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967) p. 169. 58Muth, p. 79. 40 and coordination. Thus one may see that, the greater the amount of authority that is delegated to the subordinate, the greater the attention the superior will have to pay to communication and coordination problems. It is a function that is created as a result of decentralization. According to Sloan, in his early years as president of G.M,, centralization is necessary for unity of direction and control while decentralization is necessary for local autonomy, to create greater energy, enthusiasm, strength in operations and to get recognition for performance. 59 Researches in Centralization and Decentralization Howes studied the cooperative extension service in Wisconsin in 1963 and found that the centralization of administrative decision-making was negatively correlated with the percent of staff in administrative and supervisory positions. This correlation indicates that fewer personnel are required in management positions in a more ’'centralized'* organization structure.^® However, Bautista, in her study of the centralized public education system in the Philippines, 59 Drucker, Peter. The Effective Executive (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1967), pp. 120-121. 60Howes. Abstract - unpublished Doctor's Dissertation. ^Bautista, Josefa. A Critical Analysis of the Centralized Public Education System in the Philippines with Emphasis on Secondary Education (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Indiana University, 1958). 41 found that the education system is somewhat elaborate and intricate for efficiency and too stiff for human relations. The objective and guiding principles of education in the country do not include the development of critical and creative thinking. Supervision is mainly a check on the teachers to see that the prescribed methods are used, the course of study is adhered to, the lesson plans are prepared, the workbooks are used faithfully, and themes are checked according to specifications. In the decentralized form of administration, Gadallah, 62 in his study of the decentralization of the school system in Egypt, found that decentralization of the school system brought the school nearer to the people of the communities, created co-operative relationships between administrators and patrons, helped the growth of the human element among staffs, and encouraged the adoption of new techniques in teaching and supervision. Another study regarding the decentralized form of school administration was done by King Maryland and Atlanta, Georgia. 63 in Montgomery County, It was found that: 62 Gadallah, Soad Soliman. Decentralization of Educational Administration in Egypt, and its Effects on the Schools of Giza Zone (unpublishedDoctor's Dissertation, University of Missouri, 1961). 63 King, Robert Edgar Fr. An Evaluation of the Decentral­ ization Form of School Administration (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, George Washington University, 1966). 42 (1) The systems instructional programs have improved. (2) A potential for "empire building" may occur in the newly created subdivision. (3) Per pupil costs increased with decentralization. The Assistant Principal The elementary school assistant principal's responsibility and authority is largely determined by the principal as is evident in the data shown b e l o w : ^ How Decisions are Made With Regard to the Present Duties of Assistant Principals Functions are set forth in school system handbooks; principal and I agreed upon adjustments 19.3% When I began as assistant principal, the principal and I agreed upon the duties I would carry and those we would share 52.9% We operate largely from day-to-day; I take on the assignments that the principal wishes me to take 27.8% In the same study, it was found that number of the assistant principalsreported a significant the unwillingness of the principal to delegate authority and there was also the lack of understanding in the staff of the assistant principal’s duties and authority. 6 5 64 NAESP The Assistant Principalship in Public Elementary Schools - 1969 A Research Study, Washington, b\Tc., Y$1CT, p^ 56. 65NAESP, p. 58. 43 Most Serious Hindrance to Efficient Functioning of Assistant Principals Lack of preparation or experience for administrative work 4.4% Heavy load of classroom teaching 14.8% Unwillingness of principal to delegate authority 1 2 .1 % Lack of understanding in the staff of the assistant principal's duties and authority Do not feel that there are hindrances to my work 65NAESP, p. 58. 8.3% 60. 4% 44 SUMMARY In this chapter, the area of the delegation of authority has been presented through the review of various literatures and research studies. The definitions of the delegation of authority by various authors have been presented. These definitions, though some of them do not touch on very significant aspects of the delegation of authority, basically agree. The important of delegation of authority to leadership function has been presented through the research studies of Hemphill, Brooks, and Gaudet. They found that most of the effective leaders always or frequently delegated. Delegation was considered significant by both superiors and subordinates of the middle-management positions. Advantages of delegation of authority are found to be many. However, there is little research to support these claims. Most authors based their opinions on their past experiences or on case studies. more than 200 cases. aspects of delegation. Oslund had done* studies on These cases were used to support various They were not intended to be used together to support any single explanation. Some aspects of the disadvantages of delegation are supported by research data, such as the study done by King at George Washington University. King found that decentral­ ization (as a result of delegation of authority) creates the possibility of "empire building" among the newly created subdivisions. He also found that per pupil costs increased with decentralization. 45 There are factors that affect delegation of authority. They are grouped into 3 categories, namely, the factors that involve the superior, the factors that involve the subordinates and the situational factors. Lucas attempted to find the relationship between personal attributes of the superior and the practice of delegation. He found no significant relationship between cooperativeness, sense of security, confidence in people and the practice of delegation. He found, however, that there were some significant relationships between boldness, differentiation and the practice of delegation. Quite a reverse to what he expected, he found that the superiors who are high in emotional stability tend to be non-delegators. Other factors are numerous. The factors that involve the subordinate were not normally mentioned by most of the authors. In the situational factors, Morse and her associates found that the degree of success in delegation relied largely upon the human climate that the supervisor encouraged. According to Selznich, delegation increases specialization which in turn increases competency, thus stimulating more delegation. There are many techniques in delegation mentioned by various authors. Centralization and decentralization of decision-making has been included in the review of the literatures since they are the direct result of delegation. Decentralization reflects how much authority is delegated. 46 Centralization and decentralization designate the delegation of authority which involves more than a pair relationship. There are several research studies in centralization and decentralization that are included here. Howes found that fewer personnel are required in management positions in a more "centralized" organization structure. But according to Bautista, a centralized education system tends to be elaborate and intricate for efficiency and too stiff for human relation. In the decentralized school system, Gadallah found that decentralization brought the school nearer to the people and created adoption of new techniques in teaching and supervision. King, in his study, found that instructional programs have improved in a decentralized school system, but as mentioned earlier, per pupil costs increased and there is a potential for "empire building" in the newly created sub­ division . The review of the practice of delegation of authority by principal to the assistant principal was taken from a NAESP study in 1969. It was found that the principals had the opportunity to delegate their authority either by adjustments of the job description of the assistant principals and, for some of the principals, they may delegate any way they wish. It was also found that a significant number of principals were unwilling to delegate their authority to their assistant. There were also lack of understanding in the staff as to the assistant principal's duties and authority. CHAPTER III PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY The study is based on survey research as the method of investigation, for the reasons below: 1. The majority of past investigations are case studies without statistically supported data. 2. The hypotheses require computation of correlation coefficients which, if they are to be reliable, require at least 30 subjects. The data were gathered through the use of a question­ naire for the following reasons: 1. Being a foreigner, the investigator might misinterpret information gathered in some other way. In survey research, using the questionnaire, the author does not need to interpret the information but needs only to convert it to data that can be used in computation. 2. It is appropriate to collect information regarding personality factors through anonymous investigation as opposed to the interviewing technique. The subjects would be more honest in answering questions. 3. In the interviewing technique, there is a chance for interaction effect between the subject and the interviewer. Travers wains, "The interview must be considered as a complex 47 48 social situation in which the interviewer and the interviewee are making continual adjustments to the responses of one another. 4. The size of the population is too large for personal visitation by the author. While observing the many advantages of the survey technique, it is quite often possible to overlook the fact that the method is not without certain hazards. the problems are: Some of the semantic difficulties in interpreting the questionnaire items by the respondents; most respondents would rather talk than write; 2 and, there is less opportunity to introduce and explain the purpose of the study more thoroughly to the participants. Population of the Study The author elected to concentrate the investigation on only those principals who have an assistant principal working under them. The reason for this choice is that such principals are almost required to delegate, and to subordinates who by their designation are supposed to be able to handle administrative functions. Among these, only principals with one assistant were selected, to obtain a greater homogeniety among population members. ^Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational Research (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964) , p . 240. 2 Parten, Mildred, Surveys, Polls Samples Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 94. (New York: 49 Since there was no available listing of the schools in Michigan which employ assistant principals, the author, with the help of Dr. Archibald Shaw, a committee member, sent requests to the superintendents of school districts in Michigan, asking for the name of schools which employ assistant principals or those equivalent in title, and the number of assistant principals employed in each school. The listing of the school districts was obtained from the Michigan Education Director 1972-1973. 3 The requests were sent to school districts which reported a total enrollment of over 4,500 pupils. The district size minimum was used to make a manageable number and a population that could be tested without need for sampling. The size of the school district does not seem to be a relevant factor, influencing the outcome of the study. Of the school districts interrogated, 87.71 percent responded. Upon examination of the number of schools which employ assistant principals, junior high, middle or inter­ mediate schools were selected for study. There are 154 such schools which employ one assistant principal. The number of schools is large enough to obtain reliable statistical information. The author chose to study the entire population instead of taking a random sample of the population since the size of the population is not too large to create a financial burden. 3 Michigan Education Directory and Buyer*s Guide, Lansing^ Michigan, 1972-1973. 50 The Instrument The instrument used to gather the data is divided into two parts. The first part was developed by the author to measure the attitude toward delegation. The second part is taken from a personality inventory developed by The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, Illinois. The Concept of the Delegation of Authority and the Development of the Instrument As stated before, past investigations in this area vary widely in their methodology due to the different interpretations of the concept of the delegation of authority. There appears to be a strong need for a more precise definition of the delegation of authority so that the investigations in the subject can contribute to each other. After reviewing the literature, the author chose one precise definition of the delegation of authority, which expresses the concept on which this study is based. It is proposed here that the following constitute the four necessary aspects or processes of the delegation of authority: 1. The responsibility (task) is assigned to the subordinate. 2. The subordinate is given freedom to use his own judgment to accomplish the task. 51 3. Authority is given to the subordinate along with the responsibility. 4. Those who are subjected to the authority that is delegated are notified of the delegation. The First Pilot Study Since the discharge of the responsibility, the freedom given to the subordinate, the authority to be given and the degree of notification may vary along a continuum, they are quantifiable and thus possibly measurable. The author first attempted to measure the extent of delegation by constructing an instrument consisting of questionnaire items as shown below: 1. If I develop my subordinate's capabilities to the point where he could take my place, he might become a threat to my job security. 2. The way my subordinate thinks is best may not be, but I generally let him proceed in the way they wish. 3. It is not right to let other people do things that I can do myself. 4. Responsibility is one thing, authority is another, they do not relate. 5. To let my subordinates know the scope of their jobs is to limit my own freedom in asking them to do other things. 6. My subordinates often suggest different methods of doing things. 52 7. I am willing to let others do the work for me. 8. Whatever I ask my subordinates to do, it is under­ stood that they are to do it themselves. 9. I have a list of things I should do myself and of what I should let my subordinates do for me. 10. My subordinates always consult with me concerning the things I ask them to do. 11. Being my subordinates, I expect them to follow my way of doing things. 12. It is clear to everybody in my school which problems should be brought to me and which problems whould be brought to my subordinates. 13. Because I have to be responsible for what my subordinates do, I make it a principle to retain my authority. 14. I am not sure whether my subordinates can do well whatever I ask them to do. 15. My authority is closely related to how well my subordinates follow instructions when I tell them what to do. 16. I like to give orders and get things moving. These items were tested through a pilot study to find their relationships (correlations) with the total score of the following four items: 1. I let others do the work for me, 2. When I ask my subordinates to do work for me, I give them freedom to use their judgment as to the best way of getting it done. 53 3. When I ask my subordinates to do work for me, I delegate enough authority to them so they can accomplish the tasks. 4. When I delegate a task to my subordinate I make certain that all who need to know, do know that he has the necessary authority. During the pilot study, the respondents were asked to complete the first 16 items first. After they finished the first part, they were given an explanation and were able to ask questions concerning the delegation of authority. After that, they were asked to rate themselves according to the last four items. The author planned to use the last four items as a true measurement of the extent of delegation of authority by the respondents. The first 16 items were constructed to indirectly measure the extent of delegation of authority, since, in the final study, there is no opportunity for the respondents to ask questions to clarify the concept of the delegation. The explanation given to the respondents prior to answering the last four items was as follows: The extent to which an administrator will be able to accomplish his task is closely related to his ability to get things done through others. Some administrators are reluctant to have others do the work for them. As a result they themselves must run around from one thing to another, trying to accomplish as much as possible. There 54 are other administrators who want to have others do the work for them, but they are not willing to give others freedom to do the job in their own way. Other administrators hold on to their authority tightly, giving no authority to their subordinates, which makes it hard for them to accomplish their jobs. Essentially, we are concerned with three problems. First, is the willingness of the administrator to give up some of his tasks and let others do the work for him. Second is his willingness to give his sub­ ordinates the freedom they feel is necessary to reach the objective. Third is his willingness to delegate his authority to his subordinates so they can have the authority to accomplish the job. Inthe explanation of the items, the correlation matrix of all author discovered a correlation pattern which significantly forced the author to revise the approach to measurement of the delegation of authority. The author found that the last four items did not correlate well or did not correlate at all with each other. Therefore, summation of the total score of the four items cannot be used as an indicator of the extent of delegation. Let A = the degree of discharging the responsibility to the subordinate B = the freedom given to the subordinate C = the delegation of authority along with the responsibility D = the degree of notification to others involved. 55 The correlation matrix is as follows: A A B C D .278 1 1 B -.086 C .188 .384 D -.054 .188 1 1 For this reason, the author proposed that the four aspects be studied separately. Upon consultation with the research consultants, the author was advised to construct a total of 20 item3 in which there are five items con­ structed to measure each of the necessary aspects of the delegation. To be a delegator, a person has to score positively in each of the four aspects. Since there is no way to draw a line to tell at which point it is considered a negative score and at which point it is considered a positive score, one can only say that persons who score high on all of these four aspects will tend to be a delegator more than those who score lower. There are other aspects of the delegation of authority that some researchers used or may use in their measurements of the delegation. 1. These are: The delegator should define the limits of the delegatee's authority. 2. Assigned tasks and the authority delegated should be clearly defined. 56 3. Authority should be delegated as closely as possible to the level of actual performance. 4. Dual subordination should be avoided in all delegations (a subordinate is accountable to only one person). 5. Effective delegation involves reviewing results rather than decisions. 6. gatee will 7. The degree of responsibility which the hold should be specified. The growth of the delegatee should beplanned asthe function 8. dele­ is carried out. Time limits and standards of performance should be set in delegating. 9. A system to reward the delegatee, in a way that is commensurate with authority granted, and the degree to which he is held responsible, should be developed. 10. Lines of authority upward and downward from the delegatee should be specified. 11. Authority should be invested in a position rather than a person. 12. A person should delegate only to his immediate subordinate. 13. Delegation should be done in easy stages. 