A determination of organizational behavior within the context of three conceptual organizational models

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content A DETERMINATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THREE CONCEPTUAL ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS by Derick Franklin Evans A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 1994 Copyright 1994 Derick Franklin Evans INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the 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 material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer 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. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher 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. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed> Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 UMI Number: 9621710 UMI Microform 9621710 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA School of Education Los Angeles, California 90089-0031 This dissertation, written by Derick Franklin Evans under the direction o f h lS —Dissertation Committee, and approved by all members o f the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partialfulfillment o f the requirementsfor the degree of D o c t o r o f E d u c a t io n 'Date Bean Dissertation Committee ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of a doctoral program from a reputable university is a dream come true. This achievement would not have been realized without the help of some significant people along this challenging road. I want to thank my dissertation committee for the time and effort they devoted to this study. My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Patrick Rooney, the chair of my committee, for his continued interest, support, patience, encouragement, and the time spent reading and correcting the manuscript. I would also like to thank Dr. Olivia de la Rocha for her assistance in analyzing the research data in an efficient manner. I would like to thank the Garden Grove Unified School District, and in particular, former Superintendent, Dr. Ed Dundon, for the overwhelming support that has been extended to me throughout this process. This achievement unfortunately is a year too late for my father who had prayed and anxiously looked forward to my obtaining this degree. This study is a tribute to his memory. Finally, I dedicate this study to my wife, Marlene, for her love, unparalled patience, support, assistance, and iii constant encouragement. To my daughter, Serena, my sons, Brandon and Sheldon, for their moral support, understanding, inspiration, and prayers. You all made the completion of this degree possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................... ii LIST OF TABLES..................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES......................................viii ABSTRACT............................................ X Chapter I. THE PROBLEM................................... 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Importance of the Study Research Questions Assumptions Delimitation of the Study Limitations Methodology Design Sample Definitions of Terms Organization of the Renainder of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................... 19 Introduction Classical Historical Perspective Principles Leadership Authority Communication Decision Making Social System Historical Perspective Principles Leadership Authority Communication Decision Making V Chapter II (Continued) Page Open System Historical Perspective Principles Leadership Authority Communication Decision Making Summary III. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES............ 108 Introduction Research Resign Overview Subjects and Sampling Instrumentation Procedure Data Analysis Summary IV. RESULTS....................................... 116 Introduction Description of the Sample Derivation of Hypothetical Measures at the Level of Central Office and School Identification of the Respondents' Dominant Organizational Model Identification of the Districts' Dominant Model The Relationship Between the Dominant Model and the Five Behavioral Areas Other Analyses Summary V. SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................... 152 Summary of the Study Selected Findings Conclusion Recommendations for Further Study REFERENCES 161 Page APPENDIXES.......................................... 170 A. Cover Letters............................... 1 7 1 B. Questionnaire............................... 174 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Demographic and Other Background Characteristics of Respondents.............. 118 2. The Distribution of Respondents by District................................... 120 3. The Combination of Individual Questionnaire Items into Reliable Scales Measuring Five Areas of Daily Behavior...... 123 4. Concepts Comprising Final Versions of Scales Measuring Behaviors............... 124 5. Descriptive Statistics for Five Behavioral Scales............................. 127 6. Statistical Summary of Items Used in the Identification of Respondents' Dominant Organizational Model............... 130 7. Evaluation of the Respondents' Dominant Model by Job Function and Perception of the System..................... 133 8. Identifying the Dominant Model for Each Participating District.................. 135 9. District Differences in Three Behavioral Areas: Central Office........... 137 10. District Differences in Three Behavioral Areas: School Level............. 139 11. District Differences in Behavioral Areas of Openness and Administrative Style.......................................... 142 12. The Relationship Between the Dominant Organizational Model and Five Areas of Behavior................................... 146 13. The Relationship Between Job Function and Five Areas of Behavior................... 147 14. The Relationship Between Five Behavioral Areas and Age and Years of Service.............................. 149 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Social System View of the Individual in a Hypothetical School Organization........ 83 2. School as an Input-Process-Output System........................................... 89 3. An Organization Viewed as an Open Social System................................... 101 PLEASE NOTE Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Filmed as received. IX UMI X ABSTRACT The literature on educational administration and organizational theories tend to treat each organizational model as all inclusive. This study contends that, whereas school organizations in theory may adhere to one model, in practice there is more than one of these conceptual models at work. This study was designed to examine empirically the conceptual organizational models (classical, social system, and open system) that are in practice at selected school districts and to what extent school districts can be said to adhere to one of these organizational models to the exclusion of the others. A descriptive research design with a Likert-type four-point organizational inventory scale was used in this study. This study was correlational in nature. The sample consisted of superintendents, central office administrators, principals, and other management staff in six public school districts in Southern California. The selected findings of this study were: 1. Although 75% of the respondents perceived the structure of their school system to be centralized, their dominant behaviors were unmistakably characteristic of the social system and open system models. 2. The dominant organiza xi tional model that the administrators utilized In their dayto-day activities was not a consequence of their job function. 3. None of the school systems strictly adhered to any one organizational model to the exclusion of the others. 4. A high degree of openness was a characteristic shared by all the districts. This is evidence that these school systems are permeable to outside influences. 5. The six participating districts were all eclectic in their dominant organizational models. It can be concluded that the governance and administration of the school system are far too complex to be boxed in by neatly packaged descriptors such as centralization, decentralization, participatory management, sitebased management, bottom-up management, etc. that attempts a tunnel vision of what the school system is and what it should be at any given time. It is clear from this study that the organizational model one carries in one's head will undoubtedly affect one's assumption about the organization and the individuals in them, and will strongly influence the performance of one's professional work. 1 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The world in 1993 had seen dramatic changes that had confounded politicians, world leaders, educators, religious leaders, researchers, and citizens alike. The Soviet Union had crumbled. The collapse of communism raced like a tidal wave across the world. Dictatorships, communism and authoritarian governments across Europe have been crushed. The Berlin Wall has fallen and Germany is once more a unified nation. One of the greatest revolutions in human history has occurred and nothing could stop it. Like falling dominoes the Eastern block countries expunged communism. New vulnerable democracies have replaced military dictatorship and autocracies in Latin America. The walls of Apartheid in South Africa have been dismantled. The barriers of trade, travel, and commerce have come down throughout Europe (NAFTA) and over 100 countries through General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). Rip Van Winkle, according to the famous story, fell asleep and woke up 20 years later to find that his little town had greatly changed. Imagine someone sleeping for 2 only a decade and waking up today! The changes would be astonishing! It Is in this milieu that the governance of public education faces its greatest challenges. As the political arena and governments have adapted changes to meet the demands of a changing society, so educational administration cannot abandon organizational practices that have proven effective, but it must also embrace other practices that will successfully meet the needs of all it is designed to serve. Most researchers, authors, and educational advocates so often mistakenly study and describe organizational models as independent entities. Educational resources and libraries are filled with books, magazines, articles, reports, studies, and dissertations on descriptors of organizational behavior and practices such as centralization, decentralization, formal organization, human relations, site-based management, participatory management, management by objectives, top-down management, bottom-up management, informal organization, restructuring, teacher empowerment, etc. Their strengths, weaknesses, effects, comparison, and legitimacy have been well documented. But in fact, they all fall under one of the three conceptual organizational models. For example, the classical model is otherwise referred to as bureaucratic, centralization, formal organization, structuralism, management by objec tives, and top-down management. The Social system model is otherwise called decentralization, human relations system, informal organization, participatory management, site-based management, teacher empowerment, bottom-up management, restructuring. The Open system model is otherwise known as public relations, community relations, contingency. The Open system model tends to overlap with the Social system model in concepts of site-based management, participatory management, bottom-up management, and informal organization. Over the past two decades or so, politicians have promised to reduce the federal government and to get government off the backs of the people. In so doing, the government will be more responsive, personable, and effective. The public has come to expect this of their government. At the same time, the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of the government have caused the public to equate bureaucracy, centralization, and top-down administration as bad and ineffective. Ironically, the federal government and most state governments have grown over this period. Sectors in the educational system following on the heels of the political establishment have become advocates of decentralization. Site-based management, participatory management, teacher empowerment are viewed as ideals and superior management alternatives to the classical (bureaucratic) model of organization. 4 The dichotomy is that while these management approaches have rapidly penetrated organizational thought and practices, the educational system is saddled with increasing federal government, state government, and judicial mandates, regulations, paperwork, and red tape; which calls for a classical (centralization) based organization. Public education is not the telephone company or airline industry that can be expected to enjoy the benefits of deregulation. It is so easy to be side tracked from the fact that public education in America is a federal interest, state function, and local responsibility. Public education cannot escape the classical (topdown) organization approaches. As Owens (1987) explained: In the real world of educational administration, of course, one rarely encounters ideal cases, which is not to suggest that organizations cannot properly be classified as being bureaucratic or nonbureaucrat ic. Indeed, they can be and often are. However, it does not mean, either, that to be described as nonbureaucratic an organization must be totally devoid of policies, regulations, standard operating procedures, or hierarchical organization; of that to be described as bureaucratic an organization must be totally devoid of sensitivity to or respect for people. This is particularly true of schools, which have been described as being dual organizations: bureaucratic in some ways and nonbureaucratic in some very important ways. (p. 51) Objectively, one cannot label the classical or centralization component of a typical school organization as "good" or "bad" for it can either be both depending on the circumstances. But most importantly, it seems, it is not a question of either/or but rather what is prudent and efficient. Morphet et al. (1967) responding to the issue of why certain decisions should be decentralized or centralized, stated: (1) Those things should be done (or decisions made) centrally that do not require or involve local initiative and responsibility and can be done more efficiently and economically on a centralized basis, and (2) those things should be decentralized and carried out on a local level which require decisions relating particularly to local needs and which, if done centrally, would prevent or limit desirable initiative and handicap the development of effective local leadership and responsibility. In this modern era the skilled administrator realizes that the day-in, day-out management of the school organization or school is far more complex than many perceived it to be. He/she can no longer control events as he/she sees best because of the backing of hierarchical authority. The administration power and success comes from the people who work not for him but with him. Although the social system model ideology (human relations) has been attacked by its critics; yet it survives. Addressing the motivation needs (Maslow, Herzberg, Vroom) of the employee is an inescapable responsibility of school organizations. As Scott and Smith (1981) correctly stated, "Individual participants are not merely 'hired hands' but bring along their heads and hearts: They enter into the organization with individually shaped ideas, expectations and agendas and they bring with them differing values, interests and abilities” (p. 72). Within the past decade, the open system model of school administration has emerged. This model stresses the interdependence between the school system and its environment. This third model recognizes the interaction through input and output between the school organization and its environment. The new emerging thought that describes the open system model as a "loosely coupled” organization and the lack of recognition of this concept led Weick ((1976) to state: Organizations as loosely coupled systems may not have been seen before because nobody believed in them or could afford to believe in them. It is conceivable that preoccupation with rationalized, tidy, efficient, coordinated structures has blinded many practitioners as well as researchers to some of the attractive and unexpected properties of less rationalized and less tightly related clusters of events. (p. 12) Many studies of organizational behavior in schools have, in fact, focused on the internal functioning of school— that is, they have treated schools as "closed systems"— as though they functioned independently of influences from their larger, outside environment (Anderson, 1968). The school and school organization cannot ignore the demands and voices of the community. Educators have become increasingly cognizant of the need and importance of the link between the organization and the community at large. We see evidence of this under the billboard of accountability, community relations, public relations, school accountability, report card, and most recently "open enrollment." The schools of choice movement no doubt has given public school officials nationwide a rude awakening to the importance and validity of the open system mode. Furthermore, the effort to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability is being prescribed by state legislatures, courts, the federal government, and vested interest groups within the community. Consequently, the open system model to organizational practices is indispensable. Statement of the Problem Too few administrators, educators, and teachers are aware of the significance of organizational models and their relationship to the success of the organization. The more savvy and experienced administrator and educator realize that the organizational model or models that he/she subscribes to will greatly influence his/her organizational behavior and the perception of how the organization should function. The textbooks on educational administration and organizational theories tend to treat each conceptual organizational model as all inclusive. Thus, organizations like school districts claim to operate by one or the other of these models. It is the contention of this study that, whereas school districts in theory may adhere to one organizational model, in practice there is more than one of these conceptual models at work. In the past two decades there is growing emphasis on organizational patterns in the private sector. Factors such as the financial and technological successes of Japan, the inability of America and Europe to compete and to catch up with this technological and financial giant, the proven successes of Theory Z and Theory Y, the failure of autocratic organizations and laissez-faire governments make the need for better organizational restructuring more acute. Reports such as Nation at Risk (National Commission, 1983) and In Search of Excellence (Peter & Waterman, 1982) began to focus attention on the organizational structure of public education. The radical decentralization of the New York City Schools, the nation's largest school district; the Chicago Public Schools, the nation's third largest school district; and the negotiated site-based management in the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second largest school district, underline the fact that school district organizational structure cannot be taken for granted. These decentralization efforts implicitly imply that reorganization is the catalyst to turn around the failures of these districts and to put them and similar school districts on the road to success and accountability. 9 The day-to-day organizational behavior and management style that is dominant in a school system or at a school site will fall within the framework of one or more of the conceptual organizational models. Since school districts tend to be "loosely coupled," it is somewhat impossible to be enslaved to one model of operation. It is the intent of this study not only to show that this is the case, but also to demonstrate that school districts, as a whole, tend to be more eclectic in their day-in, day-out organizational behaviors and operations as they are evaluated from the behaviors, actions, and philosophy of those who are entrusted with the management of the school system. Purpose of the Study This study was designed to empirically examine the conceptual organizational models (classical, social system, open system) in practice at selected school districts and to examine to what extent school districts can be said to adhere to one of these organizational models to the exclusion of the others. The principles of organization that are functioning on a day-to-day basis were studied. It further investigated the way the dominant organizational model influences the day-in, day-out organizational behavior and practices. 10 Importance of the Study This study underlined the importance of organizational structure and highlighted the fact that an organizational structure is not just an organizational chart. It is a defining component of the organization. Organizational behavior does not exist in a vacuum. If the hypothesis of this study is supported, that school districts do not rigidly adhere to one conceptual organizational model to the complete exclusion of the others, but are more eclectic in practice, then this study could be a framework for restructuring. This study could help school organization and its readers to reassess the great emphasis that is placed on the concepts of centralization, decentralization, site-based management, top-down and bottom-up management. In reality these concepts become meaningful only as they are useful tools to the administrator in his/her day-to-day battle of survival. Research Questions The following research questions were examined in this study: 1. Is the respondent's general philosophy of administration (Open, Classical, or Social) associated with their responses describing hypothetical behavior (decisions, communication, involvement, openness, input/output, administrative style)? Are the Open and Social models significant 11 ly different from the Classical, and are the Open and Social models significantly different from each other? 2. Is the respondent's job function related to the hypothetical behavior categories? (a) Are there overall group differences? (b) Are superintendents and non-site administrators different from principals? (c) Are superintendents and non-site administrators different from each other? 3. Is the respondent's school type related to the hypothetical behavior categories? (a) Are there overall group differences? (b) Are elementary administrators different from those in middle and high schools? (c) Are middle and high school administrators different from each other? 4. Is the respondent's gender related to the hypothetical behavior categories? A multivariate, Hotellings, t-test was used to address this question. 5. Is the respondent's age related to his/her responses to the hypothetical behavior categories? 6. Is the respondent's tenure in the system related to his/her responses to the hypothetical behavior categories? 12 Assumptions The following methodological assumptions are implicit in this investigation: 1. The principals and district level administrators that responded to this study were significant representative of the targeted population to enable generalization of the findings. 2. The design controls, sampling procedures, instrumentation, and data processing techniques employed in this study were appropriate to the goals and objectives of this investigation. Delimitation of the Study This study did not attempt to make generalizations beyond the selected prescribed population. However, it will have some ramifications for similar populations (districts) with parallel organizational patterns. Limitations 1. Other controlled factors such as economics, politics and demographic factors of the districts could be contributing elements to the outcomes of this study. 2. It is acknowledged that one study of this scope might not be sufficient to draw definite conclusions and further studies of a larger scope might be needed. 13 3. To the degree that the methodological assumptions set forth were not met, the internal and external validity of the study would be limited. Methodology Design This study is a descriptive research design using a Likert-type four-point organizational inventory scale. It is a correlational study that investigated the relationship between administrative philosophy of respondents and their responses to a set of items describing hypothetical behaviors. This study also investigated the relationship between administrative roles and administrative behavior. The questionnaire data can be divided into three main sections: 1. Demographic, administrative position, and school type (DEMO) 2. Items measuring the general philosophy of administration (PA) 3. Hypothetical behavior (HB) These questions were addressed statistically with a one-way MANOVA (Multivariate analysis of variance) with two post-hoc tests. An omnibus F-test was used to gauge overall group differences while a Tukey's HSD test was used for post-hoc comparisons. 14 The respondents were asked to respond to items in four categories (1) Administrative philosophy, (2) Administrative role, (3) Demographic base, and (4) A set of hypothetical behaviors. A voluntary sample of building-level principals from the elementary school, middle school, high school, central office administrators, and other management staff of each respective district were asked to respond to a questionnaire designed to measure the basic principles of the conceptual organizational models that are evident on a daily basis. Sample A representative sample of building-level principals (elementary, middle, high schools), central office administrators, and other management staff in six school districts in Southern California participated in this study. Definitions of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used: Classical Model: (Bureaucratic) "Views leadership as (a) largely a matter of hierarchical power over subordinates and (b) almost wholly concerned with getting the task accomplished" (Owens, 1987, p. 157). "Decisionmaking is concentrated at the top and far above the level where the best information exists" (Likert, 1967, p. 197). "Official decisions and actions are directed by codified rules, thus 15 assuring uniformity, predictability, and stability" (Likert, 1967, p. 18). Massie (cited by Hanson, 1985, p. 23) contributed these points: 1. Efficiency of an undertaking is measured solely in terms of productivity. (2) Human beings prefer the security of a definite task and do not value the freedom of determining their own approaches to problems; they prefer to be directed and will not cooperate unless a pattern is planned formally for them. (3) It is possible to predict and establish clear-cut patterns of future activities and the relationship among activities. (4) Coordination will not be achieved unless it is planned and directed from above. (5) Authority has its course at the top of a hierarchy and is delegated downward. Hanson (1985) very ably summarized the classical perspective: The decision-making process described here is a derivative of classical theory. It emphasizes that rational thought should be applied under ideal conditions in a stable environment. Ends are selected prior to the selection of means. The values associated with the ends and the means must be defined and agreed upon by the participants in the decision-making process. A basic assumption is that a person or a few persons at the top of the pyramid are in direct control of the process, complete data are available. Governance is defined here as control over the decision-making process. 