University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Diagnosis Of The Management Styles Of High School Principals

(USC Thesis Other)

A Diagnosis Of The Management Styles Of High School Principals

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T he sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann A rbor, M ichigan 48106
74- 17,343
GODSHALL, Charles Edward, 1927-
A DIAGNOSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT STYLES OF
HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1974
Education, administration
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© 1974
CHARLES EDWARD GODSHALL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
T H I S n iS Q F R T A T in N HAS RFFIU MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
A DIAGNOSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT STYLES
OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
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
by
Charles Edward Godshall
January, 1974
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
Date.
'.an
'uidmce.Cfimmittee
Chairman
DEDICATION
To my Wife
Rena Tangherlini Godshall
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincerest appreciation is expressed to Mrs.
Dorothy Reynolds, friend and typist, and to Dr. Wallace
Muelder, doctoral committee chairman, who did not lose
faith in me.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
PaSe
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Problem
Purpose and Importance of Study
Research Hypotheses
Null Hypotheses
Design of the Study
Basic Assumptions
Delimitations
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Dissertation
Introduction
The Commonality of Management Functions
The Classification of Management Functions
Management Functions
Classification Parameters for Managerial
Styles
Managerial Style Classifications
The Relationship of Managerial Style to
School Climate, Faculty Morale, and
Administrative Effectiveness
Summary
Introduction
The Instrument
School, Sample, and Respondent Selection
Administering and Scoring of Instrument
Data Collected
Summary
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18
III. THE PROCEDURES 108
iv
Chapter Page
IV. THE FINDINGS.................................... 119
Introduction
Research Hypotheses
Null Hypotheses
Descriptive Data
Summary
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 227
Introduction
Summary
Summary of Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................. 267
APPENDICES................................................ 278
A. Questionnaire.............................. 279
B. Managerial Style Response Classifications . 288
C. Letter of Commitment....................... 290
D. Guidelines for Administering Questionnaire. 293
E. Classification of Responses for Question
naire Items 43, 44, and 45 ................... 296
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of Mean Perceptions of Principals'
Administrative Style by Principals and Co-
Administrators................................. 121
2. Comparison of Mean Perceptions of Principals'
Administrative Style by Co-administrators
and Department Heads.......................... 124
3. Comparison of Mean Perceptions of Principals'
Administrative Style by Department Heads
and Teachers/Counselors ..................... 126
4. Comparison of Mean Perceptions of Principals'
Administrative Style by Principals and
Composite Groups............................... 129
5. Comparison of Mean Certificated Staff Per
ceptions of Administrative Effectiveness
and Mean Certificated Staff Perceptions of
Managerial Style............................. 13 3
6. Comparison of Mean Certificated Staff Per
ceptions of School Climate and Faculty
Morale, and Mean Certificated Staff Per
ceptions of Managerial Style.............. 136
7. Comparison of Mean Certificated Staff Per
ceptions of Preferred Managerial Style
and Mean Certificated Staff Perceptions
of Practiced Managerial Style .............. 13 9
8. Comparison of the Ranking of Mean Certifi
cated Staff Perceptions of Administrative
Effectiveness, and the Ranking of Mean
Certificated Staff Perception Discrepancies
of Preferred and Practiced Managerial
Styles........................................... 140
vi
Table Page
9. Comparison of the Ranking of Mean Certifi
cated Staff Perceptions of School Climate/
Faculty Morale, and the Ranking of Mean
Certificated Staff Perception Discrepan
cies of Preferred and Practiced Managerial
Styles............................................. 143
10. Comparison of the Ranking of Mean Certifi
cated Staff Perception Discrepancies of
Preferred and Practiced Managerial Styles,
the Ranking of Mean Certificated Staff
Perceptions of Administrative Effectiveness,
and the Ranking of Mean Certificated Staff
Perceptions of School Climate/Faculty
Morale........................................... 145
11. Managerial Style Perceptions and Preferences
by Principal.................................... 148
12. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 1 and 2 ............. 15 2
13. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 3 and 4 ............ 15 3
14. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 5 and 6 ............ 15 4
15. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 7 and 8 ............. 155
16. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 9 and 10............ 156
17. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 11 and 1 2 .......... 15 7
18. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 13 and 1 4 .......... 158
19. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 15 and 1 6 .......... 159
20. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 17 and 1 8 .......... 16 0
21. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 19 and 2 0 .......... 161
vii
Table Page
22. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 21 and 2 2 .......... 16 2
23. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 23 and 2 4 .......... 16 3
24. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 25 and 2 6 .......... 16 4
25. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Managerial Style, Items 27 and 2 8 .......... 165
26. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 1 and 2.......... 17 5
27. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 3 and 4.......... 17 6
28. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 5 and 6.......... 17 7
29. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 7 and 8.......... ‘ 17 8
30. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 9 and 10 . . . . 179
31. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 11 and 12. . . . 180
32. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 13 and 14. . . . 181
33. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 15 and 16. . . . 18 2
34. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 17 and 18. . . . 18 3
35. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 19 and 20. . . . 184
36. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 21 and 22. . . . 185
37. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 23 and 24. . . . 186
viii
Table Page
38. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 25 and 26. . . . 187
39. TT Test Comparisons of "Should" Perceptions
of Managerial Style, Items 27 and 28. . . . 188
40. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Administrative Effectiveness, Items 29 and
30................................................ 197
41. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Administrative Effectiveness, Items 31 and
32................................................ 198
42. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Administrative Effectiveness, Items 33 and
34................................................ 199
43. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
Administrative Effectiveness, Item 35 . . . 200
44. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
School Climate/Faculty Morale, Items 3 6 and
37 206
45. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
School Climate/Faculty Morale, Items 38 and
39 ................................................ 207
46. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
School Climate/Faculty Morale, Items 40 and
41 208
47. TT Test Comparisons of "Is" Perceptions of
School Climate/Faculty Morale, Item 42. . . 209
48. Principal Descriptive Data...................... 215
49. School Descriptive D a t a ......................... 219
50. Decisions for Staff Involvement ............... 221
51. Principals' Enabling Behaviors................. 222
52. Principals' Handicapping Behaviors............. 224
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
The chief administrator of today's comprehensive
high school has many difficult administrative tasks to
perform. The effectiveness of his performance directly
influences the quality and extent of student accomplish
ments . This study is concerned with the administrative
style the principal utilizes to bring about the accomplish
ment of school goals and objectives. Does the principal
delegate authority? Is the school staff involved in
problem solving and decision making? For the purposes of
this study, the extent of delegated authority and the
degree of staff involvement in problem solving and decision
making are the conditions which describe the principal's
administrative style.
High school principals today have authority to
administer their schools, but they need to delegate an
appropriate amount of their authority to staff members at
the different administrative levels in their schools. The
management functions of planning, organizing, directing and
1
2
controlling need to be performed at all administrative
levels if the students are to meet their performance
objectives. Decision making authority should permeate the
school rather than dominate from the top administrative
level.
Effective and productive schools cannot be
developed and sustained by the few executives who admin
ister them. The inertia inherent in the mass of certifi
cated personnel in a large high school is too great for the
limited forces of the administrative staff to overcome.
Motion forward, if it is to come, must germinate from
within the faculty and come into full power out of its own
resources. When this happens, kinetic energy is tremen
dous . Great changes occur with amazing ease and through
ness . The successful principal promotes progress through
the people in his organization (10 3:8*+).
Purpose and Importance of the Study
This study focuses on the description of management
styles practiced by principals of large high schools in
Orange County. The impact of these different administra
tive styles on faculty perceptions of the principal’s
administrative effectiveness and the climate and morale of
the school were also a part of the focus. The central
purpose of the study was to describe the extent to which
high school principals utilize faculty and staff to
3
accomplish the goals and objectives of the school. The
effect of faculty and staff involvement in the accomplish
ment of the goals and objectives of the organization on
faculty morale, school climate, and the principal's
administrative effectiveness was also investigated.
The study also describes the management styles
faculty and staff believe principals should be practicing.
This data satisfies the purposes of describing the ideal
management style as perceived by members of the organiza
tion. This ideal is an expression of the certificated
employee’s preferences for the extent to which they feel
they have a contribution to make to the accomplishment of
the goals and objectives of the school.
An additional purpose of the study was to develop
an instrument which would measure the management style of
individual principals. This tool could be used by any
principal who chose to diagnose his own style or pattern
of administration. The developed measuring instrument was
designed to be utilized for diagnostic rather than evalua
tive purposes.
The importance of the study is substantial. High
school principals need to understand the influence their
managerial styles have on perceptions of their administra
tive effectiveness, the school's climate, and faculty
morale. They need to analyze the relationships that exist
between style and administrative effectiveness. The
4
benefits of the decentralization of decision making
authority at the high school need to be understood.
Current principals as well as administrative trainees will
benefit from this information.
Research Hypotheses
The basic research hypotheses set forth for the
study are:
1.0 Certificated employees at the various
organizational levels of the schools will perceive their
principal as possessing a management style which is less
participative than their superior perceives.
2.0 Principals will perceive themselves as being
more participative in their style of management than will
the composite view of the co-administrators, department
heads, teachers, and counselors reveal.
3.0 There is a positive, direct relationship
between certificated staff perceptions of the managerial
style of principals and the perceived administrative
effectiveness of principals.
4.0 There is a positive, direct relationship
between certificated staff perceptions of the managerial
style of principals and the perceived school climate and
faculty morale.
5.0 There is a simple correlation between the
extent of preferred/practiced perception discrepancy of
5
managerial style and the perceived extent of the adminis
trative effectiveness of the principal.
6.0 There is a simple correlation between the
extent of preferred/practiced perception discrepancy of
managerial style and the perceived extent of school
climate/faculty morale.
7.0 There is a multiple correlation between the
extent of the preferred/practiced perception discrepancy
of managerial style, the perceived extent of administrative
effectiveness of the principal, and the perceived extent of
school climate/facuity morale.
8.0 High school principals will perceive that they
most often use a participative managerial style.
9.0 High school principals will state that they
prefer to use a managerial style which is more participa
tive than the one they perceive they practice.
10.0 Certificated staff members will perceive
their principals as most often using a managerial style
which is high-bureaucratic to low-democratic.
11.0 Certificated staff members will state that
they prefer that their principals utilize a managerial
style which is low-participative to high-participative.
Null Hypotheses
The basic null hypotheses set forth for the study
are:
6
For individual perceptions of items 1-2 8 (manage
rial style):
1.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' perception of their style of management and the
perceptions of co-administrators.
2.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals1 perceptions of their style of management
and the perceptions of department heads.
3.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' perceptions of their style of management and
the perceptions of teachers and counselors.
4.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' perceptions of their style of management and
the composite perceptions of co-administrators, department
heads, teachers and counselors.
5.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' preferred style of management and the prefer
ence of co-administrators.
6.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' preferred style of management and the prefer
ence of department heads.
7.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' preferred style of management and the prefer
ence of teachers and counselors.
8.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' preferred style of management and the composite
7
preference of co-administrators, department heads, teachers
and counselors.
For individual perceptions of items 29-35 (adminis
trative effectiveness):
9.0 There is no significant difference between the
principals' perceptions of their administrative effective
ness and the perceptions of co-administrators.
10.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals' perceptions of their administrative effec
tiveness and the perceptions of department heads.
11.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals' perceptions of their administrative effec
tiveness and the perceptions of teachers and counselors.
12.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals' perceptions of their administrative effec
tiveness and the composite perceptions of co-administrators
department heads, teachers and counselors.
For individual perceptions of items 36-45 (school
climate and faculty morale):
13.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals' perceptions of school climate and faculty
morale and the perceptions of co-administrators.
14.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals' perceptions of school climate and faculty
morale and the perceptions of department heads.
15.0 There is no significant difference between
8
the principals' perceptions of school climate and faculty
morale and the perceptions of teachers and counselors.
16.0 There is no significant difference between
the principals' perceptions of school climate and faculty
morale and the composite perceptions of co-administrators,
department heads, teachers and counselors.
Design of the Study
The basic method of research used in this study is
descriptive. The major intent of this type of research is
to accurately describe a set of existing conditions. In
this study, the current state of the art of administrative
style is the set of conditions examined. Administrative
theorists make conflicting claims about the best way to
lead man so that he will achieve his needs and meet the
goals of the organization. This study is a direct source of
information about the administrative behavior of high
school principals. Although the major intent of the study
was to describe the current status of principals' adminis
trative behavior, recommendations pertaining to preferred
administrative behavior were also sought.
Research is most relevant when it builds upon and
involves the people directly affected. Descriptive studies
identifying administrative styles of corporate managers may
be of general importance to the educational theorist but
are not relevant enough to be very helpful to public school
9
administrators. The knowledge gathered in this study will
be directly applicable to principals of high schools
because the study systematically describes the characteris
tics and conditions of patterns of administration practiced
by the chief high school administrator.
The research and null hypotheses to be tested were
defined in specific terms. The major source of data was
the responses to a questionnaire designed and developed by
the researcher.
Fifteen certificated staff members from each of
twenty large high schools in Orange County provided the
subjects. The following people were included from each
school: principal, counseling and guidance co-
administrator, a counselor, the heads of the English,
foreign language, industrial arts, and girls physical
education departments, and two teachers from each of these
departments. The stratified sample listed above was chosen
so that the responses from the different organizational
levels of the high school could be contrasted. The
teachers and counselor were randomly chosen from their own
strata. A total of 300 subjects was included in the study.
To check for questionnaire items which were
ambiguous or pointless, it was reviewed by members of the
researcher's doctoral committee and by three educational
research and development experts. The instrument was then
pretested in four large high schools in Orange and Los
10
Angeles counties. Written comments were solicited. Tech
niques for pretesting the questionnaire were essentially
the same as planned for the study. The expected 100 per
cent return was not realized because certain contingencies
were not explained to the principals. These contingencies
were covered in the study. Some questions were left blank
by some respondents which indicated that the questions were
misunderstood or not applicable. These questions were
revised. Management style classification categories were
verified.
The pretest results were briefly analyzed. It was
determined that except for the responses to three open
ended questions the methods planned for use in summarizing
and quantifying the data would work satisfactorily. A
classification system was developed for these open ended
questions.
The pretested questionnaire was improved by making
several changes in the wording of the instructions and the
questions. The basic format remained the same. The pre
test subjects reported the time needed to complete the
questionnaire and this information was included in the
introduction to the research questionnaire.
Basic Assumptions
To accomplish the purposes of the study, certain
basic assumptions were made. They were divided into two
— --------------------------------------------------------------------------- n —
categories, conceptual and methodological:
Conceptual
1. The management style of the high school
principal can be identified and differentiated among and
between the organizational levels in the school within
which the questionnaire is administered.
2. The categorization of management styles will
not identify styles which are pure. Principals’ individual
styles are a blend of management styles.
3. Professional educational administrators will be
able to understand and utilize the results of this study
and its recommendations and conclusions.
4. The positive accomplishments of goals and
objectives can accrue to the high school within which the
principal examines and evaluates the impact of his manage
ment style on his perceived administrative effectiveness in
relationship to the findings and recommendations of this
study.
5. The subjects in this study are sufficiently
aware of the principal's administrative practice to con
tribute meaningful responses for the findings of the study.
Methodological
1. The design of the study is appropriate to the
purposes of the study and it permits full exploration of
the research and null hypotheses.
12
2. The researcher designed questionnaire utilized
in the study identifies and differentiates the various
styles of management.
3. Recorded perceptions of administrative effec
tiveness, school climate, and faculty morale accurately
describe these phenomena.
4. Respondents will answer the questions frankly
even though frank answers, if known by the principal, might
have a detrimental effect on the respondent.
5. Perceptions received from the four organiza
tional levels used in the study, principal, co-
administrator, department head, and teacher/counselor, will
provide comprehensive diagnostic information about the
principal's management style.
Delimitations
The following delimitations served to focus on and
place parameters around the purposes of the study:
1. The study was limited to the diagnosis of
twenty large high schools within Orange County.
2. The study was limited to responses from only
fifteen of the certificated staff members at each school:
the principal, one co-administrator, one counselor, four
department heads, and eight teachers.
3. Perceptions were focused on the principal even
though he may not have been principal of the participant
13
school for longer than the current year.
4. Perceptions were made by the co-administrator
responsible for counseling and guidance and the department
heads of the English, foreign language, industrial arts,
and girls physical education departments even though these
participants may not have been in their present positions
for longer than the current year.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms and words used
in the study are presented so that their intended meanings
are clarified and therefore understood:
Accountability. The obligation to fulfill the
responsibilities, tasks, and authorities of an administra
tive position.
Administration. Management; a process involving
decision making; coordination of group effort and leader
ship which enables the organization to accomplish its goals
and objectives through the efforts of the people in the
organization.
Administrative effectiveness. The extent or degree
of attainment of the formal goals and objectives of the
school.
Administrative style. The art or manner of per
forming the management functions of planning, coordinating,
directing, and evaluating; a general characteristic mode of
14
execution of administrative responsibilities and related
staff participation and delegation of authority.
Authority. The rights and power of an administra
tive position; ability to act without consulting with, or
getting the approval of, superiors.
Climate. Condition of school environment for
learning; an aggregate of social and cultural conditions
which influence the certificated employees’ quality of life
in the school.
Co-administrator. Administrative assistant to the
principal, director, dean, coordinator, or head counselor;
or administrative assistant.
Controlling. The management function which
includes the assessing, supervising, evaluating, and
monitoring of school and individual goals and objectives.
Decentralization. The systematic and extensive use
of delegation throughout the organization; the distribution
of authority for decision making and problem solving to the
organizational administrative level directly imparted.
Decision making. A conscious choice among alter
natives ; a process in which the choice of a particular
solution is the final step.
Delegate. The act of distributing authority to
subordinate administrative levels in the organization.
Diagnosis. To distinguish; the art or act of
recognizing management style from the recorded perceptions
15
of members of the organization.
Directing. The management function which includes
the issuance of orders and instructions; the act of pro
viding the impetus for organizational progress.
Educational Principles. District developed and
Board of Education approved goal statements.
Functions of Management. Management activities; a
logical grouping of managerial activities according to
their purpose and nature.
Management. Administration, a process involving
decision making, coordination of group effort and leader
ship which enables the organization to accomplish its goals
and objectives through the efforts of the people in the
organization.
Management Style. The art or manner of performing
the administrative functions of planning, coordinating,
directing, and evaluating; a general characteristic mode of
execution of managerial responsibilities and related staff
participation and delegation of authority.
Morale. The mental and emotional attitudes of an
individual or group relative to the tasks expected of them;
a mental condition which includes pride, confidence,
eagerness, and enthusiasm.
Organizing. The management function which includes
the provision of physical, financial, and personnel
resources; concerned with the relationships among func
16
tions, jobs, and personnel.
Participative management. A method of leadership
which attempts to directly involve subordinates in the
operation of the organization; the consultation between
superior and subordinate at times of decision making and
problem solving.
Planning. The management function which includes
thought and decision concerning a proposed course of
action; providing a factual basis for future action.
Responsibilities. Assigned administrative tasks
and duties.
Organization of the Dissertation
In this introductory chapter, the problem was
stated and the purpose and importance of the study were
explained. The objectives that the researcher determined
had to be investigated were listed and hypotheses were
stated. The research method was identified and the condi
tion to be described was discussed along with the plan for
pretesting and research administering of the questionnaire.
Basic assumptions which enabled the researcher to accom
plish the purposes of the study were stated. Delimitations
were drawn and definitions of terms were delineated.
Chapter II presents a review of pertinent litera
ture. The literature was examined for significant or
substantive material dealing with the functions and styles
17
of management. Theories and behavioral studies which per
tain to management styles were explored. The relationships
between style, administrative effectiveness, school
climate, and faculty morale were examined.
Procedures used in conducting the study are
explained in Chapter III. Included are the survey instru
ment, selection of subjects, participating school recruit
ment, administering the survey instrument, data collection
and recording, and treatment of the data.
Chapter IV presents the findings of the study which
were analyzed in terms of the research and null hypotheses
stated in the first chapter.
A summary of the study and the conclusions and
recommendations derived from the findings are presented in
Chapter V. Also offered are suggestions for further study.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Management is the administrative process involving
decision making and the coordination of group effort and
leadership which enables the organization to accomplish its
goals and objectives through the efforts of the people in
the organization. The two basic components of this
administrative process are management functions and manage
ment styles. Functions are administrative activities which
can be grouped according to their purpose and nature. The
art or manner of performing these administrative activities
and the degree of staff participation in executing adminis
trative responsibilities describe management style.
The review of selected literature was undertaken to
present materials most relevant to the investigation. The
chapter consists of the identification and description of
the functions of management, the classification of manage
ment styles, and the relationship of management style to
school climate, faculty morale, and administrative effec
tiveness .
18
19
The Commonality of Management Functions
The administrative activities required of managers
in schools, businesses, factories, churches, and other
enterprises are often viewed as being common or universal.
Koontz stated the commonality concept as follows:
Managers perform the same functions regardless of
their place in the organization structure or the type
of enterprise in which they are engaged. Acting in
their managerial capacity, presidents, department
heads, foremen, supervisors, college deans, bishops,
and heads of governmental agencies all do the same
thing. As managers, they are all engaged in getting
things done with and through people.
. . . To the extent that their tasks are managerial
rather than technical, and with the proper motivation,
executives may employ their skill as well in one occu
pation as another. (60:4-5)
Litchfield strongly supported the concept of
commonality in his comment: "Administration and the
administrative process occur in substantially the same
generalized form in industrial, commercial, civil, educa
tional, military and hospital organizations." (71:29)
The management process is a necessary feature of
all organized activity. Although the purposes of organiza
tions differ, the management process remains constant.
It is because management is the one inherent
necessity in the conduct of any enterprise that it is
possible to conceive of it as a profession. Whether
capital be supplied by individuals or by the State,
whether labor be by hand or by machine, whether the
workers assume a wide control over industry or are
subjected to the most autocratic power, the function of
management remains constant. (100:48)
Albers believed that there was a high degree of
20
substitution of functions among managers:
The common properties of the managerial process
make possible a high degree of substitution among
managers in different kinds of endeavor. Army officers
have become successful university administrators and
business executives. Governmental posts have been
filled by business executives with a large measure of
success. Executives in one kind of business, such as
retailing, have successfully moved to industries with
radically different technologies, such as manufacturing
or publishing. Equally important in this respect are
transfers from one area of functional specialization to
another. A vice-president of finance or advertising
often becomes the chief executive of a manufacturing
concern. (1:33)
Management and the abilities that go to make up the
manager are quite separate and distinct from the activities
and abilities required of operating or technical personnel
such as teachers. At one time, it was customary to promote
the most proficient teacher or worker when filling a
management vacancy. This procedure ignored the fact that
ability to direct the work of others is substantially
different from that of doing one’s own work. Capable
employees who had performed in an outstanding manner as
craftsmen or office employees or teachers proved disap
pointing when moved into administrative positions.
Gradually, it became clear that the manager requires
talents or must exercise abilities that are quite different
from those of non-managerial personnel (72:21).
The functions of management are basic in that each
is applicable, in some degree at least, to the work of all
managers. All types of organizations necessitate perfor
21
mance of the management functions. The very existence of
management has been suggested as an essential feature in
distinguishing organizations from other groups.
Organizations are assemblages of interacting human
beings and they are the largest assemblages in our
society that have anything resembling a central coor-
dinative system. Let us grant that these coordinative
systems are not developed nearly to the extent of the
central nervous system in higher biological organisms--
that organizations are more earthworm than ape. Never
theless, the high specificity of structure and
coordination within organizations--as contrasted with
the diffuse and variable relations among organizations
and among unorganized individuals--marks off the
individual organization as a sociological unit com
parable in significance to the individual organism in
biology. (80:4)
Longenecker made the following statements about the
commonality of management functions between and within
organizations. These statements substantiate the premises
clearly stated in the literature reviewed:
Among business organizations, the central coordina
tive activities of management are exercised in such
varied institutions as manufacturing firms, insurance
companies, public utilities, banks , and marketing
institutions. All components of a business organiza
tion likewise require the performance of the management
process. This includes a diversity of organization
types— manufacturing units, sales offices, maintenance
shops, drafting rooms, computer centers, research
laboratories, and many others. In each, it is
necessary to plan, organize, direct, and control the
work.
In organizations outside the field of business
enterprise, the same management functions are in
evidence. The organization and management of leading
churches and educational institutions, for example,
have been subjected to evaluation in much the same way
that the management of private business organizations
has been appraised. In hospital management, adminis
trators have pioneered in establishing standards and
in raising the quality of management toward a high
professional level.
22
Management at all levels of the school organization
must perform the same management functions. It is
true, of course, that the nature of the functions
varies somewhat. Departmental managers plan and
control work in terms of broad objectives. Manufac
turing foremen, in contrast, plan and control opera
tions on a day-to-day basis.
The emphasis and time spent on the different
management functions also vary according to the level
in the organization. At lower levels, management
personnel spend relatively more time in directing and
controlling work. It is not uncommon for them to spend
a considerable amount of their work day 'on the floor'
checking with operators and supervising operations. In
contrast, managers at higher levels spend a greater
proportion of their time on planning. Planning at
higher levels also tends to be longer-range planning.
The foreman's day-to-day and hour-to-hour determination
of what should or will be done, however, must be
recognized as planning just as much as the five-year
plan approved by the board. (72:45-46)
The Classification of Management Functions
Management functions are administrative activities
or tasks which can be grouped according to their purpose
and nature. Management theorists have presented various
and unique groupings of these activities, but there is no
universally recognized set of management functions.
Frederick W. Taylor, generally recognized as the
Father of Scientific Management, contributed a set of
management functions that was quite comprehensive. It
included the following:
1. Organization - He believed in having a defined
organization and developed the functional system. Work was
to be broken down into elements and assigned to those
persons having the skills necessary for its completion.
23
2. Planning - Planning the work was one of the
cornerstones of his philosophy.
3. Staffing - He believed in the scientific
selection and training of the workers.
4. Motivation - He pioneered wage incentive plans
along with time study procedure. Paying bonuses for above
standard work motivated workers to high peaks of produc
tivity .
5. Direction - The combination of a good organiza
tion and plans allowed him to give good direction.
6. Coordination - Taylor developed production
control procedures for seeing that the work was done by
pertinent individuals, using standard operation instruc
tions , specified tools and in relation to the schedule.
7. Control - The setting of time standards, the
standardizing of procedures, and the selection of workers
gave management good control over its operations.
Taylor, in much of his research, tended to the
study of the management functions listed above (113:60,61).
A man considered by some authorities to be the
father of modern management theory, Henry Fayol, concluded
that all the work done by managers in business enterprises
could be divided into six groups:
1. Technical activities (production, manufacture,
adaptation)
2. Commercial activities (buying, selling, exchange)
3. Financial activities~~(search for and optimum use of
capital)
24
4. Security activities (protection and property of
persons)
5. Accounting activities (stocktaking, balance sheet,
costs , statistics)
6. Managerial activities (planning, organization,
command, coordination, and control). (36:3)
Fayol believed that all the above activities were
important and the last one paramount in the upper echelons
of management. It is interesting to note that Fayol saw
management as one of the six basic activities.
A different approach to the categorization of
administrative activities was taken by Barnard in his
search for a definition of executive functions. Functions
are impersonal; they are not performed to manage a group of
persons. Barnard believed that the essential executive
functions were first, to provide the system of communica
tion; second, to promote the securing of essential efforts;
and, third, to formulate and define purpose (6:217).
Drucker, a contemporary expert in the performance
of managers, classified the functions of management in
slightly different terms than did other authorities. He
believed that there were five basic operations in the work
of the manager:
1. Sets objectives— determines what they should
be, what to do to reach the objectives, communicates the
objectives to appropriate members of the organization.
2* Organizes— classifies the work, divides the
work, selects personnel.
25
3. Motivates and communicates--makes a team out of
the people responsible for work, encourages cross-level
communication.
4. Measures performance— establishes yardsticks,
analyzes and appraises performance.
5. Develops people--trains and directs personnel
(31:344).
The following systems for the classification of
management functions were also examined:
Albers_--planning, organizing, directing, con
trolling (1:30).
Cribbin--planning, organizing, staffing, coordi
nating, cooperating, controlling, evaluating, leading,
budgeting (24:3-4).
Dale--planning, organizing, staffing, directing,
controlling, innovating, representing (26:7).
Koontz and O ’Donnell— planning, organizing,
staffing, directing, controlling (61:34).
Longenecker--planning, organizing, directing and
motivating, controlling (72:35).
Management Functions
Planning, organizing, directing, and controlling
are the four groups of administrative activities which
comprise the set of management functions used in this
study. The purpose of the last part of this section of the
26
review of the literature is to define and describe these
four management functions.
Planning— The general meaning of managerial plan
ning is consistent with the common usage of the word. It
involves thought and decision concerning a proposed course
of action. The plan may be concerned with not only a
decision to take action but also such aspects as "who,"
"when," and "how" (72:35). Planning is concerned with the
future. It anticipates and precedes action, as contrasted
with reflective thinking about past events. How far a plan
extends into the future varies according to the type of
plan and the administrative level of the planner.
Campbell concluded that the planning activity of
school principals included providing help for all members
of the organization in clarifying the purposes of the
school. Planning should begin with a consideration of the
goals and objectives that the organization is attempting to
achieve. Clarity and consistency in goals and objectives
are essential for effective operation (18:21).
The following selected quotations on the descrip
tion of the planning function are presented:
Planning is one approach to the matching of means
and ends. (3:181)
Planning, as a conceptually separate managerial
function, consists of looking ahead, 'imagineering,'
conceptualizing, anticipating probable future events
and the actions needed to cope with them. . . . What
ever the area of consideration, managers in the per
formance of the planning function systematically
27
analyze the problem in light of probable future events
and make decisions regarding the action they will take
if certain events come about in the future. Planning
in this sense, therefore, is a rational, economic, and
systematic way of making decisions today which will
affect the future. (41:165)
The managerial function of planning is one of
selecting the organizational objectives and the
policies, programs, procedures, and methods for
achieving them. The planning function is essentially
one of providing a framework for integrated decision
making and is vital to every man-machine system.
(57:62)
Planning is the managerial process of selecting the
organizational objectives and the policies, programs,
procedures, and methods for achieving them.
Forecasting is a planning process which estimates
possibilities and attempts to determine the probability
of these estimates in light of given and/or projected
values:
Assessing is the process of identifying,
analyzing, and defining the relevant aspects of
functions relations and transformations of any
possible future alternatives.
Estimating is a planning function which
involves the making of approximate computations,
opinions, and/or judgments during the on-going
course of performance.
Projecting is a planning function whereby, for
a given objective and/or purpose, relevant informa
tion is assessed and, based thereon, an attempt is
made to reliably predict future states.
Researching is the process of systematically in
vestigating relevant information:
Measuring is the process of identifying the
dimensions of demonstrated progress related to
plan.
Developing is a three-part planning function;
1) formulating a plan, 2) designing strategies for
carrying out the plan, and 3) defining procedures
for achieving the given objectives.
Modeling is the process by which relevant
parameters may be represented and tested without
disrupting the actual system.
Selecting is the process of making a choice as
to which alternate course or courses of action are
to be followed so as to best achieve the pre
determined objectives. (96:5)
28
Planning in general is the conscious determination
of courses of action to achieve preconceived objec
tives. It is deciding in advance what is to be done,
when it is to be done, by whom it is to be done, and
how it is to be done. It can range from the detailed,
specific and rigid to the broad, general and flexible
design.
Long-range planning does this for extended periods
of time. Long-range planning is a process for estab
lishing long-range goals; working out strategies,
programs, and policies to achieve these goals; and
setting up the necessary machinery to insure that the
company gets where it wants to go.
It is a process of choosing from among alternative
courses of action and charging the use of time,
resources, and effort to achieve the objective sought.
(106:29)
Gathering information on both the external environ
ment and the company internally, in order to see the
major problems facing the business.
Identifying and studying the factors which may
limit the company's efficiency and growth in the
future.
Formulating basic assumptions (such as, for
example, 'No major war within the next five years,' or
'A continuation of the present economic trends for the
planning period'). It may also involve determination
of several plans for the future, based on a set of
markedly different assumptions.
Laying down the objectives or the goals of the
business, based on information gathered, assumptions,
predictions, and a study of major problems.
Determining the actions which must be taken to
achieve the objectives.
Setting up a timetable for these actions. (115:72)
Organizing. The managerial function of organizing
is generally described as including the activities of
arranging the placement of personnel within the organiza
tion so that goals and objectives may be attained with a
maximum of efficiency and a minimum of wasted effort
(24:3). It involves the grouping of activities and
assigning them to an administrator who has the authority to
29
see that they are completed. Organizing is also concerned
with the determination of relationships among functions,
jobs, and personnel. Coordinating the efforts of members
of the organization requires the defining of tasks or jobs,
getting people who can perform these tasks, getting the
people to work together, and discharging those who are
incompetent (18:23).
The function of staffing is considered by some to
be a separate managerial function (61:94). In the writer's
set of management functions, staffing activities are
included as a phase of the function of organizing.
The following selected quotations on the descrip
tion of the function of organizing are presented:
Organizing is the work of creating in advance the
basic conditions that are a prerequisite for a success
ful execution of the plan. (16:41)
Informal organization is that network of personal
and social relations which is not established or
required by formal organization. It arises from the
social interaction of people, which means that it
develops spontaneously as people associate with each
other. The emphasis within informal organization is on
people and their relationships, whereas formal organi
zation emphasizes positions in terms of authority and
functions. Informal authority, therefore, attaches to
a person, while formal-authority attaches to a position
and a person wields it only by virtue of his position.
(27:101)
When managers attempt to create an acceptable
physical and mental environment they must bring some
degree of order to the chaos that happenstance effects.
This ordering process, involving planning, goes by
several names, the most common being that of
organizing. (41:165)
30
Organizing is the process of so combining the work
which individuals or groups have to perform with the
facilities necessary for its execution that the duties,
so formed, provide a coordinated application of the
available effort. (41:126)
Organizing is a process that involves the deter
mination of activities required to achieve the
objective, the departmentization of the activities, and
the assignment of authority and responsibility for
their performance.
Coordinating is the managerial process of system
atically bringing together various resources so as to
achieve an orderly arrangement of group efforts and to
provide unity of action in the pursuit of organiza
tional objectives:
Integrating is the process of bringing together
the various relevant capabilities into a
functioning whole.
Assigning is the organizational process of
delegating to others the authority and responsi
bility to carry out a specified task or to
accomplish a specified purpose.
Grouping is the organizational process of com
bining resources (men, money, material, machines
and time) to be utilized in the accomplishment of
given tasks toward specified objectives.
Structuring is the managerial process of arranging
and/or interrelating the organizational parts so that
they may proceed in an orderly manner along given
courses of performance:
Scheduling is a planning procedure that
allocates inputs to projected operations in a
given order and sequence of time.
Staffing is a management procedure that
selects a specific group of people having capa
bilities that are uniquely suited to a pre
specified course of action. (96:6)
The managerial function of organizing involves the
determination of the activities required to achieve the
objectives of the enterprise, the departmentation of
these activities, and the assignment of authority and
responsibility for their performance. Thus the
organizing function provides the interconnection, or
inertia, between the various subsystems and the total
organizational system. (61:16)
Directing. The organizational machine must be
activated or energized to carry out management plans. It
31
is the function of directing that sets the organization in
motion. A manager gives the "green light" to a program or
plan. This approval authorizes subordinates to begin work
in accordance with the program or plan and constitutes
direction on the part of the manager.
The responsibility of the administrator is to
direct behavior into channels that promote the achievement
of organizational and departmental goals and objectives.
What is required is an approach to influencing or leading.
Reasoning and persuasion are primary ingredients of the
ability to direct (105:663).
The term directing carries a connotation of
harshness or autocratic management in some organizations
such as the military where orders are passed downward
through its chain of command. Directing, especially in the
management of high schools, does not have to be authori
tarian in nature. Any organized effort requires some
centralized planning and decision making. The process of
communicating these choices to members of the organization
may be thought of as the function of directing.
Some motivation beyond order giving is required to
get the organization in motion. This is becoming more
generally the case as managers come to realize the strength
of positive motivation and also as schools develop a more
democratic atmosphere (72:4-0).
Numerous writers have indicated that directing is
32
of basic importance in total manager performance. Noting
that directing concerns all managers, Koontz and O'Donnell
defined its purpose as the integration of the efforts of
subordinates in the interest of the total objectives of the
enterprise (61:475). Dimoch called it the heart of
administration in which the grand strategy unfolds. He
identified three aspects of the directing function: 1)
determination of the course; 2) issuing orders and instruc
tions; 3) insuring dynamic leadership (30:99).
The following selected quotations on the descrip
tion of the function of directing are presented:
The process of direction can be greatly simplified
by establishing standard practices, for then an
instruction need cover only new parts of the plan, such
as, when or how much. Indoctrination also contributes
to clear understanding of instructions. Consequently,
direction should start with the development of desir
able work habits and attitudes. (88:388)
The executive function of direction embraces those
activities which are related to guiding and supervising
subordinates.
It should not be forgotten that even as a manager
organizes, staffs, plans and controls, he is working
with and through people. . . . The obvious reason for
such dealing is to motivate people to think and direct
their efforts in the manner desired by the manager.
To this process, the term 'leadership1 is applied. It
may be defined as the ability to exert interpersonal
influence, by means of communication, toward the
achievement of a goal. Since managers get things done
through people, their success depends to a considerable
extent upon their ability to apply leadership.
The directing phase of management is what many
people think of as management iteself: telling people
what to do and seeing that they do it. The manager
must not only have plans he wants carried out, divide
the work, and get people who are capable of doing it;
he must also compel or induce people to use their
capabilities. (61:429)
33
The concept of power and leadership have much in
common . . . certain people are leaders because they
exercise power. Indeed it is unthinkable that a leader
should not have power. Consequently the exercise of
influence is a central part of some definitions of
leadership. . . . A leadership act represents a choice
of power instruments. It is in a sense the point at
which power is activated. (90:350)
Direction is the managerial function of guiding,
overseeing, and leading people. It is preeminently,
therefore, that portion of the management process which
involves personal relationships, even though . . . all
aspects of managing must be designed to make it
possible for people to work together effectively. But
direction, as a function, goes peculiarly outside of
the formal organization and the enterprise for its
roots, since people are necessarily a product and a
part of a culture wider than any undertaking or its
immediate industrial environment. (61:3 21)
The manager directs by allocating, by determining
necessary functions, by assigning personnel to specific
tasks, by allowing key people the autonomy to perform and
achieve, by setting criteria for acceptable output, and by
exacting accountability for results according to those
criteria (24:3).
Controlling. The management function of control
ling refers to the regulation of the administrative
activities of the organization to insure the achievement of
organizational goals and objectives and the completion of
organizational plans. The organization's performance must
be examined and checked to verify that the enterprise is
on the right track.
The efforts of subordinates are controlled by
maintaining a feedback system that provides the manager
34
with valid data early enough to take corrective action
(24:4). Controlling is the function of management which
appraises and verifies results in relation to plans. It
also measures performance, corrects deviations, and assures
the accomplishment of plans.
The administrator must keep in touch with opera
tions occurring under his direction. It is seldom possible
to formulate plans and pass them on to subordinates with
the assurance that they will be completed without further
concern or checking. The manager must regulate work
assignments and review work progress. In some cases, the
control function is accomplished through face-to-face con
tacts, and in other cases intricate work scheduling and
voluminous reports are required (72:541).
The following selected quotations on the descrip
tion of the function of controlling are presented:
Controlling is the work of constraining and
regulating the activities of the organization in
accordance with the requirements of the plan . . . It
should be noted here, however, that all executives
perform these functions to some extent whether they are
administrative or operative executives. (28:54)
Controlling— that is, seeing that operating results
conform as nearly as possible to the .established plans.
This involves the establishment of performance
standards, motivation of people to achieve these
standards, comparison of actual results against the
predetermined standard, and initiating necessary
corrective action when performance deviates from the
plan. (92:85)
Control can be defined as a self-regulating or
homeostatic mechanism for holding a variable within
desired limits. The objective of control is to main-
35
tain output, which requires the ability to rearrange
resources as conditions change; the control mechanism
thus regulates or governs the operating parts of the
system. (123:73)
The function of control includes the measurement of
output, the comparison of output with some predeter
mined standard, and the adjustment of inputs to restore
the system to its planned norm.
Control is not an end in itself; rather it is a
means to an end— a way to add flexibility and effec
tiveness to the operation of the system. (57:71)
Controlling is a management process which assures
that inputs are obtained and are allocated toward the
efficient and effective achievement of the predeter
mined objectives.
Administering is a process which establishes a
course of action for attainment of organizational
objectives:
Directing is the process of establishing opera
tional rules which define direction for a course
of performance, assign times for activities and
identify requisite conditions which must be met or
maintained.
Regulating is a control process by which the
organization’s operations are governed and directed
according to established standards of performance.
Correcting is a control process whereby adjust
ments and reallocations of inputs are made when a
deviation from standards of performance occurs.
Revising is a control function by which
correction information is used as a basis for the
reorganizing of effort toward a predetermined
objective.
Containing is a control process whereby the
organizational administration seeks to restrict the
ongoing operations of the organization to those
areas which are relevant to the achievement of a
predetermined objective.
Supervising is the control phase which deals with
direct oversight of the operations of an organization:
Guiding is a control process which explains and
interprets the requirements and specifications of
a given course of performance to the operational
units of an organization.
Auditing is a control process whereby regular
examinations and inspections of the organization’s
operations are made to provide complete, accurate,
relevant and timely information thereon.
36
Maintaining is that part of the control process
that is responsible for preserving the inputs of
an organization.
Balancing is a concern of the control process
which continually weighs and compares organiza
tional efforts and acts to counteract unbalance and
bring to equalibrium those efforts in order that
the objective may be achieved in the most efficient
and effective manner.
Inspecting is the process of critically
examining the operational components of a system
individually and collectively with reference to a
given set of requirements. (96:6)
The control function includes those activities
which are designed to compel events to conform to
plans. It is thus the measurement and correction of
activities of subordinates to assure the accomplishment
of plans. The formulation of the concept embraces the
idea that planning must precede control and that plans
alone are not self-achieving. They must be carried out
and possibly modified by circumstances before objec
tives can be realized. (61:37)
In directing, the manager explains to his people
what they are to do and helps them to do it to the best
of their ability. In control, he determines how well
the jobs have been done and what progress is being made
toward the goals. . . . And a budget is not only a
plan; it is also a means of control. (26:6)
Management should be recognized as a process or
group of related and continuous activities. Examining
management in this context, the following basic management
functions are identified: planning, organizing, directing,
and controlling.
The planning function involves the determination
of future courses of action. This entails not only a
determination of what is to be done but also concerns the
manner and timing of performance.
Organizing, broadly conceived, includes the pro-
37
vision of physical facilities, capital and personnel. More
specifically, it is conceived with the determination of
relationships among people, jobs, and functions.
In directing, the manager sets the organization in
motion. Activities in this area include the issuance of
orders and instructions, but they also include other types
of motivation.
In the function of controlling, the manager
regulates organizational performance to insure achievement
of objectives. This entails a comparison of performance
with standards and any necessary corrective action.
Management functions must be performed in all types
of organizations and at all administrative levels of the
organization. Emphasis placed upon the functions of
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling differs
from one situation to another but each function appears in
some form or other in each managerial position.
Classification Parameters for
Managerial Styles
Definition
The second basic component of the administrative
process is management style. The art or manner of per
forming administrative activities and the degree of staff
participation in executing administrative responsibilities
describe management styles. Said another way, the
38
processes utilized by the manager to effectuate management
functions determine management style.
School managers provide, demonstrate, interpret and
coordinate a set of organizational values, goals, and
strategies. Leadership in these areas demands a high level
of commitment in skill and energy. The manager's personal
resources of these qualities will determine in large
measure his style of management (7:93).
The words strategy and style are sometimes used
interchangeably, but it is useful to differentiate between
them. Style is best thought of as the manager's way of
handling specific aspects of his role such as establishing
performance criteria, distributing authority and respon
sibility, and maintaining relationships with people.
Strategy, on the other hand, implies certain fundamental
values and goals; it is best used to describe broad, long
term, or all-encompassing patterns of management technique.
Bassett discussed two categories of management
strategy: 1) failure avoidance and 2) success seeking
(7:94-). In practice, these two strategies blend in a great
variety of different mixes. Failure avoidance strategy is
in essence the selection of simple values, goals, and
methods. Emphasis is on performance which is easily
accomplished by the large majority of available employees.
This strategy is adopted primarily because it leads to
efficient, reliable production, easy maintenance of the
39
organization and simplicity of human relationships.
The success seeking strategy is the problem solving
and risk taking orientation to managing. Organizational
goals, values, and methods are likely to be complex and
constantly changing. Risk taking is essential to the
achievement of goals. The performance level required of
employees is higher than average and it demands people with
more specific training and experience. While the risks are
high, the rewards of success also are high.
McGregor indicated that one of the fundamental
characteristics of an appropriate managerial strategy is
that of creating conditions which enable the individual to
achieve his own goals best by directing his efforts toward
organizational goals (76:78). Such a strategy is not
permissive management, or soft or indulgent management. It
includes clear demands for high performance, clear limits
consistently enforced. It involves the creation of a
climate of genuine mutual trust, mutual support, respect
for the individual and for individual differences.
Every individual reveals to those who know him well
certain predictable patterns of behavior. He tends to
respond to environmental pressures with some consistency.
Taken as a whole, his predictable ways coping with the
reality of the work environment may be termed his
managerial style.
Managerial styles are unique to individual
40
managers, but as a part of our characteristic human
tendency to group similar phenomena into categories we per
ceive similarities and ignore differences so that we can
apply generalized labels. Different managers are perceived
as being paternalistic, authoritarian, democratic, per
missive, "bull-of-the-woods," soft, hard, firm but fair,
scientific, production centered, or employee centered.
Similar, but not identical, patterns of administrative
behavior are categorized into managerial styles (76:58).
It is our perception of reality that enables us to
attach these labels to groups of managers. No individual
is as completely consistent in his own behavior as the
label implies. The label is the result of our perceptions
of an individual not his perception of himself. Uncon
scious forces operating in him may lead him to quite a
different perception of himself. Managers usually do not
go through a conscious, deliberate process of choosing a
certain style, but the unique style usually emerges as a
result of a lifetime of coping with reality.
Authority
Essential to every manager's job is the authority
to make the decisions necessary to do his job without
consulting a superior. If a manager does not have the
power to plan the work of his subordinates, to set controls
over that work, to organize and direct it, and to motivate
41
his people he will not be able to control the results of
that work. Managerial style is influenced by the extent
of authority possessed by the manager. Longenecker made
the following comments about managerial style and
authority:
The manager needs a philosophical basis for deter
mining the proper limits on his authority— for deciding
which situations call for authoritative decisions. As
he exercises authority, he must develop some type of
balance between his authority as a manager (in the
interest of efficiency) and the freedom of his sub
ordinates. An emphasis upon freedom of the individual
in the industrial organization is consistent with the
values held more broadly in our society. (72:404)
Authority is defined as a superior's capacity, on
the basis of his formal position, to make decisions affect
ing the behavior of subordinates. The concept of author
ity incorporates the idea of power or ability to secure
compliance with a superior's orders. Authority might be
called institutionalized power to emphasize its connection
with the formal organization and to distinguish it from
other types of power.
Authority may be contrasted with influence in which
persuasion, suggestions, or other discussion is used to
effect behavior. Influence does not rely upon formal
position or sanctions in getting agreement. In the
case of influence, the person being influenced has the
power of choice with freedom to accept or reject. If
he is subject to authority, however, he accepts the
superior's decision without question. He holds in
abeyance his own critical faculties for choosing
between alternatives and uses the formal criterion of
the receipt of a command or signal as his basis for
choice. (101:74)
The democratic quality is merely an illusion unless
42
the concept of authority is applied to educational adminis
tration. Authority is a necessary constituent in political
economic, and social democracy. In democratic school
administration, as in other facets of social democracy,
authority must be commensurate with responsibility (25:11).
White summarized the concept of the place of
authority in administering by stating:
It is perhaps self-evident that the possession of
authority . . . is an essential part of a number of
relationships, including those of parent to child,
teacher to pupil, employer to employee, and government
to citizen. Whenever the thing that has to be done is
dangerous, difficult or even simply boring to the
individual who is asked to do it, some element of
explicit compulsion may be necessary to insure that he
does it, and that his efforts are geared in with those
of the others in the group. (119:271)
Delegation and Decentralization
The manager's style will be quite accurately
described by commenting on his practice of delegating
authority throughout the administrative levels in the
school. Delegation of authority involves an assignment of
responsibility and authority by a superior to his sub
ordinate. When authority, responsibility, and decision
making are delegated or pushed downward throughout the
organization, the approach or practice is known as
decentralized management.
The manner in which responsibility is handled is
equally important to managerial style. It may appear at
first glance that styles of responsibility delegation
43
follow the authoritarian, integrative, or permissive range
directly. Actually, tactics of delegation can be seen to
follow their own largely independent path. An authori
tarian manager may well delegate nothing or a great deal.
The degree to which the individual employee is kept from
having to account for his actions is the determining factor
in classifying the manager’s tactics of delegation.
Whether he be authoritarian, paternalistic, democratic or
participative, he can insulate and shield his employees
from responsibility by the way he handles delegation, or
he can provide them with the opportunity for direct
encounter with responsibility (7:104).
Lazarus made the point this way:
When top management limits authority and penalizes
the adventurous, then it invites slow rust. Acting on
its own initiative, middle management will make mis
takes, but the more it acts, the fewer the mistakes
will be. It might even reach the point of making
decisions on subjects where the top brass never had the
information, foresight, or courage to take action.
When top management hamstrings middle management
because of its own vanity or insecurity, then the
business becomes a victim of mildew. Mistakes are the
price of progress. (64:102-103)
An effective manager believes in decentralization,
but he does not bandy the term around loosely. In
embracing decentralization he remembers that what is
important is results not activity. He knows that decen
tralization begins with the assumption that the total work
to be done in an enterprise is too much for one man and
that the many decisions to be made cannot be accomplished
44
by one or even a few individuals. Therefore, the ideal
manager decentralizes, which means he delegates (10 2:17).
The management literature is replete with double
talk about delegation (109:94). Greater delegation or
decentralization has been lauded by many executives, but
practice does not always reflect preachments. Executives
are often more reluctant to delegate than they themselves
will admit. Perhaps the most common problem in this
respect is the failure to delegate responsibility over
relatively minor matters. Far too many executives clutter
their desks and minds with details that could be handled
by a literate office boy. Some of them are so concerned
with the position of the sheet music on the stand that they
fail to conduct the orchestra (1:188).
The terms, "decentralization" and "centralization,"
when applied to organizational structure extremes, are
actually impossible to realize in a pure form. Complete
decentralization would result in each person being the sole
member of his own school district with the freedom to make
all decisions in all areas, independent of anyone or any
thing else. Complete centralization would result in a
dictatorship with no one but the dictator provided with the
authority to make a decision. Even if it were possible to
organize with each one of these extremes, it would not
serve a community to meet its goals and objectives with
any degree of sureness. The productive organization will
45
be a well planned combination of decentralized and
centralized authority.
The purpose of the decentralization-centralization
question is primarily for efficiency (doing the right
things) and effectiveness (doing things well) with the
resources available (people, time, facilities, materials,
equipment, and funds). Since each school district has
varying resources, the best balance will result in dif
ferent decentralization-centralization patterns to form a
total organizational entity. What is best for one organi
zation will not be for another, and as such, decentraliza-
tion-centralization should be viewed as a continuum rather
than a "yes-no" category (9:14).
Jay commented on the right way to run a corporation
as follows:
To centralize or not to centralize? The discussion
is never resolved, but the balance of emphasis is
constantly shifting on the fulcrum of truth. At
present, decentralization is the fashionable idea; no
doubt it will be superseded by centralization in a few
years' time, when the evils of misguided or excessive
decentralization begin to make themselves felt. But
the illusion that one or the other is the right way to
run a corporation is likely to persist. (56:60)
Barnard was reluctant to support extensive and
unlimited delegation and decentralization. He offered that
men generally try to avoid making decisions. The capacity
of most men to make decisions is quite narrow. He con
cluded that:
46
The executive is under the obligation of making
decisions usually within approximately defined limits
related to the position he has accepted; and is under
the necessity of keeping within the limits of his
capacity if he is continuously to discharge this
obligation. He must, therefore, to be successful,
distinguish between the occasions of decision in order
to avoid the acceptance of more than he can undertake
without neglecting the fields to which his position
relates. For the natural reluctance of other men to
decide, their persistent disposition to avoid respon
sibility, and their fear of criticism, will lead them
to overwhelm the executive who does not protect himself
from excessive burdens of decision if he is not already
protected by a well regulated and habitual distribution
of responsibilities. (6:190)
Through delegation, a subordinate is granted
authority to make certain types of decisions and, in turn,
assumes responsibility for the proper exercise of this
authority. Although a superior delegates authority, he
cannot delegate his own responsibility. Delegation differs
from abdication in that the former involves a continuing
sense of responsibility and some control over delegated
activity.
Decentralization occurs when delegation is used
systematically and extensively throughout the organization.
Decentralization facilitates program and curricular
innovating and improves some decisions by permitting them
to be made closer to the problem level.
Human Relations and Human
Resources
The manager’s philosophy about the importance of
the satisfaction of organizational needs as compared to
personal need satisfaction has a direct bearing on
47
managerial style. Emphasize people or product? Relations
or resources? The well-being of the members of the organi
zation or higher profits?
Changes in management thinking and practice have
occurred in the area of human relationships in the past
sixty years. The work of Elton Mayo, an Australian who
came to Harvard University in 1926, was unusually signifi
cant because he directed his efforts toward the development
of a simplified viewpoint of employees and their motiva
tion. Mayo's better-known research was conducted at the
Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company wherein the
main purpose of the research was to discover methods for
improving the productivity of employees. He was primarily
concerned with the physical environmental aspects of the
job, such as the effects of lighting and fatigue upon out
put. Mayo found, directly, that physical environment was
limited in its effect on production, and, indirectly, that
the human factors, including attitude, had a much greater
influence on productivity (83:27).
The practical impact of the work of Mayo was to
reveal to management the significance of human relations
in organizational behavior. Even though detractors have
criticized certain extremes of the human relations move
ment, it has been impossible since Mayo's day for serious
thinkers to shrug off concepts developed during that
period. Employees were discovered to be much more complex
48
in their makeup and motivation than had been generally
realized. The human aspects and relationships were found
to be of critical importance in the day-to-day functioning
of organizations.
The dilemma of human resources versus human
relations and the problem of individual freedom in an
organizational context are issues basic to the organization
and its leadership. To the extent that human resources
must be enlisted toward the success of the venture, human
resources practice must be extended further downward into
the organization. To the degree that mechanistic practices
\
will do the job, human relations can be tolerated for the
time being at least. Many organizations have split per
sonalities in this respect; part of the employee group is
included in the decision and policy making councils; the
remainder is not. Some decisions at some levels relating
to some employees are autocratic; others are participative.
These organizations have adopted a pragmatically mixed
method of coordinating and controlling employee activity.
But the decision has not been a conscious one, and there
is seldom awareness of the wide range of leadership styles
needed. As managers move laterally or upward from one
function to another, the nature of the leadership problem
changes, and styles must change accordingly. As the
changing needs and goals of the business produce greater
or lesser market tolerance for existing management styles,
49
they must be adapted. At the root of the question, "Which
style?" is the issue of human relations versus human
resources: Can employees or customers be pacified through
smart human relations or modern Machiavellianism, or must
a closer concordance be negotiated between organizational
and individual goals, thereby letting employees or
customers in on basic decisions (7:62)?
The behavioral sciences have contributed the
following thoughts on the matter of human resources and
human relations.
McGregor's key concept was that every executive
relates to his subordinates on the basis of a set of
assumptions. Theory X includes the traditional postulates
regarding the typical worker in America--that he is by
nature indolent and averse to work, lacks ambition and
avoids responsibility, is passive and prefers to be led, is
gullible and easily duped by charlatans, must be molded to
fit the needs of the organization, and must be persuaded
and pushed, punished and rewarded, tightly supervised and
controlled if he is to perform as expected since he is
indifferent to organizational needs and incapable of self-
discipline. Theory Y operates on quite different assump
tions: Work is as natural as play; it can be satisfying
or punishing depending on circumstances. People not only
are capable of assuming responsibility but in the right
conditions seek it. They are also able to exercise self
50
direction. Motivation does not involve what the manager
does to his people; the motivating forces already exist in
the workforce. Ingenuity and creativity do not exist
solely at the managerial level.
McGregor readily agreed that indifferent workers
abound. His contention was that they became that way
because of how they had been treated. He also admitted
that few if any managers held totally to either theory; he
set up the dichotomy for purposes of clarity. He rejected
the concepts of "hard" and "soft" management. Rather, the
task of the Theory Y manager was to build such a climate
and so organize working relationships that employees could
best attain their goals by directing their efforts toward
corporate aims. Common objectives, frankly admitted
interdependence, and collaboration are the key instruments.
Where Theory X counsels management by imposition, Theory Y
proposes management by involvement, contribution, and
commitment (74:51,52).
Emphasizing need satisfaction, Maslow (82)
theorized that human needs stand in a hierarchy of impor
tance, the lowest being the most pressing:
Physiological needs are geared to survival.
Safety and security needs are concerned with
economic, physical, and mental well-being.
Social, or affiliation, needs appeal to man's
social nature in that all normal people want to be liked,
51
to be accepted, to belong.
Ego needs have to do with such desiderata as
knowledge, independence, achievement, and self-confidence
along with status, recognition, appreciation, and the
respect of others.
Self-actualization needs refer to an inner urge to
actualize one’s potential--"What a man can be, he must be."
Certain guidelines for managerial behavior stem
from this theory. Needs are driving forces. Opportunities
for subordinates to satisfy their needs are the most
effective motivational devices. On the other hand, a
satisfied need is not a motivater; if a person is content
with his salary, adding to it is not likely to have any
lasting effect. However, appealing to higher-level needs
when those at a lower level are unsatisfied is useless;
this is the reason so many calls to company loyalty have
had a less than atomic impact. As the needs at one level
are reasonably well met, people strive to satisfy higher
ones. The needs are not discrete but overlapping and
interactive. Man is multimotivated, and his yearning for
need satisfaction is insatiable. The lower-level needs
are more demanding, but those farther up the hierarchy are
more enduring and effective as motivaters (82:21,22).
The thesis Argyris proposed was loud and clear—
traditional organizational principles, structures, and
procedures are incompatible with the mental health of
52
employees. Such classical ideas as task specialization,
chain of command, unity of direction, and tight budgets
and controls, at least as they have been implemented in
the past, are calculated to make subordinates passive and
submissive, allowing them little direction of their work
world. As a result, employees become apathetic, engage in
self-protective defense mechanisms, or fight the system.
Since organizations are willing to pay high wages to get
adults to act in a less than mature manner, it is not
difficult to see why some students of organizations suggest
that immature and even mentally retarded individuals would
probably make excellent employees (5:46,47).
Some managers and management experts adopted the
human relations approach with such enthusiasm that they
tended to go overboard in the opposite direction. The
naive formula "Be nice to people" was often adopted without
concern for its limitations. In concentrating upon human
relations, some managers tended to ignore other important
factors in the situation. Emphasizing human relations,
they forgot that employees also worked for money. Some
rather unscrupulous individuals viewed human relations as
a clever way to manipulate personnel. The phrase human
engineering, when used in this context, is descriptive of
this general approach.
As a result of these weaknesses or excesses in the
human relations movement, numerous well-founded criticisms
53
and reservations have been voiced. As a result, many
management viewpoints have of necessity made some adjust
ments in response to these criticisms. At the same time,
general management philosophy has not reverted to the pre-
Mayo point of view. Management practitioners and philoso
phers alike have been reluctant to "throw out the baby
with the bath water." (72:18)
Contemporary management thought, as a result, has
become considerably more sophisticated in this area.
Behavioral sciences are receiving more attention as
managers and scholars seek explanations of the way organi
zations really work. There is a general recognition that
economic factors, while extremely important, are not the
only aspect that is important in organizational adminis
tration. Management has turned to sociology, psychology,
cultural anthropology, and other social sciences to sup
plement the technical knowledge concerning organizational
management.
Management Theories
A brief word needs to be said about management and
leadership theories because of their influence on manage
rial styles. Following are summaries of the traitist,
situationist, group dynamics, and functionalist theories
of management and leadership.
A. The Traitist Theory. The traitist theory of
54
leadership stresses the importance of having a gifted,
mature individual as a leader of the group or organization,
directing attention to the discovery and development of
personality traits, human characteristics and technical
skills or qualifications which are deemed useful, if not
indispensable to successful leadership in a specific
situation or organization. The assumption is that there
are certain common leadership traits such as intelligence,
energy, courage, sincerity, vision, sympathy, tact, etc.,
which contribute to one’s success as a leader.
The traitist theory of leadership is often said to
be congruent with the "great man theory of leadership" and
the "great man theory of history." Some of the "traitists"
favor the autocratic or authoritarian style of leadership,
while others have advocated and practiced democratic pro
cedures .
B. The Situationist Theory. The situationist
theory maintains that leadership is "situationally deter
mined," and it directs attention to the study of actual or
simulated situations in which people perform, and in which
actual or potential leaders can be identified, developed
and evaluated in a realistic social situation and communi
cations system. The situation in which people function is
stressed, and the group is considered as an important
factor in contributing to successful leadership. However,
just because it is always necessary for both the leader and
55
the group to understand the situation in which they
function, is no reason for saying that the situation alone
determines leadership, and that a competent leader has
little or no control over the situation.
C. The Group Dynamics Theory. Briefly put, this
theory holds that the group rather than the leader should
actually lead, or that leadership should rotate among
members selected by the group. The group dynamics or
groupocratic theory of leadership failed to fulfill the
early expectations of its protagonists because: it tended
to down-grade the leader, or supervisor, in order to
upgrade the group; and because it overemphasized the group,
the group process, and the leadership of group discussion,
which were looked upon as panaceas for almost everything.
The group dynamics theory has been called the upside down
management within which the subordinate tells the supe
rior what to do.
D. The Functionalist Theory. This theory holds
that leadership is a phase of organization and a function
of management. The functionalist or revisionist theory of
leadership attempts to reconcile and integrate what is
sound and practical in the traitist, situationist, group
dynamics, and other theories of leadership. The "revision
ists" maintain that both the theory and the practice of
leadership must take into account such factors as (1) the
need for gifted, strong, mature, individuals or leaders
56
with the necessary or desirable traits, qualifications,
abilities, talents, and technical skills required to
perform a specific job; (2) a carefully-selected well-
trained, cooperative, competent group whose needs and
satisfactions should be met if they are to perform or
produce effectively; and (3) an understanding by the leader
or leaders, and by the group or followers, of the actual
situation or conditions in which the organization operates.
The "functionalists" stress the importance of flexible
leadership which can meet the needs of leaders, individuals
and groups, and the situations they face. The proper per
formance of leadership, supervisory and management func
tions is stressed (35:6-8).
Managerial Style Classifications
Management styles have been studied, disected,
digested, synthesized, analyzed, and utilized since the
time people gathered together to pursue common endeavors.
The art or manner of performing administrative activities
and the degree of staff participation in executing adminis
trative responsibilities describe management style.
Management theorists have presented various types of
managerial style and it is the purpose of this section of
the review of literature to explore these types.
There are a limited number of ways in which one
person can influence others to work together toward a
57
common goal. He can coerce them or he can coax them. He
can tell people what to do and how to do it or he can
share the decision-making and concentrate on his .relation
ship with his men rather than on the execution of the job.
Of course, these two types of leadership behavior are
gross oversimplifications. Most research by psychologists
on leadership has focused on two clusters of behavior and
attitudes, one labeled autocratic, authoritarian and task-
oriented , and the other as democratic, equalitarian,
permissive and group-oriented (38 :38) .
The first type of leadership behavior, frequently
advocated in conventional supervisory and military systems,
has its philosophical roots in the theory of "Scientific
Management" and early twentieth century industrial engi
neering studies. The authoritarian, task-oriented leader
takes all responsibility for making decisions and directing
the group members. His rationale is simple: "I do the
thinking and you can carry out the orders." (38:39)
The second type of leadership is typical of the
"New Look" method of management advocated by contemporary
management theorists. The democratic, group-oriented
leader provides general rather than close supervision and
his concern is the effective use of human resources through
participation.
In The Professional Manager, McGregor concluded:
58
For many purposes, a grouping of managerial styles
into categories broader than those which arise rather
spontaneously from everyday experience [like the labels
listed above] is useful. Roughly similar cosmologies
resulting from widely held beliefs in our society about
the nature of man; common economic, political, and
social values; and broad similarities in the nature of
industrial organizations make it possible to group a
fairly sizable majority of managerial styles in the
United States today into three categories: hard, soft,
and firm but fair. These labels are in general use
among managers today. Common to all three is a
relatively heavy reliance on extrinsic rewards and
punishments as the means for influencing organized
human effort in industry. The first emphasizes
extrinsic threat of punishment, the second emphasizes
extrinsic rewards, and the third (by far the most
common today) recognizes the necessity for balancing
rewards and punishments. (76:60)
Follett referred to three means for dealing with
conflict in an organization: through domination, compro
mise, or integration (40:9). These categories are similar
to the managerial style labels suggested by McGregor:
hard, soft, and firm but fair.
Perhaps the most widely-discussed categorical
framework for managerial styles is that of Blake and
Mouton. They have called it the "managerial grid." (14:12)
Fundamentally, it rests on the proposition that there are
two major variables affecting managerial style: "concern
for production" and "concern for people." By representing
these as coordinates on a graph and by giving each a range
in intensity from 1 to 9, it is possible to chart a wide
array of managerial styles. The five predominant ones are
listed below:
1. 1,1 - Exertion of minimum effort to get
59
required work done is appropriate to sustain organization
membership.
2. 1,9 - Thoughtful attention to needs of people
for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable,
friendly organization atmosphere and work tempo.
3. 5,5 - Adequate organization performance is
possible through balancing the necessity to get out work
with maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.
4. 9,1 - Efficiency in operations results from
arranging conditions of work in such a way that human
elements interfere to a minimum degree.
5. 9,9 - Work accomplishment is from committed
people; interdependence through a "common stake" in organi
zation purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect.
Blake and Mouton labeled their five predominant
styles as follows:
1,1 Impoverished Management - Effective production
is unobtainable because people are lazy, apathetic and
indifferent. Sound and mature relationships are difficult
to achieve, because human nature being what it is, conflict
is inevitable.
1,9 Country Club Management - Production is
incidental to lack of conflict and "Good Fellowship."
5,5 Middle of the Road Management - Push for
production but don't go "All Out," give some but not all.
"Be fair but firm."
60
9,1 Task Management - Men are a commodity just as
machines. A manager's responsibility is to plan, direct
and control the work of those subordinate to him.
9,9 Team Management - Production is from integra
tion of task and human requirements into a unified system
of interplay towards organizational goals (14:17).
Hemphill classified the styles of elementary
school principals from the point of view of communications
or iteration, using a descending scale from the most
effective two-way communication to work direction communi
cation from the administrator. His classifications were
as follows: (1) High Communication Style, (2) High Dis
cussion Style, (3) High Compliance Style, (4) High Analysis
Style, (5) High Relationship Style, (6) High Work Organiza
tion Style, (7) High Outside Orientation Style, and (8)
High Work Direction Style. Within these classifications
Hemphill included most of the possible combinations of
types of communication styles. His classifications were
based on the way principals work with teachers (51:197,
198) .
The leadership categories cited above are only
some of the various schemes of classification that may be
used. Tannenbaum presented a provocative analysis of
leadership which suggested a broad range of possible
managerial styles (112:96,97). Rather than forcing all
leadership into two or three sharply defined classes, he
61
suggested that the variety in leadership patterns may be
viewed as a continuum. Leadership behavior may involve
any of various combinations of authority of the manager and
freedom for subordinates. Moving from "boss-centered"
leadership, which includes the highest degree of managerial
authority and the lowest degree of subordinate freedom, to
"subordinate-centered" leadership, which includes the
highest degree of subordinate freedom and the lowest degree
of managerial authority, the managers’ activities were
described as follows:
Boss-centered to subordinate-centered (a-g):
(a) Manager makes decision and announces it.
(b) Manager "sells" decision.
(c) Manager presents ideas and invites questions.
(d) Manager presents tentative decision subject
to change.
(e) Manager presents problem, gets suggestions,
makes decisions.
(f) Manager defines limits; asks group to make
decision.
(g) Manager permits subordinates to function
within limits defined by superior.
Management style is at best a tangle. The manner
in which a manager combines diverse and often conflicting
elements of style, however, may well determine his success.
He must not only develop artfullness in specific areas such
62
as personal temperament, establishing performance criteria,
delegating and decentralizing, and accommodating employee
needs, but he must also integrate these elements into a
cohesive whole.
Taking delegation of authority as one of the
elements of style, Bassett listed three types of management
styles: authoritarian, permissive, and integrative. Their
descriptions follow:
Authoritarian - attends to a wide range and variety
of details personally. Makes most decisions and exercises
most controls.
Permissive - turns full responsibility for all
details and controls over to others and requires only
proof of results.
Integrative - uses selected key controls but leaves
most details and decisions in the hands of others (7:98).
Baumgartel's study, which tested the applicability
of participative, laissez-faire, and directive management
styles, has particular value to high school principals.
The character of the management activities were described
as follows:
1. Laissez-faire style:
Director’s decisions have little influence.
Many subordinates feel they are on their own.
Few report joint discussions and decision.
Infrequent contact with the director is reported.
63
Subordinates have little influence on director.
Very few report that director decides things.
2. Participatory style:
Director’s decisions have moderate influence.
Few subordinates feel they are on their own.
Many report joint discussion and decision.
Most frequent contact with director is reported.
Subordinates have much influence on director.
Few report that the director decides things.
3. Directive style:
Director's decisions have much influence.
Few subordinates feel they are on their own.
Some joint discussion and decision occurs.
Frequent contact with the director is reported.
Subordinates have little influence on the director.
Many report that the director decides things
(8:345,34-6) .
As has been shown above, administrative style may
be classified in many ways. One common distinction centers
on the element of authority in the relationship between
superior and subordinate. According to this classification
managers may be autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire
(44:34). Some writers equate autocratic to leader-
centered, democratic to group-centered, and laissez-faire
to individual-centered management styles (116:38).
Autocratic leadership emphasizes commanding and
.
64
order giving. Such a leader makes most important
decisions, entrusting relatively little authority to sub
ordinates . In terms of status, he stands out clearly as
the boss, and there is little difficulty in identifying
him as such. Subordinates may "quake in their boots" in
response to his summons. His supervision utilizes negative
sanctions and develops a sense of fear in subordinates
(72:465).
In contrast to an autocratic leader, the democratic
leader shows greater deference for his subordinates.
Rather than constantly telling them, he is frequently
asking them. Their ideas and suggestions are valued, and
consultation with them may be used to secure their contri
butions. Some democratic leaders treat administrative
problems as problems of the group and view a solution by
the group as the desirable way to solve these problems.
Such a.n approach is often characterized by the use of
meetings and committees.
In democratic leadership, the leader plays an
active role in stimulating group thinking and developing a
solution or reaching a decision. The laissez-faire leader,
on the other hand, goes a step farther and turns an entire
project or problem over to subordinates. Subordinates may
be asked to set their own objectives and to develop plans
for achieving them. In one sense, this approach is
characterized by the absence of any active leadership by
65
the formally designated leader. The formal leader may come
close to complete abdication of his leadership responsi
bilities .
Cribbin believed that a leadership style evolves
from the personal needs an executive seeks to satisfy as he
carries out his management functions (2 4-: 111). Behavior
patterns are the characteristics that habitually define his
daily actions. No manager adheres tenaciously to only one
behavior pattern, but as an identifiable theme a given
management style will express itself in a specific pattern
of behavior. The discussion that follows summarizes the
eight major management styles that Cribbin believed were
open to the executive together with the customary behaviors
that were likely to accompany each style.
The domineering style. The poor domineering
stereotype has been so booed and tabooed in the literature
that there is little need to add lashes to his back. He
abuses his authority and power. He considers his people
simple minions whose duty it is to be subservient.
Although few if any executives act consistently in this
mode, there are some who at times forget that firmness is
not to be equated with arrogance.
The pseudo-democratic style. At the opposite
extreme is the pseudo-democratic executive. Phony
familiarity, togetherness, and belonging are his hallmarks.
He sees his role as that of a mothering hen intent on
66
building a unit in which everybody is happy. The work
force, in turn, becomes a therapy group that wastes much
time analyzing feelings that are not occupationally rele
vant. Thus, though communication is free flowing, it lacks
authenticity. Critical thinking and new ideas are rejected
for the sake of harmony.
The accommodative style. Lacking in purposeful
ness, decisiveness, and ego strength, the accommodative
manager is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Anxious to please his superiors and yet fearful that his
subordinates will dislike him, he bends before the greatest
current pressure. He puts the screws on the troups when
superiors put the heat on him, and when subordinates become
restive or resentful, he eases off even if this involves
sacrificing the organization's rightful requirements.
Thus, he sways back and forth like a reed, earning contempt
on all sides.
The paternalistic style. The silken threads of
emotional dependence bind more tightly than bands of steel.
This the paternalistic executive has learned well. He does
much for and to his people while cutting them off from
doing much for themselves. Interaction with subordinates
is sometimes friendly and other times condescending and
patronizing.
The bureaucratic style. The larger an organization
grows, the more formal its procedures become, the more
67
impersonal its interactions and the more standardized its
routines. Policies, rules, and regulations turn into a way
of life. The zest and adventure that are associated with
young enterprises yield to a more sedate pace and a
stricter regard for protocol.
The directive style. Because the directive type of
executive does not easily fit into a single research
category, there has been a tendency either to overlook him
or to lump him with the domineering manager. However, many
singularly successful superiors fall into this classifica
tion. They win respect rather than affection. They can at
times be demanding, bothersome, and even angering. They
are tough on foot shuffles, though they often reward
excellence rightly. They arouse ambivalent feelings on the
part of subordinates. Their forcefulness and dominance,
even when they are wrong, can be irritating; yet their
obvious talents earn them grudging admiration. The direc
tive manager tends to overpower his people. His leadership
is task-oriented and has a no-nonsense air about it.
The collaborative style. The collaborative manager
finds all the verbiage about "hard" and "soft" management
rather wearisome. Although he is committed to the practice
of consultation, participation, and delegation, he is not
hung up on human relations. He does not hesitate to be
forceful when circumstances require, but he does not resort
to directiveness as a matter of course. He prizes self-
68
discipline over imposed discipline and constructive
suggestions over submissive conformity. Viewing authority
as based on competence rather than position, this leader
interacts with his followers in a process of mutual
influence. As a team builder, he realizes that his objec
tive is to help employees satisfy some of their needs while
achieving the goals of the group and the firm. Communica
tion is free flowing, constructive, and directed to the
purposes for which the group exists. Finally, if possible,
conflict is resolved by the synthesis of diverse views.
Subordinates learn to build on the contribution of others
rather than shoot them down; when this is impossible, they
disagree agreeably rather than split the group into
antagonistic factions.
The collegial style. Collegiality connotes a
collective sense of responsibility for a firm's success on
the part of its prime movers. A common concern unites
executives who have different areas of expertise. Each
person is presumed to possess special knowledge without
which the organization cannot function well, and thus to be
superior in some ways and inferior in others to fellow
members of the group. Accordingly, even though the leader
has the right to the last word, he is virtually as depen
dent upon his people as they are upon him. Strong-minded
men who are proud of their expertise and firm in their
viewpoints are likely to communicate frankly and openly;
69
confrontations can be tolerated and are productive;
rigorous critiques of ideas are the rule rather than the
exception. A shared sense of commitment to the team's
success creates the centrifugal force in the group (24:
112-119).
The last managerial style classification system
reviewed is that of Likert. His four types of managerial
style systems consist of rating scales designed to provide
descriptive ratings on 43 dimensions of organizational
functioning grouped into seven topical areas. The scales
are defined in terms referring to an organization's
adherance to one of four types of managerial style systems.
The four types actually provide a continuum from system 1
to system 4: System 1 (exploitative-authoritative), System
2 (benevolent-authoratative), System 3 (consultative) and
System 4 (participative group). These types of managerial
style systems are further described as follows:
System 1 (Exploitative-Authoritative). This
management system conceives of the manager's job as con
sisting of decision, direction, and surveillance, relies
primarily upon coercion as a motivating force, and makes
little or no provision for the effects of human emotion and
interdependence. As a result, communication in this system
is sluggish, largely downward in direction, and frequently
distorted. Goals are established and decisions made by top
management only, based upon fragmentary, often inaccurate
70
and inadequate information. This produces disparity
between the desires and interests of the members and the
goals of the organization. For these reasons, only high
levels of the organization feel any real responsibility for
the attainment of established objectives. Their reliance
upon coercion as a motivating force leads to an almost
total absence of cooperative teamwork and mutual influence
and to a quite low true ability of superiors to exercise
control in the work situation. Dissatisfaction is preva
lent, with subservient attitudes toward superiors,
hostility toward peers, and contempt for subordinates.
Performance is usually mediocre, with high costs, excessive
absence, and substantial manpower turnover. Quality is
maintained only by extensive surveillance and a great deal
of rework.
System 2 (Benevolent-Authoritative). This manage
ment system adds a fourth managerial duty to decision,
direction, and surveillance: removing annoying affect of
subordinate members. This fact permits some small amount
of upward and lateral communication, although most is
downward, and sizable distortion usually exists. Policies
are established and basic decisions made by upper manage
ment, sometimes with opportunity for comment from sub
ordinate supervisory levels. Some minor implementation
decisions may be made at lower levels, but only within the
carefully prescribed limits set by the top echelon.
71
Managerial personnel, therefore, usually feel responsi
bility for attaining the assigned objectives, whereas rank-
and-file members usually feel little or none. Very little
cooperative teamwork exists, and superiors at lower
echelons are able to exercise only moderate true control in
the work situation. Attitudes toward superiors are sub
servient, and hostility is prevalent toward peers, but the
absence of open contempt toward subordinates makes dissat
isfaction less intense. Performance may be fair to good,
although high costs, absence, and manpower turnover
frequently occur.
System 3 (Consultative). This management system
reserves to the manager the tasks of decision, and direc
tion, but removes surveillance as a major function. Little
recourse to coercion occurs. In their places recognition
of the frequently disruptive effects of human emotion is
expanded to include employee involvement through consulta
tion. This practice encourages a moderate amount of valid
upward communication, although lateral communication is
limited by the prevalence of man-to-man, rather than group,
decision-making. Communication is, therefore, usually
accurate and only occasionally distorted. In line with
this, broad policy decisions are made at the top, but
specific objectives to implement these policies are
entrusted to lower managers for consultative decision
making. For all these reasons, a substantial proportion of
72
the members of the organization feel responsible for
attaining established objectives, and the system makes use
of most positive motivational forces, except those which
would otherwise arise from group processes. Some dissatis
faction may exist, but normally satisfaction is moderately
high, with only some degree of hostility expressed toward
peers, some condescension toward subordinates. Performance
is ordinarily good; costs, absence, and turnover moderate;
and quality problems no cause for major concern.
System ^ (Participative Group). This management
system assumes that employees are essential parts of an
organizational structure which has been built at great cost
and necessarily maintained with the same attention and care
given more tangible assets. It conceives of decision as
a process, rather than a prerogative, with the manager's
responsibility consisting, not of himself deciding, but of
making sure that the best possible decisions result. In
this light, he focuses his efforts upon building an over
lapping structure of cohesive, highly motivated, participa
tive groups, coordinated by multiple memberships. Within
this highly coordinated and motivated system, characterized
by high mutual confidence and trust, communication is
adequate, rapid and accurate. Because goals are estab
lished and decisions made with the participation of all
those affected, objectives are comparatively closely
aligned with the needs and interests of all members, and all
73
motivational forces push in the direction of obtaining the
established objectives. The closely knit system in addi
tion permits superiors and subordinates alike to exercise
great control over the work situation. Employees at all
levels are highly satisfied, but without complacency, and
feel great reciprocal respect and trust. Performance is
very good; cost, absence and turnover are low; and high
quality is the natural concern of all (81:215-218).
The section of the review of the literature on the
classification of management styles began with discussion
about and descriptions of the parameters of classification
which included a definition of managerial style, the place
of authority, the utilization of delegation and decentrali
zation, and the concept of human resources versus human
relations. The section concluded with a comprehensive
description of various managerial style classifications.
The Relationship of Managerial Style to School
Climate, Faculty Morale, and Administrative
Effectiveness
The literature indicates that open organizational
climates tend to include employees with high morale who do
the most effective job of accomplishing the goals and
objectives of the organization. Campbell described two
types of organizations:
In some school situations, almost complete reliance
m
is placed upon the flow of authority. While the formal
structure permits and accepts this state of affairs, com
plete reliance on such an arrangement may produce a number
of dysfunctions. In other school systems the authority
dimension is mediated by recognition of the competence of
staff members. While authority flows down, influence flows
both ways. Communication is down, up, and across. These
organizations have an open climate. Such a climate may
contribute to greater productivity in the organization and
to greater satisfaction on the part of organization members
(19 :5 2 6 ) .
Guba and Bidwell related their findings concerning
the administrator and his anomalous and central position
within an organization and pointed out:
The administrator is constantly charged with
maintaining a balance between the enforcement of organiza
tional expectations and the provisions for the fulfillment
of individual needs. The findings of the study point up
this administrative dilemma. . . . attitudes and effective
ness would seem to depend largely on the extent to which
teacher behavior may, from the teacher's point of view,
take place within the limits set by organizational demands.
To the extent that need demands push behavior outside these
limits, the teacher develops attitudes that are undesirable
for the organization, and he is seen by the administrator
and by himself as less than maximally effective. . . . wher
75
behavior falls within organizational limits, confidence in
leadership, effectiveness in the job, and satisfaction tend
to rise (46:76).
Chmiel conducted an investigation into the exis
tence of an observable relationship between the factors of
morale, human happiness, and productive efficiency in work
situations. The study considered the sociological aspect,
the biological evolution, and the psychological influence
on morale; the conclusion was that teacher morale is
influenced by reward, feeling of importance, security,
friendly relations with peers and superordinates, and per
sonal efficiency in reaching personal and group goals
(22:127).
In their sociological study of staff leadership,
Gross and Herriott asked basic questions concerning the
relationships between the principal's managerial style and
teacher morale, teacher professional performance and pupil
academic performance. They concluded that the managerial
style of the principal had a statistically significant
relationship to the morale of the faculty and in turn upon
the effectiveness of their performance. The teacher's
performance also was significantly related to positive
pupil performance (45:33).
Some research does not show the straight line
relationship of climate, morale, and effectiveness.
Hemphill found that:
76
Principals who received high scores on Considera
tion were judged by superiors to get along well with
teacher and parents. They tend slightly to refrain from
showing concern about evaluation and they tend to be young
and inexperienced. . . . they are friendly and enthusias
tic, not shy and insecure. There is a tendency for prin
cipals who receive high scores on Initiating Structure to
be judged by their supervisors as knowing administration.
They tend to resemble presidents of manufacturing concerns
in interests and to receive high scores on Character
Strength on the personality inventory (53:225).
Teachers apparently liked a principal who was high
on the Consideration dimension, but the principal who
emphasizes the Initiating Structure was rated as more
effective. Consequently, there was some conflict between
climate/morale and administrative effectiveness.
The above references have been listed to show that
there is a relationship between school climate, faculty
morale, and administrative effectiveness. The affect of
varying managerial styles on climate, morale, and adminis
trative effectiveness will now be examined.
Organizational Climate
For the purpose of this study, climate has been
defined as the condition of the school environment for
learning. It is an aggregate of social, psychological and
77
cultural conditions which influence the certificated
employees' quality of life in the school. Put another way,
organizational climate might be defined as the global
assessment of the interaction between the task-achievement
dimension and the needs-satisfaction dimension within the
organization.
Most managerial theorists agree that there is
little doubt that climate, environment, or feeling-tone is
now established as a relevant condition in the study of
organizations. Halpin stated that:
The impetus for their research came from the
common, though obvious observation that schools varied
considerably in their "Organizational Climates." As any
teacher or school executive moves from one school to
another he inexorably is struck by the differences he
encounters in "Organizational Climates." He voices his
reaction with such remarks as, "You don't have to be in a
school very long before you feel the atmosphere of the
place." (1+7:61)
When considering the social and psychological
environment of people at work one should think first of the
relationship between superior and subordinate. The total
environment should be explored rather than try to improve
only the physical conditions or to increase employee satis
faction by changing isolated work processes. Satisfactory
working conditions, adequate compensation, and the neces-
78
sary equipment for the job are viewed as only a small part
of the requirements for a motivational climate. Of greater
importance are the creation of atmosphere of effective
supervision, the opportunity for the realization of per
sonal goals, congenial relations with others at the place
of work, and a sense of accomplishment (97:6).
Managers function as parts of complex organiza
tional systems. The interdependence of the manager and the
system is not always clearly understood, however. It is
often assumed that a supervisor may change his style of
management without regard for other parts of the organiza
tion, but in reality the manager constitutes a part of the
decision-making subsystem of the organizational system. As
such, he is related in his decision making and other
managerial activities to other levels of management, and
he functions in relationship to them.
This viewpoint suggests that a supervisor's
administrative style is affected by the treatment that he
in turn receives from his own boss. The fact of such con
straints upon administrative style has been established by
a number of research studies. One investigation, reported
by Fleishman, evaluated a management training course for
foremen in the International Harvester Company (39:205).
Leadership attitudes of foremen were found to vary with the
type of manager under whom the foreman served. Foremen who
worked under considerate or democratic supervisors tended
79
to express more considerate attitudes toward their own
subordinates. The training course improved leadership
attitudes during the training session but failed to produce
permanent changes in either the attitudes or behavior of
the foremen when they returned to their regular jobs.
Apparently the training was inadequate to counteract the
influences coming from high-organizational levels.
An implication of these results seems to be that if
the old way of doing things in the plant situation is
still the shortest path to approval by the boss, then
this is what the foreman really learns. Existing
behavior patterns are part of, and are molded by, the
culture of the work situation. (39:211)
The above study indicates that the organizational
climate is an important variable affecting administrative
style and behavior of any particular supervisor.
In a search for viable parameters to describe the
personality of the educational organization, Halpin and
Croft devised, tested and administered the Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire to teachers and princi
pals in 71 schools in six different regions of the United
States. Factor analyses of the data yielded six profiles
of organizational climates of schools, ranging on a con
tinuum from open through autonomous, controlled, familiar,
paternal, and closed. Three additional parameters were
found to be useful in describing organizational climates:
(1) authenticity, the openness of the behavior of organi
zational members, (2) satisfaction, the extent to which
80
conjoint needs of task accomplishment and social inter
action are met, and, (3) leadership initiation, the lati
tude within which managerial acts may be initiated by
managers and group members. This study indicated that
managerial style influences and predicts the organizational
climate of the school (47:12 8-130).
Reynoldson investigated the interrelationships of
educational decision making with the organizational climate
and innovativeness in public schools. The findings indi
cate that the educational decision-making structure, or
managerial style, does not measurably influence decisions
of professional staff members to adopt innovative prac
tices. However, more innovation was indicated in schools
with greater openness of organizational climate. It is
concluded that factors such as personality characteristics
of the administrator, his willingness to adopt innovative
ideas, his managerial style, and the extent of the communi
cation network influence the condition of the organiza
tional climate (94:65).
Blumberg undertook a study concerned with the
relationships of perceived supervisory managerial style to
the organizational climates that are seen to exist in
schools. The four managerial styles described in the study
were: (1) high-direct, high-indirect, (2) high-direct,
low-indirect, (3) low-direct, high-indirect, and, (4) low-
direct, low-indirect. The results of the data analysis
81
provided the following:
1. Generally positive evaluations by teachers of
the quality of their organizational climate appear to
develop: (a) when a teacher perceives his supervisor's
behavior as consisting of a heavy emphasis on both telling,
suggesting, and criticizing, and on reflecting, asking for
information and opinions, etc., (high-direct, high-
indirect), or, (b) when a teacher perceives his supervisor
as putting little emphasis on the telling dimension and
much on the asking-reflecting dimension (low-direct, high-
indirect) .
2. Generally less positive or even negative
evaluations by teachers of the quality of their organiza
tional climate appear to develop: (a) when a teacher per
ceives his supervisor as predominantly emphasizing the
telling dimension and not doing much in the way of asking
or reflecting, (high-direct, low-indirect), or, (b) when a
teacher sees his supervisor's behavioral stance as rela
tively passive (low-direct, low-indirect) (15:44).
High school principals need to be continually
aware of and sensitive to climatic conditions that in
fluence the conformity, non-conformity aspect of their
schools. Stanton concluded the following about managerial
style and the climate for conformity:
Management should be alert to spot three basic
conditions that stimulate excessive conformity: 1) a
noticeably homogeneous management team, all of whose
82
members seem to have comparable social and economic
backgrounds as well as a great similarity in percep
tions, opinions, and viewpoints; 2) an excessive and
unwarranted fear of serious economic consequences for
the corporation if there are any errors in management
judgment and action; and 3) a restrictive corporate
climate and a trend toward more authoritarian manage
ment. (104:51)
The organizational climate within which we work has
a great deal to do with how we behave. The structure of
administrative action, which is sometimes called adminis
trative style, differentiates the organizational climate of
the organization. In this matter, Leavitt concluded:
Organizational structure should mean more than the
organization chart. The organization chart depicts
authority structure, communication structure, and role
structure, as though they were entirely consonant with
one another, and as though authority were the senior
and by far the most important of the three. But in
general, organizational growth, professionalization,
and new knowledge have tended to reduce the signifi
cance of authority in our thinking about structure; and
to increase the weight of other variables like communi
cation and role structure. . . . If we could learn more
about what effects we could get from particular manipu
lations, we might be able to answer a key question in
applied organizational theory: 'What organizational
designs are appropriate for what task?1 (65:385)
The participation of teachers in the decision
making process has had considerable impact on the organi
zational climate within schools. Inabnit discussed the
characteristics of teacher participation in decision making
functions as it relates to the educational climate of the
school:
It is not so much what the teacher does in sharing
participation in decision making with the administra
tion, as it is his perception of the environment for
decision making.
83
1. Teacher activity in participation is greatest
in school systems in which the teacher perceives the
administrative structure as integrative, that is in
systems which the teacher believes that: a) the
administration seeks full and active cooperation of the
staff in determining policy or planning on matters of
general concern for the system, b) the administration
keeps concerned staff members informed of develop
ment (s) concerning policy, c) the administration
involves staff members in the stages of participation
leading to decision making relative to school problems
of general concern, and d) the administration encour
ages teacher responsibility in participation in
decision making relative to problems of general
concern.
2. Teachers . . . were more satisfied if partici
pating in systems where the responsibility dispersion
and administrative behavior in decision making indi
cated shared authority.
3. The extent to which teachers feel that their
participation has been effective depends more upon the
structural environment of the organization than upon
teacher satisfaction. (55:151-152)
Managerial style does affect the climate or
"environment for learning" in the school because the style
of the principal directly influences the conditions of work
which influence the quality of life of the teachers in the
school. The literature indicates that autocratic and
bureaucratic styles of management discourage open school
climates, and that democratic and participative styles of
management encourage open school climates.
Morale
The effects of managerial style on the morale of
organizational members has been extensively examined and
presented in current literature. Morale, for the purposes
of this study, is defined as the mental and emotional
84
attitudes of an individual or group relative to the tasks
expected of them. It is a mental condition which includes
pride, confidence, eagerness, and enthusiasm.
Morale is not a general condition of a group
independent of the specific individuals involved. In
general, it is as inaccurate to speak of the morale of the
school’s personnel as it is to speak of their intelligence,
health, stamina, and the like. Attempts to consider
faculty morale as a whole result in meaningless generaliza
tions or in valueless abstractions. Modern education has
centered around the individual student for years, and
modern administration of the personnel of a school should
also center around the individual employee. The wise
administrator endeavors, through his managerial style, to
encourage those activities which will help individuals to
become more nearly integrated. Improvement of group morale
will inevitably follow (103:80).
Thomas made the following statement about the
relationship of managerial style to morale:
Creativity in an organization will prevail to the
extent that the administrative structure is flexible
and opportunity-oriented. What a blow to the morale
of the man who has rushed his work to completion under
the urging of management, only to see his creation
languish for months while one committee after another
has its say or while one engineer after another tinkers
with the mechanics. Business must, of course, depend
on systems of procedure, but red tapes, bureaucracy,
and organizational slippage take much of the joy out
of creating. (114:6)
To attain high morale, teachers must come to see
85
and identify personal and organizational objectives. If
these two types of objectives are conceived of as existing
independently, there is no basis for favorable attitudes.
It is the task of the principal to insure the integration
of these objectives. Research studies have demonstrated
the significance of management style in shaping employee
attitudes. Measures of supervisory behavior have been
correlated in these studies with job satisfaction of sub
ordinates. They show a marked relationship between job
satisfaction and the degree to which subordinates perceive
their superiors as being considerate and supportive (117:
55). Subordinates who have an opportunity to make or
influence decisions affecting them also tend to be more
satisfied. In general, the positive or democratic leader
ship styles are those most essential in developing high
morale.
It is widely believed that personnel respond to
delegated authority with favorable attitudes, and that they
enjoy the greater responsibility. Obviously, this
generalization could not apply to all employees or even to
all administrators. Some individuals like the security
associated with detailed supervision. They do not enjoy
the uncomfortable feeling of making an important decision.
For such individuals, delegation of authority is discon
certing and does not improve their satisfaction or morale.
It seems likely though, that most employees respond posi
86
tively toward delegated authority. Even one who is
initially reluctant to assume authority often enjoys it
once he becomes accustomed to the new role. Without ques
tion, delegation does raise the subordinate's position in
importance and stature (72 : 27*4-275).
In an investigation dealing with fundamental prin
ciples in the development and maintenance of morale, Harris
found that the following were components of a high level
of teacher morale:
1) Highly developed leadership resulting in tech
nical competence, courage, loyalty, enthusiasm, and
understanding of individuals in a group, 2) active
participation by members of the group in the formula
tion of the policies and procedures affecting them, 3)
goals in which each individual believes and which he
understands, *4) recognition and praise for the group
and individuals within it, and 5) adequate job security
based on acceptable performance. (*49 : 62)
Components one, two, three, and four are directly
related to the management style and morale comparison.
Although personal factors are the most important
of all factors in determining the individual morale level
of the teacher, the principal is the key non-personal
factor in the professional environment of the teacher,
according to the research of Hood (54:108). The teacher’s
relationship with the principal is more important in
determining morale level than is the teacher's relation
ship with other teachers.
The literature is replete with studies which
support the utilization of democratic and participative
87
management styles. Some research evidence points to the
fact that a considerable number of principals have adopted
a two-sided approach to participation— one for themselves
and one for their subordinates. Miles designated the two
approaches to decision-making participation by the terms
"human relations model" and "human resources model," and
described them in this manner:
1. The human relations model closely resembles
the concept of participation which managers appear to
accept for use with their own subordinates.
2. The human resources model prescribes the sort
of participative policies that managers would appar
ently like their supervisors to follow. (85:150)
Managerial theorists reflect the emergence of a
dramatic departure from traditional styles of management to
the human resources or participative style. Miles
described the departure in the following terms:
The magnitude of its departure from previous models
is illustrated in its basic assumption concerning
people's values and abilities, which focus attention
on all organizations as reservoirs of untapped
resources. The purpose and goals of participation are
to improve the decision making and total performance
efficiency of the organization . . . many decisions
may actually be made more efficiently by those directly
involved in or affected by the decisions.
The human resources model implies that the more
important the decision, the greater his CsicH obliga
tion to encourage ideas and suggestions from his sub
ordinates .
In the human resources model, the causal relation
ship between satisfaction and performance is viewed
. . . as a by-product of the process--the result of
their having made significant contributions to organi
zational success. (85:152-153)
Establishment of a positive relationship between
the participative style of management, such as implied in
88
the human resources model, and morale can be expected.
Subordinates' satisfaction may well increase as they are
allowed to play more and more meaningful and significant
roles in decision making. Creative problem solving on the
part of the faculty may be a result of improved morale
resulting from increased participation.
The fact that faculty morale is related to
democratic and participative styles of management was found
by Burkett (17:194). It can be assumed that the more
democratic and participative the administration, the higher
the faculty morale. There is a limit to this relationship
because principals can only go so far with either of the
two variables.
Sweat studied the relationship of morale to the
authoritarian-democratic traits of high school principals
in Arkansas. Although the differences were not statis
tically significant, he found that the faculties of demo
cratically administered high schools made the highest
scores on a morale instrument, the faculties of neutrally
administered high schools made the second highest scores,
and the faculties of the authoritarian managed schools made
the lowest scores (110:84).
Leiman found that the participation of teachers in
administrative decisions was definitely related to morale.
Four of his conclusions were:
Teachers who participate in school administration
89
have higher morale than teachers who do not partici
pate .
Teachers who participate in school administration
have more positive attitudes toward their principals,
toward their colleagues, and toward their pupils.
Teachers who participate in school administration
have higher regard for themselves and for the teaching
profession.
Female teachers seem to have higher morale than
male teachers. (66:207)
Spalding presented the relationships of the demo
cratic and participative styles of management to morale,
and stated that administrators who use the participatory
process will accomplish the following aims:
First, he takes advantage of the knowledge which
many persons have acquired in their study and experi
ence, and he uses this to improve the schools. Second,
he provides opportunities for individual employees to
identify themselves with an important human activity
and to feel important because of this identification.
Third, he provides opportunities for them to gain
recognition from the group with which they work and
from those for whom they work. Fourth, he gives the
entire system a broader understanding of and sympathy
with the problems which are faced by the administrative
staff. Fifth, he is enabled to get getter performance
from them because they are carrying on activities which
have resulted in a large measure from their own plan
ning and which they wish to demonstrate to be wise.
Sixth, he helps to facilitate the integration of each
individual with many factors which impinge upon him and
so helps him in his efforts toward integration of his
personality. Seventh, he makes the work of the indi
vidual more interesting and purposeful as he becomes
aware of its relation to the work of others. (10 3:
81, 82)
The definition of managerial style used in this
study includes the extent of delegation of authority and
the degree of staff participation in decision-making. The
relationship of the two variables of delegation and parti
cipation to employee morale was discussed by McPherran in
90
his article on keys to morale. The school structure pro
vides dependable, consistent lines of authority to increase
the employees' sense of security. The organizational
structure of a school usually reflects the administrator's
philosophy on the delegation of authority. Morale is pro
moted by an organizational structure that is liberal in its
delegation of authority, allowing the staff to participate
in the formulation of policies and decisions. The organi
zational structure must provide for each employee lines of
authority that are dependable and consistent, as well as a
definite assignment of duties and accountability to a
specified superior (79:11).
To promote morale, the administrator should involve
personnel in shared decision making. School administration
has become increasingly democratic with the best thinking
of many brought to bear on educational planning and the
solving of problems. The decisions of an administrator
with a democratic or participative style should reflect the
thinking of the staff on policies concerned with personnel,
promotion, discipline, grading and testing. Participation
should also be allowed in decision making, curriculum
development, and building planning. The school that
encourages participation conveys to the faculty a sense of
worth, respect, and mutuality of goals, all of which are
valuable ingredients of morale (19:12).
Managerial style does affect the morale of high
91
school faculty members. Morale improves as each teacher
improves in attitudes, skills, ability, and understanding,
and these improvements are directly influenced by the
administrative style of the principal. The literature
indicates that autocratic and bureaucratic management
styles detract from the development and sustenance of high
faculty morale, and that democratic and participative
styles of management tend to foster the development and
sustenance of high morale.
Administrative Effectiveness
The effects of the utilization of various manage
rial styles on the administrative effectiveness of managers
and administrators was investigated. For the purposes of
this study, effectiveness is defined as the extent or
degree of attainment of the goals and objectives of the
school. These goals and objectives and the school’s
rationalized plans for attaining them give rise to many
aspects of administrative behavior which describe manage
rial style.
The aspects of managerial style that were examined
and related to administrative effectiveness were delegation
of authority and staff participation within the school.
This approach was taken because the two paramount factors
used by the researcher to define managerial style were
delegation and participation.
92
The style which any given manager employs will
depend in great measure upon the character of his organiza
tion. He will, largely of necessity, adopt one style for
the mechanistic, maintenance-oriented system, for example.
But, if he is in a position to choose between alternative
strategies of leadership, the correctness of choice is
most likely to be measured in terms of organizational
effectiveness itself.
The organization which exists in a dynamic,
changing environment, but whose leaders choose the failure-
avoidance, maintenance-oriented leadership strategy, will
perhaps provide its managers with the most dramatic
evidence of transition. Either managerial style will have
to change, or the organization will move toward dissolu
tion. In the final analysis, all managerial style must be
validated against long-term results. If the organization
can grow, adapt, meet all comers successfully, and serve
its market competitively, managerial style is at least
adequate (7:197).
McGregor discussed a few innovative and effective
ideas which were consistent with his Theory Y style of
management. They were: decentralization and delegation,
job enlargement, and participation.
Decentralization and delegation are ways of freeing
people from the too-close control of conventional organiza
tion, giving them a degree of freedom to direct their own
93
activities, to assume responsibility, and importantly, to
satisfy their egoistic needs. In this connection, the flat
organization of Sears, Roebuck and Company provides an
interesting example. It forces "management by objectives"
since it enlarges the number of people reporting to a
manager until he cannot direct and control them in the
conventional manner.
The concept of job enlargement, pioneered by I.B.M.
and Detroit Edison, is quite consistent with Theory Y. It
encourages the acceptance of responsibility at the bottom
of the organization; it provides opportunities for satis
fying social and egoistic needs. In fact, the reorganiza
tion of work at the factory level offers one of the more
challenging opportunities for innovation consistent with
Theory Y .
Under proper conditions, the results of participa
tion and consultative management provide encouragement to
people to direct their creative energies toward organiza
tional objectives, give them voice in decisions that affect
them, provide significant opportunities for the satisfac
tion of social and egoistic needs.
The not infrequent failure of the above ideas to
produce effective results is often attributable to the
fact that an administrator has "bought the idea" but
applied it within the framework of Theory X or autocratic
assumptions (74-: 172 ).
94
Schmuck and Blumberg discussed teachers and prin
cipals related to the concept of delegation of authority
and the power therein. The notion of the principal’s
giving up power has some psychological implications. For
reasons that are not altogether clear, the field of educa
tion seems to attract people whose needs for control tend
to be somewhat higher than those of other occupational
groups. Thus, not only does relinquishing of power by the
principal run contrary to accepted organizational prac
tices, but, in many cases, it may be incompatible with a
principal's personality.
Furthermore, for teachers the idea of power distri
bution tends to run against the stream of expectations of
many of them regarding how a school ought to be run. In
experiences with teacher decision-making structures, a
number of illustrations of the attitude that "He was
trained to run the school--we weren't," have been seen.
The implication of this point is that, even if a principal
is willing to give up his power, it is quite likely that
many teachers will be reluctant to take it.
When power is shared with others, it is exceedingly
difficult to retrieve it on a unilateral basis. Thus,
while the principal makes the decision initially to share
his power, for him to reverse his stance would be very
risky and probably result in a good bit of organizational
stress and a drastically lowered trust level on the part
95
of the staff (9 8:182-184-).
Fiedler summarized a 15 year research program which
covered more than 35 studies related to the effectiveness
of managerial style. Fiedler made three major points:
The effectiveness of a group is contingent upon the
appropriateness of the manager's style to the specific
situation in which he operates. Most people are effec
tive leaders in some situations and ineffective in
certain others.
The type of managerial style that will be most
effective depends upon the degree to which the group
situation enables the manager to exert influence.
If managerial style effectiveness depends not only
upon style but also the group situation, we can either
make the manager fit a specific group situation by
selection or training or we can engineer the group
situation to fit the manager. (37:362)
To investigate the effects of managerial style on
group effectiveness, Carzo conducted an experiment in which
subjects solved problems representative of complex organi
zations while performing under three different managerial
styles--tight, loose written, and loose oral. Findings
revealed that while different styles will initially have
different effects on groups exposed to the same problem,
eventually all groups, regardless of style, will reach a
level of performance that is approximately the same. The
results of Carzo1s study indicate that, at least for the
style he used, managerial style does not appreciably affect
goal attainment (21:420).
McNamara and Enns tested Fiedler's Contingency
Model of Leadership Effectiveness in a school setting. In
the study, principals' scores on directiveness (versus
96
permissiveness) failed to correlate with rated school
effectiveness until schools with good principal-teacher
relations and schools with poor principal-teacher relations
were analyzed separately. In schools where principals were
well supported by teachers, a directive style was asso
ciated with rated school effectiveness; in schools where
principals lacked staff support, a permissive style was
associated with rated effectiveness, as predicted in the
model. According to this investigation, faculty acceptance
of the administrator's managerial style may be a signifi
cant mediator of effectiveness (78:7).
Employing a so-called 3-D theory that related the
effectiveness of managerial style to specific situations
and divides a given situation into five managerial units,
Reddin showed how the demands of each unit influence the
style of behavior. A Management Style Diagnostic Test was
used to help the manager recognize and be sensitive to his
own behavior. Reddin synthesized four less effective and
four relatively more effective management types. The
dimensions involved in these styles were task orientation,
relationships orientation, and effectiveness.
The four ineffective kinds of managers were:
The deserter, who has fled the field as far as
concern for either good human relations or achievement is
involved.
The missionary, who sacrifices efficient productior
97
on the altar of popularity.
The autocrat, who sacrifices human considerations
on the altar of mechanical efficiency and production.
The compromiser, whose stock in trade are ambi
valence and a readiness to respond to the greatest pressure
of the moment.
The parallel but increasingly effective management
styles were those of:
The bureaucrat, who feigns an interest in his
people and is not really concerned about productivity but
follows rules and procedures religiously.
The developer, who sees his task as essentially one
of providing a work environment that maximizes individual
satisfaction and motivation. His production is generally
high, though he may at times overstress the importance of
good relationships.
The benevolent autocrat, who is able to win
obedience to his wishes without creating enough resentment
to hurt production.
The executive, whose commitment is to both high
production and good relationships (93:26).
Whether an organization has either an authoritarian
or a democratic leader, the following results can be
anticipated. Authoritarian leadership is less effective
than democratic leadership in holding the group together
and getting its work done. Democratic leadership is more
98
effective with respect to the durability of the group, the
members’ satisfaction with it, their independence vis-a-vis
the leader, and their productivity on the task (93:344).
The administrator who prides himself on his no-
nonsense hard-nose managerial style, may be less
effective than he thinks. Also, the administrator who
endears himself to his associates may be deluding him
self if he thinks that love alone is enough or that he
is highly effective because of the comfortable,
friendly atmosphere and work tempo inhis organization.
Neither rigorous efficiency nor paternalistic solici
tude is sufficient for optimum effectiveness in school
management. Nor are leadership attitudes of using love
as a negotiating tool with subordinates or a laissez-
faire avoidance of authority and responsibility.
The administrator with an honest, brotherly regard
for his associates, who arranges conditions so that
work is accomplished with full recognition of the needs
of his associates in an atmosphere of trust, respect,
and interdependence, will probably gain support and
commitment from them. The result should be highly
effective administration. (5 8:385)
Administrative effectiveness, the extent of goal
attainment, is influenced by the degree of staff partici
pation in activities related to the execution of the
functions of management: planning, organizing, directing,
and controlling. In general, a program of participation
attempts to involve subordinates--sometimes managerial
subordinates and sometimes the rank and file--more directly
in the operation of the operation. Subordinates are
allowed and encouraged to participate in some aspects of
their superior's decision making— an activity that would
not be expected or even tolerated in many organizations.
Participation may add meaning to work and permit the
employee to become identified with it. In contrast to a
99
system in which all important thinking is limited to the
superior, participative management places the subordinate
on an entirely different footing. Soliciting the sub
ordinate's assistance assumes he has something valuable to
offer and that his opinions have significance. This adds
dignity to the job and to the incumbent.
An employee's egoistic need can be satisfied by a
sense of accomplishment. The possible contribution of
participation to one's sense of accomplishment is sub
stantial. Employing the individual's mind as well as his
hands in the life and operation of the organization makes
him a more vital part of it. His contribution assumes
greater significance, and he realizes that he is more than
a human machine (72:484).
Benefits of participation are not limited to the
employees. In tapping the thinking of employees, manage
ment gets the benefit of their contributions as well as
their enthusiastic work. Increased output and product
quality improvement have been experienced in some uses of
participative management. Also, in introducing changes,
participation can help to minimize employee resistance.
In fact, some changes occur in direct response to employee
participation.
From the standpoint of both morale and organiza
tional efficiency, therefore, participative management has
much to recommend it. A manager can increase his effec
100
tiveness by the use of a participative approach.
Perhaps the most persistent and thoroughly demon
strated difference between successful and unsuccessful
leadership at all three levels has to do with the
distribution or sharing of the leadership function
. . . . By and large, those organizations in which
influential acts are widely shared are most effective.
The reasons for this are in part motivational, having
to do with implementation of decisions, and in part
nonmotivational having to do with the excellence of
decisions. (59:331,332)
Participative management may take several dif
ferent forms. Perhaps the more usual form is the type of
supervision that might be labeled consultative management.
The manager uses participation in the day-to-day adminis
tration of his organization. Rather than deciding matters
unilaterally and passing the decisions on to subordinates,
he brings subordinates into the management process. He
seeks their thinking and comments on various matters con
fronting the organization.
James L. Hayes, President of the American Manage
ment Association discussed consultative management in the
context that the style had been around a long time and was
now being rediscovered. As in most management techniques
the concept of consultative management is more important
than the technique and those who discover only the tech
nique and merely go through the motions may as well have
remained ignorant.
What remains for many to discover is that consulta
tive management is a way of life. It is a habit. It
means constant listening and talking, even arguing and
disagreeing. It also means making a decision after
101
sensing the trend of the participative involvement.
It anticipates violent disagreement now and then. But
it also means that everyone involved is professional
enough to go out to lunch together afterward. (50:1)
The participatory style of management develops more
resourceful persons than do other styles. Each person who
participates with others in the solution of problems and
pursuit of school goals and objectives acquires skill in
the use of methods of solution which can be employed on
other occasions with profit to him and the school. He also
develops a sensitivity to the existence of problems which
were previously beyond the scope of his experience and will
seek to solve them through cooperative interaction with
others who are similarly aware of them. As present prob
lems are cleared up, as new problems are discovered and
solved, and as the practice which employees have in solving
problems continues to increase their competence in the
accomplishment of objectives, the school improves rapidly
and becomes dynamic in its pursuit of goals and objectives
(103:78,79).
The Institute for Social Research, under the
direction of Rensis Likert at the University of Michigan,
studied many business firms and governmental agencies.
The studies revealed a relatively consistent relationship
between managerial style and the extent to which organiza
tions were able to accomplish their objectives. Adminis
trators and managers who are achieving the greatest
102
productivity, lowest cost, best quality of operation and
best labor relations are using the same basic style of
management. This style includes principles which differ
significantly from those used by managers who achieve
average or below average goal attainment. Likert classi
fies this most effective managerial style as "participative
group." (67:45,46)
Not all studies have indicated that participative
management ensures increased productivity toward organiza
tional goals and objectives. Inviting wider involvement
and interaction does not always bring positive results.
Experiments in participation will sometimes be seen as
false invitations to come in and discuss commitments which
have already been made. Participation, like any other
incentive, generally does not work if other aspects of the
environment conflict with the effects it is supposed to
produce (29:214).
Other problems in theory and practice have arisen
from a failure to distinguish organized, participative
styles of management from unstructured, laissez-faire
approaches. Both give employees a chance to help make
decisions, but only participative management recognizes the
need for some central direction and action in organiza
tional decision making. The two approaches are not
equivalent either in administrative effectiveness or in the
satisfactions which people feel with the results (119:168).
103
The opportunity to participate in decision making
is not as highly prized as early experiments led adminis
trators to believe. Administrators are usually not just
showing authoritarian attitudes when they complain that
the people who work for them are not interested in respon
sibility. Many studies show employees quite willing to let
superiors make decisions for them. Employees may be indif
ferent to opportunities for greater involvement in decision
making, they may not feel that the opportunities are
legitimate for the role they are playing, or they may be
willing to forego job opportunities because activities
outside of work provide the major interest and satisfaction
in their lives (6:167-170).
The discussion about the participation of employees
in decision making and problem solving would be incomplete
without reviewing what some management authorities refer
to as the system which goes beyond participation and
McGregor’s Theory Y.
Recent studies indicate that there is not one best
organizational approach; rather, the best approach depends
on the nature of the work to be done. Enterprises with
highly predictable tasks perform better with organizations
characterized by the highly formalized procedures and
management hierarchies of the autocratic style. With
highly uncertain tasks that require more extensive problem
solving, on the other hand, democratic organizations that
101+
emphasize self-control and member participation in decision
making are more effective. In essence, according to these
newer studies, managers must design and develop organiza
tions so that managerial style fits the nature of the task
to be done.
While the conclusions on this newer approach will
make sense to most experienced managers and can alleviate
much of the confusion about which approach to choose, there
are still two important questions unanswered:
1. How does the more autocratic and controlling
organization affect the motivation of organization members?
2. Equally important, does a democratic organiza
tion always provide a high level of motivation for its
members?
Morse and Lorsch recently have been involved in a
study which explored how the fit between administrative
style and task was related to effective performance. That
is, does a good fit between managerial style and task-
completion requirements increase the motivation of indi
viduals and hence produce more effective individual and
organizational performance? Their work suggests a new set
of basic assumptions which moves beyond Theory Y into what
they call "Contingency Theory: The fit between task,
organization, and people." These theoretical assumptions
emphasize that the appropriate style of management is con
tingent on the nature of the work to be done and on the
105
particular needs of the people involved (86:281).
Each individual has a strong need to master the
world around him, including the task that he faces as a
member of a work organization. The accumulated feelings of
satisfaction that come from successfully mastering one’s
environment can be called a "sense of competence." This
sense of competence in performing a particular task is
helpful in understanding how a fit between task and manage
ment style could motivate people toward effective perfor
mance (120:23).
The results of the Morse and Lorsch study indicated
that individuals in effective organizations showed
significantly more feelings of competence than did their
counterparts in less effective organizations. They found
that the organization-task fit is simultaneously linked to
and interdependent with both individual motivation and
effective unit performance (86:289).
For many enterprises, given the new needs of
younger employees for more autonomy, and the rapid rates of
social and technological change, it may well be that the
more participative approach is the most appropriate. But
there will still be many situations in which the more
controlled and bureaucratic organization is desirable.
The major managerial implication of the Contingency
Theory seems to rest in the task-style-people fit.
Although this interrelationship is complex, the best
106
possibility for managerial action probably is in tailoring
the managerial style to fit the task and the people. If
such a fit is achieved, both effective unit performance and
a higher sense of competence motivation seem to result.
The literature clearly indicates that managerial
style does influence the administrative effectiveness or
extent of goal and objective attainment in organizations.
The results of studies show that autocratic and bureau
cratic styles of management characterize organizations
which maintain less than effective output and performance;
whereas, democratic and truely participative managerial
styles characterize organizations which sustain high goal
and objective attainment performance records.
The purpose of this section of the review of the
literature was to review the relationship of managerial
style to school climate, faculty morale, and administrative
effectiveness. School climate was defined as the condition
of the school environment for learning. The mental and
emotional attitudes of an individual or group relative to
the completion of expected tasks described morale.
Administrative effectiveness was the extent or degree of
attainment of the formal goals and objectives of the
school.
It is apparent that managerial style directly
influences climate, morale, and effectiveness. Climate
and morale, in turn, influence managerial style so it has
107
been demonstrated that style, climate, and morale are
interrelated.
Summary
The review of the literature has included the
identification and description of the functions of manage
ment, the classification of managerial styles, and the
relationship of managerial style to climate, morale, and
administrative effectiveness.
For the purposes of this study, the functions of
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling were
identified.
The classification categories, for the purposes of
this study, included autocratic, bureaucratic, democratic,
and participative styles.
In summary, it can be said that if the principal
executes the functions of management utilizing the appro
priate managerial style, faculty interaction and partici
pation in decision making will occur, the school climate
will be open, faculty morale will be high, and the goals
and objectives of the school will be realized.
CHAPTER III
THE PROCEDURES
Introduction
The basic method of research used in this study
was descriptive. The plan of the study and the research
design are explained in this chapter. The procedures
include descriptions of the design and development of the
instrument, the selection of schools to be surveyed, the
selection of the sample and respondents within the selected
schools, the administration and scoring of the instrument,
the data collected, and treatment of the data.
The Instrument
The instrument utilized in this study was designed
and developed by the researcher. The main purpose of the
study was to diagnose the managerial style of high school
principals and the instruments currently available were
not sufficiently appropriate to accomplish this purpose.
In reviewing research studies related to managerial style,
no instrument was found which was designed specifically
for measuring administrative styles of school administra
tors .
108
109
Design of the Instrument
The instrument, Diagnosing the Principal’s
Administrative Style, was designed to elicit staff percep
tions of the principal’s administrative behavior which
would describe the principal’s manner of performing the
management functions in the school. (See Appendix A) A
description of the complex but internally consistent
pattern of interrelationships among the people at the
various organizational levels of the school was sought
through a gathering of these perceptions.
The principal's manner of performing management
functions, his style, can be examined over several dif
ferent dimensions, as, for example, the character of the
motivational forces used to coordinate the activity of
employees operating in the same organization. Likert used
this dimension to design his questionnaire which measured
the organizational character of management systems (68:
222). The amount of control which the principal exercises
over the certificated staff members in the school (author
ity), and the extent of certificated staff interaction and
involvement in decision making and problem solving (parti
cipation) are the dimensions which provide the basis for
the design of the instrument developed by the researcher
and used in this study.
There were five separate and basic sections and 46
test items in the instrument. General information requests
110
and instructions for completing the instrument were
included in the first section. There were no test items
in the first section.
The second section, which included 2 8 test items,
was devoted to the management functions of planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling (evaluating). There
were seven test items for each function.
Administrative effectiveness questions were
included in the third section. There were seven test items
in this section.
The fourth section included seven test items on
school climate and faculty morale.
The last section solicited multiple answers to
three open ended questions and an overall rating of the
principal’s administrative style based on perceived degree
of faculty involvement in decision making. The three open
ended items pertained to: (1) kinds of decisions staff
wanted to be involved in, (.2) enabling behaviors of the
principal, and (3) handicapping behaviors of the principal.
There were four test items in this section.
Items 1-42 and 46 were answered two ways: respon
dent 1s perception of the principal's current administrative
practice (I), and what the respondent thought his princi
pal's administrative practice should be (S). Each item was
to be treated as a continuous variable ranging from the
extreme at one end to the extreme at the other end.
Ill
The range of responses for items 1-42 and 46 was
from one to sixteen, running from left to right (very low
autocratic to very high participative). Responses 1-4
indicated extent of autocratic style, 5-8 extent of
bureaucratic style, 9-12 extent of democratic style, and
13-16 extent of participative style. Sixteen divisions
showed the range for each item, but the numbers 1-16 were
not shown. (See Appendix B).
Items 43, 44, and 45, the open ended questions,
placed no ceiling on the number of answers to each item
although space limited the number of answers to each of
these items to five.
Revising and Pre-Testing
the Instrument
Two years before the research was undertaken, the
instrument was administered to a graduate class in second
ary school administration. Communicability and format
were reacted to by the graduate students. Comments were
used to modify the instrument.
The modified instrument was then examined by
several research and development experts and by members of
the doctoral committee who were also research and develop
ment experts. The authorities examining the instrument
included Dr. Leslie E. Shuck, Assistant Superintendent,
Research and Development, Newport-Mesa Unified School
District, Dr. Robert Otto, Assistant Superintendent,
112
Research and Development, Grossmont Unified School District
and Thomas Wilson, Assistant Principal, Curriculum Planning
and Development, Newport Harbor High School. Dr. Wallace
Muelder, Chairman, Dr. Earl Carnes, and Dr. Donald Schrader
were the members of the researcher's committee who examined
the instrument.
These research and development experts were asked
to analyze the instrument to determine if the test items
would elicit appropriate responses. They also analyzed the
extent to which the verbal headings for the answers to each
item accurately differentiated between the different
degrees of delegation of authority and staff participation
(1-16) (autocratic-participative).
Extensive revision of the instrument occurred
because of the suggestions of the research and development
experts. A few items were eliminated; a few added. Most
items were revised. The verbal headings were clarified so
they would differentiate.
The last step was to pre-test the modified and
revised instrument in four large high schools, two from a
Los Angeles County Union High School district and two from
an Orange County unified school district. The principals
of the four pre-test schools were asked to look for the
following: appropriateness of suggested test conditions,
degree of difficulty of acquiring respondents, and overall
reaction of respondents.
113
Pre-test respondents were asked to comment in
writing on the instrument if they wanted to suggest
changes. Because of the comments of the principals, who
were also respondents, the instructions about test condi
tions and the procedures for acquiring respondents were
modified. The overall reaction of the respondents was
positive and the average completion time was 25 minutes
which appeared to be reasonable. No item was consistently
left blank, and the item answers seemed to yield the
information desired. Very few modifications were made to
the test items.
School, Sample, and Respondent Selection
There were 13 school districts which included a
total of 46 high schools in Orange County in 1973. Twenty
of the largest schools in the county were invited to parti
cipate in the study. This included at least one high
school from each district except one which was small. The
principal of each of the 20 schools was contacted by
telephone and asked to participate in the study. Partici
pation meant 15 staff members including the principal. It
also meant 15 completed questionnaires from specific staff
members. Two of the initial 2 0 schools could not commit
to the above conditions, so two other schools from the same
district were included. Twenty schools and 15 staff
members from each school were committed to the project
114
before the research began.
The plan was to include in the sample a propor
tionate number of certificated staff members from each
level of principal, co-administrator, department head, and
teacher. Included in the sample were: the principal, the
co-administrator responsible for counseling and guidance,
a counselor, the department heads of the English, foreign
language, girls physical education, and industrial arts
departments, and two teachers each from the English,
foreign language, girls physical education and industrial
arts departments. The above departments were selected
because one was academic and required (English), one was
academic and elective (foreign language), one was non-
academic and required (girls physical education), and one
was non-academic and elective (.industrial arts).
In the case of the principal, the co-administrator,
and the department heads, the position titles determined
the respondents. The counselor respondee was to have had
a different educational philosophy than the co-administra
tor who selected him to participate and was to have been
of the opposite sex. In the English and foreign language
departments, the teacher selection criteria were to have
included one tenured, one probationary, one female and one
male teacher. One of the teachers of girls physical edu
cation was to have been "girls athletics" oriented and the
other "physical education" oriented. One industrial arts
115
teacher was to have been "vocational education" oriented
and the other "industrial arts" oriented. These guidelines
were offered to insure that the limited sample provided
the widest possible range of respondents.
Administering and Scoring of Instrument
Following their commitment to the project, each
principal was sent a letter confirming his participation.
(See Appendix C). One week later, the 20 sets of question
naires enclosed in individual envelopes and placed in one
large envelope, were personally delivered to the 2 0 school
principals. The envelope for each questionnaire was coded
by school and by position. A letter reiterating the pur
poses of the study and stating the guidelines for adminis
tering the questionnaire was delivered with the
questionnaires. (See Appendix D). Also, the principals
were informed that the completed questionnaires would be
picked up ten school days from the day they were delivered.
The pick-up was preceded by a telephone call.
The principal was to have administered the
questionnaire to all 15 respondents. It was suggested that
this be accomplished in one "sitting," because in pre
testing the instrument it was found that schools which
distributed the questionnaire through the principal's
secretary had difficulty collecting them. Of the 2 0
schools participating, two had difficulty collecting the
116
questionnaires because it was not administered in one
"sitting" by the principal.
All 3 00 questionnaires were returned and completed
but not without thorough and individual follow-up. If only
an item or two was left blank on a questionnaire, it was
accepted as completed. Five of the respondents, three at
one school, left a full page blank so those questionnaires
were returned to the respondents and completed and returned
to the researcher.
Each of the 3 00 questionnaires was hand scored on
the questionnaire itself by converting check marks to
interval scale ratings of 1-16 . Items 1-42 and 46 had two
scores each (an is_ and a should response). Items 43 , 44,
and 45 had from zero to five responses each. The responses
were classified separately for items 43, 44, and 45. (See
Appendix E). All of the responses were hand written on
fortran coding forms from which the 2 35 responses for each
questionnaire were punched on IBM cards. The punching was
double-verified.
Data Collected
The basic data gathered consisted of the check
ratings on interval scales for 43 items. The two ratings
on each scale were individual respondent perceptions and
preferences. The data also consisted of descriptive
information about the respondents, the schools involved,
117
and the ethnic minority composition of the student bodies.
Information pertaining to kinds of decisions staff needed
to be involved in, enabling behaviors of principals, and
handicapping behaviors of principals was also gathered.
Treatment of the Data
The data was quantified utilizing the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences in the Computer Center at
the University of Southern California. Standard deviations
were computed for each school for the 86 variables in the
43 interval scale items on the questionnaire. Standard
deviations for the differences between the perception and
preference responses on the 43 items were also computed.
Two-tail tests of probability were computed for the per
ception and preference responses on the 86 variables of
the 43 interval scale items.
Frequency distributions were computed for the
descriptive information related to the respondents, the
schools involved, and the ethnic minority composition of
the student bodies. Frequency distributions were also
computed for the information gathered on the decisions
staff needed to be involved in, enabling behaviors of
principals, and handicapping behaviors of principals.
Summary
This chapter described the procedures used in
designing, pre-testing, administering, and scoring the
118
research instrument. The activities involved in selecting
the schools to participate and the sample of respondents
were also described.
The chapter concluded with descriptions of the data
collected and data treatment procedures.
CHAPTER IV
THE FINDINGS
Introduction
The basic purpose of this study was to describe
the practiced and preferred administrative style of high
school principals in Orange County. The affect of the
different administrative styles on perceptions of the
principals' administrative effectiveness and on school
climate and faculty morale was also described.
The findings are best stated within the framework
of the established research and null hypotheses which
delineated the purpose of the study. Findings related to
descriptive data pertaining to the principals and the
schools involved in the study are also stated. Types of
decisions teachers and administrators want to be involved
in, and enabling and handicapping behaviors of the princi
pals, are described.
The first section of this chapter includes findings
within the framework of the research hypotheses; the second
within the framework of the null hypotheses. The third
sections includes findings related to descriptive data
119
120
collected regarding the principals and schools partici
pating in the study, decisions for staff involvement, and
enabling and handicapping behaviors of principals.
Research Hypotheses
Administrative Styles and Their
Relationship to Administrative
Effectiveness, School Climate,
and Faculty Morale
A diagnosis of the research hypotheses of the study
in relationship to administrative styles and their
relationship to administrative effectiveness, and school
climate/faculty morale showed the following:
Research Hypothesis One. Certificated employees
at the various organizational levels of the schools will
perceive their principals as possessing a management style
which is less participative than their superior perceives.
Findings: Co-administrators generally perceived
principals, their superiors, as being approximately as
participative as the principals perceived. Table 1 indi
cates that the mean difference between the perceptions of
co-administrators and principals on items 1-28 is .06 of
an interval.
Item 1, Knowledge of the District's Educational
Principles, showed a difference of 2.15 intervals which
indicates that the co-administrators knew the District's
Educational Principles "quite well" and the principals
COMPARISON OF MEAN
BY
TABLE 1
PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPALS' ADMINISTRATIVE
PRINCIPALS AND CO-ADMINISTRATORS
STYLE
Principal Perceptions Co-administrator Principal Minus
Management Item of Perceptions of Co-administrator
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative Style "Perceptions”
1 12.90 10.75 2.15
2 12.15 12.00 .15
3 13 .40 12.70 .70
Planning i * 11.5 0 12 .00 -.50
5 12.70 12.75 -.05
6 8.05 8.70 -.65
7 10.60 10.85 -.25
8 11.10 11.30 -.20
9 9.70 9.25 .45
10 12.25 12.60 -.35
Organizing 11 11.00 10.20 .80
12 9.30 9.75 -.45
13 11.95 11.35 .60
14 10.70 10 .90 -.20
15 9.00 9.50 -.50
16 11.20 10 .90 . 30
17 10 .50 10.60 -.10
Directing 18 12.05 11.65 .40
19 11.75 11.45 .30
20 11.95 10.95 1.00
21 11.55 11.10 .45
H
H
Table 1 (Continued)
Principal Perceptions Co-administrator Principal Minus
Management Item of Perceptions of Co-administrator
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative^ Style "Perceptions"
22 10 .75 10 .55 . 20
23 12.55 12.60 -.05
24 10.85 11.25 -.40
Controlling 25 7.35 7.60 -.25
26 7 .45 8.65 -1.20
27 10.30 10 .65 -.35
28 7.05 7.35 -.30
Total 301.60 299 .90 1.70
Arithmetic Mean 10 .77 10.71 .06
H
t - 0
hO
123
knew them "very well." It is interesting to note that for
Item 26, the reason for implementing the Stull Act, co-
administrators saw the reason as being "to improve
teacher’s accountability" whereas the principals viewed it
as being implemented "to satisfy the legislature."
The department heads generally perceived their
principals as being considerably less participative than
the co-administrators, their superiors, perceived. The
mean difference between co-administrator and department
head perceptions is 1.39 intervals. (See Table 2).
The greatest difference was in Item 24, the extent
to which teachers discuss their instructional objectives
with their evaluators. Department heads revealed there
was "limited discussion" and co-administrators said there
was "quite a bit" of discussion.
The teachers and counselors generally perceived
their principals as being somewhat less participative than
the department heads, their superiors, perceived. The
mean difference between department head and teacher/
counselor perceptions is .82 of an interval as revealed in
Table 3.
Items 10, the extent of delegation of authority,
and 13, job descriptions for administrators and department
heads, showed the greatest differences. Department heads
stated that "a great deal" of authority was delegated
whereas teachers/counselors said the extent was "quite a
COMPARISON OF
TABLE 2
MEAN PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPALS' ADMINISTRATIVE
BY CO-ADMINISTRATORS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
STYLE
Co-administrator Department Head Co-administrator
Management Item Perceptions of Perceptions of Minus Department
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative Style Head "Perceptions"
1 10 .75 7.95 2.80
2 12.00 9 .40 2.60
3 12.70 11.00 1.70
Planning 4 12.00 10.30 1.70
5 12.75 12.10 .65
6 8.70 7.80 .90
7 10.85 9.25 1.60
8 11.30 8.80 2.50
9 9 . 25 8.45 .80
10 12 .60 12.25 .35
Organizing 11 10.20 8.70 1.50
12 9 .75 8.80 .95
13 11.35 10.30 1.05
14 10.90 8.45 2.45
15 9.50 8.80 .70
16 10.90 9.85 1.05
17 10 .60 9.35 1.25
Directing 18 11.65 10 .90 .75
19 11.45 10.10 1.35
20 10 .95 11.40 .45
21 11.10 10.50 .60
H
ro
-P
Table 2 (Continued)
Management
Functions
Item
Number
Co-administrator
Perceptions of
Administrative Style
Department Head
Perceptions of
Administrative Style
Co-administrator
Minus Department
Head "Perceptions
22 10.55 9 .20 .85
23 12.60 10.75 1.85
24 11.25 8.15 3.10
Controlling 25 7.60 6.00 1.60
26 8.65 6.95 1.70
27 10.65 9.45 1.20
28 7 .35 5.90 1.45
Total 299.90 261.05 38.85
Arithmetic Mean 10.71 9.32 1.39
125
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF MEAN PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPALS’ ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE
BY DEPARTMENT HEADS AND TEACHERS/COUNSELORS
Department Head
Department ! Head Teacher/Counselor Minus
Management Item Perceptions of Perceptions of Teacher/Counseloi
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative Style "Perceptions"
1 7.95 7 .45 .50
2 9 .40 9 .15 .25
3 11. 00 10.55 .45
Planning 4 10. 30 9.30 1.00
5 12 .10 11.65 .45
6 7.80 7.30 .50
7 9.25 8.75 .50
8 8.80 8.00 . 80
9 8.45 8.80 -.35
10 12.25 9 . 30 2 . 95
Organizing 11 8.70 8.05 .65
12 8.80 7 .15 1.65
13 10.30 8.20 2.10
14 8 .45 8.20 .25
15 8.80 8.35 .45
16 9.85 9.20 .65
17 9.35 8.30 1.05
Directing 18 10.90 9.50 1.40
19 10.10 8.60 1.50
20 11.40 11.7 5 -.35
21 10 .50 8.65 1. 85
Table 3 (Continued)
Department Head
Department Head Teacher/Counselor Minus
Management Item Perceptions of Perceptions of Teacher/Counselor
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative Style "Perceptions"
22 9.70 9.00 .70
23 10.75 10.40 .35
24 8.15 7.55 .60
Controlling 25 6 .00 5 .20 . 80
26 6.95 7.05 -.10
27 9 .45 8.20 1.25
28 5.90 4.55 1.35
Total 261.05 238.15 23.20
Arithmetic Mean 9.32 8.50 .82
H
ro
128
bit." Teachers and counselors saw the job descriptions as
something "the administration talks about" and department
heads said the job descriptions were "readily available."
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis one indicate that certificated employees at the
various organizational levels of the school did perceive
their principals as possessing a management style which was
less participative than their superiors perceived.
Research Hypothesis Two. Principals will perceive
themselves as being more participative in their style of
management than will the composite view of the co-
administrators, department heads, and teachers and coun
selors reveal.
Findings: Principals generally perceived them
selves as being considerably more participative than the
composite perceptions of co-administrators, department
heads, and teachers/counselors revealed. The mean dif
ference between the principals' and the composite percep
tions was 1.97 intervals. (See Table 4).
Four items within the "organizing" function of
management, three within the "planning" function, and one
within the "controlling" function, revealed the largest
differences:
COMPARISON OF MEAN
BY
TABLE 4
PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPALS' ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE
PRINCIPALS AND COMPOSITE GROUPS
Principal Perceptions Composite Principal Minus
Management Item of Perceptions of Composite
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative Style "Perceptions"
1 12.90 7.75 5.15
2 12.15 9.20 2.95
3 13.40 10.80 2.60
Planning 4 11.50 9.65 1.85
5 12.70 11.70 1.00
6 8.05 7.50 .55
7 10.60 8.95 1.65
8 11.10 8 .30 2.80
9 9.70 8.60 1.10
10 12.25 9.50 2.75
Organizing 11 11.00 8.30 2.70
12 9.30 7.50 1.80
13 11. 95 8.85 3.10
14 10.70 8.40 2.30
15 9.00 8.50 .50
16 11.20 9.50 1.70
17 10.50 8.65 1. 85
Directing 18 12.05 10.00 2.05
19 11.75 9.20 2.55
20 11.95 11.55 .40
21 11.55 9 .35 2.20
H
NO
CO
Table 4 (Continued)
Principal Perceptions Composite Principal Minus
Management Item of Perceptions of Composite
Functions Number Administrative Style Administrative Style "Perceptions"
22 10.75 9.35 1.40
23 12 .55 10.75 1.80
24 10.85 7.95 2.90
Controlling 25 7.35 5.65 1.70
26 7.45 7.15 .30
27 10.30 8.75 1.55
28 7.05 5.15 1.90
Total 301.60 246.50 55 .10
Arithmetic Mean 10.77 8.80 1.97
130
131
Organizing:
Item Description
13 job description
8 administrative organizational
chart
10 delegation of authority to
co-administrators
11 delegation of authority to
department heads
Planning:
Item Description
3
214
knowledge of educational
principles
development of educational
principles
school goals and objectives
discussion of instructional
obj ectives
Interval
Difference
3.10
2.80
2 .75
2.70
Interval
Difference
5 .15
2.95
2.60
2.90
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis two indicate that the principals did perceive
themselves as being considerably more participative in
their style of management than did the co-administrators,
department heads, and teachers/counselors.
Research Hypothesis Three. There is a positive,
direct relationship between certificated staff perceptions
of the managerial style of principals and the perceived
administrative effectiveness of principals.
Findings: Fourteen of the 20 schools recorded
administrative effectiveness perceptions which were higher
132
(positive) than the perceptions recorded for their princi
pal's administrative style. Table 5 reveals that the most
positive relationships were in schools 13 (1.933 intervals)
15 (1.222 intervals), and 9 (1.189 intervals).
The other six schools recorded administrative
effectiveness perceptions which were lower (negative) than
their perceptions of their principal's administrative
style. The most negative, indirect relationships were in
schools 12 (-.707 intervals), 5 (-.365 intervals), and 19
(-.352 intervals).
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis three indicate that there was a positive,
direct relationship between certificated staff perceptions
of the managerial style and perceived administrative
effectiveness in 14 out of 20 schools. This hypothesis
was not supported for the six schools within which there
was a negative, indirect relationship.
A mean of all 2 0 differences between managerial
style and administrative effectiveness perceptions indi
cates that, in general, there was a positive, direct
relationship between managerial styles and administrative
effectiveness perceptions (+.413 intervals).
Research Hypothesis Four. There is a positive,
direct relationship between certificated staff perceptions
of the managerial style of principals and the perceived
school climate and faculty morale.
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS AND MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTIONS
OF MANAGERIAL STYLE
School
Perceived
Managerial
Style
Perceived
Admini strative
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Minus
Style
Rank
Difference
1 10.043 10.449 .406 12
2 9.253 9.673 .420 11
3 8.418 8.939 .521 9
4 10 .656 10.490 -.166 16
5 8.977 8 .612 -.365 19
6 9.690 10.615 .925 4
7 8.510 9.082 .572 7
8 8.722 9 .204 .482 10
9 9.587 10.776 1.189 3
10 9 .082 9 .296 .214 14
11 9.992 9 .681 -.311 17
12 8.972 8.265 -.707 20
13 8.934 10.867 1.933 1
14 9 .232 9 .796 .564 8
15 10.390 11.612 1.222 2
H
co
CO
Table 5 (Continued)
School
Perceived
Managerial
Style
Perceived
Administrative
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Minus
Style
Rank
Difference
16 10.000 10.765 .765 5
17 9 .74-0 9.622 -.118 15
18 8.388 9.061 .673 6
19 7 .964 7.612 -.352 18
20 8.844 9 .224 .380 13
Total 185.390 193.64 8.247
Arithmetic
Mean 9 .269 9 .682 + .413
+i£I
135
Findings. Eighteen of the 20 schools recorded
perceptions of school climate and faculty morale which
were higher (positive) than the perceptions of administra
tive style. (See Table 6). The most positive relation
ships were in schools 13 (2.525 intervals), 14- (2.013
intervals), 15 (1.86 5 intervals), and 10 (1.816 intervals).
The other two schools recorded perceptions of
school climate and faculty morale which were lower (nega
tive) than their perceptions of their principal's adminis
trative style. The negative relationships were in schools
12 (-.758 intervals) and 18 (-.500 intervals).
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis four indicate that there was a positive, direct
relationship between certificated staff perceptions of
managerial style and perceived school climate/faculty
morale in 18 of 2 0 schools. This hypothesis was not
supported for the two schools within which there was a
negative, indirect relationship.
A mean of all 2 0 differences between managerial
style and school climate/faculty morale perceptions indi
cates that, in general, there was a positive, direct
relationship between managerial style and school climate/
faculty morale perceptions (.96 5 intervals).
Research Hypothesis Five. There is a simple
correlation between the extent of preferred/practiced
perception discrepancy of managerial style and the per-
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
FACULTY MORALE, AND MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTIONS
OF MANAGERIAL STYLE
School
Perceived
Managerial
Style
Perceived School
Climate/Faculty
Morale
Climate/Morale
Minus Style
Rank
Difference
1 10.043 10.857 .814 12
2 9.253 9.439 .186 17
3 8.418 8.786 .368 15
4 10.656 12.010 1.354 8
5 8.977 9.388 .411 14
6 9.690 11.000 1.310 9
7 8 .510 10 .020 1.510 7
8 8.722 8 . 949 .227 16
9 9.587 11.286 1.699 5
10 9.082 10.898 1.816 4
11 9.992 11.033 1.041 10
12 8.972 8.214 -.758 20
13 8.934 11.459 2.525 1
14 9.232 11.245 2.013 2
15 10.390 12.255 1.865 3
H
co
C T >
Table 6 (Continued)
Perceived Perceived School
Managerial Climate/Faculty Climate/Morale Rank
School Style Morale Minus Style Difference
16 10.000 10 .980 .980 11
17 9.740 9 .745 .005 18
18 8.388 7.888 -.500 19
19 7.964 8 .714 .750 13
20 8.844 10.510 1.666 6
Total 185.390 204.676 19.282
Arithmetic
Mean 9.26 9 10 .234 .965
H
CO
138
ceived extent of the administrative effectiveness of the
principal.
Findings: The perception discrepancies for pre
ferred and practiced managerial styles and the ranking of
these differences are shown in Table 7. Table 8 inclues a
perceived administrative effectiveness ranking and the
ranking of the differences between preferred and practiced
perceptions of managerial style.
The correlation between ranked administrative
effectiveness and ranked discrepancies in preferred/
practiced styles was perfectly direct and high for one
school. School 15 had the lowest (rank 1) discrepancy
between preferred and practiced managerial style, and the
principal was rated highest in administrative effective
ness. The correlation was very direct and high for six
other schools:
Ranked
School Ranked Administrative Effectiveness Discrepancy
13 2 8
9 3 7
16 4 4
6 5 2
4 6 5
1 7 3
The correlation between ranked administrative
effectiveness and ranked discrepancies in preferred/
practiced managerial style is very direct and low for five
139
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTIONS
OF PREFERRED MANAGERIAL STYLE AND MEAN
CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF
OF MANAGERIAL STYLE
Rank
Preferred Practiced Preferred Difference
Managerial Managerial Minus (low to
School Style Style Practiced high)
1 12.704 10.043 2.661 3
2 13.385 9.253 4.132 14
3 12 .921 8.418 4.503 19
4 13.870 10.656 3.214 5
5 13 .431 8.977 4.454 17
6 12.319 9.690 2.629 2
7 12.490 8.510 3.980 12
8 12.702 8.722 3 .980 12
9 13.023 9 .587 3.436 7
10 12.344 9.082 3.262 6
11 13.805 9 .992 3 . 813 11
12 13.362 8.972 4.390 16
13 12.561 8 .934 3 .627 8
14 12.987 9.232 3.755 10
15 12.827 10 .390 2 .437 1
16 12.954 10 .000 2.954 4
17 13.383 9.740 3.643 9
18 13.250 8.388 4 .862 20
19 12.099 7.964 4.135 15
20 13.334 8 . 844 4.490 18
Total 259.750 185.390 74.357
Arithmetic
Mean 12.988 9.269 3 .718
140
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF
PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, AND
THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTION
DISCREPANCIES OF PREFERRED AND PRACTICED
MANAGERIAL STYLES
Rank
Preferred
Perceived Rank Minus
Administrative Administrative Practiced
School Effectiveness Effectiveness Style
1 10.449 7 3
2 9.673 10 14
3 8. 939 17 19
4 10.490 6 5
5 8.612 18 17
6 10.615 5 2
7 9.082 15 12
8 9.204 14 12
9 10.776 3 7
10 9.296 12 6
11 9.681 9 11
12 8.265 19 16
13 10.867 2 8
14 9 .796 8 10
15 11.612 1 1
16 10.765 4 4
17 9.622 11 9
18 9.061 16 20
19 7.612 20 15
20 9. 224 13 18
141
schools:
Ranked
School Ranked Administrative Effectiveness Discrepancy
19 20 15
12 19 16
5 18 17
3 17 19
18 16 20
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis five indicate that there were direct-high, and
direct-low, simple correlations between the extent of
preferred/practiced perception descrepancies of managerial
style and the perceived extent of administrative effective
ness .
One school had the lowest discrepancy in the
perceptions of the principal's style and the highest rankec
administrative effectiveness of the principal. In all,
seven schools had low perception discrepancies and high
rankings of administrative effectiveness of the principal.
High perception discrepancies and low principal adminis
trative effectiveness rankings were found in five schools.
Research Hypothesis Six. There will be a simple
correlation between the extent of preferred/practiced
perception discrepancy of managerial style and the per
ceived extent of school climate/faculty morale.
Findings: The perception discrepancies for pre
ferred and practiced managerial styles and the ranking of
142
these differences are shown in Table 7. Table 9 includes
a perceived school climate/faculty morale ranking and the
ranking of differences between preferred and practiced
perceptions of managerial style.
The correlation between ranked school climate/
faculty morale and ranked discrepancies in preferred/
practiced style was perfectly direct and high for one
school. School 15 had the lowest (rank 1) discrepancy
between preferred and practiced managerial style, and the
school climate and faculty morale were rated the highest.
The correlation was fairly direct and high for
three other schools:
Ranked School
School Climate/Faculty Morale Ranked Discrepancy
4 2 5
13 3 8
9 4 7
The correlation between ranked school climate/
faculty morale and ranked discrepancies in preferred/
practiced managerial style is very direct and low for
seven schools.
Ranked School
School Climate/Faculty Morale Ranked Discrepancy
2 14 14
5 15 17
8 16 12
3 17 19
143
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF
PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, AND
THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF PERCEPTION
DISCREPANCIES OF PREFERRED AND PRACTICED
MANAGERIAL STYLES
Rank
Preferred
Perceived Rank Minus
School Climate/ School Climate/ Practiced
School Faculty Morale Faculty Morale Style
1 10.857 10 3
2 9.439 14 14
3 8.786 17 19
4 12.010 2 5
5 9.388 15 17
6 11.000 7 2
7 10.020 12 12
8 8 . 949 16 12
9 11.286 4 7
10 10.898 9 6
11 11.033 6 11
12 8. 214 19 16
13 11.459 3 8
14 11.245 5 10
15 12.255 1 1
16 10.980 8 4
17 9 .745 13 9
18 7.888 20 20
19 8 .714 18 15
20 10.510 11 18
19 18 15
12 19 16
18 20 20
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis six indicate that there were direct-high and
direct-low simple correlations between the extent of
preferred/practiced perception discrepancies of managerial
style and the extent of perceived school climate/faculty
morale.
ceptions of the principal's style and the highest rated
school climate/faculty morale. Only three other schools
had low perception discrepancies and high school climate/
faculty morale rankings, whereas seven schools had high
perception discrepancies and low school climate/faculty
morale rankings.
correlation between the extent of the preferred/practiced
perception discrepancy of managerial style, the perceived
extent of administrative effectiveness of the principal,
and perceived extent of school climate/faculty morale.
perception differences, administrative effectiveness of the
principal, and school climate/faculty morale are shown in
Table 10. Comparing the relationship of these three
One school had the lowest discrepancy in the per
Research Hypothesis Seven. There is a multiple
Findings: The ranking for preferred/practiced
145
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF
PERCEPTION DISCREPANCIES OF PREFERRED AND PRACTICED
MANAGERIAL STYLES, THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED
STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS,
AND THE RANKING OF MEAN CERTIFICATED STAFF
PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE
Rank
Preferred
Minus Rank Rank
Practiced Administrative School Climate/
School Style Effectiveness Faculty Morale
15 1 1 1
6 2 5 5
1 3 7 10
16 4 4 8
4 5 6 2
10 6 12 9
9 7 3 4
13 8 2 3
17 9 11 13
14 10 8 5
11 11 9 6
7 12 15 12
8 13 14 16
2 14 10 14
19 15 20 18
12 16 19 19
5 17 18 15
20 18 13 11
3 19 17 17
18 20 16 20
146
variables, the following findings are indicated:
A. School 15 received the highest ranking in all
three variables: preferred/practiced discrepancy, adminis
trative effectiveness of the principal, and school climate/
faculty morale.
B. School 18 received the lowest ranking in pre
ferred/practiced discrepancy and school climate/faculty
morale. The principal was perceived as sixteenth lowest
in administrative effectiveness.
C. Of the ten highest ranked schools in preferred/
practiced discrepancy, eight of the ten were ranked in the
highest ten for administrative effectiveness of the princi
pal, and nine of the ten were ranked in the highest ten
for school climate/faculty morale.
D. Of the ten lowest ranked schools in preferred/
practiced discrepancy, eight of the ten were ranked in the
lowest ten for administrative effectiveness of the princi
pal, and nine of the ten were ranked in the lowest ten for
school climate/faculty morale.
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis seven indicates that there were very direct-higb
and very direct-low multiple correlations between the
extent of preferred/practiced perception discrepancy of
managerial style, the perceived extent of administrative
effectiveness of the principal, and the perceived extent
of school climate/facuity morale.
147
One school had a perfect direct-high correlation
between the three variables. One school had a near-perfect
direct-low correlation between the three variables. Eight
of the ten highest ranked schools in preferred/practiced
discrepancy were ranked within the top ten for administra
tive effectiveness of the principal. Nine of the top ten
in preferred/practiced discrepancy were ranked within the
top ten for school climate/faculty morale. Eight of the
ten lowest ranked schools in preferred/practiced discrep
ancy were ranked within the bottom ten for administrative
effectiveness of the principal. Nine of the bottom ten in
preferred/practiced discrepancy were ranked within the
bottom ten for school climate/faculty morale.
Research Hypothesis Eight. High school principals
will perceive that they most often use a participative
managerial style.
Findings: Principals, in general, saw themselves
as practicing a managerial style which was highly
democratic (10.892 intervals). (See Table 11). The twenty
principal perceptions ranged from very-low democratic
(9.071 intervals) to low-participative (13.143). Two
principals indicated the use of a low participative style.
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis eight indicate that principals usually do not
perceive themselves as using a participative style of
management. Generally, they perceived that they used a
148
TABLE 11
MANAGERIAL STYLE PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES
BY PRINCIPAL
School
Managerial
Style
Perceptions
Managerial
Style
Preferences
Preferred
Minus
Perceived
1 10.892 13 .682 2.790
2 11.429 14.714 3.286
3 10.036 13.250 3 .214
4 11.643 14.821 3 .179
5 9.071 12.393 3 .321
6 9.661 12.625 2.964
7 10.429 14.250 3 .821
8 10.429 12.071 1.643
9 12.071 13.714 1.643
10 11.321 14.036 2 .714
11 10.829 13.682 2.790
12 11.143 15.357 4.214
13 11.857 15.250 3 . 393
14 11.643 12.429 .786
15 10.536 12.750 2 .214
16 13.143 15.214 2 .071
17 9 .179 12.357 3.179
18 11.036 14.643 3.607
19 11.750 14.036 2 .286
20 9.679 12.357 2.679
Total 196.056 246.267 50 .214
Arithmetic
Mean 10.892 13.682 2.790
149
high-democratic style.
Research Hypothesis Nine. High school principals
will state that they prefer to use a managerial style which
is more participative than the one they perceive they
practice.
Findings: Principals, in general, stated that they
preferred to use a managerial style which was low-
participative (13.6 82). (See Table 11). The twenty
principal preferences ranged from very high-democratic
(12.071) to very high-participative (15.357). Three prin
cipals indicated that they preferred to use a high-
participative style.
All twenty principals stated they preferred to use
a managerial style which was more participative than the
one they practiced. The differences ranged from 4.214
intervals to .7 86 of an interval. The average difference
was 2.790 intervals.
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis nine indicate that the principals did prefer to
use a managerial style which was more participative than
the one they perceived they practiced.
Research Hypothesis Ten. Certificated staff members
will perceive their principals as most often using a
managerial style which is high-bureaucratic to low-
democratic .
Findings: Certificated staffs, in general,
150
perceived their principals as most often using a managerial
style which was low-democratic (9.269). (See Table 5).
The perceptions ranged from very high-bureaucratic (7.964)
to high-democratic (10.656). The certificated staffs of
four schools perceived their principal as using a style
which was high-democratic, whereas, one school's certifi
cated staff perceived that the principal used the high-
bureaucratic style.
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis ten indicate that certificated staff members did
not perceive their principals most often using a managerial
style which was high-bureaucratic to low-democratic. The
average perception of the 20 certificated staffs was low-
democratic , but the range of responses was from very high-
bureaucratic to high-democratic.
Research Hypothesis Eleven. Certificated staff
members will state that they prefer that their principals
utilize a managerial style which is low-participative to
high-participative.
Findings: Certificated staffs, in general, stated
that they would prefer that their principals use a
managerial style which was low-participative (12.988).
(See Table 7). The staff preferences ranged from very
high-democratic (12.099) to 13.870 which was slightly
below high-participative. Nine certificated staffs stated
they preferred their principal utilize a slightly below
151
high-participative style and one staff suggested a very
high-democratic style.
The findings within the framework of research
hypothesis eleven indicate that certificated staff members
did not prefer that their principals utilize a managerial
style which was low-participative to high-participative.
The average preference of certificated staffs was for the
low-participative style, but the range of preferences was
from very high-democratic to slightly below high-
participative .
Null Hypotheses
Diagnosis of Perceived
Administrative Style
A diagnosis of Null Hypotheses one through four of
the study in relationship to perceived (IS) administrative
styles showed the following:
For individual IS_ perceptions of items 1-2 8
(managerial style) see Tables 12-25.
Null Hypotheses One. There is no significant dif
ference between the principals' perception of their style
of management and the perceptions of co-administrators.
Findings: For all items except Number 1, the
hypothesis was supported. There was no significant dif
ference between the principals’ perceptions of their
managerial style and the co-administrators' perceptions of
TABLE 12
152
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
, ITEMS 1 AND 2
OF
Item 1: Knowledge of
Principles.
District’s Educational
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.900
10 .750
2.693
2.673
2.53 .016*
Principals to
Department Heads
7 .950 1. 877 6.74 .000**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7.450 1.191 8.28 .000**
Principals to
Composite
7 .750 .786 8.21 .000**
TABLE 12
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 1 AND 2
Item 2: Who is Involved in Development of
District’s Educational Principles?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.150
12.000
1. 843
2 . 847
.20 .844
Principals to
Department Heads
9.400 2.793 3.67 .001**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9 .150 1.663 5 .40 .000**
Principals to
Composite
9.200 1.765 5.17 .000**
* P < . 05 df = 3 8
** P ^ .01 df = 38
153
TABLE 13
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 3 AND 4
Item 3: Knowledge of School's Written Goals
and Objectives.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.400
12.700
2.563
3.294
.75 .458
Principals to
Department Heads
11.000 2.362 3.08 .004**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10.550 1.572 4.24 .000**
Principals to
10.800 1.576 3 . 86 .0 00**
TABLE 13
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 3 AND 4
Item 4: Who Is Involved in the Development
of School Goals and Objectives?
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.500
12.000
2.439
3 . 228
-.55 .584
Principals to
Department Heads
10.300 2 . 203 1.63 .111
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9 .300 1.174 3.63 .0 01**
Principals to
9.650 1.089 3 .10 .004**
Composite
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < . 01 df = 38
154
TABLE 14
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
, ITEMS 5 AND 6
OF
Item 5: Knowledge of Department’s Written
Goals and Objectives
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.700
12.750
3 .164
2.863
-.05 .958
Principals to
Department Heads
12.100 2 .100 .71 .484
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.650 1.309 1.37 .178
Principals to
Composite
11.700 1.342 1. 30 .201
TABLE 14
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
, ITEMS 5 AND 6
OF
Item 6: Who Is Involved in Development
Department Goals and Objectives
of
?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
8 . 050
8.700
2 .892
2.958
-.70 .487
Principals to
Department Heads
7.800 2 .067 .31 .755
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7 .300 1.174 1.07 .289
Principals to
Composite
7.500 1.100 .79 .432
* P < . 0 5 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
155
TABLE 15
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
, ITEMS 7 AND 8
OF
Item 7: General Attitude of Certificated
Employees Toward School and Its Goals?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10.600
10.850
2 .326
1.814
-.38 .707
Principals to
Department Heads
9.250 1.773 2.06 . 04 6*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8.750 1. 517 2 .98 . 00 5**
Principals to
Composite
8 .950 1.317 2.76 .00 9**
TABLE 15
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
, ITEMS 7 AND 8
OF
Item 8: Knowledge of School's Written
Administrative Organizational Chart?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.100
11.300
3 .259
2 . 940
-.20 . 840
Principals to
Department Heads
8.800 2 .118 2.65 .012*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8 .000 1. 806 3.72 .001**
Principal to
Composite
8.300 1.380 3.54 .0 01**
* P < .05 df = 38
ft* p ^ .01 df = 38
TABLE 16
156
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 9 AND 10
OF
Item 9: Do the Primary Responsibilities of
Administrators Overlap?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
9.700
9.250
3 .450
3 .193
.43 .671
Principals to
Department Heads
8.4-50 2.395 1.33 .191
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8 . 800 1.196 1.10 .277
Principals to
Composite
8.600 1.353 1.33 .192
TABLE 16
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 9 AND 10
OF
Item 10: Extent Authority for Decision Making is
Delegated by Principal to Co-
Administrators ?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail_
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.250
12.600
2.221
2.563
-.46 .647
Principals to
Department Heads
9.550 1.395 4.60 .000**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9 .300 1.380 5 . 04 .000**
Principals to
Composite
9.500 1.192 4.88 .000**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
TABLE 17
157
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 11 AND 12
OF
Item 11: Extent Authority for Decision Making is
Delegated by Principal to Department
Heads.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.000
10.200
2.29k
2 .726
1. 00 .322
Principals to
Department Heads
8.700 1. 976 3 .40 . 002**
Principals to o n^n
Teachers/Counselors
1.50k 4.81 .000**
Principals to
Composite
8 . 300 1.380 4.51 .000**
TABLE 17
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 11 AND 12
Item 12: Extent Authority for Decision Making is
Delegated by Co-administrators and/or
Department Heads to Teachers.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
9.300
9.750
2 .179
2 . 807
-.57 .575
Principals to
Department Heads
8 .000 1.947 1.99 .054
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7 .150 1.461 3.67 .0 01**
Principals to
Composite
7 .500 1.000 3.36 .002**
* P <.05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
TABLE 18
158
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 1.3 AND 14
OF
Item 13: Does the School have Written Job
Descriptions for Administrators and
Department Heads?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.950
11.350
3.017
3.376
.59 .557
Principals to
Department Heads
11.950 2.557 1. 87 .070
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8 .200 1.852 4.74 .000**
Principals to
Composite
8 .850 1.899 3.89 .000**
TABLE 18
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS” PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 13 AND 14
OF
Item 14-: General Perception of the Degree of
Authority Principal Delegates to
Certificated Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10.700
10 .900
2 .130
2.770
-.26 .799
Principals to
Department Heads
8.450 1.683 3.75 .0 01**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8 .200 1.281 4.50 .000**
Principals to
Composite
8.400 .995 4.38 .000**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P C .01 df = 38
159
TABLE 19
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 15 AND 16
OF
Item 15: Extent to Which Principal Verbally and/or
By Memo Gives Direction to Certificated
Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
9 . 000
9.500
2 .884
3.285
-.51 .612
Principals to
Department Heads
8.800 1.473 .28 .784
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8.350 1.137 .94 .354
Principals to
Composite
8.500 1.000 .73 .468
TABLE 19
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 15 AND 16
OF
Item 16: Extent to Which These Directives are
Accepted by Certificated Staff.
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.200
10.900
1.963
2.789
.39 .696
Principals to
Department Heads
9 . 850 1.226 2.61 .013*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9 . 200 1.056 4.01 .000**
Principals to
Composite
9 .500 .761 3.61 .0 01**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P <.01 df = 38
TABLE 20
160
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 17 AND 18
OF
Item 17: Extent to Which Certificated Staff
Verbally and/or By Memo Communicates
With Principal.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10 .500
10.600
1.987
2.761
-.13 .896
Principals to
Department Heads
9.350 2.007 1.82 .076
Principals to ~nn
Teachers/Counselors
1.302 4.11 .0 00**
Principals to
Composite
8 .650 1. 040 3.69 .001**
TABLE 2 0
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 17 AND 18
Item 18: Extent to Which Principal Accepts Upward
Communication from Certificated Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.050
11.650
2 . 585
3 .117
.44 .661
Principals to
Department Heads
10.900 1.714 1.66 .105
Principals to
Teachers/Counselor s
9 .500 1.606 3.75 .001**
Principal to
Composite
10.000 1.376 3.13 .00 3**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P ^ .01 df = 38
TABLE 21
161
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 19 AND 2 0
OF
Item 19: Principal’s
of Problems
Knowledge and Understanding
Faced by Certificated Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.750
11.450
2.447
3 .456
.32 .753
Principals to
Department Heads
10.100 2.360 2 .17 . 036*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8.600 2 .137 4.34 .000**
Principals to
Composite
9.200 1.704 3 . 82 .0 00**
TABLE 21
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 19 AND 20
OF
Item 20: Where is Accountability Felt for
Achieving Departmental and School Goals?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.950
10.950
2 .645
2.856
1.15 . 258
Principals to
Department Heads
11.400 2 .010 .74 .464
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.750 0.910 .32 .751
Principals to
Composite
11.550 1.146 .62 .539
* P < .05 df = 38
** P C.01 df = 38
TABLE 22
162
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 21 AND 22
OF
Item 21: Amount of Cooperative Teamwork Between
Principal, Co-administrators, Department
Heads, and Teachers.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.550
11.100
2.704
2 .426
.55 .583
Principals to
Department Heads
10.500 2 .328 1.32 .196
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8.650 1.599 4.13 .0 00**
Principals to
Composite
9„ 350 1.348 3 . 26 .002**
TABLE 22
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 21.AND 22
OF
Item 22: Who
of
Contributes to the
Classroom Teachers
Formal
in Your
Evaluation
School?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10 .750
10.550
3 .007
2.564
.23 .822
Principals to
Department Heads
9.700 2 . 342 1.23 .225
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9.000 1.522 2.32 .026*
Principals to
Composite
9 .350 1.981 1.74 .090
* P ^ .05 df = 38
** P ^ . 01 df = 38
163
TABLE 23
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 23 AND 24
Item 23: Who Sets the Performance Standards for
Classroom Teachers in Your School?
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12 .550
12.600
2.819
2.836
-.06 .956
Principals to
Department Heads
10.750 2.633 2.09 .044*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10.400 1.273 3 .11 .0 04**
Principals to
Composite
10.750 1.333 2.58 . 014*
TABLE 23
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 23 AND 24
Item 24: Extent Teachers Discuss Their
Instructional Objectives with Their
Evaluators.
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10 .850
11.250
3.392
3 .552
-.36 .718
Principals to
Department Heads
8.150 2. 852 2.72 .010*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7.550 1.849 3 .82 .000**
Principals to
Composite
7.950 2 . 038 3.28 .00 2**
* P < . 0 5 df = 3 8
** P <.01 df = 38
TABLE 24
164
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 25 AND 26
OF
Item 25: Extent of Availability
In-service Educational
of "Within-School"
Opportunities.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
7 .350
7.600
3 .297
3.761
-.22 . 824
Principals to
Department Heads
6.000 3 .509 1.25 .218
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
5.200 1.824 2 .55 .015*
Principals to
Composite
5 .650 2 .110 1.94 .060
TABLE 24
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 2 5 AND 26
OF
Item 26: Teacher's Feeling About Reason for
Implementation of the Stull Act.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
7.450
8.650
3.486
2.159
-1.31 .198
Principals to
Department Heads
6.950 2 .417 .53 .601
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7.050 1.605 .47 .644
Principals to
Composite
7 .150 1.182 .36 .718
* P C .05 df = 38
** P ^ .01 df = 38
TABLE 25
165
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 27 AND 2 8
OF
Item 27: Extent of Availability of Supplies,
Equipment, and Textbooks in Your School.
Mean
Standard
Deviation.
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10.300
10.650
2 .774
2.978
-.38 .703
Principals to
Department Heads
9.450 3 .069 .92 .364
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8.200 2 .587 2 .48 .018*
Principals to
Composite
8.750 2.573 1.83 .075
TABLE 25
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"IS" PERCEPTIONS
ITEMS 2 7 AND 2 8
OF
Item 28: Degree of Involvement Teachers
Selection of Their Department
Have in
Heads.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
7.050
7.350
5.316
3.870
-.20 .839
Principals to
Department Heads
5.900 4.633 .73 .470
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
4.550 2 .762 1.87 .070
Principals to
Composite
5.150 2.943 1.40 .170
* P < .05 df = 3 8
** P ^ .01 df = 38
166
principals' style except for "knowledge of the district's
Educational Principles" wherein the co-administrators saw
principals as being significantly less participative (.016
level of significance).
Though not significantly different, it is inter
esting to note that principals saw themselves as being
less participative in items 4-8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and
23-28, than did co-administrators perceive them. This was
true for six of the seven items included within the func
tion of controlling (evaluating).
It may also be interesting to note that individual
principals varied extensively in their perceptions of
item 28, "the degree of involvement teachers have in
selection of their department heads." The standard devia
tion was 5.316 intervals (Table 25) which indicates the
range of perceptions was from very low-bureaucratic to
high-democratic.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis one indicate that principals and co-administrators have
the same perception of the principals' managerial style
except for one item in the function of planning, "knowledge
of district's Educational Principles."
Null Hypothesis Two. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
style of management and the perceptions of department
heads.
167
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
*+-6 , 9 , 12, 15 , 17 , 18 , 20-22 , and 25-28 , because the
differences were less than the .05 level of significance.
Also, on none of the 2 8 items did department heads see
principals as being more participative than the principals
themselves perceived.
Department heads saw the principals as being sig
nificantly less participative than the principals did on
items 7, 8, 13, 14-, 16, 19, 23, and 24 (.05 level). The
null hypothesis was reasonably rejected for these items.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 which indi
cates a very high confidence level (at least 99 percent)
related to the differences in perceptions for these three
planning and two organizing items. The null hypothesis was
very reasonably rejected for these items.
Department heads varied extensively, although not
to the degree principals did as reported in null hypothesis
one, in their perceptions of item 28, "the degree
of involvement teachers have in selection of their
department heads." The standard deviation was 4.6 33
intervals (Table 25) which indicates the range of percep
tions was from very low-bureaucratic to just below high-
democratic .
The findings within the framework on null hypothe
sis two indicate that department heads and principals
168
viewed the principals1 managerial style the same for three
of the seven planning items, two of the seven organizing
items, five of the seven directing items, and five of the
seven evaluating items.
The findings also indicate that department heads
viewed principals’ managerial style as significantly less
participative than principals did on one planning item,
"general attitude of certificated employees toward school
and its goals"; three organizing items, "knowledge of
school’s written administrative organizational chart,"
"does the school have written job descriptions for adminis
trators and department heads," and "general perception of
the degree of authority principal delegates to certificated
staff"; two directing items, "extent to which directives
are accepted by certificated staff," and "principal's know
ledge and understanding of problems faced by certificated
staff"; and on two evaluating items, "who sets the perfor
mance standards for classroom teachers in your school?"
and "extent teachers discuss their instructional objectives
with their evaluators."
The most significant findings indicate that depart
ment heads perceived their principals were very signifi
cantly less participative than the principals perceived
they were in planning items, "knowledge of the district's
Educational Principles," "who is involved in the develop
ment of the district's Educational Principles?" and
169
"knowledge of the school’s written goals and objectives;"
and in organizing items, "extent authority for decision
making is delegated by principal to co-administrators,"
and "extent authority for decision making is delegated by
principal to department heads."
Null Hypothesis Three. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
style of management and the perceptions of teachers and
counselors.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
5, 6, 9, 15, 20, 26, and 28 because the differences were
less than the .05 level of significance. Also, on none of
the 28 items did teachers and counselors see principals as
being more participative than the principals themselves
perceived.
Teachers and counselors saw the principals as
being significantly less participative than the principals
did on items 22, 25, and 2 7 (.05 level). The null hypothe
sis was reasonably rejected for these items.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-19, 21, 23,
and 24 which indicates a very high confidence level (at
least 99 percent) related to the differences in perceptions
for these five planning, six organizing, five directing,
and two evaluating items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for these items.
170
The findings within the framework of the null
hypothesis three indicate that teachers/counselors and
principals viewed the principals’ managerial style the same
for two of seven planning items, one of seven organizing
items, two of seven directing items, and two of seven
evaluating items.
The findings also indicate that teachers/counselors
viewed the principals’ managerial style as significantly
less participative than principals did on three evaluating
items, "who contributes to the formal evaluation of
teachers in your school?" "extent of availability of ’with
in school’ in-service educational opportunities," and
"extent of availability of supplies, equipment, and text
books in your school."
The most significant findings indicate that
teachers/counselors perceived principals were very signifi
cantly less participative than the principals perceived
they were in planning items, "knowledge of district's
Educational Principles," "who is involved in the develop
ment of district’s Educational Principles?" "knowledge of
school's written goals and objectives," "who is involved
in development of school goals and objectives?" and
"general attitude of certificated employees toward school
and its goals"; in organizing items, "knowledge of school’s
written administrative organizational chart," "extent
authority for decision making is delegated by principal to
171
co-administrators," "extent authority for decision making
is delegated by principal to department heads," "extent
authority for decision making is delegated by co-
administrators and/or department heads to teachers," "does
the school have written job descriptions for administrators
and department heads?" and "general perception of the
degree of authority principal delegates to certificated
staff;" in directing items, "extent to which directives
are accepted by certificated staff," "extent to which
certificated staff verbally and/or by memo communicates
with principal," "extent to which principal accepts upward
communication from certificated staff," "principal's know
ledge and understanding of problems faced by certificated
staff," and "amount of cooperative teamwork between prin
cipal, co-administrators, department heads, and teachers";
and in evaluating items, "who sets the performance stan
dards for classroom teachers in your school?" and "extent
teachers discuss their instructional objectives with their
evaluators."
Null Hypothesis Four. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
style of management and the composite perceptions of co-
administrators, department heads, teachers and counselors.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
5, 6, 9, 15, 20, 22, and 25-28, because the differences
were less than the .05 level of significance. Also, on
172
none of the 2 8 items did the composite perception indicate
that principals were more participative than the principals
themselves perceived.
Co-administrators, department heads, and teachers/
counselors saw the principals as being significantly less
participative than the principals perceived on item 2 3
(.05 level). The null hypothesis was reasonably rejected
for this item.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-19, 21, and
24 which indicates a very high confidence level (at least
99 percent) related to the differences in perceptions for
these five planning, six organizing, five directing, and
two evaluating items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for these items.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis four indicate that the co-administrator, department
head, and teacher/counselor composite, and the principals
viewed principals’ managerial style the same for two of
the seven planning items, one of the seven organizing
items, two of the seven directing items, and five of the
seven evaluating items.
The findings also indicate that the composite
viewed principals’ managerial style as significantly less
participative than principals did on one evaluating item,
"who sets the performance standards for classroom teachers
173
in your school?"
The most significant findings indicate that the
composite group perceived principals were very signifi
cantly less participative than the principals perceived
they were in planning items, "knowledge of district's
Educational Principles," "who is involved in the develop
ment of district’s Educational Principles?" "knowledge of
school's written goals and objectives," "who is involved
in development of school's goals and objectives?" and
"general attitude of certificated employees toward school
and its goals"; in organizing items, "knowledge of school's
written administrative organizational chart," "extent
authority for decision making is delegated by principal to
co-administrators," "extent authority for decision making
is delegated by principal to department heads," "extent
authority for decision making is delegated by co-
administrators and/or department heads to teachers," "does
the school have written job descriptions for administrators
and department heads?" and "general perception of the
degree of authority principal delegates to certificated
staff"; in directing items, "extent to which directives are
accepted by certificated staff," "extent to which certifi
cated staff verbally and/or by memo communicates with
principal," "extent to which principal accepts upward
communication from certificated staff," "principal's knowl
edge and understanding of problems faced by certificated
174
staff," and "amount of cooperative teamwork between princi
pal, co-administrators, department heads, and teachers";
and in the evaluating item, "extent teachers discuss their
instructional objectives with their evaluators."
Diagnosis of Preferred
Administrative Style
A diagnosis of Null Hypotheses five through eight
of the study in relationship to preferred (should) adminis
trative styles showed the following:
For individual should perceptions of items 1-2 8
(managerial style) see Tables 26-39.
Null Hypothesis Five. There is no significant
difference between the principals' preferred style of
management and the preference of co-administrators.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
2, 3, 5-10, and 12-28, because the differences were less
than the .05 level of significance.
Though not significantly different, it is inter
esting to note that principals preferred a managerial style
which was less participative than co-administrators pre
ferred in items 2, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, and 26-28.
Principals preferred a managerial style which was
significantly more participative than co-administrators
preferred on item 11 (.05 level). The null hypothesis was
reasonably rejected for this item.
The differences were very significant, at or beyonc
TABLE 26
175
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 1
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 2
Item 1: Knowledge of District’s
Principles.
Educational
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
15.150
13.200
1.309
1. 824
3.88 .00 0**
Principals to
Department Heads
12.150 .999 7.06 .00 0**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.000 .795 9.20 .000**
Principals to
Composite
12.100 .718 9 .14 .000**
TABLE 26
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 1
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 2
Item 2: Who is Involved in Development of
District's Educational Principles?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.650
14.850
1.631
1.089
-.46 .651
Principals to
Department Heads
13.800 .951 2.01 .051
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13.500 .745 3 .24 .00 2**
Principals to
Composite
13.550 .605 2.83 .007**
* P < . 0 5 df = 3 8
** P ^ .01 df = 38
176
TABLE 27
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE , . . ITEMS. 3. AND 4
Item 3: Knowledge of
Objectives.
School's Written Goals and
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
15.050
14.100
1.356
1.714
1.94 .059
Principals to
Department Heads
13 .450 1.234 3.90 .000**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.950 1.050 5.48 .000**
Principals to
Composite
13.150 .875 5.26 .000**
TABLE 27
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 3 AND 4
Item 4: Who is Involved in the Development of
School Goals and Objectives?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
15.200
13 .550
.952
2.305
2.96 .005**
Principals to
Department Heads
13.250 1.410 5 .13 .000**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.600 .681 9 .94 .000**
Principal to
Composite
12 .750 .851 8 .58 .000**
* P <.05 df = 38
** P <.01 df = 38
177
TABLE 28
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 5 AND 6
Item 5: Knowledge of Department's Written Goals
and Objectives.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.650
14.450
2 .007
1.701
.34 .736
Principals to
Department Heads
14.000 1.414 1.18 .244
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13.850 . 813 1.65 .107
Principals to
13.800 .834 1.75 .088
TABLE 2 8
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 5 AND 6
Item 6: Who is Involved in Development of
Department Goals and Objectives?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.550
12.850
2.350
2.084
1.00 . 325
Principals to
Department Heads
11.200 1.824 3 .53 .001**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10.750 . 967 4.93 .000**
Principals to
Composite
10.950 .999 4.55 .000**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
178
TABLE 29
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 7
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 8
Item 7: General Attitude of Certificated
Toward School and Its Goals.
Employees
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.45 0
13.550
1.638
1.761
1.67 .102
Principals to
Department Heads
13.000 1.124 3.26 .002**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12 .900 .641 3.94 .000**
Principals to
Composite
13.050 .605 3.59 .0 01**
TABLE 29
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 7
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 8
Item 8: Knowledge of School's Written Administra
tive Organizational Chart.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.550
14.350
1.669
1.565
.39 .698
Principals to
Department Heads
12.700 1.218 4.00 .00 0**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12 .950 .999 3.68 .0 01**
Principals to
Composite
13.000 . 973 3.59 .001**
* P < .05 df = 3 8
ft* p < .01 df = 38
TABLE 30
179
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"SHOULD"
ITEMS 9
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 10
Item 9: Do the Primary
Administrators
Responsibilities
Overlap?
of
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.150
12.400
2.621
2.326
-.32 .751
Principals to
Department Heads
12.300 1.342 -.23 .821
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.950 .999 .32 .752
Principals to
Composite
12.000 .858 .24 .809
TABLE 30
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"SHOULD"
ITEMS 9
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 10
Item 10: Extent Authority for Decision
Delegated by Principal to Co-
Administrator .
Making is
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.400
13 .650
2.037
2 .033
-.39 .700
Principals to
Department Heads
11.900 1.071 2.92 .006**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.050 .826 2.75 .0 09**
Principals to
Composite
12.100 .718 2.69 .010*
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
TABLE 31
180
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD” PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 11 AND 12
Item 11: Extent Authority for Decision Making is
Delegated by Principal to Department Head.
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.300
11.650
1. 949
2.346
2.42 . 020*
Principals to
Department Heads
11.600 1. 273 3 . 27 .00 2**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.600 1.046 3 .44 .0 01**
Principals to
11.450 . 826 3.91 .000**
TABLE 31
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 11 AND 12
Item 12: Extent Authority for Decision Making is
Delegated by Co-administrators and/or
Department Heads to Teachers.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.100
11.050
2. 245
2.350
1.44 .157
Principals to
Department Heads
11.000 1.487 1.83 .076
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.150 1.182 1.67 .102
Principals to
Composite
11.100 .945 1.74 .084
* P <.05 df = 38
** P <.01 df = 38
181
TABLE 3 2
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD"
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 13
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 14
Item 13: Does the School have Written Job
Descriptions for Administrators and
Department Heads?
Standard
Mean Deviation
T 2-Tail
Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.100 1.832
14.400 1.536
-.56 .578
Principals to
Department Heads
13.000 1.170 2.26 .029*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.650 1.182 2.97 .005**
Principals to
Composite
12.750 .910 2.95 .005**
TABLE 3 2
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD"
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 13
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 14
Item 14: General Perception of the Degree of
Authority Principal Delegates to
Certificated Staff.
Standard
Mean Deviation
T 2-Tail
Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.050 2.114
12.050 2.114
1.50 .143
Principals to
Department Heads
11.000 1.589 3.47 .001**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.650 .933 2.71 .010*
Principals to
Composite
11.350 .745 3.39 .002**
* P < .05 df = 3 8
** P < .01 df = 38
182
TABLE 33
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"SHOULD"
ITEMS 15
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 16
Item 15: Extent to which Principal Verbally and/or
by Memo Gives Direction to Certificated
Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.400
11.700
2.722
2 .179
- .38 .703
Principals to
Department Heads
11.700 1.490 -.43 .668
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10.700 .979 1.08 .286
Principals to
Composite
11.100 1.210 .45 .655
TABLE 33
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"SHOULD"
ITEMS 15
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 16
Item 16: Extent to Which These Directives are
Accepted by Certificated Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.500
12 .800
1.960
2 .142
-.46 .647
Principals to
Department Heads
12.150 .875 .73 .470
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.900 .641 1.30 . 201
Principals to
Composite
11.950 .605 1.20 .238
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
TABLE 3 4
183
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD"
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 17
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 18
Item 17: Extent to Which Certificated Staff
Verbally and/or by Memo Communicates
With Principal.
Standard
Mean Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.700 2.408
13.250 1.773
-.82 .416
Principals to
Department Heads
12.100 1.210 1.00 .326
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.900 .912 1.39 .173
Principals to
Composite
12.000 .649 1.26 . 217
TABLE 34
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD"
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 17
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 18
Item 18: Extent to Which Principal Accepts Upward
Communication from Certificated Staff.
Standard
Mean Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.600 2.257
13.550 1.791
.08 .939
Principals to
Department Heads
13.100 1.021 .90 .372
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.550 1.050 1.89 .067
Principals to
Composite
12.750 .851 1.58 .123
* P < .05 df = 38
** P ^ .01 df = 38
TABLE 3 5
184
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 19
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 2 0
Item 19: Principal's
of Problems
Knowledge and Understanding
Faced by Certificated Staff.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.450
13.700
1.504
1.780
1.44 .158
Principals to
Department Heads
13.450 .605 2.76 .009**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13.200 . 894 3 . 20 .00 3**
Principals to
Composite
13.150 .671 3.53 .001**
TABLE 3 5
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 19
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 2 0
Item 20: Where is Accountability Felt for Achieving
Departmental and School Goals?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.500
14 . 250
2.705
1.650
.35 . 726
Principals to
Department Heads
14.050 .887 .71 .484
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
14.100 .718 .64 .527
Principals to
Composite
14.150 .671 .56 .578
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
185
TABLE 3 6
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 21
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 22
Item 21: Amount of Cooperative Teamwork
Principals, Co-administrators,
Heads, and Teachers.
Between
Department
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.700
14.500
1.455
1.792
.39 .701
Principals to
Department Heads
13.250 1.333 3 . 29 . 002**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13.100 .718 4.41 .000**
Principals to
Composite
13.300 .733 3.84 .0 0 0**
TABLE 3 6
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE
"SHOULD"
, ITEMS 21
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 2 2
Item 22: Who
of
Contributes to the
Classroom Teachers
Formal
in Your
Evaluation
School?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.600
12.500
2.998
2.283
.12 .906
Principals to
Department Heads
12.150 1.694 .58 .562
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.000 1.076 .84 .405
Principals to
Composite
12.150 1.137 .63 .534
* P < .05 df = 38
** p ^ .01 df = 38
TABLE 37
186
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD” PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 23 AND 24
Item 23: Who Sets the Performance Standards for
Classroom Teachers in Your School?
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.300
14.300
2.716
1.593
.0 1.000
Principals to
Department Heads
13 . 550 1.234 1.12 .268
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13 .500 1. 000 1.24 .224
Principals to
Composite
13.400 .821 1.42 .164
TABLE 37
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 2 3 AND 24
Item 24: Extent Teachers Discuss Their Instruc-
tional Objectives with Their Evaluators.
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.600
13 .550
1.635
2.038
1.80 . 080
Principals to
Department Heads
12 .500 1.762 3.91 .000**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.800 .834 6.82 .000**
Principals to
Composite
12 .450 1.432 4.42 .000**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P ^.01 df = 38
187
TABLE 38
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"SHOULD"
ITEMS 25
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 26
Item 25: Extent of Availability
In-service Educational
of "Within-School"
Opportunities.
Mean
Standard T
Deviations Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13.750
12.800
1.997
1.908
1.54 .132
Principals to
Department Heads
12 .000 1.919 2.83 .0 07**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
11.850 1.089 3.74 .0 01**
Principals to
Composite
12.000 1.376 3.23 .003**
TABLE 38
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE,
"SHOULD"
ITEMS 25
PERCEPTIONS OF
AND 2 6
Item 26: Teacher's Feeling About Reason
Implementation of the Stull Act
for
.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
14.100
14.550
2 .426
1.395
-.72 .476
Principals to
Department Heads
13 .750 1.618 .54 .595
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13 .450 .945 1.12 . 271
Principals to
Composite
13 .650 .988 .77 .447
* P <.05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
TABLE 39
188
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 27 AND 2 8
Item 27: Extent of Availability of Supplies,
Equipment, and Textbooks in Your School.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
13 .600
14.300
3.515
2.003
-.77 .444
Principals to
Department Heads
14.250 . 910 -.80 .428
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
13.600 .598 .00 1.000
Principals to
13.850 .745 -.31 . 757
TABLE 3 9
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "SHOULD" PERCEPTIONS OF
MANAGERIAL STYLE, ITEMS 27 AND 2 8
Item 28: Degree of Involvement Teachers have in
Selection of Their Department Heads.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
9 . 950
10.950
4.136
2.819
-.89 .377
Principals to
Department Heads
10 .200 2.093 -.24 . 811
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
12.200 1.704 -2.25 .030*
Principals to
Composite
11.550 1.395 -1.64 .109
* P < .05 df = 3 8
** P < .01 df = 38
189
the .01 level, for items 1 and 4 which indicates a very
high confidence level (at least 99 percent) related to the
differences in preferences for these two planning items.
The null hypothesis was very reasonably rejected for these
items.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis five indicate that co-administrators and principals
preferred the same managerial style for five of seven
planning items, six of seven organizing items, all seven
directing items, and all seven evaluating items.
The findings also indicate that principals' pre
ferences for managerial style were significantly more
participative than co-administrators' preferences on the
organizing items, "extent authority for decision making is
delegated by principal to department heads."
The most significant findings indicate that the
co-administrators preferred a mangerial style which was
very significantly less participative than the principals
preferred in planning items, "knowledge of district's
Educational Principles," and "who is involved in the
development of school goals and objectives."
Null Hypothesis Six. There is no significant
difference between the principals' preferred style of
management and the preference of department heads.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
2, 5, 9, 12, 15-18, 20, 22, 23, and 26-28 because the
190
differences were less than the .05 level of significance.
Also, principals preferred a managerial style which was
less praticipative than department heads preferred in items
9, 15, 27, and 2 8.
Principals preferred a managerial style which was
significantly more participative than department heads
preferred on item 13 (.05 level). The null hypothesis was
reasonably rejected for this item.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21,
24 and 25 which indicates a very high confidence level (at
least 9 9 percent) related to the differences in preferences
for these five planning, four organizing, two directing,
and two evaluating items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for these items.
The findings within the framework of null
hypothesis six indicate the department heads and principals
preferred the same managerial style for two of seven
planning items, two of seven organizing items, five of
seven directing items, and five of seven evaluating items.
The findings also indicate that principals' pre
ferences for managerial style were significantly more
participative than department heads' preference on the
organizing item, "does the school have written job
descriptions for administrators and department heads?"
The most significant findings indicate that the
191
department heads preferred a managerial style which was
very significantly less participative than the principals
preferred in planning items, "knowledge of district's
Educational Principles," "knowledge of school's written
goals and objectives," "who is involved in development of
school goals and objectives?" "who is involved in develop
ment of department goals and objectives?" and "general
attitude of certificated employees toward school and its
goals"; in organizing items, "knowledge of school's written
administrative organizational chart," "extent authority
for decision making is delegated by principal to co-
administrators," "extent authority for decision making is
delegated by principal to department heads," and "general
perception of the degree of authority principal delegates
to certificated staff"; in directing items, "principal's
knowledge and understanding of problems faced by certifi
cated staff," and "amount of cooperative teamwork between
principal, co-administrators, department heads, and
teachers"; and in evaluating items, "extent teachers
discuss their instructional objectives with their evalua
tors," and "extent of availability of 'within-school' in-
service educational opportunities."
Null Hypothesis Seven. There is no significant
difference between the principals' preferred style of
management and the preference of teachers and counselors.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
192
5, 9, 12, 15-18, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 27 because the dif
ferences were less than the .05 level of significance.
Principals preferred a managerial style which was
significantly more participative than teachers/counselors
preferred on item 14 (.05 level). Principals preferred a
style which was significantly less participative than
teachers/counselors preferred on item 28 (.05 level). The
null hypothesis was reasonably rejected for these items.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 24,
and 25 which indicates a very high confidence level (at
least 99 percent) related to the differences in preferences
for these six planning, four organizing, two directing, and
two evaluating items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for these items.
The findings within the framework of null
hypothesis seven indicate the teachers/counselors and
principals preferred the same managerial style for one of
seven planning items, two of seven organizing items, five
of seven directing items, and four of seven evaluating
items.
The findings also indicate that principals’
preferences for managerial style were significantly more
participative than teachers/counselors' preferences on the
organizing item, "general perception of the degree of
authority principal delegates to certificated staff."
193
Teachers/counselors' preferences were significantly more
participative than principals' perceptions on the
evaluating item, "degree of involvement teachers have in
selection of their department heads."
The most significant findings indicate that the
teachers/counselors preferred a managerial style which was
very significantly less participative than the principals
preferred in planning items, "knowledge of district’s
Educational Principles," "who is involved in development
of district's Educational Principles?" "knowledge of
school's written goals and objectives," "who is involved in
development of department goals and objectives?" and
"general attitude of certificated staff toward school and
its goals"; in organizing items, "knowledge of school's
written organizational chart," "extent authority for
decision making is delegated by principal to co-
administrators," "extent authority for decision making is
delegated by principal to department heads," and "does the
school have written job descriptions for administrators and
department heads?" in directing items, "principal's know
ledge and understanding of problems faced by certificated
staff," and "amount of cooperative teamwork between princi
pal, co-administrators, department heads, and teachers";
and in evaluating items, "extent teachers discuss their
instructional objectives with their evaluators," and
"extent of availability of 'within-school' in-service
194
educational opportunities."
Null Hypothesis Eight. There is no significant
difference between the principals' preferred style of
management and the composite preference of co-
administrators, department heads, teachers and counselors.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items
5, 9, 12, 15-18, 20, 22, 23, and 26-28 because the dif
ferences were less than the .05 level of significance.
Principals preferred a managerial style which was
significantly more participative than the composite group
preferred on item 10 (.05 level). The null hypothesis was
reasonably rejected for this item.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24,
and 2 5 which indicates a very high confidence level (at
least 99 percent) related to the differences in preferences
for these six planning, four organizing, two directing, and
two evaluating items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for these items.
The findings within the framework of null
hypothesis eight indicate the composite group and the
principals preferred the same managerial style for one of
seven planning items, two of seven organizing items, five
of seven directing items, and five of seven evaluating
items.
The findings also indicate that principals'
195
preferences for managerial style were significantly more
participative than the composite group preferences on the
organizing item, "extent authority for decision making is
delegated by principal to co-administrators."
The most significant findings indicate that the
composite group preferred a managerial style which was
very significantly less participative than the principals
preferred in planning items, "knowledge of the district's
Educational Principles," "who is involved in the develop
ment of district's Educational Principles?" "knowledge of
school's written goals and objectives," "who is involved
in development of school goals and objectives?" "who is
involved in the development of department goals and
objectives?" and "general attitude of certificated staff
toward school and its goals"; in organizing items, "know
ledge of school's written organizational chart," "extent
authority for decision making is delegated by principal to
department heads," "does the school have written job
descriptions for administrators and department heads?" and
"general perception of the degree of authority principal
delegates to certificated staff"; in directing items,
"principal's knowledge and understanding of problems faced
by certificated staff," and "amount of cooperative team
work between principal, co-administrators, department
heads, and teachers"; and in evaluating items, "extent
teachers discuss their instructional objectives with their
196
evaluators," and "extent of availability of 'within-school*
in-service educational opportunities."
Diagnosis of Perceived Adminis
trative Effectiveness
A diagnosis of Null Hypotheses nine through twelve
of the study in relationship to perceived (IS) administra
tive effectiveness showed the following:
For individual IS_ perceptions of items 29-35
(administrative effectiveness) see Tables 40-43.
Null Hypothesis Nine. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
administrative effectiveness and the perceptions of co-
administrators .
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for all
items 29-35 because there was no significant difference
between the perceptions of principals and co-administrators
about the principals' administrative effectiveness.
Though not significantly different, it is inter
esting to note that co-administrators saw principals as
being more effective than the principals did on six of the
seven administrative effectiveness items (29, 30, 32, 33,
34, and 3 5).
The findings within the framework of null
hypothesis nine indicate that principals and co-
administrators had the same perception of the principals'
administrative effectiveness.
197
TABLE 40
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEMS 29 AND 30
Item 29: Extent of Your Satisfaction with the
"Way" School Goals and Policies are
Developed.
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
9 .200
11.050
3.636
2.724
-1.82 .076
Principals to
Department Heads
9.300 2 .179 -.11 .917
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8 .100 2.198 1.16 .254
Principals to
Composite
8.600 2 .137 .64 .528
TABLE 40
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEMS 2 9 AND 3 0
Item 30: Extent of Your Satisfaction with the
General Direction in Which Your School
is Moving.
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10.950
11.150
1.905
2.477
-.29 .776
Principals to
Department Heads
9.350 1.725 2 . 7 8 .008* *
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7 .950 1.761 5.17 .000**
Principals to
Composite
8.450 1.468 4.65 .000**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 3 8
198
TABLE 41
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEMS 31 AND 3 2
Item 31: Extent of the Willingness of Your Princi
pal to Delegate Authority for Decision
Making.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12 .050
11.900
1.572
2.918
.20 .841
Principals to
Department Heads
9.700 1. 342 5.09 .000**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9.650 2.277 3.88 .000**
Principals to
Composite
9.650 1.631 4.74 .000**
TABLE 41
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEMS 31 AND 3 2
Item 32: Extent to Which Teachers and Administra
tors Know Each Other’s Tasks and
Responsibilities.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
9 .200
9.850
1.963
2.739
-.86 .394
Principals to
Department Heads
8 .900 1.889 .49 .625
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7.650 1.268 2.97 .005**
Principals to
7.950 1.317 2 .37 . 023*
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
199
TABLE 42
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEMS 3 3 AND 34
Item 33: Extent of Your Principal's Effectiveness
in Securing Human and Financial Resources
for Your School.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10.250
11.200
2.337
2.587
CM
CM
i —1
1
.231
Principals to
Department Heads
9 . 800 1.322 .75 .458
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9.500 1.051 1.31 .198
Principals to
Composite
9.650 .988 1.06 .297
TABLE 42
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEMS 33 AND 34
Item 34: Extent of Your Principal's Effectiveness
in Appropriately Allocating Resources to
Departments and Divisions.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11 . 0 0 0
11.900
2.471
2 .337
CO
i —1
i —i
1
.244
Principals to
Department Heads
10.050 1.234 1.54 .132
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9.100 1.165 3.11 . 004**
Principals to
9.450 .945 2.62 . 013*
* P < .05
** P < .01
df = 38
df = 38
200
TABLE 43
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS, ITEM 3 5
Item 35: What is your Rating of Your Principal's
Overall Administrative Effectiveness?
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.100 2.198
12.050 3.531
- 1.02 .314
Principals to
Department Heads
11.000 1.622 .16 .871
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10.350 1.843 1.17 .250
Principals to
Composite
10.600 1.635 .82 .419
201
Null Hypothesis Ten. There is no significant dif
ference between the principals' perceptions of their
administrative effectiveness and the perceptions of depart
ment heads.
Findings: The hypothesis was accepted for items
29 and 32-35 because the differences were less than the .05
level of significance. Also, principals saw themselves as
being slightly less effective than department heads did on
item 29.
Department heads saw the principals as being very
significantly less effective than principals did on items
30 and 31 (.01 level). The very high confidence level (at
least 9 9 percent) of these findings indicates that there
was, in fact, a very significant difference between the
perceptions of department heads and principals. The null
hypothesis was very reasonably rejected for these items.
The findings within the framework of null
hypothesis ten indicate that principals and department
heads had the same perception of principals’ administrative
effectiveness on administrative effectiveness items,
"extent of your satisfaction with the ’way’ school goals
and policies are developed," "extent to which teachers and
administrators know each other's tasks and responsibili
ties," "extent of your principal’s effectiveness in
securing human and financial resources for your school,"
"extent of your principal's effectiveness in appropriately
202
allocating resources to departments and divisions," and
"your rating of your principal's overall administrative
effectiveness."
The most significant findings indicate that the
department heads perceived the principals as being very
significantly less effective than the principals perceived
on items, "extent of your satisfaction with the general
direction in which your school is moving," and "extent of
the willingness of your principal to delegate authority for
decision making."
Null Hypothesis Eleven. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
administrative effectiveness and the perceptions of
teachers and counselors.
Findings: The hypothesis was accepted for items
29, 33, and 35, because the differences were less than the
.05 level of significance. Also, on no items did the
teachers/counselors see the principal as being more effec
tive than the principals perceived.
Teachers/counselors saw the principals as being
very significantly less effective than principals did on
items 30-32 and 3H (.01 level). The very high confidence
level of these findings indicates that there was, in fact,
a very significant difference between the perceptions of
teachers/counselors and principals. The null hypothesis
was very reasonably rejected for these items.
203
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis eleven indicate principals and teachers/counselors had
the same perception of the principals’ administrative ef
fectiveness on administrative effectiveness items, "extent
of your satisfaction with the 'way1 school goals and poli
cies are developed," "extent of your principal’s effective
ness in securing human and financial resources for your
school," and "your rating of your principal's overall
administrative effectiveness."
The most significant findings indicate that the
teachers/counselors perceived the principals as being very
significantly less effective than the principals perceived
on items, "extent of your satisfaction with the general
direction in which your school is moving," "extent of the
willingness of your principal to delegate authority for
decision making," "extent to which teachers and administra
tors know each other’s tasks and responsibilities," and
"extent of your principal's effectiveness in appropriately
allocating resources to departments and divisions."
Null Hypothesis Twelve. There is no significant dif
ference between the principals' perceptions of their admin
istrative effectiveness and the composite perceptions of
co-administrators, department heads, teachers and
counselors.
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for items 29,
33, and 35, because the differences were less than the .05
level of significance. Also, on no items did the composite
group see the principals as being more effective than the
204-
principals perceived.
The composite group saw the principals as being
significantly less affective than the principals perceived
on items 32 and 34 (.05 level). The null hypothesis was
reasonably rejected for these items.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 3 0 and 31 which indicates a very
high confidence level (at least 99 percent) related to the
differences in perceptions of principals' administrative
effectiveness on these items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for items 30 and 31.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis twelve indicate principals and the composite group had
the same perceptions of the principals' administrative
effectiveness on administrative effectiveness items,
"extent of your satisfaction with the ’way* school goals
and policies are developed," "extent of your principal’s
effectiveness in securing human and financial resources for
your school," and "your rating of your principal's overall
administrative effectiveness."
The findings also indicate that the composite
perceptions of the principals' administrative effectiveness
was significantly less effective than principals perceived
on items, "extent to which teachers and administrators
know each other's tasks and responsibilities," and "extent
of your principal's effectiveness in appropriately
205
allocating resources to departments and divisions."
The most significant findings indicate that the
composite group perceived the principals as being very
significantly less effective than the principals perceived
on items, "extent of your satisfaction with the general
direction in which your school is moving," and "extent of
the willingness of your principal to delegate authority for
decision making."
Diagnosis of Perceived School
Climate/Faculty Morale
A diagnosis of Null Hypotheses thirteen through
sixteen of the study in relationship to perceived (IS)
school climate/faculty morale showed the following:
For individual IS perceptions of items 36-42
(school climate/faculty morale), see Tables 44-47.
Null Hypothesis Thirteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the perceptions of co-
administrators .
Findings: This hypothesis was accepted for all
items 36-42 because there was no significant difference
between the perceptions of principals and co-administrators
about the extent of school climate/faculty morale.
Though not significantly different, it is inter
esting to note that co-administrators perceived the extent
of school climate/faculty morale as being better than the
206
TABLE 44
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEMS 3 6 AND 3 7
Item 36: Your Perception of the Morale of Faculty
in Your Department.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.050
11.500
2.585
2.283
-.58 .563
Principals to
Department Heads
9.750 2 .124 1.74 .090
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
9 .050 2.012 2.73 . 010*
Principals to
9 .300 1.750 2.51 .017*
TABLE 44
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEMS 36 AND 37
Item 37: Your Perception of the Morale of the
Faculty in Your School.
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.350
10.700
2 .323
2.203
.91 . 370
Principals to
Department Heads
8 .850 2.159 3.53 .001**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
7.950 1. 932 5.03 .000**
Principals to
8.350 1.599 4.76 .0 00**
Composite
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
207
TABLE 45
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEMS 38 AND 39
Item 38: Extent Your Principal is Aware of the Pro
fessional Contribution You Make to Students
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
10.800
12.100
2 .353
3 . 059
-1.51 .140
Principals to
Department Heads
9 .400 1.429 2.27 . 029*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
8.650 1. 755 3 .28 .002**
Principals to
9 .050 1. 276 2.92 .0 00**
TABLE 45
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEMS 38 AND 3 9
Item 39: Extent Your Principal is Responsive to the
Feelings and Attitudes of Teachers.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.600
12. 050
2.113
3 .927
.55 .584
Principals to
Department Heads
11.200 1.322 2.51 .016*
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10.050 1.468 4.43 .000**
Principals to
Composite
10.400 1.231 4.02 .000**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P < .01 df = 38
208
TABLE 1+6
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEMS 40 AND 41
Item 40: Extent
for a
You Would Recommend
Job at Your School.
a Friend Apply
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
11.750
12 .200
4.191
3 .503
-.37 .715
Principals to
Department Heads
11.800 1.989 -.05 .962
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10 .400 2.010 1.30 .202
Principals to
Composite
11.150 1.954 .58 .565
TABLE 46
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEMS 40 AND 41
Item 41: In Your District, What is the Professional
Reputation of the Teachers at Your School?
Mean
Standard
Deviation
T
Value
2-Tail
Probability
Principals to
Co-administrators
12.950
12.000
2.328
2.596
1.22 .231
Principals to
Department Heads
11.050 1.669 2.97 .005**
Principals to
Teachers/Counselors
10 .950 1.432 3.27 .002**
Principals to
Composite
10.950 1.317 3.34 .002**
* P < .05 df = 38
** P C .01 df = 38
209
TABLE 47
TT TEST COMPARISONS OF "IS" PERCEPTIONS OF
SCHOOL CLIMATE/FACULTY MORALE, ITEM 42
Item 42: What is Your Overall Rating of Your
Faculty Working Conditions?
Standard T 2-Tail
Mean Deviation Value Probability
Principals to 11.050 2.929 nn 977
Co-administrators 12.050 2.800
Principals to 9.450 2.139 1.97 .056
Department Heads
Principals to 8.650 2.231 2.92 .006**
Teachers/Counselors
Principals to 9.100 1.889 2.50 .017*
Composite
* P <.05 df = 38
** P ^ .01 df = 38
210
principals perceived on items 36, 38, 40, and 42.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis thirteen indicate that principals and co-administrators
have the same perception of the extent of school climate/
faculty morale.
Null Hypothesis Fourteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the perceptions of depart
ment heads.
Findings. The hypothesis was accepted for items
36, 40, and 42, because the differences were less than the
.05 level of significance. Also, department heads per
ceived the school climate/faculty morale as being slightly
better than principals perceived on item 40.
Department heads saw school climate/faculty morale
as being significantly worse than the principals perceived
on items 38 and 39 (.05 level). The null hypothesis was
reasonably rejected for these items.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 3 7 and 41 which indicate a very
high confidence level (at least 99 percent) related to the
differences in perceptions of school climate/faculty morale
on these items. The null hypothesis was very reasonably
rejected for items 37 and 41.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis fourteen indicate principals and department heads had
211
the same perception of school climate/faculty morale on
items, "your perception of the morale of teachers in your
department" (principals answered on the basis of morale
within all departments), "extent you would recommend a
friend apply for a job at your school," and "your overall
rating of your faculty working conditions."
The findings also indicate that the department
heads' perception of school climate/faculty morale was
significantly worse than principals perceived on items,
"extent your principal is aware of the professional con
tribution you make to students," and "extent your principal
is responsive to the feelings and attitudes of teachers."
The most significant findings indicate that the
department heads perceived school climate/faculty morale
as being very significantly worse than the principals per
ceived on items, "your perception of the morale of the
teachers in your school," and "what is the professional
reputation of the teachers of your school?"
Null Hypothesis Fifteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the perceptions of teachers
and counselors.
Findings: The hypothesis was accepted for item 40
because the difference in perceptions was less than the
.05 level of significance. Also, on no items did teachers/
counselors perceive school climate/faculty morale to be
212
better than what principals perceived.
Teachers/counselors saw school climate/faculty
morale as being significantly worse than the principals
perceived on item 36 (.0 5 level). The null hypothesis was
reasonably rejected for this item.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
a very high confidence level (at least 99 percent) related
to the differences in perceptions of school climate/faculty
morale on these items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for items 37-39, 41 and 42.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe
sis fifteen indicate principals and teachers/counselors
had the same perception of school climate/facuity morale
on the item, "extent you would recommend a friend apply
for a job at your school."
The findings also indicate that the teachers/
counselors’ perception of school climate/faculty morale
was significantly worse than principals perceived on the
item, "your perception of the morale of teachers in your
department" (principals answered in terms of morale within
all departments).
The most significant findings indicate that the
teachers/counselors perceived school climate/faculty morale
as being very significantly worse than the principals per
ceived on items, "your perception of the morale of the
teachers in your school," "extent your principal is aware
213
of the professional contribution you make to students,"
"extent your principal is responsive to the feelings and
attitudes of teachers," "what is the professional reputa
tion of the teachers at your school?" and "what is your
overall rating of your faculty working conditions?"
Null Hypothesis Sixteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the composite perceptions
of co-administrators, department heads, teachers and
counselors.
Findings: The hypothesis was accepted for item 40
because the difference in perceptions was less than the
.05 level of significance. Also, on no item did the com
posite group perceive school climate/faculty morale to be
better than what principals perceived.
The composite group saw school climate/faculty
morale as being significantly worse than the principals
perceived on items 36 and 42 (.05 level). The null
hypothesis was reasonably rejected for these items.
The differences were very significant, at or beyond
the .01 level, for items 37-39 and 41 which indicates a
very high confidence level (at least 99 percent) related
to the differences in perception of school climate/faculty
morale on these items. The null hypothesis was very
reasonably rejected for items 37-3 9 and 41.
The findings within the framework of null hypothe-
214
sis sixteen indicate principals and the composite group
had the same perception of school climate/faculty morale
on the item, "extent you would recommend a friend apply
for a job at your school."
The findings also indicate that the composite group
perception of school climate/faculty morale was signifi
cantly worse than principals perceived on items, "your
perception of the morale of faculty in your department"
(principal answered in terms of morale within all depart
ments), and "what is your overall rating of your faculty
working conditions?"
The most significant findings indicate that the
composite group perceived school climate/faculty morale as
being very significantly worse than the principals per
ceived on items, "your perception of the morale of the
teachers in your school," "extent your principal is aware
of the professional contribution you make to students,"
"extent your principal is responsive to the feelings and
attitudes of teachers," and "what is the professional
reputation of the teachers at your school?"
Descriptive Data
Principals
Table 48 shows data collected about the 20 princi
pals included in the study. This information was gathered,
but it was not within the parameters of the study to
TABLE 48
PRINCIPAL DESCRIPTIVE DATA
School
Years in
Present
Position
Years in
Education Age Sex
BA/BS
Major/Minor
Highest
Degree
1 5 24 54 M
Ind. Arts
Sci.
MA
2 3 16 50 M
Soc. Sci.
Eng.
MA
3 1 23 48 M
Phys. Ed.
Soc. Sci.
MA
4 5 14 42 M
Soc. Sci.
Ed. D
5 5 17 42 M
Science
Ed. D
6 5 19 44 M
Science
MA
7 7 17 45 M
Soc. Sci.
For. Lang.
BA
8 10 18 46 M
Soc. Sci.
Eng.
MA
9 8 17 44 M
Soc. Sci.
Phys. Ed.
MA
10 7 23 58 M
Soc. Sci.
For. Lang.
MA
215
Table 4 8 (Continued)
School
Years in
Present
Position
Years in
Education Age Sex
BA/BS
Major/Minor
Highest
Degree
11 5 21 47 M
Soc. Sci.
Math
MA
12 1 12 33 M
Eng.
Soc. Sci.
Ed. D
13 2 23 50 M
Science
MA
14 2 10 34 M
Soc. Sci.
MA
15 8 27 55 M
Science
MA
16 2 17 49 M
Soc. Sci.
English
MA
17 1 17 44 M
Science
Math
MS
18 1 21 42 F
Soc. Sci.
Ed. D
19 4 20 45 M
Science
MA
20 2 22 46 M
Phys. Ed.
Math
MA
Average 4.2 18.9 45.9
ro
H
CD
217
statistically compare this data.
The following statements are made about the
descriptive data for principals:
1.0 Range of years in present position (1-10)
2.0 Average years in present position (*4.2)
3.0 Range of years in education (10-2 7)
4.0 Average years in education (18.9)
5.0 Range in age (33-58)
6.0 Average age (45.9)
7.0 Sex (one female, nineteen males)
8.0 BA/BS Major
Social Science (10)
Science (6)
Physical Education (2)
English (1)
Industrial Arts (1)
9.0 BA/BS Minor
English (3)
Math (3)
Foreign Language (2)
Social Science (2)
Physical Education (1)
Science (1)
None indicated (8)
10.0 Highest Degree Earned
Ed. D(4)
218
MS (1)
MA (14)
BA (1)
Schools
Table 49 shows data collected about the 2 0 schools
included in the study. This information was gathered, but
it was not within the parameters of the study to statisti
cally compare this data.
The following statements are made about the
descriptive data for schools:
1.0 Range in student enrollment (1800-36 52)
2.0 Average student enrollment (2 330)
3.0 Range of number of certificated employees
(72-159)
4.0 Average number of certificated employees (10 3)
5.0 Grade levels included at school
10-12(5)
9-12 (15)
6.0 Highest percentage of black minority students
(4)
7.0 Lowest percentage of black minority students
(0)
8.0 Highest percentage of brown minority students
(40)
9.0 Lowest percentage of brown minority students
(0)
TABLE 49
SCHOOL DESCRIPTIVE DATA
Percent Percent Percent
Grade Certificated Black Brown Yellow
School Enrollment Levels Staff Students Students Students
1 1919 10-12 78 1 18 1
2 2700 10-12 103 1 8 1
3 2800 10-12 100 1 10 3
1800 9-12 72 0 6 1
5 1926 9-12 91 2 18 1
6 1958 9-12 98 0 15 1
7 2193 9-12 106 1 4 2
8 2100 9-12 87 1 8 1
9 1951 10-12 78 0 9 1
10 1968 9-12 81 1 5 1
11 3497 9-12 159 1 7 1
12 2653 9-12 120 1 6 2
13 3652 9-12 158 1 3 2
14 2310 9-12 108 0 0 1
15 2258 9-12 106 1 1 1
16 2125 10-12 104 1 7 1
17 2221 9-12 92 2 18 1
18 2495 9-12 129 4 40 1
19 2255 9-12 103 1 1 3
20 1830 9-12 86 1 2 0
Average 2330 103
ro
f _ j
CD
220
10.0 Highest percentage of yellow minority students
(3)
11.0 Lowest percentage of yellow minority students
(0)
Decisions for Staff
Involvement
Table 5 0 lists the types of decisions in which the
300 respondents wanted to participate. The number of
certificated staff members stating each type of decision
is also shown.
The following data is offered about respondents
wanting to be involved in decisions:
1.0 Pertaining to their classroom or department
(200)
2.0 Which affect them or their students (13 3)
3.0 Pertaining to school policy (107)
4.0 Pertaining to curriculum (106)
5.0 About which they have expertise (90)
6.0 About budget (80)
7.0 About personnel (including evaluation) (72)
8.0 That include their accountability for results
(69)
9.0 About goals and objectives (66)
Principals1 Enabling Behaviors
Table 51 lists the enabling behaviors that the 3 00
221
TABLE 5 0
DECISIONS FOR STAFF INVOLVEMENT
Type of Decision
Frequency of Responses
300 Respondents
Goals and Objectives 66
Those involving my classroom
or department 200
Those involving school policy 107
Those about which I have
expertise 90
Budgetary decisions 80
Curriculum decisions 106
Those for which I am held
accountable 69
Those that will affect me
and/or my students 133
Personnel decisions
(including evaluation) 72
222
TABLE 51
PRINCIPALS' ENABLING BEHAVIORS
Behavior
Frequency of Responses
3 00 Respondents
Availability 33
Good listener (open door) 64
Sets good example as leader 69
Delegation of authority
(shared decisions) 100
Leaves me alone (freedom) 141
Demonstrates personal interest
in me 44
Has respect for my abilities
(support) 105
Good personality (human)
(friendly) 30
Follow-through (no delay
in decisions) 11
223
respondents stated their principals possessed. The number
of certificated staff members stating each enabling
behavior also is shown.
The following statements are made about the data
collected on enabling behaviors of principals. The
principal:
1.0 Leaves me alone (freedom). (141)
2.0 Has respect for my abilities (support). (105)
3.0 Delegates authority (shared decisions). (100)
4.0 Sets a good example as leader. (69)
5.0 Is a good listener (open door). (64)
6.0 Demonstrates personal interest in me. (44)
7.0 Is available. (33)
8.0 Has a good personality (human) (friendly).
(30)
9.0 Follows through (no delay in decisions). (11)
Principals * Handicapping
Behaviors
Table 5 2 lists the handicapping behaviors which the
300 respondents stated their principals possessed. The
number of certificated staff members stating each handi
capping behavior is also shown.
The following statements are made about the data
collected on handicapping behaviors . The principal:
1.0 Doesn't understand my department (no support).
(104)
224
TABLE 5 2
PRINCIPALS' HANDICAPPING BEHAVIORS
Behavior
Frequency of Responses
3 00 Respondents
Not available (off campus) 42
Poor personality (not
friendly) (poor human relations) 12
Does not listen (closed door) 27
Decisions come too slow (late) 38
Doesn't know I exist (leaves
me "too" alone) 23
Makes unilateral decisions
(no delegation of authority) 36
Poor planning (does not
follow through) 32
Doesn't understand my
department (no support) 104
Poor communication 97
225
2.0 Communicates poorly. (97)
3.0 Is not available (off campus). (42)
4.0 Makes decisions slowly (late). (38)
5.0 Makes unilateral decisions (no delegation).
(36)
6.0 Plans poorly (no follow through). (32)
7.0 Does not listen (closed door). (27)
8.0 Doesn't know I exist (leaves me too alone).
(23)
9.0 Has a poor personality (poor human relations)
(not friendly). (12)
Summary
This chapter had three major sections. Section one
examined the relationship of administrative styles to
administrative effectiveness and school climate/faculty
morale. Eleven research hypotheses were examined to
identify these relationships.
The first two research hypotheses were analyzed by
comparing arithmetic mean perceptions of principals and
the certificated staffs. The perceptions were recorded as
they pertained to the principals' execution of the manage
ment functions: planning, organizing, directing, and
evaluating. The means were computed for the perceptions
of 20 principals, 20 co-administrators, 80 department
heads, and 180 teachers/counselors.
226
For research hypotheses three through seven, mean
perceptions and preferences were computed and compared for
each of the 20 schools. Relationships between style and
effectiveness, climate, and morale were identified for each
school. Practiced and preferred managerial styles at each
school were examined and identified in research hypotheses
eight through eleven.
Section two included statistical diagnoses of per
ceived administrative style (null hypotheses 1-4), pre
ferred administrative style (null hypotheses 5-8),
perceived administrative effectiveness (null hypotheses
9-12), and perceived school climate/faculty morale (null
hypotheses 13-16). The diagnoses were based on double "T"
test comparisons of mean perceptions and preferences
recorded by principals, co-administrators, department
heads, and teachers/counselors on questionnaire items 1-28
(managerial style), 29-35 (administrative effectiveness),
and 36-42 (school climate/faculty morale).
The final section of this chapter listed and tabled
descriptive data about the following: principals involved
in study, schools involved in study, decisions certificated
staff members wanted to participate in, enabling behaviors
of principals, and handicapping behaviors of principals.
Objective statements related to numerical comparisons were
made for each group of descriptive data.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter offers a summary of the problem,
purpose, and procedures of the study, a summary of the
findings of the study, related conclusions, and recommenda
tions for utilization of the findings and for future
research studies.
Summary
The Problem
Most educational administrators agree that the high
school principalship is a most difficult administrative
assignment. Principals often fail at the high school
level, thereby making it difficult for students to reach
their potential in educational and personal achievement.
Also, the climate of the school and the morale of the
faculty are reduced to conditions which are counter pro
ductive to the accomplishment of the teachers' personal
goals and the goals and objectives of the organization.
Effective and productive schools cannot be
227
228
developed and sustained by the few executives who
administer them. The inertia inherent in the mass of
certificated personnel in a large high school is too great
for the limited forces of the administrative staff to
overcome. Principals must be willing and able to utilize
the strengths and contributions faculty and staff members
have to offer. The successful principal promotes progress
through the people in his organization.
The Purpose
The study focused on a description of management
styles utilized by principals of large high schools in
Orange County. The impact of the different management
styles on faculty perceptions of the principal's adminis
trative effectiveness, the school climate and faculty
morale, were also a part of the focus.
More specifically stated, the paramount purpose of
the study was to determine whether or not the extent of
delegation of authority and involvement of teachers in
decision making and problem solving make a difference in
the accomplishment of the goals and objectives of the
school.
In an attempt to satisfy the above purpose,
research and null hypotheses were set forth for the study.
The relationships between administrative style, school
climate, and faculty morale were investigated through the
229
eleven research hypotheses.
Null hypotheses 1-4 examined perceived administra
tive style, and null hypotheses 5-8 analyzed preferred
administrative style. Perceived administrative effective
ness and perceived school climate/faculty morale were
diagnosed within the framework of null hypotheses 9-12 and
13-16, respectively.
The Procedures
The basic method of research used in the study was
descriptive. The current "state" of the art of managerial
style is the set of existing conditions which was
described.
The instrument used in the study was designed and
developed by the researcher. Delegation of authority
(decentralization) and staff involvement (participation)
were the two dimensions which provided the basis for the
design of the instrument.
There were five basic sections containing a total
of 46 test items. School and principal descriptive data
were in the first section. Twenty-eight items related to
management functions comprised the next section. There
were seven items in both sections pertaining to administra
tive effectiveness and school climate/faculty morale. The
last section included requests for data pertaining to: (1)
kinds of decisions staff wanted to be involved in, (2)
230
enabling behaviors of principals, and (3) handicapping
behaviors of the principals.
The instrument, Diagnosing the Principals Adminis
trative Style, was designed, examined, pre-tested, revised,
and modified before it was administered for research
purposes. The sample included 15 staff members from each
of 2 0 of the largest high schools in Orange County. The
principal, counseling and guidance co-administrator, a
counselor, the heads of the English, foreign language,
girls physical education, and industrial arts departments,
and two teachers from each of these departments were the
subjects. A total of 300 subjects was included in the
study.
The questionnaires were delivered to the 20 parti
cipating principals, and they were asked to administer the
questionnaire to themselves and the other 14 certificated
staff members at their school in one "sitting." Ten school
days later the questionnaires were picked up. Three
schools were not complete at that time, but with individual
pursuit, all 300 questionnaires were returned.
The data was quantified utilizing the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences in the Computer Center at
the University of Southern California. Standard deviations
were computed for each school for the two variables on each
of 43 interval scale items. Standard deviations for the
differences between the perception and preference responses
231
were also computed. Two-tail tests of probability were
figured for the perceived and preferred responses on the
8 6 variables.
Frequency distributions were tabulated for
descriptive data regarding the 20 participating principals,
the schools, decisions staff needed to be involved in,
enabling behaviors of principals, and handicapping
behaviors of principals.
Summary of Findings
The majority of the findings were made by sub
mitting the data collected and compiled to an examination
and diagnosis through 11 research hypotheses and 16 null
hypotheses. Some findings were made from the descriptive
data collected.
Research and Null Hypotheses
The major findings are summarized within the
framework of each of the 27 hypotheses of the study:
Research Hypothesis One. Certificated employees
at the various organizational levels of the schools will
perceive their principal as possessing a management style
which is less participative than their superior perceives.
Summary of the Findings. Co-administrators per
ceived their superiors, the principals, as being as
participative as principals did. Department heads per-
232
ceived their principals as being considerably less partici
pative than their superiors, the co-administrators per
ceived. Teachers/counselors perceived their principals as
being somewhat less participative than their superiors, the
department heads perceived.
In summary, certificated employees at the various
organizational levels of the schools did perceive their
principals as possessing a management style which was less
participative than their superiors perceived.
Research Hypothesis Two. Principals will perceive
themselves as being more participative in their style of
management than will the composite view of the co-
administrators, department heads, teachers, and counselors
reveal.
Summary of the Findings: Principals perceive them
selves as being considerably more participative than did
the composite group (co-administrators, department heads,
and teachers/counselors). This was especially true for the
management functions of planning, organizing, and
evaluating.
Research Hypothesis Three. There is a positive,
direct relationship between certificated staff perceptions
of the managerial style of principals and the perceived
administrative effectiveness of principals.
Summary of the Findings; In general, there was a
positive direct relationship between managerial style and
233
administrative effectiveness perceptions. Out of the 2 0
schools, 14- showed positive and direct relationships
between managerial style and administrative effectiveness,
and six schools showed negative, indirect relationships.
Research Hypothesis Four. There is a positive,
direct relationship between certificated staff perceptions
of the managerial style of principals and the perceived
school climate and faculty morale.
Summary of the Findings: In general, there was a
positive, direct relationship between managerial style and
school climate/faculty morale perceptions. Out of the 20
schools, 18 showed positive and direct relationships
between managerial style and school climate/faculty morale,
and two schools showed negative, indirect relationships.
Research Hypothesis Five. There is a simple corre
lation between the extent of preferred/practiced perception
discrepancy of managerial style and the perceived extent of
the administrative effectiveness of the principal.
Summary of the Findings: There were direct-high
and direct-low correlations between the extent of
preferred/practiced perception discrepancy of administra
tive style and the perceived extent of administrative
effectiveness. One school had the lowest perception dis
crepancy and the highest ranked administrative effective
ness of the principal. In all, seven schools had low
perception discrepancies and high rankings of perceived
234
administrative effectiveness of the principal, and high
perception discrepancies with low administrative effective
ness rankings were found in five schools.
Research Hypothesis Six. There is a simple corre
lation between the extent of preferred/practiced perception
discrepancy of managerial style and the perceived extent of
school climate/faculty morale.
Summary of the Findings: There were direct-high
and direct-low correlations between the extent of
preferred/practiced perception discrepancy of managerial
style and the extent of perceived school climate/faculty
morale. One school had the lowest perception discrepancy
and the highest ranked school climate/faculty morale. In
all, four schools had low perception discrepancies and high
school climate/faculty morale rankings, whereas, seven
schools had high perception discrepancies and low rankings
in school climate/faculty morale.
Research Hypothesis Seven. There is a multiple
correlation between the extent of the preferred/practiced
perception discrepancy of managerial style, the perceived
extent of administrative effectiveness of the principal,
and the perceived extent of school climate/faculty morale.
Summary of the Findings: There were very direct-
high and very direct-low correlations between the extent
of preferred/practiced perception discrepancy of managerial
style, the perceived extent of administrative effectiveness
235
of the principal, and the perceived extent of school
climate/faculty morale. One school had a perfect direct-
high correlation between the three variables: lowest
discrepancy, highest administrative effectiveness ranking,
and highest school climate/faculty morale ranking. Eight
of the ten schools with the lowest discrepancies were
within the ten highest ranked schools in administrative
effectiveness and school climate/facuity morale. Eight of
the ten schools with the highest discrepancies were within
the ten lowest ranked schools in administrative effective
ness and school climate/faculty morale.
Research Hypothesis Eight. High school principals
will perceive that they most often use a participative
managerial style.
Summary of the Findings; Principals usually did
not perceive themselves as using a participative style of
management. Generally, they perceived that they utilized
a high-democratic style. The individual perceptions of
the 2 0 principals range from very low-democratic to low-
participative .
Research Hypothesis Nine. High school principals
will state that they prefer to use a managerial style which
is more participative than the one they perceive they
practice.
Summary of the Findings: All 20 principals did
prefer to use a managerial style which was more participa
236
tive than the one they perceived they practice.
Research Hypothesis Ten. Certificated staff
members will perceive their principals as most often using
a managerial style which is high-bureaucratic to low-
democratic .
Summary of the Findings: Certificated staffs
usually did not perceive their principals as most often
utilizing a managerial style which was high-bureaucratic to
low-democratic. The average perception of the 20 certifi
cated staffs was low-democratic, but the range of responses
was from very high-bureaucratic to high-democratic.
Research Hypothesis Eleven. Certificated staff
members will state that they prefer that their principals
utilize a managerial style which is low-participative to
high-participative.
Summary of the Findings: CertificatecJ staffs
usually did not prefer that their principals utilized a
managerial style which was low-participative to high-
participative. The average preference of the 20 certifi
cated staffs was for the low-participative style, but the
range of preferences was from very high-democratic to
slightly below high-participative.
Null Hypothesis One. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perception of their
style of management and the perceptions of co-
administrators .
237
Summary of the Findings: Principals and co-
administrators did have the same perception of the princi
pals ' managerial style except for one item in the function
of planning, wherein the co-administrators viewed the
principals as being significantly less participative than
the principals perceived.
Null Hypothesis Two. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
style of management and the perceptions of department
heads.
Summary of the Findings. Principals and department
heads did have the same perception of the principals'
managerial style on three of the seven planning items, two
of the seven organizing items, five of the seven directing
items, and five of the seven evaluating items. Department
heads viewed the principals as being significantly or very
significantly less participative than principals perceived
on four planning items, five organizing items, two
directing items, and two evaluating items.
Null Hypothesis Three. There is no significant
difference between the principals1 perceptions of their
style of management and the perceptions of teachers and
counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and teachers/
counselors did have the same perception of the principals'
managerial style on two of seven planning items, one of
238
seven organizing items, two of seven directing items, and
two of seven evaluating items. Teachers/counselors viewed
the principals as being significantly or very significantly
less participative than principals perceived on five
planning items, six organizing items, five directing items,
and five evaluating items.
Null Hypothesis Four. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of their
style of management and the composite perceptions of co-
administrators, department heads, teachers and counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and the com
posite group (co-administrators, department heads, and
teachers/counselors), did have the same perception of the
principals' managerial style on two of seven planning
items, one of seven organizing items, two of seven
directing items, and five of seven evaluating items. The
composite group viewed the principals as being signifi
cantly or very significantly less participative than prin
cipals perceived on five planning items, six organizing
items, five directing items, and two evaluating items.
Null Hypothesis Five. There is no significant
difference between the principals' preferred style of
management and the preference of co-administrators.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and co-
administrators prefer the same managerial style for prin
cipals on five of seven planning items, six of seven
239
organizing items, all seven directing items, and all seven
evaluating items. Co-administrators preferred a signifi
cantly or very significantly less participative managerial
style for principals than principals preferred on two
planning items, and one organizing item.
Null Hypothesis Six. There is no significant dif
ference between the principals' preferred style of manage
ment and the preference of department heads.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and department
heads preferred the same managerial style for principals
on two of seven planning items, two of seven organizing
items, five of seven directing items, and five of seven
evaluating items. Department heads preferred a signifi
cantly or very significantly less participative managerial
style for principals than principals preferred on five
planning items, five organizing items, two directing items,
and two evaluating items.
Null Hypothesis Seven. There is no significant
difference between the principals' preferred style of
management and the preference of teachers and counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and teachers/
counselors preferred the same managerial style for princi
pals on one of seven planning items, two of seven
organizing items, five of seven directing items, and four
of seven evaluating items. Teachers/counselors preferred
a significantly or very significantly less participative
240
managerial style for principals than principals preferred
on six planning items, five organizing items, two directing
items, and three evaluating items.
Null Hypothesis Eight. There is no significant
difference between the principals1 preferred style of
management and the composite preference of co-administra
tors, department heads, teachers and counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and the
composite group (co-administrators, department heads, and
teachers/counselors), preferred the same managerial style
for principals on one of seven planning items, two of
seven organizing items, five of seven directing items, and
five of seven evaluating items. The composite group pre
ferred a significantly or very significantly less partici
pative managerial style for principals than principals
preferred on six planning items, five organizing items,
two directing items, and two evaluating items.
Null Hypothesis Nine. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of their
administrative effectiveness and the perceptions of co-
administrators .
Summary of the Findings: Principals and co-
administrators did have the same perception of the
principals’ administrative effectiveness.
Null Hypothesis Ten. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of their
241
administrative effectiveness and the perceptions of
department heads.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and department
heads did have the same perception of principals' adminis
trative effectiveness on five of the seven administrative
effectiveness items. Department heads perceived principals
as being very significantly less effective than principals
perceived on items, "extent of your satisfaction with the
general direction your school is moving," and "extent of
the willingness of your principal to delegate authority for
decision making."
Null Hypothesis Eleven. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of their
administrative effectiveness and the perceptions of
teachers and counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and teachers/
counselors did have the same perception of principals’
administrative effectiveness on three of the seven adminis
trative effectiveness items. Teachers/counselors perceived
principals as being very significantly less effective than
principals perceived on items, "extent of your satisfactior
with the general direction in which your school is
moving," "extent of the willingness of your principal to
delegate authority for decision making," "extent to which
teachers and administrators know each other's tasks and
responsibilities," and "extent of your principal’s effec-
242
tiveness in appropriately allocating resources to depart
ments and divisions."
Null Hypothesis Twelve. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of their
administrative effectiveness and the composite perceptions
of co-administrators, department heads, teachers and
counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and the
composite group (co-administrators, department heads, and
teachers/counselors), did have the same perception of
principals’ administrative effectiveness on three of the
seven administrative effectiveness items. The composite
group perceived principals as being significantly or very
significantly less effective than principals perceived on
items, "extent of your satisfaction with the general
direction in which your school is moving," "extent of the
willingness of your principal to delegate authority for
decision making," "extent to which teachers and administra
tors know each other's tasks and responsibilities," and
"extent of your principal's effectiveness in appropriately
allocating resources to departments and divisions."
Null Hypothesis Thirteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the perceptions of co-
administrators .
Summary of the Findings: Principals and co-
243
administrators did have the same perception of school
climate/faculty morale.
Null Hypothesis Fourteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the perceptions of depart
ment heads.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and department
heads did have the same perception of school climate/
faculty morale on three of the seven items on school
climate/faculty morale. Department heads perceived school
climate/faculty morale as being significantly or very
significantly worse than principals perceived on items,
"your perception of the morale of the teachers in your
school," "extent your principal is aware of the profes
sional contribution you make to students," "extent your
principal is responsive to the feelings and attitudes of
teachers," and "the professional reputation of the teachers
at your school."
Null Hypothesis Fifteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals' perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the perceptions of teachers
and counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and teachers/
counselors did have the same perception of school climate/
faculty morale on one of the seven items on school climate/
faculty morale. Teachers/counselors perceived school
244
climate/faculty morale as being significantly or very
significantly worse than principals perceived on items,
"your perception of the morale of teachers in your depart
ment" (principals answered in terms of morale within all
departments), "your perception of the morale of the
teachers in your school," "extent your principal is aware
of the professional contribution you make to students,"
"extent your principal is responsive to the feelings and
attitudes of teachers," "the professional reputation of the
teachers at your school," and "your overall rating of your
faculty working conditions."
Null Hypothesis Sixteen. There is no significant
difference between the principals’ perceptions of school
climate and faculty morale and the composite perceptions
of co-administrators, department heads, teachers and
counselors.
Summary of the Findings: Principals and the
composite group (co-administrators, department heads, and
teachers/counselors), did have the same perceptions of
school climate/faculty morale on one of the seven items on
school climate/faculty morale. The composite group per
ceived school climate/faculty morale as being significantly
or very significantly worse than principals perceived on
items, "your perception of the morale of teachers in your
department" (principals answered in terms of morale within
all departments), "your perception of the morale of the
245
teachers in your school," "extent your principal is aware
of the professional contribution you make to students,"
"extent your principal is responsive to the feelings and
attitudes of teachers," "the professional reputation of
the teachers at your school," and "your overall rating of
your faculty working conditions."
Descriptive Data
Findings related to descriptive data which per
tained to the principals and schools in the study, types
of decisions staff wanted to be involved in, and enabling
and handicapping behaviors of principals are summarized
below.
Principals. Principals were chief administrators
at their schools for from one to ten years. Average
longevity was 4.2 years. Principals were educators for
from 10 to 27 years with the average being 18.9. They
ranged in age from 3 3 to 5 8 with the average being 45.9,
and one was female and 19 were males.
Of the 2 0 principals in the study, their BA/BS
majors were distributed as follows: Social Science (10),
Science (6), Physical Education (2), English (1), and
Industrial Arts (1). Their BA/BS minors were listed as
follows: English (3), Mathematics (3), Foreign Language
(2), Social Science (2), Physical Education (1), and
Science (1). Eight principals indicated they had no minor.
246
All but one of the principals had professional under
graduate preparation in the social sciences and/or the
sciences.
Four principals stated Ed. D. degrees, 15 stated
Masters degrees, and one stated a BA degree, as the highest
degree earned.
Schools. Student enrollment in the 2 0 schools
ranged from 1,800 to 3,652 with an average of 2,33 0. The
number of certificated employees ranged from 7 2 to 15 9 with
an average of 103. Five schools included grades 10-12 and
15 schools included grades 9-12.
The highest percentages of minority students in any
one school were as follows: Black minority students (four
percent), brown minority students (forty percent), and
yellow minority students (three percent).
Decisions for Staff Involvement. Nine types of
decisions were identified. The 300 respondents stated the
following as types of decisions they wanted to be involved
in: decisions pertaining to their classroom or department
(200), decisions which affect them or their students (133),
decisions pertaining to school policy (107), decisions
pertaining to curriculum (106), decisions about which they
have expertise (90), budgetary decisions (80), personnel
decisions (72), decisions that include teacher account
ability for results (69), and decisions about goals and
objectives (66).
247
Principals' Enabling Behaviors. The 300 respon
dents stated which principal behaviors enabled them to
accomplish their tasks and responsibilities. The princi
pal: leaves me alone (freedom) (141), has respect for my
abilities (support) (105), delegates authority (shared
decisions) (100), sets good example as leader (69), is a
good listener (open door) (64), demonstrates personal
interest in me (44), is available (33), has a good
personality (human) (friendly) (30), and follows through
(no delay in decisions) (11).
Principals * Handicapping Behaviors. The 300
respondents stated which principal behaviors handicapped
them in their attempt to accomplish their tasks and
responsibilities. The principal: doesn't understand my
department (no support) (104), communicates poorly (97),
is not available (off campus) (42), makes decisions slowly
(late) (38), makes unilateral decisions (no delegation)
(36), plans poorly (no follow through) (32), does not
listen (closed door) (27), doesn't know I exist (leaves me
too alone) (23), and has a poor personality (poor human
relations) (not friendly) (12).
Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from the findings of the
study were made in keeping with the following considera
tions :
248
1. Conclusions are made at a scope and level of
generality justified by the data presented.
2. Necessary qualifications are made in drawing
conclusions.
3. Conclusions are written in a form that can be
understood and verified by other investigators.
4. Conclusions are coordinated with the acceptance
or rejection of the research and null hypotheses presented.
The conclusions of the study are presented within
the framework of the 27 hypotheses set forth for the study
and the descriptive data collected. Related hypotheses
with similar data treatments are grouped so that the
resulting conclusions can be more easily understood. •
The first two research hypotheses dealt with per
ceptions of the principal’s managerial style by all
certificated employees in their principal, co-
administrator, department head, and teacher/counselor
groups and as a composite group excluding the principal.
The findings offer the following conclusions:
1. The lower a certificated employee was on the
"delegated authority" and "staff involvement" scale, the
less participative he perceived his principal. This was
particularly true at the department head and teacher/
counselor levels. The teacher/counselor share of authority
delegated by principals was less than that delegated to
department heads. Staff involvement in decision making
249
and problem solving was less as well. Department heads
were delegated more authority and were involved more
extensively in decision making and problem solving than
were teachers/counselors so they perceived the principal as
being more participative than teachers/counselors did. Co-
administrators, who are very high on the "delegated
authority" and "staff involvement" scale, perceived their
principals as being as participative, and sometimes more
participative, as principals perceived. Stated differently
it was concluded that the lower the status of a position
within the school, the more authoritative will the princi
pal be perceived.
2. Principals, by practice, delegated considerably
less authority and involved certificated employees in
decision making and problem solving considerably less than
what they professed. Principals believed they possessed
administrative style which approached participation, but in
reality they practiced slightly bureaucratic or low-
democratic styles which made them more authoritarian.
Research hypotheses three and four analyzed the
relationship of individual certificated staff and principal
perceptions of managerial style, administrative effective
ness and school climate/faculty morale with the following
conclusions derived from the findings:
3. Generally, the more participative a principal
was, the more effective he was administratively. The more
250
extensively authority was delegated, and the more staff
was involved in decision making and problem solving, and
the greater the goal and objective attainment.
M-. Generally, the more participative a principal
was, the better the school climate and the higher the
faculty morale. The more extensively authority was
delegated, and the more staff was involved in decision
making and problem solving, the greater the job satisfac
tion and confidence in leadership.
The next three research hypotheses examined indi
vidual certificated staff and principal perceptions of, and
preferences for, principals’ administrative style in
relationship to administrative effectiveness and school
climate/faculty morale. Conclusions drawn from the find
ings are:
5. The closer the match (fit) between the pre
ferred (should) administrative style and the practiced (is)
administrative style of a principal, the more effective
was the principal. The agreement between the style used
by a principal and the style preferred by the ceritificatec
staff was a predisposing factor to high administrative
effectiveness. A lack of reasonable agreement was an
equally predisposing factor to less administrative effec
tiveness .
6. The closer the match (fit) between the pre
ferred (should) administrative style and the practiced (is)
251
administrative style of a principal, the better the school
climate and the higher the faculty morale. The agreement
between the style used by a principal and the style pre
ferred by the certificated staff was a predisposing factor
to a good school climate and high faculty morale. A lack
of reasonable agreement was even more predisposing to a
poor school climate and low faculty morale.
7. The closer the match (fit) between the pre
ferred (should) administrative style and the practiced (is)
administrative style of a principal, the more effective
was the principal and the better the school climate and the
higher the faculty morale. The agreement between the style
used by a principal and the style preferred by the certifi
cated staff was a highly predisposing factor to high
administrative effectiveness of the principal, a good
school climate and a faculty with high morale. A lack of
reasonable agreement was an equally high predisposing
factor to low administrative effectiveness of the princi
pal, a poor school climate, and a faculty with low morale.
Research hypotheses eight and nine explored the
administrative styles individual principals stated they
practiced and preferred, and the findings suggest the
following conclusions:
8. A few principals believe that they delegated
authority readily and enabled certificated staff members
to be extensively involved in decision making and problem
252
solving. Some principals believed they delegated authority
and involved certificated staff members in decision making
and problem solving to a limited degree. Principals, in
general, believed that they delegated quite a bit of
authority and often involved certificated staff members in
decision making and problem solving.
9. Principals would rather be much more participa
tive than what they believed they were. They preferred to
delegate more authority than what they did, and to involve
certificated staff members in decision making and problem
solving to a greater extent than what they believed they
did.
The last two research hypotheses investigated the
administrative styles individual school certificated staffs
stated their principal practiced and they preferred.
Conclusions gleaned from the findings are as follows:
10. Certificated staffs most often believed that
their principals practiced an administrative style which
was low-democratic wherein the level of delegation of
authority and staff involvement was sometimes limited.
Certificated staffs varied in their perceptions of their
principal's style from very high-bureaucratic (limited
delegated authority and staff involvement) to high-
democratic (quite a bit of delegated authority and staff
involvement).
11. Certificated staffs most often preferred that
253
their principals practice an administrative style which
was low-participative wherein a great deal of authority was
delegated and certificated staffs were very often involved
in decision making and problem solving. Certificated staff
varied in their preferences for their principal's adminis
trative style from very high-democratic (quite a bit of
delegated authority and staff involvement) to high-partici
pative (a great deal of delegated authority and staff
involvement).
Summarizing conclusions 1, 10, and 11, and con
clusions 2, 8, and 9, the following conclusions were made:
A. Principals are more authoritarian than
certificated employees want them to be. Certificated
employees want principals to be more participative than
what they are. Certificated employees want to be delegatee
more authority and want to be more involved in decision
making and problem solving than what they are.
B. Principals are more authoritarian than what
they believe they are. They would rather be much more
participative than what they are. Principals want to
delegate more authority and have more staff involvement
than what they do.
Summarizing conclusions 3 through 7 the following
conclusions are made:
C. The more participative the principal’s style,
the greater the job satisfaction of certificated employees;
254
the more confidence they have in the principal, and the
more extensively they accomplish the goals and objectives
of the school.
D. The more closely the certificated staff agrees
with the administrative style practiced by their principal,
whatever the style, the greater their satisfaction with
their jobs, the more confidence they have in their princi
pal, and the more extensively they accomplish the goals
and objectives of the school. The less the certificated
staff agrees with the administrative style practiced by
their principal, whatever the style, the less their satis
faction with their jobs, the less confidence they have in
their principal, and the less extensively they accomplish
the goals and objectives of the school.
The first four null hypotheses dealt with statis
tical diagnoses of all certificated staff and principal
perceptions of the way the principal executed the functions
of management (managerial style). The findings offer the
following conclusions:
12. Co-administrators agree with principals as
they both perceive the extent of delegated authority and
staff involvement principals utilize as they execute the
planning, organizing, directing, and evaluating functions
of management.
13. Department heads agree with principals as
they both perceive the extent of delegated authority and
255
staff involvement principals utilize as they execute the
directing and evaluating functions of management. They
disagree, very significantly, about principals’ execution
of the planning and organizing functions of management
wherein the department heads see principals as delegating
authority and involving staff very significantly less than
principals perceive they do.
14. