INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. 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 material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Micrdnlms International 3D0 N. Z E E B R O A D , A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N W C 1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D 8020726 O b e r u n , M eg a n H a u pt EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP ON PERCEIVED JOB SATISFACTION AND INFLUENCE AMONG INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN MICHIGAN Michigan Stale University University Microfilms International PH.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ana Arbor, MI 48106 1980 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England PLEASE NOTE: In a ll cases th is m aterial has been filmed 1n the best possible way from the av ailab le copy. Problems encountered with th is document have been id e n tifie d here with a check mark . 1. Glossy photographs _ _ _ _ _ 2. Colored Illu s tra tio n s ________ 3. Photographs with dark background _ _ _ _ _ 4. Illu s tra tio n s are poor copy _ _ _ _ _ 5. °r1nt shows through as there 1s te x t on both sides o f page _ _ _ _ _ 6. In d is tin c t, broken or small p rin t on several pages ^ throughout 7. Tightly bound copy with p rin t lo s t 1n spine _ _ _ _ _ 8. Computer p rin to u t pages with In d is tin c t p rin t ________ 9. Page(s) lacking when m aterial received, and not av ailab le from school or author ________ 10. Page(s) _ _ _ _ _ seem to be missing 1n numberingonly follows ________ aste x t 11. Poor carbon copy ________ 12. Not o riginal copy, several pages with blurred type________ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy iX 14. Original copy with lig h t type___ ______ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages ________ 16. Other University M icrofilms International 200 \ Z sss 4NN VII .18106 '3133 761-4700 EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP ON PERCEIVED JOB SATISFACTION AND INFLUENCE AMONG INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN MICHIGAN By Megan Haupt Oberlin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S t a t e U n ivers ity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Elementary and Special Education ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP ON PERCEIVED JOB SATISFACTION AND INFLUENCE AMONG INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN MICHIGAN By Megan Haupt Oberlin This study examined th e e f f e c t s of l ea ders h ip and demographic information on perceived job s a t i s f a c t i o n and in flu e n ce in i n t e r ­ mediate school d i s t r i c t special education s t a f f s in Michigan. B a s i c a l l y , t h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d : 1. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the perceived job s a t i s f a c t i o n and perceived influ ence as moderated by le a d e r s h ip . 2. The p o s s i b i l i t y of a p r e d i c t i v e model f o r the dependent variables. The population c o n s i s t e d of sp e cia l education employees in 49 o f the e x i s t i n g 58 in te rm ed iate school d i s t r i c t s . Survey i n s t r u ­ ments used were the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) demographic q u e s t io n s , the Job De sc ription Index (JDI), and ques­ t i o n s on in flu ence taken from the Control Graphs by Tannenbaum. S t a t i s t i c a l treatm ent o f Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s and m u ltip le re g r e s s io n analyses were used. Results showed p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s of l e a d e r s h ip , job s a t i s f a c t i o n (except s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay), and in flu e n ce . Demographic information did Megan Haupt Oberlin not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with any v a r i a b l e s . The le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b le s o f I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e , C o nsid e ratio n , and I n t e g r a t i o n provided the most c o r r e l a t i o n s on both the dependent v a r i a b l e s . Multiple r e g r e s s io n fin d in g s suggested a c o n s i d e r a te l e a d e r who main­ t a i n s an i n t e g r a t e d , c l o s e l y - k n i t o r g a n i z a t i o n , who resolves con­ f l i c t s and maintains c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s with su p e r i o r s and has i n f l u ­ ence with them, w i l l be perceived by workers as e x e r t in g in flu ence and c o n t r i b u t i n g to job s a t i s f a c t i o n . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deepest a p p r e c i a ti o n to my d i s s e r t a ­ t i o n chairman, Lawrence W. F o s t e r ; without h i s continuous encourage­ ment and su p p o r t, t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n would not have been completed. I a l s o wish to extend my thanks to Charles E. Henley and Charles V. Mange f o r the o p p ortun ity to work with them during my doctoral pro­ gram, and to Alexander J . Klost er f o r s t i c k i n g with me over long distances. I a ls o thank my husband, Walter, and my c h i l d r e n , Melissa and John, f o r be li evin g I could do i t . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my p a re n ts f o r having stood beside me f o r fo ur educational degrees. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. vi Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................... Need f o r the S t u d y .................................................................... Research Objectives .................................................................... D e f in i t io n o f Terms .................................................................... Overview ........................................................................................ 1 3 4 5 6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................... 7 Leadership .................................................................................... In tro d u ctio n ............................................................................ Studies o f Consideration and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e . Leadership and S a t i s f a c t i o n ............................................... Other Studies o f L e a d e r s h i p ............................................... C o n c l u s i o n ................................................................................ Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ........................................................................ D e f i n i t i o n s o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ...................................... Factors Associated With Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ................. Other T h e o r i e s ........................................................................ Influence in Organizations ................................................... Introd u ctio n ............................................................................ T y p o l o g i e s ................................................................................ Perception of Influence ....................................................... Inf luence in Education ....................................................... C o n c l u s i o n ................................................................................ Instruments and Related Research ...................................... Leader Behavior Description Question naire (LBDQ) . Related Research on the L B D Q .......................................... The Job Description Index (JDI) ...................................... Related Research on th e JDI ............................................... General In fluence—The Control G r a p h .......................... Related Research—Control G r a p h ...................................... S p e c if i c Inf luence ............................................................... Related Research With Demographic Information . . . Summary of Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e .................................. 7 7 10 12 13 16 16 16 19 22 24 24 25 31 32 32 33 33 35 35 36 37 37 38 39 41 ill Chapter III. Page PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY................................................... 42 Introd u ctio n ................................................................................. Da ta-Colle ction Procedure ....................................................... Independent Variabl es and Measures .................................. Dependent Variables and Measures Used .............................. Design of the Data A n a l y s i s ........................................... 47 IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................... 42 43 45 46 50 Desc rip tion o f the Sample ....................................................... 50 Demographic Information ....................................................... 50 D escrip tio n s of th e Scales f o r Other Varia bles . . 52 C o r r e la tio n Analyses o f the Total Population . . . . 52 Inf luence and Leadership ........................................................ 55 Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Leadership ........................................... 55 C o r r e l a ti o n Analyses o f the Three P o s i t i o n s : D i r e c t o r , Superviso r, and I t i n e r a n t S t a f f ............ 57 C o r r e l a ti o n Analysis f o r D i r e c t o r s ............................ 57 C o r r e l a ti o n Analysis f o r Supervisors ........................ 61 C o r r e l a ti o n Analysis f o r S t a f f ..................................... 64 Comparison of D i r e c t o r s , S u p e rv i s o r s , and S t a f f . . 66 Multip le Regression Analyses ............................................... 67 Leadership With General I n f l u e n c e ............................. .... . 67 Leadership With Influence in Curriculum ..................... 69 Leadership With In fluence in S e le c tio n o f P e r s o n n e l ........................................................................ 69 Leadership With Inf luence in E s t a b l i s h i n g New P r o g r a m s ........................................................................ 69 Leadership With Inf luence on Promotions in ISO . . 69 Leadership With Influence on E s t a b l i s h i n g New Policies • * • * » » • • * » • • • • » • * * • • 74 Leadership With S a t i s f a c t i o n With the Job ............ 74 Leadership With S a t i s f a c t i o n With People on ISD S t a f f ........................................................................ 74 Leadership With S a t i s f a c t i o n With Supervision . . . 74 Leadership With Promotional O p p o rtu n ities ............ 79 Summary................................................................................. 79 Analysis o f Variance ................................................................ 79 General Influence by P o s i ti o n in I S D .................. 79 Influence in Curriculum by P o s i ti o n in ISD . . . . 81 Influence in S e lec tio n o f Personnel by P o s i ti o n in I S D ............................................................................. 81 Influence in E s t a b l i s h i n g New Programs by Po s itio n in ISD . ............................................................ 83 Influence on Promotions in ISD by P o s i t i o n in ISD. 83 Influence in E s t a b l i s h i n g New P o l i c i e s by P o s itio n in I S D ............................................................ 84 iv Chapter Page S a t i s f a c t i o n With Job (Work) by P o s itio n in I S D .................................................................................... S a t i s f a c t i o n With ISD S t a f f by P o s i t i o n ..................... S a t i s f a c t i o n With Supervision by P o s i ti o n in ISD . S a t i s f a c t i o n With Pay by Po s itio n in I S D ................. S a t i s f a c t i o n With Promotional O p po rtu n ities by P o s i ti o n in I S D .................................................................... Sunsnary......................................................................................... Additional Analyses .................................................................... V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 84 86 86 87 87 89 89 ......................................................... 90 Summary............................................................................................. F i n d i n g s ......................................................................................... C o r r e l a ti o n of the Variables Main E f f e c t s .................... M ultiple Regression Analyses ............................................ C o r r e l a ti o n s by Po s itio n of D i r e c t o r , Superviso r, and S t a f f ................................................................................ One-Way Anovas by P o s itio n on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s ................................................................................ Conclusions Related to This Research .............................. L i m i t a t i o n s ..................................................................................... Suggestions f o r F u rther Research ...................................... 90 91 91 93 93 APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... 98 A. PILOT SURVEY...................................................................................... 99 B. SURVEY................................................................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... v 94 94 94 95 Ill 120 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Schema o f Research Design o f Matrix f o r C o r r e l a ti o n s o f Dependent and Independent Va riables .............................. 49 2. Summary C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Sample ...................................... 53 3. Summary S t a t i s t i c s on Independent and Dependent Variabl es o f Leadership, In flu en c e, and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n .................................................................................... 54 C o r r e l a ti o n s of Independent and Dependent Variables f o r the Total P o p u l a t i o n ........................................................... 56 C o r r e l a ti o n s of Demographic Information With Inf luence and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Matrix f o r D i r e c t o r .......................... 58 C o r r e l a ti o n s of Leadership With Influence and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Matrix f o r D i r e c t o r .......................................... 59 C o r r e l a ti o n o f Demographic Information With Influence and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Matrix f o r Supervisor ..................... 62 C o r r e l a ti o n of Leadership With Influence and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Matrix f o r Supervisor ...................................... 63 C o r r e l a ti o n s o f Leadership With Inf luence and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Matrix fo r S t a f f ................................................... 65 Summary R esu lts o f Regression Analysis of Leadership Varia ble Used t o P r e d i c t Dependent Variable o f General Influence ............................................................................ 68 Summary Results o f Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable o f Influence in Curriculum ............................................................... 70 Summary R esu lts o f Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable of Inf luence in S e l e c ti o n o f Personnel ...................................... 71 Summary Results o f Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used t o P r e d i c t Dependent Variable o f Influence in E s t a b lish in g New Programs .............................. 72 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. vi Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Page Summary Results o f Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable of Influence on Promotion in I S D ................................................... 73 Summary Results o f Regression Analysis o f Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable of Inf luence on E s t a b l i s h i n g New P o l i c i e s .............................. 75 Summary Results o f Regression Analysis o f Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable of S a t i s f a c t i o n With Job .................................................................... 76 Summary Results of Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable o f S a t i s f a c t i o n With People on ISD S t a f f —Special E d u c a t i o n .................................................. 77 Summary Results of Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable of S a t i s f a c t i o n With Supervision ................................................... 78 Summary Results of Regression Analysis of Leadership Variable Used to P r e d i c t Dependent Variable of S a t i s f a c t i o n With Promotional Opportunities ..................... 80 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r General Influence by P o s i ti o n in I S D ................................................... 81 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r Influence in Curriculum by Po s itio n in I S D ................................................... 82 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r Influence in S e le c tio n o f Personnel by Position in ISD ........................ 82 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r Influence in E s t a b lish in g New Programs by Po s itio n in I S D ................... 83 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r Influence on Promotion in ISD by P o sitio n in I S D ...................................... 84 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r Inf luence in E s t a b l i s h i n g New P o l i c i e s by Po s itio n in ISD ................... 85 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r S a t i s f a c t i o n With Job by P o sitio n in I S D ....................................................... 85 One-Way Analysis o f Variance: Means f o r S a t i s f a c t i o n With ISD S t a f f by P o s i t i o n ....................................................... 86 v ii Table 28. 29. 30. Page One-Way Analysis of Variance: Means f o r S a t i s f a c t i o n With Supervision by P o s i ti o n in I S D .......................................... 87 One-Way Analysis of Variance: Means f o r S a t i s f a c t i o n With Pay by P o s i ti o n in I S D ....................................................... 88 One-Way Analysis of Variance: Means f o r S a t i s f a c t i o n With Promotional O p p o rtu n ities byP o s i ti o n in ISD . . . 88 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Organizations have been the focus of res ea rch and i n t e r e s t f o r t h e o r i s t s since Wilbur's f i r s t w r i t in g s on bureaucracy in 1929. For th e p a st two decades, i n te n s i v e and c o ncentrate d a t t e n t i o n has been paid to org an iz ation al research in the behavioral s c ie n c e s . P r i o r research of " c l a s s i c a l " t h e o r i s t s Fayol, Urwich, Tay lor, and o th e r s discussed chain of command, with heavy emphasis placed on f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o o rg an iz atio n al s t r u c t u r e . There was a general tendency to view the employee as an i n e r t instrument performing the ta s k assigned (March & Simon, 1958). The c l a s s i c a l viewpoint was a p t l y summed as " o rg an iz atio n s without people" (Bennis, 1959, p. 259). Modern o rg an iz atio n al theory developed by L i k e r t , Haire, McGregor, A rgy ris, and o t h e r s has recognized the importance o f the o rg an iz atio n al m ilieu with p a r t i c u l a r r e s p e c t to i t s in p u t on the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s members ( P o r t e r , Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). Some dimensions within the milieu a re psy c h o lo g ic a l, not physical or s t r u c t u r a l , e . g . , members' pe rc eptions o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e a c ­ t i o n s to the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and a t t i t u d e s toward the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Consider the res earch l i t e r a t u r e on sup ervisory behavior. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s res earch has focused on the e f f e c t s o f various 2 le a d e r p e r s o n a l i t i e s or managerial s t y l e s on in d iv id u a l and group performance. Many s t u d i e s have been done which examine how subor­ d in ate s a t i s f a c t i o n d i f f e r s f o r s u p e r v iso r s who have a " c o n s i d e r a t e , " employee-centered s t y l e from those who have a s t r u c t u r i n g , t a s k oriented sty le . Much o f the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed by House and F i l l e y (1968), Vroom (1964), and L i k e r t (1961) i n d i c a t e s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between sup ervisory c o n s i d e r a ti o n and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Considera­ t i o n i s a dimension of le a d e r s h ip defined as one where the l e a d e r "regards the comfort, well being, s t a t u s , and c o n t r i b u t i o n s of the follower" ( S t o g d i l l , 1963, p. 5 ). I n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e o f th e l e a d e r - manager and job s a t i s f a c t i o n a re not as c l e a r - c u t , though c o r r e l a ­ t i o n a l s t u d i e s tend to i n d i c a t e they a r e r e l a t e d (Vroom, 1964). I n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e , another dimension o f l e a d e r s h i p , i s defined as one where th e le a d e r " c l e a r l y d e fi n e s own r o l e and l e t s follo w ers know what is expected" ( S t o g d i l l , 1963, p. 5 ) . A r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h ip and in flu e n ce may be supposed from the d e f i n i t i o n which equates l ea ders hip with the d i f f e r e n t i a l e x e r t io n of i n f lu e n c e . "Indeed every a c t of in flu en ce on a m atter of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l e ­ vance i s in some degree an a c t o f leaders hip " (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 303). Research focusing on o rg an iz atio n al v a r i a b l e s in school o rg an iz atio n s i s meager. According to Bidwell (1965), "To under­ stand what schools a re l i k e as o r g a n i z a t i o n s we must r e l y on empiri­ cal work, much of which i s not e x p l i c i t l y d i r e c t e d toward o r g a n iz a tio n a l q u e stio n s . . . . As a r e s u l t t h i s empirical l i t e r a t u r e i s fragmentary and discontinuous" (p. 72). 3 Need f o r t h e Study The in te r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t in Michigan i s an expanding organization. Increased f u n c tio n s have r e s u l t e d in a g r e a t e r respon­ s i b i l i t y f o r providing educational s e r v i c e s w ith in the s t a t e . This + • increased r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s most e vid e n t in s p e cia l education programs and s e r v i c e s f o r th e handicapped. With the changes in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and c l i m a t e , t h e r e i s a need t o examine th e interme­ d i a t e school d i s t r i c t as an o r g a n i z a t i o n and the sp ecial education component as a new, expanding s u b org a n iza tion . In 1971, Public Act 198 or Mandatory Special Education was passed by the Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e . This comprehensive law req uire d pu b lic school d i s t r i c t s to provide programs and s e r v i c e s f o r handi­ capped c h ild r e n ages 0 to 25. This law and the accompanying r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s have p r o je c te d the in te rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t i n t o a powerful p o s i t i o n as an intermedi ary between local school d i s t r i c t s and th e s t a t e board of education and s t a t e department of education. The l e g i s l a t i o n has changed the p ro visio n s f o r s e r v i c e s to handi­ capped c h ild r e n from permissive to mandatory. Many o f the p o s i t i o n s in sp e c i a l education c re a te d by t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n change a re new and did not e x i s t six years ago. With change, lea d er behavior and employee job s a t i s f a c t i o n with the o r g a n i z a t i o n become a re a s of i n t e r e s t f o r study. Does l e a d e r ­ sh ip s t y l e make a d i f f e r e n c e o r have on e f f e c t on employee job s a t i s ­ faction? What, i f any, i s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r behavior and perceived in fluence? Is i t p o s s ib l e t o p r e d i c t jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n o f employees by analyzing th e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e o f t h e i r su p e r i o r s ? 4 Research Ob jectiv es This study i s an e x p lo r a to r y c o r r e l a t i o n a l - r e g r e s s i o n in v es­ t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s o f l e a d e r s h ip and demographic information on jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n and in flu e n ce as perceived by t h r e e h i e r a r c h i c a l groups o f s p e cia l education personnel in inte rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan. Special education d i r e c t o r s , s u p e r v i s o r s , and i t i n e r a n t s t a f f r e p r e s e n t t h e po pulation f o r study. Instruments f o r research include th e Leader Behavior D e sc rip tio n Q u e stio n naire, demographic information, the Job D e sc rip tio n Index, and in flu e n ce q uestio ns based on Tannenbaum's Control Graph. This study examines the in te r m e d i a t e sp e cia l education s t a f f as a component o f the t o t a l in te rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t s and attem pts to add to the knowledge p e r t a i n i n g to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the v a r i ­ a b le s o f i n f l u e n c e , job s a t i s f a c t i o n , l e a d e r s h i p , and demographic information in school o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In t h i s research i t i s hypothe­ si z e d t h a t member j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n and in flu e n ce a re functions of leadership-management s t y l e . The f i r s t res ea rch o b j e c t i v e i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n ­ ship of the dependent v a r i a b l e s o f perceived jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n and perceived in flu e n ce as a f f e c t e d by the independent v a r i a b l e s o f per­ ceived le a d e r s h ip and demographic f a c t o r s or v a r i a b l e s among members o f sp e c i a l education s t a f f s in in te rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t o r g a n iz a ­ tions. The second o b j e c ti v e is to i n v e s t i g a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p r e d i c t i o n model f o r the dependent v a r i a b l e s . F i n a l l y , knowledge o f reported pe rc ep tio ns may provide a b e t t e r p i c t u r e o f what i s happen­ ing in in te r m e d ia te school d i s t r i c t sp e c i a l education su b o r g a n iza tio n s. 5 D e f in i t io n of Terms The following d e f i n i t i o n s were assumed f o r t h i s resea rch. Leadership i s defined as the process whereby one person e x e r t s so c ia l in f lu e n c e over the members o f th e group. A leader, th e n , i s a person with power over o t h e r s , who e x e r c i s e s t h i s power f o r the purpose of in f lu e n cin g t h e i r behavior. Infl uence as a fun ction of le a d e r s h ip i s defined as any pro­ cess whereby a person or group o f persons or o r g a n iz a tio n de te rm ines, t h a t i s , i n t e n t i o n a l l y a f f e c t s , the behavior o f another person, group, or organization. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s defined as th e a t t i t u d e of workers toward the company, t h e i r j o b , t h e i r fellow workers, and o t h e r psychological o b j e c ts in the work environment. Interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s are de fined as those d i s t r i c t s organized on a county o r m ulti-county b a sis as described in Michigan Public Act 190 of 1957. Interm ediate special education d i r e c t o r i s defined as a pers o n (s) approved and reimbursed in the p o s i t i o n as a f u l l - t i m e a d m i n i s t r a t o r by th e Michigan Department of Education. I nterm ediate s p e cia l education s u p e rv iso r i s defined as a person (s) approved and reimbursed in the p o s i t io n by the Michigan Department o f Education. Interm ediate sp e cia l education s t a f f i s defined as approved i t i n e r a n t s t a f f housed a t the inte rm e d iate o f f i c e . 6 Overview The remainder of t h i s t h e s i s i s organized in the following manner: Chapter II i s a review o f the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e on l e a d e r ­ sh i p , jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n , i n f l u e n c e , demographic inform ation, and the instruments used. Chapter I I I c on ta in s the p o pu latio n , data c o l l e c t i o n , method­ ology of t h e stu d y , and the schema f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n s o f th e v a r i ­ ables of i n t e r e s t . Chapter IV p res en ts the r e s u l t s of the analyses o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i a b l e s o f l e a d e r s h i p , demographic i n f o r ­ mation, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and in f lu e n c e . Chapter V i s a summary of the r e s u l t s o f the st udy, conclu­ sions reached, and im p lic a tio n s f o r f u r t h e r study. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Leadership Intro du ctio n Leadership i s one o f the most res ea rched and perhaps l e a s t understood v a r i a b l e s in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s ea rch . Studies o f l e a d e r ­ ship in o r g an iz atio n s a r e confusing, i f not c h a o t i c . Not much sm a ller than th e b ib lio grap h y on l e a d e r s h ip i s the d i v e r s i t y of views on the t o p i c . Many o f the s t u d i e s e sse n ­ t i a l l y ask: What do people mean when they speak o f a leader? Other s t u d i e s begin with a conceptual o r empirical d e f i n i t i o n of le a d e r s h ip and then proceed to determine c o r r e l a t e s or consequences of le a d e r s h ip so d e fine d. Even a cursory review of these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s shows t h a t le a d e r s h ip means many d i f ­ f e r e n t thin g s to d i f f e r e n t people (Janda, 1960, p. 345). A simple d e f i n i t i o n proposed by S t o g d i l l (1974) i n d i c a t e s a lead er i s the person whose behavior e x e r c i s e s a determining e f f e c t on the behavior o f group members. Bowers and Seashore (1966) i d e n t i f i e d c e r t a i n common-sense a t t r i b u t e s of l e a d e r s h ip . F i r s t , the concept of le a d e r s h ip i s meaningful only in th e c onte xt of two or more people. Second, l e a d e r s h ip c o n s i s t s of behavior: behavior by one member of the group toward o t h e r members of the group which advances some j o i n t aim. These d e f i n i t i o n s a re s i m p l i s t i c and may not give i n s i g h t i n to the process and s t u d i e s of le a d e r s h ip . c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of l e a d e r s h ip . 7 They do provide a basic con­ Early resea rch s t u d i e s in l e a d e r s h ip a re predominantly of the personal t r a i t s or i n d i v i d u a l - c e n t e r e d v a r i e t y . defined as persons holding an o f f i c e . is Leaders a re T r a i t theory a s s e r t e d t h ere a f i n i t e number of i d e n t i f i a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or t r a i t s of success ful and e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s . These t r a i t s d i f f e r e n t i a t e the s u ccessful from the unsuccessful le a d e r s ( F i l l e y & House, 1969). S t o g d i l l (1974) reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e with r e s p e c t to th ese s t u d i e s . Personal f a c t o r s were c l a s s i f i e d under f i v e general headings: (1) c a p a c ity ( i n t e l l i g e n c e , a l e r t n e s s , judgment); (2) achievement ( s c h o l a r s h i p , knowledge, a t h l e t i c accomplishments); (3) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( d e p e n d a b i l i ty , i n i t i a t i v e , p e r s i s t e n c e , a g g r e s s iv e n e s s ) ; (4) p a r t i c i ­ pa tion ( a c t i v i t y , s o c i a b i l i t y , c o op eration , a d a p t a b i l i t y ; (5) s t a t u s (socioeconomic s t a t u s , p o p u l a r i t y ) . Only t r a i t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , s c h o l a r s h i p , d e p e n d a b i l i t y , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , s o c ia l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and socioeconomic s t a t u s c o n s i s t e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d lea ders from non­ leaders. T r a i t theory research to t h i s po in t ignored the s i t u a t i o n in which le a d e r s h ip tak es p l a c e . G h i s e l li (1963) c o r r e l a t e d t r a i t s of le a d e r s h ip with management performance r a t i n g s and org an iz atio n al levels. The le a d e r s h ip t r a i t s t h a t c o r r e l a t e d were i n t e l l i g e n c e , s u p e r v i ­ sory a b i l i t y , i n i t i a t i v e , s e l f - a s s u r a n c e , and i n d i v i d u a l i t y . This research gives more dynamic and r e p l i c a b l e r e s u l t s than previous t r a i t resea rch. The behavioral approach to th e study o f le a d e r s h ip c h a r a c t e r ­ ize s lead ers by behavior p a t t e r n s r a t h e r than inherent or individual traits. The behavioral "theory" began with Kurt Lewin of the Group Dynamics Center a t M.I.T. Four s t y l e s o f l ea d er s h ip behavior have 9 emerged from the res ea rch : g r e a t man. a u t o c r a t i c , s u p p o r t i v e , i n s t r u m e n t a l , and F i l l e y and House (1969) s t a t e d t h a t th e a u t o c r a t i c l e a d e r commands and enforces by his power to reward and punish, and h i s d e c i ­ sions a re most of ten a r b i t r a r y . The sup portive le a d e r i s democ ratic, employee o r i e n t e d , and c o n s i d e r a t e o f employees (Argyle, 1957). The instrumental l e a d e r i s e f f e c t i v e , a c t i v e , t a s k o r i e n t e d , and he may be a u t o c r a t i c or su pp o rtive (Bass & Dunteman, 1963). The g r e a t man i s an e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r who i s both su pp o rtive and instrumental (Moore & Smith, 1952; Bales, Strodbach, M i l l s , & Roseborough, 1951). The study o f l e a d e r s h ip has become i n c r e a s i n g l y i n t e r e s t i n g when viewed as an i n t e r a c t i o n process between th e l e a d e r , the group, and individual group members. In o t h e r words, th e l e a d e r i n flu e nce s h is followers in the i n t e r a c t i o n process and the grou p 's r e a c t i o n s have an impact on le a d e r behavior. In an experiment demonstrating t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n o f group members with the le a d e r s h ip they re c e iv e i s a f f e c t e d to a l arg e ex te nt by a t t r i b u t e s o f th e person providing the l e a d e r s h i p , Bell and French (1950) have shown i t i s p o s s ib l e to p r e d i c t with some accuracy the a t t i t u d e s o f members o f a group toward the q u a l i t y of indiv idual le a d ersh ip a b i l i t y . In t h e i r experiment each s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t e d in s i x d iscussion groups. In each group his fellow p a r t i c i p a n t s were four d i f f e r e n t stu d e n ts with whom he was unacquainted. At the end of the d isc u ssio n s e s s i o n , the f i v e group members were asked i n d i v i d u a l l y to rank o t h e r group members on t h e i r a b i l i t y t o lead t h e d isc ussio n f o r an expected next meeting. The rankings f o r a given person by the o t h e r four members were averaged and c o r r e l a t e d with t h e le a d e r s h ip 10 rankings t h a t the same person rec eive d in t h e o t h e r f i v e groups. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between le a d e r s h ip rankings in d i f f e r e n t groups ranged from .03 to .96, with a mean o f .75. The attem pt by several Ohio S t a t e U n iv e rs ity p sy c h o l o g is ts to fin d a few general behavior dimensions which apply t o a l l types o f le a d e r s i s s i g n i f i c a n t . Hemphill and Coon (1957) and Halpin and Winer (1957) performed f a c t o r analyse s of l e a d e r s h ip behavior and produced two orthogonal f a c t o r s . in itia tin g structure. The f a c t o r s a r e c o n s i d e r a ti o n and "Consideration i s the degree to which a l e a d e r a c t s in a warm and supportive manner and shows concern and r e s p e c t f o r his sub o rd in a te s. s t r u c t u r e r e f e r s to Initiating a le a d e r d e fi n e s and s t r u c t u r e s th e degree t o which h is own r o l e and th ose of h is subor­ d i n a t e s toward goal a ttainm ent" (Yukl, 1971, p. 414). Many y e a r s o f experimentation and manipulation o f the f a c t o r s o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e have found them p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o va rious measures of group cohesiveness and harmony. In itia tin g structure is r e l a t e d to group coh esiveness, whereas c o n s i d e r a ti o n is r e l a t e d to low absenteeism, tu r n o v e r , bureaucracy, and s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t would appear t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f c o n s i d e r a ti o n and s t r u c ­ t u r e i s to be e x p la in e d , not in terms of l e a d e r s h i p , but in terms o f fo llo w ersh ip . The two behavior p a t t e r n s emerge as important but not because they a r e e x h ib i t e d by the l e a d e r , but because they produce d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on th e behavior e x p ec ta tio n s of followers ( S t o g d i l l , 1974, p. 147). Studies of Consideration and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c tu r e Hemphill (1955), using th e Leader Behavior D e sc rip tio n Ques­ t i o n n a i r e (LBDQ) to study th e l e a d e r s h ip of academic department heads 11 in a u n i v e r s i t y , r ep o r te d c o n s i d e r a ti o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e competence c o r r e l a t e d a t .36 and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e compe­ tence c o r r e l a t e d a t .48. H i l l s (1963), in a study of school p r i n c i p a l behavior, repo rte d c o n s i d e r a ti o n and s t r u c t u r e a re highly c o r r e l a t e d with two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f u n c t i o n s : (1) r e p r e s e n ti n g the i n t e r e s t s o f te a c h e r s to higher l e v e l s o f t h e o rg an iz atio n and (2) r e p r e se n tin g t e a c h e r s ' i n t e r e s t s to the school c l i e n t e l e . A d d i t io n a l ly in t h i s stud y, c o n s i d e r a ti o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e a r e not only concerned with i n t e r n a l l e a d e r s h ip but r e f l e c t the manner in which the l ea d er d e als with o u t s i d e r s and higher l e v e l s of a u t h o r i t y . Another educa­ t i o n a l study using p r i n c i p a l s as respondents to d e scrib e the lead er behavior o f su pe rin te n dents and a s s i s t a n t su p e rin te n d en ts found t h a t those p r i n c i p a l s who d e sc r ib e t h e i r s u p e r i o r s as high in c o n sid e r a tio n but not high in s t r u c t u r e p e rc eiv e themselves as e x e r c i s in g high degrees o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a u t h o r i t y , and as d e le g a tin g e x t e n s i v e l y . In a study of the s t a f f p o s i t i o n of d i r e c t o r of i n s t r u c t i o n , Luckie (1963) surveyed 434 s u p e r i n te n d e n t s , d i r e c t o r s of i n s t r u c t i o n , and tea c h e r s f o r d e s c r i p t i o n s o f 53 d i r e c t o r s of i n s t r u c t i o n . Using the ideal model as portrayed by the LBDQ, d i r e c t o r s a re rep o rted as lower in co n s i d e r a ti o n and s t r u c t u r e than a l l groups would c o n sid e r i d e a l . An experiment by Bailey (1966) using four p r i n c i p a l s and four t e a ch e rs described as higher in c o n sid e r a tio n and four o t h e r p r i n c i p a l s described as higher in s t r u c t u r e involved a decision-making game. Neith er p r i n ­ c i p a l s ' c o n s i d e r a ti o n nor s t r u c t u r e scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the gro u p's d e c i s i o n . However, p r i n c i p a l c o n s i d e r a ti o n i s s i g n i f i ­ c a n t ly r e l a t e d to th e t e a c h e r s ' s a t i s f a c t i o n with the d e cisio n and 12 t h e i r support o f i t . Flocco (1969), in a study o f 1,200 school busine ss managers, repo rte d c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e a re u n r e la te d to p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t sc o res o r dogmatism. In s t u d i e s o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s t r u c t u r e , and school s i z e , Hunter (1959) s t a t e d t e a ch e rs and board members d e s c r i b e s u p e r i n t e n ­ dents of l a r g e schools higher in c o n s i d e r a ti o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c ­ t u r e than those in small schools. Charte rs (1964) i n d ic a t e d s i z e of school was u n r e la te d to t e a c h e r s ' d e s c r i p t i o n of le a d e r behavior; however, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s rated su p e rin te n d en ts of l a r g e schools higher in c o n s i d e r a ti o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e than th ose in small sch ools. House, F i l l e y , and Kerr (1970), in a study of t h r e e companies as a t e s t of th e Fleischman and Harris (1962) hy p oth es is , discovered t h a t s t r u c t u r e a c t s as a mediator of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between consid­ e r a t i o n and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . S t r u c t u r e r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y with s a t i s f a c t i o n with company and freedom of a c t io n in a ll three organizations. Although data did not support the mediating h yp o th es is , s t r u c t u r e was p o s i t i v e l y r a t h e r than n e g a tiv e ly r e l a t e d to employee s a t i s f a c t i o n . S to g d ill (1965) a l s o found in a study of 27 o r g a n iz a tio n s t h a t le a d e r s t r u c t u r e i s r e l a t e d to follo w er s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n with the o r g a n i z a t i o n , whereas c o n s i d e r a ti o n i s a s s o c i a t e d with s a t i s f a c t i o n and freedom o f a c t i o n . Leadership and S a t i s f a c t i o n Mann (1965), in a study of community h o s p i t a l s involving t h ree employee groups and a t r i l o g y o f l e a d e r s h ip s k i l l s , found the s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n of nurses i s r e l a t e d to human r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s of s u p e r v i s o r s . 