16 Social System Model: (Cohesiveness) "The school, like other types of organizations, is composed of a multitude of social systems, some of which are formal and others of which are informal. The key characteristics are (1) a plurality of actors, (2) a goal, (3) patterned behavior, and (4) a duration of time dimension" (Hanson, 1985, p. 60) . Corwin (1974) commented, "Decisions are the outcomes of bargaining and compromise among competing subgroups” (cited by Hanson, 1985, p. 9). Loomis' social system is made up of what he calls elements, which depicts the social system perspective. These are his relevant points: (1) All social systems maintain different status positions, such as teacher, student, and department chairpersons. Roles are the patterns of behavior expected of those who hold particular status positions. (2) Teacher subgroups also develop norms regarding such things as what to do about problem students, volunteering for committee service, use of planning time, how to handle the principal, and about every other subject that is likely to come up. (3) The degree of control or influence can be judged by the number of people or the extent of the decisions and policies involved (cited by Hanson, 1985, p. 9). Hanson (1985) summarized the social system perspective this way: the perspective of social systems theory can maximize the productivity of sometimes conflicting and hostile subgroups in the school community. Controlled 17 strategies of compromising, bargaining, retreating, and changing would be expected from a social system perspective (P. 11). Open System Model: "Conceives of an organization as a set of interrelated parts that interact with the environment almost as a living creature does. The organization is perceived as being made up of cycles of events" (Hanson, 1985, p. 9). The open system is basically concerned with aspects or inputs from the society or educational process and outputs to the society. An open system perspective, said Hanson (1985), is concerned with comprehensive planning so that the use of people and resources will be maximized. In this instance, the leader's information inside and outside the social system is such that he or she can anticipate, as much as humanly possible, the development of events before the system finds itself caught up in them (p. 11). One of the powerful emerging ideas in understanding organizations and the behavior of people in them is the notion of contingency. The contingency approach, which is a component of the open system model, is built on three premises: (1) There is no best universal way to organize and administer organizations. (2) Not all ways of organizing and administering are equally effective in a given situation. (3) The selection of organizational design and administrative style should be based upon analysis of 18 significant contingencies in the situation (Owens, 1987, p. 31) • Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II contains a review of the literature relevant to the study. Chapter III describes the methodology and procedures which were utilized in this study, including the sample selection and the procedures used in collecting, analyzing, and reporting the findings. Chapter IV contains the findings of the study, a discussion of the findings, and a summary of the findings based on the data collected. Chapter V includes the summary, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the study. The study concludes with the reference list and appendixes. 19 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In this chapter, it is the intent of the researcher to examine objectively the thought, ideas, comments, analysis, and findings of authors, researchers, educators, and theorists with the hope to unearth substantial information regarding the classical, social system, and open system organizational models. The researcher brings no presuppositions to this task. He allows the relevant data, that are compiled in structured manner, to speak for itself. Each model is scrutinized from six selected areas: Historical Perspective, Principles, Leadership, Authority, Communication, and Decision Making. Any experienced, practicing administrator who carefully evaluates these areas recognizes: (a) commonalties that run through all three models; and (b) each model has operational principles and concepts that educators use or are compelled to use on an ongoing basis. It is like a well-balanced meal. If the administrator and/or the organization is to remain viable and relevant he/she and/or the organization must select 20 portions from each of the basic food groups in this case the classical, social system, and open system models. For the mature educational practitioner, this comes naturally without even being aware that his/her actions and behaviors are reflective of any specific model. All three conceptual organizational models have something valuable to say about the organization and governance of today's educational system. However, the administrator who eagerly sets out to deal with the day-today problems of managing any educational system by adhering exclusively to one of these models to the exclusion of the others has undoubtedly purchased a ticket for failure. This study, by its very nature, is supported by a strong theoretical base. Theory is so often viewed by many as "the ideal: idealistic and far removed from the tough practicalities of daily life." Another description of theory that we have unfortunately heard too often is "what you get from the textbooks and ivory towers of academia." This chapter will show that far from being removed from the reality of the educational environment, the theories and concepts propounded by the classical, social system, and open system models are crucial in shaping our everyday perception and the understanding of the organization, events, and the environments in which it exists. As Mort and Ross (Owens, 1987) correctly stated, "There is nothing impractical about good theory. . . . Action divorced from 21 theory Is the random scurrying of a rat in a new maze. Good theory is the power to find the way to the goal with a minimum of lost motion and electric shock" (p. 38). The school administrator who does not understand how the formal organization (classical) and the informal organizational (social system) operates in his or her school or district and their linkage with the outside environment is in serious trouble. We now turn our attention to the classical model which had a great impact on the study and practices of organizational behavior. It quickly was adapted from industry and was incorporated into the practices, culture, and behavior of management in the educational system and eventually all sectors of society. Classical Historical Perspective Three prominent individuals, Fredrick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber, were responsible for the rise of the classical organizational theory during the pre-World War I years from 1910 to 1935. This is the period that is generally thought to be the era of "Scientific Management." These men pioneered the efforts to master the problems of managing modern organizations. Their efforts through "Scientific Management" had a profound and long-lasting 22 impact upon the ways in which schools were organized and administered (Owens, 1987). Frederick Taylor emphasized the principles that viewed administration as management— the coordination of many small tasks so as to accomplish the overall job as efficiently as possible. Efficiency was interpreted to mean the cheapest net-dollar cost to produce the finished article. The Frenchman, Henri Fayol, emphasized broader preparation of administrators so that they would perform their unique functions in the organization more effectively. He felt that the tasks that administrators perform were, presumably, different from those that engineers perform, but equally as important. Germany’s Max Weber held that bureaucracy is a theory of organization especially suited to the needs of large and complex enterprises that perform services for large numbers of clients. For Weber, the bureaucratic concept was an attempt to minimize the frustrations and irrationality of large organizations in which the relationships between management and workers were based on traditions of class privilege (Owens, 1987). The impact of the Industrial Revolution was having a marked effect on American industry, organizations, and society about the close of the Nineteenth Century. As reported by Owens (1987), Taylor developed what later became known as his four "principles of Scientific Management ." They were: 23 1. Eliminate the guesswork of rule-of-thumb approaches to deciding how each worker is to do a job by adopting scientific measurements to break the job down into a series of small, related tasks; 2. Use more scientific, systematic methods for selecting workers and training them for specific jobs; 3. Establish the concept that there is a clear division of responsibility between management and workers, with management doing the goal setting, planning, and supervising and workers executing the required tasks; and 4. Establish the discipline whereby management sets the objectives and the workers cooperate in achieving them. As we will see later, these principles became a part of the educational organizational practice. Fayol established himself as the first modern organizational theorist. He defined administration in terms of five functions: (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3) commanding, (4) coordinating, and (5) controlling. It should be noted that, in the sense that he used these terms, commanding and controlling meant what are now called leading and evaluating results. More than 60 years after its initial publication, many still find this insightful approach to administration practical and useful (Owens, 1987) . Weber, the German sociologist, entered the scene (Owens, 1987) at a period when people and organizations were dominated by the whims of authoritarian industrialists and entrenched political systems. He saw hope in bureaucracy. Essentially, the hope was that well-run bureaucracies would become fairer, more impartial, and more predictable— in general, more rational— than organizations subject to the caprices of powerful individuals. Weber felt that well-run bureaucracies would be efficient, in fact, would be the most efficient form of organization yet invented. According to Weber, the bureaucratic apparatus would be very impersonal, minimizing irrational personal and emotional factors and leaving bureaucratic personnel free to work with a minimum of friction or confusion. This, he concluded, would result in expert, impartial, and unbiased service to the organization's clients. By 1900, the theories and principles laid down by Taylor, Fayol, and Weber were generally as vital to the growth, rationality, and effectiveness of any organization. School superintendents and administrators were guick to get on board the bandwagon of the day in accepting these theories and principles, in step with their counterpart, the business sector. The "Principles of Scientific Management" received increased attention and also challenge from scholars and practitioners. New ideas were becoming apparent to those who were attentive. Students of administration, finding the concepts then available inadequate to deal with such 25 significant problems as the conflict arising from the demands of the organization, on the one hand, and the needs of individuals to obtain a reasonable sense of satisfaction and reward from their participation, on the other hand, were already exploring new ideas by the 1920s (Owens, 1987). Scott and Smith (1987) reported: "that the formal organizational structure of the typical school district and the schools within it is modeled after the bureaucratic organizational structure of the nineteenth century factory." Important decisions are made by a supervisory officer and transmitted through school principals to teachers, who then act on the basis of those decisions. "Underlying this bureaucratic model is a philosophy which assumes that those at the top of the organization ladder are in the best position to identify an organization's goals and the means by which those goals can be met" (p. 72). Schlechty and Joslin (1986) used the metaphor of the school as a factory, also. They observed that schools, like factories, paid careful attention to the development of sophisticated and reliable instruments to support inspection and quality control efforts. They used tight supervision and detailed task analysis to improve or maintain performance. It was considered that the best way to improve instruction was through detailed descriptions of student tasks and teacher tasks. Rationalization, differ 26 entiation, and specialization were necessary for effective schools. Individual workers (teachers) should be provided individual incentives for productivity (e.g., merit pay, bonuses for reduced absenteeism, etc.). Not only did the factory metaphor shape the way problems and solutions were defined, it also shaped perceptions about how roles and relationships should be defined in schools. Principals were considered manager and teachers were workers. Human relationships should be characterized by dominance/ submission, superordination/subordination, and passivity. As far back as 1916, Cubberley (1916) , one of the leading scholars in American Education, took the position that schools were "factories in which the raw materials are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life" (p. 337). Gulick and Urwick (1937) were among the many scholars who attempted to synthesize what is now known as the classical formulation of principles, which would be useful in developing good, functional organizations. Central to the work of these two men was the idea that elements of the organization could be grouped and related according to function, geographic location, or similar criteria. They emphasized the drawing up of formal charts of organizations that showed the precise ways in which various offices and divisions were related. 27 It is relevant to note the four developmental stages of the superintendency: (a) Clerical Stage— the superintendents were not trained in the field of education, they were mainly selected from the business sector; (b) Dual Administration Stage— the superintendent's primary responsibility was business operations and secondary it was educational programs; (c) Business Manager Stage— the superintendent was in charge of budget, bonds, property, plant, and financial affairs; and (d) Chief Executive Officer Stage— the superintendent was the chief educational officer: this stage is still developing. Lane (1983) explained that boards wanted highly structured systems because so many of their members came from business and industrial management backgrounds. Corwin (1965) reported that, "the employee status of teachers has been reinforced, first by a strong tradition of local, lay control over educators and then by the subsequent growth of complex school systems, which have required more administrative control to maintain coordination" (p. 4). Owens (1987), in describing Max Weber's work, pointed to the fact that the years before World War I were punctuated by frequent outbursts of conflict, such as labor unrest, revolution, and the rise of communism. In this setting, Weber produced some of the most useful, durable, and brilliant work on the administrative system of bureau 28 cracy and it seemed promising at that time and has since proved indispensable. Principles What are the principles that govern the classical model of organizational behavior otherwise referred to as the Bureaucratic Model? The explosion in the literature of studies, articles, research papers, and books on different methods of administration and organizational structure continue to take aim at one model as their base of comparison, the Classical or Bureaucratic Model (used interchangeably in this study). Decentralization, Site-Based Management, Participatory Management, Bottom-Up Management, Human Relations, System 4, Theory Y, Theory Z, etc. that tend to counteract the Bureaucratic Model reaffirm that the Classical Model is still ingrained in the American educational system and will be for some time to come. According to Wise and Darling-Hammond (1984-85), in the bureaucratic conception, the district (1) relies primarily on administration to design and operate a uniform teacher evaluation process, (2) bases evaluation on generalized criteria like generic teaching skills or other context free teaching behaviors, (3) recognizes a fixed set of learning outcomes, and (4) treats all teachers alike. Classical organizational theorists have sought to identify a set of principles or assumptions of the Classical Model, as outlined by Hanson (1985): 29 1. An organization is characterized as a hierarchical order of roles and responsibilities. 2. Power is centralized in the role of the chief officer. 3. Formal goals give specific direction to events. 4. Communication follows established channels. 5. Control over production (teaching/learning) is established by the rules of the organization. 6. Superiors manage subordinates. 7. Conflict is dysfunctional and should be eliminated. 8. Subordinates are motivated by economic needs. 9. People do not like to work? therefore, close supervision is necessary. 10. Human beings are interchangeable on the job as long as they have the requisite skill. In brief, the classical theorists believed that an application of the bureaucratic structure and processes of organizational control would promote rational, efficient, and disciplined behavior, making possible the achievement of well-defined goals. Efficiency, then, is achieved by arranging positions within the organization according to hierarchy and jurisdiction and by placing power at the top of a clear chain-of-command (Hanson, 1985) . Rensis Likert (1967), in explaining the classical structure that he referred to as System 1 (cited in Hanson, 1985), outlined the following eight processes: 1. Leadership processes reveal no trust and confidence in subordinates, who reciprocate in kind. Mutual support does not exist and ideas on solving job problems seldom are offered by subordinates. 2. Motivational forces tap only needs for physical and economic security through the use of threat, punishment, and occasional reward. Attitudes of subordinates are not favorable toward the organization. 3. Communication is downward, initiated from top, limited in scope and typically viewed with suspicion by subordinates. Upward communication is very limited and often distorted and inaccurate. 4. The interaction-influence process is limited, cooperative teamwork is absent, and subordinates have limited influence on departmental goals, activities, and methods. 5. Decision making is concentrated at the top and far above the level where the best information exists. 31 6. Goals are set from the top via mandates and are often covertly resisted by subordinates. 7. Control is managed from the top and exercised in a punitive manner. 8. Performance goals and training are cast at average levels with limited training resources. Owens (1987) elaborated on four additional principles which are fundamental to Classical Theory: Line and Staff, Unity of Command, Exception Principle, and Span of Control. Central to the classical view of organization is the concept of hierarchy, which in the jargon of the classical model is the scalar principle. (In practice it is usually referred to as "line and staff.") The contention is that authority and responsibility should flow in as direct and unbroken a path as possible, from the top policy level down through the organization to the lowest member. It is, thus, no accident that organizational charts of American school districts today frequently show vertical lines of authority and responsibility with little or no interconnection between operating divisions of the organization. Another central classical principle of organization is unitv of command: essentially that no one in an organization should receive orders from more than one superordinate. The organizational charts of school dis 32 tricts frequently reflect this principle, while in actual operation, the concept is routinely ignored. The exception principle holds that when the need for a decision recurs frequently, the decision should be established as a routine that can be delegated to subordinates (in the form of rules, standard operating procedures, administrative manuals). This frees those in higher positions from routine detail to deal with the exceptions to the rules. This has proved to be the most generally applicable principle of classical theory. Span of control is the most discussed of the major ideas from classical organizational theory. The essence of the concept is to prescribe (and thereby limit) the number of people reporting to a supervisor or administrator. The bureaucratic approach tends to emphasize the following five mechanisms in dealing with issues of controlling and coordinated the behavior of people in the organization. Owens (1987) applied them in a vivid way to the school system: 1. Maintain firm hierarchical control of authority and close supervision of those in the lower ranks. The role of the administrator as inspector and evaluator is stressed in this concept. 2. Establish and maintain adequate vertical communication. This helps to assure that good information will be transmitted to the decision makers and orders will 33 be clearly and quickly transmitted down the line for implementation. Because the decision makers must have accurate information concerning the operating level in order to make high quality decisions, the processing and communicating of information up the line is particularly important but often not especially effective. The use of computers to facilitate this communication is highly attractive to adherents of this concept. 3. Develop clear written rules and procedures to set standards and guide actions. These include curriculum guides, policy handbooks, instructions, standard forms, duty rosters, rules and regulations, and standard operating procedures. 4. Promulgate clear plans and schedules for participants to follow. These include teachers' lesson plans, bell schedules, duty rosters, pull-out schedules, meeting schedules, budgets, lunch schedules, special teacher schedules, bus schedules, and many others. 5. Add supervisory and administrative positions to the hierarchy of the organization as necessary to meet problems that arise from changing conditions confronted bv the organization. For example, as school districts and schools grew in size, such positions as assistant principal, chairperson, director, and coordinator appeared. As programs became more complex, positions for specialists appeared: director of special education, coordinator of 34 drug abuse programs, school psychologist, and school social worker are a few examples. Leadership The Classical Theory perspective finds the leader in the upper reaches of the hierarchy and endowed with natural psychological traits that give him or her advantages over most mortals. Woven through this perspective is the notion that leaders are born and not made (Hanson, 1985). Authoritarian individuals, said Owens (1987), being insecure in ambiguous circumstances, place little trust in others and seek to control as much of the environment as possible (including the people around them) . Such a person tends to seek a role in which he or she is seen as strong and in which control can be exercised. Behavior in that role tends to be relatively consistent: dogmatic, seeking absolute solution to complex problems, and exercising power for personal gratification. Rooted in Classical Theory are a number of basic assumptions about organizations, people, and leadership behavior as Massie (1965) pointed out from the Principles of Scientific Management: (1) unless clear limits to jobs are defined and enforced, members will tend to be confused and to trespass on the domains of others; (2) human beings . . . prefer to be directed and will not cooperate unless a pattern is planned formally for them; (3) workers are motivated by economic needs, and therefore, incentives 35 should be in terms of monetary systems? (4) authority has its source at the top of the hierarchy and is delegated downward; and (5) managerial functions in varied types of activities have universal characteristics and can be performed in a given manner, regardless of the environment and qualities of the personnel involved. As Owens (1987) stressed, classical organization tends to view leadership as (a) largely a matter of hierarchical power over subordinates, and (b) almost wholly concerned with getting the task accomplished. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell (1968) asserted that the authoritarian system of leadership is being challenged because people have a greater concept of personal liberty, the right to question, the right to protect, and the power of democratic action. This is a period of transition from administration of enterprise based on authority to administration based upon participation. Decision making is no longer the prerogative of an individual chiefly because of vested authority. Classical theory definitions of leadership emphasize psychological traits (people), compelling compliance (processes), and formal structure (systems) (Hanson, 1985) . Blau and Scott (1962), in a chapter devoted to formal organization, pinpointed that leadership assumes predictability in events, processes, and people. Consistency in leadership behavior and subordinates is a desired trait. In pursuit of the "best solution," the leader inevitably manipulates the formal organization by creating new structures, forming new policy, adding, eliminating or merging departments, and finding rationalizations for his action through resources and sufficient data. It is in this type of closed setting that the authoritarian leadership strives. House (1971) defined this kind of leadership as: Directive Leadership, the leader gives structure to the work situation by establishing specific expectations for the subordinates, such as what, how, and when a task should be performed. Specific performance standards are maintained. Top-down, autocratic type leadership does predictably affect teachers and staff. Referring to the employee, Corwin (1965) underlined that, "bureaucracy increasingly erodes his intellectual responsibility and comprises his moral integrity." Lane (1983) wrote that, "The history of American educational administration has shown that teachers have little to say about policy as it affects the teacherstudent learning relations" (p. 3). Within the Classical Theory perspective, the leadership environment assumes rationality in people, process, and structure. The leader holds a high position because he or she is an elitist of sorts— superior in mind, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, no one else is more qualified to sort out the tangles of problem situations and 37 set the organization back on the track of maximum efficiency. In pursuit of this task, the leadership is supported by the full weight of the formal organization hierarchy and all the power, information, and resources that the hierarchy can bring to focus (Hanson, 1985). A common link to the classical leadership mode is the receptivity to change by the organization or the administrator. One of the weaknesses of the Classical Model is its resistance and slowness to accept change. The Classical Model assumes that the organizational subsystems will continue their assigned routines until they are forced to do otherwise. Once a routine has been established within the organizational structure, change is difficult and is resisted. Hierarchy and control are maintained by those at the top of the organization; however, the "street level bureaucrat," or teacher, develops a coping routine that is rooted in the demands of the workplace and is "almost generically immune to hierarchical control" (Elmore, 1978). The Classical Model demonstrates the failure of top level control to alter the behavior of subordinates. Speaking of bureaucracy, Perrow (1972) offered two criticisms. Its social engineering was inflexible and inefficient and, when changes were needed, uncreative and unresponsive. Its lack of human relations suppressed spontaneity, freedom, and self-realization. Corwin (1965) 38 attributed discouragement of creative and original thought, which was so necessary if organizations were to adapt to changing environments, to standardization which was a tendency in bureaucracies. In addressing the Classical Theory Model of Change, Hanson (1985) indicated that the rational approaches all too often ignore the special characteristics of the environment. Rational approaches also stress directive and mandate-type strategies of change as opposed to collaborative strategies. Operating in the context of Classical Organization Theory is the "rational person," who operates best in the world of "should b e ” rather than the world of "is." Rational strategies of change are dependent on people acting in a similarly rational way, and that is the rub. When individual academicians or educational observers superimpose rational models on the operations of a living organization and compare the difference between what should happen and what does happen, they are often quick to blame the teachers and administrators for performing ineffectively. Cox and Wood (1980) found that bureaucratic rigidity of the organizational hierarchy of authority, lack of participation in decision-making processes, job codification, and rigid enforcement of rules correlated significantly with teacher alienation. With such alienation there was no hope for esprit. If loss of esprit reduces produc 39 tivity, adaptability, and flexibility, which are dimensions of organizational effectiveness, then organizational effectiveness is diminished. Organizational scholars such as Bennis (1966), March and Simon (1958) have documented ways in which formal bureaucratic structure can become resistant to change because of emphasis on hierarchical levels, role relationships, standardized procedures, control from the top, values of disciplined compliance, and the like (quoted in Hanson, 1985). Abbott (1969) stressed that superordinates tend to have rights and subordinates obligations. Superordinates have the right to veto or affirm. When a teacher or lower-level administrator has a good idea for change, it must pass through the hands of three or four superiors— all of whom have the right to veto it. In sum, a truly bureaucratic school system, in the popular sense of the term, contains powerful elements that are resistant to change (Hanson, 1985). Etzioni (1964) recommended that professionals be free to innovate, to experiment, to take risks in order to carry out their work effectively. This is diametrically opposed to the very essence of the organizational principle of control and coordination by superiors. As Hall (1963) observed, the presence of professionals appeared to cause a diminished need for formalized rules and procedures. Mannasse (1983) suggested that school improvement efforts 40 were most likely to succeed if they were designed and implemented at the building level. Principals should be empowered to lead. In a bureaucratic situation, the public school principal is more of a lower level manager than a leader. The principal is a bureaucrat with supervisory responsibility. Host of the important decisions about policy have been taken by superordinates: they set the goals and the principal is expected to administer them. The principal is bound by all sorts of formal rules and regulations that dictate aspects of internal structure. And many of the important personnel decisions are imposed from above, as well. The real leaders of the public school are the superordinates of the principal (Lane, 1983). Hanson (1985) brilliantly observed that in the process of leadership, for example, if the members of a board of education conceive of the school district from a classical organization perspective, they will probably search for a superintendent who talks about "going by the book" and "running a tight ship," who insists on disciplined obedience to policy, as enforced through the chainof-command; who considers himself or herself to have ultimate authority and responsibility over everything that goes on in the school district; and who displays what the military refers to as "command presence." 