14. A person should not delegate the same authority to two persons. The measurement of the above items seems to indicate the effectiveness of the use of the delegation of authority. If these aspects are used along with the first four aspects 57 for measuring the degree of delegation, and if each aspect is given equal weight in the measurement, the summation, or the total score, cannot be used to measure the tendency of a person to delegate. Those who score high in the necessary conditions, but score low in the latter aspects, would still have a tendency to be a delegator, but may not be an effective one. At the same time, those who score high in the latter aspects, but low in the first four aspects, may have the total score higher than the one above, but would not have a tendency to be a delegator. For this reason, the investigator used only the first four aspects for the study of a person's tendency to delegate his authority. The Second Pilot Study The author was advised by the research consultants to construct 10 items for each of the four necessary aspects, a total of 4 0 items. After the pilot study the best five items in each of the 10 items were to be selected in terms of their reliability and validity. The final instrument for measuring the attitude toward the delegation of authority was to consist of five items for each of the four aspects, a total of 20 items. The second pilot study was conducted with the help of many professors in the College of Education. Students in various classes who are in administrative positions were asked to respond to the questionnaire. Questionnaires 58 also were sent to 20 elementary and high school principals for additional responses. The author was able to collect a total of 33 responses/ which were enough for the pilot study. The following are the questionnaire items in which items 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 36 were con­ structed to measure the willingness of the superiors to let their subordinates do their work; items 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30, and 33 were constructed to measure the willingness to give the freedom to the subordinates bythe superiors; items 1, 11, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, and 39were constructed to measure the willingness of the superiors to give their authority to their subordinates; items 5, 8, 18, 22, 26, 28, 32, 37, 38, and measure the willingness 40 were constructed to of the superiors to let other people know of the delegation. As a result of a minor mistake, the questionnaire turned out to have 10 items for group one, 11 items for group two, 9 items for group three and 10 items for group four instead of 10 items for each group. 1. These items are: Responsibility is one thing, authority is another, they do not relate. 2. I can use more people to help me with my work. 3. When I ask my subordinates to do something, I should tell him what needs to be done and how to do it. 4. My subordinates may decide as the task given to them. to the way to accomplish 59 5. If I delegate my authority, to let others know is a part of my job. 6. It is not right to let other people do things for which I am responsible. 7. I am willing to let my subordinates do the work for me. 8. If I have given authority to my subordinate, I might be reluctant to let others know what authority my subordinate has. 9. I like to find out how much I can use my sub­ ordinate. 10. My subordinates should do the actual work while I do the planning. 11. I can not give my authority to my subordinate, the responsibility is still mine. 12. I intend to find out what my subordinates* capabilities are. 13. It is hard for me to accept my subordinate *s viewpoint. 14. I have doubt about my subordinate's judgment. 15. I do not like to have my subordinates do my 16. Getting my subordinates to work for me is work. important. 17. It is a help to my subordinates when they do not have to decide just how to do the work. 60 18. If I delegate authority to my subordinate, it is not important for other people to know. 19. My job is to get work done through my sub­ ordinate . 20. I can not depend on my s u bordinated judgment, he does things differently from the way I'd do them. 21. Effective use of my subordinates is important to m e . 22. If I delegate my authority, I must make others aware of it by letting them know. 23. Authority should be given not only if it is really necessary. 24. My subordinate's judgement may not be best, but I generally let him proceed in the way he wishes. 25. When I assign a task to my subordinate, I should also give him the authority to accomplish it. 26. I do not like people to think that I have given very much authority to my subordinate. 27. All I should tell my subordinate is what's needed to be done and leave it up to him as to how it is going to be done. 28. I do not have to let others know when I delegate my authority. 29. It is important that my subordinate has the authority to accomplish the task. 30. My subordinates shouldn't be afraid to use their own judgement. 61 31. It is hard for a person to accomplish his job without having authority to do so. 32. It is hard for a person to accomplish a job if others do not know that he has been given the authority to do so. 33. I encourage my subordinates to use their own judgement on how to accomplish the task. 34. Authority that is given to me shouldn't be given out to someone else. 35. I do not like to give authority to my sub­ ordinates . 36. Accomplishment through subordinates is essential to administration. 37. If I have given authority to my subordinate, others should know that he has that authority. 38. If my subordinate has the authority, people should know which problems need to be brought to me and which problems need to be brought to my subordinate. 39. Giving authority to my subordinate will only add to disorganization. 40. If I delegate authority to my subordinate, I would have to let others know that he has that authority. Results from the Second Pilot Study Tables 1 through 5 are correlation matrices based on responses from 33 subjects in the pilot study. TABLE 1.— Group One, The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work. Item 2 6 7 9 12 15 16 19 21 36 2 1.00 .05 - .14 .05 - .25 - .01 - .04 - .21 - .09 - .13 6 .05 1.00 .35 - .24 .02 .17 - .22 - .05 - .08 - .01 7 - .14 .35 1.00 .23 .14 .29 - .10 .21 0 .10 9 .05 - .24 .23 1.00 - .04 .18 .29 .28 .25 .20 12 - .25 .02 .14 - .04 1.00 0 .07 .27 .17 .27 15 - .01 .17 .29 .18 0 1.00 .30 - .10 - .10 .19 16 - .04 - .22 - .10 .29 .07 .30 1.00 .24 .42 .39 19 - .21 - .05 .21 .28 .27 - .10 .24 1.00 .28 .44 21 - .09 - .08 0 .25 .17 - .10 .42 .28 1.00 .57 36 - .13 - .01 .10 .20 .27 .19 .39 .44 .57 1.00 .06 .23 .47 .50 .38 .43 .54 .54 .55 .69 Total Score TABLE 2.— Group Two, The Willingness of the Superiors to Gi-ve Freedom to Their Subordinates. Item 3 4 10 13 14 17 20 24 27 30 33 3 1.00 .30 .34 .26 - .11 .52 .15 .09 .16 - .04 .53 4 .30 1.00 - .07 - .02 - .42 .03 .16 .12 .27 - .35 .06 10 .34 - .07 1.00 .02 .11 .25 .10 - .10 .31 - .19 .06 13 .26 - .02 .02 1.00 .28 .28 .41 .26 - .10 .28 .55 14 - .11 - .42 .11 .28 1.00 .14 .22 - .06 - .16 - .03 .07 17 .52 - .03 .25 .28 .14 1.00 .33 .14 - .05 .05 .40 20 .15 .16 .10 .41 .22 .33 1.00 .01 - .11 .20 .40 24 .09 .12 - .10 .26 - .06 .14 .01 1.00 .15 .11 .33 27 .16 .27 .31 - .10 - .16 ■ -05 - .11 .15 1.00 - .29 .12 30 - .04 - .35 - .19 .28 - .03 .05 .20 .11 - .29 1.00 .40 33 .53 .06 .06 .55 .07 .40 .40 .33 .12 .40 1.00 .64 .20 .37 .65 .21 .61 .58 .41 .26 .23 .79 Total Score TABLE 3.— Group Three. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Their Authority to Their Subordinates. Item 1 11 23 25 29 31 34 35 39 1 1.00 .36 - .04 .13 .13 .18 - .09 - .10 - .11 11 .36 1.00 - .20 .06 .21 .20 .19 - .03 .15 23 - .04 - .20 1.00 .11 .25 - .26 .14 .51 .16 25 .13 .06 .11 1.00 .40 .47 .34 .31 .62 29 .13 .21 - .25 .40 1.00 .91 .39 .26 .37 31 .18 .20 - .26 .47 .91 1.00 .27 .24 .36 34 - .09 .19 .14 .34 .39 .27 1.00 .13 .54 35 - .10 - .03 .51 .31 .26 .24 .13 1.00 .45 39 - .11 .15 .16 .62 .37 .36 .54 .45 1.00 .30 .40 .24 .70 .70 .69 .59 .57 .72 Total Score TABLE 4.— Group Four. Delegation. Item 5 8 The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the 18 22 26 28 32 37 38 40 5 1.00 .38 .38 .18 .19 .27 .09 .42 .14 .12 8 .38 1.00 .38 .37 .49 .41 .32 .47 .25 .54 18 .38 .38 1.00 .43 - .15 .38 .27 .60 .39 .39 22 .18 .37 .43 1.00 .09 .88 .60 .62 .14 .59 26 .19 .49 - .15 .09 1.00 .25 .30 .14 .01 .37 28 .27 .41 .38 .88 .25 1.00 .56 .55 .06 .52 32 .09 .32 .27 .60 .30 .56 1.00 .68 .15 .67 37 .42 .47 .60 .62 .14 .55 .68 1.00 .46 .57 38 .14 .25 .39 .14 .01 .06 .15 .46 1.00 .14 40 .12 .54 .39 .59 .37 .52 .67 .57 .14 1.00 Total Score .49 .71 .63 .76 .42 .75 .71 .85 .42 .76 66 5.— Means and Standard Deviations. Mean Std. 1 3. 758 1.349 21 1.576 2 2. 333 .943 22 2.424 3 3.788 .807 23 3.364 4 1. 909 .452 24 2.848 5 2.485 .892 25 1.788 6 3.939 .851 26 4 .182 7 2.576 1.016 27 2.667 8 4. 333 .471 28 3.576 9 2.242 .818 29 1.879 10 3. 333 .910 30 1.697 11 2.909 1.264 31 2.030 12 1.818 .520 32 2.182 13 4.061 .489 33 1.818 14 3.667 .804 34 3.788 15 3. 333 .974 35 4.121 16 1. 788 .591 36 1. 545 17 3.485 .892 37 2.152 18 3.485 1.131 38 2.182 19 1.121 .807 39 4.364 20 3.970 .460 40 2.091 Ite Item Mean 67 Elimination of Items Basis for Elimination Items were eliminated on the basis of: (1) how each item correlates with the total score of that group as compared to other items in the same group; (2) the validity of the items in comparison to other items; (3) the positive or negative wording of items (there is a need to maintain the balance of the positive and negative wording of items so that the respondent would not answer the same way for every item). First Elimination of Items Group One Group One consisted of the items 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 36 which were constructed to measure the willingness of the superiors to let their subordinates do their work. Item 2 was eliminated. It did not correlate with the total score of Group One (r=.06). Item 2 (I can use more people to help me with my work) was criticized by many respondents because they objected to the word "use." They said they do not use their subordinates. Item 6 was also eliminated because it had low correlation with the total score of Group One as compared to the other items (r=0.23). The words "other people" of 68 item 6 (It is not right to let other people do things for which I am responsible) led to confusion among respondents. The word "subordinate1* should have been used instead. The last item to be eliminated in Group One was item 7. (I am willing to let my subordinates do the work for me.) The author felt that this item should not be included due to the fact that it asked something too obvious. Some may say that that's what the subordinate is for, to work for his boss. Group Two Group Two consisted of items 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30, and 33 which were constructed to measure the willingness of the superiors to give freedom to their subordinates. Items 4, 14, 30, and 27 were eliminated because of low correlation (r = .20, .21, .23, .26 respectively). Group Three Group Three consisted of items 1, 11, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, and 39 which were constructed to measure the willingness of the superiors to give authority to their subordinates. Items 1 and 23 were eliminated as a result of low correlation with the total score (r =0.30 and 0.24 respec­ tively) . The author also felt that item 23 (authority 69 should be given out only if it is really necessary) is invalid in the sense that authority shouldn't be given out unnecessarily, and, at the same time, it does not have to be "really necessary." So the valid answer could be either agree or disagree. Group Four Group 4 consisted of items 5, 8, 18, 22, 26, 28, 32, 37, 38 and 40. Items 26 and 38 were eliminated as a result of low correlation (both r = 0.42). After eliminating these items, the data were resubmitted at the computer center for the second run. The following are the results of computation after the items were eliminated. TABLE 6.— Group One. The Willingness of the Superior to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work. Item 9 12 9 1.00 - .04 .18 .29 .28 .25 .20 12 - .04 1.00 0 .07 .27 .17 .27 15 .18 0 1.00 .30 - .10 - .10 .19 16 .29 .07 .30 1.00 .24 .42 .39 19 .28 .27 - .10 .24 1.00 .28 .44 21 .25 .17 - .10 .42 .28 1.00 .57 36 .20 .27 .19 .39 .44 .57 1.00 Total Score .54 .43 .36 .68 .60 .66 .76 15 16 19 21 36 70 TABLE 7.— Group Two. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Freedom to Their Subordinates. Item 10 3 13 17 20 24 33 3 1. 00 .34 .26 .52 .15 .09 .53 10 .34 1. 00 .02 .25 .10 - .10 .06 13 .26 .02 1.00 .28 .41 .26 .55 17 .52 .25 .28 1.00 .33 .14 .40 20 .15 .10 .41 .33 1.00 .01 .40 24 .09 - .10 .26 .14 .01 1.00 .33 33 .53 .06 .55 .40 .40 ,33 1.00 Total Score .69 .40 .66 .69 .57 .41 .78 The Willingness of the Superiors to TABLE 8.— Group Three. Give Their Authority to Their Subordinates. Item 11 25 29 31 34 35 39 11 1. 00 .06 .21 .20 .19 - .03 .15 25 .06 1.00 .40 .47 .34 .31 .62 29 .21 .40 1.00 .91 .39 .26 .37 31 .20 .47 .91 1.00 .27 .24 .36 34 .19 .34 .39 .27 1.00 .13 .54 35 - .03 .31 .26 .24 .13 1.00 .45 39 .15 .62 .37 .36 .54 .45 1.00 Total Score .39 .70 .78 .76 .63 .52 .77 71 TABLE 9.— Group Four. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the Delegation. 5 Item 8 18 22 28 32 37 40 5 1.00 .38 .38 .18 .27 .09 .42 .12 8 .38 1.00 .38 .37 .41 .32 .47 .54 18 .38 .38 1.00 .43 .38 .27 .60 .39 22 .18 .37 .43 1.00 .88 .60 .62 .59 28 .27 .41 .38 .88 1.00 .56 .55 .52 32 .09 .32 .27 .60 .56 1.00 .68 .67 37 .42 .47 .60 .62 .55 .68 1.00 .57 40 .12 .54 .39 .59 .52 .67 .57 1.00 Total Score .49 .67 .66 .81 .79 .73 .85 .76 Second Elimination of Items Group One Item 15 had the lowest correlation but was kept for the final study to preserve the negatively worded items. The next lowest correlation was of item 12 (I intend to find out what my subordinates' capabilities are). Some respondents said that they already knew what their subordinates' capabilities were. Some respondents disagree with item 16 (getting my subordinates to work for me is important). "for me" should be "with me" instead. eliminated at this point. i i The words Both items were 72 Group Two Items 20 and 33 were eliminated. eliminated because it Item 20 was is similar in meaning to item 13 but has a lower correlation (item 20, r = .57; item 13, 4 = .66). Respondents also tend to answer "agree" with item 33 (I encourage my subordinates to use their own judgment on how to accomplish the task). Group Three Items 25 and 29 were eliminated. The author felt that item 25 (when I assign a task to my subordinate, I should also give him the authority to accomplish it) and item 29 (it is important that my subordinate has the authority to accomplish the task) seemed to suggest posi­ tive answers. Group Four Item 22, 37, and 40 were eliminated to maintain enough negatively worded items. After elimination of these items, the correlation matrix for each group was recomputed. The following are the correlation matrices of the final instrument. 73 TABLE 10.— Group One. The Willingness of the Superiors to Let Their Subordinates Do Their Work. Item 15 9 21 19 36 9 1.00 .18 .28 .25 .20 15 .18 1.00 - .10 - .10 .19 19 .28 - .10 1.00 .28 .44 21 .25 - .10 .28 1.00 .57 36 .20 .19 .44 .57 1.00 Total Score .62 .38 .62 .65 .78 TABLE 11.— Group Two. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Freedom to Their Subordinates. Item 3 10 13 17 24 3 1.00 .34 .26 .52 .09 10 .34 1.00 .02 .25 - .10 13 .26 .02 1.00 .28 .26 17 .52 .25 .28 1.00 .14 24 .09 - .10 .26 .14 1.00 .73 .50 .60 .72 .46 Total Score 74 TABLE 12.— Group Three. The Willingness of the Superiors to Give Their Authority to Their Subordinates. Item 11 31 34 35 39 11 1.00 .20 .19 - .03 .15 31 .20 1.00 .27 .24 .36 34 .19 .27 1.00 .13 .54 35 - .03 .24 .13 1.00 .45 39 .15 .36 .54 .45 1.00 Total Score .48 .65 .68 .56 .79 TABLE 13.— Group Four. The willingness of the Superiors to Let Other People Know of the Delegation. Item 5 8 18 28 32 5 1.00 .38 .38 .27 .09 8 .38 1.00 .38 .41 .32 18 .38 .38 1. 00 .38 .27 28 .27 .41 .38 1.00 .56 32 .09 .32 .27 .56 1.00 Total Score .62 .72 .70 .76 .65 75 TABLE 14.— Intergroup Correlation. Group One One 1.00 Two Two Three Four .23 .53 .11 .23 1.00 .30 .29 Three .53 .30 1.00 .21 Four .11 .29 .21 1.00 After elimination of items was completed, the following were the items that were used in the final study: Group One Item 9, 15, 19, 21, 36 Group Two Item 3, 10, 13, 17, 24 Group Three Item 11, 31, 34, 35, 39 Group Four Item 5, 8, 18, 28, 32 In the final instrument, these items were rearranged so that Group One consists of items 1, 6, 11, 13, 15 Group Two consists of items 2, 3, 5, 7, 18 Group Three consists of items 4, 8, 10, 14, 19 Group Four consists of items 9, 12, 16, 17, 20 In the pilot study, the following are negatively worded items (prior to elimination of items): Item 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 34, 35, 39. The following are negatively worded items as appear in the final study: Item 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19. The first part of the instrument is as follows: 76 1. I like to find out how much help I can get from my subordinates. 2. When I ask my subordinate to do something, I should tell him what needs to be done and how to do it. 3. My subordinate should do the actual work while I do the planning. 4. Authority that is given to me shouldn't be given out to someone else. 5. It is a help to my subordinates when they do not have to decide just how to do the work. 6. My job is to get work done through my sub­ ordinates . 7. My subordinates' judgement may not be best, but I should let them proceed in the way they wish. 8. I do not like to give authority to my sub­ ordinates . 9. If I delegate authority to my subordinate, it is not important for other people to know. 10. Giving authority to my subordinates will only add to disorganization. 11. Accomplishment through subordinates is essen­ tial to administration. 12. I do not have to let others know when I delegate my authority. 13. work. I do not like to have my subordinates do my 77 14. It is hard for a person to accomplish his job without having authority to do so. 15. Effective help from my subordinates is important to me. 16. If I delegate my authority# to let others know is part of my job. 17. If I have given authority to my subordinate, I might be reluctant to let others know what authority my subordinate has. 18. It is hard for me to accept my subordinates' viewpoint. 19. I cannot give my authority to my subordinates, the responsibility 20. It is is still mine. hard for a person to accomplish a job if others do not know that he has been given the authority to do so. The Second Part of the Instrument The second part is taken from a personality inventory developed by The Institute Ability Testing, Champaign, Illinois. of Personality and This personality inventory, called "the 16 PF," was developed for measuring 16 different personality factors. They are: 78 Low Score High Score Factor A Reserved Outgoing Factor B Less Intelligent More Intelligent Factor C Affected by Feelings Emotionally Stable Factor E Humble Assertive Factor F Sober Happy-go-lucky Factor G Expedient Conscientious Factor H Shy Venturesome Factor I Tough-minded Tender-minded Factor L Trusting Suspicious Factor M Practical Imaginative Factor N Forthright Shrewd Factor 0 Placid Apprehensive Factor Conservative Experimenting Factor Q2 Group-dependent Self-sufficient Factor Undisciplined Controlled Factor Relaxed Tense Of these 16 factors, the Factors C, L, and Q^ are used in this study. There are 13 questionnaire items for Factor C, 10 items for Factor L and 10 items for Factor Q^. They are taken from the test form which has a total of 187 items for all the 16 personality factors. The sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire is an objectively-scorable test devised by basic research in psychology. Coverage of personality is insured by the sixteen functionally-independent and psychologically-meaningful dimensions isolated by over twenty years of factor analytic research on normal and clinical groups. 79 These sixteen dimensions or scales are essentially independent; that is to say, the correlation between one and another is usually quite small. Therefore, having a certain position on one does not prevent the person's having any position whatever on any other. Test Scale Consistencies The consistencies of the 16 PF scales are given in all possible ways, namely as (1) relia­ bilities (dependability, i.e., short term testretest correlations and also stability, i.e., retest after a longer interval); as (2) homo­ geneities (internal). Validities The items in the final forms are the survivors from several thousands of items originally tried, and constitute only those which continue to have significant validity against the factors after three successive factor analyses on different samples. These analyses have both verified the existence and natural structure of the sixteen factors, and cross-validated the test items in their correlation with the factors on different adult population samples. The validity of the test itself is meant to be a concept (or "construct") validity. That is to say, the test questions (or items), as stated above, are chosen as being good measures of the personality factors, as thqse factors are represented in research analysis.* Collection of Data Questionnaires were sent to 154 junior high, inter­ mediate and middle school principals in 80 school districts, except Detroit and Kalamazoo school districts. There was only one school that would have been included in the study 4 Cattell and Eber, pp. 4-18. 80 in the Kalamazoo school district, but the author decided not to go through the process of getting permission to conduct the study for only one school. There are 31 schools in the Detroit School District that would have been included in the study, but the research department of the Detrout School District rejected the application for the reasons stated in a letter to the author, as shown in the appendix. The author, of course, disagreed with all the reasons given. Initially there were 112 responses and with the follow-up requests, the number of responses increased to 124. The total number of responses received was 80.52 percent of those canvassed. Of these 124 responses, one was discarded because of incomplete answers. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The analysis of the data presented in this chapter is divided into three parts and is reported in the following manner: 1. Part I is the computation of data. 2. Part II, the hypotheses, as advanced by the author, are stated individually with the statistical results of testing and the acceptance or rejection of each. 3. Part III includes the concommitant findings of the study. Part I— Computation of Data The mathematical formula that is used for computation of the coefficient of correlation is as follows: Ei=l 0 reject H q at = .05 if r /n > 1.645 n = 124 Therefore reject H if r > ° = 0.15 /T2? Hypothesis 1 Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to let their subordinates do the work for them. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = - .04. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. The value of r is smaller than .15. Hypothesis 2 Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to give their subordinates greater freedom to use their own judgment in getting the assigned task done. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = .10. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. * Hypothesis 3 Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to delegate authority along with the task assigned to their subordinates. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = - .04. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 4 Principals who show a greater degree of emotional stability are more willing to let others know that their subordinates have those authorities. Result of Statistical Analysis.— ^r = .05. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 5 Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to let their subordinates do the work for them. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = 0. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 6 Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to give their subordinates greater freedom to use their own judgment in getting the assigned task done. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = .20. Decision.— The hypothesis is not rejected. The correlation coefficient indicates a significant positive linear relationship between the two variables, the value is significant at the .05 level. Hypothesis 7 Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to delegate authority along with the task assigned to their subordinates. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = .02. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 8 Principals who show a greater degree of trust are more willing to let others know that their subordinates have those authorities. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r *= .07. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. 105 Hypothesis 9 Principals who show a greater degree of conserva­ tiveness are less willing to let their subordinates do the work for them. Result of Statistical Analysis.--r = .09. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 10 Principals who show a greater degree of conserva­ tiveness are less willing to give their subordinates greater freedom to use their own judgment in getting the assigned task done. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = .02. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 11 Principals who show a greater degree of conserva­ tiveness are less willing to delegate authority along with the task assigned to their subordinates. Result of Statistical Analysis.— r = .07. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. 106 Hypothesis 12 Principals who show a greater degree of conservativeness are less willing to let others know that their subordinates have those authorities. Result of Statistical Analysis.--r - .08. Decision.— The hypothesis is rejected. Part III— Concomitant Findings In addition to the correlations already discussed/ which were computed for the purpose of testing the hypo­ theses/ a number of relationships of some of the variables are also significant to be included here. An analysis was made of the relationships between the willingness of the superiors to let their subordinates do their work and: (1) the willingness of the superiors to give freedom to their subordinates; (2) the willingness of the superiors to give their authority to their subordinates; (3) the willingness of the superiors to notify others of the delegation. It was found that the willingness of the superiors to let their subordinates do their work for them has a slight, but not significant negative relationship with the willingness to give freedom to the subordinates, and a significant relationship with the willingness of the superiors to give their authority to their subordinates, and the willingness of the superiors to let other people know of the delegation. 107 The willingness of the superiors to give their authority to their subordinates has significant relationship wi the willingness of the superiors to give freedom to their subordinates and the willingness of the superiors to let other people know of the delegation. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Interpretation of the Findings The underlying concept of this study is that the delegation of authority involves four essential processes and that all four processes are required in the process of delegation of authority. Hypotheses 1 through 4 were rejected. Emotional stability does not correlate with the attitude toward any of the four processes, thus, it is concluded that emotional stability has no relationship with the attitude toward delegation of authority. This finding does not confirm somewhat similar findings by Lucas.^ Hypotheses 5 through B were all rejected except hypo­ thesise. Trusting has no relationship with the attitude toward three of these processes, but does relate with the attitude toward giving freedom to the subordinates. This finding is very important in the way that it somewhat rejected the view often found in the literature that people do not let others do the work for them because they do not trust. Lucas, Robert E. Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator, (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962). 109 The finding indicates that trusting plays a significant role only to the freedom given to the subordinates and that the superiors may let their subordinates do their work but freedom is restricted. Authority also may be given to the subordinates without giving the freedom to them to use their own judgment. Therefore, their judgment is very limited. The parking enforcer may be a good example. He is given authority to give a ticket to the parking violation car. His superior lets him wear a uniform to let others know that he has authority. However, he has very limited freedom in his decision-making. Everything is well prescribed. He may be asked to give a ticket when: 1. a parking meter shows expiration of time; 2. double parking; 3. parking on the wrong side of the street; 4. parking at the loading zone or at a fire hydrant; 5. parking at a "No Parking" sign, etc. A person may not seek help from others because of controlling factors quite aside from the trusting aspect. Perhaps he does not want to spend money to hire extra help. He may think that others already have too much to do, or he may enjoy doing his work by himself. In the analysis of the hypotheses 9 through 12, all hypotheses were rejected. Thus it is concluded that conservativeness does not correlate with the attitude toward the delegation of authority. 110 The concommitant findings indicate that the princi­ pals who are willing to let their subordinates work for them have some tendency to restrict their subordinates* freedom in general. They also have tendency to give authority to their subordinates. For those who are willing to give their authority to their subordinates, there is a tendency to give freedom and to notify others of the delegation. Thus those who delegate authority tend to delegate correctly. There are those who do not delegate authority as a result of not giving freedom to their subordinates as indicated by the negative correlation (r = - .11). The negative correlation is between the willingness to let others work for them and the willingness to give freedom to the subordinates. Discussion and Conclusion The findings of this study seem to indicate the significance of separating the process of delegation of authority into smaller and somewhat independent processes. The important finding that trusting correlates only with the willingness to give freedom to subordinates would have been impossible if delegation had not been separated into smaller processes. Upon examination of the comments made by some of the respondents in the returned questionnaires , the author has the impression that many principals have characterized in their minds what kind of work they must do themselves. Ill and what kind of work they can delegate. Stated another way, many principals get carried away with what they consider "my work." It is the opinion of the author that the function of the executive, the manager or the administrator is to get the work done. It does not matter how he gets the work done as long as it is done properly. be delegated. There is no work that cannot He is far from being an actor who must perform himself, or an examinee, who has to take the examination himself. When he is in the situation where he cannot find some­ one to delegate to, only then is he obligated to do it himself. Delegation of authority does result in responsibility on the part of the subordinate. Because the subordinate is given the freedom to use his own judgment, he therefore has to be responsible for what he does. The man at the top has to be responsible for what his subordinates do. The author views this as one of the social and cultural expectations, rather than as a result of a derivation from a theoretical framework. exceptions to the above expectation. There should be One instance may be when the man at the top of a hierarchical level has no opportunity to participate in the selection of his subordinates. The subordinates are there prior to his coming into the office or the subordinates are appointed by a higher authority. He should not be responsible for a mistake when made by his subordinates, over which he has no control. 112 Recommendation The validity and reliability of the test instrument can be improved through further research. The instrument for measuring delegation of authority has not been tested for test-retest correlations. Internal reliability may be increased through revising the wording of items, constructing new items, or increasing the number of items in each group. There are many aspects of delegation of authority that need to be investigated. Two of the other pair relationships that should be investigated are: the relationship between principal and the assistant principal, and the delegation of authority by the principal to his assistant; and the principal's sense of responsibility and his practice of delegation. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Louis A. "Management and Organization" New York McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958 as cited by Lucas, Robert E. Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by~the Chief School Administrator, (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1962). Bautista, Josefa. A Critical Analysis of the Centralized Public Education System in the Philippines with Emphasis on Secondary Education (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Indiana University 1958). The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Thomas Nelson & Sons, N.Y. 1952, Exodus 18:17, 24-26. Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. "The Nature and Types of Formal Organizations" Carver, Fred D. et al (eds.), Organization and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools (McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y. , 1969) , p. 6"! Brooks, Earl. "What Successful Executives Do" Personnel (November 1955) Vol. 32, pp. 210-225. Cattell, Raymond and Eber, Herbert W. Manual forForms A and B— Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, Illinois: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing). Davis, Ralph C. The Fundamentals of Top Management (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1951), pT 304. Drucker, Peter. The Effective Executive (New York:Harper and Row, Inc., 1967), p p . 120-121. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations (Prentice-Hall Foundations of Modern Sociology Series, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1964), pp. 51-52. Gadallah, Soad Soliman. Decentralization of Educational Administration in Egypt, and its Effects on the Schools of Giza Zone (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Missouri, 1961). Heintze, R. A. "Delegation! Help or Hindrance" Management Methods. Vol. XVII (Nov. 1959), p. 64. 115 Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus: Ohio State University, Studies in Personnel 1949). Howes, Merle Lee. Centralization of Decision-Making and Organizational Effectiveness in the Cooperative Extension Service (unpublished Doctor1s Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1963). I.B.M. Management Briefing, a publication issued by International Business Machines Corporation for its managers as cited in Delegation: Don't Be a Back-seat Driver (Supervisory Management, Vol. V, May 1960), p. 11. King, Robert Edgar Fr. An Evaluation of the Decentralization Form of School Administration (unpublished Doctor’s Dissertation, George Washington University, 1966). Laird, Donald A. et al. The Techniques of Delegating (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , isT Y ., 1957) . Lucas, Robert E. Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator (unpublished Doctor1s Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962). March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. "Dysfunctions in Organizations" Carver, Fred D. et al (eds.) Organization and Human Behavior; Focus on Schools, McGraw-Hill Book Co., N. Y. 1969, pp. 66-67. March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organization John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 169. (New York: McFarland, Dalton E. Management Principles and Practices, (The MacMillan Company, U~, Y. , 1958) . Mawdsley, Jack K. A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). Mendenhall, William. Introduction to Probability and Statistics (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1969). Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, Lansing Michigan, 1972-1973. Muth, Robert C. A Study to Develop a Decentralized Organization Model for Urban School Systems and to D e m o n s t r a t e d Process of Decentralization of Decision-Making at the Elementary School Level. (unpublishedDoctor1s Dissert­ ation, Michigan State IJniversity, 1970). 116 NAESP. The Assistant Principalship in Public Elementary Schools - 196 9 A Research Study, Washington, D. C., 1970. Newman, William H. et al. The Process of Management (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), 208. Nicholson, Scott. "Risks and Rewards of Delegation” Supervisory Management, Vol. 11 (January 1958) pp. 53-54. Oslund, Margaret Gregory. Elements of Organized Behavior: A Study of Delegation (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Southern California, 19 64). Parten, Mildred. Surveys, Polls Samples (New York: Harper and Brothers^ 1950) , p. 94. Ronald, Doll C. Curriculum Improvement (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, MassT 1970), p. 225. Scott, Don H. Hoarding Authority and Responsibility, Sales Management, May 6, 1960. Rosenberger, Homer T. “Delegation: Who? What? When? How? How Much?,” Supervisory Management (December 1959) pp. 22-30. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organizations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961 as cited by Muth, Robert C. A Study to Develop a Decentralized Organization Model~for Urban School Systems and to Demonstrate a Process off Decentralization of Decision-Making at the Elementary School Level (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational Research (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964), p. 240. Traylor, Dale E. The Delegation of Authority and Responsibility as Practiced by Junior College Chief Administrators (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967). Valentine, Raymond P. Initiative and Managerial Power (AMACOM, A Division of American Management Associations, Inc., New York 1973), p. 3. Walters, J. E. "Basic Administration,” (Paterson, New Jersey: Cleford Adams & Co., 1959), p. 187 as cited by Lucas, Robert E . in Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator (unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962). 117 Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University Administration, (California: Stanford University Press, 1958), p. 37. W. R. "Do You Delegate the Whole Job?" Supervisory Management, Vol. Ill (September, 1958), p p . 2-9. APPENDIX A FIRST PILOT STUDY 119 PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTION IS GIVEN Your position title It is sincerely hoped that what you are going to participate in will contribute to the further understand­ ing of the administrative function. eration will be greatly appreciated. Your careful consid­ 120 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERORDINATE AND SUBORDINATE Please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following items: (1) If I develop my subordinate's capabilities to the point where he could take my place, he might become a threat to my job security. ( ) ( ) strongly agree agree < ) £ ) ( ) neutral disagree strongly disagree (2) The way my subordinate thinks is best may not be, but I generally let him proceed in the way they wish. ( ) strongly agree < ) agree ( ) neutral t ) disagree ( ) strongly disagree (3) It is not right to let other people do things that I can do my self. ( ) strongly agree ( ) agree ( ) neutral ( ) disagree £ ) strongly disagree (4) Responsibility is one thing, authority is another, they do not relate. ( ) strongly agree £ ) agree £ ) £ ) neutral disagree C ) strongly disagree (5) To let my subordinates know the scope of their jobs is to limit my own freedom in asking them to do other things. ( ) strongly agree £ ) agree ( ) neutral ( ) ( ) disagree strongly disagree (6) My subordinates often suggest different methods of doing things. £ ) strongly agree ( ) agree ( ) neutral £ ) div: crree ( ) strongly disagree (7) I am willing to let others do the work for me. ( ) strongly agree ( ) agree ( ) neutral ( ) disagree ( ) strongly disagree 121 (8) Whatever I ask my subordinates to do, it is understood that they are to do it themselves. ( ) strongly agree (9) < ) agree ( ) ( ) ( ) neutral disagree strongly disagree I have a list of things I should domyself I should let my subordinates do for me. ( ) strongly agree () agree ( ) neutral and of what () disagree () strongly disagree (10) My subordinates always consult with me concerning the things I ask them to do. ( ) strongly agree () agree ( ) neutral (11) Being my subordinates, Iexpect them of doing things. ( ) strongly agree ( ) agree () disagree tofollow () strongly disagree my way ( ) () ( ) neutral disagree strongly disagree (12) It is clear to everybody in my school which problems should be brought to me and which problems should be brought to my subordinates. ( ) strongly agree () agree ( ) neutral () disagree () strongly disagree (13) Because I have to be responsible for what my sub­ ordinates do, I make it a principle to retain my authority. ( ) strongly agree () agree ( ) () () neutral disagree strongly disagree (14) I am not sure whether my subordinates can do well whatever I ask them to do. ( ) strongly agree () agree ( > neutral () disagree C) strongly disagree I___ 122 (15) My authority is closely related to how well my sub­ ordinates follow instructions when I tell them what to do. ( ) strongly agree ( ) agree ( ) neutral ( ) disagree ( ) strongly disagree (16) I like to give orders and get things moving. ( ) strongly agree ( ) agree ( ) ( ) neutral disagree ( ) strongly disagree PLEASE DO NOT TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN FURTHER INSTRUCTION 123 The extent: to which an administrator will be able to accomplish his task is closely related to his ability to get things done through others. Some administrators are reluctant to have others do the work for them. As a result they themselves must run around from one thing to another, trying to accomplish as much as possible. There are other administrators who want to have others do the work for them but they are not willing to give others freedom to do the job in their own way. Other administra­ tors hold on to their authority tightly, giving no authority to their subordinates, which makes it hard for them to accomplish their jobs. Essentially, we are concerned with three problems: First is the willingness of the administrator to give up some of his tasks and let others do the work for him. Second is his willingness to give his subordinates the freedom they feel is necessary to reach the objective. Third is his willingness to delegate his authority to his subordinates so they can have the authority to accomplish the job. Before going on to the next page, please ask any questions you may have concerning the above. 