13 S a t i s f a c t i o n o f s u p e r v i s o r i s r e l a t e d to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s k i l l s of th e i r superiors. In s t u d i e s of two firms using c o n s i d e r a ti o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e as le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s , House, F i l l e y , and G uja rti (1971) rep o rted c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . Both le a d e r c o n sid era ­ t io n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e acted as moderators o f employee s a t i s f a c ­ t i o n with freedom on th e j o b , job s e c u r i t y , and family a t t i t u d e s in one firm but not t h e o t h e r . Nahabetian (1969) s t a t e d group members a re b e t t e r s a t i s f i e d with le a d e r s who r a t e high in i n f lu e n c e r a t h e r than those low in influ e nce with s u p e r i o r s . Yukl (1971) s t a t e d t h a t in f i v e s t u d i e s using the le a d e r s h ip dimension o f c o n s i d e r a ti o n and subordinate s a t i s f a c t i o n , a st ron g p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p r e s e n t between t h es e two f a c t o r s . In an experiment Lowen, Hrapchak, and Kavanagh (1969) found a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n between subor­ d i n a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h e i r r a t i n g s of le a d e r c o n s i d e r a ti o n . Other Studies of Leadership H e l le r and Yukl (1969) defined anoth er l e a d e r behavior dimen­ sion encompassing lead er behavior procedures and group p a r t i c i p a t i o n , which they c a l l d e c i s i o n - c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . This i s an average of the degree of p a r t i c i p a t i o n the le a d e r allows i n to any s e t o f typ ic al decisions. This dimension emphasizes the behavior of the le a d e r r a t h e r than behavior of su b o rd in a te s. Yukl (1971) maintained d e c i s i o n - c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i s independent or oblique from c o n s i d e r a ti o n and in itia tin g structure. In a study o f 67 second-l ine su p e rv iso rs in t h r e e companies, r e s u l t s showed a low s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of r - .24, p < .05 between c o n s i d e r a ti o n and d e c i s i o n - c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . 14 No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was p r e s e n t between d e c i s i o n - c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e . The instrument used was the Decision Pro­ cedure Questionnaire (Form C) described in H e l le r and Yukl (1969). Yukl f u r t h e r developed hi s premises i n t o a m u lt i p l e - l i n k a g e model o f l ea d er e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of the model i s a s e t o f inte rm e d iate v a r i a b l e s such as su bordinate t a s k m o tiv a tio n , su b o rd i­ nate t a s k s k i l l s , and t a s k - r o l e o rg an iz atio n f o r the group. A leader can do l i t t l e to improve group p r o d u c t i v i t y unless he a l t e r s one or more of th es e v a r i a b l e s . In the research on th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r g a n iz a tio n a l performance and le a d e r a t t i t u d e s , F i e d l e r (1971) and a s s o c i a t e s sought t o determine whether th e le a d e r who i s very l e n i e n t in e v a l u a t ­ ing h is a s s o c i a t e s i s more o r l e s s l i k e l y to lead an e f f e c t i v e , highproducing group than the lea d er who i s highly demanding or d i s c r i m i ­ nating in e v a lu a tin g h i s a s s o c i a t e s . considered. Two perception f a c t o r s were One, "assumed s i m i l a r i t y between op posi tes" (ASO), measures t h e degree to which a le a d e r i s perceived as very s i m i l a r to his most and l e a s t p r e f e r r e d co-workers. A perception o f c lo s e sim i­ l a r i t y suggests t h e le a d e r i s not d i s c r im i n a t in g in his pre fe ren c es about co-workers. (LPC). The second f a c t o r i s the " l e a s t p r e f e r r e d co-worker" This measures the degree to which the le a d e r sees the poor co-worker in a favora ble manner. LPC i s a measure o f leniency or t o le r a n c e or an in v erse measure o f the degree to which he d i s c r i m i n a t e s in e v a l u a t i n g o t h e r s . The ASO and LPC scores are highly c o r r e l a t e d and so a re used inte rc hangeably. Groups a re described as i n t e r a c t i n g (members work c o o p e r a tiv e ly and in te rdep en d en tly on a tas k ) or coacting 15 (members perform t h e i r t a s k s in r e l a t i v e independence from one a n o t h e r ) . The v a r i a b l e t h a t moderates the r e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC and group p e r ­ formance i s s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o r i t i s m . This i s defined as the degree to which the s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f provides th e l e a d e r with p o t e n t i a l power and in flu e n ce over the gro up 's behavior. S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s include leader-member r e l a t i o n s , t a s k s t r u c t u r e s , and p o s i t i o n power. r a t i n g s c a l e s were desc ribed by F i e d l e r (1967). c l a s s i f i e d on th ese t h r e e dimensions. system i s an e i g h t - s i d e d cube. These Group s i t u a t i o n s a re The r e s u l t a n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Each o c t a n t could be scaled in l ea rn in g how much power and in f lu e n c e a l e a d e r might have in a s i t u a t i o n . Meuwese and F i e d l e r (1965), in a study using the LBDQ, rep orted lead ers who a r e high and low on the LPC measures tend to d i f f e r s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y on s p e c i f i c items o f th e LBDQ but not in t o t a l scores f o r co n sid era tio n and s t r u c t u r e . Graham (1968) found high-LPC lea d ers were de sc ribed as being higher in c o n s i d e r a ti o n and s t r u c t u r e than low-LPC l e a d e r s . Yukl (1968), in a study of lea d er p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s as determinants in l e a d e r behavior, found t a s k o r ie n te d l e a d e r s tend to be described as high in s t r u c t u r e and low in c o n s i d e r a ti o n . F i e d l e r analyzed e a r l i e r s t u d i e s in which ASO and LPC were developed and added the s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . f i e l d s t u d i e s were conducted to v a l i d a t e t h e model. New la b o r a to r y and Shima (1968) t e s t e d the contingency model in Japan using stud e nts and two o f G u i l f o r d 's t e s t s : the Unusual Uses t e s t , considered to be moderately s t r u c t u r e d , and an i n t e g r a t i o n task re q u i r i n g groups to in ven t a s t o r y using ten u n rela te d words. b e rs . All lea ders were e l e c t e d by the group mem­ The corresponding c o r r e l a t e s were - . 2 6 (n * 16) and .71 (n = 16), 16 p < .05, thus supp orting t h e model. In th e analyse s and rea n aly s es s t u d i e s , F i e d l e r found a d i s c r im i n a t in g le a d e r a t t i t u d e was a s s o c i a t e d with high group performance when the s i t u a t i o n was highly favo ra ble or unfav ora ble. A l e n i e n t , c o n s i d e r a te le a d e r a t t i t u d e was a s s o c i a t e d with high group performance when the s i t u a t i o n was moderately f a v o r ­ able or unfavorable. Under a very unfavorable c o n d i t i o n , however, th e group would f a l l a p a r t un less the l e a d e r ' s a c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n and control could keep th e members on the job . Conclusion Research on dimensions o f l e a d e r s h ip has progressed from encompassing t h e o r i e s to empirical experimentatio n. Leadership involves the l e a d e r , his p e r s o n a l i t y and behavior, the group members' behavior and i n t e r a c t i o n s of the l e a d e r , th e t a s k s and goals to be accomplished, and the s i t u a t i o n s or c o n te xt w ith in which th e l e a d e r , group, and t a s k a re o p e r a t in g . T h i s w a s b e s t s t a t e d by Hollander and J u l i n (1969): One o v e rr id in g impression conveyed by surveying th e l i t e r a t u r e o f the 1960's , in c o n t r a s t to th e preceding two decades, i s the reduc tion of i n t e r e s t in le a d e r s h ip toward processes such as power and a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p . . . . The tendency i s to a t t a c h f a r g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o th e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l e a d e r , the followers and th e s i t u a t i o n . . . . In consequence, t h e problem of studying l e a d e r s h ip and un de rstand ­ ing th es e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s recognized as more formidable than was e a r l i e r supposed (p. 395). Job S a t i s f a c t i o n D e f in i t io n s o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Since Hoppock's monograph on job s a t i s f a c t i o n in 1935, a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of res ea rch has been conducted on t h i s t o p i c . 17 Variables such as j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n , employee a t t i t u d e s , and morale acqui red an important pl ac e in the l i t e r a t u r e of i n d u s t r i a l , voca­ t i o n a l , and so c ial psychology. The terms job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job a t t i t u d e s were t y p i c a l l y used i n te rch a n g ea bly . Both r e f e r to a f f e c ­ t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s on th e p a r t of i n d i v i d u a l s toward work r o l e s which they were p r e s e n t l y occupying. Beer (1964) defined job s a t i s f a c t i o n as the a t t i t u d e o f workers toward th e company, t h e i r j o b , t h e i r fellow workers, and o th e r psychological o b j e c t s in the work environment. The term "morale" has been given a v a r i e t y of meanings, some o f which correspond q u i t e c l o s e l y to t h e concepts o f a t t i t u d e and satisfaction. For example, L i k e r t and W i l l i t s (1940) defined job morale as an i n d i v i d u a l ' s "mental a t t i t u d e toward a l l f e a t u r e s of his work and toward a l l o f t h e people with whom he works" (p. 27). Simi­ l a r l y , Guion (1958) defined morale as "the e x t e n t to which the i n d i ­ v i d u a l ' s needs a r e s a t i s f i e d and the e x t e n t t o which the in div idu al perceive s t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n as stemming from his t o t a l job s i t u a t i o n " (p. 62). Job s a t i s f a c t i o n and motivation seem to r e p r e s e n t two d i f f e r ­ e nt c o n s t r u c t s and may be only t a n g e n t i a l l y r e l a t e d . For example, a s a l e s manager who expended enough e f f o r t to meet minimum jo b r e q u i r e ­ ments may have demonstrated low jo b m o tiv a tio n ; however, th e poorly motivated manager may have p r e f e r r e d not to work hard. He may have a p p re c ia te d the o p p o rtu nity to c o a s t along in his c a r e e r . Although h is jo b motivation was low, his jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n was high (Dubrin, 1974). Research on motivation had involved many d i s c i p l i n e s , including developmental l ea rn in g and o t h e r a r e a s o f psychology. Research on job 18 s a t i s f a c t i o n , on th e o t h e r hand, had come from e f f o r t s o f i n d u s t r i a l p sychologis ts i n t e r e s t e d in work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . No encompassing t h e o r i e s s t a t i n g causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been developed f o r job satisfaction. Most research has c o n s i s t e n t l y looked simply f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among v a r i a b l e s ( P o r t e r , Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). Lawler (1975) c h a r a c t e r i z e d jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n as (1) global in n a tu r e , (2) a s i n g l e v a r i a b l e , and (3) s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s which a re r e a c t i o n s to p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s o f j o b s . Global s a t i s f a c t i o n has been defined as a p e r s o n 's a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s to h is t o t a l work r o l e . Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) c i t e d th e d i s t i n c t i o n between general job s a t i s f a c t i o n and s p e c i f i c jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n , t i e d to s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n t s , as an important one. A number o f i n v e s t i ­ g ato rs have t r i e d to break down the notion of general job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n to r e l a t i v e l y independent components ( e . g . , Ash, 1954; P. C. Smith, 1967; Weiss, Davis, England, & L o f q u is t, 1967). Although the s t r u c t u r e of job s a t i s f a c t i o n thus con cep tu alized varied somewhat across s t u d i e s , th e s i m i l a r i t i e s were more apparent than the d i f f e r e n c e s . The r e f e r e n t s which commonly appeared were such th in g s as pay, working c o n d i t i o n s , su perv iso ry p r a c t i c e s , company p o l ic y , co-workers, o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r advancement, s e c u r i t y , and the like. Vroom (1964), in h i s review o f j o b - s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , in d ic a t e d t h a t most s t u d i e s d ealin g with the determinants o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n used s p e c i f i c measures, whereas those dealing with the r e l a t i o n s h i p of job s a t i s f a c t i o n to job behavior tended t o use more general measures. There were problems when f a c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n were combined to form a global measure. Nezzer (1971) found in her 19 se arch f o r determinants o f global s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r managers t h a t determinants vari ed from company to company even when they were mem­ bers o f th e same c o r p o r a t io n . Blocker and Richardson (1963), in t h e i r 25-year review o f morale research in e d u c a tio n , noted a t r e n d from global t o component ( f a c e t o r f a c t o r ) j o b - s a t i s f a c t i o n measures. Wanous and Lawler (1972) reviewed nine o p e ra tio n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Data were r ep o rte d on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between each of th es e d e f i n i t i o n s and two t r a d i t i o n a l measures o f o v e ra l l job satisfaction. The r e s u l t s showed a l l the o p e ra tio n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n did not y i e l d e m p i r i c a l l y comparable measures o f s a t i s ­ faction. The auth ors suggested theory and res ea rch were needed which mapped in d e t a i l t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among d i f f e r e n t ways of measuring global s a t i s f a c t i o n , f a c e t s a t i s f a c t i o n , and a number of independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s . Factors Associated With Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Many f a c t o r s have been a s s o c i a t e d with job s a t i s f a c t i o n . General environmental f a c t o r s in t e a c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n were i n v e s t i ­ gated byMcCluskeyand S t r a y e r (1940) based on work by Hoppock (1935). Garrison (1945), build in g on McCluskey and S t r a y e r , concluded nearly every a sp ect o f the t e a c h e r ' s environment was involved in adjustment t o th e job s i t u a t i o n . R ela tio n s h ip s between s a t i s f a c t i o n and super­ v isio n in pu blic schools were i n v e s t i g a t e d by Bidwell (1955). He concluded t h a t tea che rs who perceived a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure as being c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r e x p e c ta tio n s tended to be s a t i s f i e d with 20 the teaching s i t u a t i o n ; teachers whose p e rc eptions were not c o n s i s ­ t e n t with e x pec ta tio n s were d i s s a t i s f i e d . There has been some experimental evidence t h a t ex te n siv e changes in s a t i s f a c t i o n may follow changes in s u p e r v i s i o n . Jackson (1953) used an a t t i t u d e q u e s t io n n a ir e to measure th e a t t i t u d e s of members of nine work groups, each concerned with the i n s t a l l a t i o n or r e p a i r of telephone equipment. Subsequent to t h i s measurement, t h r e e foremen whose men had r e l a t i v e l y p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r le a d e r s h ip were exchanged with t h ree foremen whose men had r e l a t i v e l y negativ e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p . The remaining t h r e e f o r e ­ men remained with t h e i r o r i g i n a l s e c t i o n s and served as c o n t r o l s . Approximately four months a f t e r the o r i g i n a l a t t i t u d e measurement, the same q u e s t io n n a ir e was r ead m in istered . The t h r e e work groups who i n i t i a l l y had p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r foreman changed in a negative d i r e c t i o n . In two o f these groups th e d i f f e r e n c e s were s ta ti s t i c a ll y significant. S i m i l a r l y , the t h r e e work groups who i n i t i a l l y had more negative a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r foreman changed in a positive direction. In two of thes e groups the d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t , while the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the t h i r d was not t e s t e d because th e newly acquired foreman had become i l l and had to be rep la ce d. The a t t i t u d e s o f the t h r e e work groups who had served as c o n tr o l s remained unchanged. Many o f the e a r l y Ohio S t a te U n iv e rs ity s t u d i e s rep o rted a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r ' s behavior and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Vroom (1964) c i t e d Baumgartel in a study o f s c i e n t i s t s which i n d i ­ cated d i r e c t i v e or p a r t i c i p a t i v e l e a d e r s h ip a f f e c t e d job s a t i s f a c t i o n . 21 Locke, in S te ers and P o r t e r (1975) d i s c u s s e d , but d i d n ' t e m p i r ic a ll y t e s t , how a s u p e r v i s o r could c o n t r i b u t e to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s jo b s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n but could not "motivate" an employee. ence was l i m i t e d . The s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n f l u ­ What he accomplished depended on the v a lu e s , knowledge, and goals of h is su bo rd in a te s. Job performance was a t one time believe d to be caused by satisfaction. Vroom (1964) showed s t u d i e s which found weak r e l a t i o n ­ ships between performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Recent research has i n d i ­ cated the s l i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p may be due to good performance causing s a t i s f a c t i o n (Lawler & P o r t e r , 1967). I f we assume rewards caused s a t i s f a c t i o n , and in some cases performance produced rewards, then i t was p o s s ib l e the r e l a t i o n s h i p found between s a t i s f a c t i o n and perform­ ance came about through the a c t io n of a t h i r d v a r i a b l e —rewards. B r i e f l y s t a t e d , good performance led to rewards, which in tur n led to s a t i s f a c t i o n ; t h i s formulation then would say t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n was caused by performance. K a t z e ll , B a r r e t t and P o r te r (1961), in a study of wholesale warehousing d i v is io n s o f pharmaceutical companies where v a r i a b l e s of performance, s a t i s f a c t i o n , and s i t u a t i o n a l inputs were manipulated, found a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between measures of s a t i s f a c t i o n and performance i f the s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f small towns, i . e . , fewer employees and more evenly proportioned s t a f f s based on sex. The evidence which r e l a t e d wage l e v e l s to s a t i s f a c t i o n is c o n f l i c t i n g and confusing. Mathis (1959) and Chandler (1959) reported on s t u d i e s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between types o f s a l a r y schedules and 22 tea ch e r morale. Using ten systems, f i v e which had m e r i t r a t i n g systems and f i v e which did n o t , they administered an instrument to r a t e morale. The conclusions were the instrument did d i f f e r e n t i a t e morale but type o f pay plan and amount o f pay did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t morale. However, Harap (1959), in f i e l d s t u d i e s conducted by George Peabody College f o r tea c h e r s (1949 and 1957) found s a l a r y improvement as the most suggested improvement f o r morale by te a c h e r s in the 20 d i s t r i c t s studied. Results of Harap's s t u d i e s must be put in a proper frame of reference. S a l a r i e s in education were low r e l a t i v e to s a l a r i e s in o t h e r occupational groups in the 1949-1957 e r a , according to the United S t a t e s Department o f Labor S t a t i s t i c s . Summary. —Summarizing the auth ors reviewed suggests t h a t understanding o f what determines job s a t i s f a c t i o n has not s u b s ta n ­ t i a l l y increased. Much of t h i s may have been due to a lack o f cohesive theory and c on sisten c y of r e s u l t s a cro ss research s t u d i e s . Other Theories T heoretical work on job s a t i s f a c t i o n includes f u l f i l l m e n t th eo ry , discrepancy th eo ry , and th e "Smith e t a l . " th eo ry . These t h e o r i e s w ill be b r i e f l y d iscussed. F u l f i ll m e n t t h e o r y . —Sch affer (1953) s t a t e d , "job s a t i s f a c t i o n w ill vary d i r e c t l y with the e x t e n t to which those needs of an i n d i ­ vidual can be s a t i s f i e d a re a c t u a l l y s a t i s f i e d " (p. 3). Using a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , he measured the s t r e n g t h of 12 needs o f each o f 72 employed persons. In th e same q u e s t io n n a ir e he measured the e x t e n t to which each need was being s a t i s f i e d in the work s i t u a t i o n and the 23 i n d i v i d u a l ' s o v e ra ll job s a t i s f a c t i o n . In g e n e r a l , th e g r e a t e r th e r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h of the need, the g r e a t e r the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the measure o f the degree to which the need was desc ribed as being s a t i s f i e d and o v e ra l l job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Discrepancy t h e o r y . —The discrepancy approach was based on the c o n c e p tu a li z a t i o n t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n may be determined by the d i f ­ feren ces between the a ctu al outcomes a person rec eive s and some o t h e r expected outcome. When received outcome i s below the expected outcome level, d issa tisfac tio n resu lts. P o r t e r (1961) presented a discrepancy approach which saw s a t i s f a c t i o n influenced not by how much a person wanted but by how much he f e l t he should r e c e i v e . To measure s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n he asked respondents how much of a given outcome t h e r e should be f o r a job ( i d e a l ) and how much o f a given outcome t h e r e a c t u a l l y was ( r e a l ) . Locke (1969) emphasized t h a t perceived disc repa n cy , not actu al di screpancy, was important. S a t i s f a c t i o n was determined by the d i f f e r e n c e between what one wanted and what one perceived he received. Both discrepancy measures did y i e l d d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . For example, a person may feel his p r e s e n t pay i s a p p r o p r i a te f o r h is p r e s e n t job and be s a t i s f i e d ; however, he may feel his p r e s e n t pay is below what he wants and be d i s s a t i s f i e d . "Smith e t a l . " t h e o r y .--The i n c lu sio n of a l t e r n a t i v e s within the jo b s i t u a t i o n was hypothesized by Smith e t a l . (1969): Feelings of s a t i s f a c t i o n a re a s s o c i a t e d with a perceived d i f ­ ference between what i s expected as a f a i r and reasonable r e t u r n (or when the e v a lu a tio n o f f u t u r e prospects i s involved, what i s a s p i r e d to ) and what i s experienc ed, in r e l a t i o n t o the a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e in a given s i t u a t i o n . T h eir r e l a t i o n to 24 behavior depends upon th e way in which th e in d iv id u a l expects t h a t form o f behavior t o help him achieve the goals he accepted (p. 50). Smith e t a l . ' s hy pothesis expanded job s a t i s f a c t i o n t o includ e e n vi­ ronmental o r s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . This led to t h e o r i e s o f s o c i a l comparison and p r e d i c t i o n s o f employee behavior which a re beyond the scope o f th e p r e s e n t review. Summary. —Summarizing th e res ea rch on s a t i s f a c t i o n i s d i f f i ­ c u l t as strong conclusion s cannot be made. C o n f lic tin g f i n d in g s have suggested p r e s e n t t h e o r i e s and models a r e inadequate as frameworks f o r an exhaustive i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the s u b j e c t . Influence in Organizations I n t r o d u c t io n The l i t e r a t u r e on in flu e n ce i s f i l l e d with d iv e r s e d e f i n i ­ t i o n s and approaches. The words i n f lu e n c e , power, c o n t r o l , and a u t h o r i t y a r e redefin ed a cro ss academic d i s c i p l i n e s . Sociologists have been concerned with power both as a dependent and an independent variable. Students o f business o r g a n i z a t i o n s have examined causes and consequences o f management co ntrol v i s - a - v i s owners and c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n as a sp e c ts o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n of power. Politi­ cal s c i e n t i s t s have examined th e in flu e n ce of e x te rn al p r e s s u r e groups on p o l ic y making and a d m i n i s t r a t io n in governmental agencies as redefin ed by each r e s e a r c h e r to f i t his p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n (Zald, 1969). Dahl (1957), in h is comments on the study o f power, s a i d , "A th in g to which people a t t a c h many l a b e l s with s u b t l y or g r o s s ly d i f f e r ­ e n t meanings in many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s and i s probably not a thin g a t 25 a l l but many th in g s some r e s e a r c h e r s th in k th e study o f power i s a bottomless swamp" (p. 206). The word in f lu e n c e has been de fined as any behavior which pro­ duces an e f f e c t whether in b e h a v i o r a l , psychological s t a t e o r any o t h e r c o n d it i o n . Other words connoting i n f lu e n c e were c o n t r o l , a u t h o r i t y , and power. For the purposes of t h i s r e s e a r c h , a l l the above-named concepts were viewed as d i f f e r e n t i a l a c t s o f i n f lu e n c e and were t r e a t e d as in f lu e n c e . Typologies T h e o r i s t s and r e s e a r c h e r s have had to c r e a t e "maps" to guide them through th e "swamp" of in flu ence l i t e r a t u r e ( C a rtw rig h t, 1965). Typologies have been developed to d efin e o r org anize the theory and r e s e a r c h on i n f l u e n c e . French and Raven (1959) c re a t e d a typology of bases o f i n te r p e r s o n a l power. Their approach was based on the n a tu r e o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the power holder and the power recipient. 1. Reward power—used in those s i t u a t i o n s in which the reward i s important to the r e c i p i e n t . 2. Coercive power—based on the r e c i p i e n t p e rc eption s o f the a b i l i t y o f the power holder to d i s t r i b u t e punishment. 3. Legitimate power—when th e r e c i p i e n t acknowledged th e power holder had a r i g h t to in f lu e n c e . 4. Re ferent power—when the r e c i p i e n t i d e n t i f i e d with the power holder and t r i e d to emulate him. 5. Expert power—when the r e c i p i e n t a t t r i b u t e d sp e c i a l knowl­ edge t o the power holder. 26 All o f t h es e forms of power were found in o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Experimental s t u d i e s by French, Morrison, and Levinger (1960) lend support to the conception of bases of power. Donald Warren (1968) u t i l i z e d the French-Raven power typology in his a n a l y s i s of the manner in which school t e a ch e rs conformed to organizational controls. Warren was concerned with behavioral as opposed to a t t i t u d i n a l conformity as the dependent v a r i a b l e in the power r e l a t i o n s h i p . Behavioral conformity was compliance "in o v e rt behavior, but without i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n and norms" (p. 953). A ttitudi­ nal conformity involved both compliance and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . a ls o d e a l t with the v i s i b i l i t y o f the power r e c i p i e n t s . Warren He suggested those r e c i p i e n t s s u b j e c t to coercive and reward power must be highly v i s i b l e , sin ce t h e i r performance must be c o n s t a n t l y under s u r v e i l l a n c e by the power holder. On the o t h e r hand, r e f e r e n t and e x p ert power r e c i p i e n t s were much l e s s v i s i b l e , sin ce they shared the same so c i a l goals as the power ho lder. In these l a t t e r power forms, the r e c i p i ­ en ts were motivated to conform and t h e r e was l e s s need f o r d i r e c t surveillance. Warren found, in most of the school s t u d i e d , more than one form o f power was used. The combinations of pov/er forms were c o n s i s t e n t with what would be normally expected. Expert and r e f e r e n t power tended to be found t o g e t h e r and were c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , while c oerciv e and l e g i t i m a t e power had a minimal r e l a t i o n s h i p . Coercive power was the type found alone most o f t e n , while r e f e r e n t and e x p ert power were most often combined with one of the o t h e r forms. These combinations were important from a t h e o r e t i c a l s t a n d p o in t ; they sug­ gested in th es e cases t h a t power was not something t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e 27 in a so c i a l system in a f ix e d amount (zero-sum game) but v a r i a b l e within the system, as to both type and amount. Warren then added the p rofes sio n alism of the tea ch e rs to his a n a l y s i s . He found t h a t in highly p r o f e s s i o n a l i z e d s e t t i n g s coercive power was weak, whereas i t was a s t r o n g e r base in l e s s p r o f e s s i o n a l i z e d s e t t i n g s . The a d di­ t io n o f the p ro fes sio n al v a r i a b l e weakened th e impact o f reward power, which ap p aren tly was not a major b a s i s f o r co ntrol in th es e school settings. Leg itim ate, e x p e r t , and r e f e r e n t power were a l l linked to p r o f e s sio n a lism , with l e g i t i m a t e power having the s t r o n g e s t a s s o c i a ­ tion. The c ontrol system in a highly pro fes sio n al school then appeared to be most e f f e c t i v e when th es e t h r e e forms of power were p r e s e n t and utilized. Control would tend t o be i n e f f e c t i v e when c o erciv e or reward power was the major b a s i s used. Further i n s i g h t i n t o th e sources and bases of power i s pro­ vided in a study by F i l l e y and Grimes (1967) conducted in a n o n p r o f i t organization. T h i r t y - s i x of the professio n al o rg an iz atio n members were interviewed about e i g h t hypothetical i n c i d e n t s which req u ire d them to seek a de cision from the d i r e c t o r o r a s s o c i a t e d i r e c t o r . Respon­ dents were asked (1) to whom they should go i f they were to seek a d e c i s i o n , (2) to whom they would l i k e to go, and (3) to whom they would in f a c t go. Answers to the above q uestio ns were c l a s s i f i e d according to the bases of power to which the org an iz atio n members responded. The e m p i r ic a ll y derived statements o f or g a n iz a tio n a l bases of power included: formal a u t h o r i t y , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and f u n c t i o n , m anip ulatio n , d e f a u l t or avoidance, autonomy, e x p e r t i s e , c o ntrol o f r e s o u r c e s , bureau­ c r a t i c r u l e s , t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e s , c o l l e g i a l f r i e n d s h i p , and e q u i t y . 28 Patchen (1974) examined 33 s p e c i f i c purchasing de cision s in 11 f irm s . In each o r g a n i z a t i o n , a person knowledgeable about the purchasing fun ctio n was interviewed about a n o n r e p e t i t i v e purchase made in t h e firm, t y p i c a l l y one where a product was bought f o r the f i r s t time or where i t had been purchased only i n f r e q u e n t l y . For each d e c i s i o n , t h i s knowledgeable person was asked to supply the names and t i t l e s of o th ers who were involved in the purchase. A t o t a l of 180 in te rv ie ws were conducted concerning the 33 cases; these i n t e r ­ views were with those designated o r i g i n a l l y as being involved in the purchase and with o t h e r s whose importance to the decision-making pro­ cess was revealed during th e i n i t i a l in te r v ie w s . In d iv id u a ls involved in the decisio n were asked (1) who brought the problem to t h e i r a t t e n ­ t i o n and with thorn they have discussed the problem, (2) t h e i r r o l e in the d e c i s i o n , (3) who was involved during each stage o f the d e c i s i o n , (4) what d i f f e r e n c e o f opinion e x is te d within the firm, (5) how such d i f f e r e n c e s were re s o lv e d , and (6) who they judged had the g r e a t e s t in flu e n ce on the d e cision and why. One o f the most s t r i k i n g fin d in g s in t h i s study was the lack o f agreement among people interviewed as to who had had the most in flu e n ce in making the d e c i s i o n . Patchen suggested t h a t only in a few cases was t h e r e a s i n g l e , prime d e cision maker; his data show t h a t most o ften the decisi on meetings, problem so lv in g , and g e t t i n g a d d itio n a l information were much more f r e q u e n t ly used t o resolv e c o n f l i c t s than were de cisio n s made by persons with higher a u t h o r i t y . A v a r i e t y o f answers were obtained in response to the q u e s t io n , "Why did th e person named as most i n f l u e n t i a l in the de cision have so much influence?" (p. 195). The m a jo r ity of the 29 responses concerned c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d t o the e x t e n t to which the person would be a f f e c t e d by the d e c i s i o n . Sometimes the e x pla n atio n was a general state ment t h a t someone would be a f f e c t e d . For example, in a company which makes musical in s t r u m e n t s , the choice o f a t r a c t o r tru ck was s a i d by one informant to have been influenced most by the t r a f f i c supervisor. Closely r e l a t e d was the somewhat more s p e c i f i c a s s e r t i o n t h a t a c e r t a i n person was i n f l u e n t i a l in the d e cisio n con­ cerning a purchase because th e product would be used by him or his department. In a d d it i o n to being a f f e c t e d by v i r t u e of having to use the prod uct, a man may be a f f e c t e d in o t h e r ways by the d e c i s i o n . A v a r i e t y o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the meeting of which might be a f f e c t e d by the d e c i s i o n , were mentioned as reasons f o r g r e a t i n f lu e n c e . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s mentioned next most f r e q u e n t ly had to do with the e x p e r t i s e o f t h e indiv idual with i n f lu e n c e ; t h i s experience sometimes took the form of s p e c i f i c information, sometimes a more general kind of knowledge. Formal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the i n f l u e n t i a l ind iv id u al to play a key r o l e was a l s o mentioned as a freq ue nt b a sis f o r power, as was the f a c t t h a t the ind iv id u al had formal, l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y . While many responses r e f e r r e d to indiv idual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as i n d ic a t e d above, o t h e r respondents suggested t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s of c e r t a i n persons were the reason f o r t h e i r in f lu e n c e . The two most commonly mentioned a c t i v i t i e s were "prodding o t h e r s to a c t " ( t h a t i s , bringing the need f o r the new product to o t h e r s ' a t t e n t i o n ) and those connected with information g a thering and te c h n ic a l m a t t e r s . 30 Patchen concluded by examining his data with p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r ­ ence to the French and Raven c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of power, describe d e a r l i e r in t h i s chap ter: The data i n d i c a t e f i r s t the coercive power and reward power a re n otic ea ble c h i e f l y by t h e i r absence. Influence was never a t t r i b u t e d to th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of control over material sa n c t i o n s , nor to a c t i v i t i e s involving use o f such sanctions ( e . g . , t h r e a t , promise, punishment, reward). I t i s p ossib le t h a t some respondents were r e l u c t a n t to t a l k about such modes of influence. I t may be, too , t h a t the p o s s ib le use of sanc­ t i o n s lurks behind o th e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r a c t i v i t i e s which were some-referent power. . . . Influence did appear to be due often to expert power. A man's e x p e r t i s e was fr e q u e n tly men­ tioned as the reason he was i n f l u e n t i a l in a de cisio n . . . . A second basis of power which was pres ent was l e g i t im a t e power. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , d u t i e s , f o r formal a u t h o r i t y which a man made, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of someone with l e g i t im a t e power, were given with some frequency as reasons f o r influence (pp. 216-17). Etzioni (1961) attempted to develop a typology and an a n a l y t i ­ cal scheme for org anizational a n a l y s i s in his t h r e e forms of power: coerc ive, remunerative, and normative. Coercive and remunerative power were almost i d e n t i c a l to French and Raven's coercive and reward power. Normative power was s i m i l a r to r e f e r e n t power. Yet another typology of influ ence was suggested by Cartwright (1965). Theory and empirical st u d i e s were organized in to t h r e e c a t e ­ g ories: (1) the agent ex ertin g influ ence ( 0 ) , (2) the method of ex ertin g in f lu e n c e , and (3) the agent s u b je ct to influence (P). When an agent 0 performed an a c t r e s u l t i n g in some change in another agent P, 0 had influenced P. power over P. I f 0 had the c a p a b i l i t y o f influencing P, 0 had Research findin gs were included on persuas io n, confor­ mity, su pe rvision , decision making, and e x ercis e of economic, p o l i t i ­ c a l , and m i l i t a r y power. 31 Pe rception o f Influence The measurement o f members* p e rceptions o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l influ e nce was stu died e x te n s i v e l y in many types o f o rg a n i z a t i o n s by Tannenbaum (1968). Tannenbaum and Georgopolos (1957) used an i n s t r u ­ ment c a l l e d th e c ontrol graph. In summarizing a s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s on the amount of power in o r g a n i z a t i o n s , Tannenbaum noted th e expansion o f power may occur under e i t h e r of two c l a s s e s o f c o n d it i o n s . The f i r s t was t h a t of an e x te rn al expansion o f power i n to the o rg an iz a ­ t i o n ' s environment. At t h e same time, in creased o p p o r t u n i t i e s to e x e r c i s e control w ith in the o rg a n i z a t i o n may have c o n tr i b u te d to th e members' involvement in and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the o r g a n i z a t i o n and hence increased t h e i r i n t e r e s t in e x e r c i s in g c o ntrol and t h e i r amena­ b i l i t y to being c o n t r o l l e d . Members, then, as p o s s ib l e c o ntrol a g e n t s , engaged in more frequ e nt i n f lu e n c e a tt e m p t s , and as p o s s ib l e o b j e c ts o f c o n t r o l , provided new o p p o r t u n i t i e s to one anoth er to e x e r c i s e control. Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schnech, and Pennings (1973) th e o r iz e d t h a t control within o r g a n i z a t i o n s was not e x c l u s i v e l y v e r t i c a l ; h o r i ­ zontal c ontrol and c oo rd ination were necessary. Furthermore, questio ns o f o r g a n iz a tio n a l control should focus on u n i t s or departments within an o rg a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r than on indiv idual r e l a t i o n s e x c l u s i v e l y . They argued d i f f e r e n t i a l power among o rg an iz atio n u n i t s was c e n t r a l to the quest io n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o ntrol and d i r e c t i o n . Thompson (1967) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) s t a t e d a l l o r g a n iz a tio n a l u n i t s faced con­ tin g e n c i e s and c o n s t r a i n t s which lim i te d t h e i r a b i l i t y t o control themselves, and t h a t a l l u n i t s face interdependence with o t h e r u n i t s . 32 Power became a q u estio n o f unequal dependencies among u n i t s . In o rd er to maintain c o n t r o l , an o r g a n iz a tio n a l subunit sought power r e l a ­ t i v e to o t h e r u n i t s by (1) absorbing or coping with some of the uncer­ t a i n t y faced by the o t h e r u n i t , (2) reducing i t s s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e to o t h e r u n i t s , o r (3) i n cre as ing i t s c e n t r a l i t y to the work flow of th e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Influence in Education Additional res ea rch on in flu e n ce in education o rg a n i z a t i o n s was Funk's study (1964) as rep o rted by Briner and Iannaccone (1966). The resea rch d e a l t with two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e s —the high school p r i n c i p a l and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p e r v i s o r in a l a r g e school d i s t r i c t using a v a r i e t y o f measures including documents and survey q u e s t io n s . Funk found t h a t th e p r i n c i p a l s - s u p e r v i s o r s followed a t y p i c a l l i n e and s t a f f c o n f i g u r a ti o n explored by Browne (1949). Following t h i s , the power of p r i n c i p a l s was most c o n s i s t e n t with French and Raven's l e g i t i m a t e power while s u p e r v iso r s tend to use exp ert power. Conclusion The above survey of the l i t e r a t u r e on in flu e n ce has i n d ic a t e d in flu e n ce r e l a t i o n s h i p s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e t y p i c a l l y thought to be interpersonal. I t has a l s o been pointed out t h a t power d i f f e r e n t i a l s between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s u su a lly tak e place along th e l a t e r a l or h orizo ntal a x is in th e o r g a n i z a t i o n . V erti c al o r h i e r a r c h i c a l arran ge­ ments by d e f i n i t i o n involve in in flu e n ce component. There was evidence t h a t i n flu e n c e in o r g a n i z a t i o n s does not tak e j u s t one form. The empirical res ea rch reviewed provided a d d it i o n a l i n s i g h t s i n to these 33 relationships. In a broader look a t i n f l u e n c e , i t was emphasized t h a t in flu e n ce was not a f ix ed sum in o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The amount o f power in the system could i n c r e a s e or decrease . Instruments and Related Research Leader Behavior Desc rip tion Questionnaire (LBPOT The o r i g in a l LBDQ was developed by John Hemphill and O liv er Coons in 1957, as was p a r t o f the Ohio S t a t e U n iv e rs ity l ea ders hip r es ea r ch . In subsequent res ea rch Halpin and Winer (1957) i d e n t i f i e d two f a c t o r s of le a d e r behavior, named c o n s i d e r a ti o n and i n i t i a t i o n of structure. S to gd ill (1959) developed a theory o f le a d e r r o l e d i f f e r ­ e n t i a t i o n and group achievement which suggested ten a d d it i o n a l f a c t o r s . Items were developed f o r the newly p o sited f a c t o r s and suc ce ssiv e ly item analyzed, re v i s e d , rea d m iniste red, reanalyzed , and revised with various groups. At various stag es in th e development of th e i n s t r u ­ ment, S t o g d i l l , Goode, and Day (1962) conducted research p r o j e c t s u t i l i z i n g the LBDQ and desc ribed th e l ea d er s h ip behavior of community development l e a d e r s , United S t a t e s s e n a t o r s , c o rp o r a tio n p r e s i d e n t s , and p r e s i d e n t s of labor unions. The LBDQ, Form XII, i s a measure to ob tain d e s c r i p t i o n s of a su p e r v iso r by the group members he s u p e r v i s e s . I t can be used to de scrib e t h e behavior of the l e a d e r or lead ers in any type o f group or o r g a n iz a tio n ( S t o g d i l l , 1963). I t includes 12 su bscales based on hypothesized dimensions of l ea d er behavior. 1. Represe ntation: speaks and a c t s as the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the group ( f i v e ite m s). 34 2. Demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n : r e c o n c i l e s c o n f l i c t i n g demands and reduces d i s o r d e r t o system. 3. Tolerance o f u n c e r t a i n t y : i s a b le to t o l e r a t e u n c e r t a i n t y and postponement without a n x ie ty o r upset. 4. Persuasiveness : uses persuas io n and argument e f f e c t i v e l y ; e x h i b i t s strong c o n v ic ti o n s . 5. I n i t i a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e : c l e a r l y d e fi n e s own r o l e , and l e t s followers know what i s expected. 6. Tolerance o f freedom: allows followers scope f o r i n i t i a ­ t i v e , d e c i s i o n , and a c t i o n . 7. Role assumption: a c t i v e l y e x e r c i s e s the le a d e r s h ip r o l e r a t h e r than surrendering le a d e r s h ip t o o t h e r s . 8. Consideration: regards the comfort, w e l l- b e in g , and con­ t r i b u t i o n s of fo llo w ers. 9. Production emphasis: a p p l i e s p res su re f o r productive ou tput. 10. P r e d i c t i v e accuracy: e x h i b i t s f o r e s i g h t and a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t outcomes a c c u r a t e l y . 11. Integration: maintains a c l o s e l y k n i t o r g a n i z a t i o n ; reso lves intermember c o n f l i c t s . 12. Superior o r i e n t a t i o n : maintains c o rd i a l r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r i o r s ; has influ ence with them, i s s t r i v i n g f o r higher s t a t u s . 35 Related Research on the LBDQ Brown (1967) u t i l i z e d the LBDQ, Form XII, with 170 schools in A l b e rt a , Canada. The mean scores on a l l 12 su bscales were compared to r e fe ren c e groups o f corp ora tio n p r e s i d e n t s , lab or p r e s i d e n t s , c o l ­ lege p r e s i d e n t s , and community l e a d e r s . Brown s t a t e d : Because o f mean and o t h e r population d i f f e r e n c e s , comparisons between groups can only be h i n te d , a t b e s t . From i n s p e c t i o n , however, one d e riv e s th e general image o f the p r i n c i p a l , as compared with the o t h e r l e a d e r s , as a very t o l e r a n t fellow (regarded by h is s t a f f c e r t a i n l y as more t o l e r a n t o f p r o f e s ­ sional or academic freedom than a r e c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s ) with l i t t l e upward d r i v e or p r o d u c t i v i t y push who, over the t o t a l p i c t u r e , probably appears t o h i s te a c h e r s as much the s o r t of person as a community l e a d e r , c e r t a i n l y not l i k e an executive p r e s i d e n t (p. 62). The Job De sc ription Index (JDI) The JDI, developed by Edwin Locke, P a t r i c i a Smith, and Charles Hulin a t Cornell U n ivers ity during a t e n - y e a r research e f f o r t on job s a t i s f a c t i o n , attempted to measure job s a t i s f a c t i o n in th e a re as o f pay, promotion, s u p e r v i s i o n , type o f work, and people on the j o b . Using 72 a d j e c t i v e s or d e s c r i p t i v e p h r a s e s , th e respondent was asked to decide i f the items described h is j o b . The JDI was v a li d a t e d using responses o f 952 people in seven organizations. Corrected s p l i t - h a l f i n t e r n a l c o nsisten c y c o e f f i c i e n t s were rep o rted to exceed .80 f o r each s c a l e . There were several f a c ­ t o r s i n t r i n s i c to th e s c a l e which recommend i t s use. The concepts are d i s t i n c t and do not r e q u i r e the respondent to understand complicated o r vague a b s t r a c t i o n s . While the JDI was n e i t h e r p r o j e c t i v e nor d i r e c t i v e , i t did approach "job s a t i s f a c t i o n " somewhat i n d i r e c t l y . The respondent i s asked to de scribe his job r a t h e r than his f e e l i n g s 36 about i t . In a d d i t i o n , the JDI had v a l i d i t y , could be e a s i l y admin­ i s t e r e d , and scored in a s h o r t time (Robinson, Athanasiou, & Head, 1969). Related Research on t h e JDI Hulin (1966, 1968) gave evidence of s t a b i l i t y o f the JDI over time in h is s t u d i e s of the impact o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n on t u r n ­ over among female c l e r i c a l employees. In 1966 he matched each s u b j e c t who subsequently l e f t th e company ( " l e a v e r s " ) over a 12-month period with " s t a y e r s " (employees who remained with the o r g a n i z a t i o n ) along demographic dimensions. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between s t a y e r and le a v e r groups on mean s a t i s f a c t i o n sc o r e s . This r a i s e d the quest io n of the p o s s i b i l i t y of reducing turnover by in c r e a s in g a worker's degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n on the jo b. The company i n s t i t u t e d new p o l i c i e s , and approximately one and o n e -h a l f years a f t e r th ese changes, Hulin (1968) again administered the JDI to a sample s i m i l a r to the previous one. Subsequent " leav ers" were matched with " s t a y e r s , " and again term in atio ns were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to th e degree of worker s a t i s f a c t i o n . S a t i s f a c t i o n scores with four o f the f i v e JDI s c a l e s rose s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the f i r s t and second s t u d i e s , while the t urn ov er r a t e dropped approximately 80%. Vaughn and Dunn (1972) used the JDI in s t u d i e s o f s t a f f s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n in six l a r g e u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s . In a subsequent a r t i c l e , t h e following b asic c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i n g an instrument t o measure job s a t i s f a c t i o n were given: 1. I t should index the several dimensions o f jo b s a t i s f a c ­ tion. 2. I t should be a p p l i c a b l e to a wide v a r i e t y of jobs. 3. I t should be s e n s i t i v e to v a r i a t i o n s in a t t i t u d e s . 4. The instrument used should be o f such a na tu re ( i n t e r e s t ­ i n g , r e a l i s t i c , and v a ried) t h a t the s c a l e w ill evoke cooperation from both management and employees. 5. The index should be r e l i a b l e . 6. The index should be v a l i d . 7. The index should be b r i e f and e a s i l y 8. Normative data should be a v a i l a b l e . scored. General Influenc e —The Control Graph The c o ntrol graph developed by Arnold Tannenbaum i s a s t r a i g h t ­ forward L ik e r t s c a l e on which people a t various l e v e l s of an o r g a n i ­ z a t io n r a t e the amount of in flu e n ce they and people a t o t h e r l e v e l s have in running the o r g a n i z a t i o n , i . e . , a general measure of members' p e rc e p t i o n s . Tannenbaum c o l l e c t e d data from a wide v a r i e t y of volun­ t a r y and formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I t was used as a res earch instrument t o i n d i c a t e t h e manner in which in flu e n ce i s s t r u c t u r e d as rep o rted by members within the o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Related Research—Control Graph Studies which r e l a t e d i n f lu e n c e to o r g a n iz a tio n a l e f f e c t i v e ­ ness in volu nta ry o r g a n iz a tio n s and in lab or unions were rep o rte d by Morse and Reiner (1956), Tannenbaum (1956, 1962, 1961), and L ik e rt (1960, 1961). Williams, Hoffman, and Mann (1959) i n v e s t i g a t e d i n f l u ­ ence in a s t a f f d i v i s i o n of a l a r g e company. The pe rc eptions of the i n flu e n ce s t r u c t u r e by two d i f f e r e n t o r g a n iz a tio n a l l e v e l s showed 38 marked s i m i l a r i t y , i n d i c a t i n g the consistency of the method. Differ­ ences in the perceptions o f the in flu e n ce s t r u c t u r e of two subgroups within the d i v is io n a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t fu nctions and a d m i n istr a tio n s i l l u s t r a t e d i t s d isc rim in ato ry power. L a z e r f i e l d and Thielens (1958), in t h e i r study of the academic mind, a ls o used a global question to a sse ss the power s i t u a t i o n in universities. A sample o f f a c u l t y members were asked, " I f you had to choose one, who would you say has the most powerful voice on campus in d e te r r in g the academic freedom t h a t e x i s t s here? The t r u s t e e s , p r e s i ­ d e n t, the deans, the heads o f departments, f a c u l t y , s t u d e n ts , o r who?" A measure based on these answers was s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to the overall improvement of q u a l i t y within the u n i v e r s i t y . Specific Influence S p e c if ic measures of influ ence developed with the need f o r a more s t r i n g e n t d e f i n i t i o n o f in flu e n ce . "The pr esent method (control graph) leaves the d e f i n i t i o n a l problem with the respondent. He must decide what 'i n f l u e n c e ' means f o r him and then respond to the q u e stio n ­ n a ir e in terms o f his own d e f i n i t i o n " (Williams e t a l . , 1959, p. 195). Levine's (1973) c r i t i c i s m of Tannenbaum's methodology was based on one item of measurement f o r perc eption. Halo e f f e c t , social d e s i r a ­ b i l i t y , s e lf -e s te e m , and e r r o r of measurement can be se riou s when one-item measures a r e used. Patchen (1962) proposed t h a t organiza­ tio n a l influ ence could a l t e r n a t i v e l y be measured by examining i n f l u ­ ence across a number o f s p e c i f i c decisio n s i t u a t i o n s and then summing thes e i n to a simple index. He compared the use o f a global index, the 39 control graph, with s p e c i f i c decision s i t u a t i o n questions from data c o l l e c t e d on a manufacturing company and i t s d e a l e r s h ip s . He concluded the measure of influ ence based on s p e c i f i c in flu e n ce are as was more a r e l i a b l e measure o f the in flu en ce s t r u c t u r e than a g lo b al-ty p e ques­ t io n among persons a t the same o rg an iz atio n al l e v e l . The measurement of more s p e c i f i c aspects of influence in th e manufacturing company was obtained by responses to the following questio ns: 1. When i t comes to de cision s about who should be s e l e c te d to be t r a n s f e r r e d i f many have applied fo r the same job opening, how much say or influ ence do you feel the p e r­ sons l i s t e d below have on th es e decisi ons? a. b. c. d. e. f. the hourly paid employees the group lea der the foreman higher manufacturing managers the union executive committee people in s t a f f departments, such as personnel, i n d u s t r i a l e ng in e erin g, sc heduling, e tc . (For each of the l e v e ls judged, th e following f i x e d - a l t e r n a t i v e responses were provided: " L i t t l e or no i n f lu e n c e ," "Some i n f lu e n c e ," "Quite a b i t o f i n f lu e n c e , " "A g r e a t deal of i n f lu e n c e ," "A very g rea t deal of influ ence") (Patchen, 1963). Related Research With Demographic Information Smith e t a l . (1969) used s i t u a t i o n a l or demographic v a ri a b le s as s t r a t i f i c a t i o n v a ri a b le s to develop t a b l e s of s t r a t i f i e d norms f o r the JDI. Their r a t i o n a l e was s a t i s f a c t i o n varied with v a r i a b le s which c o n tr i b u te to frames of ref e r e n c e . "Income o r community p r o s p e r i t y , or s i m i l a r v a ri a b le s . . . a re proposed as indices of r e l e v a n t per­ sonal and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which in flu e n ce frames of reference" (p. 75). Through c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s and m u lt i p le r e g r e s s i o n , the six 40 v a r i a b l e s o f sex, income, education, jo b t e n u r e , community p r o s p e r i t y , and comnunity d e crepitude were chosen f o r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n from a p re ­ vious pool of 29 demographic v a r i a b l e s . Hulin (1966), in his study of jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n and turnover with female o f f i c e workers, used the demographic v a r i a b l e s o f age, educational l e v e l , job l e v e l , mother tongue, and m a r i ta l s t a t u s as controls. The two subgroups, nonterminators and t e r m i n a t o r s , were matched on the control v a r i a b l e s . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in any of t h e control v a r i a b l e s were observed between the two groups. Barton (1961) included demographic v a r i a b l e s in h i s d e s c r i p ­ t i v e c a t e g o r i e s of o r g a n iz a tio n a l r es ea r ch . Size i s perhaps th e most f r e q u e n t ly measured v a r i a b l e as i t i s easy to measure. Another study made o f a union which underwent f l u c t u a t i o n s in s i z e over 50 years attempted to see how o t h e r f a c t o r s were r e l a t e d to s i z e (Brown, 1956). Using o r g a n iz a tio n a l re c o r d s, measures of i n tr a - u n io n c o n f l i c t were c o n str u cted ( i . e . , number of challenges to convention d e l e g a t e s ) . All i n d i c a t o r s of c o n f l i c t appeared when th e membership was small and declin ed when i t grew. Spicknall (1970) used demographic v a r i a b le s in the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c lim ate among sp e cia l education s t a f f s in inte rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t s . C o r r e la tio n s between i n no v ativ en e ss, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e , and demographic v a r i a b le s were analyzed. Demographics r e l a t ­ ing to the adoption of innovative programs were s i z e of school-age p o pu latio n , pro fessio nal org an iz ation membership, and s t a f f reading habits. 41 Summary o f Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e There i s no c o n s i s t e n t body o f res e a r c h in the stu dy o f organi z a t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . D e s c r ip t i o n s of t h e v a r i a b l e s o f l e a d e r s h i p , jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n , and i n f lu e n c e a r e so v a r i e d from study t o study t h a t comparisons a re d i f f i c u l t . Further, early r e s e a r c h e r s d e sc r ib e d some v a r i a b l e s err o n e o u sly and suggested causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s from c o r r e l a t i o n a l d a t a . Early d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e v a r i a b l e s were based on a s t a t i c , s i m p l i s t i c view o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . The l i t e r a t u r e as reviewed in t h i s study su g gests o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n a l r e s e a r c h o f the v a r i a b l e s i s s t i l l in i t s e a r l y s t a g e s where hypothes is "suggesting" and th eo ry seeking using c o r r e l a t i o n a l data a r e s t i l l t h e predominant methods o f r e s e a r c h . CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY Introduction In t h i s study, leadership and demographic information are considered independent v a r i a b le s and are expected to have a moderating e f f e c t on the dependent v a r i a b le s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n and in fluence. Leadership i s defined as a process whereby one person e x e r t s social influ ence over the members of the group. A le a d e r , then, i s a person with power over o t h e r s , who e x e r c is e s t h i s power f o r the purpose of influencing t h e i r behavior. Leadership i s measured on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII ( S t o g d i l l , 1963). The LBDQ includes the following 12 su b s ca les, which are dimensions of lea der behavior: r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , to le r a n c e of u n c e r t a i n t y , p ers uasiv eness, i n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e , to le r a n c e of freedom, r o l e assumption, c o n s i d e r a ti o n , production emphasis, p red ic ­ t i v e accuracy, i n t e g r a t i o n , and s u p e rio r o r i e n t a t i o n . Demographic information, as s p e c i f i e d in the q u e s t io n n a ir e , includes measures of p o s i t i o n , age, rac e, sex, years in the d i s t r i c t , and ye ars in p o s i t i o n . Influence and job s a t i s f a c t i o n are considered dependent v a r i ­ a b le s. Influence as a function o f le a dership i s defined as any pro­ cess whereby a person or group of persons or o rganization determines or i n t e n t i o n a l l y a f f e c t s the behavior o f another person, group, or 42 43 organization. Influence i s measured by q ue stio ns based on Tannenbaum's (1968) control graph and P a tch e n 's (1963) q u e s t io n s . Measures were taken on th es e 17 quest io ns from a l l respondents. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s defined as th e a t t i t u d e of workers toward the company, t h e i r j o b , t h e i r fellow workers, and o t h e r psychologi­ cal o b j e c ts in the work environment. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s measured by the Job Desc ription Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). JDI includes f i v e dimensions of job s a t i s f a c t i o n : The work on p res ent assignment, pres en t pay, o p po rtu n ity f o r promotion, su p e rv isio n in p r e s e n t assignment, and people in p r e s e n t assignment. D ata-Colle ction Procedure To a s s e s s the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of th e Job Description Index to school p o p u latio n s, the c l a r i t y o f the survey, and the estim ated time necessary t o complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a p i l o t survey was conducted. Respondents were 15 special and general educators chosen a t random from the personnel r e g i s t e r s o f Michigan local school d i s t r i c t s . p i l o t was conducted one month be fore the survey. from the p i l o t were: The Changes r e s u l t i n g (1) changing "he" on the LBDQ to read "h e/s h e," (2) placement of demographic information as th e f i r s t items o f the survey, (3) d e l e t i o n o f items on the JDI which were not a p p li c a b l e to public o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The "rev ise d" JDI c o n s i s t s o f 58 items in the f i v e c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d in th e Appendix. These changes were determined to be so minor t h a t i t was presumed the o r i g i n a l v a l i d i t y and r e l i a ­ b i l i t y of th e instrument were not a f f e c t e d . (See Appendix A.) 44 A survey o f t h e d i r e c t o r s , s u p e r v i s o r s , and I t i n e r a n t s p e c i a l education s t a f f in 49 o f t h e e x i s t i n g i n te r m e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan r ep re se nte d the sample f o r t h i s re s e a r c h . "Interm ediate" school d i s t r i c t s a r e defined as those d i s t r i c t s organized on a county or m ulti-c ounty b a s i s , as desc ribed in Public Act 190 o f 1957. The in te rm ed iate school d i s t r i c t must meet two c r i t e r i a t o q u a l i f y f o r i nclu sio n in the study: (1) a st a te -ap pro v e d d i r e c t o r o f sp e cia l education must be employed, and (2) t h e r e must be more than seven employees in t h e sp e cia l education a r e a . concern i s included in th e study. The e n t i r e population o f Interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s were s e l e c t e d f o r study because o f t h e i r (1) c o n s i s t e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e in sp ecial edu catio n , (2) i d e n t i f i a b l e l i s t i n g o f personnel in spe cia l education, and (3) previous research s t u d i e s in sp e c i a l education. The t h r e e p o s i t i o n s o f d i r e c t o r s , s u p e r v i s o r s , and i t i n e r ­ a nt s p e cia l education s t a f f were s e l e c t e d f o r study because o f the res earch i n t e r e s t in l e a d e r s h i p , i n f l u e n c e , and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . instruments used r e q u i r e d i r e c t c o n ta c t with the l e a d e r . The I t was assumed the i t i n e r a n t special education s t a f f housed a t the i n t e r ­ mediate school d i s t r i c t o f f i c e would have the c o n ta c t with th e d i r e c t o r and s up e rv isor necessary to r e p o r t on t h es e p o s i t i o n s . Personnel r e g i s t e r s from the Michigan Department o f E d u c a t i o n special education s e r v i c e a re a f o r 1974-75 were r e c e iv e d , and an updated l i s t in the f a l l o f 1975 provided t h e population l i s t f o r the study. The t o t a l population included in t h e survey was 1,162: 49 d i r e c t o r s , 123 su p e r v i s o r s , and 990 i t i n e r a n t s t a f f members. 45 The survey q u e s t io n n a ir e , sent by mail to the p o t e n t i a l respondents in each intermediate d i s t r i c t , included: (1) a l e t t e r of in tr o d u c tio n and e xp la n atio n , (2) the survey Instrument, and (3) a r eturn-addressed envelope. The d i r e c t o r s received an a d d it i o n a l l e t ­ t e r requesting t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study and d i r e c t i o n s to give the survey to new personnel i f a p a r t i c i p a n t had been replaced. A follow-up mailing was se n t within t h r e e weeks of the o r i g i n a l to urge nonrespondents to p a r t i c i p a t e . (See Appendix B.) The response r a t e f o r the survey was 54% or 628. A t o t a l of 610 usable q u e stio nn a ire s were used in th e study: 31 d i r e c t o r s , 82 su p e r v i s o r s , and 480 i t i n e r a n t s t a f f members. The respondents answered a l l questions on machine-scorable ( o p tic a l scan) answer s h e e t s , which were s p e c i f i c a l l y designed f o r the present study. The individual items t h a t made up the v a ria b le s of le a d e r s h ip , job s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n , and influ ence were summed to produce s c a l e s . Independent Variables and Measures The independent v a r i a b le of le a d e r s h ip was measured using the LBDQ, Form XII. As described e a r l i e r in t h i s t e x t , the LBDQ i s made up of 12 su bscales: r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , t o le r a n c e o f u n c e r t a i n t y , p ersu asiv eness, i n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e , t o le r a n c e of freedom, r o l e assumption, c o n s i d e r a ti o n , production emphasis, p r e d i c ­ t i v e accuracy, i n t e g r a t i o n , and s u p e r io r o r i e n t a t i o n . has 100 items. The t o t a l s c ale Responses a r e scored on a L ik e rt s c a l e o f 1-5 or low to high f o r p o s i t i v e items and 5-1 or high to low f o r negative items. Each response is t ab u late d and summed to provide a subscale sc ore. 46 Each subscale score r e p r e s e n ts a respo n dent's score on the l e a d e r ­ sh ip v a r i a b l e s . Demographic information provided t h e o t h e r independent v a r i a b l e . The demographic measures used were th e following: district: (1) p o s i t io n in (a) d i r e c t o r , (b) s u p e r v iso r , (c) s t a f f ; (2) s i z e of d i s ­ t r i c t ' s special education s t a f f : (a) 31 o r above—l a r g e , (b) 30 or below—small; t h i s dichotomy follows the example of Hodson (1975); (3) age—seven c a t e g o r i e s f o r age, l i s t e d in f i v e - y e a r i n t e r v a l s ; (4) race—f i v e c a t e g o r i e s f o r race were given; (5) sex; (6) length of time in present p o s i t i o n , and (7) length of time in present d i s t r i c t , categorized by (a) l e s s than t h r e e years or ( b) more than t h r e e y e a r s . The length o f time an individua l had been employed by the d i s t r i c t was dichotomized so members employed a f t e r the e f f e c t i v e date f o r mandated sp ecial education (1971) could be compared with previous employees. Dependent Variables and Measures Used The dependent v a r i a b l e of job s a t i s f a c t i o n , as described pre­ vio usly, was measured with the JDI. items composing f i v e c a t e g o r i e s : The o r i g i n a l JDI contains 72 s a t i s f a c t i o n with work, s a t i s f a c t i o n with su p e rv isio n , s a t i s f a c t i o n with people, s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with promotions. Only the p o s i t i v e items are scored with a s c a l e of 0, 1, 2, 3; the higher the s c o r e , the higher the degree of job s a t i s f a c t i o n r e f l e c t e d by the item. The score of respondents on each category i s the sum of the p o s i t i v e items. The possib le score on each survey ranges from a low of zero (no response) to a high score 47 o f 30. The "re v is e d " JDI used in th is research consists o f 58 items in the f iv e c a teg o rie s lis t e d above. The dependent v a r i a b l e o f in flu e n ce i s measured with a s e r i e s of qu estio ns developed by Tannenbaum (1968) and Patchen (1963). o r i g in a l questio n s were desc ribed p r ev io u s ly . The Directors, supervisors, and i t i n e r a n t s t a f f were asked t o respond to qu estio n s o f i n f lu e n c e of each group in s i x c a t e g o r i e s : (1) general i n f l u e n c e , (2) in flu e n ce in s e l e c t i o n o f new personnel in the ISD, (3) in flu e n ce in e s t a b l i s h ­ ing new sp e cia l education programs in the ISD, (4) in flu e n ce in cur­ riculum changes in the ISD, (5) i n f lu e n c e in the promotion o f personnel in the ISD, and (6) in flu e n ce in e s t a b l i s h i n g new p o l i c i e s in the ISD. Each category r e p r e s e n ts a s u b s c a l e , and responses f o r each are measured on a L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e with f i v e choices p o ss ib le : (1) l i t t l e i n flu e n ce , (2) small amount of i n f l u e n c e , (3) moderate amount of i n f l u ­ ence, (4) large amount of i n f l u e n c e , and (5) complete in f lu e n c e . The responses a r e summed f o r a score on each su bscale. Design o f th e Data Analysis This study i s b a s i c a l l y an e x p lora to ry i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of le a d e r s h ip and demographic information on jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n and in flu e n ce . As such, frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , c o r r e l a t i o n - r eg r e ss io n tech niq u es, and a n a l y s i s of variance a r e a l l used as d e s c r i p ­ tive tools. The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s presen t an overview o f the raw d a ta , as do o th e r d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s such as means and v a ri a n c e s . C o r r e l a t i o n - r e g r e s s i o n techniques a r e used because of t h e i r pa st per­ formance f o r: (1) p e rm ittin g the measure of a g r e a t number of v a r i a b l e s 48 and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s sim ultaneously , (2) providing informa­ t io n concerning the degrees o f r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i a b l e s , (3) giving deeper i n s i g h t s in to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p than i s p o s s ib l e with research designs t h a t do not y i e l d some e s t im a t e o f degre e, and (4) o u t p u tt i n g o f p r e d i c ti o n e quatio ns. The v a l i d a t i o n work in th e JDI by Smith e t a l . (1969) and the LBDQ, Form XII by S t o g d i l l (1963) have l e n t support t h a t both a r e a t le a s t ordinal. Tufte (1970) and Labovitz (1972) argued t h a t Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and o t h e r s t a t i s t i c s designed f o r i n t e r v a l level measurement may be used even i f the data s a t i s f y only the assump­ t i o n of o r d i n a l - l e v e l s c a l e s . Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , c o r r e l a t i o n s , and group comparisons a re computed f o r the various c e l l s o f the schematic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the study as shown in Table 1. S p e c i f i c a l l y , (1) each dependent measure ( i . e . , the s i x measures o f influ e nce and f i v e measures o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n ) a re regress ed on each o f the independent measures ( i . e . , the seven demographic measures and twelve subscales of the LDBQ) f o r both the t o t a l population and f o r each o f the t h r e e p o s i t i o n a l groups ( i . e . , d i r e c t o r s , s u p e r v i s o r s , and s t a f f ) ; (2) analyse s of variance a re computed, comparing d i f f e r e n c e s between the a s s o r t e d l e v e l s of the demographic v a r i a b l e s on the dependent measures; and (3) m u lt i p le regressio n analyses a r e computed in an attempt to e s t im a t e the e f f e c t s o f combinations of the independent v a r i a b l e s as p r e d i c t o r s of the dependent measures. 49 2 . Number o f s t a f f | 3 D s *° Cl e 9 o e '£ .2 b : U o a. '*-} 1 .9 in 1 1 fa ct o -o l/> Of » e trt to > u c a. u a, 3 e i/i +A C1 to 3 0 i >i 1 1 Slj. AC at*- 2 o u .a o a £to u o o a*-* 3 f-i B. I/I U hi CO ov o 3 1 2 91 0 L. a. 6. P o licies formation . r ;* e 1. General Influence 2. Curriculum chanae 3. Selection of Dersonne! 1. P o s it io n In d i s t r i c t D S tlAB .ES Job S a tis ence JDI) 10. Pay— d eta ils of remuner. DEPE WEN' L. I > 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 T able 1 . ••Schem a o f rese a r c h d e sig n o f m atrix fo r c o r r e la t io n s o f dependent and Independent v a r ia b le s (N ■ 6 1 0 ). a a n- o o ClJ we 3 E o « u z a 5t d Ann D (3- z 1 1 . ! ST B b ' 6 . Length o f tim e 1n d i s t r i c t D 1 J INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 7. Length o f tim e 1n p o s it io n 13. T o lera n ce o f freedom 14. R ole assum ption 15 I • i ! i i 18. I n te g r a tio n 19. S u p erio r o r ie n t a t io n p < .0 0 1 . 1 ! : , : I i ! ! ! i 1 1 5 |T g ......r i S D s r r - J 1 § . . . 1 I : i 1 16. P rod uction em phasis 17. P r e d ic tiv e accu ra cy ! I ! i j. TT- ' S ® C o n sid era tio n : 1 i P._ S ST P !L ,, si D 3 ST 12. I n i t i a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e 1 • . 10. T o lera n ce o f u n c e r ta in ty 11. P e r su a s iv e n e ss 1 ! i 1 p. J TT 6 . 9 . Demand r e c n n c llla t in n ! ! ...... i - • • | t t , r "I I t i.. 1 • 1 • : ----- 1-------1------ ; CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Desc rip tion o f the Sample Demographic Information The sample population f o r t h i s study i s composed o f sp e cia l education personnel in in te rm ed iate school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan. An in te r m e d ia te school d i s t r i c t in Michigan i s a regional educational a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t , organized as an intermediary between the Michigan Department of Education and l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s . S p e c if i c func­ t io n s of an in te rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t include c h i l d accounting, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , land t r a n s f e r s , vocational education, media, and sp e cia l ed ucation . Special education i s defined as programs and s e r ­ vices f o r handicapped c h ild r e n and youth. a re mandatory by fed e ral and s t a t e law. These programs and se r v i c e s Special education r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t i e s a t the intermediate level r e q u i re comparatively l a r g e , d i f ­ f e r e n t i a t e d , pro fession al s t a f f s to provide the mandated s e r v i c e s . Three o f th ese subgroups were surveyed: (1) special education d i r e c t o r s —d i r e c t o r s have management or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel res p o n sib le f o r the ove ra ll fu nctionin g of the sp ecial education u n i t ; (2) sp ecial education s u p e r v i s o r s —su p e rv isors have a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r s p e c i f i c special education programs, u s u a l ly in one a re a o f e x c e p t i o n a l i t y ; and (3) i t i n e r a n t s t a f f - - i n c l u d e d were 50 51 t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s in various sp e cia l education program are as who did not have d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a classroom. Special education d i r e c t o r s r e p r e s e n t 31 or 5.2% o f th e t o t a l sample; s p e cia l education s u p e r v i s o r s , 82 o r 13.8%; and sp e c i a l edu­ c a t i o n i t i n e r a n t s t a f f , 480 or 80.9% o f the t o t a l sample. I n term ed iate school d i s t r i c t s i z e s vary from the 153 respon­ dents in "small" d i s t r i c t s which have 30 o r fewer sp e cia l education s t a f f members to th e 422 respondents in " large" d i s t r i c t s which have a s t a f f of 31 or more members. The ages o f the respondents a r e grouped by f i v e - y e a r vals. inter­ One hundred n i n e t y - t h r e e respondents a re between the ages of 26-30 y e a r s ; 113 between th e ages of 31-35; 92 between the ages of 36-40; 58 between th e ages of 41-45 y e a r s ; 56 between the ages of 46-50; 36 between the ages o f 51-55; 35 between the ages o f 56-60 y e ars o f age. Each p r o g r e s siv e age category accounts f o r fewer respondents; 68.3% o f t h e t o t a l sample i s 40 ye ars of age or younger. White respondents r e p r e s e n t 96.9% of the t o t a l , while o f the four m in o rity c a t e g o r i e s which a re r e p r e s e n te d , blacks and n a tiv e Americans a re the l a r g e s t groups, re p r e se n tin g 1.2% and 1.0%, r e s p e c ­ tively. Females r e p r e s e n t 59.9% (329) o f the sample population and males 40.1% (220). Sixty-two and t h r e e - t e n t h s pe rc ent of th e respon­ dents have worked in th e sampled in te rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t f o r t h r e e or more y e a r s ; 37.7% have worked in t h e i r d i s t r i c t f o r l e s s than three years. A d d i t i o n a l l y , 39.9% of the respondents have been in t h e i r p res ent p o s i t i o n s f o r l e s s than t h r e e y e a r s . 52 The sample f o r t h i s study i s composed of respondents from 49 in te r m e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s . F i f t y - f o u r p e rc en t o f the 1,162 ques­ t i o n n a i r e s se nt out were r etu rn e d and a re used in the a n a l y s e s . Sum­ maries f o r th es e comparative data can be found in Table 2. D e scrip tio n s of the Scales f o r Other Variables The s c a l e s f o r l e a d e r s h ip (LBDQ), i n f l u e n c e , and jo b s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n (JDI) were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each respondent, and f r e q u e n c i e s , means, and stand ard d e v ia ti o n s were computed. Summaries f o r th es e data a r e l i s t e d in Table 3. Respondents in one o f the in te rm e d iate school d i s t r i c t s included in the sample received n o t ic e of employment term in a tio n one week p r i o r t o t h e da te o f the survey to determine i f t h i s group's responses were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the r e s t o f the sample. The population va riances were found to be homogeneous; thus pooled variance terms and s t u d e n t ' s T d i s t r i b u t i o n a r e used. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between group means were found. C o r r e l a ti o n Analyses of the Total Population The dependent v a r i a b l e s o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f i v e measures) and i n flu e n c e ( s i x measures) were c o r r e l a t e d with the independent v a r i a b l e s o f l e a d e r s h ip (twelve measures) and demographic information (seven measures). In a d d it i o n to the indiv idual c o r r e l a t i o n s , m u lt i p le l i n e a r r e g r e s s io n s were c o n str u c te d using c e r t a i n key v a r i a b l e s to determine the c o r r e l a t i o n a l e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s as p r e d i c t o r s . In g e n e r a l , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s and in f lu e n c e were of l e s s e r magnitudes ( . 2 0 - . 3 1 ) than the c o r r e l a t i o n s 53 Table 2 . —Summary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the sample.(N = 610). % Variable N (Adjusted Frequency) 31 82 480 5.2 13.8 80.9 153 26.6 73.4 193 113 92 58 56 36 35 33.1 19.4 15.8 9.9 9.6 6.2 6.0 7 568 2 6 3 1.2 96.9 .3 1.0 .5 220 329 40.0 59.9 220 363 37.7 62.3 222 335 39.9 60.1 P o s i ti o n o f respondents Di r e c t o r Supervisor Staff Special ed. s t a f f number in ISD 30 or below 31 or above Age of respondents 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 Race o f respondents Black Whi t e Chicano Native American Orien tal Sex of respondents Male Female Years respondents worked in ISD Less than 3 3 or more Years respondent in p r e s e n t p o s i t io n Less than 3 3 or more 54 Table 3 . —Summary s t a t i s t i c s on independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s of l e a d e r s h i p , i n f l u e n c e , and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . M ri Mean Score Standard Deviation Re prese ntation 610 17.6 3.34 R e c o n c ilia tio n 610 17.3 3.87 Tolerance o f u n c e r t a i n t y 610 33.1 6.53 Persuasiveness 610 33.4 I n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e 610 34.0 6.71 6.05 Tolerance o f freedom 610 37.9 6.35 Leadership assumption Consideration 610 36.0 6.55 610 7.10 Production emphasis 610 34.5 28.8 P r e d i c t i v e accuracy Integration 610 17.8 3.46 610 15.9 4.02 Sup erior o r i e n t a t i o n 610 34.0 6.11 Influence General in flu e n ce 610 8.7 2.44 Curriculum 610 7.8 2.65 S e l e c ti o n o f new personnel 610 8.0 Development o f new programs 610 Promotion Development o f policy 610 610 8.6 7.2 2.65 2.35 JDI Job S a t i s f a c t i o n S a t i s f a c t i o n with work LDBQ Leadership Variable Name 5.36 2.36 7.9 2.34 610 12.3 4.37 S a t i s f a c t i o n with people 610 15.1 3.85 S a t i s f a c t i o n with supervisi on 610 21.6 S a t i s f a c t i o n with pay 610 4.0 7.29 2.52 S a t i s f a c t i o n with promotion 610 2.7 2.94 55 between le a d e r s h ip and job s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s ( . 2 0 - . 6 7 ) . No p r a c t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were observed between t h e demo­ graphic v a r i a b le s and e i t h e r job s a t i s f a c t i o n or i n f lu e n c e . Simi­ l a r l y , th e measure o f s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay showed no meaningfully s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with l e a d e r s h i p . However, i n t e g r a t i o n and c o n s i d e r a ti o n c o r r e l a t e d with more o f the dependent v a r i a b l e s than the o t h e r ten l e a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e summarized in Table 4. Inf luence and Leadership General i n f lu e n c e c o r r e l a t e d q u i t e highly with e i g h t o f the l e a d e r s h ip measures. sh ip measures. Policy formation c o r r e l a t e d with seven l e a d e r ­ I n t e g r a t i o n was th e le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e which c o r r e ­ l a t e d with a l l of the i n flu e n c e measures. Superior o r i e n t a t i o n , i n i t i a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e , and c o n sid e r a tio n c o r r e l a t e d with f o u r out of the f i v e in flu e n ce measures. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Leadership C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sup erv isio n (job s a t i s f a c t i o n ) c o r r e l a t e d with a l l the l ea d er s h ip v a r i a b le s (eleven) except production emphasis, with magnitudes ranging from .30 to .67. The s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s of people on the ISD s t a f f and work were c o r r e l a t e d with nine l e a d e r ­ ship v a r i a b l e s . Eight out of nine le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s were th e same f o r the two s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s . The le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s o f demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ( . 2 2 - . 4 8 ) , c o n s i d e r a ti o n ( . 2 0 - . 6 7 ) , p r e d i c t i v e accuracy ( . 2 3 - . 5 1 ) , and i n t e g r a t i o n ( . 2 8 - . 5 8 ) c o r r e l a t e d with a l l of the s a t i s f a c t i o n measures except pay. 56 Table 4 . —C o r r e la tio n s o f Independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s f o r the t o t a l p op ulatio n (N ■ 610). .35 .22 .48 ~ Nature of promot. opp. o ° ° ^ «* VI .22 Pay—details of remuner. 1 C h a r a c te r is t ic of supervision z People on ISD s t a f f —sp. ed. • L. o> 0 SQ . Hork—your job Selection personnel Curriculum change General influen ce B to P o lic ie s formation Irt Promotion & job change ^ ence of = DEPENDENT VARIABLES |l P o s itio n in d i s t r i c t Number o f s t a f f Age Race Sex Length o f time in d i s t r i c t i; I; I INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Length o f time in p o s it io n R e p re se n ta tio n .20 !! .20 l| Demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ;.2 4 T olerance o f u n c e r ta in ty I .22 P ersu asiv en ess .26 In itia tio n of stru ctu re .26 .25 .49 .22 .21 ij ll .28 .28 .49 .25 .22 .24 ! .20 .24 .40 .21 .23 .46 ; j .22 .39 | j .30 .66 ; Tolerance o f freedom Role assumption .22 j •! r' ' .20 .27 " |T '■ .21 it C on sid eration .28 .20 Production emphasis .20 .20 .25 .22 .27 i t | In t e g r a t io n .31 S up erior o r i e n t a t i o n .27 p < .001. .20 .26 .22 .27 .20 .25 .22 ; .28 | . .27 .25 .50 j .22 CO CSI .23 CO CM P r e d ic tiv e accuracy .29 .33 .59 j .35 .30 j . . . . 1 57 C o r r e l a ti o n Analyses of the Three P o s i t i o n s : D i r e c t o r , S u pe rviso r, and I t i n e r a n t S t a f f The i n i t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s which examined th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between th e dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s displaye d n o n s i g n i f i ­ can t i n t e r a c t i o n s f o r demographic information and s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay (Table 4 ) . To i n v e s t i g a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s which might be p r e s e n t , a d d itio n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed using t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s o f jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f i v e measures) and influ ence ( s i x measures) on the independent v a r i a b l e s o f l e a d e r s h ip (twelve measures) and demo­ graphic information (seven measures) by the t h r e e p o s i t i o n a l l e v e l s of d i r e c t o r , s u p e r v i s o r , and i t i n e r a n t s t a f f . Where data from th es e c o r r e l a t i o n s provided s i g n i f i c a n t information f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s , they were r ep o r te d in Tables 5, 6, and 7. C o rrela tio n Analysis f o r D ir e c to r s Dependent v a r i a b l e s and demographic i n f o r m a tio n . - - Summary data f o r these c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e contained in Table 5. Demographics c o r r e l a t e d with two in flu e n ce measures and t h r e e job s a t i s f a c t i o n measures. Influence on promotions c o r r e l a t e d with age. Influence in curriculum c o r r e l a t e d with length o f time d i r e c t o r was in the district. S a t i s f a c t i o n with work c o r r e l a t e d with race and sex. S a t i s f a c t i o n with supervision c o r r e l a t e d with y e ars worked in the ISD. Dependent v a r i a b l e s and l e a d e r s h i p .- - T a b l e 6 co nta in s c o r ­ r e l a t i o n s showing r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s and l e a d e r s h ip . ence. Eight l e a d e r s h ip measures c o r r e l a t e d with general i n f l u ­ Seven lea d ersh ip v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d with p o lic y formation Table 5 .— C orrelations o f demographic inform ation w ith in flu e n c e and job s a tis fa c tio n m atrix fo r d ire c to r (N = 3 1 ). DEPENDENT VARIABLES Job S a t i s f a c t i o n (JDI) Influence 4- o cv u 3 i— c OJ o u co o. o3 a> C C O) CT o c co O Q) *r“ *|— ID O S-Mf • r - + J O U •Ur - ID a . £ I— S3 5- O o o 01 s_ 4J CD o 0 >» 1 I C Q. O co I INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Position in d i s t r i c t CO CL CL •r— S_ ID 01 4 - O 4-> EC O CD 3 ■O E CD I 0) 5- O I S- 3 E +J O £ V ID S- a. a Z CX cn 00 Number o f s t a f f u Age « Race .30 .43 cn ----------CD .40 Sex a Length of time in d i s t r i c t Length of time in positio n p < .0 5 . .30 .33 Table 6 . --C o rre la tio n s o f leadership w ith in fluence and job s a tis fa c tio n m atrix fo r d ire c to r (N = 3 1 ). Representation .43 .40 .40 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ~ Nature of promot. opp. .33 .38 Tolerance of un certainty Persuasiveness .35 .36 I n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e .33 .39 Tolerance of freedom .50 .40 .56 .30 .46 .36 .45 .35 .40 .35 .38 .32 .50 .60 .35 .36 .42 .34 .64 .67 .40 .31 .37 .44 .46 .38 .30 .54 .43 .53 .52 .45 .52 Role assumption .49 .43 Consideration .50 Production emphasis .32 Pr ed ictiv e accuracy .40 .44 .32 Integration .49 .50 .42 .31 Superior o r i e n t a t i o n 1 p < .05. .36 .39 Demand rec o n c i l i a t io n -c (/) sa> •o IS > 1 t .a o *or-3 3: » Job People on ISD s t a f f —sp. ed. Characteristic of supervision Pay—details of remuner. Policies formation Promotion & job change re g New programs Selection personnel General influence Curriculum change of = jr* DEPENDENT VARIABLES .34 .37 .52 .31 .36 .37 f 37 60 (influence). Seven le a d e r s h ip measures f o r the p o s i t io n of d i r e c t o r c o r r e l a t e d with s e l e c t i o n of personnel (in flu e n ce ) which had not c o r ­ r e l a t e d in Table 4. Four l ea d ers h ip v a r i a b le s c o r r e l a t e d with i n f l u ­ ence v a r i a b l e s of new programs, promotion, and job change. Tolerance o f freedom (le a d e r sh ip ) c o r r e l a t e d with a l l the influ ence measures as perceived by the d i r e c t o r . Leadership v a r i a b le s of co n sid era tio n and i n t e g r a t i o n c o r r e l a t e d with the in flu e n ce measures of general in f lu e n c e , s e l e c t i o n of person nel, new programs, promotion and job change, and p o l i c i e s formation. Persuasiveness and p r e d i c t i v e accuracy, le a dership v a r i a b l e s , c o r r e l a t e d with general i n f lu e n c e , s e l e c t i o n of personnel, new pro­ grams, and p o l i c i e s formation. The job s a t i s f a c t i o n measures c o r r e l a t e d with le a d e r s h ip on the p o s i t io n of d i r e c t o r , with t h ree s a t i s f a c t i o n measures having the g r e a t e s t number of c o r r e l a t i o n s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f supe rvision c o r r e l a t e d with a l l l ea ders h ip v a r i a b l e s except p r e d i c t i v e accuracy. The v a ria b le people on ISD s t a f f c o r r e l a t e d with ten le a d e r s h ip v a r i ­ a b le s. Pay, a s a t i s f a c t i o n v a ri a b le t h a t had not c o r r e l a t e d in the o r i g in a l matrix in Table 4, now c o r r e l a t e d with f i v e l ea d ers h ip v a r i ­ a ble s. The le a d e r s h ip v a ri a b le s of con sid era tio n and s u p e r i o r o r i e n ­ t a t i o n c o r r e l a t e d with most job s a t i s f a c t i o n measures (fo ur out of f i v e ) on the p o s itio n of d i r e c t o r . 61 C o r r e l a ti o n Analysis f o r Supervisors Dependent v a r i a b l e s and demographic in f o r m a ti o n . —C o r r e l a ti o n s with demographic information were few and i s o l a t e d and did not over­ lap f o r the p o s i t i o n o f s u p e r v i s o r . Demographic information c o r r e ­ l a t e d with i n f lu e n c e and jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n measures f o r th e p o s i t i o n o f su p e r v iso r as l i s t e d in Table 7. The v a r i a b l e s race and sex c o r ­ r e l a t e d with the in f lu e n c e measure, i n f lu e n c e on e s t a b l i s h i n g new policies. son ne l. Sex a l s o c o r r e l a t e d with i n f lu e n c e in s e l e c t i o n o f p e r­ Age c o r r e l a t e d with s a t i s f a c t i o n with work and s a t i s f a c t i o n with people. Dependent v a r i a b l e s and l e a d e r s h i p . —C o r r e l a ti o n s between l e a d e r s h ip and in flu e n ce and job s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r th e p o s i t i o n o f s u p e r v i s o r a r e rep o rted in Table 8. I t must be remembered t h a t the s u p e r v i s o r rep o rted le a d e r s h ip scores on the d i r e c t o r . The in flu e n ce measure which c o r r e l a t e d most c l o s e l y with l e a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s was i n f lu e n c e on e s t a b l i s h i n g new p o l i c i e s . l e a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s . I t c o r r e l a t e d with e i g h t General influ e nce and in f lu e n c e in e s t a b l i s h ­ ing new programs c o r r e l a t e d with the same seven l e a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s . I n i t i a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e , c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and i n t e g r a t i o n le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d with a l l the s i x i n f lu e n c e measures f o r super­ visors. Persuasiveness ( l e a d e r s h i p ) c o r r e l a t e d with a l l in flu e n ce measures except promotion and job change f o r th e p o s i t i o n o f su pe r­ visor. Four l e a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s —demand r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , t o le r a n c e of freedom, r o l e assumption, and production emphasis—did not c o r ­ r e l a t e with any o f the in flu e n ce measures. The measure work s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n c o r r e l a t e d with nine le a d e r s h ip v a r i a b l e s , as did th e measure Table 7 . —Correlation of demographic information with influence and job s a t i s f a c t i o n matrix fo r supervisor (N = 82). DEPENDENT VARIABLES Position in d i s t r i c t . . . Length of time in d i s t r i c t Length of time in position p < .0 5 . • o a --------CNJ ■ z B Sex U J O a . .27 ■ *3“ CM 5 £ Age > -Qe . b- ® Race Z o cn LlJ 00 Number of s t a f f • ro j CO Pay—d e t a i l s of remuner. Nature of promot. opp. C haracteristic of supervision Policies formation Work—your job People on ISD s t a f f —sp. ed. II Job S a t i s f a c t i o n (JDI) Promotion & job change New programs Selection of personnel General in fluence Curriculum change Influence Table 8 . — C o rre latio n o f leadership w ith in fluence and job s a tis fa c tio n m atrix fo r supervisor (N = 8 2 ). DEPENDENT VARIABLES Influence Job S a t is f a c ti o n (JDI) E a> i— uE o a> ■r- E u a» ■*■> E s_ E •i- CTl O O S- E a> in n) (U at i— c <4- a> c CJ3 *i— S- fO 3 -C u u i— sa> -E •r- +j >1> 0) I ■ — <4O U u re JX.I a. E -Q o a O XI £ E 3 a> QJ- o o o o o ai 4-» '1-3 Q- ■+- 3 •< “> o_ in .20 Representation Demand reconci1i ation to LU —1 CO < ,—t cc < > t— z LU O z LU CL LU O z CL *i— JE Tolerance of un certainty ,38 .33 Persuasiveness .26 .22 I n itia tio n of structure .34 .33 tn to ■ ■ M- i_ a. I CL E > E +aj> Sa> re 3 s_ to s_ E re c_> o a- o .25 .22 .26 .28 .28 .22 .20 (3**4- +-> o re s- Z CL .27 .39 .22 .24 .26 .25 .30 .30 .39 .36 .22 .29 .25 .53 .20 .23 .51 .44 .24 ,30 .28 .30 .39 .47 .36 .29 .23 .25 .29 .35 .22 .38 .33 .21 O «/) ■4J ■r— Tolerance of freedom in Sum !c Persuasiveness .24 I n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e .22 .21 S Consideration .21 5] Production emphasis .20 S Pre dictiv e accuracy z i »i Tl i Integ ration .26 Superior o r i e n t a t i o n .25 p < .0 5 . § — * c_, .54 DI) Pay—details of remuner. .23 £ C haracteristic of supervision .24 ST. t/> .38 « a. a. «*- o o a>+ -> t~ o ZS £ -u o ecnon in your i.S D ’ 2 3 23. How much influence has special ed. staff in establishing new programs in your I.S.D.? 2 3 24. 2a tu " cu'u'?':r rOw'1S D.? How much influence has special ed. staff m personnel promotions in your I.S.D.? How much influence has special ed. tu ff mestablishing new policies in your I.S.D.7 ^1 i I 5 J r* 3 m a r 4 5 4 } m i n a 3 n s 116 PART 3. Listed below are some words describing particular atpeets of jobs - work, supervision, peooi* p at. pro motion. Mark space 1 H the word describes your Job. Mart space 2 rf the word does not describe your Job. Mark space 3 if you cannot decide. 26. 28. 30. 32. 38. 36. 38. FMBbwdno Satisfying Craadva Tiresome GiM M mflfiGContplM niini On youi ( n l Simple J 1 1 1 V 1 ! 40. 42. 44. 46. 48. SO. 52. Boring Ambitious Responsible Easy lo mika enemies Lazy Narrow interests Loyal j 1 1 1 64. 56. 68. 60. 82. 64 66. 68. 7a Aaksmyadvica Hard to please Tactful Up-to-date Quick-tempered Annoying Knowijobwol Leaves ma on my own L av 3 i i i i t i i i t t i 71. Incomesdsquate for normal eipenias 73. Lata than 1deoerve 75. Highly paid i t i 77. Promotion on ability 79. Good chance (or promotion 81. Unfair promotion policy t i i WORK - YOUR JOB 3 27. Routine 2 2 3 29 Boring 2 3 31 Resoected 2 3 33 Pleasant 35. Challenging 2 3 37 Frustrating 2 3 2 3 39 fnpJlASR PEOPLE ON I.S.D STAFF (Specie: Ed ! <1. Stimulating 2 3 43. Stupid 2 3 45. Inteit-gent 2 3 47. Talk too much 2 3 49. Unpleasant 3 2 51 A;we 2 3 53 Hard to meet 3 2 SUPERVISION 66 Impolite t 3 5? Praxes good wo'k 2 3 59 lr**jer*T(» 2 3 61 Does* : fcwpenriM enough 2 3 63 Tells me where I stand 2 3 65 Stubborn 2 3 3 67 ir*fei;-j;ent 2 68 Around when needed 2 3 3 2 PAY 3 7«. Barei* uve or income 2 3 74 Income provides luiunes 2 2 3 76. Unde*ca c PROMOTIONS 78 Dead end cl 3 2 3 60 OppoMunrtv tc^e-s-a* 'i^'ted 2 82 Fainy good cna°cefcr promotion 2 3 •■ 1 1 1 * 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 i m 1 j *1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 i ♦ 2 *■ 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 2 2 2 2 2 i y ) 1 * 1 2 PART A Listed below are several items which may be used to describe the behavior of your leaoe* Eecn item a e sc 'ib e s a specific kind of behavio* but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is d e s tra b e or unaesi*at :' r? at c . o * i«<*3e •- w o r n you report. Leader never acts as described, mark space number 1. Leads* seldom acts a s d«s:r,L*»d mark soaee numbe 2 le a n e * occasionaiV a c ts as described, mark space number 2. Leader often acts a s described m a rs s p a c e n u m b er 4 i.eaat* a lw a y s a c ts a s d e s r 'r o e d . m ark s p a c e n u m b e r S ‘ Directors. please describe yourself in your position as director 83. Pfeese indicate the position of the leader your are describing. 84. 85. Leader acta as the spokesman of t h s g r w . Leader waits patiently for the results of a decision laadar makes pap taka to stimulata the graup. Leader lets group members snow what is expected o' them Laadar slows the memboia eontplete freedom in their work. Leader is hesitant about taking initiative in the group Leader is fhantpy endaoproechafate. .' 86. 87. 88. 88. 60. * Supr»v.»y 2 // (J*/ 1 2 t ,1 1 1 t t 8e 2 2 * ' 2 2 A 2 / 3 3 3 7 4 4 3 4 4 j n3 3 4 A 4 4 / 5 «; *i 5 A # b 3 3 a3 3 3 3 3 117 I n t o encourages overtime work. 92 Leader makes accurate decision*. £fep** n . Laadar gate along waft with the wool* above him. " 94. Laadar publicises the activities ot tha group. ‘y « . Laadar bacomaa ansioua when laadar cannot find out what ra coming nart. 96. Laadar'a arguments are convincing. *7. Laadar encourage* ttia uaa of uniform prooaduraa. r. 96. Laadar pamtna the membe re to uae thair own judgment in eotvmg problems. Leader fate to taka nacaaasry actian. ■ • « 100. Laadar does littla thmga to make it plaaaant to be a mamber ol the group. Sr. 1*1. Leader straasaa being ahead of cosnpeting group*.- • 102. Laadar keep* tne grouo wonting togetner aa a team KB. Laadar kasp* the group in good standing with high authority. 104. Laadar speaks as the representative ot tne group 106. Laadar accepts defeat in stride. r 106. Leader argue* persuasively tor leader's point ot view. 107. Laadar tries out leader's idaas in the group. * 106 Leader encourages m.t.ative in the group members 161. Laadar lata other parsons raka away leadership In tha group. £ 110. Laadar puts suggestions made by tha group into operation. M l. laadar needles members tor greater attort. 112. Leader seems able to predict wnat is coming nest. •t"’ 112. 1seder ia wonting hard tor a promotion. h 114. Laadar speaks tor tha group when visitors era present. * 116. Laadar accspts delays without becoming upset. 116. Laadar is a very persuasive talker 117. Laadar makes laadar'a attitude* ctaar to tha group. 118. Leader lata the members do tneir work the wav they think bast. \ 110. Laadar lata soma mambars taka advantage ot Itar/him. 120. Laadar treats all group members as hat his equals 1 121. Laadar kaapa dta work moving at a rapid pace. 122. Leader senlas conflicts whan they occur in the group #■’ m . Laadar'a auparion act favorably an moat ot tha laadar'a auggaadon i. 124 Laadar represents tha group at outside meeting*. ■' 1 f 1 i m 1 r m. 126. Leader it very skillful m an argument. * 127. Loader decides whet shall be done and how it shall be done. 126. Leader auigns a task, then lets the members handle»: i i a . He/She • the leader of the group in name only. 130. Leader gives advance notice of changes. 131. Leader pushes for increased production. 132. Things usually turn out as leader predicts. jr 123. Leader enjovs the privileges of feeder'tpoartion. 134. Leader handles complex problems efficiently. 136. Loader is able to tolerate postponement and untorttbdy. 136. Leader is not a very convincing talker t 137. Loader aaoigns group members to particular tasks. 136. Laadar turns the members loose on a/ob and lets them go to it. r 139. Leader becksdowm when he'she ought to stand frm. 140. Leader keeps to henetf'himself. V ■*•- 641.' Leader aeka the members to w o* twrdK ■’•** r* •. _■„** 142. Leader is accurate in predieting the trend of events 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 ? 4 3 3 3 4 8 8 i s « s % i 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 f. 2 3 3 3 j 3 n t 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 ft 1 7 1 2 1 2 ? 3 3 A 5 4 I 4 5 4 8 'l t i I t I 1 t 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 t 1 ? 2 7 2 2 2 » 1 1 > 2 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 ? 1 2 3 i 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 : 3 1 2 3 .1 2 P 1 2 3 i 2 1 2 3 I 4 5 4 5 j 4 * S 5 * S 4 4 4 4 8 4 S 4 ft 5 4 ■4 < 5 5 4 8 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 & 4 S 4 5 * 4 I6 4 f 4 £ & fi 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 £ £ 4 5 4 5 4 4 6 S 3 S 9 2 3 i 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 * 4 * ft ft 1 i 4 3 118 / M3. 144 145 146 147. 148. 149 150 151. 152 153 154 156. 156 157. 156 159. 160 161. 162 163 154 165 166 167 168 169 170 171. 172 173 174 175. 176 177 17B 179. 100 161 182 183. Leader gets his mer euperore to ect for the wefts#* of the group member! Leeds' gets swamped by detail*. Leader can wait ju r eo tong, then blows up. Leader speaks from a strong inner conviction Leader makes sure that her/he pan in the group ie understood ov the group members. Leader * reluctant to allow tne members any freedorr of action Leader let* some members have authority that he she should keep Leader loots out for the personal welfare of group member* Leader permits the members to take it easy in their work. Leader sees to rt that the work of the group is coordinated Leader's word carries weight witn his her superiors Leade* gets thngs ai* tangled uc Leader remains calm when uncertain about coming events Leade* is an inspiring talker. Leader schedules the work to be done Leader sttows the group a hig» degree of initiative Leader takes fuU charge when emergencies a nae. Leader is willing to make change* Leader dnves hard when there s a fob to be done. Leade' halos group members settle tneir difference* Leader gets what he asks tor from hrs'her superiors leade* can reduce a mad nouse to svsiem and orde* Leader is able to delay action unlit the proper time occurs. Leader persuades othc'* that his he* ideas are to their advantage Leader maintains definite standards of performance. leeoe' trusts me members to exercise good judgment Leader overcome* attempts maoe to challenge her his leadership leader refuses to exp.a r his he' action* Leader urges group to beet its previous record Leade* emanate* problems and plans to* them Leader is working his h r way tc tne top Leader pets co^fusec whe** tor «»*^v demands are made o* ne» h-**Leade* worries about outcome o' any new procedure Leade* can insp *e enmus.asr- fo* a project Leader asks ihat group membet tdio* standard rules and regulations Leade' permits tne p 'o jp to set ■;* nv.r pact Leader is easily retogmzeo as the reade* of the group. Leade* act* without cons^-t ngm ep'bj:: Leader keeps the group working up ts* capacity Leade* rr.a-ntan* a cose . *n<; g*; Leade* maintains cord*a- relations wtn superiors M o '* ? * ’ S ts tt umrsn** ✓ / f / 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 « 4 4 S 6 6 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 4 5 i ? ? 3 3 ? t » 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 e £ • : * r« ;• 3 i ’ 2 2 2 i : 3 ? :• :■ 3 3 3 5 2 *. 6 4 h 4 5 4 i f 4 6 * e 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i fc & * c 5 6 S c i K 1 6 f c < 4 & 4 £ 4 4 a a 4 4 4 ( 1 t L L r 1 1. 1 1 L 1 A “ C 119 April 1976 Please thank your s t a f f members who have responded to my survey. Please encourage your s t a f f members who have not responded to complete and r e t u r n the survey. I am sending you a f i r s t page so you w ill remember the survey. Ple as e thank your s t a f f f o r taking the time t o complete th e survey. Thank you f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g and responding. Sin c ere ly y o urs, Megan H. Oberlin MO: kg Enc. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyle, M. "The Measurement of Supervisory Methods." t i o n s 10 (1957): 295-313. Ash, P. Human Rela­ "The SRA Employee Inventory: A S t a t i s t i c a l A n a ly sis." Personnel Psychology 7 (1954): 337-64. Bailey, H. D. "An Exploratory Study o f Se lecte d Components and Pro­ cess es in Educational O rg a n iz atio n s." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univ e rsity of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, 1966. Bales, R. F .; Strodbach, F . ; M i l l s , T . ; and Roseborough, M. E. "Channels of Communication in Small Groups." American Socio­ lo g ic a l Review 16 (1951): 461-68. Barton, A. Organizational Measurement and I t s Bearing on the Study o f College Environments. New York: College Entrance Examina­ t i o n Board, 1961. Bass, B. M., and Dunteman, G. "Behavior in Groups as a Function of S e l f - I n t e r a c t i o n and Task O r i e n t a t i o n . " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66 (1963): 419-28. Beer, M. "Organizational Size and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Management Journal 7 (1964): 34-44. Academy of B e ll , G. B . , and French, R. L. "Consistency of Individ ual Leadership P o s itio n in Small Groups o f Varying Membership." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 45 (1950): 764-67. Bidwell, C. E. "The Administration Role and S a t i s f a c t i o n s in Teach­ i n g ." Journal of Educational Sociology 29 (Sept. 1955): 41-47. ________ . "The School as a Formal O rga niz atio n." In Handbook of O rga niz atio ns, pp. 972-1022. Edited by J . G. Simon. Chicago: Rand McNally, College Publishing Company, 1965. Blocker, C. E ., and Richardson, R. C. "Twenty-Five Years o f Morale Research: A C r i t i c a l Review." Journal o f Educational Soci­ ology. 36 (Jan. 1963): 200-210. 121 122 Borg, W. R., and G a ll, M. D. Educational Research, An I n t r o d u c t i o n . New York: David McKay Company, I n c . , 1973. Bowers, D. G., and Seashore, S. E. " P r e d ic tin g Organizational E ffe ctiveness With a Four Factor Theory o f Leadership." Administrative Science Quarterly 11 (1966): 238-63. Briner, C., and lannaccone, L. "Selected Social Power Re lationships in Education." Educational Administration Quarterly 2 (1966): 190-203. Brown, A. F. "Reactions to Leadership." Quarterly 3 (1967): 62. Educational Administration Brown, J . S. "Union Size as a Function of Intra-Union C o n f l i c t . " Human Relations (1956): 75-89. Browne, C. G. "Study of Executive Leadership in Business, The RAO S c a le s." Journal o f Applied Psychology 33 (1949): 521-26. Campbell, J . P .; Dunnette, M. D.; Lawler, E. E.; and Weich, K. E. Managerial Behavior, Performance and E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Cartwright, D. " I n f lu e n c e s, Leadership, Control." In Handbook of Organiz ations, pp. 1-47. Edited by J . March. Chicago: Rand McNally, College Publishing Co., 1965. Chandler, B. J . "Salary P o l i c i e s and Teacher Morale." Educational Administration and Supervision 45 (March 1959): 107-110. C h a r te r s, W. W. "Teacher Perceptions of Adm inistrativ e Behavior." St. Louis: Washington U n iv e rs ity , 1964. Dahl, R. A. "The Concept o f Power." 201-215. Behavioral Science 2 (1957): Dubrin, A. J . The P ra c t i c e of Managerial Psychology. Pergamon Pre ss , I n c . , 1974. Elmsford, N.Y.: E tz io n i , A. A Comparative Analysis o f Complex Organiz atio n s. York: The Free Pre ss, 1961. New F a st, R. G. "Leader Behavior of P r i n c ip a ls as I t Relates to Teacher S a t i s f a c t i o n . " In Handbook o f Leadership, A Survey of Theory and Research, p. 13T . Edited by R. M. S t o g d i l l . New York: The Free Pre ss, 1974. F i e d le r , F. E. A Theory of Leadership E ffe c t i v e n e s s . McGraw-Hill, 1967. New York: 123 ________ . "Valida tion and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership E f fe c t i v e n e s s : A Review o f Empirical Findings." Psychological B u l l e t i n 76 (1971): 128-48. F i l l e y , A. C., and Grimes, A. J . "The Bases of Power in Decision Proc es se s." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting o f the Academy o f Management, 1967. F i l l e y , A. C., and House, R. J . Managerial Process and Organizat i o n a l Behavior. Glenview, I I I . : S c o t t , Foresman and Co., 7 9 6 9 :-------------------- Fleischman, E. A., and H a r r i s , E. F. " P a t te r n s of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover." Personnel Psychology 15 (1962): 43-56. Fleischman, E. A.; H a r r i s , E. F .; and B u r t t , H. E. Leadership and Supervision in I n d u s t r y . Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n iv e rs ity , Bureau o f Educational Research, 1955. Flocco, E. C. "An Examination o f Leader Behavior o f School Business A d m i n is tr a t o rs ." D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s tr a c ts I n t e r n a t i o n a l 30 (1A) (1969): 84-85. French, J . R. P . , J r . ; Morrison, H. W.; and Levinger, G. "Coercive Power and Forces A ffe ctin g Conformity." Abnormal Psychology 61 (1960): 93-101. ----------------- --------French, J . R. P . , and Raven, B. "The Bases o f Social Power." In Studies in Social Power. Edited by D. Cartw right. Ann Arbor: U n iv e rsity o f Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, 1959. Garris on, K. C. "Comparative Responses o f Teachers and Student Teachers to Various Items on the Teaching S i t u a t i o n T e s t. " Elementary School Journal 45 (Feb. 1945): 334-39. G h i s e l l i , E. E. "Managerial T a l e n t . " (Oct. 1963): 631-41. American Psychol ogi st 18 Graham, W. K. "Desc ription of Leader Behavior and Evaluation of Leaders as a Function o f LPC." Personnel Psychology 21 (1968): 457-64. Guion, R. M. " I n d u s t r i a l Morale (A Symposium) The Problem of Ter­ minology." Personnel Psychology 11 (1958): 59-64. Halpin, A. W., and C r o f t , D. B. "The Organizational Climate of Schools." St. Louis: Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1962. 124 Halpin, A. W., and Winer, B. J . "A F a c to r i a l Study o f the Leader Behavior Desc ription Q u estio n naire." In Leader Behavior; I t s De sc ription and Measurement. Edited by R. M. S to g d ill and A. E. Coons. Columbus: fJFTio S t a te U n i v e r s i ty , Bureau of Business Research, 1957. Harap, H. "Morale." National Schools 63 (June 1959): 55-75. H e l l e r , F. A., and Yukl, G. " P a r t i c i p a t i o n , Managerial Decision Making, and S i t u a t i o n a l V a r ia b l e s . " Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4 (1969): 227-4TT Hemphill, J . K., and Coons, A. E. "Development of the Leader Behavior Desc rip tion Q ue stio nn aire." In Leader Behavior: I t s Descrip­ t i o n and Measurement, pp. 6-38. Edited by R. M. S t o g d i l l and A. E. Coons. Columbus: Ohio S t a te U n i v e r s i ty , Bureau of Business Research, 1957. Hickson, D. J.*, Hinings, C. R.; Lee, C. A.; Schnech, R. E.; and Pennings, J . M. "A S t r a t e g i c Contingencies Theory o f I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Power." A d m inis trativ e Science Quarte rly 19 (1973). H i l l s , R. J . "The R ep resen tative Function: Neglected Dimension of Leadership Behavior." A dm in is tr ativ e Science Quarterly 8 (1963): 8-101. Hodson, M. D. "Competencies f o r Special Education D i r e c t o r s as Seen by Interm ed iate and Local D ir e c to r s o f Special Education in Michigan." East Lansing: Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty , 1975. Hollander, E. P . , and J u l i a n , J . W. "Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership P roc esse s." Psychological B u l l e t i n 71 (1969): 387-97. Hoppoch, R. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . New York: Harper, 1935. House, R. J . , and F i l l e y , A. C. "Leadership S t y l e , H ierarch ical In f lu e n c e , and the S a t i s f a c t i o n o f Subordinate Role Expecta­ t i o n : A Test o f Six Leadership Hypotheses and an Analysis of Li k e r f s Influence P r o p o s it i o n . " Paper pres ented a t the American Psychological A s s o c ia t io n , San F ra n cisco , September 1968. House, R. J . ; F i l l e y , A. C.; and G u j a r a t i , D. N. "Leadership S t y l e , H iera rchical Influence and the S a t i s f a c t i o n o f Subordinate Role E xpecta tio ns." Journal of Applied Psychology 55 (1971): 422-32. 125 House, R. J . ; F i l l e y , A. C.; and Kerr, S. "Relation o f Leader Con­ s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e to R and D Subordinates' S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Administrativ e Science Qu arte rly 16 (1971): 19-30. Hulin, C. L. " E ff e cts o f Changes in Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Levels on Employee Turnover." Journal o f Applied Psychology 52 (April 1968): 122-26. ________ . "Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Turnover in a Female C l e r i c a l Popu­ l a t i o n . " Journal of Applied Psychology 50 (1966): 280-85. Jackson, J . M. "The E f fe c t of Changing the Leadership o f Small Work Groups." Human R ela tion s 6 (1953): 25-44. Janda, K. "Towards th e E xplicatio n of the Concept of Leadership in Terms o f t h e Concept o f Power." Human R e la tions 13 (I960): 345-63. Katz, D., and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology o f O r g a n iz a tio n s. York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1966. New K a t z e ll , R.; B a r r e t t , R. S . , and P o r t e r , T. "Job S a t i s f a c t i o n , Job Performance, and S i t u a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " Journal of Applied Psychology 45 (April 1961): 65-72. Labovitz, S. "The Assignment of Numbers to Rank Order C a te g o r ie s." American S ociolo gical Review 35 (1970): 515-24. Lawler, E. E ., I I I . Motivation in Work O rg a n iz atio n s. Wadsworth Publishing C o ., 1973. Belmont, C a l. : ________ , and P o r t e r , L. W. "The E f fe c t o f Performance on Job S a t i s ­ f a c t i o n . " I n d u s t r i a l Rela tions 7( 1967): 20-28. Lawrence, R. K., and Lorsch, J . W. in Complex O rg a n iz atio n s." 12 (1967): 1-47. " D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and I n t e g r a t i o n A dm in is tr ativ e Science Quarterly L a z e r f i e l d , P. F . , and T h ie le n s , S . , J r . 111.: The Free P r e s s , 1958. The Academic Mind. Glencoe, Levine, E. L. "Problems o f Organizational Control in Microcosm: Group Performance and Group Member S a t i s f a c t i o n as a Function o f Diff erences in Control S t r u c t u r e . " Journal o f Applied Psychology 58 (1973): 186-96. L i k e r t , R. " In flu e n c e and National Sovereignty." Edited by J . C. Peatman and E. L. Hartley. New York: F e a t s c h r i f t f o r Gardner Murphy, 1960. 126 ________ . New P a t te r n s in Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. ________ , and W i l l i t s , J . M. "Morale and Agency Management," Vol. 1, Morale—The Mainspring o f Management. Hartford Life Insurance, Sales Research Bureau, 1940. In Work and M otivation. Edited by V. Vroom. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Loche, E. A. "What Is Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ? " Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4 (1969): 309-36. Lowen, A.; Hrapchak, W. J . ; and Kavanagh, M. J . "Consideration and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e : An Experimental I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Leader­ ship T r a i t s . " A d m inis trativ e Science Quarterly 14 (1969): 238-53. Luckie, W. R. "Leader Behavior o f D ir e c to r o f I n s t r u c t i o n . " D i s s e r t a ­ t i o n A b s tra cts 25 (1963): 1960. Mann, F. C. "Toward an Understanding of the Leadership Role in Formal O rg a n iz atio n s." In Leadership and P r o d u c t i v i t y . Edited by R. Dubrin. San Francisco: Chandler, 1965. March, J . G., and Simon, H. A. O rga n iz atio n s. New York: Wiley, 1958. Mathis, C. "The R ela tio n sh ip Between Salary P o l i c i e s and Teacher Morale." Journal o f Educational Psychology 50 (Dec. 1959): 275-79. McCluskey, H. Y.; and S t r a y e r , F. J . "Reactions of Teachers to the Teaching S i t u a t i o n s : A Study o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . " School Review 48 (Oct. 1940): 112-23. Meuwese, W. A. T . , and F i e d l e r , F. E. Leadership and Group C r e a t i v i t y Under Varying Conditions of S t r e s s . Technical Report 1965. Urbana: U n iv e rs ity o f I l l i n o i s , Group E f fe c tiv e n e ss Research Laboratory, 1965. Moore, J . V., and Smith, R. G. "Aspects o f Non-Commissioned O f f i c e r Leadership." In Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior. Edited by A. F i l l e y , R. House, and S. Kerr. Glenview, 111.: S c o t t , Foresman and Co., 1952. Morse, M., and Reimer, E. "The Experimental Change o f a Major Organi­ z a t i o n a l V a ria b le." Journal o f Abnormal Social Psychology 52 (1956): 120-29. Nahabetian, H. J . "The E f fe c t s o f a L eader's Upward In fluenc e on Group Member S a t i s f a c t i o n and Task F a c i l i t a t i o n . " Rochester, N.Y.: U n iv e rs ity o f Rochester, 1967. 127 Nezzer, M. Determinants o f Global S a t i s f a c t i o n : Organizational D i f f e r e n c e s . Minneapolis: U niv e rsity I n d u s t r i a l - Relations Center, 1971. Patchen, M. " A l t e r n a ti v e Questionnaire Approaches to t h e Measurement of Influence in O r ganiz atio n s." American Journal o f Socioloqy 69 (1963): 41-52. ________ . "The Locus and Basis of Influence on Organizational Decis i o n s . " Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11 (1974): 195-221. ________ . "Supervisory Methods and Group Performance Norms." A dm in is tr ativ e Science Qua rterly 7 (1962): 275-94. P o r t e r , L. W. "A Study of Perceived Need S a t i s f a c t i o n in Bottom and Middle Management Job s." Journal o f Applied Psychology 45 (1961): 1-10. ________ ; Lawler, E. E ., I l l ; and Hackman, J . R. Behavior in Organi­ z a t i o n s . New York: McGraw-Hill, I n c . , 1975. Robinson, J . P . ; Athanasiou, R.; and Head, K. Measures o f Occupational A t t i t u d e s and Occupational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Ann Arbor, Mich: Survey Research Center, I n s t i t u t e o f Social Research, 1969. S c h a ff e r , R. H. "Job S a t i s f a c t i o n as Related t o Need S a t i s f a c t i o n in Work." Psychological Monographs 67 (1963). Seaman, M. "A Comparison o f General and S p e c if i c Leader Behavior D e s c r ip t i o n . " In Leader Behavior, I t s D e sc rip tio n and Measurement. Edited by R. M. S t o g d i l l and E. A. Coons. Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty , Bureau of Business Research, 1957. Shima, H. "The R e la tio ns hip Between th e L eader's Modes o f I n t e r p e r ­ sonal Cognition and the Performance o f th e Group." In Hand­ book of Leadership, A Survey o f Theory and Research. Edited by R. M. S t o g d i l l . New York: The Free P r e s s , 1974. Smith, P. C. "The Development o f a Method o f Measuring Job S a t i s ­ f a c t i o n : The Cornell S t u d i e s . " In Studies in Personnel and I n d u s t r i a l Psychology. Rev. ed. Edited by E. A. Fleishman. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey, 1967. ________ ; Kendall, L .; and Hulin, C. L. The Measurement o f S a t i s f a c ­ t i o n in Work and Retirement: A S t r a te g y f o r the Study of A t t i t u d e s ! Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1969. 128 S p i c k n a l l , H. S. "The R e la ti o n s h ip Between Innovativeness , Organi­ z a t io n a l Climate F a c to r s , and Communications Variables in Interm ediate School Departments o f Special Education in Michigan." East Lansing: Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1970. S t e e r s , R ., and P o r t e r , L. Motivation and Work Behavior. McGraw-Hill, I n c . , 1975. S t o g d i l l , R. M. Handbook on L eadership. New York: ________ . Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. Oxford U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1959. New York: Macmillan, 1974. New York: ________ . Managers, Employees, O r g a n iz a t i o n s . Columbus: U n i v e r s i ty , Bureau o f Business Research, 1965. Ohio S t a t e ________ . Manual f o r t h e Leader Behavior D e sc rip tio n Questionnaire Form XII. Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty , Bureau of Busi­ ness Research, 1963. ________ ; Goode, 0. S .; and Day, D. R. "New Leader Behavior Descrip­ t i o n Subscales." Journal of Psychology 54 (1962): 259-69. S t r a u s s , G. "Some Notes on Power E q u a l iz a ti o n . " In The Social Science of Org aniz ations: Four P e r s p e c t i v e s . Edited by H. J . L euv itt? Englewood C l i f f s , N .J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1964. Tannenbaum, A. S. "The Concept o f Organizational Co ntrol." of Social Iss ues 12 (1956): 50-60. Journal _______ "Control and E f fe c t i v e n e s s 1n a Voluntary O rg aniz ation." American Journal o f Sociology 67 (1961): 33-46. ________ . "Control in O rganiz ations: Individual Adjustment and Org anizational Performance." Adm inistrativ e Science Quarte rly 7 (1962): 236-57. ________ . Control in O r g a n iz a tio n s . 1968. New York: McGraw-Hill, I n c . , ________ , and Georgopolos, B. S. "The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Control in O rg a n iz atio n s." Social Forces 36 (1957): 44-50. Taylor, M.; Crook, R.; and Drophin, S. "Assessing Emerging Leader­ sh ip Behavior in Small Discussion Groups." Journal o f Educa­ t i o n a l Psychology 52 (1961): 12-18. Thompson, J . D. Organization in A c tio n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 129 T u f te , E. R., ed. The Q u a n t i t a t i v e Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Vaughn, W. J . , and Dunn, J . D. A Conceptual Framework f o r Monitoring Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Research in Ongoing O rg a n iz atio n s. Denton: North Texas U n i v e rs i ty , 1972. Vroom, V. H. Work and M otiv atio n . I n c . , 1964. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Wanger, L. W. "Leadership S t y l e , Influence and Supervisory Role O b l i g a t i o n s . " A d m in is tr ativ e Science Qu arte rly 9 (1965): 391-420.------------------------------------------------- ----------Wanous, J . P . , and Lawler, E. E ., I I I . "Measurement and Meaning of Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (1972): 95-105. Warren, D. "Power, V i s i b i l i t y and Conformity in Formal O rg a niz atio ns." American Sociolo gical Review 33 (1968): 951-70. Weiss, D. S . ; Davies, R. V.; England, G. W.; and L o f q u i s t , L. H. "The Measurement o f Vocational Needs." Minneapolis: Univer­ s i t y of Minnesota, Studies in Vocational R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , 1964. Williams, L.; Hoffman, R.; and Mann, T. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the Control Graph: Influence in a S t a f f O rga niz atio n." Social Forces 37 (1959): 189-95. Yukl, G. A. "Leader P e r s o n a l i t y and S i t u a t i o n a l Variabl es as CoDeterminants o f Leader Behavior." D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s tra cts 29 (13) (1968): 406. ________ . "Toward a Behavioral Theory o f Leadership." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (1971): 414-40. Zald, M. N. Power in O r g a n iz a t i o n s . U n i v e rs i ty P r e s s , 1969. N a s h v i l le , Tenn.: Vanderbilt