INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was m ade from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the m aterial subm itted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which m ay appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or “ targ et” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) o r section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cu ttin g through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure com plete con tin u ity . 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a round black m ark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f m ovem ent during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted m aterials th a t should n o t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent fram e. If copyrighted m aterials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a m ap, drawing o r ch art, etc., is p art o f th e m aterial being photographed, a definite m ethod o f “sectioning” the m aterial has been followed. It is custom ary to begin film ing at the upper left hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4. F or illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into y o u r xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the D issertations C ustom er Services D epartm ent. 5. Some pages in any docum ent m ay have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been film ed. Uni International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8507556 V illarreal, M elvin M ilton THE SELF-PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY Michigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Ph.D. 1984 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a se s this material has been filmed in th e best possible w ay from the available copy. Problem s encountered with this do cu m en t have been identified here with a c h eck mark V 1. Glossy photographs or p a g e s _____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or p rin t_______ 3. Photographs with dark b a c k g ro u n d _____ 4. Illustrations are p o o r c o p y ______ 5. P ages with black marks, not original c o p y ______ 6. Print shows through a s there is text on both sides of p a g e _______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds m argin req u irem en ts______ 9. Tightly bound co p y with print lost in s p in e _______ . l / 10. Com puter printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, a n d not available from school or author. 12. P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b e re d 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ 15. Dissertation co n tain s pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received__________ 16. Other___________________________________________________________________________ . Text follows. University M icrofilm s International THE SELF-PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY By Melvin Milton Villarreal A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration ABSTRACT THE SELF-PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY By Melvin Milton Villarreal Purpose This study sought to identify differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior of a representative sample of Michigan public school superintendents according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. This study differs from previous studies because the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) size designations (Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D) were used instead of the Michigan School Code size designations (First Class District, Second Class District, Third Class District, Fourth Class District, and Primary District). This researcher believed that the lay public, local school board members, and educators more frequently use the athletic designations to refer to school district size. Thus, the findings are reported in this familiar vernacular. Procedures and Methodology Six hypotheses were tested for differences in the superin­ tendents' self-descriptions of their leadership behavior. The Melvin Milton Villarreal Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII, was the instrument that was used to measure twelve dimensions of their leadership behavior. Extensive demographic data about the 178 superintendents (33.6 percent of the superintendents in the state in 1982), is included in this study. A one-way analysis of variance (ANNOVA) was the statistical procedure that was used to test for significant differences in the mean scores of the superintendents. The minimum alpha level for the rejection of the null hypotheses was established at .05. Summary of Findings Five of the six hypotheses were rejected because statistically significant differences were found in one or more dimensions of self-perceived leadership behavior. In brief, the findings were as follows: Hypothesis 1 : This hypothesis was rejected because a sta­ tistically significant difference was found in the dimension of Superior Orientation in the youngest superintendents. Hypothesis 2 : This hypothesis was rejected because sta­ tistically significant differences were found in the dimensions of Role Assumption and Production Emphasis in the superintendents without the doctorate. Hypothesis 3 : This hypothesis was rejected because a statistically significant difference was found in the dimension of Superior Orientation in the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. Hypothesis 4 : This hypothesis was rejected because a sta­ tistically significant difference was found in the dimension of Superior Orientation in the superintendents from Class D schools Melvin Milton Villarreal when contrasted with the superintendents from Class A schools. Hypothesis 5 : This hypothesis was rejected because a sta­ tistically significant differences were found in the dimensions of Consideration and Superior Orientation in the superintendents from Class D schools when contrasted with the superintendents from Class B schools. Hypothesis 6 : This hypothesis was accepted because no sta­ tistically significant differences were found in any of the twelve dimensions of leadership behavior among the superintendents. DEDICATION To my mother, Angelina Judrez Villarreal, who at a very early age impressed upon my consciousness the importance of obtaining a good education and then set out to prove it by personal example. To my father, Ignacio Villarreal, J r . , who taught me the importance of respect, discipline, love of family, love of country, and a strong work ethic. The teachings of my parents will always guide my behavior. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I feel particularly grateful to my family and friends for their support and encouragement during my graduate studies. To my wife, Lee, for your love and understanding during the stressful latter parts of this endeavor. To my children, Rod, Melissa, Jeff, and Kurt the greatest legacy that I could leave you is to share the teachings of my parents. To Issa for the sacrifices that you made during the early stages of this undertaking. To my brothers and sisters, Mike, Joe, Ceasar, Thelma, and Velma, thank you for believing in me. To my friends Art, Luis, Rene, Ron, Frank, John, Gilberto, Joe, Jose, Nino, Ricardo, Ben, Terry, Marc, Linda, Alice, Sue, and others too numerous to mention, thank you for your encouragement during the peaks and valleys of this effort. To Virginia Wiseman, in the Graduate Office of Student Affairs, for helping me to keep abreast of all the requirements and important timelines during my graduate studies. I am particularly indebted to the following educational administra­ tors that have taken a personal interest in my professional development. Mr. Romulo D. Martinez, Jr., Superintendent of the Sharyland Independent School District in Mission, Texas, for the support and encouragement that you gave me during the early stages of my career as a classroom teacher and football coach. iii Mr. Joe Peralez, Jr., Superintendent of the Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District in Edinburg, Texas, for offering me the opportunity to become your assistant superintendent during your super­ intendency in San Isidro, Texas. I could not accept your kind offer because I had not completed this degree. Dr. I. Carl Candoli, Superintendent of the Fort Worth Public Schools in Texas for the financial support and encouragement that you gave me during your superintendency in the Lansing School District. You were one of the first people that encouraged me to earn the doctorate degree. Dr. Matthew W. Prophet, Jr., Superintendent of the Portland Public Schools in Portland, Oregon for sponsoring me as an inservice fellow in the Education Policy Fellowship Program (E.P.F.P.) of the Institute of Educational Leadership in Washington, D.C., as well as for your support resulting in my first promotion during your superintendency in the Lansing School District. Dr. Robert J. Chamberlain, Superintendent of the Lansing School District in Lansing, Michigan, for the positive kita that you gave me on October 16, 1983, and again on November 20, 1983. These caring actions more than anything else, resulted in the successful completion of this degree. Dr. Richard J. Halik, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction in the Lansing School District for the opportunity that you gave me to serve in the principalship and in a district-wide capacity in the Lansing School District. Both experiences will benefit my development as a school administrator. iv Mr. Richard Marc Cory, Director of State and Federal Programs in the Lansing School District . . . thank you for sharing your keenly developed acumen for political organization and community politics. The skills that you taught me are not offered in traditional courses of educational administration. And finally, I Committee for agreeing am indebtedto the members of my doctoral Guidance to serve on my committee and sticking with me to the very end. Dr. Louis G. Romano, who chaired my doctoral committee, for being the first to encourage me to apply for the doctoral program. always be grateful to you I will for introducing me to Phi Delta Kappa and for constantly nudging me to the successful completion of my doctoral program. Thank you for your tacit support and for reminding me of the broader implications of this degree. Dr. Lawrence Lezotte, Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration, for your assistance with the statistical design. I will always remember you as one of the foremost researchers in the Effective Schools movement in the United States. Dr. Robert J. Chamberlain for sending me little handwritten and typed notes of encouragement during this endeavor. Dr. Stanley Stark, representing my cognate, management, for very carefully and diligently reading each word and checking every comma and period of this work. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES............................................ xi CHAPTER I.INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1 Importance of the S t u d y ................................... 8 Purpose of the S t u d y ..........................................10 Basic H y p o t h e s i s ............................................. 11 Specific Hypotheses ...................................... 11 Limitations and Assumptions................................... 12 Procedure and M e t h o d o l o g y ................................... 14 Definition of T e r m s ..........................................16 S u m m a r y ...................................................... 17 II.REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ......................................... 20 Introduction................................................... 20 The Public School Superintendent In Michigan ............. 20 Related Research ......................................... 35 S u m m a r y ...................................................... 45 III.PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY......................................... 47 Introduction................................................... 47 I nstruments ................................................... 47 Subscale Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability. . . 52 P o p u l a t i o n ................................................... 55 Statistical Hypotheses ................................... 57 Basic H y p o t h e s i s ............................................. 57 Specific Hypotheses ...................................... 57 Data Collection T e c h n i q u e s ............................ . 59 Scoring of Instruments and Tabulation of Data. . . . . 60 Data A n a l y s i s ................................................ 61 S u m m a r y ...................................................... 61 IV.PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF D A T A ............................... 63 Introduction................................................... 63 Demographic Characteristics................................... 63 Analysis of D a t a .............................................85 vi CHAPTER Page Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 2 3 4 5 6 ................................................ 85 .................................. 87 ................................................ 89 ................................................ 91 ................................................ 93 ................................................ 98 S u m m a r y ..................................................... 100 Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 2 3 4 5 6 ............................................... 102 ............................................... 102 ............................................... 103 ............................................... 103 ............................................... 104 ............................ 105 V.SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 107 S u m m a r y ..................................................... 107 F i n d i n g s ..................................................... 108 Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 2 3 4 5 6 .................................. ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ...................... ............................................... 108 109 110 Ill 113 115 D i s c u s s i o n .................................................. 116 C o n c l u s i o n s .................................................. 119 Recommendations............................................... 120 LIST OF REFERENCES......................................................124 APPENDICES Appendix A. B. C. D. Letter to Superintendents .................................. 128 Personal Data S h e e t ............................................ 129 Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire— Form XII . . . 130 Statement of P o l i c y .............................................134 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Reliability Coefficients (Modified Kuder-Richardson) . . . 53 3.2 Means and Standard Deviations............................... 54 4.1 Class A — Level ofE d u c a t i o n ............................. 69 4.2 Class B— Level ofE d u c a t i o n ............................. 69 4.3 Class C— Level ofE d u c a t i o n ............................. 70 4.4 Class D— Level ofE d u c a t i o n ............................. 70 4.5 Class A— (Academic) Fields of Concentration ................ 71 4.6 Class B— (Academic) Fields of Concentration ................ 72 4.7 Class C— (Academic) Fields of Concentration ................ 72 4.8 Class D — (Academic) Fields of Concentration ................ 73 4.9 Class A Undergraduate Major ................................ 73 4.10 Class B Undergraduate Major ................................. 74 4.11 Class C Undergraduate Major ................................. 74 4.12 Class D Undergraduate Major ................................. 75 4.13 Class A Number of Superintendencies H e l d .................... 75 4.14 Class B Number of Superintendencies H e l d .................... 76 4.15 Class C Number of Superintendencies H e l d .................... 76 4.16 Class D Number of Superintendencies H e l d .................... 76 4.17 Class A — School District Setting............................ 80 4.18 Class B— School District Setting............................ 80 4.19 Class C— School District Setting............................ 80 4.20Class D — School District Setting............................ viii 80 Table 4 .2 1 4 .2 2 4 .2 3 4 .2 4 4 .2 5 4 .2 6 4 .2 7 4 .2 8 4 .2 9 Page Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of the Oldest Superintendents and the Youngest Superintendents on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII ................................... 86 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Superintendents Who Possess a Doctorate and Superintendents Who Do Not Possess the Doctorate on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII 89 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Superintendents With the Longest Tenure in Position and the Superintendents With the Shortest Tenure in Position On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII ................................... 90 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class A and Class B Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII 92 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class A and Class C Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII 94 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class A and Class C Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII 95 Results of a One-Way Analysis Between the Responses of Class B and Class C Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII ............. 97 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class B and Class D Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII 99 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class C and Class D Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII 101 5 .1 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between the Oldest and the Youngest Superintendents in Michigan. 5 .2 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between the Superintendents With Doctorate Degrees and the Super­ intendents Without the Doctorate ......................... ix 109 110 Table 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Page Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between the Superintendents With the Longest Tenure in Position and the Superintendents With the Shortest Tenure in P o s i t i o n ................................................ Ill Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class A and Class BSuperintendents.................... 112 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class A and Class CSuperintendents.................... 113 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class A and Class D Superintendents.................... 114 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class B and Class CSuperintendents.................... 115 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class B and Class DSuperintendents................... 116 Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class C and Class D Superintendents................... 117 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 ClassA — Actual Ages ofSuperintendents.................... 65 4.2 ClassB— Actual Ages ofSuperintendents.................... 65 4.3 ClassC— Actual Ages ofSuperintendents.................... 66 4.4 ClassD — Actual Ages ofSuperintendents.................... 66 4.5 Class A — Tenure in (Present) Position....................... 78 4.6 Class B— Tenure in (Present) Position....................... 78 4.7 Class C— Tenure in (Present) Position....................... 79 4.8 Class D— Tenure in (Present) Position....................... 79 4.9 Class A — Number of Students (K-12).......................... 81 4.10 Class B— Number of Students (K-12).......................... 82 4.11 Class C— Number of Students (K-12).......................... 83 4.12 Class D— Number of Students (K-12).......................... 84 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The public schools in Michigan, and elsewhere, have undergone dramatic changes since their inception. Jenson wrote that the first schools in Massachusetts were organized to satisfy religious purposes, namely with the Ole Deluder Satan Act of 1642.^ With the developments that accompanied the close of the colonial period, cultural determinants had broadened the purposes of education, necessitating the structuring of a common-school system for all where religion was nourished and encouraged in the homes and churches. 2 With the passage of time, the need for an educated electorate, the strong urge for local control, the desire for education for all, the belief in the perfectability of man, and an intense conviction that through knowledge and education man increases his power and effectiveness have been other influences which have shaped the course of the educational 3 system. The tasks of administration which followed after the founding "^Theodore J. Jenson, Educational Administration (The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), p. 5. 2 R. F. Butts and L. A. Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (New York: Holt-Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1953), p. 99. 3 Steven J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Education (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), pp. 22-30. 1 2 of schools in Massachusetts in 1642 included teacher selection, housing, curriculum, budgeting, student control and others were performed by a 4 School Committee with the help of a selected teacher. While seemingly less complex by today's standards, these administrative functions remain essentially the same as ours today. Cooke wrote that the administration of the schools of the early period was a simple matter because the com­ munities were small, the enrollments were low, the course of study was rudimentary, the school plant was crude, and the expenses involved were slight. "* As the schools expanded, a second teacher was employed and the semblance of a school administrator began to emerge. To keep this infor­ mation in perspective, it should be noted that school administration as a profession, per se, did not exist during this time. The selected teacher referred to in the paragraph above was often called the principal teacher. As the number of teachers increased, so did the number of schools increase in the school systems of fast growing cities.** The rapid growth of urban communities in the first half of the nineteenth century had brought a multiplicity of problems in public education which lay board members and School Committees could not solve because they lacked the time, the skills, 4 Emory Stoops, Max Rafferty, and Russell E. Johnson, Handbook of Educational Administration; A Guide for the Practitioner (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981), p. 5. "*W. R. Cooke, "The Superintendent— Executive Officer of the Board," School Board Journal Vol. 121, No. 5 (November 1950), 19-21. g Stoops, Rafferty, and Johnson, Handbook of Educational Adminis­ tration, p. 6. and the technical knowledge.7 School Committees and lay boards of edu­ cation also found it increasingly difficult to coordinate the work of a growing number of principal teachers, so Buffulo, New York and Louisville, Kentucky got the credit for appointing the first superintendents in 1837. 8 In Michigan the first superintendent was appointed in the city of Detroit 9 in 1855. The school enrollment in Detroit in 1855 was 5,500 students with a teaching staff of 4 1 . ^ The superintendents’, at first, were not given any great authority over members of the teaching staff. The same was true for many other areas of school operations either because superintendents were regarded as head teachers who had no experience in the business phase of school operations or because School Committees felt better suited to perform those tasks. In either case, the first step toward increasing the authority of superintendents occurred as a consequence of the continuing growth of school systems resulting in the growth of the supervisory staff including principals and assistant superintendents in the larger cities. Perhaps, the most significant factor in this increase of authority was the reduction in the size of the membership of boards of education. This step began to be taken about 1900, and instead of boards numbering 30, 50, and even several hundred, they were reduced to small bodies, ranging from 5 to 11 7Ibid. 8Ibid. o Cooke, "The Superintendent— Executive Officer of the Board," 19. "^Thomas M. Gilland, The Origin and Development of the Power and Duties of the City School Superintendent (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), p. 15. or 12 m e m b e r s . G r i f f i t h s noted that Philadelphia has the unsurpassed record with 444. 