124 Based on -the above statements, please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following items: (1) I let others do the work for me. ( ) strongly agree < ) agree ( ) < ) ( ) neutral disagree strongly disagree (2) When I ask my subordinates to do work for me, I give them freedom to use their judgment as to the best ways of getting it done. < ) strongly agree (3) ( ) neutral <) disagree ( ) strongly disagree When I ask my subordinates to do work for me, I delegate enough authority to them so they can accomplish the tasks. ( ) strongly agree (4) ( ) agree < ) agree ( ) ( ) < ) neutral disagree strongly disagree When I delegate a task to my subordinate I make certain that all who need to know do know that he has the necessary authority. ( ) strongly agree ( ) agree ( ) neutral <) disagree < ) strongly disagree APPENDIX B SECOND PILOT STUDY 126 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERORDINATE AND SUBORDINATE Please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following items by circling your answer: SA ■ strongly agree; A - agree; N “ neutral; D - disagree SD 01 strongly disagree. 1. Responsibility is one thing, authority is SA A N D SD 2. I 3. When I ask my subordinate to do something, I should tell him what needs to be done and how to do it. SA A N D SD 4. My subordinates may decide as to the way to accomplish the task given to them. N D SD SA A 5. If I delegate my authority, N D SA A 6. It is not right to let other people do things for which I am responsible N D SD SA A 7. 1 am willing to let my subordinates do the work for me. SA A N D SD 8. If I have given authority to my subordinate, I might be reluctant to let others know what authority my subordinate has. SA A N D SD 9. I like to find out how much I can use my subordinates. SA A N D SD can use more people tohelp me SA A N D SD another, they do not relate. with my work. to let others know is a part of my job. SD 10. My subordinates should do the actual work while I do the planning. SA A N D SD 11. I can not give my authority to my subordinate, the responsibility is still mine. SA A N D SD 12. I intend to find out what my subordinates' capabilities are. SA A N D SD 13. It is hard for me to accept my subordinate's viewpoint. SA A N D SD --- - 14. 1 have doubt about my subordinate's judgement. SA A N D SD 15. I do not like to have my subordinates do ray work. SA A N D SD 16. Getting my subordinates to work for me is important. SA A N D SD 17. It is a help to my subordinates when they do not have to decide just how to do the work. SA A N D SD 127 18. l£ 1 delegate authority to my subordinate, It la not Important for other people to know. SA A N D SD 19. My job is to get work done through my subordinates. SA A N D SD 20. 1 can not depend on my subordinate's judgement, he does things differently from the way I'd do them. SA A N D SD 21. Effective use of my subordinates is important to me. SA A N D SD 2 2 . If I delegate my authority, I must make others aware of it by letting them know. SA A N D SD 23. Authority should be given out only if it is really necessary. SA A N D SD 24. My subordinate's judgement may not be best, but I generally let him proceed in the way he wishes. SA A N D SD 25. When I assign a task to my subordinate, I should also give him the authority to accomplish it. SA A N D SD 26. I do not like people to think that I have given very much authority to my subordinate. SA A N D SD 27. All I should tell my subordinate is what's needed to be done and leave it up to him as to how it is going to be done. SA A N D SD 28. I do not have to let others know when I delegate my authority. SA A N D SD 29. It is important that my subordinate has the authority to accomplish the task. SA A N D SD 30. My subordinates shouldn't be afraid to use their own judgement. SA A N D SD 31. It is hard for a person to accomplish his Job without having authority to do so. SA A N D SD 32. It is hard for a person to accomplish a Job if others do not know that he has been given the authority to do so. SA A N D SD 33. I encourage my subordinates to use their own judgement on how to accomplish the task. SA A N D SD 34. Authority that is given to me shouldn't be given out to someone else. SA A N .D SD 128 35. I do not like to give authority to my aubordinates. SA A N D SD 36. Accomplishment through subordinates is essential to administration. SA A N D SD 37. If I have given authority to my subordinate, others should know that he has that authority. SA A N D SD 38. If my subordinate has the authority, people should know which problems need to be brought to me and which problems need to be brought to my subordinate. SA A N D SD 39. Giving authority to my subordinate will only add to disorganization. SA A N D SD 60 . If I delegate authority to my subordinate, I would have to let others know that he has that authority. SA A M D SD ( ) Please check here if you wish to obtain the results of this study. - Thank you for your time - APPENDIX C THE PINAL INSTRUMENT 129 130 Please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following items by circling your answer: SA « strongly agree; A ■ agree; N “ neutral; 0 ■ disagree; SD ■ strongly disagree. 1. I like to find out how much help I can get from my subordinates. SA A H D SD 2. When I ask my subordinate to do something, 1 should tell him what needs to be done and how to do it. SA A N D SD 3. Hy subordinate should do the actual work while 1 do the planning. SA A H D SD 4. Authority that is given to me shouldn't be given out to someone else. SA A N D SD 5. It la a help to my subordinates when they do not have to decide just how to do the work. SA A H D SD 6. Hy job Is to get work done through my subordinates* SA A H D SD 7* Hy subordinates' judgement may not be best, but I should let them proceed in the waythey wish. SA A H D SD S. I do not like to give authority to SA A H D SD 9. If X delegate authority to my subordinate, it is not Important for ocher people to know. SA A N D SD 10. Giving authority to my subordinates will only add to disorganization. SA A H D SD 11. Accomplishment through subordinates ia essential to administration. SA A H D SD 12. I do not have to let others know when I delegate my authority. SA A N D SD 13. I do not like to have my subordinates do my work. SA A H D SD 14. It is hard for a person to accomplish his Job without having authority to do so. SA A S D SD 15. Effective help from my subordinates is Important to me. SA A N D SD 16. If 1 delegate my authority, to let others know is part of my job. SA A H D SD 17. If 1 have given authority to my subordinate, 1 might be reluctant to let others know what authority my subordinate has. SA A H D SD 18. It is hard for me to accept my subordinates'viewpoint. SA A H D SD my subordinates. 131 19. 20. I cannot give my authority to my subordinates, the responsibility is still mine. SA A N D SD It is hard for a person to accomplish a Job if others do not know that he has been given the authority to do so. SA A H D SD * * * * * * * * * * 0 1956, 1962, 1967, The Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, 1602 Coronado Drive, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission. Please circle a, b or c. 1. When I have been pur In charge of something, 1 Inslat that my instructions are followed or else I resign. I. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 2. 3. 4. 5. If someone got mad at me, 1 would: a. try to calm him down, b. uncertain, c. get Irritated. If I am quite sure that a person la unjust or behaving selfishly, 1 show him up, even if It takes some trouble. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. I can find enough energy to face my difficulties. a. always, b. generally, c. seldom. 11. What this world needs is; a. more steady and "solid" citizens, b. uncertain, c. more "idealists" with plans for a better world. 12. I am always keenly aware of attempts at propaganda In things 1 read, a. yes, b. uncertain, c. no. 13. 1 have been let down by my friends. a. hardly ever, b. occasionally, c. quite a lot. 14. When I read an unfair magazine article, I am more inclined to for­ get it than to feel like "hitting back." a, true, b. uncertain, c. false. 15. As a teenager, If I differed in opinion from my parents, I usually: a. kept my own opinion, b. in between, c. accepted their authority. 16. Some people seem to Ignore or avoid me, although I don't know why. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 17. People treat me less reasonably than my good intentions deserve. a. often, b. occasionally, c. never. 18. When bossy people try to "push me around," I do Just the opposite of what they wish. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. I feel a bit nervous of wild animals even when they are in strong cages. a. yes, b. uncertain, c. no(false). 6. I can generally put up with conceited people, even though they brag or show they think too well of themselves. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 7. Honey can buy almost everything. a. yes, b. uncertain, c. no. 8. My decisions are governed more by my; a. heart, b. feelings and reason equally, c . head. 9. I sometimes can't get to sleep because an idea keeps running throughmy mind. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 10. In my personal life I reach the goals I set, almost all the time. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 132 19. Business superiors or members of my family, as a rule, fine' fault with me only when there Is real cause. a. true. .'j between, c. false. 20. 1 would richer have a job with: a. a fixed, certain salary, b. In between, c. a larger salary, which depended on my constantly persuading people 1 am worth It. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. When a. b. c. people are unreasonable, 1 just: keep quiet, uncertain despise them. If people talk loudly while I am listening to music, 1: a. can keep my mind on the music and not be bothered, b. In between, c. find It spoils my enjoyment and annoys me. I sometimes make foolish remarks in fun, Just to surprise people and see what they will say. a. yes, b. In between, c. no. The pomp and splendor of any big state ceremony are things which should be preserved. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. When the time comes for something 1 have planned and looked forward to, 1 occasionally do not feel up to going. a. true, b.in between, c. false. I can work carefully on most things with­ out being bothered by people making a lot of noise around me. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 27. If a good remark of mine is passed by. It a. let it go, b. in between, c. give people a chance to hear it again. 28. If a heated argument developed between other members taking part in a group discussion, I would: a. like to see a “winner," b. in between, c. wish that it would be smoothed over. 29. 1 have vivid dreams, disturbing my sleep. a. often, b. occasionally, c. practically never. 30. I have sometimes been troubled by people’s saying bad things about me behind my back, with no grounds at all. a. yes, b. uncertain, c. no. 31. I think society should let reason lead it to new customs and throw aside old habits or mere traditions a. yea, b. in between, c. no. 32. I think it Is more Important in the modern'world to solve: a. the question of moral purpose, b. uncertain, c. the political difficulties. 33. If I make an awkward social mistake 1 can soon forget It; a. yes, b. In between, c. no. Dumber of assistant principals In your school ( ) Please check here if you wish to obtain the results of this study. - Thank you very much for your time Q 1956, 1962, 1967, The Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, 1602 Coronado Drive, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission. APPENDIX D related correspondence 133 134 MICHIGAN COLLEGE or STATE UNIVERSITY b a it lanuno • u ic h io a n mu EDUCATION • D IP A E T M IN T O f A D M IN lIT tA T tO N AND H I0 H 1 R EDUCATION ERICKSON HALL Hoy 7, 1973 Dear Superintendent: A research study Is being done at Michigan State University on the nature and process of the delegation of authority by the school principals to their assistant principals. It would be greatly appreciated if you could send us the names of schools in your district in which are employed assistant principals or their equivalent by other title. We would like also to know the number of administrators in these positions in each school. Enclosed is a return envelope for your convenience. We are very grateful for your help. Archibald B. Shaw Professor of Educational Administration ABS/mlg Enclosure 135 933-E, Cherry Lane East Lansing, MI 48823 March 18, 1974 Dear Superintendent: A doctoral study that I will be working on involves the nature and process of the delegation of authority by the school principals. I sincerely hope that this study will contribute to the further understanding of the administrative function. It would be greatly appreciated if you could send the names of schools in your district in which are employed assistant principals or their equivalent by other title. I would like also to know the number of administrators in these positions in each school. Enclosed is a return envelope for your convenience. I am very grateful for your help. Sincerely, Srichak Vatcharakiet 136 M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING * MICHIGAN • 4HH24 COLLEGE O F EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OP ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON IIALL April 18, 1974 Dear Sir: The number of schools In which the principal needa one or more assistants to fulfill his demanding professional responsibilities has grown and continues to grow. Prospective principals need to be helped to be effective in their relationships with their subordinates. You are one of the Michigan principals selected to help the profession know more about these relationships. This study centers on the relationship between the principal's attitudes toward subordinates and certain personality factors. Your response is very important to the study. As a graduate student in school administration who has been many months away from his home in far-away Thailand, I have had many occasions to be Impressed by the friendliness and professionalism of the Michigan school administrators. Now I need your help in finishing my study. I shall be very grateful to you for completing and returning this questionnaire. Your name will be temporarily identified for the purpose of the collection of data but no individual names or school districts will be reported in the study. Enclosed is a return envelope for your convenience. If you wish to receive a copy of the results of this study please Indicate at the end of the questionnaire. Sincerely, Srichak Vatcharakiet 933-E Cherry Lane East Lansing, Michigan 48823 , 13? 933-E, Cherry Lane East Lansing, MI 48823 May 6, 1974 Dear School Principal: Recently a questionnaire form was mailed to you. As your response is very important to the success of this study, it would be greatly appreciated if you would answer the questionnaire and return the form to me at your earliest convenience. If your questionnaire is on its way back to me, please disregard this letter. Your response will be kept confidential and will be treated with the highest ethical and professional standards. I have enclosed another questionnaire form and a stamped envelope for your convenience. Thank you in advance for your immediate attention. Sincerely Srichak Vatcharakiet 138 DETROIT PUBLIC SC H O O L S DIVISION O F CURRICULUM AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH D EPA RTM EN T O F R E SE A R C H AND D EV ELO PM EN T 10100 G R A N D R i ver Drntorr. M i c h i g a n r e s e a r c h a n d testing (313 ) 031 .2030— 1 46204 P H O N E (SIS) 031-2400 E v a l u a t i o n (313 ) 031 -0 050 — i Kay 2k, 1973 Dr. Archibald B. Shan# College of Education UlO Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan U6823 Dear Dr. Shaw: Tour letter of May 7 to our Superintendent has been referred to us In the Research Department which reviews all requests having to do with research or collection of data In our school system. Tour request concerning the number of assistant principals In our system can be honored. I have asked Information Service to send me a copy of our school directory which I am sending to you under sepa­ rate cover. However, I must inform you that since all requests to conduct any studies must first clear with the Research Department, it is not advisable to write or send requests or data gathering in­ struments directly to these administrators since they will only refer all such requests to our department. Our regular procedure is for the researcher to comuunicate with the Research Department and we in turn channel approved request to region superintendents who in turn send the requests to personnel concerned if they authorize the study. All participation is voluntary and all participants have the opportunity to exercise this option. If there is any further assistance our department can supply, please feel free to write or call on us. Sincerely, Ferdinand Galante Research Assistant FG;rd cc: Miss Julia McCarthy Dr. Robert S. Lankton E R obert 4. La n k t o n ,d i v i s i o n a l d i h i g t o * Jo h n r .L i n d m t .d i s s c t o b CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION] l m A W. M c D aid ,a s s i s t a n t r u p s r i h t s m d k m t C h a r l c s J . W o lp i . o s n s s a l • u p s s in ts n d iw t op *c* 139 April 10, 1974 Mr. Ferdinand Galante Detroit Public Schools Department of Research and Development 10100 Grand River Detroit, Michigan 48204 Dear Sir: 1 would like to apply for permission to conduct my doctoral research study in your school district. I would like to send the questionnaire to each junior high principal who has an assistant principal under him. It will take approximately 15 - 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. If permission is granted, should I send all the questionnaire forms to your office or directly to the principals involved? I have enclosed my research proposal with this letter. I would appreciate your letting me know as soon as possible so that I can send the questionnaires before the closing of their school year which I am aware is their busy time. Sincerely, Srichak Vatcharakiet DETROIT PU BLIC S C H O O L S DIVISION O F C U R R I C U L U M A N D E D U C A T I O N A L R E S E A R C H D E P A R T M E N T O F R E S E A R C H AND D E V E L O P M E N T lo to o G r a n d R i v e r R e s e a rc h a n d T e sti n o D e tro it. s i 3 / s s m s 3 0 -1 M ic h ig a n 4920a E v a lu a tio n 3 i3 /» 3 i-2 S 3 0 April 15, 197^ Mr. Srichak Vatcharakiet 933 E. Cherry Lane East Lansing, Michigan Uh623 Dear Mr. Vatcharakiet: Your letter of April 10th requesting approval to conduct your doctoral research has been received by our department. A copy of your dissertation proposal has also been received. It is not clear how you plan to obtain insight into personality factors. Is there an additional instrument you plan to use? There is a question in my mind as to feasibility. Our department, however, will need to examine a copy of the instrument (questionnaire) Itself. The inclosed form will also need to be completed and returned. I suggest that you telephone or visit after I have had a chance to review the questionnaire, to work out details concerning the distribution of the questionnaire and problems connected with this. Sincerely, Ferdinand Galante Research Assistant FG;rd Enclosure cc: Dr. Robert S. Lankton R o a i . r S. L a n k t o n , d iv is io n a l o ik c c t o * J ohn r . L in o ict, d im ic t o n C E N T R A L A D M IN IST RA T IO N ! E L M M W . M c D a i o . m i t T i N t t o AK p i i h t r n d i n T C h a r l i v J . W o l f c , O I H I R A U ( U P I R I N T I H D I H T o p ■c h o o l s 141 DETROIT PUBLIC SC H O O L S DIVISION O F C U R R I C U L U M A N D EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH D EPA RTM EN T O F R ESEA R C H AND D EV ELO PM EN T loioo G r a n d River Detroit, M i c h i g a n 40204 R e s e a r c h a n d Testing sia/osi-ssso-i E v a l u a t i o n 319/931-2030 April 23, 197** Mr. Srichak Vatcharakiet 933 E. Cherry Lane East Lanu ing, Michigan 1+8823 Dear Mr. Vatcharakiet: Your request to conduct a research study on "Relationships Between Selected Personality Factors and Attitude Toward the Delegation of Authority by Principals in Selected Michigan Schools” has been r e c e d e d and carefully reviewed by the Research Department. Approval to conduct the research cannot be given for the following reasons: 1) The sample is too large. and middle schools) (All principals of Junior high 2) You state that the questionnaire is to remain unsigned , yet, as per our morning telephone conversation of April 23, you plan to use a code number on questionnaires. This will surely cause rejection on the part of respondents. 3) I do not see how the data can be of any value if there is no background or demographic data (which you say your com­ mittee has requested you not to use). U) Our department has reservations as to the value to our school system of any findings from the study. 5) The timing for sending out questionnaires near the end of the school year is not in your favor. There are many year end activities and functions which principals must perform and adding an additional request to respond to a long question­ naire would If another unappreciated imposition. I regret that our department cannot approve your request. Sincerely, Ferdinand Galante Research Assistant F0:rd cc: Dr. Robert S. Lankton Robert S, l a n k t o n , d iv is io n a l d ir e c t o r C E N T R A L A D M IN IE T R A T IO N i E l m ir W . J ohn R. L in d s e y , d ir e c t o r M c D a i d , a B B IB T A N T s u p e r i n t e n d e n t C H A R LES J . W O L F S , OENERAL SU PERIN TEN D EN T O P SC H O O LS