INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI films the text directly from th e original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the
quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these
will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial
had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and w hite photographic p rin t for an additional
charge.
Photographs included in the original m anuscript have
been reproduced xerographically in this copy. H igher
quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U niversity M icrofilm s International
A Bell & H owell Information C o m p a n y
3 0 0 North Z e e b R oad , A nn Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 U SA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0
8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0

Order Number 8912583

A stu dy o f th e decision-m aking styles o f selected M ichigan
superintendents
Higgins, Marianne, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1988

Copyright ©1988 by Higgins, Marianne. All rights reserved.

UMI

300 N. ZccbRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A STUDY OF THE DECISION-MAKING STYLES OF
SELECTED MICHIGAN SUPERINTENDENTS
By
Marianne Higgins

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e Universi ty
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements
f o r the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration
1988

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE DECISION-MAKING STYLES OF
SELECTED MICHIGAN SUPERINTENDENTS
By
Marianne Higgins

The purpose in conducting t h i s study was to determine whether
th e decision-making s t y l e s
s uper inten de nt s

were

superintendents
districts
styles

p r efer r ed

related

to

by s e le c t e d

personal

that

were

characteristics

a n d / o r t o dem ographic f e a t u r e s

in which they were employed.
studied

were

the

Michigan school
of

of the

the

schoo l

The two decision-making

technocratic

style

and

the

p o litical style.
One hundred f i f t y

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s were s e l e c t e d

u n i v e r s e o f 525 K-12 school

d istricts

within

from t h e

M ic higan.

The

r e s e a r c h e r designed a fo rced -c hoice survey t o a s c e r t a i n the types of
decision-making s t y l e s
pilot

study was

survey.

p r e f e r r e d by th e s e l e c t e d

conducted

The r e l i a b i l i t y

to

determine

of the f in a l

the

respondents.

reliab ility

version of

the

of

A
the

survey

approached 80%.
The method used to conduct the survey was telephone interviewUsing t h i s method of c o n ta c t, the response r a t e was 69.33%.

Marianne Higgins
Of the ten null hypotheses posed a t th e beginning of the study,
none could be r e j e c t e d a t th e

.05 level

of s i g n i f i c a n c e .

It

is

recommended t h a t t h i s area of study be f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d using as
a premise the concept o f s i t u a t i o n a l

competence.

The d ecis io n -

making-style p ref er en ce s of s uper inten de nt s appear t o be affe c te d
l e s s by t h e i r personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r
employing d i s t r i c t s than by th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a given s i t u a t i o n
in which they are expected to make a d e c is io n .

Copyright by
MARIANNE HIGGINS
1988

DEDICATION

Dan and Louise Higgins, my p a r e n t s , were instrumental
completion o f t h i s t a s k .

They gave me love, a t h i r s t f o r knowledge,

perseverance, and the luck of the I r i s h .
along the way.

in the

All have been useful to me

My s i s t e r , Jane, has been my co nfidante, my sounding

board, and a s te r n task mas ter, depending on the moment.
My f r i e n d s have helped me through.

They have l i s t e n e d t o me,

commiserated with me about my f a i l u r e s , and shared the joys of my
victories.

Without them beside me,

would not be nearly so sweet.

the completion of t h i s

ta s k

A CK NO W LE D GM EN T S

Clinton County Intermediate School D i s t r i c t granted me a leave
of absence t o complete my work on t h i s p r o j e c t .

I thank th e Board

of Education f o r i t s support.
The Michigan I n s t i t u t e

f o r Educational

Management

provided f in a n c i a l support, as well as c l e r i c a l s e r v i c e s ,
study.

Dave Kahn and Don E l l i o t t

were eager t o

e x p e r t i s e as well as t h e i r r e so u r c e s.

(MIEM)

for this

give of t h e i r

Both were e s s e n t i a l to t h i s

endeavor.
Ned Hubbell from th e Michigan Department of Education guided me
through the maze of telephone survey re se ar ch and procedures.

His

counsel was inva luab le and h is f r ie n d s h ip an added bonus.
Dr. P h i l l i p Runkel s te e r e d me both t o MIEM and t o Ned Hubbell.
I thank him f u r h i s Support afiu auviCe.
My d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, Drs. Rich Block, Diana Pull in , Fred
Ignatovich, and Sam Moore I I , s te e re d me wisely.

Dr. Block agreed

to sign onto t h i s p r o j e c t well a f t e r i t s ince ption and has remained
s u p p o r t i v e th r o u g h

its

com pletion.

Dr.

Ignatovich

patiently

explained and re-ex p lain ed th e mysteries o f s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s for
me.
to

His standards o f p e r f e c t i o n have been goals t o which I learned
aspire.

Dr.

Pull in

coached,

coerced

me when

completion o f t h i s p r o j e c t appeared t o be an i m p o s s i b i l i t y .

She has

v

cajoled,

and

a ls o become a good f r i e n d and my t r u s t e d mentor.
always made the

time t o

hear my ideas ,

Dr. Moore has

share my th oughts,

and

s ti m u l a te me t o broaden my pe r sp e c tiv e when approaching t h i s t a s k .
He has encouraged me p r o f e s s i o n a l l y and p e r so n a lly and given me the
confidence to pursue my g o als.

I thank a l l o f them.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TA BLES.............................................................................................

ix

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

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

1

Statement of the Problem ...................................................
Purpose .........................................................................................
Rationale f o r the S t u d y .......................................................
Hypotheses .................................................................................
Scope and Limitations of the Research ..........................
D e f i n i ti o n s of Key Terms ...................................................
O v e r v i e w .....................................................................................

1
3
3
8
9
9
10

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

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

12

I ntrod uct ion ............................................................................
The oretical Per spec tive o f Educational
Administration ....................................................................
H i s to r i c a l Review o f th e Development of th e
Superintendency ....................................................................
Research on A dmin istrativ e Decision Making . . . .
The Dichotomy of the Supe rin tende nt’ s Role . . . .
The R elationship Between Superintendent Behavior
and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the School Environment . .
Trends f o r the Future of the Superintendency . . .
Summary.........................................................................................

12

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

12
17
23
27
31
34
36

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

37

In tr oducti o n ............................................................................
Focus o f the S t u d y ................................................................
Development o f D es crip to r s ...............................................
Designing the Instrument and Conducting the
P i l o t S t u d y ............................................................................
Method o f Contacting P o te n ti a l P a r t i c i p a n t s . . . .
Sample S e le c tio n ....................................................................
Summary.........................................................................................

37
37
37

vii

38
43
46
49

Page
IV. RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES.................................................

50

In tr oduction ............................................................................
F i n d i n g s .....................................................................................
Summary.........................................................................................

50
50
66

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, REFLECTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY....................................................................

67

Intr oduction ............................................................................
Summary.........................................................................................
L i t e r a t u r e Review ................................................................
Research Design and Methodology ..................................
R e s u l t s .....................................................................................
Summary of F i n d i n g s ................................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s .................................................................................
R e f l e c t i o n s .................................................................................
Suggestions f o r Further Study ...........................................

67
67
68
69
71
71
75
76
77

A. LETTER TO PILOT-STUDY PANEL MEMBERS ....................................

78

B. PILOT-STUDY INSTRUMENT

81

APPENDICES

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

C. FINAL COPY OF THE DECISION-MAKING-STYLE INSTRUMENT

.

86

D. LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS .........................................................

90

E. OPENING STATEMENTS MADE IN PILOT AND FINAL
INTERVIEWS.....................................................................................

91

F.

PERMISSION LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON
RtSEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS ......................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

viii

92
93

LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1

Page
Results o f R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses of the Total
P o l i t i c a l and Technocratic Scales ..................................

40

Guttman Alpha Scores f o r the Low, Moderate, and
High S u b s c a l e s ............................................................................

41

Low-End Des crip tors and Their Ef fect on th e Scale
M e a n .................................................................................................

42

Results of R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses of the Revised
Total P o l i t i c a l and Technocratic Scales ......................

42

Ratio of Number of D i s t r i c t s in Sample t o Number
in Universe, by C l a s s ...........................................................

47

3.6

Response Rate, by D i s t r i c t Class ............................................

48

4.1

Frequencies f o r the Technocratic Scale ...............................

51

4.2

Frequencies f o r the P o l i t i c a l Scale

51

4.3

Technocratic Scale by School D i s t r i c t Enrollment . . .

52

4.4

P o l i t i c a l Scale by School D i s t r i c t Enrollment

53

4. .6
..

Tprhnnrratir
nf •
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sralp hv Nnmhor
*> • »•

3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

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

1“ *

. . . .

6imoy'-iritendsP.r

c ie s H e l d .....................................................................................

54

P o l i t i c a l Scale by Number o f P r io r Superintendencies
H e l d .................................................................................................

54

Technocratic Scale by Number of Years in the
D i s t r i c t .........................................................................................

55

4.8

P o l i t i c a l Scale by Number of Years in the D i s t r i c t . .

56

4.9

Technocratic Scale by Percentage of Nonwhite
E n r o l l m e n t .....................................................................................

57

4.10 P o l i t i c a l Scale by Percentage of Nonwhite Enrollment .

57

4.6
4.7

ix

Technocratic Scale by Number o f Board Member Defeats
Technocratic Scale by Year of Defeat

.

58

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

59

..

59

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

60

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

61

P o l i t i c a l Scale by SEV ................................................................

62

Technocratic Scale by Per Pupil Expenditure

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

63

P o l i t i c a l Scale by Per Pupil Expenditure ..........................

63

Technocratic Scale by Advanced Degree

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

64

P o l i t i c a l Scale by Advanced Degree ......................................

65

Technocratic Scale by Age

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

65

P o l i t i c a l Scale by Age ................................................................

66

P o l i t i c a l Scale by Number o f Board MemberDefeats
P o l i t i c a l Scale by Year of Defeat
Technocratic Scale by SEV

x

C H A PT E R I
INTRODUCTION
Statement o f the Problem
Since

the

early

1980s,

public

schools

have

been

re ce iv in g

increased a t t e n t i o n from the pub lic following a s pate o f national
and s t a t e s t u d i e s , including A Nation a t Risk (National Commission
on

Excellence

Seco nd ar y

in

Education,

E d u c a tio n

in

America

Commission on High Schools
Schools,

1983),

and

1983),

Schools:

most o f t h e

as well

reports,

p r o d u c in g

students

who

mathematics and reading.
directed

to

the

the

Commission

A B luep rin t

1982).

have

on

Michigan
on

for

High

Action

As a r e s u l t o f t h i s

as the g e n e r a l l y c r i t i c a l

schools

accountable t o the p u b l ic .

A Report

19 8 3 ) ,

(Michigan

(Michigan S t a t e Board o f Education,
increased a t t e n t i o n ,

School:

(B oye r,

Report

Michigan

High

been e x p e c t e d

nature of

to

be more

Such a c c o u n t a b i l i t y has most ofte n meant
score

well

on

a c h iev em en t

tests

in

However, heightened emphasis a ls o has been

teaching

of

critical

thinking

sk ills.

R e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r implementing thes e c u r r i c u l a r changes has been
placed on te a c h e r s ,

while t h e i r

classroom performance and t h e i r

perceived s u i t a b i l i t y to teach have been challenged from a l l s id e s .
Concurrently,

school

district

a d m in is tr a t o r s

unstab le revenues and expen ditures .
to education have dwindled,

and,

ar e coping with

Federal funds being a l l o c a t e d
in Michigan,

1

state

support

fo r

2

education has not y e t re tu rn ed to the lev el a t which i t stood before
the

1979

recession.

F u r th e r m o r e ,

although

local

support

of

educational tax l e v i e s has become l e s s r e l i a b l e than in the p a s t , i t
is

to th a t

source of revenue

that

sc hool

d istrict

personnel

in c r e a s i n g ly must turn i f they are to maintain the lev el o f s e rv i c e s
they have t r a d i t i o n a l l y provided and t o i n s t i t u t e new programs.^
At

th e

u n d e r g o in g

same

time,

the

many c h a n g e s .

school

d istrict

Superintendents

superintendency
are

is

evidencing

management s t y l e t h a t i s f r e q u e n t l y des cribed as p o l i t i c a l .

a
The

r o l e of the su per in te nden t as tech n ical ex pert i s being challenged
by the demands f o r

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to

vocal i n t e r e s t groups.

competing

and

in c r e a s in g ly

The l i n k between individual decision-making

behavior and o r g a nizational

a c t io n has been the

s u b je c t o f study

among o r g a nizational t h e o r i s t s f o r many yea rs (Cohen & March, 1973;
Cyert,

1963; March,

th e o rists’ interest

1976; March & Simon,

1958).

Although thes e

has been cen tere d on var ious

aspe cts

o f the

decision-making pr ocess, t h e i r conclusions have supported th e b e l i e f
t h a t how d ecis io n s ar e made does in fl uen ce or g a n iz a ti o n a l a c t i o n s .
To d a te , th e emergence of t h e p o l i t i c a l decision-making s t y l e
in

s up erintende nts

surveys.

has

been

documented p r im a r i ly

in

self-report

L i t t l e re se ar ch has been focused on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the

supe rin tend en t

or

th e

district

in

which

the

s u p e ri nte ndent

is

^In Michigan in 1984, local sources accounted f o r 64% o f a
school d i s t r i c t ’ s general fund revenues. S t a t e school aid accounted
f o r 30%, and o th e r sources, including f edera l funds, accounted f o r
6%.

3
employed

and

the

relationship

of

those

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s decision-making s t y l e .
to the t r a in in g
By i d e n t i f y i n g

variables

to

the

Such re se ar ch is important

o f c u r r e n t and f u t u r e
those

variables

present

school
in

a

adm inistrators.
school

system

or

inher en t in the s upe rinten de nt t h a t a f f e c t de cisio n making, b e t t e r
t r a i n i n g can be provided both a t the postgraduate lev el and through
in s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

I t seems evident t h a t th e more information

t h a t is a v a i l a b l e about how school sup erintend en ts make d e c i s i o n s ,
the b e t t e r one might expect those de ci sio ns t o be.
Purpose
The

researcher’s

purpose

in

conducting

this

study

was

to

determine whether the decision-making s t y l e s p r e f e r r e d by s e le c t e d
Michigan

school

characteristics

superintendents
of the

were

superintendents

related
and/or

to
to

personal

demographic

f e a t u r e s of th e school d i s t r i c t s in which they were employed.
two decision-making s t y l e s
rational

The

t h a t were studied were th e c l a s s i c a l -

s t y l e , r e f e r r e d to her ein as the te c h n o c r a t i c s t y l e ,

and

the p o l i t i c a l s t y l e .
Rationale f o r the Study
Many o f the ex per ts who have w r i t t e n on t r a i n i n g f o r school
adm inistrators
classically

have

rational

advised

that

decisions

manner d e f i n e d

by Simon

be

made

(1945).

in

the
Simon

conceptualized decisio n making as c o n s is ti n g of a s e r i e s o f s t e p s ,
t o be pursued in a p r e c is e or der, which will r e s u l t in a " r a t i o n a l "
d e c i s io n . He defined r a t i o n a l

as "concerned with th e s e l e c t i o n of

4

p r e fe r r e d behavior a l t e r n a t i v e s in terms o f some system o f values
whereby the consequences o f behavior can be evaluated" (p. 75).
The p o p u la r it y

of

Simon’ s model

was

evidenced

Miskel’ s (1982) t e x t on educational a d m in is t r a ti o n .

in

Hoy and

The ch apte r on

dec is ion making i s headed by a quotation from Simon, followed by an
e l a b o r a tio n of his seven -step process, which,

"[when] employed by

thoughtful and s k i l l f u l executives and t h e i r s t a f f s , should lead to
more r a t i o n a l
(1985)
r a t io n a l

used

dec isions"
the

term

(p.

64).

Z e ig l e r ,

"technocrati c"

to

approach to d e cis io n making.

Kehoe,

descri be

and Reisman

th e

classical -

For the purposes o f t h i s

study, th e terms " c l a s s i c a l - r a t i o n a l " and "technocratic"

ar e used

interchangeably because both r e f e r to a decision-making method t h a t
is c h a r a c te r iz e d by a r i g i d , l e s s f l e x i b l e process o r ie n te d toward
the most t e c h n i c a l l y c o r r e c t choice.
Recently,

a growing

number

of

researchers

have

seemed

to

suggest t h a t th e c l a s s i c a l - r a t i o n a l s t y l e o f de cisio n making may not
be th e most e f f e c t i v e f o r school sup erin tenden ts because of changes
in ex pecta tions f o r successful job performance (George, 1971).

They

have described a decision-making process t h a t i s l e s s r i g i d ,

more

i n d i r e c t , more o r ie n te d to compromise, and more responsive to the
d e s ir e s o f o th e r in d iv id u a l s or groups than the c l a s s i c a l - r a t i o n a l
style.

Z e ig le r e t

a l . termed t h i s

the

political

or responsive

approach to de cision making.
James (1982) i d e n t i f i e d four changes in the socia l s e t t i n g of
schools t h a t have r e s u l t e d in a s h i f t

in the job pe rce ptions of

5
s u peri ntendents .

They ar e (a) the m obility of the American family,

(b) the desegregation of schools,
racial

equality

and equal

(c)

educational

th e

increased emphasis on

opportu nity,

democratization in th e membership of school boards.
that

"the

public

to d a y e x p e c t s

less

of

and

(d)

the

James concluded

[superintendents]

as

a u t h o r i t a t i v e p rofe s sion al mentors, and much more o f them as s k i l l e d
p o l i t i c a l n e g o t i a t o r s " (p. 18).

According to James, the change in

pu blic ex pectations can be a t t r i b u t e d to th e evolution of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t c o n s t i t u e n c i e s , with sometimes c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s in the
oper at io ns o f the school d i s t r i c t .
In t h r e e s tu d i e s they conducted on su p e rin te n d e n ts , P i t n e r and
Ogawa (1981) found t h a t s upe rin tend en ts commonly believed they must
ensure t h a t t h e i r s c h o o ls ’ programs and methods o f op er at ion were
c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r communities’ values.
su p e rin te n d e n t’s
communicating

s p e n d in g

w ith

the

a

large

various

This n e c e s s i t a t e d the

share

elements

of

his/her

w ithin

the

environment to as sess t h e i r needs and d e s i r e s .

time
scho ol

Thus, P i t n e r and

Ogawa described the s uper in tenden t as a "mediator" among sometimes
competing fo rc e s .
The p o l i t i c a l or responsive approach i s one t h a t appears t o be
recognized, although with some discomfort, by many s u p erin ten d en ts .
Blumberg (1985) interviewed a number o f su peri ntendents about t h i s
aps ect of t h e i r jobs and quoted one of them as saying:
I t ’ s p o l i t i c a l , highly p o l i t i c a l .
I t ’ s p o l i t i c a l because i t ’ s
a human e n t e r p r i s e .
I do thing s p o l i t i c a l l y , yes .
I am
p o l i t i c a l l y motivated.
More in the sense of t r y i n g to get
ahead of somebody.
Sometimes I say to th e a d m in is tr a t iv e
s t a f f , "I don’t want to be pressured i n to t h i s , and t h e r e f o r e ,

6
l e t ’ s decide now whether i t ’ s a good d i r e c t i o n t o ta k e , and i f
i t ’ s a good d i r e c t i o n , l e t ’ s beat them to the punch, (p. 53)
Although th e p o l i t i c a l or responsive s t y l e of decisio n making may be
unpal at ab le t o some s u p erin ten d en ts , some w r i t e r s have found t h a t i t
i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of s uper inte nd en ts who are perceived by themselves
and o th er s as s u c c e s s fu l.

In t h e i r study o f p o l i t i c s and successor

su p e rin te n d e n ts , Iannaccone and Lutz (1970) concluded,
The l a c k o f a d e q u a t e l e g a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e school
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and p r i v i l e g e s has played a
p a r t in producing th e p r o f e s s i o n ’ s p o l i t i c a l type . He emerges
as th e servant who manipulates his board, s e l e c t s h is masters,
and educates them t o t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , (p. 231)
In o th e r words, a dichotomy e x i s t s between perce ptions o f the
r o l e of th e superintende nt as technic al
politician.