12 This change made it necessary to entrust more responsibility to the superintendent of schools. Gilland's study of the earliest duties required of superintendents in the first twenty-six American cities to appoint such officials revealed a total of 401 assigned tasks. 13 In Michigan, W. S. Perry in a paper titled, "Who Should Superintend — One Man or a Board," argued that a superintendent was more likely to be a student of his business and therefore more likely to judge and act from wider observation and deeper principles. 14 Perry maintained that a single superintendent of proper calibre and spirit will be more likely than a board to arouse public sentiment and interest in the schools.^ As noted earlier, except in a few cities, the position of super­ intendent had not been established. The organization of the National Association of School Superintendents in August of 1865 is generally recognized as the first step taken by city superintendents to gain pro­ fessional recognition for themselves as a group. The association held its ^ C o o k , "The Superintendent— Executive Officer of the Board," 20. ^^Daniel E. Griffiths, The School Superintendent (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966), pp. 13-14. 13 Gilland, Origin and Development of the Power and Duties of the City School Superintendent, p. 71. 14 Michigan Department of Education Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Year 1880, p. 272. 5 first meeting in February 1866, and became the Department of Superin­ tendence of the National Education Association in August, 1870.^ By 1922, the association had adopted a constitution and by-laws to govern their association. Reavis cites the publication of the first yearbook titled, The Status of the Superintendent in February, 1923 as the beginning of educational administration as a p r o f e s s i o n . T h e year­ book contained a compilation of data submitted by 1,078 superintendents from cities of 2,500 population and over in the United States. In part, the tabulated data revealed the following: 1. The education of 26 superintendents ranged from only 2 to 4 years beyond elementary school. 2. Six hundred and eighty-three in education from 5 to 8 years beyond the elementary school. 3. Two hundred and thirty-eight had acquired one year of graduate work (Bachelor’s degree). 4. And, only 130, or approximately 12 percent had more than one year of graduate w o r k . 18 Perhaps, the most significant event in the improvement of edu­ cational administration was the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration funded with the assistance of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of Battle Creek, Michigan. Regional Centers were established at Harvard Teachers College (Columbia University), Ohio State University, the Uni­ versity of Chicago, George Peabody College for Teachers, University of Texas, Leland Stanford University (Stanford), and the University of Oregon. 16 William C. Reavis, Educational Administration, p. 4. 17Ibid. 19 18Ibid. Herold C. Hunt, "The Superintendency: School Administration is Being Recognized by the Public as a Full-Fledged Profession; Upgrading Must Continue," The Nations Schools Vol. 51, No. 1 (January 1953), pp. 45-47. 19 6 Research conducted at these centers and at other colleges and universities catapulted the profession of educational administration with the develop­ ment of optimum procedures, techniques, method, courses of study, training and evaluation. In the intervening years, institutions of higher education have been able to offer truly significant and pertinent professional education programs, internship training, and have worked cooperatively with state departments of education to establish certification standards. As the result, virtually all of the fifty states prescribe at least minimal standards for all public school superintendents. Institutions of higher education have developed specific programs of study designed to prepare future superintendents and upgrade the technical skills of current practitioners. In Michigan, the School Code of 1955 (updated in 1976) makes specific provisions for the position of superintendent of schools in Section 573: Before any person may be employed as a superintendent of schools of any school district, he shall possess at least an earned bachelor’s degree from a college acceptable to the state board of education and be the possessor of or be eligible for a teacher's certificate or have the equivalent thereto in accordance with the standards determined by the state board of education.20 An increasingly significant influence in the requirements for administrators in Michigan is that of the accreditation standards which are prescribed by two accreditation agencies. The North Central Association of Collegeand Secondary Schools has the following standards: 20 Michigan, General School Laws (1976), School Code of 1955, Section 340.573. 7 The superintendent who is the administrative head of the school system shall have earned at least 60 hours of graduate credit, inclusive of the master's degree. Not less than 30 semester hours of graduate credit shall have been in administration, supervision, and related fields. He shall have had a minimum of four years of professional experience. The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools encompasses a 19 state area of the central United States and has nearly 4,000 member schools including approximately 340 in the State of Michigan. 22 The Bureau of School Services of the University of Michigan is the other accreditation agency and lists a membership of 618 Michigan public and private high schools. 23 The following criteria for the selection of superintendents applies for those school districts accredited through the University of Michigan: A superintendent shall have at least a Master's degree. A super­ intendent shall have at least 30 semester hours of graduate credit in professional education with a major emphasis in adminis­ tration, supervision, and related areas. A superintendent shall have had a minimum of four years of educational experience, including two years in the classroom prior to appointment.24 During the 1981-1982 school year, Michigan public schools employed approximately 530 superintendents. 25 21 Commission of Secondary Schools, Policies and Standards for Approval of Secondary Schools 1973-1974 (Chicago: North Central Associa­ tion of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1973), p. 52. 22 Ibid. 23 Bureau of School Service, The University of Michigan Accredited Schools, 1974-1975 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1974), p. 1. 24Ibid. 25 1981 Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, Michigan Education Directory, Inc., 925 E. Kalamazoo Street, Lansing, Michigan. 8 Importance of the Study The schools of today, while differing significantly in many details from one another in urban, suburban, and rural school districts; nonethe­ less, remain strikingly similar in their fundamental characteristics. In each, the superintendent of schools stands in the vortex of all of the influences upon the schools. Any action that the superintendent may take, whether positive or negative upon any probem whatsoever can be certain to be met with equal measures of approval and disapproval. The superintendent is hired by the board of education to administer the affairs of the school and to carry out all the policies adopted by the board within the parameters and the provisions of the law. As such, the superintendent functions with the School Code in one hand and the best interests of the youngsters on the other. In recent years, particularly after the so-called social revolution of the late 1950s and the 1960s, the role of the public schools in America took on added dimensions. The War on Poverty, the involvement of the courts in the education arena, the involvement of the federal government as a strong advocate of the poor, the underprivileged, the underrepresented, and others with special needs, the increased militancy on the part of teachers and other employee groups, and the increased number of special interest groups are among the many factors that have contributed to the unprecedented growth and complexity of the mission of the public schools. As this acceleration increases so do the functions of the superintendent. The tasks of the superintendent is to develop the necessary leader­ ship behavior that will allow him to work successfully with all people and groups of people that influence the schools and the community. This study 9 will seek to identify significant differences, if any, in the self­ perceived leadership behavior of Michigan public school superintendents in the various school athletic classifications. This researcher believes that the lay public, local boards of education, and educators in Michigan generally use the Michigan High School Athletic Association's (MHSAA) classification system with greater frequency than the classification system of the Michigan School Code when referring to school district size. In the Michigan High School Athletic Association's classification system, schools are either Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D. Class A schools are those with a high school enroll­ ment of 1,274 and above. Class B school districts are those having a high school enrollment of 656 to 1,273. Class C school districts are those having an enrollment between 338 and 655. Class D school districts have 26 an enrollment of fewer than 338. For the most part, previous research commonly refers to the Michigan School Code classifications when citing differences in school district size. The Michigan School Code classifies local school districts according to size as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 380.102 380.203 380.202 380.303 380.402 Primary Districts (K-8). Fourth Class Districts (75 to 2,400 students). Third Class Districts (2,400 to 30,000 students). Second Class Districts (30,000 to 120,000 students). First Class Districts (120,000+ s t u d e n t s ) . 27 26 Handbook of Michigan High School Athletic Association for Middle, Junior High and High Schools. 27 Michigan General School Laws. 10 Presently, there are approximately 5 Primary Districts, 307 Fourth Class Districts, 219 Third Class Districts, 3 Second Class Districts, and 1 First Class District in the State of Michigan. 28 An October 16, 1981 telephone conversation with Dr. John Brandenberg of the Michigan State University Placement Office confirms this researcher's assumption that the lay public, local boards of educa­ tion, and educators in general most commonly use the Michigan High School Athletic Association's method to classify school districts according to size. This study uses this method of classifying the local school districts in the examination of the independent variable— school district size. Purpose of the Study This study examines the self-perceived leadership behavior of a selected random sample of Michigan public school superintendents in each of the four high school athletic association classifications according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. It is hoped that through the findings of this study the lay public, local boards of education, and educators in general will have a better understanding of the superintendency in Michigan and of the differences, if any, in the self-perceived leader­ ship behavior in each of the twelve dimensions of leadership under examina­ tion. 28 Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide 1981 11 Basic Hypothesis The basic hypothesis of this study is that there will be no signi­ ficant differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior among randomly selected Michigan public school superintendents in Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D public schools according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. Specific Hypotheses 1. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the oldest and the youngest superintendents in Michigan. 2. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents who possess a doctorate and those superintendents who do not possess the doctorate. 3. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. 4. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the 12 superintendents from Class A schools and the superintendents from Class B, Class C, and Class D schools. 5. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class B schools and the superintendents from Class C and Class D schools. 6. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class C schools and the superintendents from Class D schools. Limitations and Assumptions This study will examine the differences, if any, in the self­ perceived leadership behavior of a randomly selected number of Michigan public school superintendents in each of the Michigan High School Athletic Association classifications according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in the size and complexity of school district served. It can be expected that differences might be isolated and examined to benefit: 1. Institutions of higher education in the development of courses of study for future superintendents as well as in the development of ongoing inservice education programs for current practitioners. 2. Placement offices in the major colleges and university who serve as the primary contacts to local boards of education in the screening and placement of superintendents in Michigan. 13 3. Local boards of education who have the primary and statutory responsibility for the selection of Michigan public school superintendents. This study dealt primarily with public school superintendents in K-12 districts in Michigan and how each of the superintendents partici­ pating in the study perceived their own leadership behavior. It did not involve intermediate school superintendents, the state superintendent of public instruction, and/or superintendents in private, parochial, and primary school districts. It is assumed that prior research involving Michigan school districts generally use the classification system referred to in the Michigan School Code or researchers define their own Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) designations when referring to school district size. It can be expected that a study using the more frequently used designations will increase the likelihood that the findings of this study will have applicability in subsequent research. Furthermore, it is believed that local boards of education, who have the statutory responsibility for the selection of the super­ intendent of schools, may find the results of this study of some use when they are in the process of selecting a new superintendent. Current practice, it seems, is for local boards of education to select super­ intendents from schools of like size and complexity. 14 Procedure and Methodology Carrol L. Shartle 29 has suggested that age, tenure in position, level of education, and size and complexity of community served are important factors in administrative success. For this study, six (6) hypotheses comparing responses on Stogdill's Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII 30 will be tested. The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire was designed to measure the twelve (12) dimen­ sions of leadership that are described below: 1. Representation: Speaks and acts as the representative of the group. 2. Demand Reconciliation: reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorders in the system. 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty: Is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset. 4. Persuasiveness: Uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions. 5. Initiation of Structure: Clearly defines own role and lets followers know what is expected. 6. Tolerance of Freedom: Allows followers scope for initiative, decision, and action. 7. Role Assumption: Actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. 29 Carrol L. Shartle, Executive Performance and Leadership (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1956), pp. 151-171. 30 Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leadership Behavior Descrip­ tion Questionnaire, Form XII," An Experimental Revision (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963). 15 8. Consideration: Regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of followers. 9. 10. Production Emphasis: Applies pressure for productive output. Predictive Accuracy; Exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. 11. Integration: Maintains a closely knit organization; resolves intermembership conflicts. 12. Superior Orientation: Maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them, is striving for higher status. For the purposes of this study, this researcher was granted per­ mission by the Ohio State University Bureau for Business Research to modify the questionnaire from the third person (he) to the first person (I) in order to measure the self-perceived leadership behavior of the superintendents participating in this study. The Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) lists a total of 525 participating schools as follows: 1. Class A (n=86). 2. Class B (n=158). 3. Class C (n=167). 4. Class D (n=144). The consultant from the Michigan State University Office of Research Consultation recommended the use of a 50 percent random sample in each of the four Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) classifi­ cations as follows: 1. Forty-three (43) superintendents from Class A schools. 2. Seventy-nine (79) superintendents from Class B schools. 16 3. Eighty-four (84) superintendents from Class C schools. 4. Fifty-seven (57) superintendents from Class D schools. The total number of superintendents receiving questionnaires will be 263 (n=263) across all of the four Michigan High School Athletic Associ­ ation (MHSAA) classifications. Address labels listing the names of all public school superin­ tendents in Michigan during the 1981-1982 school year were purchased from the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide office in Lansing, Michigan. These address labels were separated according to the Michigan High School Athletic Association classification described above. Following this procedure, a table of random numbers was used to identify the super­ intendents participating in this study. A letter of transmittal (see Appendix A ) , a Personal Data Sheet (see Appendix B ) , and the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (see Appendix C ) , along with a selfaddressed envelope were mailed to each superintendent participating in this study. A one-way analysis of variance was used for testing the differ­ ences between the mean scores on all of the six hypotheses. The alpha level was set at the .05 level of significance. Definition of Terms Public School Superintendent: The chief administrative officer of a local public school district for the purposes of carrying out school policies and administering the affairs of the school through an administra­ tive office or position. Michigan School Code: A listing of the General School Laws applicable to the operation of all school districts in Michigan. 17 Students: Refers to full-time equated students more commonly called FTEs enrolled for membership on the fourth Friday count in a school district. Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA): The governing body for all interscholastic competition in all Michigan junior high and high schools (for both boys and girls) in Michigan. Leadership: Hemphill defined leadership as, "the initiation of structure in interaction." Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII (LBDQ): Measures leadership behavior within a situational context. The LBDQ, Form XII consists of 100 items which are grouped into 12 subscales. These subscales were described briefly earlier in this chapter. Summary The education of children is primarily accomplished at the local level in the public schools of America. In our system of educational governance, the schools belong to the people. Education is a state responsibility because the United States Constitution is silent on the issue. Therefore, the people in each state through their legislators have enacted constitutional provisions and statutes for the establishment and control of public and private education. Each state establishes and maintains their system of educational programming through a central coordinating agency— the state department of education. These departments have the responsibility for the overall coordination of education from colleges, universities, intermediate school districts or some similar structure, to local school districts. 18 The function of operating the public schools in the local districts is vested in a board of education or trustees who exercise those powers delineated by the state. The superintendent of schools is the chief administrative officer that is hired by the board to carry out their policies and administer the affairs of the school district. The superintendency in America is 146 years old. Through the years, it has evolved through several distinguishable stages to become a distinct and much sought after profession which operates under tested theories and well recognized principles of administration. The super­ intendent of today stands in the vortex of all influences which come to play upon the school and community. In this spotlighted position, the superintendent must have the technical education, the emotional stability, the personality integration, and the leadership ability to guide the course of the school district to secure the best education possible for children. This study was conducted in order to contrast the self-perceived leadership behavior of a selected random sample of Michigan public school superintendents from each of the four Michigan High School Athletic Association classifications according to the variables of age, tenure in position, level of education, and size and complexity of community served. This study was limited to a sample of superintendents from each of the four classifications in a total of 190 communities representing urban, suburban, and rural school districts. The test instrument was Form XII of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) which was developed by Stogdill and others to measure the leadership behavior of the respondents in 12 dimensions of leadership. A one-way 19 analysis of variance was used to test for differences in the mean scores. The alpha level was set at the .05 level of statistical significance. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction A historical investigation of the field of school administration and the subsequent chronological emergence of the public school super­ intendent in America were described in the first chapter of this study. The review of the literature which follows will trace the development of the public school superintendency in Michigan and will identify some of the major influences that contributed to the evolution of the modern day superintendent. The remainder of the chapter will focus on those studies of leadership behavior as these may be relevant to the present study. The Public School Superintendent In Michigan The first public school superintendent in Michigan was appointed in the city of Detroit in 1855. 31 The school enrollment in Detroit in 1855 was 5,500 students with a teaching staff of forty-one. 32 The role of the superintendent in the larger cities in Michigan was not dissimilar to the role of the superintendent in schools of similar size in the United States. 31 Most schools in Michigan were small, however, because of Cooke, School Board Journal, p. 9. 32 Thomas M. Gilland, The Origin and Development of the Power and Duties of the City School Superintendent, p. 15. 20 21 the state's agrarian economy. These smaller districts in today's vernac­ ular would be classified as primary districts under Sec. 380.102 of the Michigan School Code. A primary school district is one having grades K-8. These small districts commonly referred to as "little red schoolhouses" developed at such a rate that in 1857 there were 3,731 such districts. The growth of these small school districts peaked at 7,362 by 1912. 33 34 This proliferation of smaller districts resulted in Michigan becoming one of eight states in the United States tohave more than 3,000 school districts. each. 35 The other forty-two states averaged 660 school districts High school districts began to emerge in increasing numbers after the Civil War as small districts were consolidated into larger units thereby becoming K-12 systems. At the time of this study, there are approxi­ mately five K-8 or primary districts remaining in Michigan. The reduction in their numbers can be attributed to such factors as declining enrollments and/or consolidation with larger units for economic survival in an era starting in the latter part of the 1970s which was characterized by gradual student decline and eroding state and federal support of public education. Prior to this, formerState Superintendent of Public Lynn Bartlett sought to consolidate all Instruction primary districts by seeking legislation that would require all primary districts to join or build high school districts. Those efforts for consolidation were unsuccessful, 33 Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Michigan, 1862, p. 3. 34 Donald W. Disbrow, Schools for an Urban Society (Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1968), p. 30. 22 in the main, because of the strong opposition from rural interests who were quick to point out the benefits of the little red schoolhouses to small rural communities. In most instances, these small school districts did not have superintendents. The administration of these schools was performed by local boards of education comprised of three to five members each and a teacher/principal or both. It was not uncommon, however, for smaller K-12 school districts to have a superintendent serving the dual role of teacher and the district's only administrator. To this day, smaller school districts often combine the super­ intendency and some form of principalship. Before this, township or county superintendents served primary and smaller school districts. It was not uncommon for a county superintendent to have 100 or more school districts under their jurisdiction. The increased proliferation of high school districts that occurred during the 1870s was encouraged by legislation creating union schools. 36 The Kalamazoo court ruling in 1874 that public tax monies could be used to support high schools and employ a local school superintendent was also significant in the evolution of the public school superintendency in Michigan. 37 The justices in their ruling said, in part, . . . We content ourselves with the statement that neither in our state policy, in our constitution, or in our laws, do we find the primary school districts restricted in the branches of knowledge which their officers may cause to be taught, or the grades of instruction that may be given, if their voters consent in regular 36 Charles R. Starring and James 0. Knauss, The Michigan Search for Educational Standards (Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1969), pp. 33-45. 23 form to bear the expenses and raise taxes for the purpose. Having reached this conclusion, we shall spend no time upon the objection that the district in question had no authority to appoint a super­ intendent of schools, and that the duties of the superintendency should be performed by the district board. We think the power to make the appointment was incident to the full control which by law the board had over the schools of the district, and that the board and the people of the district have been wisely left by the legislature to follow their own judgment in the premises. It follows that the decree dismissing the bill was right, and should be affirmed. The other justices concurred. Charles E. Stuart and Others v. School District No. 1 of the Village of Kalamazoo and others 30 MICH. 69 (1 9 7 4 ).38 The establishment of the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration with the financial assistance of the W. K. Kellogg Founda­ tion of Battle Creek, Michigan contributed greatly to the development of the superintendency in Michigan and in the United States. The funding allowed the establishment of Regional Centers at Harvard Teachers College (Columbia University), Ohio State University, The University of Chicago, George Peabody College for Teachers, The University of Texas, Leland Stanford University (Stanford), and The University of Oregon. 39 In large part, the research that was conducted at these Regional Centers and at other colleges and universities catapulted the profession of educational administration by developing optimum procedures, techniques, methods, courses of study and training and evaluation. In Michigan several of the state's institutions of higher learning offer significant and pertinent professional education programs including internship training 38 William R. Hazard, Education and the Law: Cases and Materials on Public Schools (New York: The Free Press, 1971), pp. 27-28. 39 Hunt, "The Superintendency," pp. 45-47. 24 and have worked cooperatively with the Michigan Department of Education to establish at least minimal standards for public school superintendents. The School Code of 1955 (updated in 1976) makes specific provisions for the position of superintendent of schools in Section 573: Before any person may be employed as a superintendent of schools of any school district, he shall possess at least an earned bachelor's degree from a college acceptable to the state board of education and be the possessor of or eligible for a teacher's certificate or have the equivalent thereto in accordance with the standards determined by the state board of education.40 More stringent requirements for public school superintendents in Michigan are prescribed by two accreditation agencies. The North Central Associa­ tion of Colleges and Universities has the following standards: The superintendent who is the administrative head of the school system shall have earned at least 60 hours of graduate credit, inclusive of the master's degree. Not less than 30 semester hours of graduate credit shall have been in administration, supervision, and related fields. He shall have had a minimum of four years of professional experience.41 The Bureau of School Services of the University of Michigan has the following criteria for superintendents in school districts accredited through the University of Michigan. A superintendent shall have had at least a master's degree. A superintendent shall have at least 30 semester hours of graduate credit in professional education with a major emphasis in admin­ istration, supervision, and related areas. A superintendent shall have had a minimum of four years of education experience, including two years in the classroom prior to appointment.42 40 Michigan, General School Laws (1976), School Code of 1955, Section 340.573. 41 Commission of Secondary Schools, Policies and Standards for Approval of Secondary Schools 1973-1974, p. 52. 42 The University of Michigan Accredited Schools, 1974-1975. 25 Much like its counterparts in other states in the nation the superintendency in Michigan has developed from a small and simple beginning to a position in the field of public education that is in the vortex of all influences upon the schools. Michigan school districts, while differing significantly in many details from one another in urban, suburban, and rural settings, nonetheless, remain strikingly similar in their fundamental characteristics. Local boards of education hire the superintendent to administer the affairs of the school district and to carry out all of the policies adopted by the board of education within the parameters and provisions of all applicable laws. Since the middle 1950s there have been a number of significant influences that have contributed to the evolution of the modern day superintendency. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 signaled the beginning of a longlasting social revolution started by Black Americans who for the first time as a collective community across the United States vociforously demanded equality of educational opportunity and increased social justice by seeking through acts of civil disobedience, riots in the streets, and through the intervention of the courts to end more than 200 years of discrimination. During the same decade, the launching of Sputnik I by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957 led to a debate by the American people about the quality of math and science instruction in the public schools, colleges and universities across America. The resulting ramifications of these two singular events served to dramatize the importance of the public schools to the American way of life. As a result, the role of the public schools took on added social and curricular dimensions. These activities gave 26 rise to additional court rulings and to social legislation which sought to bring an end to poverty and discrimination. Both the courts and the federal government took active roles in improving the educational oppor­ tunities for all people in the society through public education. As in Michigan school districts, the schools in each of the states are strikingly similar in their fundamental characteristics. children, for example, study similar subjects. Most school All of the schools are administered by a superintendent of schools and are governed by locally selected boards of education. This is in keeping with the long standing tradition that stresses local control rather than national control of the schools. In our system of educational governance, the control of education is relatively decentralized because the people at the state and local level rather than the federal government are ultimately responsible for all of the basic policies relating to education. That is, education is a local function, a state responsibility, and a federal interest or concern. All across America, however, a common ideal remains a free and a compulsory education for all children through the secondary grades. The Constitution of the United States does not mention education. Despite this silence, the federal government has generally had some interest in education. The basis for this limited interest in education is implied in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution which provides that the Congress shall be the power to provide, among other things, for the general welfare. 43 From the power implied in Section 8 of Article 1, the Congress has derived the authority to tax and spend for education. 43 Emery Stoops, Max Rafferty, and Russell E. Johnson, Handbook of Educational Administration (Boston: Allyn & Bacon Inc., 1981), p. 18. 27 The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or to the people all the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The power of each state to provide and maintain public schools is inherent in this amendment. 44 Stoops, et al., lists several reasons for the silence on educational provisions in the Constitution. Among these, schooling in the eighteenth century was not considered a government function in any sense of the word; it was conducted under the aegis of church and home. Thus, almost by default, public education in America fell into a state and local framework where it has remained ever since. To change this situation would require a constitutional amendment, although Supreme Court decisions during the 1960s and 1970s have permitted federal intervention in several areas of local education .^ The federal role in education, though indirect, has had direct ramifications upon curriculum and finance. These areas are direct statutory responsibilities of the local superintendent of schools. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (E.S.E.A.) of 1965 became the most significant federal program which provided federal funds to improve the education for poor children and to strengthen library, supplementary education services and state departments of education. The federal aid provided to the states and to local school districts under this legislation was categorical rather than general and was administered through the promulgation of a myad of administrative rules and regulations of such agencies as the U.S. Office of Education and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 44 1 Ibid. 45 These rules and regulations Ibid. 28 created burdensome paperwork for state departments of education (SDEs) and for local educational agencies (LEAs). The dosages of federal monies resulted in substantial increases in the workforces of local school districts. This increased the responsibility and the span-of-control of most public school superintendents. In 1962 one of the first collective bargaining contracts covering teachers was negotiated in New York City. 46 Lieberman wrote that the 1960s produced an appeal to "equity" that was the major public policy justification for teacher bargaining. 47 Act 379 of the Public Acts of 1965 (The Michigan Public Employment Relations Act) enacted by the Michigan Legislature, added a new dimension to the role of the public school super­ intendent. This statute enabled public employees, including teachers, to negotiate labor contracts with their respective employers. Superintendents, particularly in smaller school districts, assumed the responsibility as chief labor negotiator with teachers, administrators, custodians, bus drivers, cafeteria workers and with any other group of school employees that chose to become organized under the provisions of this statue. The decade of the 1970s was significant to the development of the superintendency in Michigan. Declining student enrollments, competition from private and parochial schools and the loss of confidence in the schools by the American public coupled with fewer dollars resulted in the early demise of many public school superintendents. These factors called ^ M y r o n Lieberman, "Eggs That I Have Laid: Teacher Bargaining Reconsidered,: Kappan, Volume 60, No. 6 (February 1979), p. 415. 47t, . , Ibid. 29 for new personal, technical, and political skills from the chief executive officer to the schools. For the first time in the careers of superintend­ ents, new skills were required as local school districts were forced to close schools and layoff personnel. Superintendents that survived this period were forced to become successful managers of decline. Among the new skills that were required were the ability to guide local boards of education and school patrons through the often thorny process of deciding which schools to close and which of the educational programs to reduce or eliminate. These problems in Michigan were compounded as the responsi­ bility for funding school programs continued to shift from the state to the local communities. Public school enrollment declined by half a million between 1971 and 1972, the beginning of a loss of five million students (11%) over the following decade. 47 Many taxpayers erroneously saw an opportunity to reduce school costs under the assumption that if schooling costs so much per child than fewer children in their particular school district would mean fewer tax dollars. The economic realities of the times painfully squelched these assumptions. According to the National Institute of Education, in forty-three states it now costs nearly 50 percent more to operate primary and secondary schools than it did in 1971. 48 While the average school enrollment dropped 2.3 percent between 1971 and 1976, the average cost of educating children increased 56 percent. 47 49 There were Diane Divoky, "Burden of the Seventies: The Management of Decline," Kappan, Volume 61, No. 2 (October 1979), p. 87. 4 8 T. .. Ibxd. 49 Ibid. 30 many reasons for this increase. As noted earlier, state aid formulas shifted to the local taxpayer a greater share of the costs of educating each child. Also, the costs associated with the implementation of new state and federal laws for the education of handicapped children, bilingual education, and the costs of desegregation, to name a few. In large part, however, the largest percentage of a local school district budget had to accommodate the increasing costs of teacher and administra­ tive salaries. These factors along with the very high general inflation made the cost of schooling fewer children more expensive. The successful superintendent during the 1970s coped with the financial and psychological disjunctures of decline by managing with fewer people while attempting to implement new and innovative solutions to the changing demographies of their local school district and communities. Reductions in force (RIF), closing school buildings and consolidating school programs and reducing the consumption of energy became the primary strategies for reducing budgets. Superintendents prompted their boards to offer early retirement incentives to allow their districts to replace top-salaried personnel or in many instances not filling some of these positions. Building principalships were often combined so that in many districts principals became responsible for the operations of two buildings. Other superintendents proposed that their boards of education make it possible for teachers to request leaves of absence for retraining or seeking other employment without jeopardizing their seniority or pension plans in the event that these employees sought to return to the local district in better economic times. Some districts allowed job sharing which in essence enabled teachers who wanted to work half-time to share a 31 particular grade level with another teacher. This arrangment often allowed both teachers to obtain full fringe benefits while allowing the district to save one-half of a teacher's salary. The closing of a school building in the new era of retrenchment like no other singular issue severely tested the superintendent's politi­ cal acumen. It required the superintendent to have the ability to master many complicated factors involved in successfully closing the building or buildings involved. These decisions rapidly become politically explosive and increased the potential of having a demoralizing effect on both the school's staff and the community. Superintendents who failed to success­ fully juggle all of the dynamics of this complicated process often lost their jobs as the result. Many superintendents actively sought to forge new partnerships with local businesses and industries who themselves were experiencing the trauma of economic hardship that started in the latter 1970s and peaked in the early 1980s. Many superintendents became real estate entrepreneurs by selling school buildings to private investors or in some instances having to share school buildings with community service agencies. In other instances superintendents were able to consolidate school programs by changing grade-level organizations. The resulting grade configurations i.e., K-5, K-8, 6-7-8, and 9-12 allowed many school districts to close buildings while at the same time preserving instructional continuity and in some instances, increasing the flexibility of instruction. Innovative superintendents formed educational foundations while others considered having their school districts levy fees for participation in extra­ curricular activities that traditionally have been a part of the regular school curriculum. 32 The superintendent who survived this very difficult era of decline was confronted with a new set of challenges in order to cope successfully with the demands of the superintendency during the remainder of the decade of the 1980s and beyond. Ronald Reagan, in his campaign for the presidency, vowed to diminish the federal role in education. Indeed, after his election on November 4, 1980, education seemed to be a very low priority of his new administration. The new Administration entered office with the most ambitious policy agenda for education in recent memory. The desired route for education was to shift the responsibility to the states for more effective local control. new federalism. This was a major theme of the president's This remedy would reduce disagreeable federal meddling, downsize the cabinet level Education Department to the status of a founda­ tion, reduce the federal government's burdensome regulations, streamline those programs that it wished to continue to support, eliminate certain objectionable programs outright and cut the education budget. The Administration quickly rewrote the fiscal 1982 budget submitted by the out-going Carter Administration, and the president in February 1981 released a "Program for Economic Recovery," a blueprint for reshaping the federal b u d g e t . A l m o s t all education programs were targeted for varying degrees of policy changes or budget reductions.'^ The centerpiece of the new administration's 1982 budget was the plan to consolidate forty-four categorical programs into a block grant. Education Funding Research Council, Education Funding News, Volume XIII, No. 49 (December 20, 1983), p. 4. 51Ibid. 33 In August of that year, President Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. 52 The most dramatic modifications of the Reconciliation Act were the consolidation of many categorical programs into a single block grant and the streamlining of Title 1, which con­ stitute the main features of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) of 1981. 53 Under the new legislation Chapter 1 replaced the former Title 1 (created by Public Act 89-10 of 1965) word-for-word, except for the elimination of many regulations. Chapter 1, as a general rule, gives school systems substantially greater leeway in administering legislative intent than did Title 1. 54 Chapter 2 of the new legislation consolidated twenty-nine previously separate programs into one simplified block grant program. The block grant program is touted by administration officials as a way for the federal government to support school improvement projects in the local districts by using portions of the funds to implement the recommendations of the Report of the National Commission on Excellence Education, A Nation at Risk. in Just as Sputnik inspired a national concern for the quality of education during the 1950s the report released on April 26, 1983 focused an intense examination of public education in America. Secretary of Education Terrell Bell, who created the Commission in 1981, hailed the report as a possible "turning point in an era when U.S. schools face "the challenge of the postindustrial age."'*'* 52 Ibid 53 JJIbid. 54 Within Ibid. 55 Milton Goldberg and James Harvey, "A Nation at Risk: The Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education," Kappan, Volume 65, No. 1 (September 1983), p. 14. 34 weeks of the release of the report the school board in Ypsilanti, Michigan announced its intention to lengthen the school day for elementary students and to increase high school graduation requirements. One year after the release of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, the following occurred: forty-seven states (except Hawaii, Iowa, and Massachusetts) have increased or are considering increasing high school graduation requirements. Forty-four states have toughened or are considering toughening school curriculum. The exceptions are Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Twenty-nine states have improved student testing, and thirteen others are moving in that direction. Eight states have imposed a longer school day and seven have increased the length of the school year. Seven states, including Arizona have adopted some type of performance-based reward system for teachers. 57 In Michigan the State Board of Education released a report titled "Better Education for Michigan Citizens: A Blueprint for Action" which encouraged the legislature and local school districts to improve education in the state by emphasizing equity as well as excellence. The superintendent of the 1980s must successfully adapt to a new set of social, economic, and political influences that heretofore have not been as paramount or as tightly integrated politically in the local com­ munity. We have always expected much from our schools. But, never before "^Pat Ordovensky, "Bell Praises School Reform," Gannett News Service, Lansing State Journal, Friday, May 11, 1984, p. 3A. 35 have we demanded of them as much as we have over the last thirty years. The schools of the 1980s continue to provide a wide variety of social services, act as surrogate parents, nurse the physical and the emotional hurts of children, provide good nutrition, act as sex counselors and policemen, and much more. Michigan Governor James Blanchard, in a December 30, 1983 inter­ view with Free Press education writer Cassandra Sprattling indicated that among his top four priorities was to improve education in the state at all levels including financial support for education. 58 The tasks of administration are many and complex; the superintendent of the 1980s must provide a strong and a pervasive influence to improve the quality of education in his community. The events of the early 1980s have made this expectation a compelling local, state, and national interest. This is an admittedly formidable task. Related Research There is a paucity of literature in the area of the self-perceived leadership behavior of public school superintendents or other administra­ tors. Efforts to obtain background information on the self-perceived leadership behavior of public school superintendents through ERIC revealed the absence of prior works in this area. Search modes included the following descriptors: 58 Cassandra Sprattling, "Governor Blanchard's Plans for Michigan Schools," Detroit Free Press, December 30, 1983. 36 1. Superintendents 2. Boards of Education 3. Board-Administrator Relationships 4. Perception 5. Leadership 6. Leadership Qualities-Perceptions 7. Ohio State Leadership Studies 8. Self-Perception 9. Behavior 10. Psychology 11. Various combinations of the above descriptors Therefore the bulk of references used were derived from books, periodicals, dissertations, and prior research associated with the Ohio State Leadership Studies. These studies at the Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research were a ten year interdisciplinary program initiated in 1945 and were undertaken to study the behavior of persons assumed to be in leader­ ship positions in business, educational and governmental organizations. A. H. Maslow wrote that all persons, save for a few pathological exceptions, have a need for a "stable, firmly based, usually high evaluations of them­ selves, for self-respect or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others." He classified this need into two subsets: First, "the desire for strength, for achievement, for adequacy, for mastery and competence, for confidence in the face of the world, and for independence and freedom," and second, "the desire for reputation or prestige (defining it as respect or esteem 37 from other people), status, dominance, recognition, attention, importance, or appreciation." 59 The problem of evaluating the leadership skills of an individual is a complex and difficult one. Petrullo identified three approaches that are generally used: 1. 2. 3. Through the use of a standard proficiency test (usually called a situational test). Observational or performance records of typical leadership performance. Evaluation of the production of the group.60 The LBDQ which was developed as an outgrowth of the Ohio State Leadership Studies is more closely allied with the first approach outlined by Petrullo. The focus upon leadership behavior as opposed to leadership along with the differentiation between the description and the evaluation of the leader's behavior was one of the most salient features of the research approach taken in the Ohio State Leadership Studies. The first extensive use of LBDQ was with Air Force Personnel in a study conducted by Christner and Hemphill in 1955.*^ Halpin compared the scores of 64 superintendents with the scores of 132 aircraft commanders. The superintendents responded to the LBDQ-Ideal while at the same time the superintendents were being described on the LBDQ-Real by 428 members 59 James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1978), p. 95. ^ L u i g i Petrullo, Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), pp. 285-286. ^ C . A. Christner and J. R. Hemphill, "Leader Behavior of B-20 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members' Attitudes Toward the Crew," Sociometry (1955), pp. 18, 82-87. 38 of their staffs. In like manner, the sample of 132 aircraft commanders answered the LBDQ-Ideal and were described on the LBDQ-Real by 1,099 members of their respective crews. 1. 2. Among the findings are: That aircraft commanders were more likely to show less Con­ sideration than is desirable, while the educational administra­ tors tended to be remiss if not initiating sufficient Structure, and, That both groups differed in their leadership ideology.62 Simply stated, the educational administrators, as measured by the LBDQ, exhibited greater Consideration and less Initiation of Structure than the aircraft commanders at the .001 level of confidence. 63 Halpin suggested that the difference in the scores may have been due, in part, to the philosophical differences in schools vs. the Air Force. The schools place greater importance on Consideration while the military stresses the Initiation of Structure. In a second study, Haplin examined the performance of fifty Ohio superintendents from smaller rural school districts. Specifically, Halpin looked at the relationship between superintendents' self-perceptions about their behavior on the Initiating Structure and the Consideration dimen­ sions. The self-perceptions of the superintendents were contrasted with the perceptions of the staff and the school board. As the result of this research Halpin concluded that: The leadership ideology of board and staff members, and of the superintendents themselves, is essentially the same. Effective or desirable leadership behavior is characterized by high scores on both Initiating Structure and Consideration. Conversely, 62 Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders," Harvard Edu­ cational Review XXV (Winter, 1955), 18-32. Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York; The McMillan Company, 1971), pp. 103-104. 39 ineffective or undesirable leadership behavior is marked by low scores on both dimensions. These findings on the leadership ideology of superintendents, staff members, and board members agree with the results of an earlier Air Force study in which it was found that aircraft commanders rated effective by both super­ visors and crew score high on both leader behavior dimensions. These results are also consistent with Hemphill's findings that college departments with a campus reputation for being well administered are directed by chairmen who score high on both leader behavior dimensions.64 A third study conducted by Hunter examined the relationship between school size and the discrepancy in the perceptions of the super­ intendent's self-perceived behavior. Hunter used LBDQ with a sample of sixteen metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri school systems. For the purposes of this study, Hunter defined small school district as those with an enrollment from 750 to 2,700 students enrolling 6,500 to 10,200 students. and large school district as those Contrary to the hypotheses that there would be no significant differences in the size of the elevations of LBDQ scores, Hunter found that: 1. 2. 3. Teachers and board members in the largeschool systems rated their superintendents lower on the dimensions of Initiation of Structure and Consideration of leadership than teachers and board members in the small systems. The reverse occurred in the superintendent's self-ratings; superintendents in the large systems described themselves as higher in both Initiating Structure and Consideration than those in the small systems. In virtually every large school system the superintendent rated himself higher than his associates rated him, and in virtually every small system he rated himself lower than teachers and board members rated him.65 These results were statistically significant to the .001 level of confi­ dence. This analysis allowed Halpin to establish the corresponding 64 , Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration, p. 18. 65Tl... Ibid. relationship between the superintendents, the staffs, and the school boards' perceptions regarding how the superintendent should behave as a leader. The results of the scores were as follows: 1. Staffs and board groups do not agree with each other on the area of leader behavior dimensions. 2. Superintendents do not see themselves as either their staffs or boards see them in respect to Consideration. Staffs rate the superintendents low while school boards rate the superintendents high. 3. Boards rate superintendents higher than the staffs in Initiating Structure than either the staffs and the superintendents rated themselves. 4. Boards tended to rate the superintendents higher in Consideration and Initiating Structure than either the staffs or the super­ intendents rated themselves. 5. Boards do not differ significantly from school district to school district in their expectations of how the superintendents should behave. 6. There how a ating about 7. Staffs differ little from school to school in the expectation of how much Consideration the superintendent should have. There is a slight difference in the amount of structure that should be initiated. 8. Superintendents set a higher standard for themselves on Consider­ ation than either boards or staffs set for them. 9. Boards expect stronger Initiating Structure than either the superintendents or the staffs. Staffs prefer less structure than superintendents believe they should initiate.66 is a significant difference between boards and staffs in superintendent should behave in Consideration. The Initi­ Structure within group agreement for boards and staffs is the same for all boards and staffs. In a fourth study using LBDQ-Form XII, Rawlings compared the self­ perceived leadership behavior of public school superintendents and chamber 66 Andrew H. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents (Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1956). 41 of commerce executives in the State of Indiana. Rawlings hypothesized that chamber of commerce executives were to commercial activities as the public school superintendent were to education in any community. The population for this study was drawn from seventy communities in the state which support the professional public school superintendent and salaried chamber of commerce executives. Rawlings found that: 1. Significant differences were found between public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in three of the twelve dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by LBDQ Form XII. 2. Superintendents had higher mean scores in the dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Predictive Accuracy." 3. Chamber of commerce executives had a higher mean score in the dimension of "Superior Orientation." 4. The oldest superintendents had a higher mean score than the oldest chamber of commerce executives in the "Predictive Accuracy" dimension. 5. The youngest chamber of commerce executives had a higher mean score than the youngest superintendents on the "Superior Orientation" dimension. 6. The least experienced superintendents had a higher mean score in the Tolerance of Uncertainty dimension than the least experienced chamber of commerce executives. 7. The least tenure chamber of commerce executives had higher mean scores in the "Consideration" and "Production Emphasis" dimensions than did the least tenure superintendents. 8. The least experienced superintendents had a higher mean score in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimension than did the least experienced executives. 9. The least tenure executives had higher mean scores in the "Consideration" and "Production Emphasis" dimensions than did the least tenure superintendents. 10. Large community superintendents had higher mean scores in the dimension of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Tolerance of Freedom" than did large community chamber of commerce executives. 42 11. Chamber of commerce executives from the large communities had a higher mean score than did the large community school superintendents in the "Superior Orientation" dimension of leadership. 12. Large community superintendents had a higher mean score in the "Demand Reconciliation" than did small community super­ intendents.^ Rawlings found that superintendents with the longest tenure in a position had a higher mean score in the "Consideration" dimension than did superintendents with the least tenure in position. His study found no statistically significant differences among the superintendents on the basis of age, experience, educational level, or size of community served. In the final study reviewed, Schug investigated the perceptions of leadership behavior of selected school superintendents in Michigan as seen by the superintendents themselves, principals, teachers, and school board members through the use of LBDQ. Specifically, Schug wanted to test the hypothesis that these perceptions of leadership by the various groups involved changed as the size of the school districts involved increased. The population for this study included a total of twenty-one school superintendents. A sample of ten of the superintendents were selected from school districts of 10,000 or more students and eleven superintend­ ents from school districts of 3,000 or fewer students. each district participated in the study. Ten people from Schug had three major underlying questions to be tested in the study: 67 Joseph Stanley Rawlings, "A Comparative Study of the SelfPerceived Leadership Behavior of Public School Superintendents and Chamber of Commerce Executives" (Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). 43 1. Is there interaction between the factors of positions and the size of the districts? 2. Will there be significant differences in Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Subscale scores between large and small districts? 3. Will there be significant differences in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire in subscale scores between positions the persons have in the school district?68 In answer to Question 1, Schub found that a multivariate analysis of group position to the size of school district indicated the absence of an interaction effect. The data revealed no statistically significant differences in the variables of Persuasion, Tolerance, Production Emphasis and Prediction, as the result of the interaction. For Question 2, Schug found that the only statistically significant subscale was Persuasiveness to be affected by school district size. In other words, the superintendents from large school districts were perceived to be significantly more persua­ sive than the superintendents of small school districts based on the total group interaction. For Question 3, he found a statistically signi­ ficant difference in the subscale of Production Emphasis. To answer the fundamental question of his research: Is there difference in the leadership behavior of superintendents of schools between large and small school districts? Schug scheduled observation visitations in two districts from each size classification. Schug found that: 68 Victor Lewis Schug, "A Study of Perceptions of the Leader Behavior of the School Superintendent in Selected Michigan School Districts with the Use of LBDQ" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974). 44 1. Based on a multivariate analysis of group position school district size produced no statistically significant inter­ action on any of the dependent variables (Persuasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom, Production Emphasis, and Predictive Accuracy). 2. When a multivariate analysis of the leadership dimensions with respect to school district size was conducted only the variable of Persuasiveness was found to be statistically significant. Further investigation indicated that super­ intendents in large districts are perceived to be signifi­ cantly more persuasive than the superintendents in small districts. 3. A multivariate analysis of the leadership dimensions with respect to group position in the school district indicated statistical significance only for the variable of Production Emphasis. Post hoc comparisons suggested this significance existed between board member-principal mean scores, and board member-teacher means. In each case the board members’ scores were higher than the comparison group. 4. With the exception of Tolerance of Freedom board member observed mean scores were higher than the other respondent group for the variables. On Tolerance of Freedom board members had the lowest scores. 5. Group respondents from small school districts generally had lower mean scores than theirlarge district counterparts, although they were not significantly different. 6. Observation visitations reinforced the LBDQ data which had been collected and suggested that large district superintendents were more persuasive than small district superintendents. 7. Observation visitations suggested that large school district superintendents were engaged in more political activities of the school districts than were the small district superintendents. 8. Visitations indicated that for the variables studied in this research the large district superintendents would rate higher than the small district superintendents. 9. Based on these observations large district superintendents work with a greater intensity in areas of abstract decisions which affect their districts than do small school district super­ intendents. 69 69Ibid., pp. 109-111. 45 As the result of this study, Schug drew several conclusions. First, there were no differences in the perceptions of leadership behavior because of the size of the district or the position a person holds within the district. Second, the subscales used may not have been sufficiently sensitive to these differences and that the use of other subscales might have been of benefit in identifying differences. Third, the LBDQ may not be the most appropriate instrument to use in testing for differences in perceptions. Fourth, he believed that there are differ­ ences in leader behaviors between large and small district superintendents. Fifth, it would appear to be difficult if not impossible to isolate fully these differences with the use of a situational instrument such as LBDQ. Sixth, subjective observations may be a more sensitive approach to identifying these differences in small and large district superintendents. And finally, the present research did tend to support the notion that there is much empirical work yet to be done regarding the perceptions of the position of superintendent of schools. 70 Summary The author, in this chapter, has attempted to present the following: 1. A review of the literature tracing the historical development of the public school superintendency in Michigan. 2. A review of some of the significant influences over the last thirty years that have occurred because of state, and/or federal 46 legislation or court decisions as these have contributed to the development of the superintendency in Michigan and elsewhere. 3. A review of the previous research which centered on the position of public school superintendent and his leadership behavior with himself or others. The present research study investigated the self-perceived leadership behavior of a selected random sample of Michigan public school superintendents in each of the four high school athletic association classifications according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to identify the self-perceived leadership behavior of a randomly selected group of Michigan Public School Superintendents in each of the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSSA) size designations. This chapter will describe the research methodology including the instruments used, the population, statistical hypotheses, data collection techniques, and the method of analyzing the data. Instruments The instruments used to collect the data were the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII and a Personal Data Sheet constructed by this writer. For the purposes of this study, this writer was granted permission by the Bureau of Research, College of Commerce and Administration of the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio to use the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire refined by Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill as an outgrowth of the Ohio State Leadership Studies that were started in 1945. Permission was also granted for this writer to modify the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII from the third person (He) to the first person (I) in order to measure the self-perceived leadership behavior of the superintendents participating in this study. 47 48 The LBDQ was developed for use in obtaining descriptions of the behavior of a supervisor by people in a group or in an organization. Stogdill stated that "it can be used to describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in any type of group or organization." 58 As noted earlier, the LBDQ evolved from the work initiated by Hemphill and others that were associated with the Ohio State Leadership Studies initiated by the University's Bureau of Research of the College of Commerce and Adminis­ tration in 1945. The Ohio State University Researchers began their work with a minimum number of assumptions about leadership. Many of the supposed dimensions of leadership used initially were provided by an interdisciplinary team of social scientists. Shartle 59 outlined the theoretical considerations underlying the descriptive method. He wrote that prior to the Ohio State Leadership Studies in 1945 no satisfactory theory or definition of leadership was available.^ Further empirical research determined that a large number of hypothesized dimensions of leader behavior could be reduced to two strongly 58 Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963), p. 1. 59 C. L. Shartle, "Introduction," in R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957). 60T, , Ibxd., p. 1. 49 defined factors identified by Halpin and Winer sideration" and "Initiation of Structure." 6X and Fleishman 62 as "Con­ These two subscales were defined factorially and were subsequently used in studies of military organizations, industry and education. 63 Halpin wrote that the dimensions used in those two studies represented only one approach to the study of leadership behavior and that other researchers could take into account other variables which present researchers were not ready to include in the present series of studies. Stogdill supported Halpin1s assertion and sought to identify additional factors in order to account for observable differences in leadership behavior. Stogdill wrote, "It has not seemed reasonable to believe that two factors are sufficient to account for all the observable variance in leader b e h a v i o r . S t o g d i l l consequently developed a new theory of role differentiation and group achievement by surveying a large body of research data to support his theory. He proposed a number of additional variables that were operable in a differentiation of roles and ^ A . W. Halpin and B. J. Winer, "A Factorial Study of Leader Behavior Descriptions," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measure­ ment, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957), pp. 103-118. 62 E. A. Fleishman, "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry," in R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957). 63 64 65 Stogdill, "Description Questionnaire," p. 2. Halpin, Theory in Research and Administration, p. 130. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior, p. 2. 50 social groups. Stogdill suggested that some possible factors suggested by the theory were tolerance of uncertainty, persuasiveness, tolerance of member freedom of action, predictive accuracy, integration of the group, and reconciliation of conflict and demand. Additional factors suggested by the results of empirical research were listed as "repre­ sentation of group interest, role assumption, production emphasis, and i . orientation toward superiors. „66 After the new items were incorporated was into a questionnaire, it administered to groups. The results were then subjected to an item analysis, the questionnaires were revised and administered again, re­ analyzed, and revised. Subsequent research with the resultant twelve dimension subscale LBDQ-Form XII were used to study an army airbourne division and a highway patrol. 67 Day 68 used a revised form of the questionnaire in the study of an industrial organization. Other revisions of the scales were used by Stogdill,^ G o o d e , a n d D a y , ^ in the study (New ^ R a l p h M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Achievement York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 262. ^ 7E. Marder, "Leader Behavior as Perceived by Subordinates as a Function of Organization Level" (Master's thesis, The Ohio State Univer­ sity Library, 1960). 68 D. R. Day, "Basic Dimensions of Leadership in a Selected Industrial Organization" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University Library, 1961). 69 R. M. Stogdill, 0. S. Goode, and D. R. Day, "New Leader Behavior Description Subscale," The Journal of PsychologyLIV (October, 1962), 259-269. 7^R. M. Stogdill, 0. S. Goode, and D. R. Day, "The Leader Behavior of the United States Senators," The Journal of Psychology LIV (July, 1963), 3-8. 71*. M. Stogdill, 0. S. Goode, and D. R. Day, "The Leader Behavior of Corporations," Personnel Psychology XVI (Summer, 1963), 127-132. 51 of ministers, leaders in community organizations, United States Senators and presidents of corporations. Form XII of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire is the fourth revision of the questionnaire. This revised questionnaire was used in the present study. 72 The twelve dimensions of leadership behavior tested in this study are as follows: 1. Representation: Speaks and acts as the representative of the group (5 items). 2. Demand Reconciliation: Reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to the system (5 items). 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty: Is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset (10 items). 4. Persuasiveness: Uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions (10 items). 5. Initiation of Structure: Clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected (10 items). 6. Tolerance of Freedom: Allows followers scope for initiative, decision, and action (10 items). 7. Role Assumption: Actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others (10 items). 8. Consideration: Regards the comfort, well-being, status, and con­ tributions of followers (10 items). 9. Production Emphasis: Applies pressure for productive output (10 items). 10. Predictive Accuracy: Exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately (5 items). 72 Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior Description," p. 11. 52 11. Integration: Maintains a closely knit organization; resolves interraembership conflicts (5 items). 12. Superior Orientation: Maintains cordial relations with superiors, has influence with them, is striving for higher status (10 items).73 Each subscale is composed of either five or ten items and is defined by its component items as noted above. complex pattern of behaviors. scale. A subscale represents a Each item is keyed to one and only one The responses of each of the superintendents participating in this study were marked in terms of frequency of behavior— always, often, occasionally, seldom, or never— and the scoring is from 5 to 1. There were twenty items that were scored in the reverse direction, or from 1 to 5. Complete scoring instructions are given later in this chapter. Subscale Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability The reliability of a subscale was determined by a modified KuderRichardson formula. The modifications consisted of correlating each item with the remainder of the items in the subscale rather than including the item with the subscale score including the item. This procedure yields a conversative estimate of a subscale or reliability. coefficients are contained in Table 3.1.7^ The reliability Table 3.2 contains the means and the standard deviations for the subscales used with the various groups. 75 73Ibid., p. 3. 75Ibid., pp. 9-10. 7^Ibid., p. 11. Table 3.1.— Reliability Coefficients (Modified Kuder-Richardson). Subscale Army Division .82 Highway Patrol .85 Labor Presidents Ministers Community Leaders Corporation Presidents .74 .55 .59 .54 .70 .73 .77 .58 .59 .81 Aircraft Executives College Presidents .66 Senators .80 1. Representation 2. Demand Reconciliation 3. Tolerance Uncertainty .58 .66 ,82 .84 .85 .79 .82 .80 .83 4. Persuasiveness .84 .85 .84 .77 .79 .69 .80 .76 .82 5. Initiating Structure .79 .75 .78 .70 .72 .77 .78 .80 .72 6. Tolerance Freedom .81 .79 .86 .75 .86 .84 .58 .73 .64 7. Role Assumption .85 .84 .84 .75 .83 .57 .86 .75 .65 8. Consideration .76 .87 .84 .85 .77 .78 .83 .76 .85 9. Production Emphasis .70 .79 .79 .59 .79 .71 .65 .74 .38 10. Predictive Accuracy .76 .82 .91 .83 .62 .84 .87 11. Integration .73 .79 12. Superior Orientation .64 .75 Source: Ralph M. Stogdill* Manual* p. 11. .81 . .66 .81 .60 Table 3.2.— Means and Standard Deviations. Army Division Highway Patrol Aircraft Ministers Community Leaders Corporation Presidents Labor Presidents College Presidents Senators Subscale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 20.0 3.0 19.9 2.8 19.8 2.8 20.4 2.4 19.6 2.4 20.5 1.8 22.2 2.2 21.4 1.9 20.7 2.5 19.2 2.8 19.8 3.1 19.7 3.3 20.6 2.7 21.5 3.2 20.7 3.5 1. Representation 2. Demand Reconciliation 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 36.2 4.7 35.6 4.6 33.2 6.2 37.5 6.3 37.7 5.6 35.9 5.4 40.4 5.6 37.2 5.5 35.3 7.6 4. Persuasiveness 38.3 6.2 37.9 5.9 36.5 5.5 42.1 4.7 39.5 5.5 40.1 4.2 43.1 4.8 41.1 4.2 42.5 4.6 5. Initiating Structure 38.6 5.7 39.7 4.5 36.6 5.4 38.7 4.9 37.2 5.7 38.5 5.0 38.3 5.6 37.7 4.2 38.8 5.5 6. Tolerance Freedom 35.9 6.5 36.3 5.3 38.0 5.9 37.5 6.0 36.4 5.0 38.9 4.9 38.0 4.0 39.6 3.9 36.6 6.2 7. Role Assumption 42.7 6.1 42.7 5.3 40.9 5.6 41.5 5.4 39.8 5.6 42.7 3.5 43.3 5.5 43.5 4.5 41.0 5.7 8. Consideration 37.1 5.6 36.9 6.5 37.1 5.8 42.5 5.8 41.1 4.7 41.5 4.0 42.3 5.5 41.3 4.1 41.1 5.9 9. Production Emphasis 36.3 5.1 35.8 5.7 36.1 5.6 34.9 5.1 35.4 6.8 38.9 4.4 36.0 5.0 36.2 5.0 41.2 5.2 10. Predictive Accuracy 18.1 2.1 17.8 2.1 19.2 2.6 20.5 2.3 19.8 2.5 20.1 1.8 20.9 2.0 11. Integration 19.5 2.6 19.1 2.7 12. Superior Orientation 39.9 4.9 39.1 5.1 38.6 4.2 43.2 3.1 42.9 2.9 Number of Cases 235 Source: Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual, pp. 9-10. 185 165 103 57 55 44 55 44 55 Population Most studies of Michigan public school districts use the classifi­ cation system contained in the Michigan School Code. The Michigan School Code classifies local school districts according to size as follows: 1. Sec. 380.102 Primary Districts (K-8) 2. Sec. 380.203 Fourth Class Districts (enrolling 72 to 2,400 students) 3. Sec. 380.202 Third Class Districts (enrolling 2,400 to 30.000 students) 4. Sec. 380.303 Second Class Districts (enrolling 30,000 to 120.000 students) 5. Sec. 380.402 First Class Districts (enrolling 120,000 or more students).^ Other researchers set their own limits when referring to school district size. A count of the school districts listed in the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer’s Guide 1981 indicated that there are approximately 5 Primary Districts, 307 Fourth Class Districts, 219 Third Class Districts, 3 Second Class Districts, and 1 First Class school district in Michigan.^ This writer assumed that the lay public, local boards of education, and educators in general use the Michigan High Athletic Association's classification system with greater frequency when referring to school district size. An October 16, 1981 telephone conversation with Dr. John Brandenberg of the Michigan State University Placement Bureau confirmed ^Michigan, General School Laws, Section 340.573. ^^Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide 1981. 56 this writer's assumption that the lay public, local boards of education, and educators in general commonly use the athletic association's system of classification with greater frequency when referring to school district size. In this classification system, school districts are either Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D. Class A school districts are those with a high school enrollment of 1,274 and above. Class B school districts are those having a high school enrollment of 656 to 1,273. Class C school districts are those having an enrollment between 338 and 655 while Class D school districts are those having a high school enrollment of fewer than 338. 78 The Michigan High School Athletic Association listed a total of 525 member schools during the 1980-1981 school year when the data for this study was collected. The numbers of schools participating in each of the athletic associations were as follows: 1. Class A (n=86) 2. Class B (n=158) 3. Class C (n=167) 4. Class D (n=114) A consultant from the Michigan State University Office of Research Con­ sultation (ORC) recommended that this writer select a sample size of 50 percent of the superintendents from each of the four Michigan High School Athletic Association member schools as follows: 78 Handbook of Michigan High School Athletic Association. 57 1. Class A (sample size was 43 schools) 2. Class B (sample size was 79 schools) 3. Class C (sample size was 84 schools) 4. Class D (sample size was 57 schools) The final sample in this study included 178 public school superintendents across all four of the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) classification described earlier. Statistical Hypotheses Carrol L. Shartle 79 suggested that age, tenure in position, level of education, and size and complexity of community served are important factors in administrative success. The Personal Data Sheet constructed by this writer collected information about these variables. A copy of the Personal Data Sheet and the LBDQ-Form XII appear in Appendices B and C. Basic Hypothesis The basic hypothesis of this study is that there will be no significant differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior of a randomly selected Michigan public school superintendents in Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D public schools according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. Specific Hypotheses 1. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership 79 Shartle, Executive Performance and Leadership, pp. 151-171. 58 Behavior Description Questionnaire, (LBDQ) Form XII, between the oldest and the youngest superintendents in Michigan. 2. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents who possess a doctorate and those superintendents who do not possess the doctorate. 3. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the super­ intendents with the shortest tenure in position. 4. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class A schools and the superintendents from Class B, Class C, and Class D schools. 5. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class B schools and the superintendents from Class C and D schools. 6. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class C schools and the superintendents from Class D schools. 59 Data Collection Techniques Address labels listing the names of all public school superin­ tendents in Michigan during the 1981-1982 school year were purchased from the Michigan Education Directory office in Lansing, Michigan. These address labels were separated into four groups according to the Michigan High School Athletic Association classification system that was described earlier. Following this procedure, a Table of Random Numbers 80 was used in each of the four classifications to identify the names of the schools and the superintendents that were included in this study. The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII and the Personal Data Sheet were printed by Craft Printers, Ltd., of Lansing, Michigan. An appropriate number of envelopes and stamps were purchased for the two-way mailings along with an appropriate number of postcards that were to be used as followups. A letter was drafted with the assistance of Dr. Louis G. Romano, Dissertation Chairman, and mailed on Lansing School District stationery. The use of school district letterhead was approved by Dr. Robert Chamberlain, Superintendent of the Lansing Public Schools. in Appendix A. The letter appears The letters were mailed on March 20, 1982 to the super­ intendents of each of the schools that were identified by the procedure described earlier. The requested return date was April 20, 1982. A follow-up postcard was sent two weeks later to expedite the rate of return. Completed questionnaires were returned as indicated below: 80 Gene V. Glass and Julian C. Stanley, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), pp. 510-512. 60 Superintendents by Class Potential Returned Percentage 43 79 84 57 39 51 60 40 90.6 64.5 71.4 70.1 263 190 76.6 A B C D Totals Scoring of Instruments and Tabulation of Data The completed responses were collected and then numerically scored to determine the index score. The respondents indicated their answers by circling one of the five letters, (A, B, C, D, E) following each item. Most of the items were scored: A— 5 B— 4 C— 3 D— 2 E— 1 A circle around an A gave the item a score of five; while a circle around the JS gave the item a score of one. Items number 6, 12, 16, 26, 36, 42, 46, 53, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 68, 71, 87, 91, 92, and 97, were scored in the reverse direction. A— 1 B— 2 C— 3 D— 4 E— 5 The score was written after each item in the margin of the questionnaire. The scores were then transferred to a tally sheet and totaled. was repeated to assure accuracy. The scoring The scores of the twelve scales were transferred into scoring sheets and processed in the computer in the Lansing School District. A consultant from the Office of Evaluation Services provided technical assistance. The Personal Data Sheets were analyzed to ascertain the age, educational level, experience in position, 61 the population, and athletic classification of the community served. This information was transferred to scoring sheets and processed in the computer in the Lansing School District. Data Analysis The consultant from the Michigan State University Office of Research Consultation recommended the use of a one-way analysis of vari­ ance as the statistical procedure to be used for testing the differences between the mean scores on all of the six (6) hypotheses. The consultant from the Lansing School District's Office of Evaluation Services concurred with the recommendation to use this statistical procedure. The SPSS program will be run on the Lansing School District's IBM 4300 computer. For the purposes of this study, the alpha level was set at the .05 level of significance. Summary The purpose of this study was to identify the differences, if any, in the self-perceived leadership behavior of a randomly selected group of public school superintendents in each of the four Michigan High School Athletic Association size designations. research methodology used to conduct this study. Chapter III described the Earlier chapters traced the development of the superintendency in America and in the State of Michigan including prior use of the Leader Behavior Description Question­ naire to study the leadership behavior of individuals and groups. This chapter reviews the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and outlines the development and the validation of each of the twelve subscales used in the present study. The results 62' of the analysis involving these subscales is presented in Chapter IV and the conclusions are presented in Chapter V. The population under examination came from 178 communities across each of the four Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) classi­ fications. variance. Six hypotheses were tested using the one-way analysis of The alpha level was set at the .05 level of significance. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The first section of this chapter contains demographic information about the superintendents who participated in this study. This is presented either by total group or by individual athletic class designations. The information contained in this section provided the supporting data that was used to test the differences between the mean scores in each of the hypothesis tested. A one-way analysis of variance was the statistical procedure that was used to test the differences in the mean scores. Six hypotheses were prepared to analyze the self-perceived leadership behavior of the superintendents according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. administrative success. These variables are important factors in The results of this analysis are presented in an appropriate table form in the second section of this chapter. The final section of Chapter IV contains a summarization of the results of the analysis of the data derived from each of the statistical hypotheses (results of the chosen methdology). Demographic Characteristics The development of the superintendency in America was discussed in Chapter I. The literature suggested that this development occurred 63 64 in several distinguishable stages. The historical development of the superintendency in Michigan was traced in Chapter II. This chapter also lists some of the major influences that occurred during the last four decades as these have impacted upon the development of the modern day superintendency. The information which follows is included in this chapter to assist the reader in understanding the sources from which the data were derived to test each of the hypotheses. The reader is cautioned that the results are generalizable only to the 178 superintendents who participated in this study (33.6% of all public school superintendents in the state). To begin with, 190 public school superintendents across all four of the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) classifi­ cations (A, B, C, and D) returned information used in this study. missing cases are due to partial or incomplete returns. The As discussed in Chapters I and III, the factors of age, level of education, tenure in position, and size and complexity of school district served became the variables from which the specific contrasts were made. All of the participants in this study were male. It should be noted that the name of a female "acting" superintendent was drawn by random chance for inclusion in this study. This individual declines participation in this study. The average age of the 178 superintendents participating in this study was 48.137 years of age. This figure compares favorable with the state and national averages for all public school superintendents. 65 Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 listed below provide an individual breakdown by school athletic classification. Number of Cases 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 — .------------------------- •-----------------------------37 41 42 44 46 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 58 60 62 66 Actual Ages of Superintendents Figure 4.1. Class A — Actual Ages of Superintendents, n = 36 (missing cases 2) ZX = 1,833; X = 50.917; SD = 5.992, Q 2 = 35.907; R = 29.000 Number of Cases 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 4 1 6 3 5 4 1 1 60 61 m---------------------37 38 39 40 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Actual Ages of Superintendents Figure 4.2. Class B— Actual Ages of Superintendents, n = 43 (missing cases 2) ZX = 2,122; X = 49.349; SD = 6.078; Q2 = 36.947; R = 24.000 54 56 66 Number of Cases 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 --------------------------------------------------- e--------------------33 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Actual Ages of Superintendents 2 2 53 54 4 1 56 Figure 4.3. 57 3 59 1 60 1 61 Class C — Actual Ages of Superintendents, n = 53 (missing cases 6) EX = 2,893; X = 47.038; SD = 7.442; Q 2 = 555.383; R = 28.000 Number of Cases 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------- o----------------------------------32 34 35 37 38 39 40 42 43 46 47 49 50 52 Actual Ages of Superintendents Figure 4.4. Class D — Actual Ages of Superintendents. n = 33 (missing cases 3) ZX = 1,484; X = 45.242; SD = 7.850; Q 2 = 61.627; R = 28.000 54 57 58 59 60 67 The ladder of assent to the superintendency, for the most part, has remained rather simplistic during the last 146 years that the superintendency in America has been in existence. That is, to be a school superintendent by law or by regulation requires that one must have been a successful classroom teacher. In other words, the typical ladder of assention, particularly in smaller school districts is one of teacher-principal-superintendent. The typical Class D superintendent participating in this study averaged fewer than two (1.97) administra­ tive positions prior to becoming a superintendent. The Class C super­ intendent also averaged fewer than two (1.98) administrative positions prior to becoming superintendent. Class B and Class A superintendents averaged a little more than two (2.17) and nearly three (2.86) positions respectively, prior to becoming superintendents. Larger school districts historically offer greater occupational specializations and therefore greater opportunities for a more varied administrative experience prior to the assention to the superintendency. These will be illustrated later in this section. An observation made earlier is that there are common threads to the ladder of assention to the superintendency. The large majority of the Class A superintendents (94.5%), for instance, had prior experi­ ence directly in the public schools. The two self-reported exceptions became superintendents directly from a college or university position. In Class B school districts, 93.1 percent came to the superintendency directly from a public school position. Two exceptions in this classifi­ cation came from a state department of education while the other came from a college or university position. In Class C. 94.4 percent of 68 the superintendents came from local school districts. One of the Glass C superintendents came from a college or university position, and the other came from a post in an intermediate school district. In all instances, the overwhelming majority had served in the principalship during their careers. More than half (53.4%) of the superintendents reported having served in the high school principalship. Nearly one in five (19.1%) had served in the junior high or middle school principalship and nearly one in three (29.8%) had served as an elementary school principalship. Another interesting statistic relating to the routes of assention was that 83.3 percent of the superintendents in Class A school districts reported having served in any of several positions immediately under the rank of superintendent. The title of assistant superintendent was cited in 66.6 percent of the cases (other titles were deputy or associate superintendent). In similar manner, 60.5 percent of the Class B super­ intendents reported having taken a similar route. Class C and Class D superintendents were assistant superintendents in 32.1 percent and 24.3 percent of the cases respectively. Entry into the profession of superintendent requires a requisite amount of formal education. In Michigan, as is the case in most other states, the standards relating to the amount of education are prescribed by the state (Chapter I, p. 6). Accreditation agencies, in like manner, prescribe minimal standards (Chapter I, p. 7). Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, listed below, illustrate the level of education of the super­ intendents who participated in this study. 69 Table 4.1.— Class A-*— Level of Education. Level of Education Percent (%) Doctorate 65.8 Specialist 18.4 Master's + 30 15.8 Master's 0.0 Bachelor's 0.0 Table 4.2.— Class B — Level of Education. Level of Education Percent (%) Doctorate 36.4 Specialist 27.3 Master's + 30 29.5 Master's 6.8 n.n 70 Table 4.3.— Class C— Level of Education. Level of Education Percent (%) Doctorate 18.6 Specialist 35.6 Master’s + 3 0 28.8 Master’s 15.3 Bachelor’s 1.7 Table 4.4.— Class D — Level of Education. Level of Education Doctorate Percent (%) 5.6 Specialist 47.2 Master's + 3 0 30.6 Master's 16.7 Bachelor’s 0.0 71 In sim, the requirements for superintendent by any of the existing standards requires at least a Master's degree plus additional prescribed course work and evidence of successful teaching experience. Since local boards of education enjoy relative autonomy, it is not uncommon for them to prescribe specifically the level of education, type of academic emphasis or a specific set of prior administrative experiences in superintendent candidates. Tables 4.5 to 4.8 illustrate the usual areas of graduate major and minor fields of concentration of the superintendents involved in this study. Mention was made earlier that the overwhelming majority of the superintendents started their careers in classroom teaching. Tables 4.9 to 4.12 represent the most often occurring undergraduate majors of the superintendents. Table 4.5. Class A— (Academic) Fields of Concentration. Graduate Major Graduate Minor Percent (%) Percent (%) Administration 81.1 31.8 Social Studies 2.7 9.1 Curriculum 5.4 40.9 English 2.7 9.1 Education 5.4 0.0 Other 0.0 9.1 72 Table 4.6.— Class B— (Academic) Fields of Concentration. Graduate Major Graduate Minor Percent (%) Percent (%) Administration 93.3 11.5 Social Studies 0.0 11.5 Curriculum 6.7 11.5 English 0.0 0.0 Education 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 65.4 Table 4.7.— Class C— (Academic) Fields of Concentration. Graduate Major Graduate Minor Percent (%) Percent (%) Administration 94.7 41.4 Social Studies 0.0 3.4 Curriculum 3.5 20.7 English 0.0 0.0 Education 0.0 3.4 Other 0.0 31.0 73 Table 4.8.— Class D— (Academic) Fields of Concentration. Graduate Major Graduate Minor Percent (%) Percent (%) Administration 97.1 7.7 Social Studies 0.0 23.1 Curriculum 0.0 15.4 English 2.9 0.0 Education 0.0 7.7 Other 0.0 46.2 Table 4.9.— Class A Undergraduate Major. Major Percent (%) Social Studies 34.3 English 14.3 Industrial Arts 5.7 Physical Education 5.7 Music 5.7 Elementary/Secondary Education 2.9 Science 22.9 Business 2.9 Other 5.7 74 Table 4.10.— Class B Undergraduate Major. Major Social Studies English Percent (%) 7.5 20.0 Industrial Arts Physical Education 5.0 15.0 Music 2.5 Elementary/Secondary Education 7.5 Science 17.5 Business 10.0 Other 15.0 Table 4.11.— Class C Undergraduate Major. Major Percent (%) Social Studies 20.4 English 16.7 Industrial Arts Physical Education Music 3.7 16.7 3.7 Elementary/Secondary Education 14.8 Science 16.7 Business 3.7 Other 3.7 75 Table 4.12.— Class D Undergraduate Major. Major Percent (%) Social Studies 15.2 English 9.1 Industrial Arts 3.0 Physical Education 6.1 Music 0.0 Elementary/Secondary Education 15.2 Science 24.2 Business 12.1 Other 15.2 The career ladder does not usually end upon assention to the superintendency. The information which is provided below strongly suggests that the superintendencies differ dramatically and that there are considerable intraoccupational mobility rates. Tables 4.13 to 4.16 illustrate this movement. Table 4.13.— Class A Number of Superintendencies Held. Number of Superintendencies Held Percent (%) One other superintendency 5.4 Two other superintendencies 5.4 Three or more superintendencies 2.7 76 Table 4.14.— Class B Number of SuperIntendencies Held. Number of Superintendencies Held Percent (%) One other superintendency 10.2 Two other superintendencies 4.1 Three or more superintendencies 6.1 Table 4.15.— Class C Number of Superintendencies Held. Number of Superintendencies Held Percent (%) One other superintendency 13.5 Two other superintendencies 6.8 Three or more superintendencies 5.1 Table 4.16.— Class D Number of Superintendencies Held. Number of Superintendencies Held Percent (%) One other superintendency 7.7 Two other superintendencies 2.6 Three or more superintendencies 0.0 77 Figures 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 illustrate the average tenure in present position by class of each of the superintendents participating in this study. The final two pieces of information contained in this section have to do with the sizes of the communities served by the superin­ tendents studied and with the number of students enrolled in each of their respective K-12 districts. The smallest community served by a superintendent participating in this study had a population of 300 people. For the sake of com­ parison, the largest community reported by one of the superintendents had a population of 160,000 people. For whatever the worth, the average size of the 178 communities was 16,421 people. This writer suspected that a large number of the superintendents did not know the sizes of the communities that they served. Many of the superintendents, for instance, reported the number of square miles covered by their districts instead of the number of people in their communities. It can be expected, however, that the superintendents reported very accurate information about the total number of K-12 students in their respective districts. This is a very important statistic for most superintendents since state aid for in-formula districts is based upon the total number of K-12 students enrolled on or before the fourth Friday of school year. The sizes of the 178 school districts served by the superintendents participating in this study are illustrated in Figures 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 listed below. 78 Number of Cases 1 4 7 mos 1 1 1 1.5 Yr 2.3 4 3 1 4 3.5 1 4 5 5 2 1 67 8 2 1 10 11 1 1 2 11.5 12 2 13 1 14 1 15 16 Years in Present Position Figure 4.5. Class A — Tenure in (Present) Position, n = 36 EX - 236.33; X - 6.5647; SD = 4.6220; Q 2 = 21.3631; R = 15.4200 Number of Cases 1 7 9 mos 3 1 2 Yr 2 4 2.5 5 3 4 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 1 8 1 9 2 10 3 11 1 13 14 2 1 15 1 16 1 21 Years in Present Position Figure 4.6. Class B— Tenure in (Present) Position, n = 47 EX = 349.25; X = 7.4309; SD = 6.8304; Q 2 = 46.6540; R - 28.2500 23 1 1 23.5 29 79 Number of Cases 6 mos 10 4 2 4 6 5 1 yr 2 2.6 3 4 5 5 4 6 3 7 2 9 10 2 4 11 12 16 18 18.6 19 21 24 Years in Present Position Figure 4.7. Class C— Tenure in (Present) Position. n = 59 EX = 392.00; X = 6.6441; SD = 5.7001; Q 2 = 32.4918; R = 23.5000 Number of Cases 1 1 6 mos 9 mos 1 2 1 2 Yr 1 2.6 9 3 3 4 4 3 5 6 3 7 4 1 3 1 8 9 10 14 2 1 17 1 18 1 1 20 Years in Present Position Figure 4.8. Class D— Tenure in (Present) Position, n = 44 EX = 338.25; X = 7.6875; SD = 6.7238; Q 2 = 45.2097; R = 30.5000 21.6 22 31 80 Table 4.17.— Class A_-School District Setting. Setting Percent (%) Urban 24.3 Suburban 70.3 Rural 5.4 Table 4.18. — Class B— School District Setting. Setting Percent (%) Urban 10.6 Suburban 44.7 Rural 44.7 Table 4.19. — Class C~School District Setting. Setting Percent (%) Urban 1.7 Suburban 13.6 Rural 84.7 Table 4.20. — Class D— School District Setting, Setting Percent (%) Urban 0.0 Suburban 2.6 Rural 97.4 81 Number of Cases 1 2,315 1 1 3,559 1 3,700 1 3,821 1 3,850 1 3,900 3 1 1 4,300 4,500 4,512 4,700 1 1 1 1 6,000 6,351 6,670 6,700 1 1 1 9,700 9.799 11,450 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 1 3 1 1 4,800 4,925 5,000 5,227 1 5,406 5,500 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 2 1 1 1 7,000 8,100 8,300 9,100 1 1 9,200 9,561 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 2 12,000 1 23,000 1 34,000 K-12 Enrollment Figure 4.9. Class A— Number of Students (K-12). n = 38 (missing cases 0) X = 7,498.578; SD = 5,746.270; Q 2 = **** ; R = 31,685.000 82 Number of Cases 1 1,900 4 2,000 1 1 2,036 1 2,051 2 2,061 1 2,100 1 2 2,116 2,125 2,200 1 2 1 2,712 2,800 2,850 1 1 1 3,402 3,500 3,522 1 1 6,276 7,000 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 2 1 1 2,224 2,400 2,450 2,596 1 1 2,610 2,628 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 3 1 1 1 3,000 3,044 3,100 3,180 1 1 3,330 3,350 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 1 1 1 3,600 4,023 4,721 4,908 1 5,100 1 6,000 K-12 Enrollment Figure 4.10. Class B — Number of Students (K-12). n = 45 (missing cases 1) X = 3,054.886; SD = 1,216.272; Q 2 = 1479317.000; R = 5,100.000 83 Number of Cases 1 1 1 1 863 1,000 1,080 2 1,095 1 1,100 1 1 1 1 1,144 1,155 1,200 1,215 1 1 1 1 1,358 1,361 1,373 1,377 3 1 1 1 1,500 1,530 1,550 1,565 1 1 1 1 1 1,701 1,704 1,715 1,781 1,787 1 1 2,024 2,200 1,120 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 1 1 1 1,216 1,250 1,300 1,340 1 1 1,344 1,350 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 2 1 1 1,385 1,400 1,425 1,434 1 1 1,464 1,472 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 1 1 1 1,580 1,627 1,640 1,665 3 1,700 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 4 1 1 3 1 1,800 1,875 1,891 1,900 2,000 1 2,010 K-12 Enrollment Figure 4.11. Class C — Number of Students (K-12). n = 59 X = 1,519.763; SD = 297.137; Q 2 = 88290.750; R = 1,337.000 84 Number of Cases 1 1 97 193 1 1 1 249 330 1 376 1 413 1 442 1 498 1 1 1 1 500 514 519 640 652 1 1 1 1 1 818 849 851 862 870 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 1 1 2 1 1 680 701 750 760 762 769 1 796 1 800 K-12 Enrollment Number of Cases 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 893 900 910 935 1,015 1,033 1,042 1,060 1,082 K-12 Enrollment Figure 4.12. Class D n = 36 (missing cases 0) X = 703.361; SD = 256.330; Q 2 = 65705.000; R = 985.000 85 Analysis of Data Hypothesis 1 In Hypothesis 1, the mean scores of the oldest superintendents were contrasted with the mean scores of the youngest superintendents. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the oldest and the youngest superin­ tendents in Michigan. An analysis of the data indicated a statistically significant difference at the .05 level in the Superior Orientation dimension of leadership behavior. The mean scores of the youngest superintendents were significantly higher than the mean scores of the oldest super­ intendents. The findings also suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores in five (5) of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior were notably higher than the rest of the scores. a. Tolerance of Uncertainty b. Persuasiveness c. Tolerance of Freedom d. Role Assumption e. Predictive Accuracy These were: The oldest superintendents had the higher "F" scores in the first four dimensions listed above. The youngest superintendents had higher "F" scores in the dimension of Predictive Accuracy (Table 4.20). Table 4.21.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of the Oldest Superin­ tendents and the Youngest Superintendents on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Youngest Superintendents Oldest Superintendents Leadership Dimension(s) F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic N Mean SD N Mean SD DF Representation 28 21.0714 1.3313 31 20.9677 1.3288 57 0.092 0.7630a 2. Demand Reconciliation 28 15.0357 1.9338 31 15.2581 2.0489 57 0.183 0.6706a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 28 37.6786 2.4952 31 37.0000 2.2060 57 1.232 0.2717a 4. Persuasiveness 28 39.6071 1.7070 31 39.0323 1.7792 57 1.592 0.2122a 5. Initiation of Structure 28 42.0357 2.4718 31 42.3871 2.7408 57 0.262 0.61063 Tolerance of Freedom 28 39.8214 2.3735 31 38,8064 2.1513 57 2.968 0.09033 7. Role Assumption 28 30.8214 4.7769 31 29.0968 4.3769 57 2.095 0.1533a 8. Cons ideration 28 37.6071 2.5435 31 37.1290 2.6299 57 0.501 0.4819a 9. Production Emphasis 28 38.3929 3.7647 31 38.8710 3.7035 57 0.242 0.62493 10. Predictive Accuracy 28 20.1071 1.1333 31 20.3548 0.7094 57 1.038 0.31263 11. Integration 28 21.0357 1.5982 31 21.1935 1.7208 57 0.132 0.7174a 12. Superior Orientation 28 38.8571 2.7983 31 40.8710 3.9390 57 5.022 0.0289b 1 . 6 . ^o significant difference. ^Significant difference. 87 Hypothesis 2 In Hypothesis 2, the mean scores of the superintendents who possess a doctorate were contrasted with the mean scores of super­ intendents who do not possess a doctorate. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents who possess a doctorate and those superintendents who do not possess the doctorate. An analysis of the data indicated a statistically significant difference at the .05 level in two (2) of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior. These were: a. Role Assumption b. Production Emphasis In both instances, the mean scores of the superintendents who do not possess a doctorate were higher than the mean scores of the superin­ tendents who possess a doctorate. The findings suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores in two (2) other leadership behavior dimensions were notably higher. These were: a. Demand Reconciliation b. Tolerance of Uncertainty In both instances, the mean scores of the superintendents who do not possess the doctorate were higher than the mean scores of the superin­ tendents who possess the doctorate (Table 4.21). Table 4.22.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Superintendents Who Possess a Doctorate and Superintendents Who Do Not Possess the Doctorate on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Doctorate Superintendents Leadership Dimension(s) N Mean SD Non-Doctorate Superintendents N Mean SD F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic DF 1. Representation 54 20.8889 1.7662 123 20.7805 1.1772 175 0.240 0.62473 2. Demand Reconciliation 54 14.8519 1.9562 123 15.2358 2.0085 175 1.393 0.2395s 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 54 36.0185 2.7021 123 36.6911 2.8172 175 2.193 0.1405s 4. Persuasiveness 54 39.1296 1.8434 123 38.9024 1.8490 175 0.582 0.4464S 5. Initiation of Structure 54 42.1111 3.3005 123 41.7236 2.5649 175 0.718 0.3979S 6. Tolerance of Freedom 54 39.4444 3.4129 123 39.4065 2.5215 175 0.003 0.9537S 7. Role Assumption 54 28.6111 3.8235 123 30.6341 4.4414 175 8.449 0.0041b 8. Consideration 54 36.7592 3.1916 123 37.1219 2.4178 175 0.691 0.4068s 9. Production Emphasis 54 37.0370 4.6214 123 38.5691 2.7671 175 7.460 0.0070b 10. Predictive Accuracy 54 20.2407 1.8319 123 20.3577 0.8974 175 0.333 0.5646S 11. Integration 54 20.7778 1.8084 123 20.8862 1.5052 175 0.165 0.6855S 12. Superior Orientation 54 38.7037 6.5549 123 39.3821 3.4009 175 0.818 0.3761s ^o significant difference. ^Significant difference. 89 Hypothesis 3 In Hypothesis 3, the mean scores of the superintendents with the longest tenure in position were contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of the leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. Analysis of the data indicated that there was a statistically significant difference at the .05 level in the self-perceived leader­ ship behavior dimension of Superior Orientation. The mean scores of the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position exceeded the mean scores of the superintendents with the longest tenure in position. Additionally, the findings suggest that the "F" Statistic scores for two (2) other self-perceived leadership behavior dimensions were notably higher. These were: a. Initiation of Structure b. Production Emphasis In both instances, the mean scores of the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position exceeded the mean scores of the super­ intendents with the longest tenure in position (Table 4.22). Table 4.23.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Superintendents With the Longest Tenure in Position and the Superintendents With the Shortest Tenure in Position On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Shortest Tenure Superintendents Longest Tenure Superintendents Leadership Dimension(s) N Mean SD N Mean SD DF F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic 1. Representation 14 20.9286 1.5915 61 20.5901 1.2292 73 0.768 0.3837a 2. Demand Reconciliation 14 15.2857 2.6726 61 15.1475 1.9735 73 0.048 0.8264a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 14 37.0000 4.1510 61 36.4098 2.2685 73 0.547 0.4617a 4. Persuasiveness 14 38.7857 1.5281 61 38.8197 1.4084 73 0.017 0.8971a 5. Initiation of Structure 14 40.7857 3.4234 61 41.8197 2.2841 73 1.910 0.1712a 6. Tolerance of Freedom 14 38.7857 3.0929 61 39.3443 1.8964 73 0.763 0.3852a 7. Role Assumption 14 30.3571 5.0628 61 29.4426 3.7127 73 0.598 0.4417a 8. Consideration 14 37.2857 2.7296 61 37.1967 2.8274 73 0.009 0.9227a 9. Production Emphasis 14 36.9286 3.2691 61 38.2951 3.7698 73 1.565 0.21493 10. Predictive Accuracy 14 20.1429 0.8644 61 20.3606 0.9135 73 0.651 0.4223a 11. Integration 14 20.6429 1.1507 61 20.8197 1.4889 73 0.183 0.66973 12. Superior Orientation 14 37.8571 2.4450 61 39.8689 3.6445 73 3.846 0.0537^ ^o significant difference. ^Significant difference. 91 Hypothesis 4 Three separate contrasts were made to test Hypothesis 4. In contrast one, the mean scores of superintendents from Class A school districts were contrasted with the mean scores of superintendents from Class B school districts. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class A schools and the superintendents from Class B, Class C, and Class D schools. For contrast one, an analysis of the data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences at the .05 level in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior between the superintendents from Class A school districts and the superinten­ dents from Class B school districts. It should be noted, however, that the findings suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores for three (3) leadership behavior dimensions were notably higher. a. Representation b. Persuasiveness c. Integration These were: In all three instances, the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class A school districts were higher than the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class B school districts (Table 4.23). In contrast two, the mean scores of the superintendents from Class A school districts were contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class C school districts. Table 4.24.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class A and Class B Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Class B Class A Leadership Dimension(s) F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic N Mean SD N Mean SD DF 1. Representation 38 20.9737 1.5154 45 20.5333 1.0574 81 2.405 0.12493 2. Demand Reconciliation 38 15.2105 2.0021 45 15.0667 1.9702 81 0.108 0.7429a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 38 36.6842 2.6722 45 36.3111 2.6356 81 0.407 0.5253a 4. Persuasiveness 38 39.2105 1.8182 45 38.6889 1.8068 81 1.714 0.1942a 5. Initiation of Structure 38 41.6579 3.4663 45 41.4444 2.2918 81 0.113 0.73713 6. Tolerance of Freedom 38 39.6842 4.0209 45 39.3333 2.0000 81 0.264 0.6085a 7. Role Assumption 38 30.7105 4.7868 45 29.8222 4.2227 81 0.807 0.37173 8. Consideration 38 36.7895 3.1636 45 36.4889 2.0519 81 0.270 0.6046a 9. Production Emphasis 38 38.1316 4.1989 45 37.5111 2.9125 81 0.629 0.4299a 10. Predictive Accuracy 38 20.3684 2.0850 45 20.2444 0.7433 81 0.137 0.7121a 11. Integration 38 20.9474 1.9857 45 20.5333 1.0996 81 1.435 0.2345a 12. Superior Orientation 38 38.3684 5.3445 45 38.2889 5.4881 81 0.005 0.9450a ^o significant difference. 93 An analysis of the data indicated that there were no statisti­ cally significant differences at the .05 level in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior from the superintendents from the Class A school districts and the superintendents from the Class C school districts. It should be noted, that the findings suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores for the leadership dimension of Superior Orientation were notably higher for the superintendents from the Class C school districts (Table 4.24). In the final contrast, the mean scores of superintendents from Class A school districts were contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents from Class D school districts. An analysis of the data indicated a statistically significant difference at the .05 level in the leadership dimension of Superior Orientation. The mean scores of the Class D superintendents were significantly higher than the mean scores of the Class A superintendents. In addition, the findings suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores of Class D superintendents were notably higher in the dimension of Consideration (Table 4.25). This dimension is one of the two initial leadership behavior dimensions that were originally identified in the works of Halpin, Winer, and Fleishman (Chapter III). Hypothesis 5 Two separate contrasts were made to test Hypothesis 5. In the first contrast, the mean scores of the superintendents from Class B Table 4.25.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class A and Class C Superintendents on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Class A Leadership Dimension(s) Class C N Mean SD N Mean SD DF F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic 1. Representation 38 20.9737 1.5154 59 20.8813 1.6409 95 0.084 0.7730a 2. Demand Reconciliation 38 15.2105 2.0021 59 15.1695 2.0524 95 0.009 0.9238a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 38 36.6842 2.6722 59 36.6441 2.3398 95 0.003 0.9534a 4. Persuasiveness 38 39.2105 1.8182 59 38.9322 2.0074 95 0.477 0.4914a 5. Initiation of Structure 38 41.6579 3.4663 59 42.1695 2.4294 95 0.725 0.3966a 6. Tolerance of Freedom 38 39.6842 4.0209 59 39.4237 2.5944 95 0.148 0.7008a 7. Role Assumption 38 30.7105 4.7868 59 29.9661 4.2058 95 0.650 0.4220a 8. Consideration 38 36.7895 3.1636 59 37.0508 2.8249 95 0.182 0.6708a 9. Production Emphasis 38 38.1316 4.1989 59 38.2371 3.7290 95 0.047 0.8293a 10. Predictive Accuracy 38 20.3684 2.0850 59 20.4407 1.1488 95 0.044 0.8340a 11. Integration 38 20.9478 1.9857 59 21.0339 1.8001 95 0.044 0.83493 12. Superior Orientation 38 38.3684 5.3445 59 39.6162 3.7921 95 1.791 0.1840a ^o significant difference. Table 4.26.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class A and Class D Superintendents on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Class A Leadership Dimension(s) Class D N Mean SD N Mean SD DF F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic 1. Representation 38 20.9737 1.5154 36 20.8889 1.0631 72 0.085 0.7715a 2. Demand Reconciliation 38 15.2105 2.0021 36 15.0278 1.9783 72 0.156 0.69423 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 38 36.6842 2.6722 36 36.1944 3.7019 72 0.430 0.51403 4. Persuasiveness 38 39.2105 1.8182 36 39.2222 1.6752 72 0.010 0.9198a 5. Initiation of Structure 38 41.6579 3.4663 36 42.0000 3.1713 72 0.198 0.6579a 6. Tolerance of Freedom 38 39.6842 4.0209 36 39.2222 2.5311 72 0.344 0.5593a 7. Role Assumption 38 30.7105 4.7868 36 29.6667 4.3293 72 0.964 0.3294a 8. Consideration 38 36.7895 3.1636 36 37.7500 2.4770 72 2.101 0.15163 9. Production Emphasis 38 38.1316 4.1989 36 38.4444 2.9320 72 0.136 0.7130a 10. Predictive Accuracy 38 20.3684 2.0850 36 20.1667 0.6094 72 0.309 0.5803a 11. Integration 38 20.9474 1.9857 36 20.8611 1.2684 72 0.048 0.8271a 12. Superior Orientation 38 38.3684 5.3445 36 40.4444 3.2111 72 4.046 0.0480b ^o significant difference. Significant difference. 96 school districts were contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents from Class C school districts. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class B schools and the superintendents from Class C and Class D schools. For contrast number one, an analysis of the data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences at the .05 level of significance in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior between the superintendents from Class B school districts and the superintendents from Class C school districts. The findings suggest, however, that the "F" Statistic Scores for six (6) of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior were notably higher. These were: a. Representation b. Initiation of Structure c. Consideration d. Production Emphasis e. Integration f. Superior Orientation In all six instances, the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class C school districts were higher than the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class B school districts (Table 4.26). In contrast number two, the mean scores of the superintendents from Class B school districts were contrasted with the mean scores Table 4.2 7.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class B and Class C Superintendents On the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Class B Leadership Dimension(s) Class C N Mean SD N Mean SD F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic DF 1. Representation 45 20.5333 1.0574 59 20.8813 1.6409 102 1.538 0.21773 2. Demand Reconciliation 45 15.0667 1.9702 59 15.1695 2.0524 102 0.066 0.7975a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 45 36.3111 2.6356 59 36.6441 2.3398 102 0.456 0.5011a 4. Persuasiveness 45 38.6889 1.8068 59 38.9322 2.0074 102 0.404 0.5265a 5. Initiation of Structure 45 41.4444 2.2918 59 42.1695 2.4294 102 2.389 0.1253a 6. Tolerance of Freedom 45 39.3333 2.0000 59 39.4237 2.5944 102 0.035 0.8529a 7. Role Assumption 45 29.8222 4.2227 59 29.9661 4.2058 102 0.030 0.8625a 8. Consideration 45 36.4889 2.0519 59 37.0508 2.8249 102 1.272 0.2620a 9. Production Emphasis 45 37.5111 2.9125 59 38.3051 3.7290 102 1.393 0.2407a 10. Predictive Accuracy 45 20.2444 0.7433 59 20.4407 1.1488 102 0.999 0.3199a 11. Integration 45 20.5333 1.0996 59 21.0339 1.8001 102 2.699 0.1035a 12. Superior Orientation 45 38.2889 5.4881 59 39.6102 3.7921 102 2.106 0.1498a ^o significant difference. 98 of the superintendents from Class D school districts. An analysis of the data indicated a statistically significant difference at the .05 level in two (2) of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior. These were: a. Consideration b. Superior Orientation In both instances, the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class D school districts were higher than the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class B school districts. In addition, the findings suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores in four (4) of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior were notably higher. These were: a. Representation b. Persuasiveness c. Production Emphasis d. Integration In all four cases, the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class D school districts exceeded the mean scores of the superinten­ dents from the Class B school districts (Table 4.27). Hypothesis 6 In Hypothesis 6, the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class C school districts were contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class D school districts. sis was: The null hypothe­ Table 4.2 8.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class B and Class D Superintendents on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Class B Leadership Dimension(s) Class D N Mean SD N Mean SD DF F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic 1. Representation 45 20.5333 1.0574 36 20.8889 1.0631 79 2.261 0.13673 2. Demand Reconciliation 45 15.0667 1.9702 36 15.0278 1.9783 79 0.008 0.9294a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 45 36.3111 2.6356 36 36.1944 3.7019 79 0.028 0.8666a 4. Persuasiveness 45 38.6889 1.8068 36 39.2222 1.6752 79 1.862 0.1763a 5. Initiation of Structure 45 41.4444 2.2918 36 42.0000 3.1713 79 0.842 0.36173 6. Tolerance of Freedom 45 39.3333 2.0000 36 39.2222 2.5311 79 0.054 0.8167a 7. Role Assumption 45 29.8222 4.2227 36 29.6667 4.3293 79 0.026 0.8715a 8. Consideration 45 36.4889 2.0519 36 37.7500 2.4770 79 6.281 0.0143b 9. Production Emphasis 45 37.5111 2.9125 36 38.4444 2.9320 79 2.044 0.15683 10. Predictive Accuracy 45 20.2444 0.7433 36 20.1667 0.6094 79 0.239 0.62663 11. Integration 45 20.5333 1.0996 36 20.8611 1.2684 79 1.552 0.21653 12. Superior Orientation 45 38.2889 5.4881 36 40.4444 3.2111 79 4.355 0.0401b ^o significant difference. ^Significant difference. 100 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII between the superintendents from Class C schools and the superintendents from Class D schools. An analysis of the data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences at the .05 level in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior between the superintendents from the Class C school districts and the superintendents from the Class D school districts. The findings suggest that the "F" Statistic Scores in three (3) of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior were notably higher. These were: a. Consideration b. Predictive Accuracy c. Superior Orientation The mean scores of the superintendents for the Class D school districts were higher in the dimensions of Consideration and Superior Orientation than the mean scores of the superintendents from the Class C school districts. The Class C superintendents had a higher mean score in the Predictive Accuracy dimension of leadership behavior (Table 4.28). Summary The six hypotheses proposed in Chapter I of this study were analyzed in Chapter IV. These hypotheses will now be restated in question form for simplicity and greater clarity and will be addressed on the basis of the data analyzed during the course of this study. Table 4.29.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Class C and Class D Superintendents on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII. Class C Leadership Dimension(s) Class D N Mean SD N Mean SD DF F Statistic Significance Probability of F Statistic Representation 59 20.8813 1.6409 36 20.889 1.0631 93 0.003 0.9531a 2. Demand Reconciliation 59 15.1695 2.0524 36 15.0278 1.9783 93 0.109 0.7416a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty 59 36.6441 2.3398 36 36.1944 3.7019 93 0.527 0.4697a 4. Persuasiveness 59 38.9322 2.0074 36 39.2222 1.6752 93 0.521 0.4721s 5. Initiation of Structure 59 42.1695 2.4294 36 42.0000 3.1713 93 0.086 0.76963 6. Tolerance of Freedom 59 39.4237 2.5944 36 39.2222 2.5311 93 0.134 0.7151a 7. Role Assumption 59 29.9661 4.2058 36 29.6667 4.3293 93 0.110 0.7412a 8. Consideration 59 37.0508 2.8249 36 37.7500 2.4770 93 1.503 0.2233a 9. Production Emphasis 59 38.3051 3.7291 36 38.4444 2.9320 93 0.041 0.8404a 10. Predictive Accuracy 59 20.4407 1.1488 36 20.1667 0.6094 93 1.739 0.1905s 11. Integration 59 21.0339 1.8001 36 20.8611 1.2684 93 0.252 0.6170s 12. Superior Orientation 59 39.6102 3.7921 36 40.4444 3.2111 93 1.211 0.2740s ^o significant difference. 101 1. 102 Hypothesis 1 This hypothesis sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior between the oldest and the youngest superintendents? To answer this question, the oldest superintendents were those between the ages of fifty-five (55) and sixty-six (66). The ages of the youngest superintendents were set between the ages of thirty-two (32) and forty (40). Both limits were set one standard deviation above and below the mean ages of all superintendents participating in this study. The youngest superintendents had a significantly (at the level .05) higher mean score in the dimension of Superior Orientation. This group of superintendents also had a higher "F" Statistic Score in the dimension of Predictive Accuracy. The oldest superintendents had higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Tolerance of Uncertainty, Persuasiveness, Tolerance of Freedom and Role Assumption. Hypothesis 2 This hypothesis sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior between the superintendents who possess a doctorate and those superintendents who do not possess a doctorate? The superintendents without the doctorate had significantly (at the .05 level) higher mean scores in the dimensions of Role Assumption and Production Emphasis. These superintendents also had 103 higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Demand Reconciliation and Tolerance of Uncertainty. Hypothesis 3 This hypothesis sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the super­ intendents with the shortest tenure in position? To answer this question, the longest tenure limit was set as seventeen (17) or more years in the position while the shortest tenure in position was set at three (3) years or fewer. In both instances, the limits were set one standard deviation away from the mean in either direction. The superintendents with the shortest tenure in position had a significantly (at the .05 level) higher mean score in the dimension of Superior Orientation. This group of superintendents also had higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Initiation of Structure and Production Emphasis. Hypothesis 4 This hypothesis sought a response to the following three questions: 1. Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior of superintendents from Class A and Class B school districts? 2. Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior of superintendents from Class A and Class C school districts? 104 3. Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior of superintendents from Class A and Class D school districts? In answer to Question 1, no statistically significant differences were found between superintendents from Class A and Class B school districts in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of self-perceived leadership behavior. The superintendents from Class A school districts, however, exhibited higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Representa­ tion, Persuasiveness, and Integration. In answer to Question 2, no statistically significant differ­ ences were found between superintendents from Class A and Class C school districts in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of self-perceived leadership behavior. The superintendents from Class C school districts, however, exhibited a higher "F" Statistic Score in the dimension of Superior Orientation. In answer to Question 3, a statistically significant (at the .05 level) difference was found in the dimension of Superior Orientation for the superintendents from Class D school districts. These super­ intendents also had a higher "F" Statistic Score in the dimension of C ons id erat ion. Hypothesis 5 This hypothesis sought a response to the following two questions: 1. Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior of superintendents from Class B and Class D school districts? 105 2. Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior of superintendents from Class B and Class D school districts? In answer to Question 1, no significant differences (at the .05 level) were found between the superintendents from Class B and Class C school districts in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of self­ perceived leadership behavior. The superintendents from the Class C school districts, however, had higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Representation, Initiation of Structure, Consideration, Production Emphasis, I n t e g r a ­ tion, and Superior Orientation. In answer to Question 2, a statistically significant difference (at the .05 level) was found in the dimensions of Consideration and Superior Orientation between the superintendents from Class B and Class D school districts. The superintendents from the Class D school districts had significantly higher mean scores in both dimensions. The Class D superintendents also had higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Representation, Persuasiveness, Production Emphasis, and Integration. Hypothesis 6 This hypothesis sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in the self-perceived leadership behavior between the superintendents from Class C and Class D school districts? An analysis of the data revealed that there were no statisti­ cally significant (at the .05 level) differences in any of the twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior between the two groups of 106 superintendents. The superintendents from the Class D school districts, however, had higher "F" Statistic Scores in the dimensions of Con­ sideration and Superior Orientation. The Class C superintendents exhibited a higher "F" Statistic Score in the dimension of Predictive Accuracy. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The primary purpose of this research study was to identify the differences, if any, in the self-perceived leadership behavior of a representative sample of Michigan public school superintendents in each of the four Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) size designations. These are Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D. In total, 178 or 33.6 percent of all the public school superintendents in the state responded to this survey. The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII and a Personal Data Sheet were the instruments that were used to collect the data. The LBDQ is a 100 item Likert Scale instrument that was designed to measure twelve (12) dimensions of leadership behavior. Preceeding chapters traced the development, validation, and subsequent use of the instrument in several related studies. The Personal Data Sheet constructed by this researcher, was used to collect up to thirty (30) pieces of demographic information about each of the respondents and their respective school districts. This information is reported in the first section of the preceeding chapter. We must underscore, that the entire study was based upon 107 108 self-reported descriptions of leadership behavior by the super­ intendents. The results, therefore, are highly dependent upon the feelings and the moods of the respondents at the time and on the date that they provided the data. The basic hypothesis of this study was that there will be no significant differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior of the participating superintendents in Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D school districts according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in size and complexity of school district served. This basic hypothesis served as the basis for the formulation of six specific null hypotheses. The results of each are reported in this section. The minimum alpha level for the rejection of each of the null hypotheses was established at .05. Findings Hypothesis 1 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the oldest and the youngest superintendendents in Michigan. The test of this hypothesis was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 85 and 86). The statistical test resulted in the rejection of this hypothesis because a statistically significant difference was found in one of the dimensions of leadership behavior. This 109 is illustrated in Table 5.1. The findings in Hypothesis 1 are not congruent with the findings by Rawlings (70) with respect to the variable of age. Table 5.1.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between the Oldest and the Youngest Superintendents in Michigan. Leadership Dimension(s) Oldest Superintendents Ages 55 to 66 n = 28 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty a 4. Persuasiveness a 6. Tolerance of Freedom a 7. Role Assumption a Youngest Superintendents Ages 32 to 40 n = 31 10. Predictive Accuracy a 12. Superior Orientation b £ Equals Higher F Score. ^Equals Statistically Significance Difference. Hypothesis 2 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the superintendents who possess a doctorate and those superintendents who do not possess the doctorate. 110 The test of this hypothesis was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 87-88). The statistical test resulted in the rejection of this hypothesis because a statistically significant difference was found in two dimensions of leadership behavior. This differ­ ence is illustrated in Table 5.2. Table 5.2.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between the Superintendents With Doctorate Degrees and the Super­ intendents Without the Doctorate. Leadership Dimension(s) Doctorate n = 54 Non-Doctorate n = 123 2. Demand Reconciliation a 3. Tolerance of Uncertainty a 7. Role Assumption b 9. Production Emphasis b Equals Higher F Score. ^Equals Statistically Significant Difference. Hypothesis 3 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the super­ intendents with the shortest tenure in position. Ill The test of this hypothesis was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 89-90). The statistical test resulted in the rejection of this hypothesis because a statistically significant difference was found in one of the dimensions of leadership behavior. This is illustrated in Table 5.3. Table 5.3.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between the Superintendents With the Longest Tenure In Position and the Superintendents With the Shortest Tenure In Position. Leadership Dimension(s) Shortest Tenure (1 to 3 years) n = 61 Longest Tenure (17'to 36.years) n = 14 5. Initiation of Structure a 9. Production Emphasis a Superior Orientation b 12. E q u a l s Higher F Score. ^Equals Statistically Significant Difference. The findings are not congruent with an earlier study by Rawlings (70) on this variable. Hypothesis 4 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the 112 superintendents from Class A schools and the superintendents from Class B, Class C, and Class D schools. Three separate tests were required for this hypothesis. Contrast 1: Class A v Class B Contrast 2: Class A v Class C Contrast 3: Class A v Class D The test for Contrast 1 ofthis (pp. 91-92). hypothesis was reported in Chapter IV The statistical test resulted in the acceptance of this portion of the hypothesis. There were no significant differ­ ences in any of the dimensions of leadership behavior. Table 5.4 illustrates the F Score differences. Table 5.4.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class A and Class B Superintendents. Leadership Dimensions(s) Class A Superintendents n = 38 1. Representation a 4. Persuasiveness a Integration a 11. Class B Superintendents n = 45 cl Equals Higher F score. ^Statistically Significant Difference. The test for Contrast 2 was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 91, 93-94). The statistical test resulted in the acceptance of his 113 portion of the hypothesis because there were no statistically significant differences in any of the dimensions of leadership behavior. Table 5.5 below illustrates the F score differences. Table 5.5.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class A and Class C Superintendents. Leadership Dimension(s) 12. Class A Superintendents n = 38 Class C Superintendents n = 59 Superior Orientation a E q u a l s Higher F score. ^Equals Statistically Significant Difference. The test for Contrast 3 was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 93, 95). The statistical test resulted in the rejection of the hypothe­ sis because a statistically significant difference was found in one of the dimensions of leadership behavior. This is illustrated in Table 5.6. Hypothesis 5 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the superintendents from Class B and the superintendents from Class C, and Class D schools. 114 Table 5.6.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class A and Class D Superintendents. Leadership Dimension(s) 8. 12. Class A Superintendents n = 38 Class D Superintendents n = 36 Consideration a Superior Orientation b Equals higher F score. ^Statistically Significant Difference. Two separate tests were required for this hypothesis: Contrast 1: Class B v Class C Contrast 2: Class B v Class D The test for Contrast 1 of this hypothesis was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 93, 96-97). The statistical test resulted in the acceptance of this portion of the hypothesis because there were no statistically significant differences in any of the dimensions of leadership behavior. Table 5.7 illustrates the F scoredifferences. The test for Contrast 2 of this hypothesis was reported in Chapter VI (pp. 96, 98-99). The statistical test resulted in the rejection of this portion of the hypothesis because a statistically significant difference was found in two dimensions of leadership behavior. Table 5.8 illustrates these differences. 115 Table 5.7.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class B and Class C Superintendents. Leadership Dimension(s) Class B Superintendents n = 45 Class C Superintendents n = 59 1. Representation a 5. Initiation of Structure a 8. Consideration a 9. Production Emphasis a 11. Integration a 12. Superior Orientation a a Equals higher F score. ^Equals Statistically Significant Difference. Hypothesis 6 There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII between the superintendents from Class C schools and the superintendents from Class D schools. The test for this hypothesis was reported in Chapter IV (pp. 98, 100-101). The statistical test resulted in the acceptance of the hypothesis because there were no statistically significant 116 Table 5.8.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class B and Class D Superintendents. Leadership Dimension(s) Class B Superintendents n = 45 Class D Superintendents n = 36 1. Representation a 4. Persuasiveness a 8. Consideration b 9. Production Emphasis a 11. Integration a 12. Superior Orientation b cl Equals higher F score. ^Equals Statistically Significant Differences. differences in and of the dimensions of leadership behavior. Table 5.9 illustrates the differences in the F scores. Discussion Five of the six hypotheses that were proposed in Chapter I were rejected as the result of the statistical procedure that was applied. There were significant differences at the .05 statistical level normally accepted in social research. The findings yielded significant differences in one or two dimensions of leadership behavior in each of the first five hypotheses presented. Despite 117 Table 5.9.— Summary of the Self-Perceived Differences Between Class C and Class D Superintendents. Leadership Dimension(s) 8. Class C Superintendents n = 59 Class D Superintendents n = 36 Consideration 10. Predictive Accuracy 12. Superior Orientation a a a E q u a l s higher F score. Equals Statistically Significant Difference. this evidence, there is not a very strong case one way or the other that very sharp differences exist in the self-perceptions among the superintendents as a total group in most of the variables studied. The most striking feature of the scores as these were presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.9 is the minute order of the differences between the scores of the superintendents from the larger school districts (Classes A and B) when these were compared with one another or the superintendents (Classes C and D) whenever they were compared with one another, whatever the direction. The differences that occurred were between the superintendents from the large school districts (Classes A and B) when compared to the superintendents from the Class D school districts. 118 The study of leadership behavior is more complicated than it appears on the surface. The demographic data that was presented in the preceeding chapter illustrates that discernable differences exist in the development and the preparation of the superintendents from the larger school districts and the superintendents from the Class D school districts. For instance, the data indicate that two-thirds of the superintendents from the Class A school districts had earned the doctorate degree. This compares to fewer than 7 percent of the superintendents of the Class D school districts who had earned this degree. Another prime example of the differences in their develop­ ment, as suggested by the information presented in the preceeding chapter, is that the superintendents from the larger school districts had accrued more extensive administrative experiences prior to their accession to the superintendency. Given this evidence, one might normally expect, in the absence of more pretentious theory, that the superintendents from the larger school districts and the superintendents with the most experience as indicated by longer tenure in the position of super­ intendent would manifest greater leadership competence and hence, score higher on the LBDQ than those superintendents in the Class D school districts. To the contrary, this study yielded some unanticipated results in the direction of the youngest superintendents, the super­ intendents without the doctorate degree, the superintendents with the least tenure in the position of superintendent, and the superintendents 119 from the Class D school districts. In all instances, direction of causality was inferred due to a statistically higher mean score in the leadership behavior dimensions that were isolated. Conclusions Based upon the analysis of the data, the following conclusions were reached: 1. The youngest superintendents scored higher than their older counterparts in the leadership behavior dimension of Superior Orientation. 2. The superintendents without the doctorate degree scored higher in the leadership behavior dimensions of Role Assumption and Production Emphasis than their counter­ parts who had earned the doctorate degree. 3. The superintendents with the shortest tenure in the position of superintendent scored higher in the leader­ ship behavior dimension of Superior Orientation than their counterparts with the longest tenure in position. 4. There were no differences in any of the twelve dimensions of leadership behavior between the superintendents from the Class A school districts and the superintendents from the Class B school districts. 5. There were no differences in any of the twelve dimensions of leadership behavior between the superintendents from the Class A school districts and the Class C school districts. the superintendents from 120 6. The superintendents from the Class A school districts scored lower in the leadership behavior dimension of Superior Orientation than the superintendents from the Class D school districts. 7. There were no differences in any of the twelve dimensions of leadership behavior between the superintendents from the Class B school districts and the superintendents from the Class C school districts. 8. The superintendents from the Class B school districts scored lower in the leadership behavior dimension of Superior Orientation than the superintendents from the Class D school districts. 9. There were no differences in any of the twelve dimension of leadership behavior between the superintendents from the Class C school districts and the superintendents from the Class D school districts. Recommendations This study isolated the differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior of one-third of the public school superintendents in the state according to the variables of age, level of education, tenure in position, and in the size and complexity of school district served. As the result of this research, it became evident to this researcher that the superintendency can be benefited by further study based upon the findings of this research. areas for further study: The following are suggested 121 1. Several questions may be raised as the result of this study. It is recommended that studies be conducted to answer these questions: a. Do the youngest superintendents in the state place greater emphasis on superintendent/school board relations than the oldest superintendents in the state? b. Do the superintendents from the Class D school districts place greater emphasis on superintendent/school board relations than the superintendents from the larger school districts? c. Do the superintendents with the shortest tenure in the position of superintendents place greater emphasis on superintendent/school board relations than the super­ intendents with the longest tenure in position? d. Do the superintendents from the larger school districts (who may not have direct day-to-day contact with most of the staff in their districts) score lower on the dimension of Role Assumption because they delegate certain responsibilities to central support staff, i.e., directors and assistant superintendents? e. Do the superintendents from the larger school districts who share the responsibility for producing organiza­ tional results with central support staff, i.e., directors and assist superintendents score lower on the dimension of Production Emphasis than the superintendents from the smaller school districts who do not have central support staffs? Some of the findings of this study were contrary to the findings of an earlier study by Rawlings in 1970. It is recommended that further studies be conducted based upon these differences. University departments of educational administration are primarily responsible for developing curricula for school administrators. It is recommended that courses be developed to address the area of superintendent/ school board relations for older and more experienced superintendents. Intermediate school districts, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan Association of School Boards, to name a few, provide inservice programs to school superintendents. It is recommended that they provide additional inservice programs that are designed to strengthen superintendent/school board relations. The politics of becoming a superintendent and maintaining the superintendency require different sets of leadership skills. It is recommended that university departments of educational administration develop courses which teach the necessary leadership skills that will enable a person to seek and maintain the superintendency. 123 6. University placement offices, the Michigan Association of School Boards and/or outside consultants assist local boards of education in identifying the leadership characteristics that they find necessary for the operation of their school districts. It is recommended that the findings of this study be shared with local boards of education that are conducting superintendent searches. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Bureau of School Services. The University of Michigan Accredited Schools, 1974-1975. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1974. Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Butts, R. F. and Cremin, L. A. A History of Education in American Culture. New York: Holt-Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1963. Christen, C. A. and Hemphill, J. R. "Leader Behavior of B-20 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members' Attitudes Toward the Crew." Sociometry, 1955. Commission of Secondary Schools. Policies and Standards for Approval of Secondary Schools, 1973-74. Chicago: North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1973. Day, D. R. "Basic Dimensions of Leadership in a Selected Organization." Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State Library, 1961. Disbrow, Donald W. School for an Urban Society. Historical Commission, 1968. Lansing: Michigan Dwoky, Diane. "Burden of the Seventies: The Management of Decline." Kappan, Vol. 61, No. 2 (October 1979). Educational Funding Research Council. No. 49 (December 20, 1983). Education Funding News, Vol. 13, Fleishman, E. A. "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry." Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Gillard, Thomas M. The Origin and Development of the Power and Duties of the City School Superintendent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935. Glass, Gene V. and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1970. 124 125 Goldberg, Milton and Harvey, James. "A Nation at Risk: The Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education." Kappan, Vol. 65, No. 1 (September 1983). Griffiths, Daniel E. The School Superintendent. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education Inc., 1966. Halpin, A. W. and Winer, B. J. "A Factorial Study of Leader Behavior Description." Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. Haplin, Andrew. "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Edu­ cational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders." Harvard Edu­ cational Review, XXV (Winter 1955). ________ . Theory and Research in Administration. Co., 1971. New York: The McMillan ________ . The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents. Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1956. Handbook of Michigan High School Athletic Association for Middle, Junior High and High Schools. Hazard, William R. Education and the Lav;: Cases and Materials on Public Schools. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Hunt, Herold C. "The Superintendency: School Administration is Being Recognized by the Public as a Full-Fledged Profession: Upgrading Must Continue." The Nations Schools, Vol. 51, No. 1 (January 1953). Jenson, Theodore J. Educational Administration. Education, Inc., 1964. The Applied Research in Knezevich, Steven J. Administration of Public Education. Harper & Row Publishers, 1962. New York: Lieberman, Myron. "Eggs That I Have Laid: Teacher Bargaining Reconsidered," Kappan, Vol. 60, No. 6 (February 1979). Marder, E. "Leader Behavior as Perceived by Subordinates as a Function of Organization Level." Masters thesis, The Ohio State University Library, 1961. Michigan Department of Education Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Lansing: 1880. Lansing: 1862. 126 1981 MichiganEducation Directory and Buyer's Guide. Education Directory, Inc. Michigan, General School Laws (1976). Lansing: Michigan School Code of 1955. Ordoversky, Pat. "Bell Praises School Reform." May 11, 1984. Lansing State Journal, Petrullo, Luige. Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior. Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. New York: Holt, Rawlings, Joseph Stanley. "A Comparative Study of the Self-Perceived Leadership Behavior of Public School Superintendents and Chamber of Commerce Executives." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Reaves, William C. Educational Administration. Education Inc., 1964. The Applied Research in Schug, Victor Lewis. "A Study of Perceptions of the Leader Behavior of the School Superintendent in Selected Michigan School Districts with the Use of LBDQ." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Shartle, C. L. "Introduction." In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. ________ . Executive Performance and Leadership. Prentice Hall, 1956. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Sprattling, Cassandra. "Governor Blanchard's Plans for Michigan Schools." Detroit Free Press, December 30, 1983. Starring, Charles R. and Knauss, James 0. The Michigan Search for Edu­ cational Standards. Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1969. Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. Oxford University Press, 1959. New York: ________ . "Manual for the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire Form XII." An Experimental Revision. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration. The Ohio State University, 1963. ________ , Goode, 0. S., and Day, D. R. "New Leader Behavior Description Subscale." The Journal of Psychology LIV (October 1962). , Goode, 0. S . , and Day. D. R. "The Leader Behavior of the United States Senators." The Journal of Psychology LIV (July, 1963). 127 Stogdill, R. M . , Goode, 0. S., and Day, D. R. "The Leader Behavior of Corporation." Personnel Psychology XVI (Summer 1963). Stoops, Emory, Rafferty, Max, and Johnson, Russell E. Handbook of Educational Administration: A Guide for the Practitioner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS APPENDIX A LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT 500 W. Lenawee Street Lansing, Michigan 48933 March 20, 1982 Dear Colleague in Educational Administration: I would be most appreciative, if you would take a few minutes from your busy schedule to complete the enclosed Data Sheet and Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Please be assured that the information that you provide will be treated with high confidentiality and will be used only for my doctoral study. Essentially, my study will examine the differences, if any, in the "self-perceived" leadership behavior of Michigan public school superintendents differentiating among the variables contained in the Data Sheet and among the twelve (.12) dimensions of leadership behavior that were validated during the development of the questionnaire. For your convenience, a stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed. If at all possible, please return these on/or before April 20, 1982. With best wishes, I am Sincerely yours, Melvin M. Villarreal Assistant in Curriculum, Planning & Staff Development MMV Enclosures 128 APPENDIX B PERSONAL DATA SHEET APPENDIX B PERSONAL DATA SHEET CODE: SEX: __________________ □ M ale □ AGE: Fem ale H IG H E S T ED U C A TIO N A L LEVEL ATTAINED: G raduate Preparation □ Doctorate ° Specialist □ M asters + 30 □ M asters Degree M ajor □ Bachelors D egree M inor M ajor M inor U ndergraduate Preparation YEARS O F EXPER IEN C E AS A PUB LIC S C H O O L S U P E R IN TE N D E N T : _____________ LE N G TH O F T IM E IN PRESE N T PO S IT IO N AS SU P E R IN TE N D E N T : _______________ A D M IN IS T R A T IV E P O S IT IO N S HELD D U R IN G CAREER (Coordinator & above): ( 1)_______________________________ Yrs. (5)_____________________________ Yrs. (2) Yrs. (6) Yrs. (3) Yrs. (7) Yrs. (4) Yrs. (8) Yrs. (M ore than eight use back side) ____________________ N U M B E R O F STU D EN TS IN YOUR S C H O O L DISTRICT: ____________________ S IZE O F YO UR C IT Y /T O W N S H IP /V IL LA G E , A N D T H E LIKE (Approxim ate): TYPE O F S C H O O L DISTRICT: □ Urban □ Suburban □ Rural S C H O O L D IS T R IC T C L A S S IF IC A T IO N (Athletic): □ a □ □ b c □ d IN S T R U C TIO N S FOR C O M P L E T IN G Q U ESTIO N N A IR E: Please describe your own leadership behavior as you perceive it on the questionnaire by sim ply substituting (I) for (He) when marking your response. 10-24-81 m m v 129 APPENDIX C LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIREFORM XII APPENDIX C LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE— Form XII Originated by Staff members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies and Revised by the Bureau of Business Research Purpose o f the Questionnaire On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the behavior of your supervisor. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express differences that are important in the description of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate descrip­ tion. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only pur­ pose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior of your supervisor. Note: the term, “group, ” as employed in the following items, refers to a depart­ ment, division, or other unit o f organization that is supervised by the person being described. The term “members”, refers to all the people in the unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. Published by B u re a u of B u s i n e s s R e s e a rc h C ollege of C o m m e r c e a n d A dm inistration T h e O hio S t a te University C o lu m b u s, Ohio 130 Copyright 1962 131 DIRECTIONS: a. READ each item carefully. b. THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior described by the item. c. DECIDE whether he (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally, (D) seldom or (E) never acts as described by the item. d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A B C D E) following the item to show the answer you hase selected. A — Always B — Often e. C — Occasionally D — Seldom E — Never MARK your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: He often acts as described........................................................................................... A ( b) C D E Example: He never acts as described ......................................................................................... A B C D (e) Example: He occasionally acts as described............................................................................... A B (c ) D E A B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E ★ ★ ★ ★ 1. He acts as the spokesman o f the g ro u p ................................................................................. 2. He waits patiently for the results of a decision ............................................................... A 3. He makes pep talks to stimulate the g roup ........................................................................ A 4. He lets group members know what is expected of th e m ................................................... 5. He allows the members complete freedom in their w o r k .............................................. 6. He is hesitant about taking initiative in the g ro u p .............................................................. A A A B C D E B C D E 7. He is friendly and a p p ro ac h ab le ........................................................................................... A B C D E 8. He encourages overtime w o rk ................................................................................................ A B C D E E 9. He makes accurate decisions.................................................................................................. A B C D 10. He gets along well with the people above h i m .................................................................... A B C D E 11. He publicizes the activities o f the g ro u p ............................................................................... A B C D E 12. He becomes anxious when he cannot find out what is coming next .............................. A B C D E 13. His arguments are convincing................................................................................................ A B C D E 14. He encourages the use of uniform procedures.................................................................... A B C D E 15. He permits the members to use their own judgment in solving p roblem s...................... A B C D E 16. He fails to take necessary a c tio n ........................................................................................... A B C D E 17. He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member o f the g r o u p .......................... A B C D E 18. He stresses being ahead of competing g ro u p s .................................................................... A B C D E 19. He keeps the group working together as a team ................................................................ A B C D E 20. He keeps the group in good standing with higher a uthority............................................. A B C D E 21. He speaks as the representative of the g ro u p ...................................................................... A B C D E 22. He accepts defeat in stride A B C D E ................................................................................................. 23. He argues persuasively for his point of v ie w ...................................................................... A B C D E 24. He tries out his ideas in the g r o u p ......................................................................................... A B C D E 25. He encourages initiative in the group m em bers.................................................................. A B C D E 26. He lets other persons take away his leadership in the g roup............................................. A B C D E 27. He puts suggestions made by the group into operation ................................................... A B C D E 132 A — Always B — Often C — Occasionally D — Seldom E — Never 28. He needles members for greater e f f o r t........................................................................ . . . A B C D E 29. He seems to predict what is coming next .................................................................... . . . A B C D E ... A B C D E 31. He speaks for the group when visitors are present ................................................... . . . A B C D E 32. He accepts delays without becoming upset ............................................................... A B C D E 33. He is a very persuasive ta lk e r......................................................................................... . . . A B C D E 34. He makes his attitudes clear to the g ro u p ....................................................................... . . A B C D E 35. He lets the members do their work the way they think b e s t ....................................... .. A B C D E 36. He lets some members take advantage of h im ............................................................. . . A B C D E 37. He treats all group members as his e q u a ls ................................................................... . . . A B C D E 30. He is working hard for a p ro m o tio n .................................................................. 38. He keeps the work moving at a rapid p a c e .................................................................... A B C D E 39. He settles conflicts when they occur in the g r o u p ....................................................... A B C D E 40. His superiors act favorably on most o f his suggestions ............................................ A B C D E 41. He represents the group at outside m e e tin g s............................................................... A B C D E 42. He becomes anxious when waiting for new developm ents........................................ .. A B C D E 43. He is very skillful in an a rg u m e n t................................................................................... A B C D E 44. He decides w hat shall be done and how it shall be d o n e ............................................ A B C D E 45. He assigns a task, then lets the members handle it ..................................................... A B C D E 46. He is the leader of the group in name o n ly .................................................................... A B C D E 47. He gives advance notice o f changes .............................................................................. A B C D E 48. He pushes for increased p ro d u c tio n .......................................................................... A B C D E 49. Things usually turn out as he predicts............................................................................ . . A B C D E 50. He enjoys the privileges of his position ........................................................................ A B C D E 51. He handles complex problems efficiently...................................................................... A B C D E 52. He is able to tolerate postponement and u n c e rta in ty ................................................. A B C D E 53. He is not a very convincing ta lk e r.................................................................................. A B C D E 54. He assigns group members to particular ta s k s............................................................. A B D E 55. He turns the members loose on a job, and lets them go to it .................................... A B D E 56. He backs down when he ought to stand firm ............................................................... . . A B D E 57. He keeps to him self............................................................................................................ A B c c c c c c c c c c c c D E D E D E 58. He asks the members to work h a r d e r ............................................................................ A B 59. He is accurate in predicting the trend of e v en ts........................................................... A B 60. He gets his superiors to act for the welfare o f the group m e m b e rs......................... A B 61. He gets swamped by d e ta ils............................................................................................. A B 62. He can wait just so long, then blows u p ........................................................................ .. A B 63. He speaks from a strong inner c o n v ic tio n ................................................................... A B 64. He makes sure that his part in the group is understood by the group members A B 65. He is reluctant to allow the members any freedom o f a c tio n ...................................... . A B D E D E D E D E D E D E 133 A — Always B — Ofien C — Occasionally D — Seldom E — Never A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E E A B C D A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E E A B C D A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E A B c D E E E A B c D A B c D APPENDIX D STATEMENT OF POLICY APPENDIX D S TATEMENT OF POLICY Concerning the Leader B e h avior Descriptio n Questionna ire and Related Forms Permission is granted w i t h o u t formal request to use the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and other forms developed at the Ohio State University, subject to the following conditions: 1. u s e : The forms m a y be used in research projects. They may not be used for promotional activities or for producing income on behalf o f individuals or organizati ons other than the Ohio State University. 2. Adaptation and R e v i s i o n : The directions and the form of the items may be adapted to specific situations when such steps are consid e r e d desirable. 3. P u p ! i c a t i o n : Sufficient copies for a specific research project may be duplicated. 4. Inclusion in d i s s e r t a t i o n s : Copies o f the questionna ire may be included in theses and dissertations. Permission is granted for the duplicatio n of such dissertati ons when filed with the U niversity Microfilms Service at Ann Arbor, Michiqan 48106 U.S.A. C o p y r i g h t : In granting permission to m o d i f y or duplicate the questionnaire, we do not s u r r e n d e r our copyright. D u p l i c ­ ated questionna ires and all adaptation s should contain the notation "Copyright, 19--, by the Ohio State University." 6. Inquiries: Communicat ions should be addressed to: College of Admin, Science Support Services The Ohio State University 1775 College Road Columbus, OH 43210 U.S.A. 1979 134