41 Authority One source of control that is obvious in the Classical Bureaucratic Organization is that of a formal, central authority. Classical Model organizations are characterized by hierarchy of authority, specialization, rules for subordinates, procedural policies, handbooks, regulations, endless guidelines, manuals, impersonality, and technical competence. Authors such as Abbot (1969), Anderson (1968), and Owens (1987) lead one to believe that schools can best be described and analyzed with the classical bureaucratic framework. Hanson (1985) tends to be in support of this concept as he detailed that, "Clearly, the public school has many characteristics that suggest it is managed according to derivatives of classical bureaucratic theory. For example, the school maintains a well-defined hierarchy of authority (teacher to principal to superintendent); power is centralized in the role of the superintendent; rules stipulate expected and prohibited behavior (education code, district policy, school handbook) ; a specific division of labor exists (English teachers, history teachers, counselors, aides); positions require university diplomas and state certificates; and a precisely defined work flow is extablished (first to second to third grade)" (p. 249). In the classical system model of an organization, as a school district, there is an orientation toward a single 42 set of stable goals, a belief that power is a fixed entity flowing from the top of the organization. From Weber's (1964) point of view, rational authority is projected throughout the organization in such a way as to directly control human activity to the points of high predictability and maximum efficiency. "Bureaucratic administration . . . means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge." Knowledge endows authority with rationality. He argued that the bureaucratic form of administration is the most efficient organizational form that can be utilized in modern, complex organizations. For Weber (1964), universal "Principles of Organization" are the two concepts that define authority: 1. Hierarchical Structure: Authority in an organization is distributed in a pyramidal configuration; each official is responsible for his or her subordinates' actions and decisions; and 2. Control bv Rules: Official decisions and actions are directed by codified rules, thus assuring uniformity, predictability, and stability. In organizations based on legal-rational authority, the organization's charter and formally established policies vest the authority of command in specific offices to be used by the people who occupy those offices. In this context, when a teacher chooses to sign a contract with a school system, that individual is prepared and willing to 43 be bound by the decisions of his or her superiors in all aspects of school tasks (Hanson, 1985). Lane (1983) reported that organizational structure directly affected the ability of the organization and its leaders to respond to human needs. He believed that bureaucracy begot helplessness, alienation, confusion, and oppression. Lortie (1964) highlighted that the bureaucratic model, in emphasizing the formal distribution of authority, does not prepare us for many of the events that actually occur in public schools. Teachers, for example, lay claim to and get, informally, certain types of authority despite lack of formal support for it in either law or school system constitutions. MacKay (1964) examined the relationship between organizational structure and teacher performance as measured by pupil performance. He discovered that where decision making was centralized and authority relationships between principal and teachers were highly visible, pupil achievement was lower. Wimpleberg (1986) found that in less effective schools, principals made more frequent references to organizational procedures and routines. They tended to cite policy formulations. Organizational goals were viewed in fairly concrete terms and standard operating procedures were granted strong legitimacy. 44 McGregor (1960) concluded, "If there is a single assumption which pervades conventional organizational theory it is that authority is the central indispensable means of managerial control" (p. 18). Communication As Owens (1987) pointed out, traditional administrative theory has, therefore, been strongly biased in favor of the ideal of a smooth-running organization, characterized by harmony, unity, coordination, efficiency, and order. The classical theorists had definite ideas about how the communication process should operate, or who should say what through which channel to whom toward what effect. Scientific management taught that communication existed to facilitate the leader's command and control over the organization through vertical, formal channels (Hanson, 1985). A common denominator in the classical mode of communication is unity and oneness in thought and ideas. Everyone seems to be inculcated to speak with one voice. This is a type of assertive discipline syndrome. Differences in point of view are not nurtured and often do not lead to creative thinking. Conflict is viewed in a negative light. As Owens (1987) pinpointed, in classical management theory, the existence of conflict is viewed as evidence of breakdown in the organization; failure on the 45 part of management to plan adequately and/or to exercise sufficient control. In discussing Fredrick Taylor's view of communication within the bureaucratic structure, Rogers and Rogers (1976) stated that, "Communication was to be formal, hierarchical and planned; its purpose was to get the work done, to increase productivity and efficiency. In sum, Taylorism viewed communication as one-sided and vertical (top-down) and task-related" (p. 156). In describing vertical communication which is characteristic of the classical model, Hanson (1985) pointed to the fact that in most types of organizations, including school systems, the information going down the line differs from that going up. Going down, one tends to find directives, such as faculty and student codes, program guidelines, state and district policy requirements, school board decisions, and new administrative procedures. He went on to point out that going up the hierarchy, one tends to find feedback-type information, such as summary reports, resource requests, evaluative information, explanations of the academic or disciplinary treatment of specific students, and curricular program documents. Krivonos summarized the findings of the literature on upward communication in the following way (cited in Hanson, 1985): (1) subordinates tend to distort information upward in a manner that pleases their superiors; (2) 46 subordinates tend to tell their superiors what they want them to know; (3) subordinates tend to tell their superiors what they think they want to hear; and (4) subordinates tend to tell their superiors information that reflects favorably on themselves and/or does not reflect negatively on themselves. Divergent views that are out of step with the system tend to be isolated in the classical framework of communication. Communication is top-down and highly task oriented. As Hanson (1985) put it, in a sense, messages moved up the hierarchy through a series of whispers, but down the hierarchy through a series of loudspeakers. Concerning classical theory orientation, communication is the transmission of information. The communication process is viewed as a bucket carrying messages from one person to another (Hanson, 1985). In this setting, the "grapevine” becomes a legitimate source of information. Blau and Scott (1962) wrote that, "Explicit status distinctions tend to reduce social interaction and social support" and "formally instituted status differences tend to undermine the process of competition for respect. In a peer group, a member's standing rests primarily on the respect of others, and this fact makes their respect and deference most important." These are forceful arguments against the hierarchical organizational structure of a bureaucracy. Most people appreciate support in their work 47 and competition for respect can bring out the best in a person. Blau and Scott also believed that, "status differences distort the error-correcting function of social interaction." It is not easy to oppose the judgment of a person with superior power or prestige. Anyone who has worked in a hierarchical setting finds Owens' (1987) observation rather poignantly that, when secretiveness and restricted communication represent the organizational norm, it is difficult to know if a latent conflict exists, let alone to plan ways of dealing with it. Many administrators of educational organizations instinctively understand this and make it a rule to put as little communication in writing as possible, to assemble people for meetings as infrequently as possible, and— when meetings must be held— to be sure to control the proceedings tightly so as to minimize the "risk" of opening up issues that might "cause trouble." Classical theory stresses that the communication process exists to facilitate the manager's command and control over the employees in a formal, hierarchical, and downwardly directed manner. The purpose is to increase efficiency and productivity (Hanson, 1985). Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found that increased decentralization improved performance, while Hage and Aiken (1967) reported that it improved program innovation. 48 Program innovation can be a component of productivity and is a result of adaptability. Carlson (1951) found that increased decentralization was positively related to managerial efficiency, while Read (1962) found that it was positively related to open communications, and Carpenter (1971) found that it was positively related to job satisfaction. In relation to these discoveries, efficiency is an aspect of organizational effectiveness. The research suggests that open communications and job satisfaction are factors contributing to productivity and adaptability and therefore organizational e f fect ivenes s . Decision Making Traditional (classical) approaches to the administration of school systems and schools have tended not only to use a hierarchical model of organization (drawn from the tradition of the military and large corporations) but also to emphasize the importance of rational, logical, and potentially powerful control systems, whereby decisions are made at the top of the hierarchy and implemented at the bottom. As a conceptually ideal state, at least, the whole is characterized by hierarchically maintained order, system, and discipline (Owens, 1987). The rational and programmed environment for decision making is representative of classical hierarchical theory, and the nonprescriptive environment reflects social system theory (Hanson, 1985). The classical approach to decision making is one in which most of the decisions are made at the central office level. The organization is said to be centralized when the decision-making authority is concentrated in the hands of the chief educational officer. In this atmosphere, the decision-making configuration resembles a pyramid in which broad decisions are made at the top of the hierarchy, to be implemented at the lower level. The decision-making process is therefore not widely dispersed. Four of the underlying assumptions of centralized management that are aligned with classical practice and thought are: (a) the needs and values within a district vary little from one attendance area to another; (b) decisions about the operations and programs of one school are valid for all schools; (c) decisions by a group of administrators that are applied to all schools within the district are better than the aggregate of individual decisions by a principal acting independently; and (d) effective and efficient school programs result when they are developed centrally under the direction of the administrator. Consistency, unity, and efficiency are paramount. Coordination is best achieved if it is planned and directed from the top. Subordinates must adhere to the chain-ofcommand, i.e., they must first talk with the principal before talking with the superintendent. As Hanson (1985) 50 expressed it, the character of the organizational hierarchy also requires that the subordinates show deference to their chiefs. Authors such as Simon (1957) and March and Simon (1958) extended the Weberian concept of organizations as essentially closed systems; little attention was paid to the environment in which organizations existed. Human beings, they believed, were "intendedly rational" but limited by their capacities and their knowledge. As such, people in organizations when making decisions made a limited search for alternatives, and they tend to select the first satisfactory alternative that comes along. Thus, organizations do not continue to search for optimal decisions, they settle instead for "satisfying" decisions. Recent research is giving rise to the understanding that, "Successful schools are places where teachers have substantial instructional autonomy and exercise their discretion in the instructional program" (Bossert et al., 1982, p. 18). Chubb (1987) found that in high performance schools, decision making was significantly more democratic, the teachers were more involved and influential in establishing disciplinary codes, designing curricula, and even choosing their colleagues than teachers in low performance schools. Relationships between teachers and principals were more cooperative in high performance schools. 51 Bureaucratic structure and administration are designed to routinize problem solving— to treat incoming questions and issues in a programmed/ systematic way that will draw upon a minimum of human and material resources (Hanson, 1985). Holdaway (1978) found that the lack of opportunities to participate in decision making was the greatest source of teacher dissatisfaction. It is argued that job satisfaction has a bearing on teacher effectiveness. Cuban (1986) speculated that the implementation of state-mandated educational goals and the use of statewide minimum competency testing to monitor student performance, which are results of bureaucratic decision making, may impede the development of student reasoning and problemsolving skills. He also suggested that standardized educational goals and standardized testing may lead to standardized teaching: a concept at odds with the concept of teaching as a profession requiring invention, imagination, performance, and orchestration. In their recent book, Chubb and Moe (1990) had much to say about the relationship between the loss of teacher autonomy and school effectiveness. These authors contended that the existing system of public education inhibits the emergence of effective organizations. It functions naturally to limit and undermine school autonomy. Bureaucracy destroys effective organizations. It imposes goals, 52 structures, and requirements that tell principals and teachers what to do and how to do it denying them the discretion they need to exercise their expertise and professional judgment and denying them the flexibility they need to develop and operate as teams. They concluded that the freer schools are from external control— the more autonomous, the less subject to bureaucratic constraint— the more likely they are to have effective organizations. Peters and Waterman (1982) found that workers who had freedom to determine their own goals, and autonomy to develop strategies to achieve them, outperformed their more rigidly supervised counterparts again and again. Practices based on the classical model assumptions continue to exist in the workplace. These practices, Argyris (1964) pointed out, form the basis of the "bureaucratic-pyramidal” management model that is undergoing scrutiny today. He noted that, "following bureaucratic or pyramidal values leads to poor, shallow and mistrustful relationships . . . where the organization is a breeding ground for mistrust, intergroup conflict, rigidity, and so on, which in turn lead to a decrease in organizational success in problem solving” (p. 123). 53 Social System Historical Perspective Participatory management is founded on a belief in collaboration, consultation, the opportunity for choice, and group participation. The concept of democratic participation is rooted in the social and educational philosophy of John Dewey (cited in Wirth, 1989) and is guided by the organizational principles of Mary Parker Follett (1965). John Dewey (cited in Wirth, 1989) provided education with a social philosophy. He believed that society could become better if the democratic skills of collaboration teamwork were taught and practiced in schools. Embedded in the social system model is respect for individuality, autonomy, and cooperation. One cannot address the historical perspective of the social system, from the researcher's point-of-view, without examining John Dewey Democracy of Education. He laid the foundation for the social system mode of organizational behavior. The roots of democratic participation can be found in the works of John Dewey (Dykhuizen, 1973), a philosopher of American democracy and a pragmatist, he redefined democracy in a framework of philosophy, society, and education. To him, all philosophy was social philosophy and all social philosophy was "at the bottom of all philosophy of education" (Dykhuizen, 1973, p. 106). Dewey 54 conceptualized democracy as a quality of community life rather than a form of government. In Democracy and Education (1916) he explained (as cited in Winn, 1959) that, "A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associate living, of conjoint communicated experience" (p. 3). Dewey's vision was brilliantly summed up by Cahn (1977). As John Dewey interpreted democracy as a system of education, continuous with Thomas Jefferson's belief that America was a promise not simply to itself, but to mankind, there is no question that John Dewey's heart was in the right democratic place. He believed that American democracy was a school for its citizens and the school a companion of democracy. He had a vision— an image of moral possibility that could give people's lives meaning, a view of the relationship between intelligence and conscience, practicalities, and ideals— that would allow Americans to live with integrity. Following the crash of October, 1929, and the Great Depression, the work of Mary Parker Follett (1965) was significant in the development of management thought. Her work, more than many others, reflected the slowly growing realization that large business corporations had become social institutions whose concentration of power called into question the American tradition of unrestrained corporate action. Her ideas were instrumental in modifying 55 the trend toward rigidly structuralist views in classical management theory, provided a rationale that was helpful in ushering in the human relations movement, and pioneered what today is called contingency theory. Follett, first, viewed management as a social process and, second, saw it inextricably enmeshed in the particular situation. She did not see authority as flowing from the top of the organization's hierarchy to be parceled out among those in lower ranks. It was better practice, in her view, that orders should not be given by one person; rather, all should seek to take orders from the situation itself. She saw that the administrator had three choices of ways to handle conflict: (1) by the exercise of power; (2) by compromise; or (3) by "integration" (that is, bringing the conflict into the open and seeking a mutually acceptable, win-win resolution) (Owens, 1987). Follett (1965) believed that individual potential was released through the group processes of cooperation and integration which in turn bettered both organizations and society. She advocated that training for democratic participation should be taught in schools. In Dynamic Administration, a collection of her writings, Follett defined democracy as participation; the participation of individuals in a group process to create a whole. She asserted that, "the most progressive view of democracy is not consent of the governed, but participa 56 tion" (Follett, 1940). She believed that the democratic way of life was to work toward an honest integration of all points of view, to that end every individual was made to count both as a person and as an effective part of the group and of society as a whole. Follett's vision of an ordered society was through the democratic process of a collective, dynamic, rational, and democratic group process that created wholes and freed the creative spirit of man. She advocated a new level of cooperation in organizations through democratic participation. She stated, "If we can get beyond consent, we can get beyond mere participation . . . to draw out the capacities of all then to fit these together is our problem" (Follett, 1940, p. 229). The single most significant research that started the social system evolution was that of Elton Mayo, who was a professor of industrial research at the Harvard School of Business and began his famous study at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago in the 1920s. Mayo and his associates set out to study the effects of illumination on worker productivity in order to generate scientific principles that would lead to greater efficiency. The most important finding of these experiments, however, was the discovery of the impact that the socialpsychological variables within the worker group had on the process of production. The discovery that workers could 57 control the production process to a considerable degree, independent of the demands of management, shattered many of the precepts central to classical theory. A new area of organization theory was entered into. This domain of thought is sometimes referred to as social systems theory (Hanson, 1985). The findings of the Hawthorne Studies literally changed traditional beliefs and redirected management thought. It ushered in the social system or human relations movement in organizational management. The studies revealed the need 11 for management to study and understand relationships among people" (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 53). One effect of the studies at Hawthorne was that, when workers were given a chance to discuss their concerns and share their feelings and suggestions for job improvement, an increase in production was observed. Hersey and Blanchard noted that: These findings were important because they helped answer many of the questions that had puzzled management about why some groups seemed to be high producers while others hovered at a minimal level of output. The findings also encouraged management to involve workers in planning, organizing and controlling their own work in an effort to secure their positive cooperation. (p. 53) Not unlike the classical theory of the previous generation, the human relations orientation to the problems of managerial control spread quickly to other sectors of society, including the schools. The social upheaval caused 58 by the Depression and the turmoil of World War II created a receptive climate for this new administrative theory. The enthusiasm for the human relations orientation dampened considerably after the 1950s because many worker organizations came to view it as only another management tactic designed to pacify, and thereby control, the actions of workers (Hanson, 1985). Lewin (cited in Marrow, 1969) put flesh on the theories of Dewey and Follett, gaining democratic participation credence and definition through his socio-psychological theories and empirical investigations. Lewin's meld of scientific thinking and democratic values in practical application led to theories of group dynamics, leadership, and planned change. The work of Ronald Lippitt (White & Lippitt, 1960), a student of Lewin, was also influential. Democratic participation has been brought into current practice by Schmuck and Runkel's (1988) work in organizational development in schools, which focuses on how schools are organized, managed, and led to be more effective. By the mid-1950s, a new concept of organization was gaining wide acceptance among students of educational administration. This new concept recognized the dynamic interrelationships between (1) the structural characteristics of the organization, and (2) the personal characteristics of the individual. It sought to understand the behavior of people at work in terms of the dynamic interre 59 lationships between the organizational structure and the people who populated it. Using this insight, students of organization began to conceptualize organizations— such as school systems— as social systems (Owens, 1987). Owens (1987) concluded with his assessment that in American education, the human relations movement had relatively little impact upon school district administrators (for example, superintendents of schools), as compared with rather a substantial impact upon supervisory levels (for example, supervisors, elementary school principals). Superintendents, in general, continued to emphasize such classical concepts as hierarchical control, authority, and formal organization, while supervisors emphasized to a much greater extent such human relations concepts as morale, group cohesiveness, collaboration, and the dynamics of informal organization. For the most part, those who saw their roles as educational administrators tended to emphasize attention to budgets, politics, control, and the asymmetrical exercise of power from the top downward, while those who were primarily concerned with instruction and curriculum placed much more emphasis on participation, communication, and de-emphasis on status-power relationships. This difference in emphasis persisted at least into the 1980s, though administrators moved somewhat to embrace human relations ideas. 