In disc ussin g th e p o l i t i c a l

expert and as consummate
dilemma of th e nonelected

public o f f i c i a l , Blumberg (1985) observed:
[Superintendents] have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r an e n t e r p r i s e to
which some of the most deeply held values in the American
t r a d i t i o n are a t ta ch ed . Superintendents assume t h e i r p o s i t i o n s
as supposed ex p e r ts , y e t they become us ele ss unless they are
able to develop a supp ortive con stitu en cy among th e school
board, community and pr ofe ssion al s t a f f . The o r g anization t h a t
they are t o lead and manage is composed o f people who often
have equal o r more e x p e r t i s e in e d u c a t i o n th a n t h e
su peri nte ndent, (p. 46)
The s uperi ntendent, who has been employed, a t l e a s t in p a r t , because
of h i s / h e r educational

credentials,

f in d s i t necessary to develop

s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s o th e r than those o f the t ech n ical ex pe rt to
manage the school org a n i z a tio n .
Thus, two types of decision-making s t r a t e g i e s have emerged--the
c l a s s i c a l - r a t i o n a l or te c h n o c r a t i c and the p o l i t i c a l
style.

or responsive

Although i t might be argued t h a t one approach has simply

7
evolved from the o th e r

(the

political

might be construed

emerging form of the c l a s s i c a l - r a t i o n a l ,

as

an

in response to the social

environment of the s u p e ri n t e n d e n t) , s u p e ri n te n d e n t s ,

staff,

school

boards, and the community view them as being d i s t i n c t from and often
in

conflict

with

one

another.

It

is

not

uncommon t o

hear

a

s uper in tenden t c h a r a c te r iz e d as being e i t h e r "too p o l i t i c a l " or "too
naive about the p o l i t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t . "
In the pr ese nt study,
terms of t h e i r

correlation

political

o f de cisio n

style

two types o f f a c t o r s were examined in
with

either

making.

th e

technocratic

These

factors,

p e r t a i n t o th e demographic environment of the
those t h a t
explore

are inhe re nt

the

in the

possibility

that

s uperinten den t,
the

or

those

school

the
that

system and

were s e le c t e d

decision-m aking

sty le

to
a

su perintende nt uses can be c o r r e l a t e d to elements o f h i s / h e r own
persona or f a c t o r s e x i s t i n g in the school system and community in
which the superintende nt works.
The r a t i o n a l e f o r examining the two types of f a c t o r s was as
•fn"llnw$.

In e a r l y re se ar ch on le a d e r sh i p behaviors,

believed t o have s t y l e s

t h a t were r e l a t i v e l y

unchanged over time ( S t o g d i l l , 1948).
to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l e a d e r .

fix e d

le a d e r s were
and remained

Such s t y l e s were a t t r i b u t e d

Recently, more a t t e n t i o n has been

given to aspe cts of the l e a d e r ’ s work environment t h a t are r e l a t e d
to s p e c i f i c lead er behaviors (Halpin, 1966).
v a r i a b l e s have the p o t e n t i a l

Because both types of

to a f f e c t pre fere nc es f o r p a r t i c u l a r

decision-making s t y l e s , both were examined in t h i s study.

8
Hypotheses
The f o l l o w i n g

hypotheses,

stated

in t h e

null

form,

were

formulated t o guide th e a n a l y s is of data gathered in th e study
Hypothesis 1 ; There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis io n-m aking-st yle prefe rences and th e s i z e of
the school d i s t r i c t in which the su pe ri ntendents are employed.
Hypothesis 2 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ dec isio n-m aking-st yle p r ef er en ce s and the number of
p r i o r superintendences held or years as a sup erin ten d en t.
Hypothesis 3 ; There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
in t e n d e n t s ’ dec is io n-m aking -st yle p r ef er en ce s and the number of
year s as s uper intende nt in the d i s t r i c t .
Hypothesis 4 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ de cisio n-m akin g-st yle pr ef er en ce s and the number of
nonwhites e nrolle d in the school d i s t r i c t .
Hypothesis 5 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ dec is io n-m aking-st yle p r ef er en ce s and th e number of
school board members who have been r e c a l l e d during the s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t s ’ tenure.
Hypothesis 6 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s up er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis io n-m aking-st yle p r ef er en ce s and th e number of
school board members who have been def ea ted when running for
r e - e l e c t i o n during the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ t e n u r e .
Hypothesis 7 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s upe r­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ dec is io n-m ak in g-st yle p ref er en ce s and the s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t s ’ perceptions of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e community,
the school board, and th e s t a f f .
Hypothesis 8 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s uper­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ de cis io n-m akin g-st yle prefe rences and the SEV of
the d i s t r i c t s in which they are employed.
Hypothesis 9 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s uper­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ de cisio n-m aking-st yle p ref er en ce s and the per pupil
expenditure of the d i s t r i c t s in which they ar e employed.
Hypothesis 10:
There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis io n-m aking-st yle prefe rences and t h e i r
personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as age, gender, and advanced
academic t r a i n i n g .

9
Scope and Limitations o f the Research
The sample o f s upe ri nt en den ts was drawn from th e universe of
all

local

su pe ri ntend ents

currently

employed

in

Michigan.

The

w r i t e r i n t e n t i o n a l l y l im ite d the sample to Michigan s uper inten de nt s
because in Michigan a l l supe rin tenden ts are s e le c te d by school board
ac t io n , thus making th e s e l e c t i o n method a co nsta nt f a c t o r across
a l l members o f th e sample.

In other s t a t e s , var ious processes are

employed f o r s e l e c t i n g s u peri ntendents . In M is s is s ip p i , f o r example,
more than h a l f of the sup erintende nts ar e e le c t e d by a vote of the
citizens.

Thus, i f s t a t e s o th e r than Michigan had been included in

the study, th e means by which a sup erintendent had secured h i s / h e r
job would have become an independent v a r i a b l e whose e f f e c t s would
need to be considered.

However,

l i m i t i n g the sample t o Michigan

l im ite d the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f the fin dings across s t a t e l i n e s .
D e f i n i ti o n s o f Kev Terms
The following terms are defined in the context in which they
are used in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .
C l a s s i c a l - r a t i o n a l dec is io n making.
t h a t can be c h a r a c te r iz e d as d e l i b e r a t e ,

The decision-making s t y l e
conscious,

and a n a l y t i c ;

als o des ignate d te c h n o c r a t ic de cis io n making.
Conflict.

A s i t u a t i o n in which th e superintende nt must choose

between or among competing i n t e r e s t s .
Decision making.

The thought process leading t o and th e a c t of

choosing between two or more a l t e r n a t i v e s .

10
Per pupil i n s t r u c t i o n a l ex p e n d it u r e .

The t o t a l amount spent by

a school d i s t r i c t in the 1985-86 school y e a r , divided by the t o t a l
number of K-12 s tu d e n ts

e nro lle d

in t h a t

district

f o r th e

same

school year.
P o l i t i c a l de cis io n making.

The decision-making s t y l e t h a t can

be c h a r a c t e r iz e d as p a r t i s a n , s t r a t e g i c , and respon sive.
School board.

The governing body o f th e school d i s t r i c t , which

i s e l e c t e d by a vote o f those c i t i z e n s r e g i s t e r e d t o vote in the
d i s t r i c t (MCL 380.6).
School

d istrict.

A primary

school

district

or

a

first-,

second, t h i r d - , or f o u r t h - c l a s s d i s t r i c t , as defined by the Michigan
Department o f Education.
S t a t e equalized valuat ion (SEVl.
property-tax

levy.

The l e g i s l a t u r e

The b a s is f o r applying the
establishes

th e

formula

for

determining the valuat ion of personal and rea l pro per ty, which shall
not exceed 50% of th e t r u e cash value of th e prope rty

(Michigan

C o n s t i t u t io n , A r t i c l e IX, sec. 3).
S
i m p r i n t o n H e n-■t .’
~ ~ r

T* 'h o'

r***
h - *i *o f '

ovprnt-iuo

«»#»• vw V • • w

n f f i trw
r o, r

w i l l

nf

v •

a

l1own3 a**l1l 1wJ

c o n s t i t u t e d school d i s t r i c t , who received h i s / h e r p o s i t i o n by school
board appointment.
Overview
Chapter I contained a statement o f th e problem and purpose of
the study, the r a t i o n a l e f o r conducting the study, the hypotheses,
scope and l i m i t a t i o n s of the rese arch,

and d e f i n i t i o n s o f terms.

Chapter II co ntains a review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to th e present

11
study.

The methods

and procedures

employed

resear ch ar e explained in Chapter I I I .
analyses are discussed in Chapter IV.

in

conducting

the

Results o f the s t a t i s t i c a l
Chapter V includes a summary

of the study, conclusions drawn from th e re se ar ch f in d i n g s , r e f l e c ­
t i o n s , and suggestions f o r f u r t h e r study.

i

CHA PT E R II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
I ntro du ction
This

ch apter

co ntains

a review

of

literature

p e r t i n e n t t o the t o p i c under i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
six

s e c t io n s .

The f i r s t

a d m in is tr a t io n .

pertains

t o the

and

research

The ch ap ter includes
theory of educational

The second s e c t io n i s a h i s t o r i c a l

review of the

school superintendency.

In th e t h i r d s e c t io n , re se ar ch f in dings on

a d m in is tr a t iv e

making are

de cision

disc ussed .

Research

on

the

dichotomy of th e decision-making r o le of the school superintend en t
i s considered in the fo u rth s e c t io n .
findings

of

studies

in which

The f i f t h s e c tio n co ntains the

an a t t e m p t was made t o

relate

s uper in tenden t behavior t o f a c t o r s in the school environment.

In

the l a s t s e c t i o n , some tr e n d s f o r the f u tu r e of th e superintendency
are o u t lin e d .
Th eoretical Per spec tive of Educational Administration
Halpin

(1966)

suggested

that

the

assumption

underlying

the

study of a d m i n is tr a tiv e behavior i s t h a t such behavior is much the
same across various c a te g o r ie s o f a d m i n is tr a tio n ,
h o s p i t a l , and p u b l i c - s e r v i c e a d m in is tr a ti o n .
is

important,

observable

not

behavior

to
of

study
the

the

He explained t h a t i t

a d m in is t r a to r ,

a d m in is tr a t o r .
12

such as school,

The

but

rather

p r esen t

the

writer

13
examined the decision-making behavior o f school su p erin ten d en ts to
gain information from which infe re nces

could be drawn about the

science o f school a d m i n is tr a ti o n in g e n e r a l,

and the r o l e o f the

s uper in tenden t in p a r t i c u l a r .
F i t t i n g in form ation about th e decision-m aking b eh av io r of
superi nte ndents into a l a r g e r theory i s complicated by the context
in which such information i s viewed.
school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Sergiovanni
as educational
reflects

reality

of

(1988) admonished them, as well

r e s e a r c h e r s , to adhere to a theory t h a t a c c u r a t e l y
as they know i t ,

r e a l i t y t o a p a r t i c u l a r t h eo ry.
f a m il ie s

In a r e c e n t p r e s e n t a t i o n to

t h e o r ie s

are

r a t h e r than attempting t o f i t
In t h e following par agraphs, two

de scribed ,

and

the

role

that

school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ decision-making behavior plays in them i s exp lained .
Two f a m ili e s of t h e o r i e s address a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c is io n making
in the l a r g e r context of educational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

In th e f i r s t

family of t h e o r i e s , schools ar e viewed as democracies in a c t i o n .

By

the nature of these t h e o r i e s , o r g aniz ati onal change i s perceived as
p o l i t i c a l l y motivated,
such change.
th e

and d e cis io n making i s th e

Three t h e o r ie s exemplify t h i s family.

c o n t i n u o u s - p a r t ic ip a t i o n

theo ry

(Zeigler

impetus behind
The f i r s t

& Jenning s,

is

1974),

according to which democracy i s des cribed as a m a t te r o f public
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the policy pr oc es s.
(or ought t o

be)

a facilitator

The school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r is

of such p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

The more

people who p a r t i c i p a t e and the more f r e q u e n tl y they p a r t i c i p a t e , the
more democratic the process.

14
The second theory i s the d eci s io n - o u tp u t theory (Wirt & K i r s t ,
1972), in which democracy i s considered a m atter of th e degree of
congruence between the demands o f the people and th e p o lic y output
of the governmental u n i t .
the people,

The more outputs r e f l e c t th e demands of

t h e more d e m o c r a t i c t h e

governm ent.

The school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r ’ s d ec i s io n s are judged by th e degree t o which they
m irr or t h e will of th e people.
The t h i r d of t h i s family o f t h e o r i e s i s the theo ry of democracy
by d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

(Danis,

1978; Lutz & Wang, 1987).

1984;

Lutz,

1962;

Lutz & Iannaccone,

According to th e t e n e t s o f t h i s theo ry ,

The essence o f democracy i s
change policy when the people
po li cy or the freedom not t o
not d i s s a t i s f i e d enough with
Wang, 1987, p. 67)

the freedom t o p a r t i c i p a t e and
are d i s s a t i s f i e d enough with the
p a r t i c i p a t e when th e people are
the po li c y to change i t . (Lutz &

Lutz and o th e r s have studied th e s u p e r in te n d e n t’ s r o l e in t h e policy
process

and

c oncluded

dissatisfaction

(e.g .,

that

external

school

board

indicators
recall,

of

public

superintendent

d is m is sa l) can be used t o gauge th e degree to which p o lic y d e c is io n s
are meeting th e needs of the people.
In th e second family of t h e o r i e s , th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s r o l e is
d e lin e a te d by the degree to which the balance o f power i s maintained
among t h e

school

board,

the

various

co n stitu en cies,

and t h e

su per in te nden t.

The amount of c o n f l i c t among t h e s e t h r e e f a c t i o n s

is

to

considered

indicate

the

success

or

failu re

of

the

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s decision-making s t y l e .
In 1974, Z e ig le r and Jennings conducted an e x tens iv e study of
school

board

members,

th eir

superintendents,

and

th eir

15

constituencies.
school
authors

The purpose o f t h e

governance under p o l i t i c a l
concluded t h a t

the

research

was t o

and te c h n o c r a t i c

factors

that

put

school

examine

strain.

The

environments

under s t r e s s would continue to e x i s t and even t o i ncrease in the
f o re s e e a b le f u tu r e .

They also concluded t h a t the superintend en t

would continue to function as th e c e n t e r o f policy governance for
th e

schools,

which would r e s u l t

superintendency.

in

increased

visibility

of

th e

A successful su per inten den t, they sp eculated, was

one who could manage policy governance and moderate c o n f l i c t

in

l i g h t of th e ad di tional a t t e n t i o n focused on the p o s i t i o n .
Z ie g le r

et

superi nte ndents

al.

(1985)

conducted

and c i t y managers.

management of c o n f l i c t .

a

study

Again the

comparing
ques tion

school
was

the

They found t h a t both su peri nte ndents and

c i t y managers developed complex s t r a t e g i e s

t h a t helped them cope

with i n t e r - and i n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t .
Splittgerber

and S t i r z a k e r

(1984)

hypothesized

that

the

success ful sup erintendent needs to maintain a s t a t e o f equilibri um ,
through e t h i c a l behavior, among the school board, the community, and
th e a d m in is tr a t io n .
honest

and

compromising.

They defined e t h i c a l behavior as t h a t which is

exem plifies

in tegrity

but

The authors suggested t h a t

is
it

also
is

flex ib le

and

through e t h i c a l

behavior and maintaining a s°nse of equilibrium t h a t school l e a d e r s
can move t h e i r o rganiz ati ons toward p a r t i c i p a t o r y d ecis io n making.
To i l l u s t r a t e the d i f f i c u l t y in achieving a balance of power in
school d i s t r i c t s , rese a r c h e r s from the American School Board Journal

16
and the V ir gin ia Polytechnic I n s t i t u t e and S t a t e U niver sity surveyed
a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e national sample of 2,488 school board members and
2,488

superintendents,

of

whom 535

boar d

members

su peri ntendents responded (Alvey & Underwood, 1985).
t h e s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e where t h e
disagreed

about t h e i r

greatest

disagreement

r o le s

in

school

was personnel;

and

817

The purpose of

respondents

agreed

leadership.

and

The area of

board members wanted

their

s uperi ntendents to have l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in h i r in g and promoting,
and the s upe ri nt en den ts wanted to have more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
ar eas

of

disagreement

included

f in a n c i a l

management,

Other

day-to-day

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n .
Finally,

March and Midlos (1983) surveyed su peri ntendents of

schools in B r i t i s h Columbia, Alber ta,
Canada,

Saskatchewan,

and Manitoba,

regarding t h e i r p ercep tio n s of the degree of control

ex ercise d by personnel a t each of f iv e d ecis io n l e v e l s (department
of education, school board, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s o f f i c e , p r i n c i p a l , and
t e a c h e r s ) over 32 d ecis io n items.
thaf

b l l U V )

in

III

f ko
WIIW

c i m o n i n f onr l on+ e
III V W I I U W I I W W

*

Results o f the a n a l y s is confirmed

wi mac
*

I W I I ^ }

rkannnc

4n
III

f kn

W I I W

Inn ic
• W

v

M

*■>

V I

r * A « f v » a 1
V V M VI V I

over various items r e f l e c t e d a gradual y e t continuing i ncr ea se in
t e a c h e r s ’ and p r i n c i p a l s ’ influ en ce but no dramatic change in the
p a t t e r n o f control over educational d ec is io n s .
Many w r i t e r s o f school-management t e x t s have c i t e d coping with
c o n f l i c t as a s k i l l
extension,
d ecisions

r e q u i s i t e f o r successful

t h e manner in which a school
w ill

influence

the

ab ility

to

school

leaders.

By

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t makes
cope w i t h

co n flict.

17
Conversely, the manner in which a school s uper intende nt chooses to
cope with c o n f l i c t wil l a f f e c t th e manner o f decisio n making.
In

summary,

both

th e

public-education-as-democracy

and

the

conflict-management t h e o r i e s are p e r t i n e n t to th e s u b je c t o f how
s uperintend en ts make d e c i s io n s .
de cis io n making plays

In

an in t e g r a l

both

role.

f a m il ie s

of

Additional

theories,
information

about decisio n making w il l help in r e f i n i n g those t h e o r i e s .
H i s to r i c a l Review o f th e Development
of the Superintendencv
Most authors agree t h a t th e superintendency has evolved over
the

last

century

and

a

half.

superintendency d i f f e r p r im a r il y

Their

descriptions

of

the

in the reasons th e authors have

given f o r th e various e volutionary s ta g e s.
Duke

(1987)

traced

the

developmen t

of

the

school

superintendency through changes in concepts o f l e a d e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
The t r a d i t i o n a l concept o f l e a d e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s included images of
th e

school

l e a d e r as

a father,

ge n e r a l,

or coach.

T r ad it io n al

school leade rs c mbc d ic d moral Q u a l i t i e s duuit a s ^uuuncss anu v i r t u e .

Although management of an ord erly school environment was important,
i t was a secondary purpose.
By th e turn o f the ce ntury , th e scientific-management movement
of

Frederick

per sp e c ti v e
pr e m is e

T a y lo r

of

that

th e
a

and

school

lead er’s

others

to

influence

the

m a s t e r / s u p e rin t e n d e n t .

Although

the

success

had

begun

could

be

measured

accomplishment of o r g a nizational goals was a t t r a c t i v e ,

by

the

a p p li c a ti o n

of t h a t premise was d i f f i c u l t in th e schools o f th e time.

I t was

18

hard to i s o l a t e which goals were to be used as standard measures of
leader effectiveness.
In the l a t e 1930s, the scientific-management school gave way to
the

human-relations

school

of

thought.

The

focus

became

the

q u a l i t y of l i f e in the workplace and th e r e l a t i o n s between workers
and s u p e r v is o r s .

Att en ti on was placed on how organizational members

f e l t about what they were doing.
premise

in

Brookover

Run.
and

satisfaction
relatio n s

School.

Lezotte

Run, as

on

th e

and achievement
movement.

Duke (1987) suggested t h a t Barth’ s
well

as

some

relationship
scores,

Duke

was

c o n c lu d e d

of

the

between

founded
by

in

work by

te a c h e r
th e

job'

human-

addressing

the

superintendency o f the 1980s in l i g h t of tr e n d s toward key l ead er
behaviors and assessment of student-bas ed outcomes.
Cuban

(1985) framed t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e

with the constancy of c o n f l i c t over time.

superintendency

He explained t h a t the

burdens of overseeing everyday school m atters in the mid-nineteenth
century led e le c te d school boards to appoint s uper inten de nts to take
ca re of these m a tte rs .

In a d d i tio n , school s upe ri nt en den ts in t h a t

era

keep

were

expected

examinations

for

to

s tu d e n ts ,

records,

and choose

train

teachers,

textbooks.

By th e

prepare
1920s,

s uperi ntendents had become educational e x p e r ts and were expected to
c o n s tr u c t educational b l u e p r in t s f o r t h e i r schools.
In t h e

1940s

and

1950s,

the

superintendency was hastened by i t s
politics

and

by

the

advanced

professionalization
removal

training

from local
available

in

of

the

partisan
school

19
administration.

However, the p o s it io n again became the c e n t e r of

p o l i t i c a l contr oversy in the 1960s and 1970s, with th e c i v i l r i g h t s
movement,

increased

citizen

participation ,

demand

for

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , enr ollment d e c l i n e s , and economic r e c e s s i o n s .
concluded t h a t su peri ntendents who wish to deal
the

ever-present

co n flict

must

play

at

Cuban

s u c c e s s f u l l y with

least

three

roles:

p o l i t i c i a n , manager, and t e a c h e r .
In a d i s s e r t a t i o n in which he examined a d m i n i s t r a t o r behavior
in c r i s i s management, George (1971) des cr ib ed f i v e stages through
which the superintendency has evolved in th e tw e n ti e t h ce ntury.

The

f i r s t sta ge was the school s uper in tend en t as schoolmaster, s i m i l a r
in fu nction to Cuban’ s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the l a t e - n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y
s u p e rin te n d e n t.
were

largely

s m o o th l y .

The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h i s e a r l y supe rin tend en t
antiseptic

The n e x t

in

stage

nature- -kee pin g
was

that

of

th e

the

schools

running

superintendent

as

statesman, a spokesperson for f r e e pub lic education in the t r a d i t i o n
of Horace Mann and Henry Barnard.

The next s ta g e , beginning in the

1920s, was t h a t of the manager s uperi ntendent,
n o t e d by management p r i n c i p l e s
enterprises.

In t h i s per io d,

governed as Cuban

borrowed from l a r g e c o r p o r a t e

su peri ntendents supported education

f o r a l l through the high school level and a d i v e r s i f i e d curriculum
to meet th e

needs of

all

students.

In the

fo u rth

s ta g e ,

the

s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g t h a t was becoming a v a i l a b l e f o r s upe ri nt en den ts
f o s t e r e d t h e dev elo p m en t o f s p e c i a l t y

sk ills,

such as budg et

p r e p a r a t i o n , knowledge o f school law, and f i n a n c i a l accounting.
was in t h i s

period

that

the te c h n ic a lly

It

sound s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

20

emerged.

During th e f i n a l s ta ge , according to George, world a f f a i r s

have intruded on th e ope ration of the schools.

George p o s tu l a t e d

t h a t t h i s period r e q u ire s a s uper intende nt s k i l l e d in new dimensions
of

leadership,

pr ofe s sionalis m .

educational

statesm anship,

and

He proceeded t o develop a model

g e n u in e

f o r successful

d e cis io n making by school s upe rin tend en ts in times o f c r i s i s .
paradigm i s

characterized

by i m p r o v i s a t i o n ,

spontaneity,

That
and

accommodation.
With y e t a d i f f e r e n t focus, Mann (1976) t ra c e d th e development
o f th e dichotomy between p o l i t i c s and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
focusing s o le l y on education,

Although not

the development of Mann’s dichotomy

c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s the evolution of the superintendency as o u tl in e d
by Cuban and George.
th e

Mann c r e d i t e d Frank Goodnow with recognizing

ex iste n c e of th e dichotomy in

1900.

He quoted Goodnow as

follows:
There is a la r g e p a r t o f a d m in istr a tio n which i s unconnected
with p o l i t i c s , which should t h e r e f o r e be r e l ie v e d very l a r g e l y ,
i f not a l t o g e t h e r , from the control o f p o l i t i c a l bodies. I t is
u n co n n ected w i th p o l i t i c s b e c a u s e i t embodies f i e l d s o f
s e m i s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y , (p. 15)
Mann

ar gu ed

administrative
educational

that

the

dichotomy

f a c t o r s was maintained

a d m in is tr a tio n ,

disproven by s ocia l

for

between
the

next

d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t

scientists

p o litical
40 years

and
in

i t was l a r g e l y

in o th e r f i e l d s o f a d m in is tr a t io n .

He a t t r i b u t e d t h i s circumstance t o the p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n o f the
school a d m in is tr a t o r and the tendency of th e expert a d m i n i s t r a t o r to
keep p o l i t i c s out o f schools.

Mann noted t h a t r e c e n t tre nds toward

21

d ecentralization

of

community c o n t r o l ,

decision

making,

and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

e f f o r t to r e i n t e g r a t e p o l i t i c a l

citizen

can

be

p articip atio n ,

interpreted

as

and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f a c t o r s

an

in the

formulation o f educational p oli cy.
Kimbrough
evo lution

of

(1964)
the

role

superintendency
su peri ntendents

used s t i l l

by

of

th e

another

s uperi ntendent.

studying

to r e a l i z e

method

the

their

to

examine

the

He tr ack ed

the

employed

by

techniques

preferred

educational

policies.

Kimbrough began by analyzing the e a r l y 1920s and 1930s, when most
educational
their

l eaders used the

constituents

of

the

public-relations
needs

of

the

approach t o

educational

inform

community.

Leaders using such an approach assumed t h a t informed v o t e r s would
make the proper choice a t the b a l l o t box.

But school a d m in is tr a t o r s

soon found t h a t a well-informed c i t i z e n r y did not always concur with
th e a d m i n i s tr a to r s in the policy choices they made when they voted.
During

the

administrators

late

found

1930s

and

new hope

in

early
the

1940s,

field

of

educational

group

dynamics,

especially

in t h e a r e a o f a d e m o c r a t i c g r o u p - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

process.

Although

administrators
educ ation,

use

who were

of

the

beginning

th e process was r i f e

persons w illin g

gr oup
to

with

t o become i n v o l v e d ,

process

espouse
problems,
k eep in g

the

appealed

to

democracy

of

such
the

as

finding

gro ups

at

a

manageable s i z e in which d e c is io n s could be made, and coordinating
th e e f f o r t s of various groups.

Kimbrough concluded his a n a l y s is by

noting t h a t from the 1950s onward, school l e a d e r s had been involved

22

in a combination o f th e p u b l i c - r e l a t i o n s and group-decision-making
processes but had begun t o pay p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n

to

informal

groups o f power hold ers.
Havighurst
circumstances

(1979)

beginning

credited
in

th e

p o litical

1950s

with

a

decisions
rise

in

members’ p a r t i c i p a t i o n in educational d ecis io n making.

and

community

Among thes e

occurrences were the following:
1.

The 1954 Supreme Court decisio n banning r a c i a l seg regation

in pub lic schools.
2.

Passage of th e Civil Rights Act and the Elementary and Sec­

ondary Education Act o f the 1960s.
3.

The growing con viction among black c i t i z e n s t h a t they had

the r i g h t t o expect and demand educational f a c i l i t i e s and programs
equal to those provided f o r whites.
4.

The increasi ng r a c i a l and economic seg regation in th e pub­

l i c schools in l a r g e c i t i e s .
5.

Widespread pub lic

opinion

that

academic

achievement

was

mainly a r e s u l t o f the q u a l i t y of teaching in th e schools and t h a t
equal

qualities

o f schooling would r e s u l t

in

equal

achievement,

r e g a r d l e s s o f the p a r e n t s ’ socioeconomic s t a t u s .
6.

The fed er al government’s po licy o f placing poor people and

m i n o r i t i e s in d e c i s io n - and policy-making p o s it i o n s with r e s p e c t t o
government
participation

pr o g ram s ,
in

which

led

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

educational systems of la r g e c i t i e s .

to

these

for

groups’

d e cis io n

increased

making

in

the

23
Although Havighurst focused on community p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the
poor and disadvantaged, th e changes he l i s t e d c l e a r l y influenced the
manner in which school leaders made d e c i s io n s .

They were expected

to

p articip atio n

open

the

decision-m aking

process

to

by

noneducators.
Research on Administrative Decision Making
In h i s landmark work, Simon (1945) des cribed d e cis io n making as
a process

that

approaches

but never becomes completely

rational

behavior.

He p o s tu la t e d t h a t the human process o f choosing among

a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s will always be flawed because t h e r e i s no way
t h e d e c i s i o n maker can know a l l
strategies.

This

situation

he

of the

defined

possible

altern ativ e

lim i t e d

rationality.

as

Simon explained t h a t a d m i n is tr a t iv e d e c is io n s are o r ie n te d toward
goals and o b j e c t i v e s ; made with some knowledge o f th e consequences;
and a f f e c t e d

by val ues ,

personal

pre fe rences,

and or g a n iz a tio n a l

i n flu e n c e s .
In 1982,

March c r i t i q u e d

theories,

i n c l u d i n g Simon’ s ,

addressing

several

First,

components

the most prominent decision-making
in terms o f t h e i r
of

a d m i n is tr a tiv e

March ar gue d t h a t t h e o r i e s

of decision

in a d e q u a c y

d ecis io n

in

making.

making do not

accommodate u n c e r ta in ty or ambiguity on th e p a r t of the dec is io n
maker.
fully

He noted t h a t dec isio n makers r o u t i n e l y ignore t h e i r own
conscious

p ref er en ce s

in

making d e c is io n s .

F urth er,

human

beings act as though some aspe cts o f t h e i r b e l i e f s ar e important to
l i f e w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r i l y b e in g c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r a c t i o n s .

24
Second, March a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e o r i e s

of choice e i t h e r

ignore

c o n f l i c t with r e sp e c t to o b j e c t i v e s or assume t h a t th e c o n f l i c t can
be resolved
Third,

by t r a d e o f f s

March s a i d ,

or

contracts

theo ries

before

making

d e c i s io n s .

o f c h o i c e u n d e r e s t i m a t e both t h e

pervasiveness and th e s e n s i b i l i t y of an a l t e r n a t i v e d e c is io n l o g i c - the

lo g ic

of o b l i g a t i o n ,

duty,

and r u l e s .

Fourth,

theories

of

choice underestimate th e confusion and complexity surrounding actual
decisio n

making.

Finally,

theories

of

choice

assume

primary reason f o r d e cis io n making i s t o make c hoices .

that

the

In actual

de cisio n s i t u a t i o n s ,

symbolic and r i t u a l

aspects of t h e behavior are

often major f a c t o r s .

March concluded by

d e s c rib i n g an ideal view of

de cisio n making t h a t "embraces the axioms of choice but acknowledges
th e ir lim itations;

t h a t combines a passion f o r th e technology of

choice with an a p p r ecia tio n o f i t s complexities and th e b e a u ti e s of
i t s confusions" (p. 39).
George

(1971)

characteristics

examined

of c r i s e s

the

in which

relationship
a d e cis io n

between

was r e quire d

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ r e a c t i o n s in t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s .

the
and

His f i n d i n g s

supported March’ s con tention t h a t c l a s s i c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - d e c is i o n making

models

do

not

accommodate

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e dec is ion making.
1.

crisis

as

a factor

in

George discovered:

An inver se r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount of time p e r ­

ceived a v a i l a b l e and a c o n t r a c t io n of a u t h o r i t y .
2.

A direct

r e l a t i o n s h i p between

ceived and th e use o f o t h e r res ource s.

th e amount

of stress

per­

25
3.

A d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e amount o f u n c e r t a i n t y and

th e degree of s t r e s s .
4.

A d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount o f s t r e s s and the

degree o f c o n tr a c ti o n o f a u t h o r i t y .
5.

A d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount o f u n c e r t a i n t y and

th e degree o f c o n t r a c t io n o f a u t h o r i t y .
6.

A d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s eri ousness o f th e c r i s i s

and th e degree of s t r e s s .
According t o the c o n f l i c t model of de cis io n making (Ja nis

&

Mann, 1977) and th e s o c ia l- p r o c e s s model (Vroom & Jago, 1974), among
the

critical

factors

affecting

decision

making

and

use

of

information are (a) th e amount of c o n f l i c t involved while making the
d e c i s i o n , (b) the importance of the d e c i s io n , and (c) the content of
th e s p e c i f i c d e c is io n .
In a survey o f 178 school board members from 56 sch ools, Brown,
Newman,

and

Rivers

(1985)

found

that

knowledge

of

the

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s p o s it i o n on an issue influenced the board members’
need f o r

more time

t o make th e d e c i s io n ,

their

need

for

more

information, t h e i r need f o r informal c o n t a c t s , and th e use o f t h e i r
own exp er ienc es.

The r e s e a r c h e r s concluded t h a t c o n f l i c t among the

board members and between th e board and the
critica l

superi ntendent were

determ in a n ts of th e s u p e r in te n d e n ts ’ decision-m aking

styles.
Kimbrough (1964)

postulated

co ns ide r de cis io n making in schools.

a n o t h e r model

w i th which t o

Although th e superintendency

is not addressed s p e c i f i c a l l y in t h i s model, the paradigm can be

26

used to gain important information about power groups* in fl uen ce in
de c is io n making.

Kimbrough conceptualized the a b i l i t y t o in flu en ce

th e outcomes of th e p o lic y d e cis io n process as being r e l a t e d t o the
amount o f informal power a person or group can e x e r t .

He made the

following assumptions:
1.

C i tiz e n s vary g r e a t l y in the degree o f in fl uen ce they e x e r ­

c i s e over educational p o l ic y d ec is io n s .
2.

The v a r i a t i o n

in power among persons

and groups

in the

local school d i s t r i c t i s a s so ciated with the d i f f e r e n c e in control
over, and th e e f f e c t i v e use o f , power r e so u r c e s.

Informal groups

ar e ofte n able to use t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e resour ces more e f f e c t i v e l y
than formal o r g a n i z a ti o n s .
3.

The s t a t u s of pub lic o f f i c i a l s i s often a s s o c i a te d with the

d i s p r o p o r ti o n a t e control
meeting p eo p le ’ s needs.

of resources
As a r e s u l t ,

education and o th e r governmental

by p r i v a t e

institutions

members o f

the

in

board o f

o f f i c i a l s have r e l a t i v e l y

little

power.
4.

Decisive power i s ex er cise d in most loca l school d i s t r i c t s

by r e l a t i v e l y few persons who hold top p o s i t i o n s o f in fl uen ce in the
informal

power s t r u c t u r e o f th e school d i s t r i c t .

The success o f

important educational p r o j e c t s and proposals o f te n depends hea vily
on the support or lack o f support of t h e s e powerful i n d i v i d u a l s .
From Kimbrough’ s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n ,

it

s u p eri ntendent must be able t o wield informal
infl uenc e th e po licy d e c is io n s o f the school.

is clear that

the

power in o rd er t o

27
In

summary,

classic

decision-m aking

theories

have

been

c l a r i f i e d by resear ch about how d ecis io ns ar e made in o r g an iz ati o n s
such as schools.

One f a c t o r t h a t g r e a t l y a f f e c t s d e cis io n making in

schools

amount

is

decision.

the

and

nature

of

conflict

surrounding

the

A second c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i s th e amount o f informal power

available

to

and

used

by

the

p articip an ts

(including

the

s uperi ntendent) in th e decision-making process.
The Dichotomy of the Superin tend ent’ s Roles
Several

authors

have described

two d i f f e r e n t

and

c o n f l i c t i n g r o le s successful s upe rin tenden ts must play .
which

for

the

purposes

of

this

study

has

been

sometimes
One r o l e ,

called

the

p o l i t i c a l r o l e , i s c h a r a c t e r iz e d by an o r i e n t a t i o n to le a d e r s h i p and
the

ability

t o work w i th

in fo r m al

power g r o u p s ,

bring

ab out

consensus through compromise, and develop s t r a t e g i e s to accomplish
goals.

The other r o l e ,

which has been labeled the te c h n o c r a t i c

r o l e , i s c h a r a c te r iz e d by technical soundness, a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l ,
a d i s t a s t e f o r working with informal power groups, and a management
orientation.
Halpin (1966) des cribed th e dichotomy as a dual s e t o f d u t i e s
conf ronting school l e a d e r s .

One s e t of d u t i e s ,

he s a i d ,

i s to be

the problem s o lv er or d e cis io n maker; th e o th e r i s t o be th e group
leader w ithin

the

immediate

staff.

suggested, should employ the t r a d i t i o n a l
s i m i l a r t o those Simon des cr ibed .

The d e c i s i o n

maker,

he

decision-making processes

In Halpin’ s view, the dec isio n

maker should always be o r ie n te d t o th e o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s t a s k .

The

28
gr oup l e a d e r ,

on t h e o t h e r hand,

s h o u ld be a t t e n t i v e

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the work group’ s fu nctio nin g.

to

the

The group l e a d e r is

r e sp o n s i b le f o r the care and maintenance of th e group.

Halpin’s

d e cis io n maker is s i m i l a r in job function t o the t e c h n o c r a t, and the
group l e a d e r i s analogous to the p o l i t i c i a n .

The group l e a d e r , l i k e

t h e p o l i t i c i a n , works toward o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
a b i l i t y t o work with o t h e r s .

g o a ls through the

The decision maker employs d e l i b e r a t e

processes t o reach t e c h n i c a l l y sound d e c i s io n s .
Even e a r l i e r than Halpin, March and Simon (1959) described two
types

of processes

conflict:

commonly used

analytic

and

in managing

bargaining.

The

organizational

analytic

process

is

t e c h n o c r a t i c a l l y o r i e n te d , involving information ga t h e r in g , problem
solving, b u r e a u c ra tic r u l e s , and go al s.
c o n t r a s t , i s more p o l i t i c a l .

The bargaining pr ocess, in

I t involves t r a d e - o f f s , compromises,

and c u l t i v a t i o n of powerful a l l i e s .
Reisman (1982)

conducted a study of the conflict-management

behavior of 103 school

superintende nts

major metropolitan area?.

and c i t y

in two

She found t h a t th e su peri ntendents were

more profe ssional than the c i t y managers.
the p u b lic ,

managers

Yet, when dealing with

supe rin tenden ts were l e s s l i k e l y to use the a n a l y t i c -

t e c h n o c r a t i c conflict-management methods t y p i c a l l y a s s o c i a te d with
professionals.

Superintendents managing p u b l i c - o r i e n t e d

conflict

tended t o d ev iate from t h e i r pr ofe ssional opinions and t o engage in
the bar gainin g, lobbying, and compromising behavior t y p ic a l o f the
p o litical

bargaining

approach.

Reisman

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ r e l i a n c e on p o l i t i c a l

suggested

that

the

bargaining methods may be

29

n e c e s s i t a t e d by th e id eo lo gic al

nature of the pu blic i s s u e s they

f ace.
Monahan
current

and

Hengst

s ch ool

le a d e r s h ip

(1982)

adm inistrator

and management.

described

the

as f a l l i n g
They

fu nct io ns

of

the

i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s :

suggested

that,

although

the

f unctio ns ar e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , d i f f e r e n t s e t s of s k i l l s are re quir ed
for

success

at each.

communication,

Management c o n c e r n s

training,

and a l l o c a t i o n ,

personnel

include production,

relations,

maintenance and op er atio n ,

resour ce a c q u i s i t i o n
and publi c r e l a t i o n s .

Leadership fu nc tio ns include s t r u c t u r i n g and s e t t i n g policy in the
l a r g e r philosop hical
and Hengst sa id
integrating

framework of the school environment.

that

both

characteristics:

school

sets

of

a d m in is t r a to r s who ar e
functions

display

Monahan

successfully

the

follow ing

(a) an o r i e n t a t i o n to a c t i o n , (b) a w il lin g n e s s to

make d ecis io n s t h a t involve d i f f i c u l t ch oice s, (c) o b j e c t i v i t y about
t h e co n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e i r

actions,

(d)

au thenticity,

and

(e)

to l e r a n c e .
Huff and Pondy (1983) used a system s- an alys is approach t o study
iss u e management in t h r e e suburban Chicago school d i s t r i c t s .
analyzed

the

participants

superintendents’
at

bo ar d

speeches,

m eetings,

the

interaction
content

of

They
among

w ritten

communications, and interview s with the public and s t a f f members.
The r e s e a r c h e r s defined open-system r a t i o n a l models o f o r g an izatio n s
as th ose t h a t emphasize s t r u c t u r a l
t a s k u n c e r ta in ty .

adap tation t o environmental and

They defined open-system na tural models as those

30
t h a t em phasize t h e n o n r a t i o n a l
importance

of

survival

over

aspects of adaptation

goal

attainm ent.

Huff

and t h e

and

Pondy

contended t h a t the more r e c e n t open-system natu ral models focus on
power, c o a l i t i o n s , language, r a t i o n a l i z e d myths, sense making, and
ambiguity.
analysis

They found t h a t r a t i o n a l models are guided by o b j e c t i v e
and

that

interpretation."

natural

are

g u id e d

by

" sy m b o lic

The authors concluded t h a t no global understanding

i s necessary f o r a p o l i t i c a l
action.

models

They wrote:

process to ge nerate problem-solving

"The corresponding i n s i g h t f o r o r g an izatio n al

theory today i s t h a t or g a n iz a tio n a l problem solving i s accomplished
by an i n t e r a c t i o n of r a t i o n a l and n atural processes" (p. 83).
Although

Huff

and

Pondy

were

more

interested

in

the

o r g an iz ati o n al processes than in the i n d iv i d u a l s f unctio n in g within
those proc es ses , t h e i r f in d in g s supported th e concept o f a dichotomy
in s t y l e between r a t i o n a l system models and natural

system models.

Their d e s c r i p t o r s of the two models could e a s i l y be applied t o the
p o l i t i c a l and t e c h n o c r a t i c r o l e s .
In a paper
su peri ntendents

presented
in

at

Manitoba,

a

conference

Canada,

for

Coleman

school

(1976)

district

argued

that

governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s are a f f e c t e d by bas ic value p o s i t i o n s and
s h i f t s in emphasis among r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s ,
and executive l e a d e r s h ip .

technical

competence,

He explained t h a t the r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n ­

making model i s i n e f f e c t i v e in dea ling with c o n f l i c t t h a t a r i s e s in
schools.

He suggested,

rather,

a decision-making model

in which

(a) agreement i s reached by consensus, (b) each group’ s c o n t r i b u t i o n
to th e decision-making process r e p r e s e n ts i t s value o r i e n t a t i o n , and

31

(c)

group l e a d e r s ’ te chnical

competence i s

noted t h a t th e r o l e of the school

downplayed.

administrator

Coleman

in dealing with

c o n f l i c t i n c r e a s in g l y resembles t h a t o f th e p r o fes sio n al n e g o t i a t o r
or mediator.

Once again,

making models

reflects

the discrepancy between the d e c i s i o n ­

th e

dichotomy

between

th e

political

and

te c h n o c r a t i c r o l e s .
Cuban (1985) claimed t h a t only by playing m u lti p l e r o l e s can a
superintendent

expect

to

be

successful.

He

defined

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s r o l e s as p o l i t i c i a n , manager, and t e a c h e r .

the
Cuban

said t h a t c o n f l i c t within the org anization and from i n t e r e s t groups
o u tsid e the school has n e c e s s i t a t e d the dual r o l e s of manager and
politician.

He explained

superintendents

exert

instruction,

assessment

and

that

the

leadership

current

in t h e

r eaff irm s

the

interest

areas

in

having

of curriculum ,

historic

role

of

tire

super intende nt as te a c h e r .
In summary, i t i s c l e a r t h a t the dichotomy between tech n o cr at
and p o l i t i c i a n has been perceived for some time and studied from a
variety

of p e r s p e c t iv e s .

Whether from th e

po int

o f view o f the

educational lead er or the o r g a niz ati onal system, th e a c t o f making
d ecis io n s in an environment of c o n f l i c t i s the touchstone f o r the
dichotomy.
The R elation ship Between Superintendent Behavior
and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the School Environment
R e s e a r c h e r s have l i n k e d c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f schoo l
environments

to

aspec ts

of

supe rin tende nt

behavior.

From t h a t

32
r esear ch , th e prese nt w r i t e r s e le c te d the independent v a r i a b l e s for
t h i s study.
Wachtel

(1979)

found t h a t

several

variables

were p o s i t i v e l y

c o r r e l a t e d with the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s use o f a r a t i o n a l
making model.

decision­

These v a r i a b l e s were experience as su per inten den t,

central-office

experience,

attainm ent of a d o c to ra te ,

recent

i n s e r v i c e , and age.
Ferry (1981) developed the Budget Decision C r i t e r i a instrument,
which contained 15 c r i t e r i a f o r c o n s id e ratio n in budget d e c i s i o n s .
The s uperi ntendents

in

Fer ry ’ s

sample were asked

to

rank thes e

c r i t e r i a on a f o u r - p o in t s ca le from not r e l e v a n t t o very r e l e v a n t in
making budget d e c i s i o n s .
enrollm ent

and

age

Ferry found t h a t

of

the

two v a r i a b l e s ,

superintendent,

were

pupil

sig n ific a n t

p r e d i c t o r s of a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s score on th e re se ar ch instrument.
Unlike Wachtel, Ferry did not f in d t h a t length o f experience as a
superintendent

was

a sig n ifican t

factor

in

superintendents’

found

three

dec i s io n s .
Z e ig le r

and J e n n i n g s

(1974)

c o r r e l a t e d with community input
through i n t e r e s t groups.

int o

factors

to

be

the decision-making process

They were s i z e of the d i s t r i c t , e x t e n t of

public d i s c o n t e n t with educational p oli cy, and d e c lin i n g enrollment.
The r e s e a r c h e r s found t h a t in sm aller,

nonmetropolitan d i s t r i c t s ,

c o n f l i c t a c t u a l l y strengthened the p o s it io n of the school board over
t h a t of the s uperi ntendent.
p o l i c y - s e t t i n g pr ocess.

The school board was more a c t i v e in the
In m etropo litan d i s t r i c t s ,

strengthened th e p o s it io n of the s uperinten den t.

such tension

One measure of the

33

presence of i n t e r e s t groups in Z e ig l e r and J enn in gs ’ s study was the
demographic composition o f th e school d i s t r i c t s

s tu d i e d .

In the

pr ese nt study, t h a t v a r i a b l e was defined as th e percentage o f the
school population t h a t was nonwhite.
B erger

(1984)

superintendents’
enr ollment.

used

a case-survey

succession

under

method

to

conditions

of

investigate
declining

Variables were r e l a t e d t o t h r e e p o s s i b l e explanations

of succession (poor performance, s t r a t e g i c n e c e s s i t y , and p o l i t i c s )
in 56 d i s t r i c t s .
succession

Support was found f o r the general explana tion s of

and

specific

variables

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ r e l a t i o n s with the board,

as

predictors;

staff,

the

and communities

emerged as the s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r s o f su ccession.
Lutz and Wang (1987) analyzed data c o l l e c t e d in a study of 95
Ohio school d i s t r i c t s .

In applying the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n theory of

educational democracy, they found t h a t a prosp ec tive school

board

member’ s d e f e a t and an incumbent’ s not being r e - e l e c t e d were r e l a t e d
to the degree of c o n f l i c t or e l e c t o r a t e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n experienced
in the d i s t r i c t .
In summary, Wachtel found t h a t experience as a su per in te nden t,
advanced

academic

training,

and

age

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-making ten den cies .

were

predictors

of

Ferry found t h a t pupil

enrollment and age of th e superintendent were strong p r e d i c t o r s of
pr eferences f o r budget c r i t e r i a .
d eclin in g enrollment,
d issatisfaction

were

Z e ig le r and Jennings found t h a t

s i z e o f th e d i s t r i c t ,
related

to

and ex t e n t o f public

community

input

into

the

34
decision-making process.

Berger found t h a t th e

superintendents’

r e l a t i o n s with the school board, the community, and the s t a f f were
strong p r e d i c t o r s o f su per inten den t succession.

Lutz and Wang found

t h a t prosp ec tive board members’ d e f e a t and incumbents’ not being r e ­
ele c te d were r e l a t e d to th e amount of c o n f l i c t being experienced in
the d i s t r i c t .
Trends f o r the Future of the Superintendencv
Many r e s e a r c h e r s have agreed t h a t c o n f l i c t w il l continue t o be
p a r t of the school d i s t r i c t environment in the f u t u r e ( Z i e g l e r e t
a l . , 1985).

Therefore, s up er in tenden ts need to develop s k i l l s t h a t

w ill help them manage c o n f l i c t in t h e i r d i s t r i c t s .
The American A s s o c i a t i o n o f School
g u id e li n e s

for training

educational

A dm inistrators

a d m i n i s tr a to r s

goals f o r l e a d e r s and seven competency a r e a s .
s p e c i f i c a l l y with the p o l i t i c a l

process:

(AASA)

include

seven

Competency Two deals

"Understanding p o l i t i c a l

theory and applying p o l i t i c a l theory and s k i l l s in bui lding l o c a l ,
s t a t e and nation al support f o r ed uca tion."
the importance o f s k i l l s

The AASA has recognized

a s so c ia te d with the

political

style

of

decisio n making by including a competency dea ling e x c l u s iv e ly with
those

sk ills

te c h n o c r a t i c ,

as

(1985)

as

managerial

r ecen t p u b li c a t io n
Hoyle

well

said

style

on s k i l l s
that

c o m p e te n c ie s
o f d e cis io n
for

successful

dem onstrating

associated
making.

w ith
In

educational

coalition

the

another
leaders,

building

and

i d e n t i f y i n g community power s t r u c t u r e s w il l enable l e a d e r s t o bu ild
public support f o r schools.

35
M orr is
educational

(1985)

suggested

that

a

reconceptualization

of

a d m in istr a ti o n i s needed t o deal with the schools of

today and those o f the f u t u r e .
r a tio n a l- e m o ti v e theo ry .

He based his suggestion on the

Morris focused on the individual in terms

o f h i s / h e r c ognit iv e fun ctioning and psychological h e a l t h , thin k in g
in terms o f new b e l i e f s t h a t will be re quire d in th e f u t u r e ,
outcome b e h a v i o r

in

te r m s

of v is u a liz in g

goals

and

and b u i l d i n g

s t r a t e g i e s t o o btain them.
In a c o n s tr u c t s i m i l a r to Morris’ s,

Cunningham (1985) l i s t e d

seven s k i l l s he believed could be c u l t i v a t e d through proper t r a i n i n g
t h a t would aid educational le a d e r s of th e f u t u r e .
1.

They are:

The a b i l i t y t o focus on th e pres en t and the f u tu r e s im u lta ­

neously.
2.

The a b i l i t y

to bridge th e gaps between various

interest

groups.
3.

Scanning, monitoring, and i n t e r p r e t i n g even ts .

4.

The a b i l i t y c r i t i c a l l y to ap praise everyday ev en ts.

5.

The a b i l i t y to understand an endles s barrage of informa­

6.

The a b i l i t y t o manage symbols.

tion.

In a paper he presented a t the 112th annual convention o f the
AASA in 1980,

Nelson l i s t e d

dealing with c o n f l i c t .

seven s t r a t e g i e s

He noted t h a t

f o r s uper inten de nt s

the e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of the

s t r a t e g i e s i s determined by the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t’ s a b i l i t y to choose

36
the proper one at the most opportune time, "according to co nd itio ns
t h a t prev ail in the s i t u a t i o n " (p. 37).
Summary
The presumption underlying each o f the suggested s k i l l s

for

su ccessful educational le a d e r s of the f u tu r e i s t h a t school le a d e r s
need to be able t o f i t th e s t r a t e g y to t h e s i t u a t i o n (Nelson, 1980).
Duke (1987) r e f e r r e d to t h i s a b i l i t y as s i t u a t i o n a l competence. The
superintendency has evolved through var ious stage s in the l a s t 150
years.

At

refined

technocratic

in fl uen ce
power

some

points

of informal

amongt h e

th e

superintende nt

sk ills.

has

More r e c e n t l y ,

power groups and s h i f t s

school

board,

interest

in

req uire d

highly

because o f

the

th e balance of

groups,

and

the

su p erin ten d en t, more complex p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s have become necessary.
Authors who have speculated about the f u tu r e of th e superintendency
have c a l l e d

f o r a blending of t e c h n o c r a t i c

(Hoyle e t a l . , 1985).

and p o l i t i c a l

skills

Neither type in i s o l a t i o n will meet th e needs

o f school le a d e r s of the f u t u r e .

The superintendent o f th e f u t u r e ,

i t seems,

wi ll need t o be competent in both areas

and possess the

vis i o n to

be able t o d is c e rn which s k i l l

effective

particular situation.

will

be

in a

CHA PT E R III
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
I ntrod uct ion
The methods and procedures employed in conducting the study are
explained in t h i s c h a p t e r .

The focus of t h e study i s r e s t a t e d , the

development of d e s c r i p t o r s i s des cr ibed , and the instrument used in
the study i s disc ussed .

The p i l o t study procedures ar e explained in

d e t a i l , as i s the method of c ontacting th e s u b j e c ts .
Focus of th e Study
The

researcher’s

purpose

in

conducting

determine whether the decision-making
s uperi ntendents were

related

to

this

styles

personal

study

preferred

was

to

by school

characteristics

of

the

s uperi ntendents or t o demographic f e a t u r e s o f the school d i s t r i c t s
in

which

they

technocratic
making can

were

employed.

and p o l i t i c a l - - w e r e
be d e s c r i b e d

as

Two d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
s tu d ie d .

d eliberate,

t e c h n i c a l / t h e o r e t i c a l , and l o g i c a l .

sty les--

Technocratic
conscious,

decision
analytic,

P o l i t i c a l d e c i s io n making can

be desc rib ed as p a r t i s a n , s t r a t e g i c , and respons ive.
Development of Descriptors
The r e s e a r c h e r developed s e t s of d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t rep rese nted
the

two

decision-m aking

styles

under

37

investigation.

These

38
d e s c r i p t o r s were used in s e l e c t i n g su peri nte ndents t o p a r t i c i p a t e
in the p i l o t study, as well as in developing th e instru men ts.

The

d e s c r i p t o r s were compiled using Rooet’ s I I ; The New World Thesaurus
(1984),

beginning with th e words

"political"

and " t e c h n o c r a t i c . "

Two l i s t s were cr ea ted f o r each word, one f o r high d e s c r i p t o r s and
one f o r low d e s c r i p t o r s .

By c r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g

th e se words,

the

following l i s t s of d e s c r i p t o r s were formulated:
Low Technocratic

High Technocratic

intuitive
instinctive
v is c e r a l
impulsive

deliberate
conscious
lo g i c a l
technical

Low P o l i t i c a l

High P o l i t i c a l

naive
indiscreet
insensitive
artless

strategic
p a r t is a n
responsive

Designing th e Instrument and Conducting the P i l o t Study
The r e se a r c h e r designed a fo rced- choice survey t o a s c e r t a i n the
types

of

decision-making

su p erin ten d en ts .

styles

preferred

by

To determine th e r e l i a b i l i t y

s e le c t e d
o f th e

Michigan
survey,

a

p i l o t study was conducted in April 1987.
P otential p i l o t - s t u d y p a r t i c i p a n t s were nominated by a panel of
three

persons

who

s u p erin ten d en ts .
Public

I n s t r u c t io n

were

The panel
for

knowledg ea ble
members

Michigan,

Michigan Association of School

th e

were

about
the

executive

A dmin istr ator s,

the

Michigan

Superintendent
director

of

of
the

and the executive

d i r e c t o r o f the Middle C i t i e s As sociatio n, which i s a f f i l i a t e d with

39

Michigan S t a t e Univ ersi ty.

Each panel member was given a w r i t t e n

d e s c r i p t i o n of th e decision-making s t y l e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n

and

was

who

asked

to

provide

the

names

of

exemplified each of the two s t y l e s .

ten

superintendents

Each panel member provided 20

names, f o r a t o t a l of 60 prospective p i l o t - s t u d y p a r t i c i p a n t s .

The

l i s t s provided by the panel members contained s ix d u p l i c a t i o n s , and
th e surveyor could not co ntact s ix o th e r i n d i v i d u a l s .

Thus, only 48

super int en de nts p a r t i c i p a t e d in the p i l o t study.
The panel members were assured t h a t t h e i r nominations would be
kept c o n f id e n tia l and t h a t the sup erintend en ts would not be t o l d how
they had been s e le c t e d .

Panel members were als o asked t o add to

the l i s t of d e s c r i p t o r s any words they thought c h a r a c t e r iz e d e i t h e r
style.

(A copy o f the l e t t e r given to panel members i s included in

Appendix A.)
The instrument used in th e p i l o t study contained 27 p a i r s of
statements

(see Appendix B).

description
o th e r was

of the

political

a description

making.

Nine

of

In each p a i r ,

the

of

one statement was a

decision-making
th e

style,

te c h n o c r a t i c

27 p a i r s

of

style

statem ents

whereas
of

were

the

de cisio n
bas ed

on

d e s c r i p t o r s in the low c a t e g o r i e s f o r each s t y l e , nine were based on
descriptors

in

the

high

categories,

and

d es crib e a moderate presence of the s t y l e .
used the

descriptors

from th e

modified by the words " o f t e n , "

high

nine

were

designed

to

The moderate statements

c a te g o r i e s

"sometimes,"

or

for

each

style,

"usually."

This

format was employed because th e r e se a r c h e r thought t h a t res po nde nts’

40
scores

could be c a l c u l a t e d

by adding t h e i r

category to t h e i r low scores f o r the o t h e r .

high

scores

f o r one

This c a l c u l a t i o n did

not prove to be u s e f u l .
R e l i a b i l i t y analyses were performed using th e r e s u l t s o f the
p i l o t study.
analyzed.

Both the p o l i t i c a l

and th e te c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e s were

The low, moderate, and high subscales o f the p o l i t i c a l

and t e c h n o c r a t i c

s c a le s were also analyzed.

The r e s u l t s o f the

analyses of th e t o t a l p o l i t i c a l and te c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e s , using the
Spearman-Brown and Guttman s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s , are
presented

in Table 3 .1.

better

considered ac ce ptab le ,

is

Because a r e l i a b i l i t y
thes e scores

score o f

in d icated t h a t the

t o t a l s c a l e s were r e l i a b l e or t h a t th e r e was l e s s than a .20
that

th e

re sp on den ts ’ answers

had been

.70 or

randomly

chance

selected.

The

sameness o f the r e l i a b i l i t y scores can be explained by the na tu r e of
th e instr ument.

Because the respondents were forced to choose one

statement from each p a i r of state m en ts, each choice a f f e c t e d t h e i r
scores on both s c a l e s .

Table 3 . 1 . - - R e s u l t s of r e l i a b i l i t y analyses of the t o t a l p o l i t i c a l
and t e c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e s .
Scale
P o l i t i c a l (n = 27)
Technocratic (n = 27)

Spearman-Brown
.81167
.81167

Guttman
.81185
.81185

41
The subscales were reviewed using the alpha scores

and the

stand ardized item alpha y ield ed in the Guttman s p l i t - h a l f a n a l y s is .
These scores are shown in Table 3. 2.

Table 3 . 2 . --Guttman alpha scores f o r th e low, moderate, and high
s ubsc ales .
Subscale

Alpha

Standardized Item Alpha

Low p o l i t i c a l
Moderate p o l i t i c a l
High p o l i t i c a l

.26820
:65137
.80298

.17676
.61787
.80145

Low te c h n o c r a t ic
Moderate te c h n o c r a ti c
High te c h n o c r a ti c

.26820
.65137
.80298

.17676
.61787
.80145

From t h e r e s u l t s
appeared

that

the

o f t h e Guttman s p l i t - h a l f

statements

the l e a s t r e l i a b i l i t y .

using

the

low-end

To i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s

analysis,

it

descriptors

had

fin d in g f u r t h e r ,

the

i n t e r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the low-end d e s c r i p t o r s were reviewed.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e e f f e c t on the s c ale mean i f the item were t o be
d elete d

from the computations was determined.

The r e s u l t s

are

pr esented in Table 3 . 3 , in which th e rank order s i g n i f i e s t h e degree
to which d e l e t i o n of th e item would a f f e c t th e s c a le mean.

The

higher

its

an

item

in

th e

rank or der,

d e l e t i o n would have on the s c ale mean.

th e

greater

th e

effect

Because seven of th e nine

low-end d e s c r i p t o r s were among the statements t h a t were a s so ciated
with the most e f f e c t on the mean when they were d eleted from the

42
c a l c u l a t i o n of the s c a le mean, the r e s e a r c h e r decided t h a t a l l lowend d e s c r i p t o r s would be elimin ated from th e survey.

Table 3 . 3 . --Low-end d e s c r i p t o r s and t h e i r e f f e c t on the s c a l e mean.
Item Number

Mean I f Deleted

Reliability

3
5
7
10
14
15
19
24
25

11.83333
11.04762
11.97619
11.90476
11.88095
11.57962
11.97619
11.71429
11.73810

.79949
.79056
.79767
.79579
.79228
.80502
.79882
.79237
.80590

Scale mean = 12.02318

The r e l i a b i l i t y

analyses

were r e c a l c u l a t e d

moderate and the high d e s c r i p t o r sta tem ents.
in Table 3 . 4 .

for

only

the

The r e s u l t s ar e shown

Once again, the sameness o f the r e l i a b i l i t y indices

is explained by the na t u r e of the instrument.

Table 3 . 4 . - - R e s u l ts o f r e l i a b i l i t y analyses of th e rev is ed t o t a l
p o l i t i c a l and t e c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e s .
Scale
P o l i t i c a l (n = 22)
Technocratic (N = 22)

Spearman-Brown
.79796
.79796

Guttman
.79540
.79540

43

The nine d eleted s e t s of statements were rep lace d by fo ur s e ts
o f statements containing d e s c r i p t o r s from th e high-end l i s t s .
statem ents were co nstr uct ed

in

the

same manner as

th e

These

o r ig i n a l

ones. Hence, the f i n a l v e r s i o n o f the survey contained 22 p a i r s of
sta tem ents.

In the analyses performed on d ata from the f u l l study

sample, no attempt was made to d i s t i n g u i s h between moderate and high
responses on e i t h e r s c a l e .
The D ir e c to r o f Opinion Research f o r the Michigan Department of
Education reviewed the f i n a l

version of the survey.

He suggested

s l i g h t changes in the wording to avoid p o t e n t i a l l y b iasin g words or
phra se s, as well as t o f a c i l i t a t e the a d m in istr a tio n o f the survey.
(See Appendix C f o r the f i n a l version o f the in st rum ent. )
Method of Contacting P o te n tia l P a r t i c i p a n t s
In

both

re s e a r c h e r

the

pilot

initially

study

and

th e

contacted p o t e n t i a l

fu ll - sa m p le

survey,

participants

the

by mail

to

explain the nature of the survey and to request t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
as well as to assure the s u pe ri nten den ts t h a t t h e i r responses would
be c o n f i d e n t i a l .

Because

part

of

the

survey

was

supported

f i n a n c i a l l y by a g r a n t from the Michigan I n s t i t u t e f o r Educational
Management,

the

in itial

organization’s letterhead.

contact

letter

was

printed

on

this

The l e t t e r informed su pe ri ntendents t h a t

a p rofe s sional in te rv iew er would be telephoning them the following
week,

either

to

complete

the

survey

with

them or

to

make

appointment f o r a time when the survey could be completed.
Appendix D f o r a copy of t h i s l e t t e r . )

an
(See

44

Two telephone surveyors f o r the p i l o t study and two a dditional
int er vi ew er s f o r the f u l l sample survey were s e le c t e d from a l i s t of
surveyors used by th e Michigan Department of Education in conducting
opinion

r esear ch .

session

on t h e

All

surveyors

use o f t h e

received

survey,

a 35-minute

c o n d u cted

training

jo in tly

by t h e

r e s e a r c h e r and the D ir e c to r o f Opinion Research f o r the Michigan
Department of Education.
the survey aloud,
help respondents

During thes e s e s s io n s , th e D ir e c t o r read

suggesting voice i n f l e c t i o n s
choose

between

the

pairs

surveyors were encouraged to ask qu es tio n s .

and techniques to

of

sta tem ents.

The

In the t r a i n i n g se ssion

f o r the full -sa m ple surveyors, the two in d iv id u a l s who had conducted
the

pilot

study

o f fe r e d

suggestions

of

methods

they

had

found

useful.
The surveyors were given l i s t s containing th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’
names, telephone numbers, and school d i s t r i c t s .

Each superintende nt

was assigned an interv iew number, which t h e surveyor was to a f f i x to
the completed survey.

The name of the s uper in tenden t did not appear

on the completed instrument.
The survey was conducted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
surveys

called

from t h e i r

r e s e a r c h e r ’ s c r e d i t card.

homes,

charging

their

calls

to

The
the

I f a surveyor was unable t o r e t u r n a c a l l

a t the appointed time, she was r e sp o n s i b le f o r c o n tactin g another
surveyor who could make the c a l l .
hour

for

the

ti m e

they

were

The surveyors were paid $5 an
engaged

in

surveying

the

45
superintendents.

(See Appendix E f o r t h e s u r v e y o r s ’ opening

statements f o r each i n t e rv ie w .)
A telephone survey was s e le c te d as th e method f o r conducting
this

re se ar ch

telephone

for

interview

several
would

reasons.
be

The

attractive

researcher
to

th e

thought

a

superintende nts

because i t would r e q u i r e l e s s time t o complete than a paper-andpencil survey.

Blankenship (1977) suggested t h a t telephone surveys

have numerous sampling advantages, including (a) higher completion
rates,

(b) usefulness in approaching special universe s,

g r e a t e r level of cooperation.
telephone

surveys,

and (c) a

However, Frey (1983), in his study of

noted t h a t

"appeals

by the

latter

techniques

(including phone survey) of ten end up d i v e r te d by "gatekeepers" or
ot her s who guard th e time and energy of th e p o t e n t i a l respondent"
(p. 43).

In t h i s study, th e s u p e r in te n d e n t’s s e c r e t a r y sometimes

acted as such a gatekeeper.

In thes e i n s ta n c e s , th e surveyors were

forced to c a l l back several times before speaking d i r e c t l y t o the
super inten den t.
The r e s e a r c h e r a l s o believed t h a t

a telephone

r e s u l t in a higher response r a t e than a mail

survey would

survey.

Frey noted

t h a t telephone surveys have higher response r a t e s than mail surveys
but lower r a t e s than personal in terv iew s.
than

200 measures

obtained

on personal

In a comparison o f more
interview

and telephone

surveys, Groves and Kahn (1979) found few o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between
t h e modes were l a r g e

enough t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

However, they noted th e following tr e n d s:

sig n ifican t.

46

1.

A g r e a t e r tendency toward missing data in the telephone

survey.
2.

A tendency of respondents t o p r e f e r th e personal

to the

telephone interview s.
3.

A tendency toward g r e a t e r expressions of optimism in the

telephone in terview s.
In t h i s

study,

th e

lower-than-expected response r a t e

(about

70%) may have been a r e s u l t o f the s e c r e t a r i e s ’ gatekeeping e f f o r t s .
Although Groves and Kahn i d e n t i f i e d

a tre nd

toward optimism

in

responses to telephone surveys, i t is u n l ik e l y t h e r e would have been
such a tre n d in the pr ese nt study.

Superintendents were asked to

choose between two s t y l e s of d ec is ion making, n e i t h e r of which is
i n h e r e n tly o p t i m i s t i c .
Sample S elec tion
One hundred f i f t y

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s were s e l e c t e d

universe of 525 K-12 school d i s t r i c t s within Michigan.
Public School D i s t r i c t , the onlv Class 1
*

<•»

I* as

from t h e

The D e tr o i t

defined hv the Mirhinan
■'

- -. -

^

Department o f Education, based on enrollment) d i s t r i c t in th e s t a t e ,
was elim inated from the universe because o f i t s v a s t d i f f e r e n c e in
s i z e from a l l other Michigan d i s t r i c t s .

The. s p e c i a l - c l a s s d i s t r i c t s

of Ann Arbor and Petoskey were also elim inated from c o n s id e r a tio n ,
as were

all

districts

including

less

than

kind er garten

through

tw e lf th grade.
To a r r i v e at a sample t h a t was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the proportion
of Class

2,

3,

and 4 d i s t r i c t s

to

th e

whole

univer se

of

522

47

d i s t r i c t s , th e r a t i o o f the number of d i s t r i c t s in each c l a s s to the
number in the universe was c a l c u l a t e d .

That r a t i o was then used to

determine th e number of d i s t r i c t s within a c l a s s t h a t
s e le c t e d .

should be

The r e s u l t s are shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3 . 5 . - -R a tio of number of d i s t r i c t s in sample to number in
univer se , by c l a s s .
No. of D i s t r i c t s
in Universe

% of
Sample

No. of D i s t r i c t s
in Sample

2
3
4

3
133
386

1
25
74

1
38
111

Total

522

100

150

D i s t r i c t Class

It

was

also

necessary

to

e lim in a te

from th e

univer se

any

d i s t r i c t whose superintendent had been contacted during th e p i l o t
phase of the study.
including

all

As a r e s u l t ,

Class

2 d istricts.

48 d i s t r i c t s
Because

were elim in a te d ,

this

occurred,

an

a d d itio n al Class 3 d i s t r i c t was s e le c te d f o r in clu sio n in th e study.
A t a b l e o f random numbers was used to s e l e c t th e ap p r o p ria t e
number of school d i s t r i c t s from a computer p r i n t o u t o f a l l d i s t r i c t s
in Michigan, by c l a s s ("School Management Detail L i s t i n g , " 1986).

A

master l i s t was prepared, containing th e d i s t r i c t name, th e name of
the su per inten den t,

and h i s / h e r o f f i c e telephone number (Michigan

Department of Education, 1986).
Of the 150 s u b je c ts s e le c t e d f o r in clu sio n in th e study,
provided usable d ata.

104

This rep rese nted a response r a t e o f 69.33%.

48

Because th e response r a t e was lower than a n t i c i p a t e d , th e respondent
and

nonrespondent

gro ups

were

compared,

u s in g

a t-test

for

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups, on th e following v a r i a b l e s :
SEV of th e s u p e r i n te n d e n t ’ s employing d i s t r i c t ,
district,

enrollment o f the

and per pupil expenditure ( Five Year Summary. 1986).

No

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were discovered between th e two groups on
any of these v a r i a b l e s .
Another way t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent and
nonrespondent groups was to ev aluate th e percentage o f respondents
in each group by d i s t r i c t c l a s s because t h i s was a c r i t e r i o n used in
th e s u b j e c t - s e l e c t i o n process.

Again, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was

found between the groups, as shown in Table 3 .6.

Thus, n e i t h e r th e

Class 3 nor the Class 4 school d i s t r i c t s were overre pre se nted in the
respondent group.

Table 3 . 6 . --Response r a t e , by d i s t r i c t c l a s s .

«

W

V

1 u

3
4

^

M rs

C r s l

rsr*4-rsr4

M rs

MU •

VC IC U VCU

m u

39
111

*

nrsrsrsrsrsrii

a/

n ~

rv cv p u n u

/©

r\c i> y u t» :> c

27
77

69.23
69.37

The ch i- sq u ar e t e s t f o r independence using SPSS-X was employed
t o conduct a s e r i e s of analyses of the d a t a .

This procedure was

used to determine whether or not two independent v a r i a b l e s were
associated.

The decision-making s t y l e o f th e respondent was one of

49
the

variables.

The

factors

included

in

th e

list

of

personal

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents or the demographic f e a t u r e s o f
the school d i s t r i c t s
other variable.

in which they were employed c o n s t i t u t e d the

The .05 alpha level was s e t f o r determining the

s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n i f i c a n c e of th e r e s u l t s of th e analyses .
Summary
The methods and procedures used in conducting the study were
described

in

this

chapter.

Development

of

th e

instrument

and

the p i l o t study t h a t was used to r e f i n e th e instrument and t e s t i t
f o r r e l i a b i l i t y were examined in d e t a i l .
ch ap ter were a d e s c r i p t i o n
rationale
procedures.

for

its

use,

of

the

Also included in t h i s

telephone

and a disc ussio n

survey method,

of th e

th e

sample-selec tion

Chapter IV co ntains a discus s io n o f th e f in d in g s o f the

s t a t i s t i c a l analyses conducted f o r t h i s study.

C HAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES
Introduction
Results of th e d ata analyses ar e discussed
Each hypothesis

is r e s t a t e d ,

in t h i s

ch ap ter .

followed by th e f in d in g s p e r t a i n i n g

to t h a t hypothesis.
Findinos
Respondents’ scores on the te c h n o c r a t i c and p o l i t i c a l
were ta b u l a t e d .

Each respondent received two sco re s.

s c a le s

The score for

a p a r t i c u l a r s ca le was determined by counting th e number of times
the

respondent s e le c t e d

dec is ion

the statement r e p re s e n t in g

making over the

decision-making s t y l e .

statement

r e p re s e n tin g

that

th e

type

of

alternative

These decision-making-scale scores were then

categ orized; b a s e d on t h e following c r i t e r i a :
No. of Answers

Category

0 through 8
9 through 14
15 through 22

Low
Moderate
Strong

The number of respondents

rep rese nted

in each

ta b u la te d f o r both the te c h n o c r a t i c and the p o l i t i c a l
freq uen cies

category was
scales.

The

f o r the te c h n o c r a t i c decis io n-m ak in g-st yle c a t e g o r i e s

are presented in Table 4 .1.

Frequencies f o r the p o l i t i c a l d e c i s io n -

50

51
making-style c a t e g o r ie s are shown in Table 4 .2.

As seen in these

t a b l e s , the scores f o r both s c a l e s were f a i r l y evenly d i s t r i b u t e d
among th e c a t e g o r i e s .

Table 4 . 1 .--Frequ en cies f o r the te c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e .
Category

Number

Percent

Cum. Percent

Low
Moderate
High

36
40
28

34.6
38.5
26.9

34.6
73.1
100.0

Total

104

100.0

100.0

Table 4 . 2 . - - Frequencies f o r the p o l i t i c a l s c a le .
Category

Number

Percent

Cum. Percent

Low
Moderate
High

36
35
33

34.6
33.7
31.7

34.6
68.3
100.0

Total

104

100.0

100.0

The chi -square t e s t was used to determine whether the observed
distribution

of s u p e r in te n d e n ts ’ responses d i f f e r e d

significantly

from t h a t which would be expected in a random d i s t r i b u t i o n . The .05
alpha level was s e le c t e d as the c r i t e r i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e .
follow ing pages,

the

results

for

both

the

political

te c h n o c r a t i c s ca le are presented f o r each hypothesis t e s t e d .

In the
and t h e

52
Hypothesis 1 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ dec is ion -m ak ing- style pr ef er en ce s and th e s i z e of
the school d i s t r i c t in which the s uper inten de nt s are employed.
Respondents

were

asked,

excluding a d u lt education?"

"What

is

th e

district

enr ollment,

The s i z e of the school d i s t r i c t was

defined in terms o f stude nt enrollment.

The t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s for

school d i s t r i c t s i z e were determined by t a b u l a t i n g th e freq ue nc ies
o f d i s t r i c t s i z e f o r th e sample.

The r e s u l t s by category f o r the

te c h n o c r a t i c s c ale and the p o l i t i c a l s c a l e are shown in Tables 4.3
and

4 .4,

respectively.

No s i g n i f i c a n t

between s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ pr eference

of

s i z e of t h e i r employing d i s t r i c t s .

relationship

decision-making

was

found

style

and

Therefore, the null hypothesis

was not r e j e c t e d .

Table 4 . 3 . --Technocratic s c ale by school d i s t r i c t enrollment.
School D i s t r i c t Enrollment
Total
< 976

Category
I1U

•

0/
10

977-3,820
M -.
11 u #

4/
to

3,821 +
M I1U .

o/
to

ii

_

HU.

Strong
Moderate
Low

10
13
13

35.7
32.5
36.1

12
23
16

42.9
57.5
44.4

6
4
7

21.4
10.0
19.4

28
40
36

Total

36

34.6

51

49.0

17

16.3

104

Chi-square = 2.68126

df = 4

p = .6125

53
T able 4 . 4 . --Political scale by school district enrollment.
School D i s t r i c t Enrollment
Total
< 976

Category

977-3,820

3,821 +

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No

Strong
Moderate
Low

12
11
13

36.4
31.4
36.1

15
19
17

45.5
54.3
47.2

6
5
6

18.2
14.3
16.7

33
35
36

Total

36

34.6

51

49.0

17

16.3

104

Chi-square = 0.62345

df = 4

p = .9604

Hypothesis 2 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s up er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ d e c is io n-m akin g-style pref er en ce s and th e number of
p r i o r s uper in tend en cies held or years as a sup erin te n d en t.
The respondents were asked, "How many s u p erin ten d en cies , other
than t h i s one, have you held?"

The r e s u l t s are presented in Tables

4.5 and 4.6 f o r the te c h n o c r a t i c and p o l i t i c a l s c a l e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’
preferred

decision-m aking

style

s uper in tenden cies they had held.
not r e j e c t e d .

and

the

number

of

prior

The refore, the null hypothesis was

54
Table 4 . 5 . --T echnocratic s c ale by number of p r i o r superintend en cies
held.
Number of P r io r Superintendencies
Total
Category

None

More Than One

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

14
28
22

50.0
70.0
61.1

14
12
14

50.0
30.0
38.9

28
40
36

Total

64

61.5

40

38.5

104

Chi-square = 2.78778

df * 2

p * .2481

Table 4 . 6 . - - P o l i t i c a l s c ale by number of p r i o r su per inten den ci es
held.
Number of P r io r Superintendencies
Total
Category

None
No.
20

More Than One
%

Strong
riuimr die
Low

CO

19

60.6
/ 1. H
52.8

Total

64

61.5

Chi-square * 2.62591

No.

%

No.

13
IU
17

39.4
£0.0
47.2

33
00
36

40

38.5

104

df = 2

p = .2690

55
Hypothesis 3 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s upe r­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis ion -mak ing-style pr ef er en ce s and the number of
years as s uper in tenden t in the d i s t r i c t .
Respondents were asked t o in d i c a t e t h e i r length of experience
as a s uper intende nt in t h e i r c u r re n t d i s t r i c t .
were (a) 1-3 y e a r s , (b) 3-5 y e a r s ,
years.

(c) 5-10 y e a r s , and (d) over 10

Because the second and t h i r d c a te g o r ie s overlapped, t h e data

were ta b u l a t e d using two c a t e g o r i e s :
years.

Response choices

1 t o 5 ye ar s and 6 or more

The r e s u l t s f o r thes e comparisons on the t e c h n o c r a t i c and

p o l i t i c a l s c a l e s are shown in Tables 4.7 and 4 .8, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
sig n ifican t

relationship

was

found

decision-m aking-style preferences
sup er in te nden t in the d i s t r i c t .

between

superintendents’

and t h e number o f y e a r s

Table 4 . 7 . --Tech no cratic s c ale by number o f years in th e d i s t r i c t .
Number of Years in D i s t r i c t
Total
1 to 5

6 or More

No=

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

15
24
21

53.6
60.0
58.3

13
16
15

46.4
40.0
41.7

28
40
36

Total

66

57.7

44

42.3

104

Chi-square = 0.28814

as

Therefore, the null hypothesis was

not r e j e c t e d .

Category

No

df = 2

p = .8658

56

T able 4 . 8 . --Political scale by num be r 1 of years in the district.
Number of Years in D i s t r i c t
Total
Category

1 to 5

6 or More

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

18
22
20

54.5
62.9
55.6

15
13
16

34.5
37.1
44.4

33
35
36

Total

60

57.7

44

42.3

104

Chi-square = 0.58373

df = 2

p = .7469

Hypothesis 4 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s up er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ de cis io n -m akin g-st yle pre fere nc es and the number of
nonwhites e n r o lle d in the school d i s t r i c t .
The s uper inten de nt s
stu dent body i s nonwhite?"

were asked:

percentage

of

your

Because so many respondents answered 0%

or 1%, two c a te g o r ie s were co nstr uct ed
significance.

"What

artificially

to

test

The c a t e g o r i e s were 0% to 2% and 3% to 98%.

for
The

r e s u l t s f o r these comparisons ar e shown in la bles 4.9 and 4.10 f o r
th e te c h n o c r a t i c and p o l i t i c a l s c a l e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

No s i g n i f i c a n t

r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between s u p e r in te n d e n ts ’ p r e f e r r e d d e c i s i o n ­
making s t y l e and th e number of nonwhites e n r o lle d in t h e i r school
d istricts.

Therefore, th e null hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .

57

Tab le 4 . 9 . --Technocratic scale by percentage of n onwhite enrollment.
Percentage of Nonwhite Enrollment
Total
Category

056-2%

3%-98%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

22
30
26

78.6
75.0
72.2

6
10
10

21.4
25.0
27.8

28
40
36

Total

78

75.0

26

25.0

104

Chi-square = 0.33862

df = 2

P = .8442

Table 4.10 . - - P o l i t i c a l sc a l e by percentage of nonwhite enrollment.
Percentage of Nonwhite Enrollment
Total
■
65
O

2%

Category

3%-98%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate

24
26

12.7

74.3

9
9

27.3
25.7

33
35

LUW

LO

/ / .o

o

LC.L

JO

78

75.0

26

25.0

104

Total

Chi-square = 0.24858

df = 2

P - .8831

Hypothesis 5 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan supe r­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision- mak ing-style pre fere nce s and the number of
school board members who have been r e c a l l e d during the s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t s ’ ten ure.
Respondents were asked, "During your tenure as a superintendent
in t h i s d i s t r i c t ,

have any incumbent board members been r e c a l l e d ?

58

I f ye s, pleas e in d i c a t e the number r e c a l l e d and th e y e a r . "
only one respondent s a id

that

a board member had been r e c a l l e d

during th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s te n u r e , no s t a t i s t i c a l
run f o r t h i s hypo th esis.

Because

t e s t s could be

The refore, no r e s u l t s ar e pres en ted .

Hypothesis 6 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s up er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ dec isio n-m aking-st yle pr ef er en ce s and the number of
school board members who have been def ea ted when running f o r
r e - e l e c t i o n during th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ tenure.
Superintendents

were

asked,

super intende nt in t h i s d i s t r i c t ,

"During

recency o f th e d e f e a t ( s ) ,
categories:

tenure

as

a

have any incumbent board members

been defeated when running f o r r e - e l e c t i o n ?
the number defeated and the y e a r . "

your

I f yes , plea se in d i c a t e

To t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the

the years

were gro upe d

into

three

1979 or bef ore , 1980 to 1983, and 1984 t o 1987.

The

r e s u l t s f o r number o f d e f e a t s and year o f d e f e a t s ar e presented in
Tables 4.11 through 4.14.

Table 4 . 1 1 .--T e c h n o c r a ti c s c ale by number of board member d e f e a t s .
Number of Board Member Defeats
Total
Category

No

Yes
No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

21
19
19

75.0

47.5
52.8

7
21
17

25.0
52.5
47.2

28
40
36

Total

59

56.7

45

43.3

104

Chi-square = 5.42480

df = 2

p «= .0664

59

T able 4 . 1 2 . --Technocratic scale by y e a r o f defeat.
Year of Defeat
Total
Category

1979/before

1980-83

1984-87

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

1
2
0

14.3
9.1
0

1
7
9

14.3
31.8
52.9

5
13
8

71.4
59.1
47.1

7
22
17

Total

3

6.5

17

37.0

26

56.5

46

Chi-square = 4.85460

df » 4

P = .3025

Table 4.13. - - P o l i t i c a l sc a l e by number of board member d e f e a t s .
Number o f Board Member Defeats
Total
Category

Yes
No.

No
No.

%

No.

%

45.7
69.4

no
19
11

54.3
30.6

35
36

56.7

45

43.3

104

C+ v 'n n n

1c

AC

Moderate
Low

16
25

Total

59

C

Chi-square = 4.16518

df = 2

CA

C

p = .1246

60

Table 4 . 1 4 . --Political scale by y e a r o f defeat.
Year of Defeat
1979/before

1980-83

1984

Total

a>
^4

Category

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No

Strong
Moderate
Low

0
2
1

0
10.0
9.1

8
6
3

53.3
30.0
27.3

7
12
7

46.7
60.0
63.6

15
20
11

Total

3

6.5

17

37.0

26

56.5

46

Chi-square * 3.48926

P = .4795

df = 4

No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’
prefere nce

f o r decision-making

style

and th e

number or ye a r

d e f e a t s of school board members running f o r e l e c t i o n .

of

Therefore,

the null hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .
Hypothesis 7 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan sup er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision- mak ing-style p r ef er en ce s and the s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t s ’ per ceptions of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the community,
the school board, and the s t a f f .
Respondents were asked, "On a 1 to 5 point r a t i n g s c a l e , would
you d e s c rib e your r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e community (school

board,

s t a f f ) , as a whole, as 1 * c o r d i a l , 3 = n e u t r a l , or 5 = h o s t i l e ? "
Because a l l
all

th r e e

hypothesis .

but one superintend en t responded 1 or 2 ( c o r d i a l )
groups,

no

statistical

tests

Thus, no r e s u l t s are presen ted .

could

be

run

for

for
this

61
Hypothesis 8 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision- mak in g- style p ref er en ce s and th e SEV of
th e d i s t r i c t s in which they are employed.
Superintendents were asked, "What was th e SEV o f your d i s t r i c t
f o r the

1985-86 school

because

t h a t wasthe most re cent yea r f o r

published f o r a l l
factors
compared,

year?

The 1985-86 school

Michigan d i s t r i c t s .

year

which th e se d a t a were

Since SEV was one o f the

on which t h e r e s p o n d e n t s and n o n r e s p o n d e n t s
co nsistency

of

d ata

was

presented in Tables 4.15 and 4.16.

was used

important.

had been

The r e s u l t s

are

No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was

found between the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis io n-m ak ing-st yle pre fere nc es
and the

SEV of

their

employing d i s t r i c t s .

Therefore,

th e null

hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .

Table 4 . 1 5 . --T echnocratic s c ale by SEV.
S t a t e Equalized Valuation
$49 ,000
or Less

$49, 001 $60, 000

$60, 001 $75, 000

$75 ,000
or More

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No

Strong
Moderate
Low

6
17
11

21.4
42.5
30.6

7
10
9

25.0
25.0
25.0

5
6
4

17.9
15.0
11.1

10
7
12

35.7
17.5
33.3

28
40
36

Total

34

32.7

26

25.0

15

14.4

29

27.9

104

Category

Chi-square = 5.37159

df = 6

p - .4971

Tota

62

Table 4 . 1 6 . --Political scale by SEV.
S t a t e Equalized Valuation
$49,000
or Less

$49,001$60,000

$60,001 $75,000

$75,000
or More

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

11
13
10

33.3
37.1
27.8

7
10
9

21.2
28.6
25.0

4
5
6

12.1
14.3
16.7

11
7
11

33.3
20.0
30.6

33
35
36

Total

34

32.7

26

25.0

15

14.4

29

27.9

104

Category

Chi-square = 2.32122

df = 6

Total

p = .8879

Hypothesis 9 ; There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ dec is ion -m ak ing- style pre fere nc es and the per pupil
expenditure of the d i s t r i c t s in which they are employed.
Respondents

were

asked,

"What

was

expenditure f o r th e 1985-86 school year?"
comparison
relationship

are

shown

was

in

found

Tables
between

4.17

rejected.

district

per

pupil

The r e s u l t s f o r t h i s

and 4.18.

s u p e r in te n d e n ts ’

s t y l e preference and the per pupil
in which they were employed.

the

No s i g n i f i c a n t
decision-making-

expenditures o f the d i s t r i c t s

Therefore, the null hypothesis was not

63
Table 4 . 1 7 . --Technocratic scale by per pupil expenditure.
Per Pupil Expenditure
Category

Up to
$2,956

$2,957$3,694

$3,695
or More

Total

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

9
15
11

32.1
37.5
30.6

14
19
17

50.0
47.5
47.2

5
6
8

17.9
15.0
22.2

28
40
36

Total

35

33.7

50

48.1

19

18.3

104

Chi-square = 0.87181

df = 4

p = .9286

Table 4 . 1 8 . - - P o l i t i c a l s c ale by per pupil expenditure.
Per Pupil Expenditure
Category

Up t o
$2,956

$3,695
or More

$2,957$3,694

Total

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

i- ~
a te

9
15
11

27.3
42.3
30.6

17
13
20

51.5
37.1
55.6

7
7
5

21.2
20.0
13.9

33
35
36

Total

35

33.7

50

48.1

19

18.3

104

Strong
i i u u c i

Low

Chi-square = 3.34507

df = 4

p = .5018

HvDothesis 10:
There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i o between Michiaan
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis ion-mak ing- style p refe rences and t h e i r
personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as age, gender, and advanced
academic t r a i n i n g .
The respondents were asked t h e i r age, and surveyors judged the
resp ondents ’ genders by t h e i r voices.

The respondents were also

64
asked to i n d i c a t e th e amount o f advanced academic t r a i n i n g they had
had beyond a m aster ’ s degree:

(a) none, (b) 5 or fewer courses , (c)

s p e c i a l i s t , (d) d o c t o r a t e , (e) o t h e r .
Because t h e r e were o n l y e i g h t
Michigan a t

the time o f the

survey

fe m ale

superintendents

in

and only two o f them were

respondents, analyses by gender were not performed.

With regard to

advanced academic t r a i n i n g , r e s p o n d e n t s e x p r e s s e d c o n s i d e r a b l e
confusion.

Many claimed they had d o c t o r a t e s , even though they t o l d

th e surveyors they had not completed t h e i r d i s s e r t a t i o n s .

Some

i n d i v id u a ls who were working beyond the s p e c i a l i s t degree s e le c t e d
both " s p e c i a l i s t "
were

ta b u l a t e d

d egr ee ."

and "other" as responses.

using

the

response

Therefore,

categories

"degree"

the data
and

The r e s u l t s ar e presented in Tables 4.19 and 4.20.

Table 4.19. --T echnocratic s c a le by advanced degree.
Possession o f Advanced Degree
Total
Category

No Degree

Degree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

12
15
15

42.9
37.5
41.7

16
25
21

57.1
62.5
58.3

28
40
36

Total

42

40.4

62

59.6

104

Chi-square = 0.23393

df = 2

p = .8896

"no

65
T able 4 . 2 0 . --Political scale by advanced degree.
Possession o f Advanced Degree
Total
Category

No Degree

Degree

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

14
12
16

42.4
34.3
44.4

19
23
20

57.6
65.7
55.6

33
35
36

Total

42

40.4

62

59.6

104

Chi-square = 0.84423

df = 2

P = 0.6557

The age data were categ or ized as follows:
52, and 53 and over.

43 or l e s s , 44 to

The r e s u l t s are presented in Tables 4.21 and

4.22.

Table 4.21. --T ec hn ocr atic s c ale by age.
Age
Category

/n nv»
Less

T rt+ •» 1

44-52

Over

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

9
13
12

33.3
32.5
33.3

14
15
12

51.9
37.5
33.3

4
12
12

14.8
30.0
33.3

27
40
36

Total

34

33.0

41

39.8

29

27.2

103

Note:

One missing observation
Chi-square = 3.55874

df = 4

p = .4690

66
Table 4 . 2 2 . --Political scale by age.
Age
43 or
Less

Category

53 and
Over

44-52

Total

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Strong
Moderate
Low

11
9
14

33.3
25.7
40.0

11
14
16

33.3
40.0
45.7

11
12
5

33.3
34.3
14.3

33
35
35

Total

34

33.0

41

39.8

28

27.2

104

Chi-square = 4.98840

No

df = 4

relationships

sig n ifican t

P = .2885

found

were

between

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decisio n-m ak ing-st yle p r ef er en ce s and t h e i r age or
possession of an advanced degree.

Therefore, the null hypothesis

was not r e j e c t e d .
Summary
Not one o f t h e
rejected.

null

hypotheses

tested

in

the

s t u d y was

In o th e r words, the independent v a r i a b l e s addressed in

the hypotheses did not appear t o be r e l a t e d to th e decision-makings t y l e pref er en ce of th e respondents.

The re se ar ch instr ument, with

i t s r e l a t i v e l y high r e l i a b i l i t y score o f .79, did not appear to be a
source o f e r r o r in the f in d in g s .
the

study,

conclusions

drawn

Chapter V co ntai ns a summary of
from

recommendations f o r f u r t h e r rese arch.

the

study

findings,

and

CHA PT E R V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, REFLECTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY
I ntro du ction
This cha pter includes a summary of th e study, comments on the
survey design and procedures,
conclusions,

the r e s u l t s

r e f l e c t i o n s on t h e r e s e a r c h ,

of hypothesis t e s t i n g ,
and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r

f u r t h e r study.
Summary
The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s purpose was to determine whether the d e c i s i o n ­
making s t y l e of s e le c t e d Michigan school s up er intend en ts was r e l a t e d
t o personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s upe ri nt en den ts and/or t o demo­
graphic f e a t u r e s of the school d i s t r i c t s in which they were employed.
The v a r ia b l e s examined in the study were (a) s iz e o f school d i s t r i c t ;
(b) number o f p r i o r superintendencies held; (c) nonwhite enrollment;
(d) number o f ye ar s as superintendent in the d i s t r i c t ;

(e) school

board members r e c a l l e d during the tenure o f th e superi ntendent;

(f)

school board members def ea ted when running f o r r e - e l e c t i o n during the
ten ure o f the s uper intende nt;

(g) s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s perceived r e l a ­

ti o n s h i p with school board, s t a f f , and community; (h) SEV o f the d i s ­
trict;

(i)

per

pupil

expenditure o f

the d i s t r i c t ;

and

gender, and advanced academic t r a i n i n g o f the s uperintend en t.

67

(j)

age,

68

The two s t y l e s of de cisio n making t h a t were t e s t e d were the
p o l i t i c a l and the t e c h n o c r a t i c s t y l e s .
L i t e r a t u r e Review
There are two f a m il ie s of t h e o r i e s in which th e decision-making
s t y l e o f th e superintend en t

is

a significant factor.

The f i r s t

family of t h e o r i e s i s th e public-education-as-democracy family.

The

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s decision-m aking behavior i s co n sid e red in the
context

o f the degree to which i t

decision-making process by o t h e r s ,
ou tsi de i n t e r e s t groups.

fosters

participation

in the

both within the school

and by

The second family of t h e o r i e s in which the

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s decision-making behavior i s s i g n i f i c a n t is t h a t in
which the balance of power within the school d i s t r i c t is th e common
theme.
The p o s it i o n of t h e superintendency has evolved in the

last

century and a h a l f , through stages t h a t have been shaped l a r g e l y by
ex ternal f a c t o r s .

The demands on the s upe rintend en t have changed as

the needs of school

districts

have changed, d i f f e r e n t management

philoso ph ies have become popular , advanced t r a i n i n g in educational
management has become a v a i l a b l e ,

and o u ts i d e i n t e r e s t groups have

become in c r e a s i n g l y involved in policy d ec is io n s .
D e c is io n - m a k in g t h e o r i s t s have d e v e l o p e d models t h a t have
evolved from formal, i d e a li z e d concepts t o models t h a t r e p r e s e n t an
attem pt

to

accommodate t h e

or g an izatio n s such as schools.

realities

of

decision

making

in

Many r e c e n t t h e o r i s t s have suggested

69
decision-making s t r a t e g i e s t h a t accommodate th e e x er tio n o f power on
the decision-making process by a number o f informal i n t e r e s t groups.
The dichotomy between the p o l i t i c a l and the te c h n o c r a t i c s t y l e s
o f d e cis io n making has

been well

documented

in

th e

d e s p i t e the various l a b e l s assigned t o t h e se s t y l e s .

literature,

The p o l i t i c a l

s t y l e i s c h a r a c te r iz e d by s e n s i t i v i t y t o those who hold informal
power, th e a b i l i t y to s t r a t e g i z e in th e p o l i t i c a l process o f making
d e c i s io n s , and a r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t dec is io n making i s p a r t i c i p a t o r y
in

nature.

The t e c h n o c r a t i c

c h a r a c t e r iz e d by th e te c h n i c a l

sty le,

on

the

other

hand,

is

e x p e r t, with a t t e n t i o n t o s p e c i f i c

management p r o c e s s e s - - th e pro fe ssi onal school l e a d e r .
R ecently,

researchers

have

suggested

that

successful

su peri ntendents w ill need s k i l l s in both th e t e c h n o c r a t i c and the
p o l i t i c a l s t y l e s o f decisio n making.

The s t y l e employed will depend

on the s u p e r i n te n d e n t ’ s assessment of the immediate s i t u a t i o n .
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s success will

The

be measured by th e degree to which

he/she ac c u r a t e l y a s se s se s the s i t u a t i o n and uses the ap p r o p ri a t e
style.

A utho rs

have

referred

to

th is

sk ill

as

situational

competence.
Research Design and Methodology
The survey instrument was p i l o t t e s t e d with 48 s u p erin te n d en ts .
The p i l o t instrument contained 27 p a i r s o f sta tem en ts , one of which
described a t e c h n o c r a t i c s t y l e of de cisio n making and th e o th e r a
p o l i t i c a l s t y l e o f d e cis io n making.

These statements were generated

from a l i s t of d e s c r i p t o r s o f each of th e decision-making s t y l e s .

70
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d

in t h e p i l o t s t u d y were

nominated f o r in clu sio n by a panel of t h r e e persons who knew the
s uperi ntendents in Michigan.

The panel made t h e i r nominations a f t e r

reading d e s c r i p t i o n s o f both s t y l e s o f dec is io n making.

The r e s u l t s

of the p i l o t study were analyzed f o r r e l i a b i l i t y using the SpearmanGuttman technique.

As a r e s u l t of t h i s a n a l y s is ,

re vis ed t o 22 ques tio ns with high r e l i a b i l i t y .

th e survey was

The second p a r t of

th e survey contained 15 qu es tio ns p e r t a i n i n g to the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s
background

and the

environment

of

the

school

district

in

which

he/she was employed.
The sample was drawn from the 535 s upe ri nt en den ts employed in
Class 2, 3,

and 4 d i s t r i c t s .

All d i s t r i c t s

including l e s s

than

kind er ga rte n through t w e l f th grade were excluded from the univer se ,
as was t h e only Class 1 d i s t r i c t in Michigan--the D e t r o i t Public
Schools.

The sample comprised 150 s u p erin ten d en ts ,

researcher

obtained

106 u s a b l e

distributed

proportionately

responses.

among Class

2,

from whom the

R espo nd en ts
3,

and

were

4 d istricts.

Nonrespondents did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from respondents on the
variables of d i s t r i c t

enr ollment,

SEV per s tu d e n t,

or per pupil

ex penditur e.
The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

were c o n t a c t e d

by t r a i n e d

surveyors and asked t o answer a two-part survey.

The f i r s t p a r t of

the survey contained 22 questions with two statements
representing

the

technocratic sty le.

p o litical

style

and

one

telephone

each,

one

representing

the

The second p a r t of th e survey contained 15

71
questions

concerning th e d i s t r i c t

environmental

factors

o u t lin e d

above and th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s background.
The telephone surveyors were t r a i n e d by a Michigan Department
o f Education employee whose s p e c i a l t y was public opinion r esear ch .
The telephone survey method was s e le c t e d over th e paper-and-pencil
q u e s ti o n n a ir e because the r e s e a r c h e r thought su peri ntendents would
be more l i k e l y t o respond to a method t h a t did not r e q u i r e much of
t h e i r time and t h a t they would not have t o make an e f f o r t to r e t u r n .
The telephone surveyors c a l l e d from t h e i r homes, between th e hours
o f 8:30 a.m.

and 4:00 p.m., over a span o f t h r e e weeks in e a r l y

summer 1987.
Results
Survey responses were analyzed using the ch i- sq u ar e t e s t f o r
relationships.

Not

one o f the f a c t o r s wasfound t o be s i g n i f i c a n t

a t the alpha =

.05

level.

Therefore, noneof th e null hypotheses

could be r e j e c t e d .
Summary of Findings
Hypothesis 1 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan su p er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis io n-m aking-st yle p ref er en ce s and the s i z e of
the school d i s t r i c t in which the su pe ri ntendents are employed.
The p-value f o r th e te c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e a n a l y s is was .6125; the
p-value f o r th e

p o l i t i c a l s c a le a n a l y s i s was .9604. The refore, the

null hypothesis

was

not r e j e c t e d .

In t h i s study, the s i z e of the

d i s t r i c t , as defined in terms of student enrollment, was not r e l a t e d
t o the d e c is io n-m aking-sty le preference of th e s uperi ntendent.

72
Hypothesis 2 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis ion-mak ing- style pr ef er en ce s and th e number of
p r i o r superintendences held or years as a sup erin ten d en t.
The p-value f o r th e t e c h n o c r a ti c s c a l e an alys is was .2481; the
p-value f o r t h e p o l i t i c a l s c a l e a n a l y s is was .2690.
null

hypothesis was not

rejected.

In t h i s

The refore, the

study,

the number of

p r i o r su perinten dencies held was not r e l a t e d to th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’s
decis io n-m ak in g-st yle prefe rence.

Also, th e t o t a l number o f y e a r s .

th e respondent had been a sup erintendent was not r e l a t e d t o the
dec isio n-m aking-st yle pref er en ce .
Hypothesis 3 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis ion-mak ing-style pr ef er en ce s and the number of
yea rs as superintendent in the d i s t r i c t .
The p-value f o r the t e c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e a n aly s is was .8658; the
p-value f o r th e p o l i t i c a l s c a le a n a ly s is was .7469.
null hypothesis was not

rejected.

The refore, the

In t h i s study, no r e l a t i o n s h i p

was found between the number of years the respondent had been a
s uper in tenden t in the d i s t r i c t and the de cis io n-m aking-st yle p r e f e r ­
ence.
H
vrn n t h oS.T..T..............................................................................
c i c A*
T h o r o i c n n r o l a f i n n c h i n .......................
h o fu o o n M -irhinan
■

cnn ov* -

i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-m ak in g- style pre fere nc es and the number of
nonwhites e nrolle d in th e school d i s t r i c t .
The p-value f o r th e te c h n o c r a tic s c a l e an a ly s is was .8442; th e
p-value f o r th e p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s is was .8831.
hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .
found between the number o f

Therefore, th e null

In t h i s study, no r e l a t i o n s h i p was
nonwhites

en r o lle d

in

the

d istrict

(expressed as a percentage o f th e t o t a l school population) and the
de ci sio n-m aking-st yle prefer en ce of the s uperintend en t.

73

Hypothesis 5 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s up er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-mak ing-style pr ef er en ce s and the number of
school board members who have been r e c a l l e d during th e s u p e r in ­
tendents* tenure.
Because only one respondent answered t h a t a school board member
had been r e c a l l e d during th e respondent’ s te n u r e ,

no a n a l y s is was

performed and no conclusion was drawn f o r t h i s hyp othesis.
Hypothesis 6 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decis ion-m ak ing- style pref er en ce s and th e number of
school board members who have been defeated when running f o r
r e - e l e c t i o n during the s u p e r in te n d e n ts ’ ten ure.
The p-value f o r th e te c h n o c r a ti c s c ale an a ly s is was .0664;
p-value f o r the p o l i t i c a l s c a l e a n a ly s is was .1246.
null

hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .

Therefore,

the
the

In t h i s study, no r e l a t i o n s h i p

was found between the number o f school board members who had been
defeated when running f o r r e - e l e c t i o n during th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s
tenu re and the resp ond en t’s decision-m ak ing- style pre fere nc e.
Hypothesis 7 ; There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan super ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-mak ing-style pre fere nce s and the s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t s ’ percep tion s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e community,
the school board, and the s t a f f .
Because a l l

but

one

respondent

r a te d

all

relationships

as

co rdial or very c o r d i a l , no a n a l y s is o f d a ta was performed and no
conclusions were drawn f o r t h i s hypothesis.
Hypothesis 8 : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s up er ­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision- mak in g- style pre fere nc es and th e SEV of
the d i s t r i c t s in which they are employed.
The p-value f o r the te c h n o c r a tic s c a le a n a ly s is was .4971; the
p-value f o r th e p o l i t i c a l s c ale a n a l y s is was .8879.
null hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .

Therefore, the

In t h i s study, no r e l a t i o n s h i p

74
was found between the SEV of th e d i s t r i c t in which the respondent
was employed and the resp on den t’ s decision-m ak ing-st yle pref er en ce .
Hypothesis 9 : There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan s upe r­
i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-m ak ing-st yle pre fere nc es and the per pupil
expenditure of th e d i s t r i c t s in which they ar e employed.
The p-value

f o r the

te c h n o c r a t i c

s c ale

a n a ly s is

was

the p-value f o r th e p o l i t i c a l s c a le a n a l y s is was .5018.
the

null

hypothesis

was

not r e j e c t e d .

In

r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between the per pupil
d istrict

and

the

th is

.9286;

Therefore,
study,

no

expenditure o f the

decision-m aking-style preference

of

the

superi nte ndent.
Hypothesis 10:
There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p between Michigan
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decisio n-m ak ing-st yle pr ef er en ce s and t h e i r
personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as age, gender, and advanced
academic t r a i n i n g .
Because of the small number of female respondents, no a n a ly s is
by gender
analysis

was performed.
by advanced

te c h n o c r a t i c

s c ale

The p-value

degree

a n a ly s is

f o r the

political

p-value

for

te c h n o c r a t i c

Therefore,

s c a le

the

. 6 557;

by advanced

p-value

th e

was

for

a n a ly s is

s c ale

the

p-value

degree was
by age was

a n a ly s is

concerning possession of advanced

null hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d .

political

by

scale
for

.8896.

The

.2885;

age was

th e

the

.4690.

degree and age,

the

In t h i s study, no r e l a t i o n s h i p

was found between e i t h e r possession o f an advanced degree or age and
the decisio n-m ak ing-st yle prefer en ce o f the su per in te nden t.
In summary, none of the v a r i a b l e s s e le c te d f o r a n a ly s is in t h i s
s tu d y

appeared

to

be

related

to

the

decision-m aking-style

pref er en ce s of the responding s u peri ntendents .

75
Conclusions
The instrument t h a t was developed as p a r t o f t h i s study was
proven t o be of high r e l i a b i l i t y and did not appear to be a source
of

error

in

the

findings.

In

another

re se arch

setting,

this

instrument could be employed to d is c r im in a te between decision-making
styles

of

educational

adm inistrators

at

various

levels

in

o r g a n i z a ti o n s .
The sample population was evenly d i s t r i b u t e d between th e two
decision-making s t y l e s as well as across the c a t e g o r i e s of "Strong,"
" M o d e r a te , "
th e

and

instrument

"Weak"

did

not

w ithin
seem to

each
be

style

a

grouping.

source

of

error

Sin ce
in

the

f in d i n g s , i t can be concluded t h a t Michigan s uper inten de nt s do have
decisio n-m akin g-st yle p r e fe r e n c e s , which they i n d i c a t e when forced
t o s e l e c t between th e p o l i t i c a l and th e t e c h n o c r a t i c s t y l e .
Although none o f the v a r i a b l e s

tested

resulted

in an alpha

level t h a t equaled or exceeded the .05 l e v e l , the alpha level o f the
ch i- sq u ar e t e s t f o r one v a r i a b l e did approach s i g n i f i c a n c e .

For the

t e c h n o c r a t i c s c a l e , the number of board member d e f e a t s during the
tenure of the supe rin tend en t produced an alpha level of p = .0664.
It

may be

relationship

c o n clu d ed
between

from
th ese

th is

finding

two v a r i a b l e s

that
which

there
did

is

not

some

produce

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f in dings in t h i s study.
F i n a l l y , based on the fin dings des cribed in th e review o f the
literatu re,

as well

as

the

fact

that

on a r e l i a b l e

instrument

su peri ntendents do i n d i c a t e s t y l e pre fere nc es when forced t o choose
between p o l i t i c a l and t e c h n o c r a t i c , i t can be reasonably concluded

76

t h a t such a dichotomy e x i s t s .

Michigan s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ d e c i s i o n ­

making s t y l e s can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d

as e i t h e r

technocratic

or

p o l i t i c a l , using th e d e s c r i p t o r s developed as p a r t o f t h i s study.
Ref lec tions
A number of w r i t e r s have documented t h a t a dichotomy e x i s t s in
the r o l e of supe rin tend en t between th e p o l i t i c a l
styles

of

d e cis io n

making

(Halpin,

1966).

and te c h n o c r a t i c

The

high

lev el

of

r e l i a b i l i t y o f the f i r s t p a r t of the survey used in t h i s study may
be a t t r i b u t a b l e to th e p a r t i c i p a t i n g s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ s e n s i t i v i t y to
t h i s dichotomy.
The independent v a r i a b l e s

might have f a i l e d

to

predict

the

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-making s t y l e because those v a r i a b l e s were
not r e l a t e d to decision-making s t y l e s .

A lternatively,

i t may be

t h a t even a telephone survey is not capable of picking up strong
v a r i a t i o n s in s t y l e .

Many of th e respondents complained t h a t they

could not make a d i s t i n c t i o n between th e two statements presented to
them in

the

first

part

of the

survey.

Because

questioning

su peri ntendents about how they make d e c is io n s i s somewhat personal
and could

be perceived

as

challenging

their

abilities,

another

method o f data c o l l e c t i o n might y i e l d more e n lig h te n in g r e s u l t s .
Greater success might be expected with a personal interv iew because
t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t might f e e l

free

to

be more open w i t h

the

in terv iew er and expand on h i s / h e r answers.
Finally,

i f s i t u a t i o n a l competence is the s k i l l

req uire d of successful

school

leaders,

p r esen tin g

t h a t i s most

s uper inten de nt s

77

w ith

scenarios

before

a s k in g

them

how

they

would

make

a

d e cis io n might y i e l d more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d ata.
Suggestions f o r Further Study
The s k i l l s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s i t u a t i o n a l
further

attention

theorists.
1.

by r e s e a r c h e r s

and

competence d e s e r v e

educational

a d m in istr a tio n

F urther study should be undertaken to :

Analyze t h e behavior of successful school le a d e r s in s im i­

l a r s i t u a t i o n s to determine which s k i l l s or s t y l e s are used most
s u c c e s s f u l l y in a given s i t u a t i o n .
2.

Determine the f a c t o r s pres en t in various

situations

that

govern i n d i v i d u a l s ’ s e l e c t i o n of s t y l e s or s k i l l s t o be employed.
3.

Explore t r a i n i n g models f o r new and p r a c t ic e d school l e a d ­

er s t h a t can a s s i s t them in developing s i t u a t i o n a l competence.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PILOT-STUDY PANEL MEMBERS

78

D ear _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
As p a r t o f a p i l o t study f o r my d i s s e r t a t i o n on th e decision-making
s t y l e s of school s u p e rin te n d e n ts , I need to i d e n t i f y a group of
s uperintend en ts who c h a r a c t e r i z e the two s t y l e s I am i n t e r e s t e d in
studying.
The two s t y l e s ar e the p o l i t i c a l and th e te c h n o c r a t i c
s t y l e o f d e cis io n making.
I t should be noted t h a t t h i s study does
not suggest t h a t these are th e only two s t y l e s o f decision-making
behavior demonstrated by school l e a d e r s .
They ar e simply the
p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e s on which t h i s study i s focused.
Your name has been suggested t o me as a person f a m i l i a r with most of
th e s upe ri nt en den ts in our s t a t e .
I re quest your help in two ways.
Will you read the d e s c r i p t i v e material presented here and i d e n t i f y
f o r me a t l e a s t ten s upe rin tend en ts you bel ieve e x h i b i t e i t h e r the
t e c h n o c r a t i c or the p o l i t i c a l decision-making s t y l e ? Second,
as you
review th e l i s t o f names you have provided, w ill you j o t down any
oth e r d e s c r i p t i v e phrases t h a t come t o your mind in c h a r a c t e r iz i n g a
given s t y l e ?
Based on th e information you provide, and t h a t of
o t h e r s I am a l s o a s k i n g f o r a s s i s t a n c e , I w i l l c o n t a c t t h e
su peri nte ndents named and ask them t o complete a b r i e f survey. The
purpose of t h i s e x e r c is e i s t o v a l i d a t e th e survey instrument, which
has never been used before in t h i s manner. Thank you.
DECISION MAKING: The thought processes t h a t lead t o and th e a c t of
choosing between two or more a l t e r n a t i v e s .
TECHNOCRATIC DECISION MAKING: The decision-making s t y l e t h a t can be
c h a r a c t e r iz e d as d e l i b e r a t e , conscious, and a n a l y t i c .
Lis ted below
are words t h a t can be used t o descri be th e low and t h e high ends of
a continuum o f the te c h n o c r a t i c s t y l e o f dec isio n making.
Low Technocratic

High Technocratic

intuitive
instinctive
impulsive

deliberate
technical/theoretical
lo g ic a l

POLITICAL DECISION MAKING: The decision-making s t y l e t h a t can be
c h a r a c t e r iz e d as p a r t i s a n , s t r a t e g i c , and res pons ive. Listed below
are words t h a t can be used t o d es crib e th e low and t h e high ends of
a continuum of th e p o l i t i c a l s t y l e of dec isio n making.
Low P o l i t i c a l
naive
artless
insensitive

High P o l i t i c a l
responsive
strategic
p a r t is a n

79
Please l i s t the names of ten s upe rinten de nts you feel
described as p o l i t i c a l d e cis io n makers.
Name

could be

D istrict

1 .____________________________________________________________________

2 .__________________________________________________________________
3 ._____________________________________________________________________
4 ._____________________________________________________________________
5 ._____________________________________________________________________
6 ._____________________________________________________________________
7 ._____________________________________________________________________

8 .__________________________________________________________________
9 . _____________________________________________________________________
10.

Please use t h i s space to add any a d d it io n al words or phrases you
would use t o d e s cri be a p o l i t i c a l de cisio n maker.

80
Please l i s t the names and d i s t r i c t s o f ten su peri ntendents you feel
could be described as t e c h n o c r a t i c d e c i s io n makers.
Name

D istrict

1 ..
2 ..
3..
4 ..
5.
6 *.

7 ._

8*.
9 ..
10.

Please use t h i s space to add any a d d i tio n a l words or phrases you
would use t o d e s c rib e a te c h n o c r a t i c d e c is io n maker.

Thank you f o r your time.
Marianne Higgins

APPENDIX B

PILOT-STUDY INSTRUMENT

81
DECISION-MAKING-STYLE INSTRUMENT
Instructions
Consider j o b - r e l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s in which you make d e c i s i o n s .
you u s u a lly make d e cis io n s ?

How do

I will read 27 p a i r s o f statements t o you, each d e s c ri b in g p o s sib le
decision-making s t y l e s . For each p a i r , pleas e respond e i t h e r "A" or
"B," depending on which statement i s most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f your
behavior.
In many cas es , n e i t h e r the "A" nor th e "B" statement may be very
t y p i c a l of your behavior; but plea se s e l e c t th e response which more
nea rly d e s c rib e s your decision-making s t y l e .
1. A. I am often d e l i b e r a t e in my d ecis io n making.
B. I often use s t r a t e g i e s in making d e c i s io n s .
2.

A. I almost always make my d e c is io n s with l o g i c .
B. I almost always cons ider which people fee l most s tr o n g ly
when I make a d e c i s io n .

3.

A. I am sometimes impulsive in making a d e c i s io n .
B. I g e n e r a ll y do not cons ider o t h e r s ’ f e e l i n g s when I make
decisions.

4.

A.
B.

I f re q u e n tly employ c l a s s i c l o g i c t o make my d e c i s i o n s .
I ofte n co nsid e r p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s in making d e c i s i o n s .

5.

A.
B.

I use i n t u i t i o n when I make d e c i s io n s .
I am sometimes naive about my d e c i s io n s .

6.

A.
B.

I ofte n am responsive t o the needs of o th e r s in my d e c is io n s .
I ofte n make d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s io n s .

7.

A.
B.

I sometimes make naive d e c i s io n s .
Sometimes I make i n s t i n c t i v e d e c i s io n s .

8.

A.
B.

My d e c is io n s are ofte n influenced by educational theo ry .
I of ten am responsive t o the wishes o f o th e r s when making
d e c i s io n s .

9.

A.
B.

I almost always am s t r a t e g i c in my d ecis io n making.
1 almost always am d e l i b e r a t e in my d e c is io n making.

10.

A.

Sometimes I n e g le c t to co nsider aspec ts o f a s i t u a t i o n which
l a t e r t urn out t o be important when I make d e c i s io n s .
I follow my "gut" f e e l i n g s in making d e c i s io n s .

B.

82
11. A. Almost always I co nsid e r s t r a t e g i e s in making d e c i s io n s .
B. I am almost always lo g ic a l in my d e c i s io n s .
12. A. I almost always employ c l a s s i c l o g i c to make d e c i s io n s .
B. I almost always co nsid e r p a r t i s a n p o s it i o n s in de cisio n
making.
13. A.

I almost always co nsider p a r t i s a n concerns when I make
decisions.
B. I am a d e l i b e r a t e d e cis io n maker.

14. A. I am sometimes i n s e n s i t i v e when I make d e c i s io n s .
B. Sometimes my d e c is io n s ar e i n s t i n c t i v e .
15.

A. I sometimes make impulsive d e c i s i o n s .
B. I sometimes make g u i l e l e s s d e c i s io n s .

16.

A. Almost always, educational theory in flu en c es my d e c i s io n s .
B. I am a s t r a t e g i c d ecis io n maker.

17.

A. Educational theory infl uenc es my d e c i s io n s .
B. I am us u ally a s t r a t e g i c d ecis io n maker.

18.

A.

19.

A.
B.

20.

A.

21.

A.
B.

I o fte n make my d e c is io n s with l o g i c .
I of ten co n s id e r which people f eel most s tr o n g ly about an
i s s u e when I make d e c i s io n s .

22.

A.

I ofte n t h i n k about s t r a t e g i e s as p a r t o f my d e cis io n
making.
Frequently, I use c l a s s i c l o g i c in my d e c i s io n s .

Frequently, I co nsider p a r t i s a n concerns when I make
decisions.
B. I o fte n make d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s io n s .

I am almost always responsive t o th e needs of o th e r s in
d e cis io n making.
B. My d ec is io n s ar e made with d e l i b e r a t i o n .

B.
23.

A.
B.

24.

Sometimes I follow my "gut" f e e l i n g s when I make d e c i s i o n s .
I sometimes make a r t l e s s d e c i s i o n s .

A.
B.

I ofte n make my d e c is io n s based on c o n s id e ra t io n s of
educational th eo ry .
I co ns ide r p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s when I make d e c i s io n s .
I r e l y on my i n t u i t i o n when making d e c i s io n s .
I know t h a t some of my d ec i s io n s wi ll ups et people, but
I make them anyway.

83
25.

A.
B.

I t h i n k some o f my d e c is io n s ar e naive.
I am impulsive in some o f my d e c i s i o n s .

26.

A.

I almost always make my d e c is io n s based onc o n s id e ra tio n
o f educational th eo ry.
I almost always co nsider p a r t i s a n concerns when I make a
d e c i s io n .

B.
27.

A.
B.

I almost always make d e c is io n s t h a t are sound from a
t h e o r e t i c a l s ta n d p o in t.
I am almost always responsive t o th e d e s i r e s o f o th e r s when
I make d e c i s io n s .

Would you please answer th e following questio ns about y o u r s e l f and
your d i s t r i c t ?
1.

Length o f experience as a s uper intende nt in your c u r r e n t d i s t r i c t :
a. ____ 1-3 years
c. ____ 5-10 years

2.

b. ____ 3-5 year s
d.
over 10 year s

Your sex:
a. ____ female

b.

male

3.

Your age: ___________

4.

Length o f experience as a su per inten den t:
a. ____ 1-3 years
c. ____ 5-10 years

5.

b. ____ 3-5 year s
d.
over 10 years

Amount o f advanced academic t r a i n i n g you have had beyond a
madtci

a.
c.
e.

d ucyicc.

none
b. ____ 5 or fewer courses
Specialist
d.
Doctorate
o th e r ( ple ase d e s c r i b e ) _______________________________

6.

What i s th e enrollment in your d i s t r i c t (excluding a d u lt
educa tion) ? _______________________________________

7.

How many su p erin ten d en cies , o th e r than t h i s one, have you
held? ________________________

8.

What percentage o f your stu den t body i s nonwhite? ________________

84
9.

Please i n d i c a t e how many o f your school board members have been
on th e board:
a.
l e s s than 2 yea rs
c. ____ 6-10 ye ar s

10.

b. ____ 2-5 years
d._____ over 10 ye ar s

During your tenure as a s up er in tend en t in t h i s d i s t r i c t , have
any incumbent board members been:
a. ____ Recalled? ( I f yes , pl ease i n d i c a t e the number r e c a l l e d
and th e y e a r . ) _________________________________
b. ____ Defeated when running f o r r e - e l e c t i o n ? ( I f y e s , please
i n d i c a t e th e number defeated and th e y e a r . ) _________________

11.

On a 1 to 5 po int r a t i n g s c a l e , would you d e s c r i b e your r e l a t i o n ­
ship with th e community, as a whole, as:
1
c o r d ia l

12.

Would you d e s c rib e your r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e school board, as
a whole, as:
1
c o r d ia l

13.

2________ 3________ 4________5
n e u tr a l
hostile

2

3
neutral

4

5
hostile

Would you d e s c rib e your r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e
whole, as:

s t a f f , as a

1________ 2________ 3________ 4_____
5
c o r d ia l
neutral
hostile
14.

What was the SEVo f your d i s t r i c t f o r the 1985-86 school year?

15.

What was the per pupil expenditure o f your d i s t r i c t f o r the
1985-86 school year ? __________________________

85
SCORING KEY:
QUESTION NO.

DECISION-MAKING INSTRUMENT
POLITICAL

TECHNOCRATIC

Low ?s
3
5
7
10
14
15
19
24
25

B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A

A
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B

Medium ?s
1
4
6
8
17
18
21
22
23

B
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
B

A
A
B

A
A
B
A
B
A

Hioh ?s
2
9
11

B
A
A

12

B

13
16
20
26
27

A
B
A
B
B

A
B
B

A
B
A
B
A
A

APPENDIX C
FINAL COPY OF THE DECISION-MAKING-STYLE INSTRUMENT

86
DECISION-MAKING-STYLE INSTRUMENT
Instructions
Consider j o b - r e l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s in which you make d e c i s i o n s .
you u s u a ll y make decis io ns ?

How do

I wi ll read 22 p a i r s of statements t o you, each d e s c rib i n g p o s sib le
decision-making s t y l e s . For each p a i r , pl ease respond e i t h e r "A" or
"B," depending on which statement i s most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f your
behavior.
In many c a s e s , n e i t h e r the "A" nor th e "B" statement may be very
t y p i c a l of your behavior; but plea se s e l e c t th e response which more
nearly d es crib es your decision-making s t y l e .
1. A.
B.

I am ofte n d e l i b e r a t e in my d ecis io n making.
I of ten use s t r a t e g i e s in making d e c i s io n s .

2. A.
B.

I almost always make my decis io ns with l o g i c .
I almost always co nsider which people fee l most s tr o n g ly
when I make a d e c is io n .

3. A.
B.

I almost always am s t r a t e g i c in making d e c i s io n s .
I almost always am lo g ical in making d e c i s io n s .

4.

A.
B.

I f r e q u e n tl y employ c l a s s i c lo g i c t o make my d e c i s io n s .
I of ten co ns ider p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s in making d e c i s io n s .

5.

A.
B.

I r e l y on educational theory in making my d e c i s io n s .
I am responsive to others* f e e l i n g s when I make d e c i s io n s .

6.

A.
r.

I ofte n am responsive to the needs o f o t h e r s in my d e c i s i o n s .
make d e l i b e r a t e d e c is io n s .

t ofte n

7.

A.
B.

I am a s t r a t e g i c de cis io n maker.
My d ec is io n s ar e founded in educational t h eory.

8.

A.
B.

My d ec is io n s ar e ofte n influenced by educational th eory.
I ofte n am responsive t o the wishes o f o th e r s when making
decisions.

9.

A.
B.

I almost always am s t r a t e g i c in my d ecis io n making.
I almost always am d e l i b e r a t e in my d e c is io n making.

10.

A.
B.

I almost always use lo g i c when making d e c i s io n s .
I almost always am responsive t o o t h e r s ’ needs in my
de cis io n making.

87
11.

A.
B.

Almost always I con sider s t r a t e g i e s in making d e c i s io n s .
I am almost always l o g ic a l in my d e c i s i o n s .

12.

A.
B.

I almost always employ c l a s s i c l o g i c t o make d e c i s io n s .
I almost always consid er p a r t i s a n p o s i t i o n s in d ecis io n
making.

13.

A.

I almost always con sider p a r t i s a n concerns when I make
d e c is io n s .
I am a d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s io n maker.

B.
14.

A. Almost always, educational theo ry in flu en c es my d e c i s io n s .
B. I am a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s io n maker.

15.

A.
B.

Educational theory infl uen ces my d e c i s i o n s .
I am usually a s t r a t e g i c d e cis io n maker.

16.

A.

Frequently, I co nsid e r p a r t i s a n concerns when I make
d e c is io n s .
I often make d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n s .

B.
17. A.

I am almost always responsive to the needs o f o th e r s in
decis io n making.
B. My decis io ns ar e made with d e l i b e r a t i o n .

18.

A. I of ten make my d e c is io n s with l o g i c .
B. I often co n sid e r which people fee l most s t r o n g ly about an
iss u e when I make d e c i s io n s .

19.

A.
B.

20.

A.
B.

21.

A.
B.

22.

A.
B.

I often t h in k about s t r a t e g i e s as p a r t o f my d e cis io n
making.
Frequently, I use c l a s s i c lo g ic in my d e c i s io n s .
I often make my d e c i s io n s based on c o n s id e r a t io n s of
educational theo ry .
I consid er p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s when I make d e c i s io n s .
I almost always make my d e c is io n s based on co n s id e ra tio n
o f educational th eo ry.
I almost always co nsider p a r t i s a n concerns when I make a
d ecis io n .
I almost always make d ecis io n s t h a t are sound from a
t h e o r e t i c a l s ta n d p o in t.
I am almost always responsive to th e d e s i r e s o f o th e r s
when I make d e c i s io n s .

Would you pleas e answer the following que stions about y o u r s e l f and
your d i s t r i c t ?
1.

Length of experience as a supe rin tenden t in your c u r r e n t d i s t r i c t
a. ____ 1-3 ye ar s
c. ____ 5-10 ye ar s

2.

Your sex:
a.

3.

b. ____ 3-5 years
d.
over 10 years

female

b.

male

Your age: ___________

4. Length of experience as a su per inten den t:
a. ____ 1-3 yea rs
c. ____ 5-10 ye ar s
>.

b._____ 3-5 years
d._____ over 10 yea rs

Amount of advanced academic t r a i n i n g you have had beyond a
m aster ’ s degree:
a.
none
b._____ 5 o r fewer courses
c.
Specialist
d._____ Doctorate
e. ____ o th e r ( ple ase d e s c r i b e ) _____________________________

6.

What i s th e enrollment in your d i s t r i c t (excluding a d u lt
educ atio n) ? _______________________________________

7.

How many su p erin ten d en cies , o t h e r than t h i s one, have you
held? ________________________

8.

What percentage o f your student body is nonwhite? ________

9.

How many of your school board members have been on th e board:
a.
c.

10.

l e s s than 2 years
6-10 years

b. ____ 2-5 ye ar s
d._____ over 10 yea rs

During your te n u r e as a su per inten den t in t h i s d i s t r i c t , have
any incumbent board members been:
a. ____ Recalled? ( I f y e s , plea se i n d i c a t e the number r e c a l l e d
and th e y e a r . ) _________________________________
b. ____ Defeated when running f o r r e - e l e c t i o n ? ( I f y e s , pleas e
i n d i c a t e th e number def ea ted and th e y e a r . ) _________________

89
11.

On a 1 t o 5 point r a t i n g s c a l e , would you d e s c r i b e your r e l a t i o n ­
ship with th e community, as a whole, as:
1
c o r d ia l

12.

2_________3________4________ 5
neutril
hostile

Would you d e s c ri b e your r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e school board, as
a whole, as:
1________2_________ 3________4_____
5
c o r d ia l
neu tr al
hostile

13.

Would you d es crib e your r e l a t i o n s h i p with th e s t a f f , as a
whole, as:
1________2 _ _______3________ 4________5
c o r d ia l
neutral
hostile

14.

What was the SEV o f your d i s t r i c t f o r the 1985-86 school year?

15.

What was the per pupil expenditure o f your d i s t r i c t f o r the
1985-86 school year ? __________________________

APPENDIX D
LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

90

Dear____________________ ,
Your d i s t r i c t has been s e le c t e d f o r in clu sio n in a study o f the
p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y o f the school s uperi nten dent. The purpose o f the
study i s t o i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in th e school environment t h a t
a f f e c t th e way in which s uper inten de nt s make d e c i s io n s . This study
i s b e i n g s u p p o r t e d by t h e Michigan I n s t i t u t e f o r E d u c a t io n a l
Management, the Michigan Association o f School A dm inist rators , and
th e Superintendent o f Public I n s t r u c t i o n .
Since your time i s v al u a b le , we have departed from th e t r a d i t i o n a l
method of paper-and-pencil survey. We r e a l i z e t h a t s up er intend en ts
have many o th e r p r ess ing is s u e s t h a t need a t t e n t i o n .
Rather, we
would l i k e t o s e t up a time t h a t would be convenient f o r us to speak
with you by telephone.
The inter view should take about ten to f i f t e e n minutes t o complete.
There are twenty-seven ques tions t h a t will in q u ir e about your
decision-making s t y l e and t h i r t e e n t h a t will deal with general
information about y o u r s e l f and your school d i s t r i c t .
A pr o fes sio n al in te rv ie w e r will be contactin g your s e c r e t a r y the
week o f ___________________ t o s e t a time f o r th e appointment.
The
interview s will take place th e week o f ______________________ .
The r e s u l t s of th e survey will be incor porated in a d i s s e r t a t i o n
studying the decision-making s t y l e s of Michigan s uperi nte ndents by
Marianne H i g g i n s , a s t u d e n t in E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t
Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity .
A synopsis of th e r e s u l t s wi ll be
a v a i l a b l e in the f a l l .
I f you would be i n t e r e s t e d in r eceiving t h i s
syno psis, i n d i c a t e t h i s t o the surveyor.
Thank you f o r your coo per ation.

Don E l l i o t
Executive D i r e c t o r
MASA
David Kahn
Executive D ir e c t o r
MIEM

P h i l l i p Runkel
Superintendent o f Public I n s t r u c t i o n
MDE

APPENDIX E
OPENING STATEMENTS MADE IN PILOT AND FINAL INTERVIEWS

91
Interview #
Date o f interv iew _________________________
Schedule f o r c a l l b a c k ___________________
date

________________________
time

OPENING
Hello, I ’m _____________________, c a l l i n g in connection with a survey
of s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ’ decision-making s t y l e s .

You may r e c a l l a l e t t e r

you received r e c e n t l y about t h i s

study,

doctoral

which i s

being

supported by the Michigan I n s t i t u t e f o r Educational Management.
survey i s in two p a r t s and wi ll take about ten minutes or so.
answers w i l l

be

kept

strictly

confidential

i d e n t i f i e d by your name or your d i s t r i c t .
course, i s s t r i c t l y voluntary.
complete the survey?

and w i l l

The
Your

not

be

Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,

of

Is t h i s a convenient time f o r you to

[IF NOT, MAKE A CALL-BACK APPOINTMENT.]

APPENDIX F
PERMISSION LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

92
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1046

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)
238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
J5I7) 355-21*6

May 21, 1987

Ms. Marianne H iggins
201 S. Fairview
L ansing, M ichigan 48912
Dear Ms. H iggin s:
S u b ject:

Proposal E n t it le d , "A Study o f the D ecisio n Making
S t y le s o f M ichigan Su perin tendents a s th ey are E ffected
by th e P o l i t i c a l Governance C h a r a c te r is tic s o f the
___________ School D i s t r i c t s in Which They are Employed”_____________
UCRIHS' review o f th e above referen ced p r o je c t has now been com pleted. I
am p lea sed to a d v ise th a t s in c e th e r ev ie w e rs' comments have been
s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a d d ressed , th e c o n d itio n a l approval g iv en by th e Committee
a t i t s May 4 , 1987 m eeting has now been changed to f u l l app roval.
You are reminded th a t UCRIHS approval i s v a lid fo r one calen dar y ea r. I f
you plan to co n tin u e t h i s p r o je c t beyond one y e a r, p le a se make p r o v isio n s
fo r o b ta in in g app rop riate UCRIHS approval p r io r to May 4 , 1988.
Any changes in procedures in v o lv in g human s u b je c ts must be review ed by the
UCRIHS p rio r to i n i t i a t i o n o f the change. UCRIHS must a ls o be n o t if ie d
promptly o f any problems (unexpected s id e e f f e c t s , co m p la in ts, e t c . )
in v o lv in g human s u b je c ts during th e course o f th e work.
Thank you fo r b rin gin g t h i s p r o je c t to our a t t e n t io n .
fu tu r e h e lp , p le a s e do not h e s it a t e to l e t us know.

If

we can be o f any

S in c e r e ly ,

Henry E. Bredeck, Ph.D.
Chairman, UCRIHS
HEB/jms
cc:

Dr. Samuel A. Moore, I I

MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvey, D. T ., and Underwood, K. E. "School Boards and Superintend­
e n t s : How They Perceive Each Other." Education Digest
(February 1986).
Berger, M. A. "P re dicting Succession Under Conditions of Enrollment
Decline." Educational Administration Quar ter ly 20 (Spring
1984).
Blankenship, A. B.
H i l l , 1977.

Professional Phone Surveys.

New York:

McGraw-

Blumberg, Arthur. School Superintendent: Living With C o n f l i c t .
York: Teachers College, Columbia U n iv er sity , 1985.

New

Boyer, Ernest L. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in
America. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
Brown, R.; Newman, D.; and Rivers, L. S. "Does th e S uperin tende nt’ s
Opinion Affect School Boards’ Evaluation Information Needs? An
Empirical I n v e s t i g a t i o n . " Urban Education 20 (July 1985).
Coleman, P ete r. "The Increased Pluralism and P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of
Public Education--Coping With C o n f l i c t . " Paper presented a t
the Annual Conference f o r D i s t r i c t S uper intend ents , Manitoba,
Canada, 1976.
Cuban, L. " C o n f lict and Leadership in th e Superintendency."
Delta Kappan (September 1985).

Phi

Cunningham, L. L. "What Educational Leaders Need t o Deal With the
F uture." Phi Delta Kappan (September 1985).
Danis, Ruth. "Policy Changes in Local Schools: The D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
Theory o f Democracy." Urban Education 19 (July 1984).
Duke, D. L. School Leadership and I n s t r u c t io n a l Improvement.
York: Random House, 1987.

New

Ferry, M. "An Analysis of Budget C r i t e r i a , Decision-Making, Experi­
ence of Superintendents and Selected Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s of Connecticut School D i s t r i c t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Un iver sity o f Connecticut, 1981.

93

94
Frey, James H. Survey Research bv Telephone.
C a l i f . : Sage P u b lic a tio n s , 1983.

Beverly H i l l s ,

George, k. L. "Administrator Behavior in C r i s i s Management."
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Walden U nive rsi ty, 1971.
Goodnow, F.
1900.

P o l i t i c s and Adm inist ration.

New York:

Ph.D.

Macmillan,

Groves, Robert M., and Kahn, Robert L. Response Differ ences Between
Two Models o f Data C o l l e c t i o n . New York: Academic Press,
1979.
Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in A dm inistration.
Macmillan, 1966.

New York:

Havighurst, Robert J . "Local Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Educational
Policy Making and School A dm inistration." In Community Par­
t i c i p a t i o n in Education. Edited by Carl A. Grant. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1979.
Hoy, Wayne K., and Miskel, Cecil G. Education Administration
Theory. New York: Random House, 1982.
Hoyle, J . R. "Programs in Educational Administration and the AASA
Preparation Guidel ines ." Educational Administration Quarterly
21 (Winter 1985).
Hoyle, J . ; English, F.; and S t e f f y , B. S k i l l s f o r Successful School
Leaders. Arlington, Va.: AASA, 1985.
Huff, Ann S ., and Pondy, Louis R. Issue Management bv School Super­
in te n d en ts: Final Report. National I n s t i t u t e of Education
Grant No. G-80-052. Urbana: I l l i n o i s U n iv ersit y, 1983.
Iannaccone, Laurence, and Lutz, Frank W. P o l i t i c s . Power and Policy:
The Governing o f Local School D i s t r i c t s . Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1970.
James, H. Thomas. "Educational Administration and Organization:
40-Year P e r s p e c tiv e . " Educational Researcher 11 (February
1982): 14-18.
J a n i s , I. L., and Mann, L.
1977.

Decision Making.

New York:

A

Free Press,

Kimbrough, R. B. P o l i t i c a l Power and Educational Decision Making.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.

95
Lutz, F. W. "Social Systems and School D i s t r i c t s . "
t i o n , Washington U n iv er sity , 1962.

Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­

Lutz, F. W., and Iannaccone, L. Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Local
School D i s t r i c t s . The D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Theory o f American
Democracy. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1978.
Lutz, F. W., and Wang, Lee-Yen. " P re d ic ti n g Public D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n :
A Study o f School Board Member Defeat." Educational Adminis­
t r a t i o n Quarterly 23 (February 1987).
Mann, D. Policy Decision-Making in Education.
College Press, Columbia U n iv ersit y, 1976.

New York:

March, J . G. "Theories o f Choice and Making D ecisio ns ."
(December 1982): 39.
March, J . G., and Simon, H. A., with Guetzkow, H.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.

Teachers
Society 20

O rg a n iz a ti o n s .

March, M. E., and Miklos, E. "Dynamics o f Control Over Educational
De cision s." The Alber ta Journal o f Educational Research 29
(March 1983).
Michigan.

C o n s t i t u t io n .

A r t i c l e IX, sec. 3.

Michigan Commission on High Schools. Michigan Commission on High
Schools Report. Lansing: Author, 1983.
Michigan Department o f Education. Direc tory and Buyer’ s Guide 1986.
Lansing: Author, 1986.
________ . Five-Year Summary o f Expenditure Data f o r Michigan Public
Schools . B u l l e t i n 1013. Lansing: Author, 1985-86.
Michigan S t a t e Board of Education. Michigan Schools:
f o r A cti o n. Lansing: Author, 1982.

A B luep rint

Monahan, W. G., and Hengst, H. R. Contemporary School Administra­
t i o n . New York: Macmillan, 1982.
Morris, B. G. "A F u t u r i s t i c Cognitive View of Leadership."
t i o n a l Administration Qu ar terly 21 (Winter 1985).

Educa­

National Commission on Excellence in Education.
A Nation a t Risk:
The Imperative of Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.:
Government P r in ti n g O f fice, April 1983.
Nelson, N. J . "Tension a t th e Top: Superintendent vs. th e Board.
Exploring the Area o f C o n f l i c t , Extent and Re so lu ti on ." Paper
presented a t the AASA, February, 1980.

96
P i t n e r , Nancy J . , and Ogawa, Rodney T. "Organizational Leadership:
The Case of th e School S uper intend ent." Educational Adminis­
t r a t i o n Quar terly 17 (Spring 1981): 45-65.
Reisman, J . Technocracy or P o l i t i c s ? C o n f lic t Management Behavior
in Public Managerial P r o f e s s i o n s . Eugene: Center f o r Educa­
t i o n a l Policy and Management, College of Education, Universi ty
of Oregon, 1982.
Rooet’ s I I :
1984.

The New World Thesaurus.

New York:

Berkley Books,

"School Management Detail L is tin g of Selected School Code Master
Records." Report R1617. Lansing: Michigan Department o f
Education, October 17, 1986.
Sergiovanni, Thomas. P r esen ta tio n at a Michigan I n s t i t u t e f o r
Educational Management seminar, Kalamazoo, Michigan, April 21,
1988.
Simon, Herbert A. Adm in istrative Behavior: A Study o f DecisionMaking Processes in Adm inistrative O r g a n iz a tio n s . New York:
Free Press 1945.
S p l i t t g e r b e r , F. L., and S t i r z a k e r , N. A. "Ethical Behavior: A
Stumbling Block to Longevity in the Superintendency." Clearing
House 57 (May 1984).
S t o g d i l l , R. M. "Personal Factors Associated With Leadership: A
Survey of th e L i t e r a t u r e . " Journal of Psychology 25 (1948):
35.
Vroom, V. H., and Jago, A. G. "Decision Making as a Social Process:
Normative and D es crip tiv e Models of Leader Behavior." Decision
Sciences 5 (1974).
Wachtel, P. "An Analysis of Decision-Making by Sup erintendents in
Ohio." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Uni versi ty o f Akron, 1979.
Wirt, F. M., and K i r s t , M. W. The P o l i t i c a l Web o f American
Schools. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, 1972.
Z e ig l e r , L. H., and Jennings, M. K., with Peak, G. W. Governing
American Schools: P o l i t i c a l I n t e r a c t i o n in Local School
D i s t r i c t s . North S c i t u a t e , Mass.: Duxbury Pres s, 1974.
Z i e g l e r , Harmon; Kehoe, Ellen ; and Reisman, Jane. City Managers and
School S uperintendents: Response t o Community C o n f l i c t . New
York: Praeger, 1985.