60 Principles Hanson (1985) carefully distilled ten basic principles of the social system model as: 1. An organization is characterized as a coalition of socio-political groups frequently working outside the formal system. 2. Power is diffused into groups or coalitions of groups. 3. Formal and informal goals often conflict, with the latter leading in a multitude of directions. 4. Communication follows the vested interests of the groups involved. 5. Control over production (teaching/learning) is established by the informal norms of groups. 6. Subordinates frequently manage superiors. 7. Conflict is frequently very functional (constructive) and is inevitable. 8. Subordinates have motivational needs that extend far beyond economic issues. 9. If some people do not like to work, that behavior is learned and not inherent in their character. 10. Each human being brings unique social and psychological characteristics to the job that 61 influence the productivity of the role he or she occupies. Likert (1967) approached the social system model from a different angle, which he labeled System 4. He ably outlined eight principles (Hanson, 1985): 1. Leadership processes reveal complete trust and confidence in subordinates and they reciprocate in kind. Mutual support exists and ideas on solving job problems are offered by subordinates and used. 2. Motivational forces tap the full range of employee needs from economic to ego. Favorable attitudes toward the organization exist at all levels. 3. Communication flows freely in all directions, is initiated at all levels, and tends to be complete. 4. The interaction-influence process is open and cooperative. Teamwork is present and subordinates have substantial influence on departmental goals, activities, and methods. 5. Decision making is decentralized when possible and draws in extensive participation of subordinates who are closest to the problem and have the best information. 6. Goals are set with group participation and are accepted by subordinates. 7. Control is spread throughout the organization and emphasizes self-control and self-guidance for problem solving. 62 8. Performance goals and training are cast at high levels and abundant training resources are made available. The social system model of organizational behavior emerged as a counterpoint to the classical model. Hanson (1985) associated the perspective of the social system organization to that of a chess game. This perspective holds that people share power and differ with respect to their views on what must be done. In this instance, one person is formally in charge of the chess game, but in reality he or she is surrounded by groups of associates who have their hands on various pieces and move them around the board with considerable discretion. Frequently, different groups (on the same side) begin pulling in different directions and wind up with a final outcome no one planned, controlled, contemplated, or even wanted. Loomis' (1960) contribution to this discussion is germane. His social system model is made up of what he called "elements." He argued that these elements can be found in any social system. Let us examine some of these elements as pertinent to the educational system. Belief (knowledge)— The cognitive basis for social action. Example, a college education leads to financial success. Sentiment— What the membership (employees) feels about the world around them and one another. Example, loyalty out of friendship. 63 Goals/Objectives— The purposes the members (employees) set out to accomplish. Example, bring about change, preserve the status quo. Norms— The written or unwritten "rules of the game." Example, teacher subgroups develop norms regarding such things as what to do about problem students, how to handle the principal, etc. Status and Role— Status is the position in the social system. Example, teacher, student, counselor. Roles are the patterns of behavior expected of those who hold particular status positions: teacher (teaching), administration (directing), and student (studying). Power— The capacity to control or influence the behavior of others. Examples, the "Power Game" endemic to almost any level in an educational system, from the members of the board of education to the students in the classroom. Possessing various types of power can be seen as holding "chips" in the game. Rank— A function of how important a member is to the system. Example, an administrator has considerable rank, but so might a janitor, cook, teacher, or student. Sanction— Rewards and penalties employed by members of a system to ensure behavior is in keeping with established norms. Example, good grades for the good student and poor grades for the marginal student. 64 Facility— Any means used to attain a desired end. Example, be either physical in nature, such as a telephone, a classroom, or computer; or social, such as a smile, a strategy of work, or a compliment. The above elements are reflective of the rites, rituals, values, and culture that Deal and Kennedy (1982) emphasized in their book Corporate Cultures. The conceptual perspective of the natural social systems model suggests that an organization is made up of a collection of groups (social systems) that collaborate to achieve system goals on some occasions and, on other occasions, that cooperate to accomplish the goals of their own groups (Hanson, 1985). Corwin's (1974) comments on school operations within the framework of the social system, which he called the natural systems model, are pertinent at this point: 1. Members in different parts of an organization (math teachers, coaches, or janitors) often place the interests and objectives of their own unit above those prescribed for the overall organization. 2. One's status and activity in an organization take on value as ends in themselves (indeed, salary schedules for teachers are based on their seniority, independent of demonstrated contributions to explicit goals). 3. The official goals tend to become distorted and neglected as the organization strains to survive or expand. 65 4. Decisions are the outcomes of bargaining and compromise among competing subgroups. 5. No one group has sufficient information or power to compel a high degree of coordination among the subgroups. The natural social systems orientation, said Hanson (1985), "attempts to take into account how people do behave in organizations rather than how they should behave." Leadership The social system (socio-political) theory definitions of leadership emphasize behavioral characteristics (people), inducing compliance (processes) and differential problem situations and formal and informal structure (systems) (Hanson, 1985). Hanson (1985) continued that the social system orientation is especially important for those practitioners and researchers who hold the perspective that an organization such as the school functions in a power environment made up of a coalition of informal groups. Follett (1965) sought a scientific method to release the creative spirit and will of the people. Her technique was group organization. She believed the problems of government, organization, and administration were fundamentally problems in human relations. The basic problem of an organization was the building and maintenance of dynamic and harmonious human relations. Joint effort was necessary for organizations to be effective; and organizations were most 66 effective when differences were solved through conference and cooperation. Out of the social system theory perspective of leadership emerged two major concepts of leadership behavior which are group dynamics and participatory management. Group dynamics involves both the so-called "Leaderless Group" and the informal leader in small group settings. Whereas participatory management involves leadership through integration, collaboration, consultation, shared responsibilities, and formal groups. Sparked by the "Hawthorne Effect," new concepts were now available to the administrator to use in practice. Among them were (1) morale, (2) group dynamics, (3) democratic supervision, (4) personnel relations, and (5) behavioral concepts of motivation. The human relations movement emphasized human and interpersonal factors in administering the affairs of organizations. Supervisors, in particular, drew heavily on human relations concepts, placing stress on such notions as "democratic" procedures, "involvement," motivational techniques, and sociometry of leadership (Owens, 1987). This new phenomenon of leadership behavior led to an avalanche of studies carried out in group and organizational settings to better understand the nature of human relations, group dynamics, and informal leadership. Moreno (1947) sensed that within groups, there are informal subgroups— identifiable clusters of people that form essentially on the 67 basis of how they like or dislike one another (cited in Owens, 1987). Luthans (1989) pointed out that the early studies were valuable in that they were the first to analyze leadership from the standpoint of scientific methodology and, more importantly, they showed that different styles of leadership can produce different, complex reactions from the same or similar groups. Wolman (1956), for example, found that members of groups tend to elect to leadership positions individuals who are perceived to have the ability (or "power") to satisfy the needs of the group and who are, at the same time, perceived as ready to accept the responsibility. This model of educational organization is made up of numerous social systems. These social systems must be brought into a collaborative effort if a program of directed change is to be carried out successfully. The task is complicated because the various social systems often have their own informal goals, power sources, norms governing behavior, and incentive systems. The task of the formal leadership in the educational system is to try to coordinate and control as much as possible the various subgroups so that they more or less move together as a coalition in a pre-established direction of change (Hanson, 1985). Bales noted that groups tend to confer leadership on individuals, not so much on the basis of how well they are 68 liked as on the basis of the ideas that the individuals contribute to the groups and the help that they give the groups in carrying out the ideas. Jennings found that dominant, aggressive people are not likely to be perceived by group members as leaders but, in fact, are likely to be rejected and isolated by the group (cited in Owens, 1987) . Kurt Lewin contributed significantly to the studies of organizational behavior, particularly in the area of group decision making and leadership. His contributions to social science include (1) the development of field theory which led to force field analysis as a tool in organizational development, (2) the effects of leadership styles, (3) the concept that group decisions are powerful shapers of individual action, (4) development of a planned change concept, and (5) action research (Marrow, 1969). Lewin's field theory is important to the understanding of organizational behavior (Stivers & Wheelan, 1986; Weisberd, 1989). Field theory states that a person's behavior comes from a totality of coexisting, interdependent facts. Behavior is a function of the person and his environment; both person and environment are interdependent variables. Behavior depends neither on the past, nor on the future, but on the present field of the here and now. He called this field life space, consisting of the needs of the individual and his psychological environment. In the life space, there is an energy field made up of strong and weak 69 forces, or "tension." He characterized this state of tension in a positive sense, as a state of readiness, or source of energy for action. Motivation comes from the outside— a desire, a goal or unfinished activity. Achieving a goal temporarily balances the forces. Thus, Levin's field theory holds that we act to resolve tensions that impinge on our life space. It is a meta-theory that explains behavior in terms of action. One practical application of field theory is force field analysis, which is a useful tool in making decisions, solving problems, or planning change. As explained in Productive Workplaces (Weisberd. 1989), Lewin saw unsolved problems as being frozen in a field of forces that pushed toward or away from good solutions. He believed the forces holding together and those pushing them apart could be delineated by analyzing the force field. The forces driving toward and those restraining problem resolution reach an equilibrium where the intensity of forces are countervalent. A problem is "moved" toward a solution by increasing drives or reducing restraints. Lewin believed the latter was better, because driving forces attract more restraints while reducing restraints permits existing drives to prevail. Levin's field theory evolved into a study of "group dynamics." He was convinced that group behavior is a function of both the individual person and the social situation. A better understanding of the principles of 70 collective behavior might show how groups could help find solutions to major social problems. Leadership has long been a subject of great interest to those concerned with organizations, and social scientists were not long in realizing that— unlike the classical view— leadership is not something that "great people" or individuals with formal legal authority do to their subordinates, but, rather, is a process involving dynamic interaction with subordinates (Owens, 1987). Critiques of the definition of leadership within the social system context, as found in the literature, during the peak periods of the social system movement reveal the degree of emphasis placed on people, process, and systems. One is also compelled to take into account the complexity of the leadership orientation: Katz and Kahn (1987) considered the essence of leadership to be "the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization." The focus here is on the leader's ability to induce "extra effort" from the followers. Lipham (1973) wrote of the inherent contradiction in most definitions of administrative leadership: The administrator is concerned primarily with maintaining, rather than changing, established structures, procedures, or goals. Thus, the administrator may be viewed as a stabilizing force. . . We may define leadership as the initiation of a new structure or procedure for accomplishing (or changing) an organization's goals or objectives.(p. 122) 71 Getzels (1973) argued that definitions describing the leader as one who initiates a new structure in social systems, as many definitions do, are inadequate. He contended, "The missing ingredient is recognition that leadership depends on followership, a function of cooperation or mutuality with the leader rather than forcible domination and coercion by the leader" (p. 16). Getzels et al. (1968) distinguished between superordination, where authority is granted to the individual by the institution, and leadership, where the authority is extended by the followers. The source of superordination lies in vested authority, whereas the source of leadership lies in entrusted authority. Boles and Davenport (1975) stated that leadership is a process— not a category of behavior, a prerogative of position or personality, nor a collectivity of persons: By our definition, leadership is a process in which an individual takes initiative to assist a group to move toward production goals that are acceptable, to maintain the group, and to dispose of these needs of individuals that impelled them to join it. (p. 153) White and Lippitt (1960) observed that, while democratic participation takes more time, the effectiveness of the leader is enhanced because the product of group thinking is sounder and wiser. They asserted that the best leaders are democratic. They contended that leaders with common sense and a basic self-confidence, combined with a 72 fresh perception of humility, should be located, assessed, and trained in the requirements and rewards of leadership. Cuban (1988) contended that "both teachers and administrators share the magic of leadership"; both "share the same purpose. Both occupations seek professional autonomy, the pleasures and responsibilities of making independent judgments." Managing is not unrelated to the teacher's job, he stated, since, "controlling student behavior while organizing for instruction presses teachers toward a heavy and sustained emphasis on the managerial role" (p. 68). Involvement, or participation, Conway (1984) noted, is an approach that has at least four perspectives. One is a management view that emphasizes "productivity, efficiency, and profitability"— a recognition of the practical view that participation leads to higher morale and greater worker input. A humanistic perspective allows that participation is morally right, that the workplace should be healthy for the individual. A democratic view calls for the democratic principles in our society to be carried over into the workplace. Schanker (1987) called for the empowerment of teachers and questioned the ability of principals to perform managerial as well as instructional roles. Arguing for increased teacher participation, he expressed the belief that principals fear loss of status and power and therefore 73 resist allowing teachers greater opportunity to assume more decision making and leadership involvement. Discussing the expansion of the teachers' role, Kanter (1983) noted that producing innovations requires managers who employ a "participative/collaborative style," where persuasion, team building, and sharing in decision making occur. She pointed out that participative managers are not "permissive" managers, that they "still set tough standards," while they "empower subordinates" in order to accomplish the goals of the organization. Authority Among the multitude of findings ultimately stemming from the Hawthorne Studies, the most significant ones were associated with the discovery that workers tend not to act or react as individuals but as members of informal groups (Hanson, 1985). One of the underpinnings of the social system model is the concept of decentralization of authority. According to Hanson (1985), decentralization in an organization is defined as the delegation of authority over specific decisions to a subunit. A related concept is "deconcentration of functions." Deconcentration means the transfer of functions (activity and work) to subunits in the organization although the decision-making authority is maintained at the higher level. As early as 1938, Chester Barnard argued that the actual locus of authority in organizations was at the middle 74 and lower levels of the hierarchy rather than at the top, as most people assumed. He also argued that authority was delegated from lower levels to higher levels rather than vice versa (Hanson, 1985). Follett (1965) advocated that participation should be co-functioning and that the process should begin at the bottom of the organization, not the top. The role of the leader was to create a group power, or in other words, to make a team. She stressed that she was trying to work out a system of decentralization combined with a satisfactory system of cross-functioning so that democratic participation may be a continuing process. Prosch (1984) found it interesting that the instant demand for greater accountability in all its forms was relentlessly expanding the bureaucracy in school management- -more top-down, mandated, statewide reform and demands for a larger core of required curriculum— at the same time that industry was dismantling its top-down structure to achieve truly participatory management. Communication The social system (human relations) orientation suggests that, to be effective, communication has to be twoway, and that the meaning of the message is as much to be found in the psychological makeup of the receiver as it is the sender. The channels can be informal as well as formal and include anyone who has an interest in a particular 75 subject (Hanson, 1985) . Within the human relations ideology is the belief that the most efficient organization is the most satisfying organization. By maintaining open lines of communication and by using democratic procedures, management and employees can resolve their problems in a friendly, congenial atmosphere. Hanson (1985) confirmed that the human relations methodology emphasized, that by practicing democratic principles of management and advocating employee participation in structuring the work environment and in establishing open channels of communication, management and workers could resolve their differences in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation. In this informal setting that is characteristic of the social system model, communication is horizontal instead of vertical, as evident in the Classical-Bureaucratical Model. Communication then within the same hierarchical level is usually less subject to distortion and filtering because of the absence of a high level of fear among everyone. Organization-wide structures that facilitate communication up, down, and across subsystems increase democratic participation. Forums are created for major stakeholders like citizens, school board members, administrators, teachers, classified staff, and students to be heard fairly. Link-pin (Likert, 1988) and matrix are two effective communication structures. A link-pin function is performed by a person or subgroup that participates in two or more separate communication networks, carrying information up and down and across groups that would not normally communicate. The link-pin structure promotes and creates opportunity for input, feedback, and influence sharing by democratic participation up, down, and across subsystems. A matrix structure (Schmuck & Runkel, 1988) interrelated subgroups with organizational problems; served to surface problems and provided the structure through which problem-solving and decision-making processes spiral. The informal mode of communication tends to generate unconventional means of communication such as rumors, the "grapevine," which Deal and Kennedy (1982) characterized in the cultural network as storytellers, priests, whisperers, gossips, spies, secretarial sources, and cabals. Culberson, Jacobson, and Reller (1960) actually defined administrative behavior as communicative behavior: The administrator is a key link in the numerous communication systems that make up his verbal environment. His communication with those persons directly responsible to him and with those to whom he is directly responsible is of crucial importance in administration. In addition, he is an important connecting link with those outside the organization. Thus, a major portion of his time is spent communicating; in the broad sense, administrative behavior is communicative behavior. 77 Nelson and Purdy (1971) suggested the following: If the administrator wishes to be successful in recognizing the human element in management, then he must be able to communicate his belief to his subordinates by actions as well as by words. To communicate by action, he must assume certain characteristics and adopt certain methods of operating which will demonstrate his concern for good human relations. Decision Making The decision-making modality of the social system (socio-political system) is that of decentralization. Most of the decisions are made at the employee level (the grass roots). The decision-making process is systemwide. It is the belief that not only are the decision or policy makers aware of problems, particularly at the lower level of the organization, but they foster a process whereby decisions are made at the best level for effective performance. Those who will be affected by the decision and are responsible for its implementation should be a part of formulating the decision. Decentralization expands the processes of participation in decision making as well as draws in the observations of those who are closest to problems at hand. Hanson (1985) observed that the argument is made that understanding the processes of governance and decision making as they take place within a socio-political system framework (as opposed to a classical hierarchical framework) 78 is a meaningful perspective for those seeking clearer insight into the operation of schools. Griffiths (1969) initiated landmark work on decision making in educational administration, and added considerably to our understanding of the importance of the decisionmaking behavior of administrators. Panttaja's (1966) study for example, suggests that if the administrator confines himself or herself to establishing clear processes and procedures for making decisions (rather than actually making the final decisions), the administrator's behavior will be more acceptable to subordinates. Argyris (1964) emphasized the need to develop greater harmony and consistency between the goals of organizations and the human needs of people who work in them, and this requires replacing directive administrative styles with more participative styles. Much of the decision making in participatory management revolves around issues of participation in solving problems and making decisions. Davis (1972) defined participation as the mental and emotional involvement of a person in a group situation that encourages the individual to contribute to group goals and to share responsibility for them. Owens (1987) indicated the use of participative decision making has two major potential benefits: (1) arriving at better decisions; and (2) enhancing the growth and development of the organization's participants (for example, greater sharing of goals, 79 improved motivations, improved communication, better developed group process skills). As a practical guide for implementing participative processes in educative organizations, three factors in particular should be borne in mind: (1) the need for an explicit decision-making process, (2) the nature of the problem to be solved or the issue to be decided, and (3) criteria for including people in the process. Labels for high relationship behaviors— supportive, facilitative, collaborative, collegial, considerate, employee-oriented, relationship-oriented, consultative, subordinate centered, executive, coaching, eclectic or participative— are descriptive styles that are characteristic of the social system model or participatory management. In Ventures in Good Schooling— A Cooperative Model for a Successful Secondary School (1986), the National Education Association and the National Association of Secondary School Principals presented sets of success strategies for schools. Underlying all strategies is an appeal for cooperation, collaboration, collegiality, and decentralization of decision-making authority. The report suggests that "while final decisions remain the prerogative of management, enlightened organizations involve staff members in decision-making processes." Teachers have always sought, through their unions and the teacher empowerment movement, to have more direct 80 involvement in the decision-making process of their school systems. However, Moyer (1986) reminds us that teaching itself is a process of decision making. She stated, "Although some teachers may feel that opportunities for making decisions are nonexistent in their situation, teachers do have control over many decisions made, consciously or unconsciously, in their classrooms" (p. 385). Former National Education Association president, Mary Hatwood Futrell (1986), expressed the need for teachers to be part of the school leadership team. "Teachers don't want the principal's job," she stated, "but they believe they can offer much to help improve the quality of education" (p. 54). The shift in trends, financial resources, public attitudes toward public education, and organizational downsizing, compel organizations such as school systems to change their old ways of behaving. "First line supervisors must change," according to Peters (1987, p. 360). "The real impediment to producing a higher quality product more efficiently isn't the workers, union or non-union, it's management. With all personnel included in decision making regarding every aspect of work life, middle management tasks shift from 'expert and guardian of functional units' to 'facilitator and functional boundary smasher'" (p. 440). Along with consensus building, teaming (called "chunking, "i.e., breaking problems up into bits and pieces 81 to encourage actions), wrote Peters and Waterman (1987), is a helpful strategy when it is an integral part of a school's way of operating. Teams should be allowed a good deal of autonomy; this "will usually make a principal's job easier, will improve teachers' morale and will enhance a principal's effectiveness" (p. 134). The principal, recognizing that "the best resource for solving problems is teachers" and that "teachers will more enthusiastically implement those [solutions] that they themselves come up with" (p. 132) . Teams should be permitted to set their own agenda and manage themselves once a purpose or general charge has been established. Regardless of perspective, participatory management is equated with the decision processes of planning, managing, motivating, controlling, thinking, and problem solving (Luthans, 1989; Margulies & Black, 1987). Successful companies have moved beyond the scientific, factory, military, rule driven, bureaucratic model, as well as beyond some of the "silly excuses" of the "make everyone happy" interpretation of human relations school of management (Peters & Waterman, 1982). In summary, Hanson (1985) foresaw if the members of the board of education view the school within the perspective of social systems theory, they will probably search for a skilled "politico" who can maximize productivity of sometimes conflicting and hostile subgroups in the school 82 community. Controlled strategies of retreating and charging would be expected of a superintendent viewing management from a social system perspective. It is safe to expand Hanson's concept in the above statement to say that, since the superintendent serves at the pleasure of the board of education to implement board policy, a social system oriented board who selected a similar superintendent will implement a social system type policy. His management team will most likely be of the same persuasion. The following diagram (Figure 1) clearly illustrates how the individual's function in the organization, for example the teacher, holds value not just as a person but as one who occupies a certain significant role within the social system in the organization. It further illustrates the complex web of the human involvement and behavior in the school district organizational life. Human behaviors that shape the organization is in return shaped by it. This situation certainly possesses a number of useful implications for anyone interested in analyzing, predicting, and perhaps controlling organizational behaviors. / ^ Tylar ^ n / County / \ / '''John F. XcnnsdyN \ I y Senior High S c h o o l^ ^ / ' \ \ / / Chamistry \ \ . I I / dspcrtm ent \ \ ■ > I / ' I \ \ , ( T«di=r ' ; / V ' ' \ // \ \ \ \ / TJw ^ ! / / / \ \ \ \ I individual I . /// ' ^ o r j a i l } / , # ' A dapted from Richard G. O w en s' Organizational Behavior in Education, 3rd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall, Inc., 1387., p. ol. Figure 1: A social system view of the individual in a hypothetical school organization 84 Open System Historical Perspective Although the evolution of organizational thought had been significantly advanced through the articulation of classical theory and socio-political group theory, a major conceptual link was missing until the 1950s. That link is the one that ties an organization into a dependency relationship with its surrounding environment. Without that link, an organization is viewed as a closed system that somehow stands alone, isolated, and unaffected by its own environment. A conceptual model that considered the interactive nature of the organization and its environment was necessary (Hanson, 1985). Fayol dated the open system model evolution a decade earlier. He noted that during the 1960s, another strand of thought developed, which originated in the new technostructure of society. The earlier two traditions of classical and social systems theory tend to view organizational life as a "closed system," that is, isolated from the surrounding environment (cited in Hanson, 1985). Within the past decade or so, cited Campbell (1985), a fourth view of administration, the open systems concept, has emerged. This view stresses the interdependence between an organization and its environment. Whereas structuralism focuses largely on internal organizational arrangements, open systems recognize the interaction 85 through input and output between an organization and its milieu. Historically, noted Owens (1987), our understanding of educational organizations and the behavior of people in them has passed through three different eras in this century, each of which has contributed enduring perspectives to the mainstream of a contemporary organizational thought. By the mid-1980s, it was clear that a fourth era was emerging; it, too, was contributing new perspectives to organizational thought. This fourth era that Owens referred to is the contingency approach to organizational behavior, which is considered to be a part (or subsystem) of the open system model. From an historical perspective, the open system model gained momentum with the shift in the governance of schools away from the local level toward the state level; also the shift in the society attitude toward public education over the two decades. It is safe to say that this model continues to emerge as an illegitimate component of organizational thought and practice. Principles The open system theory conceives an organization as a set of interrelated parts that interact with the environment almost as a living creature does. The organization trades with its environment. It receives input such as human and material resources, values, community expecta 86 tions, and societal demands; transforms them through a production process (e.g., classroom activities); and exports the product (e.g., graduates, new knowledge, revised value sets) into the environment (e.g., business, military, home, college) with value added. The organization receives a return (e.g., community financial support) for its efforts so it can survive (and hopefully prosper). The cycle then begins once again (Hanson, 1985) . The following is a comprehensive analysis of the assumption underlying the open system theory (Hanson, 1985): 1. An organization is characterized by interlocking cycles of events within and between subsystems. 2. Power is diffused into the subsystems, which must differentiate and integrate their activities. 3. The demands and needs of the environment give direction to events. 4. Communication follows a systemwide information network designed to integrate the activities of subsystems and to establish linkages with the environment. 5. Control over production is established by the effectiveness of the linkages between the internal subsystems and the external environment. 6. The managerial subsystem must function in support of the needs of other subsystems. 87 7. Conflict is inevitable and can lead to positive change through creative management. 8. There are many ways of performing a task that are equally satisfactory. 9. Focus on the way an organization does function. 10. Open to the environment through input-output exchanges. 11. Dynamic relationships. 12. Chief officer is often subject to events that are not of his or her making and beyond his or her control. 13. Equilibrium in environmental-organizational exchanges gives order to an organization. Owens (1987), in depicting an open system organization, made note that not only does the organization have internal subsystems but also it is part of a suprasystem. Moreover, the organization is in an interactive relationship with this suprasystem: it exchanges inputs and outputs with it. And, to some extent, the organization affects its environment (the suprasystem) and is also affected by changes that occur in the suprasystem. A distinctive feature of open system theory is its focus on the dependent relationships and exchanges between the organization and its external environment. Schools are supported by and in turn must support the social, political, and cultural demands of the community. As an open system, the school organization has input (human, material, 88 constraints, expectations) , output (graduates, custodial control, behavioral changes), and a feedback and renewal process (information to guide decision making, financial support to renew the cycle) (Hanson, 1987). Owens (1987) in the following diagram shows how the input— process— output system functions in the educational structure. It shows schooling as a process involving (1) inputs from the larger societal environment (for example, knowledge that exists in that society, values that are held, goals that are desired, and money); (2) process that occurs within the social system we call a school (involving subsystems of organizational structure, people, technology, and work tasks); and— resulting from that process— (3) outputs to society (in the form of changed individuals) (Owens, 1987). Leadership Through the perspective of open system theory, a new logic on issues of organizational governance has emerged. It emphasizes the relationship of the organization with its surrounding environment, and thus places a premium on planning and programming for events that cannot be controlled directly (Hanson, 1985) . Leadership in the open system model (see Figure 2) is rather complex due to the fact the leader has very little or no control over the shifting conditions in the environment. 89 INPUTS FROM OUTPUTS SOCIETY * EDUCATIONAL PROCESS — — TO SOCIETY Knowledge Values Coals Money Stnjcture (for example, grade levels, classes, school levels, departments, organizational hierarchy) People (for example, teachers, bus drivers, counselors, coaches, custodians, supervisors, dieticians, administrators, nurses) Technology (for example, buildings, class schedules, curricula, laboratories, libraries, chalkboards, books, audio-visual equipment buses) Tasks (for example, teach classes; serve food; run buses; administer tests; account for funds, stewardship; supervise personnel, conduct extracurricular program. Individuals more able to serve themselves and society because of improved * Intellectual and manual skills * Powers of reason and analysis * Values, attitudes, motivation * Creativity and inventiveness * Communication skills * Cultural appreciation * Understanding of the world * Sense of social responsibility fig u r e 2 : School as an Input-Process-Output System by Richard C. Owens, Organizational Behavior in Pd„r^;nn 3rd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice Hall, Inc., 1987, p. 5 7 90 The scope of leadership in the school environment depends on the degree of what Hanson (1985) called turbulence. As an open system, the school is sensitive and often quite vulnerable to shifts in its immediate environment, whether they be political, economic, demographic, ideological, or technical. Because shifts continually occur in one or the other of these areas, the environment of the school is more or less (usually more) in a continual state of turbulence. The internal environment of the school also exhibits various degrees of turbulence, as witnessed by the increasing power of teachers* unions, budget struggles, and teacher-administrator discords. This atmosphere calls for a contingency approach to leadership which holds that, (a) there is no one universal, best way to exercise leadership under all conditions— it is necessary, therefore, to use some system for assessing the situational contingencies in selecting a style of leader behavior; and (b) in choosing a leadership style (for example, to be directive or participative) the appropriate criterion is effectiveness (for example, which style produces the greatest organizational effectiveness? (Owens, 1987). Owens (1987) acknowledged that there may be situations in which an autocratic style is most effective and other situations that call for highly participatory methods for greatest effectiveness. The problem of the leader is 91 to analyze the contingencies in each situation and then to behave in the most effective manner. Lipham (1973) stated, "The same behavior that may be viewed as leadership from an intraorganizational or subsystem point of view may be regarded as lack of leadership from an extra-organizational or supra-system point of view, and conversely" (p. 8). Hanson (1985) advocated that leadership must extend through the organization all the way to the employees (in this case teachers) who are in the trenches doing the jobs which compose the mission of the system. Leadership must also extend upward and outward into the external environment, controlling some systems when appropriate and being controlled by others when appropriate. Authority Authority in the open system model is rather complex due to the fact that the leader has very little or no control over the shifting conditions and circumstances that occur within the overall scope of the organizational environment. A part of the complexity can be attributed to the dubious reality of who has governance of public education. Is it the state legislature, the governor, state superintendent of public education, or the superintendent? These policy-making entities as they jostle for the governance of public education do so in an independent and uncoordinated fashion. Everyone from the state 92 legislature, courts, federal government, school districts, and schools are eloquently, and at times logically, justifying their claims to equal partnership of public education. In so doing, one wonders at times who is in charge of the store. It appears that there are all chiefs and no Indians, which leads to logical and practical inconsistencies. The strength of authority within the school system depends largely on the security of the superintendent in his/her position, the solidarity of the school board on issues that affect the community, the stability of the members of the school board, the size of the district, and the commitment and contentment of the community with the educational programs and student achievements. As Hanson (1985) suggested, instead of being the person in direct control of the school or the school district, the leader is seen in the middle who must somehow perform tasks that satisfy a multitude of complex and often conflicting demands. These demands for action do not afford the luxury of surfacing one at a time: They often come like a cattle stampede at midnight and strike out in every direction. In order to work in this complex environment, effective leadership calls for compromising between the demands of the various pressure groups inside and outside the school system and the schools. The authority of the educational leader cannot be understood and appreciated 93 apart from the complex power environment. Lane et al. (1966) wrote, "For although leaders deal directly with individuals, ultimately it is organizations— that is, group traditions, established relationships, and vested interest groups— which are their main concern. Clearly, the problems, dilemmas, and inconsistencies of the organization and of society are the problems of the leader" (p. 301). Campbell et al. (1985) stated: We suspect that more superintendents still cling to a structural view of administration than an open systems view. At the same time, the realities of administration, such as interest group demands and governmental intrusions, more and more suggest that administrative behavior can be better understood through an open systems perspective than through a structural perspective. In fact, for many the concept of structuralism makes the superintendency seem untenable, (p. 204) This is applicable not only to the super intendency as Campbell et al. suggested, but to all front-line administrators. Pitner and Ogawa (1981), in their study of superintendents, found superintendents, rather than single-mindedly directing their organizations, were very responsive to both organizational and environmental influences. Although superintendents do extend some influence, they are constrained by community values and socio-organizational structures. They monitor their environments to obtain readings of public opinion. Such readings identify issues to which schools must respond and direct conditions which 94 will enable superintendents to move their organizations in directions of their own choosing. Authority in the framework of the open system model is complex, situational, and conditional to the educational leader and the educational environment. Communication Within the open system context, communication can be defined as "the exchange of messages and meaning between an organization and its environment as well as between its network of interdependent subsystems." Communication is the glue that holds an organization together and harmonizes its parts (Hanson, 1985). Open system oriented organizations that are expected to respond and adapt to emerging problems in an environment of change can use effectively the more flexibly structured organization that emphasizes teamwork, collaboration, participation, and integrated effort (Owens, 1987). As Katz and Kahn (1978) pointed out, communication cannot be understood solely as a process of transmitting messages between senders and receivers. Communication can only be understood in relation to the social system in which it occurs. Hanson (1985) affirmed that the open system orientation emphasizes the communication process works toward drawing the various subsystems of an organization into a collaborating "whole." Also, drawing the organization's 95 actions into a close ’'fit" with the needs of its environment is an essential outcome of the process. This orientation emphasizes that between senders and receivers the communication process must penetrate social class differences, cultural values, time orientations, and ethnocentricism of all types. Owens (1987) vividly demonstrated the very essence and challenge for which the open system model of communication exists and which sets it apart from the other two conceptual models. The school system or school must interact with its external environment in which it exists: the social, political, and economic systems of our culture. Thus, demographic shifts resulting in declining enrollments and increasing percentages of older people in the population, changing attitudes toward individual freedom, emphasis on w o m e n ’s rights to equality, shifting patterns of social mobility, dissatisfaction with the performance of schools, massive changes in legal-judicial philosophy, increased taxpayer resistance, organization of teachers into labor unions, and even mounting distrust of authority and institutions in our society in general are among the many environmental contingencies to which public school organizations have had to adapt in recent years. Decision Making The open system environment is not static, it is unpredictable. Consequently, the decision-making process is 96 one of a contingency approach that takes into account process, people, and the organizational environment. The emphasis moves from structure to process and from organization to organizing. It creates a dependency relationship and lineage between the organization and its inescapable environment. Open system model is related to contingency theory which represents "a middle ground between (a) the view that there are universal principles of organization and management, and (b) the view that each organization is unique and that each situation must be analyzed separately" (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1973, p. 9). The basic contribution of contingency thinking lies not in providing ready-made, pat answers to complex problems or easy recipes for "how to do it"; it lies, rather, in providing us with new ways of analyzing the interrelationships within and among the interacting parts of the organizational system (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1976). Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) viewed organizations as open systems that are capable of differentiating their internal subsystems in response to a variety of environmental contingencies. Organizations that deal successfully with uncertain environments (that is, environments that are apt to call for relatively sudden change in the organization) tend to differentiate internally more than less successful organizations do; yet they are able to maintain high levels of integration between the various subunits. 97 Such organizations are characterized by joint decision making, clear interdepartmental linkages, and well developed means of dealing with conflict between units of the organization. Organizations that function in environments characterized by change and instability must organize differently, to be effective, to meet the need for planning, decision making, and conflict management than do those organizations that deal with relatively stable environments. Boulding (cited in Hanson, 1985) identified "open system" as a self-maintaining system that regulates its existence by importing from and exporting to its environment. In the view of Katz and Kahn (1966) , in some respects open system theory is not a theory at all; it does not pretend to the specific sequences of cause and effect, the specific hypotheses and tests of hypotheses which are basic elements of theory. Open system theory is rather a framework, a meta-theory, a model in the broadest sense of that overused term. Open system theory is an approach and a conceptual language for understanding and describing many kinds and levels of phenomena. An organization such as a school is a creature of its environment because it is supported by and in turn supports the social, political, and cultural offerings and demands of society (Hanson, 1985). Most adamant advocates of decentralization, Levin (1971), Fantini and Grittel (1973), want a total open system approach to the public school system 98 through decentralization, Ornstein (1974) defined decentralization as community control carried to its fullest extent, that would mean decision-making power over personnel, curriculum, student policy, and financing. Wissler and Ortiz (1986) pointed out the critical issue, then, is that lay persons, not the professional hierarchy of the school, would be in control. Williams (1984) leveled a valid criticism at the nonuniformity of rules, policies, and educational opportunities that sometimes results from decentralization. In that pressure from the community, court decisions, and state legislation for uniformity, opportunities could "fly in the face" of decentralization. School administrators rarely write their conclusions and make their decisions on a clean slate. The choices open to them are all too confined by decisions made by unseen managers, judges or bureaucrats in other places who are applying other priorities (Hanson, 1985). The changing school environment, societal norms and values, lack of parental control and support, decline in respect for authority, breakdown in civility, and the tolerance for violence present new challenges for today's administrators and public education. With respect to contemporary issues of school governance, Corwin (1974) has observed that most administrators were trained in an era when the problems of classroom teaching could be reduced (so it was thought) to the psychology of Individual learners and when the central administrative problems seemed to revolve around efficient internal management. The current generation of teachers, by contrast, has been reared in a sociological era characterized by rapid social change and group conflict. Administration has become largely a matter of managing an increasingly complex balance of forces from outside as well as from within the schools. Many school administrators still in positions of authority today are not trained to cope with these problems. The school and school system cannot exist outside of its environment. It cannot shake off the demands or ignore the many voices of the environment even when it is in conflict or disagreement with such demands and voices. The school and school system for the most part have to come to terms with its environment. As Hanson (1985) brings to our attention, the school systems are linked into a web with many types of organizations, such as university teachertraining centers, accreditation boards, college requirements, federal funding agencies, textbook publishers, city governments, state legislatures, and so forth. Typically, these organizations in the environment of the school system are outside its control. The school system is very often at the mercy of these external organizations; for example, the school cannot accredit teachers, give preservice training, switch city or state governments if the existing ones do not 100 please them, selectively choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore, or establish their own priorities and guidelines on proposals for federal funding. Hence, the input-output cycle of the school system is inextricably linked with other organizations. Figure 3 in a simple but forceful way portrays the open social system reality in which the school system operates; the framework in which decisions are made and where consequences must be measured. The school system is part and parcel of an interwoven network. Open system theory has provided an extremely useful framework for trying to deal with the questions of why and how the greater environments of schools, such as parental expectations, shifting values, inflation rates, and city governments, affect the specialized structure and functioning of the educational system. Katz and Kahn (1978) categorized the major fields of forces in the external environment that shape the character of the contingencies impacting on an organization, such as the school system: 1. Cultural (e.g., social standards of excellence, ethnic balance, affirmative action). 2. Political (e.g., education codes, public representation in decision making, community satisfaction). 3. Economic (e.g., educational finance, federal funding, job market). 101 / / # f Adm inistfttion.V / / • Subsystem »«. i \ /!' i ' > — x ^ ' I v Orffenizetion. / . 1 \ System I \ " \ Environment. — 1 \ Supresystem y / An organization as an open social system . From Daniel E. Griffiths, "Administrative T h eo ry and Change in Organizations," in Innovation in Education, ed . M a tth e w B. Miles (New York: T eachers College Press, 1964), p. 4 3 0 (cited in Owens, 1987) Figure 3: An organization viewed as an open social system 102 4. Informational and Technical (e.g., state of knowledge, communication networks, instructional technology). 5. Physical (e.g., school facilities, boundaries, transportation equipment). One of the characteristics of a successful superintendent or educational leader is the ability to select a management team that fits the chemistry of the district or organization. But even more admirable is the achievement of building a team with compatible philosophy and/or have them buy into the philosophy of the district or an organization. Thus Hanson's (1985) depiction takes on added significance. Finally, if the school board members maintain an open system perspective, they may look for a superintendent who is concerned with comprehensive planning so that the use of people and resources will be maximized. In this instance, the leader's information network inside and outside the school system is such that he or she can anticipate, as much as humanly possible, the development of events before the system finds itself caught up in them. The elimination of crisis management— simply moving from crisis to crisis trying to put out fires before they become infernos— is a major intention of this administrative perspective. 103 Summary The field of educational administration and organizational behavior is not short of books, articles, research, and critiques regarding the classical theory of administration or its interchangeable theories such as the bureaucratic system, scientific management, centralization, top down management, etc. Equally so, the social system model or administration or its interchangeable theories such as human relations system, bottom-up management, decentralization, etc., has been widely researched, evaluated, and critiqued. The open system model of administration is a rapidly emerging model that has caused administrators, educators, researchers, and others to take notice of the ways that the environment of the school organization affects the internal functioning of the organization; and how the organization must adapt. In this chapter, the historical perspectives revealed that over the course of the twentieth century there has been a competition between the two main conceptual models of organizational practice. The classical (bureaucratic) model gradually lost some credibility with the findings of the Hawthorne Studies. Simultaneously, as more sophisticated research multiplied, the credibility and effects of the social system model (human relations) grew steadily in the analysis of educational behavior and practices. This pattern is clearly documented in the body of this study. 104 In the classical era, concepts of bureaucracy and "scientific management" were formulated. These emphasize the organization as possessing a hierarchical structure and operating in highly reactional, systematic, and logical ways. Organization members, in the classical view, are perceived as primarily passive instruments, capable of performing work and accepting directions, but not initiating action or exerting influence in any significant way. Though classical concepts of organization developed early in the century, they are still an important part of the mainstream of administrative practice inasmuch as they underlie such highly rational planning models as Planning-Programming-andBudgeting Systems, Management by Objectives, and many approaches to educational reform and accountability (Owens, 1987). From the Review of the Literature, the researcher did not find much evidence indicating that all three models are at work concurrently within the school organization. All three models have something valuable to say about the administration and governance of today's educational system. One of the objectives of this chapter was to document that a balance can and does exist between all three conceptual models and each is not without its merits. Hanson (1985) rightly advocated: Classical thought does not emphasize uniformity of procedure and routinization of process to the exclusion of all diversity in the organization. Indeed, the 105 possibility of flexibility is provided for in the processes of centralization and decentralization. Hanson (1985) in his critique of the classical model made the point that it is not that the classical model lacks value— in effect, it has great value. Its value, however, can only be realized if the user weighs its application carefully and maintains the classical perspective in balance with other management orientations. Owens (1987) concurred with the foregoing concept as he made clear that though classical concepts of organization and administration— that is, the concepts associated with bureaucracy and "scientific management"— were developed early in this century and stood for a time unchallenged by competing concepts, it would be an error to view the classical approach as something that once flourished and is now gone from the scene. Nothing could be further from actuality. Bureaucracies flourish among us today. Even in the case of nonbureaucratic organizations, however, there are many scholars as well as administrators who essentially believe that the classical views are the best basis for administrative practice. Many contemporary advocates of accountability programs, competency-based programs, and management by objectives operate from classical organizational concepts. The social system and classical organization are often one and the same. The social system movement had a significant 106 effect on the understanding of not only the human behavior within the organization but the organization's environment on employees: satisfaction, cooperation, participation, productivity, morale, and effectiveness. Adherents of the social system (human relations) may differ on many points but are almost unanimous in espousing supportive, collaborative, people-centered leadership, and highly participative management styles as superior to other approaches (Owens, 1987). In Likert's (1976) words, the success of an organization is influenced greatly by its capacity to achieve cooperative coordination rather than hostile conflict among its functional departments and also to stimulate differences and then to capitalize on them by productive problem-solving leading to creative and acceptable solutions. On a day-today basis, said Hanson (1985), this type of climate (i.e., social system) is usually healthy and appreciated. However, when the demands of vested interests, such as increased salaries or reduced instructional loads, pull the teachers and administrators into opposite corners, human relations practices alone tend to be a rather ineffective tool in resolving the issues. As more and more educator groups at all levels are arguing, "Human relations are nice, but power wins." This chapter carefully underscored the fact that the political initiatives in recent years by state legislatures, 107 governors, state departments of education, the federal government, and the courts to reform public education are proven ways of demonstrating that the system is not independent of its environment; thus, validating the legitimacy of the open system model of organization. The changing demographics: population shifts, aging, birthrate, ethnicity, immigration, etc, all help shape the system to be somewhat a product of its environment. The environment of the school is composed of many converging forces; for example, groups and institutions, such as local, state and federal governments, and courts; political persuasions and constituencies, such as liberals, conservatives, and radicals; ethnography, such as race, religion, and national heritage; and social problems, such as alienation, drug abuse, racism, ethics, crime, and physical violence (Hanson, 1985). This is the environment to which the school system is most vulnerable. Finally, it is clear by now that no one of the three models is demonstrably superior than the other in all situations. The model the administrator carries in his/her head rests largely on his/her assumption about the organization and the individuals in them, and will strongly influence the performance of his/her professional work. 108 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction In order to address the research questions, a study was undertaken among superintendents, their deputies and associates, and principals in six Southern California school districts. This chapter describes the method employed in this study. The description unfolds in five sections: (1) Research Design Overview; (2) Subjects and Sampling; (3) Instrumentation; (4) Procedures; and (5) Data Analysis. The chapter concludes with a summary. Research Design Overview The primary purpose of this study was to identify and investigate the influence of the dominant organizational model espoused by individuals and the school districts they serve. The study, therefore, was correlational in nature insofar as it investigated the relationship between the dominant model and the day-in, day-out behavior involved in the administration of the school system and individual management practices. As it was necessary to tap the knowledge of a large number of individuals, a survey method was chosen. A 109 survey questionnaire was designed and tested by the investigator, validated by experts, and distributed to respondents in six school districts. In addition to providing background information about themselves and the districts they served, respondents were also required to provide information that would enable their classification into one of the three models and rate day-to-day behavior in five areas; namely, decision making, communication, involvement, openness, and administrative style. For three of the areas— decision making, communication, and involvement— they were also asked to provide separate ratings of behavior for the central district office and school site. Once compiled, data were subjected to statistical analysis that addressed the research questions. The remainder of the chapter describes each of the methodological considerations in greater detail. Subjects and Sampling Subject selection was a consequence of district selection. Districts were limited to the Southern California area and within that area were selected largely on the basis of their student enrollment. Within that constraint, selection was designed to ensure adequate representation of union high school, elementary, and unified districts, with elementary district selection constrained by the requirement that they feed into a selected high school district. 110 Size requirements were: (1) unified districts with student enrollment between 30,000 and 50,000; (2) union high school districts with enrollments between 13,000 and 25,000; and (3) elementary districts with enrollments between 8,000 and 15,000. Once the districts were selected, questionnaires were distributed to all management staff within the districts. This designation included superintendents, deputy superintendents, central office administrative personnel, and principals. Interaction with district supervision and the distribution and return of questionnaire packets is described below. Instrumentation As no preexisting questionnaire was available to conduct the study, the investigator designed an instrument and tested its validity through expert review and a pilot study. This section describes the process that led to the construction of the final survey instrument. The theoretical basis for the questionnaire appeared in the investigations of the works by Hanson (1985) in Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior and Owens (1987) in Organizational Behavior in Education. Based on their theoretical discussions of five behavioral areas in educational administration— namely decision making, communication, involvement, openness, and administrative style— 104 questionnaire items were developed to Ill measure different dimensions of day-in, day-out behavior. Essentially, the items tapped the degree to which administrators perceived that a particular act, participative decision making, for example, was apparent very little of the time or a great deal of the time in their systems. Once the 104 items were developed, two additional steps were conducted to finalize the instrument. First, three expert superintendents evaluated the items to ensure their face validity and to choose the best from among them to shorten the respondents' task. Then a pilot study was conducted with a cross section of the target population representing administrators concerned with all educational levels. The pilot data were used to clarify the wording of remaining items and to eliminate others. Finally, six new items were added to enhance the ease with which each individual respondent could be classified as to his or her dominant organizational model. A final step in the development of the instrument was completed after the data were collected. In this step the reliability of scales measuring hypothetical behavior in the five areas of decision making, communication, involvement, openness, and administrative style were increased by reducing the number of items further. This step is explored in greater detail in the next chapter which reports results. 112 Procedure Once the districts to be studied had been identified on the basis of student enrollment and mix of district type, the investigator contacted each superintendent for permission to survey district management staff. Each superintendent reviewed the questionnaire before granting permission for the survey to commence and then decided upon the procedure they preferred for distributing the survey questionnaire. In essence two distribution methods were adopted. Some superintendents preferred to distribute the questionnaires through the district office and have them returned to that office, while in other cases the investigator mailed the questionnaires directly to the central management staff and they returned their questionnaires in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. In all, 402 survey questionnaires were distributed to management staff in the six districts. Data Analysis The analysis of the data was conducted in five stages. In the first stage the demographic and background characteristics of the survey respondents were summarized using univariate descriptive statistics. Means and standard deviations were computed to summarize variables having an interval level of measurement, while percentages 113 were tabulated to summarize responses to categorical variables. In the second stage, the individual items were clustered into the five behavioral areas. Then one scale was created for each area by averaging the respondents' ratings across all the items belonging to the scale. This process created eight scales in all since the first three areas, decision making, communication, and involvement, had two scales each, one for the central office and a second for the school site. The two final areas, openness and administrative style, had but one scale each. Once the scales were created, their reliability estimates were evaluated using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. Means and standard deviations were also computed for the eight scales. In the third stage of the analysis, individuals were classified according to their dominant organizational model. Items 1 through 6 of the questionnaire were used to perform the classification. Each of the items had three response options. For all six items, the first option was indicative of an open system organizational model, the second a classical model, the third a social system model. In order to classify the respondents, the number of responses of each type were counted, and respondents were classified according to the model for which they gave the greatest number of responses, if a respondent provided the 114 maximum number of responses in the open system category, he or she was classified as open system; if most were social system, the classification was social system. When a respondent's maximum number of responses were tied in two categories or more, the classification was eclectic. A similar procedure was performed to classify the districts. In the fourth stage of the analysis, districts were compared to one another on the eight behavioral scales using one-way analysis of variance. In the fifth stage, multivariate analysis of variance was used to evaluate the influence of the dominant organizational model, the job function, the school type, and gender upon the eight behavioral scales. Similarly, Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the degree of association between the eight scales and the respondents' age and years of service in the system. Summary In order to assess the level of influence, the dominant organizational model exerts on management staff ratings of five behavioral areas, a survey questionnaire was designed and distributed to 402 management staff in six Southern California school districts. Districts were chosen on the basis of three criteria: (1) their student enrollments; (2) the need to ensure that all three district types were represented; and (3) to ensure that the elemen- tary districts included fed their students to the high school districts that participated. All districts included had the full cooperation of their superintendents. 116 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Introduction Once the survey questionnaires were returned, the responses were encoded on marked-sense reader (Scantron) forms for entry into a computer. They were then subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS for Windows (Norusis & SPSS, Inc., 1993). This chapter reports the results of those analyses in six major sections: (1) Description of the Sample; (2) Derivation of Hypothetical Behavior Measures at the Level of Central Office and School; (3) Identification of the Respondents' Dominant Organizational Model; (4) Identification of the Districts' Dominant M o d e l ; (5) The Relationship between the Dominant Model and the Five Behavioral Areas; and (6) Other Analyses. The chapter concludes with a summary. Description of the Sample During the data collection period, 402 questionnaires were mailed to superintendents, deputies, associates, and other non-site administrators as well as principals in six Southern California school districts. In all, 316 surveys were returned for a response rate of 78.6%. 117 This response rate assured that the sample was representative. However, since it was not possible to select survey recipients at random, it will be useful to describe the characteristics of respondents in some detail. This will make it possible to depict more accurately the population of district level and site level respondents to whom subsequent statistical results can be generalized. The demographic and other background characteristics of the 316 respondents are summarized in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, the overwhelming majority (92%) of respondents were in the age range of 40 to 59 years. The mean age for the group was 49.1 with a standard deviation of 6.2 years. The youngest respondent was 30 while the oldest was 64. A similar, if less pronounced, pattern was apparent for the number of years respondents had worked in the current school system. The largest segment (44%) had been in the system between 20 and 29 years, while 25% were with the system from 10 to 19 years. The average length of service was 19.7 years with a standard deviation of 9.1 years. The briefest tenure was 1 year, the longest 39 years. Just over half (56%) of the sample was male and nearly three quarters (74%) were principals. The largest segment of respondents (44%) represented elementary schools, with 29% serving high schools and 19% serving middle or junior high schools. Another 8% speci 1 Table 1 Demographic and Other Background Characteristics of Respondents Measure Category Label Percent (n) Mean Std. Dev. Age 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over 5(15) 49(149) 43(132) 3(11) 49.1 6.2 Years in the School System Less than 10 10-19 20-29 30-39 18(55) 25(76) 44(134) 13(41) 19.7 9.1 Gender Male Female 56(173) 44(134) Job Function Superintendent(s) Non-site Admin. Principals 8(25) 18(54) 74(228) School Type Elementary Middle/Jr High High School Other 44(116) 19(49) 29(77) 8(21) Perceived Structure of the System Centralized Decentralized 75(232) 25(76) 118 119 fied "other" for this category. The respondents were quite complete in providing answers to all questionnaire items. Fewer than five missing responses per item were observed. Seventy-five percent of respondents perceived the structure of their systems to be centralized. Since an analysis of district characteristics will be presented below, the distribution of respondents by their districts is presented in Table 2. The actual names of participating districts have been replaced with pseudonyms to preserve their anonymity. As seen in the table, six districts participated in all. The largest response was from the Orange Grove Unified School District. Their responses comprised just over one-third of the sample. The City of Cornwall had responses from both the Union High School District (10%) and the Elementary District (8%). St. Andrews Unified School District provided 14% of the sample, Pine Valley Unified School District 22%, and Hanover Union High School District 12%. A major objective of the study was to examine the way the dominant organizational model (classical, social system, or open system) influenced day-in, day-out behavior. Therefore it was necessary to organize specific questionnaire items into measures of hypothetical behavior. The process that led to those measures is the topic of the next section. 120 Table 2 The Distribution of Respondents by District School District Number of Respondents Percent Orange Grove Unified 107 34 Cornwall Union High 33 10 Cornwall City Elementary 25 8 St. Andrews Unified 43 14 Pine Valley Unified 69 22 Hanover Union High 38 12 Derivation of Hypothetical Behavior Measures at the Level of Central Office and School Items 7 through 41 of the questionnaire were focused in five behavioral areas: Decision Making, Communication, Involvement, Openness, and Administrative Style. Clusters of several items were used to address each of the five areas. Each of the items required the respondents to characterize a specific hypothetical behavior connected to one of the five areas, that is to rate the level on a 4- point scale ranging from "very little" to "very great." In addition, many items also required respondents to characterize the behavior at both the central office level and 121 the school level. The latter Items were focused In the areas of Decision Making, Communication, and Involvement. As a preliminary stage in the data analysis, the clusters of items that addressed each of the five areas were evaluated to determine if they could be combined into a single scale score for behavioral area. In order to be combined, individual items must be shown to measure the same underlying construct, i.e., decision making or communication. The empirical criterion for whether or not their combination into a single score was justified was Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Alpha is a theoretical correlation coefficient that is used to estimate the reliability of a scale. It ranges in value from 0 to 1. The closer its value is to 1, the higher the reliability of the scale. For research purposes coefficients of .6 or greater are acceptable (Grady & Wallston, 1988). Although scales with reliabilities below .6 can be employed, higher reliabilities make it possible to achieve statistically significant results with smaller samples (DeVillis, 1991). As the sample employed in this study was large, the requirement of alpha at .6 or greater was relaxed from time to time. A preliminary evaluation of the alpha coefficients for the five areas, using all the items intended, showed that initial alpha values were quite low. Fortunately, the Reliability Procedure of SPSS for Windows (Norusis & SPSS, 122 Inc., 1993) indicates which items can be removed to increase reliability. It was frequently the case that by removing several items, the reliabilities for the five scales could be greatly enhanced. Table 3 summarizes the process of creating five reliable scales by indicating the items initially intended for inclusion in a scale, the initial reliability coefficient, the items remaining in the scale when the reliability had been maximized, and the final reliability coefficient. As the table indicates, the reliability coefficients were substantially improved with increases ranging from a low of .05 for Involvement at the School Level to a high of .49 points for Communication at the Central Office. Table 4 summarizes the behavioral items that compromise the revised scales. For example, Decision Making at the Central Office was characterized by variation in the levels of compromise, bargaining, and the observations of persons implicated in the decision's outcome. At the school level, Decision Making was characterized by variation in the degree to which it was widely dispersed, the degree to which compromise was involved, etc. Table 4 also indicates that the areas of Decision Making, Communication, and Involvement had two scales, one each for the Central Office and one for the School. The areas of Openness and Administrative style each had only one scale. Table 3 The Combination of Individual Questionnaire Items into Reliable Scales Measuring Five Areas of Daily Behavior Measured Area Decision Making Starting Location Starting Items Reliability Ending Items Communication Involvement Openness Admin. Style Central Office School Central Office School Central Office School not app not app 7.9.11.13, 14.17.24, 32,35(1) .25 7.9.11.13, 14.17.24, 32,35(2,3) .42 23,25(1,2,3) 33(1,2) .25 23,25(1,2,3) .40 33(3,4) 16,19 30(1,2),34, .32 36 10(1,2,3)16, .58 19,30(3,4) 31,34,36 8,12,15,18 .56 20,21,26, 27,28,29 22,37,38, .48 39,40 11,14,17 9,11,14, 17,35(2.3) 33(1,2) 25(1,2,3) 30(3,4)34 10(1,2,3)19, 30(3,4)31, 36 8,12,18, 21,26,27, 28,29 37,38,39, 40 Ending Reliability .54 .56 .74 .66 .60 .63 .67 .66 Table 4 Concepts Comprising Final Versions Scales Measuring Behaviors Scale Central Office (#) School (#) Decision Making Communication Involvement Openness Compromise (11) Bargaining (14) Observations (17) Level of Interaction (33,1,2) Super/Central Office Influence (30,1,2) Policy Driven Org (34) Impact of Community Change (8) Harmonious Community Relations (12) Safety Issues (18) Impact of Extraneous Events (21) Impact of Society (26) Impact of Government (27) Economic and Political Pressure (28,29) Widely Dispersed (9) Compromising (11) Bargaining (14) Observations (17) Systemwide Inclusion (35,2,3) Top-down (25,1) Flow of Messages (25,2) Legitimization Grapevine (25,3) Real Voice Teachers (10.1) Real Voice Students (10.2) Real Voice Parents (10,3) Deemphasize Status-Power (19) Influence Principals (30,3) Influence Teachers (30,4) Coalitions (31) Use of Small Groups (36) Same 124 Table 4— continued Scale Central Office (#) School (#) Administrative Style Style of the Superintendent Style of Deputies and Assoc. Style Encouraged to Use Own Administrative Style Same 126 Given the items comprising each scale (please refer to Table 4), scale scores and subsequent statistics based upon the scales can be interpreted as follows: 1. Decision Making (Central office or school): The higher the score, the lower the level of unilateral decision making. 2. Communication (Central office or school): The higher the score, the greater the level of informal interaction among persons in diverse roles. 3. Involvement (Central office or school): The higher the score, the greater the diversity of participants . 4. Openness (No distinction between central office and school): The higher the score, the greater the perception that the system is permeable to outside influences . 5. Administrative Style (No distinction between central office and school): The higher the score, the more participative the style at all levels. The lower the score, the more autocratic the style at all levels. Middle range scores suggest a style mix. Once the reliability of each scale was assured, the final versions of the scales were constructed by averaging responses across the individual items. Table 5 summarizes the means and standard deviations for the new scales. As Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Five Behavioral Scales Scale Location Theoretical Range Mean Std. Dev. Decision Making Central Office 1 «A. 2.4 .58 School 1-4 2.6 .38 Communication Central Office 1—4 2.4 .80 School 1—4 2.3 .68 Involvement Central Office 3.3 .51 School 1—4 2.6 .38 Openness Central Office/ School 1-4 2.9 .39 Administrative Style Central Office/ School 1-4 2.9 .60 128 shown in the table, since each questionnaire item was rated on a response scale of 1 to 4, the theoretical range of the scales was also 1 to 4. Three scales had relatively high means, i.e., at or near 3.0. They were Involvement at the Central Office, Openness, and Administrative Style. None of the scales had means below 2.0. The eight scales are employed in subsequent analyses as dependent variables. Those analyses investigate whether or not variation in the five behavioral areas can be explained by differences in an individual's dominant organizational model. Before that analysis can commence, however, it remains to be shown how both individuals and districts were classified into a dominant organizational model. This is the subject of the next two sections. Identification of the Respondents' Dominant Organizational Model Items 1 through 6 of the questionnaire were used to classify respondents according to their dominant organizational model, i.e., open system, classical, or social system. Each of the items had three response options. For all six items, the first option is indicative of an open system organizational model, the second a classical model, the third a social system model. In order to classify the respondents, the number of responses of each type were counted, i.e., the number of open system responses, the 129 number of classical responses, and the number of social system responses. Respondents were then classified according to the model for which they gave the greatest number of responses. If a respondent provided the maximum number of responses in the open system category, he or she was classified as open system; if most were social system, the classification was social system. When a respondent's maximum number of responses were tied in two categories, the classification was eclectic. The results of the classification of respondents by their dominant organizational model is presented in Table 6. As seen in the table, the largest segment of the sample (45%) was classified as open system, while the second largest group (35%) was classified as social system. Only 11 respondents or 3% could be classified as classical. Ties resulted in the classification of 54 respondents, or 17%, as eclectic. It is arguably the case that the dominant organizational model utilized by the questionnaire respondents in their day-to-day activities is really a consequence of their job function, namely whether they work at the district level or the school level, i.e., principals. Similarly, it is reasonable to suppose that the dominant model could also be a function of the respondents' perception of whether or not their district was centralized or decentralized. Whether or not the dominant model is a Table 6 Statistical summary of Items Used in the Identification of Respondents* Dominant Organizational Model Measure (Item #) Response Options Percent (n) Attitude toward conflict (1) 1. Inevitable 64 (198) 2. Sign of failure 3 ( 10) 3. Constructive 33 (100) Attitude toward 1. No one best way 58 (178) administration (2) 2. Only one way 4 ( 14) 3. A group function 38 (116) Communication is best 1. Informal network 27 ( 84) achieved through (3) 2. Formal network 28 ( 87) 3. Network/shifting interests 45 (137) Description of work 1. Open to community 64 (197) environment (4) 2. Closed to community 3 ( 8) 3. Coalition of groups 33 (108) Characterization of 1. Sensitive to community 32 ( 99) decisions (5) 2. By district policy 5 ( 16) 3. Collaboration with others 63 (193) Criteria for program cuts (6) 1. Best for student 37 (113) 2. Best for school system 22 ( 67) 3. Consensus with teachers 41 (126) Dominant organization 1. Open System 45 (141) model 2. Classical 3 ( ID 3. Social System 35 (HO) 4. Eclectic 17 ( 54) 131 phenomenon Independent of job function or perceived district organization can be tested by correlating the job function and perceived system organization with the individual's dominant model. A significant result would suggest that the dominant model is not an independent phenomenon, while a non-significant result suggests the reverse. The two statistical relationships were evaluated with a Chi-Square test. Since individuals who were classified as eclectic are in some sense without a dominant model, they were omitted from the analysis. The results of the two Chi-Square tests are presented in Table 7. As seen in the table, neither test was statistically significant. If the dominant model was a result of the job function, principals and superintendents would adopt different models in statistically significantly different proportions than they appear in the sample as a whole. However, neither principals nor district level personnel adopted any model as dominant in significantly greater proportions than they appeared in the sample. That is, the proportion of principals who were classified as open system, classical, or social system was not significantly different than the proportion of principals comprising the sample. The same pattern is apparent for the perception of the school system as centralized or decentralized. 132 Interestingly, however, although the most of the respondents perceived their districts to be centralized, most also adopted dominant models that were more consistent with a decentralized system. Identification of the Districts' Dominant Model One of the study's primary objectives was to evaluate dominant organizational models at the district level and to ascertain to what extent districts can be said to adhere to one organizational model to the exclusion of others. The corollary to this question is, of course, to what extent are districts, like the individuals that comprise them, eclectic with respect to their dominant organizational style. In order to determine the dominant organizational model for a given district, the numbers of individuals in the district that adhered to the open system, classical, social system, and eclectic models was tabulated. Then, if two-thirds or more of a district's individuals adhered to a single model, the district was classified as having that model also. The results for each district are summarized in Table 8. As seen in the table, no district had more than 67% of its individuals using a single model, therefore, all the districts were classified as eclectic. Table 7 Evaluation of the Respondents1 Dominant Model bv Job Function and Perception of the System Measure Category Label Dominant Model % Open ClassiSystem (n) cal (n) % Social System (n) X2 df p Job Function Superintendents, deputies, other, non-site admin. 29(41) 18(2) 25(27) Principals 71(99) 82(9) 75(83) 1.1 2 n.s. Perception of the School System Centralized 74(105) 91(10) 75(85) Decentralized 26(36) 9(1) 23(25) 1.5 2 n.s. 134 Another study objective was to determine if there were significant district differences in the five behavioral areas and if those differences were consistent for behavioral measures at central office and school sites. In order to address these questions, a series of one-way analysis of variance was performed in which the independent variable was the districts and the dependent variables were the behavioral measures. The first series addressed perceptions of the central office in the areas of decision making, communication, and involvement. The analysis compared district means on the three scales to learn if there were statistically significant differences between districts. The results are displayed in Table 9. As seen in the table, the districts were significantly different from one another on all three central office measures. Recalling that the higher a score on decision making, the lower the level of unilateral decision making, it can be seen in the table that St. Andrews Unified, Orange Grove Unified, and Hanover Union High School districts scored lowest in decision making, while Cornwall Union High, Cornwall City Elementary Districts, and Pine Valley Unified School Districts scored highest. Thus, more unilateral decision making was perceived as taking place in the central offices at St. Andrews Unified, Orange Grove Unified, and Hanover Union High School Districts. Table 8 Identifying the Dominant Model for Each Participating District School District % Open System(n) Dominant Model %Classical (n) of Respondents % Social System(n) %Eclectic(n) District Model* Orange Grove Unified 53 (57) 4(4) 23 (25) 20 (21) Eclectic Cornwall Union High 30 (10) 3 (1) 55 (18) 12 ( 4) Eclectic Cornwall City Elem. 36 ( 9) — 52 (13) 12 ( 3) Eclectic St. Andrews Unified 51 (22) 7 (3) 28 (12) 14 ( 6) Eclectic Pine Valley Unified 38 (26) — 38 (26) 25 (17) Eclectic Hanover Union High 45 (17) 8 (3) 42 (16) 5 ( 2) Eclectic * 2/3's of respondents in single category to avoid classification as eclectic 136 There were also significant district differences in the area of communication at the central office. Recalling that the higher the communication score, the greater the level of interaction with persons in diverse roles, it can be seen in the table that the level of communication was most open at the two Cornwall Districts. It can also be seen in the table that many higher mean scores were observed for all districts in the area of Involvement at the central office. For the Involvement scales, the higher the score, the greater the diversity of participants. Since the highest score possible was 4.0, these average district scores were quite high, suggesting that, with the possible exception of Cornwall City Elementary District, the number of different types of persons involved and the avenues of involvement open to them were great. Table 10 summarizes the same behavioral area analysis by district at the school level. Once more there were statistically significant district differences for all three areas. For Decision Making at the school level, mean scores tended to be higher than they were for the central office, with the lowest scores belonging to Orange Grove Unified and St. Andrews Unified School Districts. On the other hand, St. Andrews Unified School District scored highest among all six districts in the area of Communication. In the area of Involvement the scores were generally lower than those observed for the central office, with the Table 9 District Differences in Three Behavioral Areas: Central Office Measure District Mean Std. Dev. n F-score g-value Decision Making Orange Grove 2.3 .53 100 5.5 <.001 Cornwall Un. 2.7 .48 33 Cornwall Elem. 2.5 .44 25 St . Andrews 2.2 .64 43 Pine Valley 2.6 .61 69 Hanover Un. 2.4 .57 38 Communication Orange Grove 2.2 .76 100 10.1 <.001 Cornwall Un. 3.1 .73 33 Cornwall Elem. 2.8 .73 25 S t . Andrews 2.1 .62 43 Pine Valley 2.3 .68 69 Hanover Un. 2.3 .77 38 Involvement Orange Grove 3.4 .40 100 13.0 <.001 Cornwall Un. 3.5 .37 33 Cornwall Elem. 2.7 .84 25 St. Andrews 3.4 .41 43 Pine Valley 3.1 .44 69 Hanover Un. 3.3 .46 38 137 138 Orange Grove Unified School District having the lowest score observed. Finally, district means were also compared on the two final behavioral areas of Openness and Administrative style. These results are summarized in Table 11. As seen in the table, the scores for Openness were quite high. Recalling that for Openness, the higher the score, the greater the perception that the system was permeable to outside influences, the data in the table suggest that a high degree of openness was a characteristic shared by all six districts, even though the only significant differences for pairs of districts was that between Cornwall Union High School District and Orange Grove Unified School District. For Administrative style, the higher the score, the more participative the style at all levels, and the lower the score, the more autocratic the style at all levels. Middle range scores suggest a style mix. As the table indicates, scores were fairly widely varied with a low of 2.5 for Orange Grove Unified School District to a high of 3.3 at Cornwall City Elementary. These data suggest that while Orange Grove Unified, St. Andrews Unified, and Hanover Union High School Districts had mixed administrative styles, the remaining districts tended to be more administratively participative at all levels. Table 10 District Differences in Three Behavioral Areas: School Level Measure District Mean Std. Dev. n F-score E-value Decision Making Orange Grove 2.5 .35 100 8.7 <.001 Cornwall Un. 2.9 .42 33 Cornwall Elem. 2.8 .34 25 St. Andrews 2.6 .32 43 Pine Valley 2.7 .37 69 Hanover Un. 2.7 .33 38 Communication Orange Grove 2.2 .64 100 2.8 .016 Cornwall Un. 2.3 .72 33 Cornwall Elem. 2.2 .57 25 S t . Andrews 2.7 .73 43 Pine Valley 2.3 .65 69 Hanover Un. 2.3 .75 38 Involvement Orange Grove 2.4 .35 100 9.1 <.001 Cornwall Un. 2.8 .41 33 Cornwall Elem. 2.6 .42 25 St. Andrews 2.6 .36 43 Pine Valley 2.7 .32 69 Hanover Un. 2.6 .34 38 139 140 The Relationship Between the Dominant Model and the Five Behavioral Areas In addition to the research questions dealing with the influence of dominant models at the district level, a second series of questions dealt with the influence of the dominant model and other variables on the behavioral ratings provided by individual respondents. This section addresses the first of those questions; namely, whether or not the dominant model adhered to by an individual influenced the way he or she rated the behavioral areas of Decision Making, Communication, Involvement, Openness, and Administrative style. In order to address this question statistically, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed so that all eight behavioral scales could be addressed simultaneously. As with a simple analysis of variance, means for each of the models (eclectic or non-classifiable subjects were omitted from this analysis) on the behavioral measures were compared and evaluated for differences. The evaluation was conducted in two stages. First, while the overall F-score in an analysis of variance evaluates whether or not statistically significant differences were observed, this test fails to identify which model groups were significantly different from each other. Therefore in the second stage of the evaluation, a post hoc test, the 141 Tukey HSD test, was used to conduct a pairwise comparison of model means with each other. The results of both the MANOVA and the post hoc test comparisons are summarized in Table 12. As seen in the table, the overall F-score for the multivariate test was significant. The significance of this test permits evaluation of the tests for the individual scales. The table indicates that significant differences were observed for five of the eight scales evaluated. It is notable that the three scales for which significant differences were not observed were those having to do with respondents' perceptions of the central office. This may be a consequence of the fact that three-quarters of the respondents were principals. Significant differences were observed at the school level for Decision Making, Communication, Involvement, Openness, and Administrative Style. For Decision Making, the post hoc test indicated that respondents adhering to the open system model (mean - 2.6) were significantly different from those holding the social system model (mean * 2.7), and that social system adherents scored higher. The larger, but non-significant, difference for the classical group (mean « 2.8) calls the logic of the post hoc test into question: If a difference of .1 between the social system and open system groups is significant, why is the larger mean for the classical group not significant? Table 11 District Differences in Behavioral Areas of Openness and Administrative Stvle Measure District Mean Std. Dev. n F-score p-value Openness Orange Grove 3.1 .38 100 32.0 .008 Cornwall Un. 3.4 .35 33 Cornwall Elem. 3.3 .30 25 S t . Andrews 3.1 .44 43 Pine Valley 3.2 .37 69 Hanover Un. 3.2 .41 38 Administrative Style Orange Grove 2.5 .47 100 26.7 <.001 Cornwall Un. 3.0 .56 33 Cornwall Elem. 3.3 .60 25 St. Andrews 2.7 .53 43 Pine Valley 3.3 .46 69 Hanover Un. 2.7 .53 38 142 143 The failure of the classical group's difference to achieve statistical significance can be attributed to its smaller sample size (n=ll) when compared to the other two groups. When the sample size of a single group is this small relative to the sizes of the other groups, differences between groups must be larger to achieve statistical significance. Although the difference between the social system and open system respondents was small, it is significant and can be interpreted to mean that social system model adherents perceived significantly lower levels of autocratic or unilateral decision making than did their open system model counterparts. A different pattern was observed for communication at the school level. In this case adherents of the classical model were significantly different from the two other groups, and had a higher mean. This result suggests that, at the school level, adherents of the classical model perceived a higher level of informal interaction among persons in diverse roles than did the adherents of other models. Involvement at the school level was also observed to have significantly different mean ratings with the pairwise difference being significant for the open system and social system groups. As was the case with Decision Making, the classical group failed to reach significance because of its 144 small sample size. In this case, then, adherents of the social system model perceived a significantly greater diversity of participants at the school level. The dominant organizational model was also seen to exert a significant influence on the ratings of Openness. Both the open system and social system model adherents provided ratings that were significantly higher than adherents of the classical model which suggests that these two groups perceived their systems to be significantly more permeable to outside influences. In the case of administrative style, all three groups provided ratings that were significantly different from one another. The highest mean was that for the social system group (mean = 3.0), with the open system group falling in the middle (mean -= 2.8), and the classical group providing the lowest ratings (mean = 2.2). This result suggested that the open system and social system groups perceived the administrative style in their systems to be more participative, while the style perceived by the classical group was more mixed, the lower mean being due to more ratings at the autocratic end of the rating scale (see Questionnaire items 37-40 in Appendix A ) . Other Analyses The final research questions were concerned with the way other measures in the background of the respondents 145 might have influenced the way they rated the hypothetical behavior scales. The first of these background characteristics was the respondents' job function. In order to address this question a second MANOVA was executed, this time substituting the respondents' job function for the organizational model as the independent variable. The results of this MANOVA are summarized in Table 13. Once again the overall significance test was significant enabling the evaluation of the eight individual items. Five of the individual items were observed to have significant group differences: Decision Making at the school level, Communication at both the central office and school levels, and Involvement at the school level. In the case of Decision Making, principals and deputies were observed to score significantly different from one another, with principals perceiving a lower level of autocratic decision making at the school level than did non-site administrators. For Communication at the central office, all three groups were significantly different from one another. Interestingly, superintendents gave the highest communication ratings to the central office, while deputy superintendents gave the second highest rating. Principals, on the other hand, provided significantly lower ratings, indicating they perceived less informal interaction among diverse people at their central offices. Their ratings of Table 12 The Relationship Between the Dominant Organizational Model and Five Areas of Behavior Behavioral Area Group Means (1) (2) Open ClassiSystem cal (3) Social System F Score E-value Tukey's HSD Test (1)v(2) (1)v(3) (2)v(3) Overall 5.1 <.001 Decisions - C.O. 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.7 n. s. Decisions-Sch 2.6 2.8 2.7 4.0 .019 — * — Communication C.O. 2.3 2.2 2.5 1.9 n.s. Communication Sch 2.3 3.0 2.2 6.7 .002 * — * Involvement-C.0. 3.3 3.5 3.2 1.2 n.s. Involvement-Sch 2.6 2.4 2.7 3.4 .034 - * — Openness 3.2 2.6 3.2 15.3 <.001 * - * Admin Style 2.8 2.2 3.0 13.1 <.001 * * * ♦Significant at or beyond .05 level of probability Table 13 The Relationship Between Job Function and Five Areas of Behavior Behavioral Area (1) Super. Group Means (2) Dep . Supers. (3) Princ. F Score Tukey1 E (l)v(2) value s HSD Test (1)v(3) (2)v(3) Overall 5.8 <.001 Decisions - C.O. 2.5 2.4 2.4 1.4 n.s. Decisions-Sch 2.6 2.5 2.7 3.6 .029 - * Communication C.O. 3.0 2.6 2.2 19.7 <.001 * * * Communication Sch 2.2 2.6 2.3 3.7 .026 * - * Involvement-C.0. 3.2 3.2 3.3 0.9 n.s. Involvement-Sch 2.5 2.5 2.6 4.5 .012 * Openness 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.1 n.s. Admin Style ---i” -'.--- :---:---- 2.7 2.9 2.9 1.4 n.s. ♦Significant at or beyond .05 level of probability 148 Communication at the school level were not notably different. Both principals and superintendents rated Communication at the school level to be lower than ratings provided by deputies. Thus, deputy superintendents perceived the highest level of informal interaction among persons in diverse roles at the school level. Finally, involvement at the school level was perceived significantly differently by non-site personnel and principals. Principals perceived a greater level of involvement, i.e., a greater diversity of participants at the school level than did their non-site counterparts. The relationship between gender and school type and the five behavioral areas was also investigated using the MANOVA procedure. However, no significant group differences were observed on any of the eight scales analyzed. Pearson correlations were computed to investigate the relationship between the eight behavioral scales and the respondents' age and years of service. Those results are summarized in Table 14. As seen in the table, while a number of the correlations were statistically significant, their low magnitudes suggested that the effects were very small. Significant correlations were observed between age and involvement at the school level and administrative style. Years of service was observed to be significantly correlated with Decision Making at the central office, Involvement at the school level, and Administrative style. 149 Interestingly, the latter was the strongest correlation in the table. Its negative sign indicates that the longer an individual had served, the more autocratic he or she perceived style in the system to be. Table 14 The Relationship Between Five Behavioral Areas and Aae and Years of Service Behavioral Area Age Pearson Correlations Years of p-value Service p-value Decisions— C.O. -.08 n.s. -.14 .013 Decisions— Sch -.03 n.s. -.05 n.s. Communication— C .0. Communication— .08 n.s. • oto n.s. Sch 0 o • 1 n.s. .03 n.s. Involvement— C .0. .01 n.s. .05 n.s. Involvement— Sch -.15 .007 -.14 .014 Openness 0 CO • 1 n.s. -.00 n.s. Administrative Style -.11 .046 -.26 <.001 150 Summary There were 316 superintendents, deputies, principals, and other administrative staff in six Southern California school districts who completed a 53-item questionnaire. In addition to providing background information about themselves and their districts, each responded to six questions that were used to classify them according to their dominant organization model (open system, classical, or social system). They also rated 47 items that were later clustered into scales measuring hypothetical behavior in five areas and at the central office and school: Decision making, Communication, Involvement, Openness, and Administrative style. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to assess the influence of the dominant model on the ratings of hypothetical behavior at the central office and school levels. The major findings were as follows: 1. The majority of respondents were classified as open system (45%) or social system (35%) in their dominant organizational model. A much smaller proportion (3%) were classified as classical, while 17% were classified as eclectic. 2. The dominant model was not influenced by either the job function or the perception of the school system as centralized or decentralized. 151 3. The six participating districts were all eclectic in their dominant models. 4. Districts were significantly different from one another in the five behavioral areas. 5. Patterns for these differences were different for the central office and the school levels. 6. The dominant model of organization exerted a statistically significant influence on ratings in the five behavioral areas. 152 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to ascertain to what extent school district administrators, by their organizational behaviors, adhered to one conceptual organizational model (i.e., classical, social system, open system) to the exclusion of all others. A corollary purpose was to determine to what extent school districts, like the individuals that comprise them, are eclectic in their dayto-day organizational behaviors with respect to their dominant organizational style. To fulfill empirically the stated purpose, this study examined the way the dominant organizational model influenced the day-in, day-out behavior of the respondents. In so doing, specific questionnaire items were developed into a measure of hypothetical behaviors according to the open system, social system, and classical models (i.e., items 1 through 6, Appendix B ) . Items 7 through 41 of the questionnaire focused on five behavior areas: decision making, communication, involvement, openness, and administrative style. The six major research questions that were 153 examined separately and discussed were: (1) Is the respondent's general philosophy of education associated with their responses describing hypothetical behavior? (2) Is the respondent's job function related to the hypothetical behavior categories? (3) Is the respondent's school type related to the hypothetical behavior categories? (4) Is the respondent's gender related to the hypothetical behavior categories? (5) Is the respondent's age related to his/her responses to the hypothetical behavior categories? (6) Is the respondent's tenure in the system related to his/her responses to the hypothetical behavior categories? The problem that gave impetus to the study was identified in Chapter I. Too often researchers, authors, educational advocates, and practicing educators themselves tend to study and describe organizational models as exclusive entities. Thus, school organizations and individuals tend to be classified, more often than not, according to one organizational model. This is to say, school organizations or the administrators responsible for the management of these organizations can or do function strictly by the principles of one organizational model without regard to the other models. The findings of this study indicate that this is certainly not the case. A Review of the Literature was presented in Chapter II. The review contained information from research, 154 articles, papers, and books that were relevant to this study. The chapter discussed each of the three models, respectively, from the standpoint of historical perspective, principles, leadership, authority, communication, and decision making. Much of the current research revealed that the classical model of administration is not outmoded. It is very much an important part of the mainstream of administrative practice. There is also strong support in the literature for the social system principles that are the underpinnings of a successful organization particularly as it gives attention to the psychological and social aspects of the organization. Also the school system and/or administrators cannot ignore or shake off the concept and consequences that underline the open system model that impacts the school system on a daily basis. As Hanson (1985) admits, referring to his own text on Educational Administration and Organization Behavior. "Although this text has identified three conceptual models as more or less distinct entities, in practice few if any people hold rigidly to one framework to the complete exclusion of the others" (p. 148). The research methods and procedures for this study were described in Chapter III. Included were the research design overview, subject and sampling, instrumentation, 155 procedures, and data analysis. This chapter concluded with a summary. Chapter IV contained the data collected from 316 respondents, providing a response rate of 78%. Appropriate statistical techniques were used for full treatment of the data. Relevant tables were generated to help clarify the data. The results and findings were discussed. The chapter concluded with a summary and the major findings. Selected Findings The experimental research question sought to determine to what extent school districts, by their administrative behavior, can be said to adhere to one organizational model to the exclusion of the others. The selected findings related to this research question are: 1. Although 75% of the respondents perceived the structure of their school system to be centralized, their dominant behaviors were unmistakably characteristic of the social system and open system models. Based on the hypothetical items that were used to identify the respondents' dominant organizational model, 45% were open system and 35% social system. In other words, the majority of the respondents adopted models that were more consistent with a decentralized system. 2. The dominant organizational model, be it classical, social system, or open system, that the adminis 156 trators utilized in their day-to-day activities was not a function of the rank or position he/she occupied in the school system. This was also the case irrespective of the administrator's perception of whether or not the district was centralized or decentralized. 3. None of the school systems, based on the organizational behaviors and practices of their administrators, strictly adhered to any one organizational model to the exclusion of the others. This has been a major contention of this study. All the school districts studied had a mix of organizational behavior. The administrators behaved or were compelled to behave in ways consistent with all three models when the situation seemed necessary or best suited. 4. When the dependent variables, namely decision making, communication, and involvement, were studied at the central office level, there were statistically significant differences between the districts. More unilateral decisions were taking place at the central office. Communication was most open in two districts. All districts, except one, had very high levels of involvement which indicated a great diversity of participants were involved and the avenues of involvement that were open to them were great. 5. Decision making at the school sites was more participatory. Communication at the school sites was more 157 Informal. Involvement was generally lower than those observed at the central office. 6. A high degree of openness was a characteristic shared by all the districts. This was evidence that these school systems were permeable to outside influences and were receptive to the needs of their environment. 7. The three largest districts had a mixed administrative style, while the remaining districts were more participatory at all levels. 8. In other analyses, it was noted that principals reported lower levels of autocratic decision making at the school level. In the measures of communication, superintendents gave the highest ratings to the central office. Principals, on the other hand, identified less interaction among diverse groups at their central offices. Principals perceived a greater level of involvement, i.e., a greater diversity of participants at the school level than did their non-site counterparts. 9. Years of service was observed to be significantly correlated with administrative style. The longer an individual had served, the more autocratic was his or her administrative style in the system perceived to be. Conclusion The management and governance of public education know no easy panacea. One who has a true sense and 158 practical knowledge of how the school system works will agree with the researcher that there is no truly distinct classical, social system, or open system model that is at work independent of each other. Hanson (1985) stated it differently: It is common to hear educators say that "our district is decentralized" or "our district is centralized." This use of the term is rarely, if ever, correct. What does happen in a school district or a school is that certain decisions are decentralized (delegated) to subordinates, and others are centralized (retained) in the hands of superordinates. One has to be careful when one is tempted to use descriptors such as bureaucratic, centralized, decentralized, open system, closed system, etc., to categorize the school system. The administrator consciously or subconsciously is constantly making assumptions and judgment calls as to what is the most effective approach to administrative practice. Effective administrative behavior therefore is a mix of all three models. The researcher would venture to say it is the manifestation of an eclectic administrative behavioral model. As we embark on the twenty-first century with a growing heterogeneous and culturally diverse population, and as the school systems compete for students and resources, it will not be the well-defined tenets of the classical, social system, or open system models that count, but 159 rather "what works," and/or "what produces the best results." When the scores are all tallied, the results in an effective and successful school organization will have elements of all three conceptual organizational models. Within the context of this environment, the prudent educational practitioner must realize that winning at whatever cost is no longer the name of the game. When everyone inside and outside the system has a stake in the outcome of an effective, efficient, quality, and accountable educational system, everyone becomes winning shareholders . The successful administrator, like a good general, must decide when to dig in and wait. How, when, and where is he willing to launch his attack? Where is he willing to spill his blood and when to retreat? When is he willing to meet at the peace table, to bargain and compromise, to accept defeat with dignity and to celebrate victory with humility? This is the educational warfare of the 1990s and no doubt it will be long into the twenty-first century. Recommendations for Further Study The following recommendations are offered for further study. 1. There is the need for follow-up studies selecting a larger population to determine if similar results, as reported in this study, can be replicated. 160 2. Follow-up studies should be conducted that include the teaching and support staff of the districts to validate the perceptions and practices of the management staff. 3. Additional research should be undertaken to determine if the responses and results would be comparable for other organizational behaviors, other than those examined in this study. 4. A qualitative study utilizing in-depth interviews and small focus groups could provide insights and valuable data that are not available through a quantitative study. 5. A questionnaire instrument with an eight-point Likert-type response scale and Semantic Distance might be easier to differentiate statistically between social system and open system models. REFERENCES 162 REFERENCES Abbott, M. (1969). Hierarchical impediments to innovation in educational organizations. In F. Caver & T. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behavior; Focus on schools. New York: McGraw-Hill. Anderson, J. G. (1968). Bureaucracy in education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Blau, P., & Scott, W. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co. Boles, H., & Davenport, J. (1975). Introduction to educational leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C . , Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, pp. 13, 35. Cahn, S. (Ed.). (1977). New studies in the philosophy of John Dewev. Hanover, NH: The University Press of New England. Campbell, R. F . , Cunningham, L. L . , Nystrand, R. 0., & Usdan, M. D. (1985). The organization and control of American schools. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Carlson, S. (1951). Behavior: A study of the workload and the working methods of managing directors. Stockholm: Stromberg. Carpenter, H. H. (1971). Formal organizational structure factors and perceived job satisfaction of classroom teachers. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 16, 460-465. Chubb, J. E. (1987, July). The dilemma of public school improvement. Unpublished paper, Hanover, NH. 163 Chubb, J. E . , & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Conway, J. A. (1984, summer). The myth, mystery and mastery of participatory decision making in education. Education Administration Quarterly, p. 20. Corwin, R. G. (1965). Professional persons in public organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly. 1, 4; 8. Corwin, R. G. (1974). Models of educational organizations. In F. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Cox, H., & Wood, J. R. (1980, October). Organizational structure and professional alienation: The case of public school teachers. Peabody Journal of Education. pp. 1; 58. Cuban, L. (1986, September). Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan. p. 7-11; 68. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. New York: State University of New York Press. Cubberley, E. P. (1916). Public school administration: A statement of the fundamental principles underlying the organization and administration of public education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. In Owens, R. G., Organizational behavior in education. (1987). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Culberson, J. A., Jacobson, P. B . , & Reller, T. L. (1960). Administrative relationships: A casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davis, K. (1972). Human behavior at work: Human relations and organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures . Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Dennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. 164 DeVillis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Beverly Hills: Sage. Dykhuizen, G. (1973). The life and mind of John Dewev. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Elmore, R. F. (1978, spring). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy. 26(2), p. 3). Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fantini, M. D., & Grittel, M. (1973). Decentralization: Achieving reform. New York: Prager. Follett, M. P. (1940). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Marv Parker Follett. New York: Harper & Bros. Follett, M. P. (1965). The new stage: Group organization the solution of popular government (2nd ed.). Glouchester, MA.: Peter Smith. Futrell, M. H. (1986, April). N.E.A.'s president describes issues in American education, row principals, teachers can improve relationship. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, p. 54. Getzels, J. (1973). Theory and research on leadership: Some comments and alternatives. In Leadership; The science and art today. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M . , & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational administration as a social process. New York: Harper and Row. Grady, K. E., & Wallston, B. S. (1988). Research in health care settings. Beverly Hills: Sage. Griffiths, D. (1969). Administrative theory. Encyclopedia of educational research. Toronto: Macmillan, Inc. Gulick, L . , & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1932). Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University. In R. G. Owens, Organizational behavior in education (1987). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 165 Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Program change and organizational properties: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, pp. 72; 502-519. Hall, R. H. (1963, July). The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. The American Journal of Sociology, pp. 1; 69. Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalism and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, p. 33. Hall, R. H. (1972). Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hanson, M. E. (1985). Educational administration and organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hellriegel, D . , & Slocum, J. W . , Jr. (1976). Organizational behavior: Contingency views. St. Paul: West Publishing Co. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Holdaway, E. A. (1978). Facet and overall satisfaction of teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, pp. 14; 30-47. House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. p. 16. Jennings, H. H. (1950). Leadership and Isolation. New York: Longham. In R. G. Owens (1987), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change makers— Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1973). Contingency views of organization and management. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. 166 Lane, J. J. (1983, March). Authority and responsibility— A need to reshuffle the deck. The Executive Review, pp. 3; 6. Lane, J. J. (1983). Inequality and the school administrator. The Urban Review, pp. 3; 15-180. Lane, W . , Corwin, R . , & Monahan, W. (1966). Foundations of educational administration; A behavioral analysis. New York: Macmillan. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Howewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Levin, H. M. (1971). The case for community controlled schools. In J. W. Guthrie & E. Mynne (Eds.), New models for American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Likert, R . , & Likert, J. G. (1976). New wavs of managing conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lipham, J. (1973). Leadership: General theory and research. In L. Cunningham & W. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership: The science and the art today. Itasca, IL: F. P. Peacock. Loomis, C. P. (1960). Social systems. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand. Lortie, D. (1964). The teaching and team teaching: Suggestions for long range research. In E. Hanson (Ed.). (1985). Team teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Luthans, F. (1989). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. MacKay, D. A. (1964, November). Should schools be bureaucratic? Canadian Administrator, p. 6. Mannasse, D. L. (1983, June). Improving conditions for principals1 effectiveness: Policy implications of research on effective principals. Washington, DC: Dingle Associates. March, J. G . , & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. 167 Margulies, N . , & Black, S. (1987). Perspective on the implementation of participative approaches. Human Resource Management, p. 26; 384-412. Marrow, A. J. (1969) . The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books. Massie, J. L. (1965) . Management theory. In G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Moreno, J. L. (1947, June). Contributions of sociometry to research methodology in sociology. American Sociological Review, pp. 12; 287-292. In R. G. Owens (Ed.), Organizational behavior in education. (1987). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Morphet, E., Johns, R . , & Reller, T. (1967). Educational organization and administration: Concepts, practices and issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Moyer, J. (1986, June). Child development as a base for decision making. Child Education, p. 385. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, U. S. Department of Education. National Education Association. (1986, August). Ventures in good schooling— A cooperative model for a successful secondary school. New York: National Association for Secondary Principals. Nelson, L. D . , & Purdy, W. M. (1971). School business administration. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books. Norusis, M. J., & SPSS, Inc. (1993). SPSS for windows: Base system u s e r ’s guide. Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Ornstein, A. (1974). Metropolitan schools. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. 168 Owens, R. G. (1987). Organizational behavior in education (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Panttaja, L. A. (1966). Subordinates1 perceptions of the decision making behavior of their chief school administrator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essav. Glenview, IL: Scotts Foresmann. Peters, T. J. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York: Albert A. Knoff. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run companies. New York: Harper & Row. Pitner, N. J., & Ogawa, R. T. (1981). Organizational leadership: The case of the school superintendency. Educational Administration Quarterly, pp. 17; 61-62. Prosch, J. C. (1984). Reversing the trend toward centralization. Educational Leadership. pp. 27; 42. Read, W. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, pp. 3-15. Rogers, E. M . , & Agarwala-Rogers, R. (1976). Communication in organizations. New York: The Free Press. Schanker, A. (1987, March). Teachers as school leaders. American Teacher, pp. 5; 71 Schlechty, P. C . , & Joslin, A. W. (1986). Images of schools. Teachers College Record, pp. 1; 156-170. Schmuck, R., & Runkel, P. (1988). The handbook of organizational development in schools (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Scott, J, & Smith, S. C. (1987, July). From isolation to collaboration: Improving the work environment of teaching. Elmhurst, IL: North Central Regional Educational Lab. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. In R. F. Campbell et al., Organization and control of American schools. (1985). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing. 169 Stivers, E., & Wheelan, S. (Eds.)* (1986). The Lewln legacy: Field theory in current practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press. Weick, K. E. (1976, March). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21. 1-19. Weisberd, M. R. (1989). Productive workplaces: Organizing and managing for dignity, meaning and community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. White, R. K . , & Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy: An experimental inguirv. New York: Harper & Bros. Williams, A. (1984, January). The principalship: How much decentralization is too much? Thrust. pp. 18-19. Wimpleberg, R. K. (1986, April). Bureaucratic and cultural images in the management of more and less effective schools. NC: Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement, Research Triangle Park. Winn, R. B. (Ed.). (1959). John Dewev: Dictionary of education. New York: Philosophical Library. Wirth, A. G. (1989). John Dewev as educator: His design for work in education (1884-1904K Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Wise, A. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1984-85). Teacher evaluation and teacher professionalism. Educational Leadership, pp. 30; 42. Wissler, D. F., & Ortiz, F. I. (1986). The decentralization process of school systems: A review of the literature. Urban Education. 2.1(3), 280-294. Wolman, B. (1956, February). Leadership and group dynamics. Journal of Social Psychology, pp.11-25; 43. In R. G. Owens Organizational behavior in education. (1987). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. APPENDIXES 171 APPENDIX A COVER LETTERS FOLLOW-UP LETTER LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL 10372 McFadden, Westminster, California 92683 Derick Evans Assistant Principal (714)663-6374 December 21, 1993 Dear Fellow Administrator. I would deeply appreciate if you could take twelve to fifteen minutes, out of your busy schedule, to complete the enclosed questionnaire. distributing this questionnaire to the management staff. This is the final step in a long, expensive and challenging process for me. But without your help, in providing the data, this process cannot be completed. Consequently, it is not possible to express in words how much your participation is appreciated. I would be grateful if you would return the questionnaire in the enclosed, selfaddressed, stamped envelope by Friday, January 21,1994. As an administrator myself, I know your nme is very valuable. I do need your assistance. Please help me out! Thank you. I am indebted to your superintendent. Dr. . who graciously approved my Sincerely, Denck L a Q uinta H igh School 10372 McFadden, Westminster, California 92683 Derick Evans Assistant Principal (714) 663-6374 January 7, 1994 Dear Fellow Administrator, I would deeply appreciate if you could take twelve to fifteen minutes out of your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire. I am indebted to your superintendent. Dr. , who graciously approved my distributing this questionnaire to the management staff. In a nutshell, the purpose of this study is to determine to what extent organizational behaviors are centralized, decentralized or eclectic. The hypothesis is that on a day-today basis organizational behaviors will be proven to be eclectic in nature. This is the final step in a long, expensive and challenging process for tne. But without your help in providing the data this process cannot be completed. Consequently, it is not possible to express in words how much your participation is appreciated. I would be grateful if you would return the questionnaire in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope by Monday, February 14,1994. I am frantically trying to collect all my data by this date. As an administrator myself I know your time is very valuable. Please send any information you have completed in 12 to 13 minutes, as I do need your assistance and partial data is better than no data at all. Please help me out! Thank you. Sincerely, L a Qu in ta Hig h Sch o o l 10372 McFadden, Westminster, California 92683 Derick Evans Assistant Principal (714) 663-6374 January 17, 1993 Dear Pat: I know that at this time of the year, as administrators, we wish we had 48 hours in a day to meet all the demands that are placed on our time 1 do not warn to impose but rather request just 12-15 minutes of your busy time to complete the questionnaire that was sent to you two weeks ago. If your questionnaire is already in the mail or if it is the next item on your agenda, I want to thank you for your time and effort. The response from your district so far, is encouraging, for which I am deeply grateful. But I do need vour response. If after IS minutes you have not been able to complete the questionnaire, please sent it off to me anyway. Partial data is better than no data at all. I am frantically trying to meet a deadline of Tuesday, January, 2Sth to collect all my data Please help me out!I Thank you so much. Sincerely, APPENDIX B A PROFILE OF ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS QUESTIONNAIRE A PROFILE OF ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS In each or the following categories, which statement best describes your action policy on a day in, day out basis? I My attitude toward the conflict I handle is: (Check only one response) It's a part of my job, it is inevitable It is a sign of failure and I try to eliminate it It’s constructive 2. My attitude toward administration is (Check only one response) There is really no one best way to administer/manage There is really only one best way to administer/manage Administration is really a group function 3 For me, com m unication is best achieved through (C heck only one response) An informal network that is linked with the community A formal network that follows established channels A network based on the shifting interests of involved groups On a daily basis, my work environment is: (Check only one response) Open to the community Closed to the community A coalition of groups inside and outside the organization My decisions: (Check only one response) Tend to be sensitive to the community and appropriate for different situations Are made strictly according to district policy Are the result of collaboration and participation with others When I have to cut programs, due to a short fall in state funding. I do so based on: (Check only one response) What is best for the students What is best for the overall school system A consensus arrived at with teacher^ and others Very L illie Som e Great Very Great 7 To what extent arc olficial decisions directed by established rules to assure uniformity and stability ? At the: Central Office © © © © School © © © © K To what extent docs the changing demographies, ethnicity, increasing or decreasing enrollment significantly impact your organization? © © © © ') To what extent is the decision-making process widely dispersed? At the: Central Office © © © © School © © © © in To what extent do the following have a real voice in school-wide decisions, policies and programs? Teachers © © © © Students © © © © Parents © © © © 11 To what extent is the art of compromise used as a means of reaching decisions? At the Central Office © © © © School © © © © 12 To what extent do you work toward a supportive and harmonious relationship between your organization and the community'’ © © © © 13 To what extent is most decision-making concentrated in the hands of the chief educational officer/administrator? At the: Central Office (D 0 0 © School 14 To what extent are decisions the outcome of bargaining? At the . CD CD ® © Central Office <D 0 0 © School © © 0 © IS To what extent can your school system avoid the demands and voices of its subsystems (i.e. vested interest groups, employee unions, teachers, parents, etc.)? 0 0 0 © 16 To wliat extent do any cutbacks or elimination of highly visible programs/activities (i.e. football, basketball, music program, lunch, transportation, etc.) generate a strong response from the community? 17 To what extent does the decision-making process incorporate the observations of those who are closest to the problem and will be affected by the decision? At the: CD © 0 © Central Office CD © 0 © School <D 0 0 © IK To wliat extent are safety issues a high priority to you and the community? (i e. gangs, drugs, vandalism. grafTui. etc ) © © 0 © 180 19 To wliat cxlcnl is there a de-emphasis on stnlus-powcr relationship and a greater cmpliasis on collaboration and participation'’ At the: Central Office School 20 To wliat extent are the financial resources that are allocated to the school system lied to the quality of its graduates? 21 To wliat extent are you often subject to events that are not of your own making and beyond your control? 22 To what extent does your leadership style remain the same for all situations? 23 To what extent does communication flow freely up and down the hierarchy? At the: Central Office School 24 To what extent do unilateral actions and decisions occur? At the: Central Office School Very Some Great Very Little Great CD (D CD © CD © (D © CD © CD © CD (D (D © CD CD CD © CD CD <D © CD © CD © CD CD © © © © (D © 25 In your school system, to what extent does communication take the following form: (a) Top-down and task-oriented? © © © © (b) Messages move up the hierarchy through a series of whispers, but down the hierarchy through a series of loudspeakers? ® © © © (c) The ’grapevine" as a legitimate source of information? © © © © 26 To what extent do the demands and needs of the society give direction to the implementation and maintenance of programs and events? © © © © 27. To what extent do laws and decisions of the courts, slate and federal governments impact your school system? © © © © 28. To what extent have economic and political pressures influenced the manner in which your school system has operated? © © © © 29. To what extent do political issues impact your school system and/or your school (i.e.. equal rights, prayers in school, gender equity, schools o f choice, etc.)? © © © © 10 How much influence do the following have on matters affecting your school district? The Superintendent © © © © Central Office Staff © © © © Principals © © © © Teachers © © © © 11 To what extent docs your success and survival weigh heavily on forging coalitions between and within subgroups (i.e. community employee unions, teachers. PTA. etc.) © © © © 182 Very Little Some Great Very Great 32. To what extent are central administration decisions regarding the operation and program of one school required as valid for all schools? 0 © © 0 33 How much interaction is there between you and: The Superintendent 0 © © 0 Central Staff (Asst.. Assoc.. Deputy Supt. and Directors) 0 © © 0 Principals 0 © © 0 Teachers 0 © © 0 34 To what extent is the organization policy driven? At the: Central Office 0 © © 0 School 0 © © 0 3 S. To what extent are the following involved in system-wide decisions? Central Office 0 © © 0 Principals 0 © © 0 Teachers © © © © 36 To what extent do you use small group meetings to solve problems and resolve issues? 0 © © 0 Note: Change in Category Highly AutoSome What Consul native Participative cratic Autocratic 37. Wliat is the administrative style of the superintendent? CD CD (D © 38. What is the administrative style of tlie Asst.. Assoc., and Deputy superintendents? (D ® (D © 39. Wliat administrative style does the organization encourage you to use? (D CD © 40. What do you believe is your administrative style? CD 0 CD © 41 When confronted with a serious problem, which of the following would be the most likely responses From vour superior, or your responses To vour subordinate: From My To My Superior Subordinate 1 "I am studying the problem here and will soon have a decision for you." □ □ 2 "You look into the problem and get me the facts I will then decide what to d o ." Q Q 3 "Study the problem and send me your recommendations, pros and cons with each recommendation, and your preferred recommendation I will then decide what to do " ... ........ □ □ 4 "Study the problem and advise me o f what you intend to do. Hold ofT until I give you my approval" □ □ 5 "Study the problem and advise me on wliat you intend to do Go ahead and take action unless I tell you to hold " □ □ 6 “Take the action sou feel is necessarv " □ □ THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE FOR GROUPING YOUR RESPONSES WITH THE! RESPONSES OF OTHER PERSONS OF SIMILAR BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE. THE ANSWERS WILL BE USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. MALE SEX.................................................................. AGE................................................................ Years How long have you worked in this school system? Years THANK YOU!! FEMALE 185

Asset Metadata

Creator Evans, Derick Franklin (author)

Core Title A determination of organizational behavior within the context of three conceptual organizational models

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 1994-12

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag oai:digitallibrary.usc.edu:usctheses,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11257250

Unique identifier UC11257250

Identifier 9621710.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier 9621710.pdf

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection), University of Southern California (contributing entity)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses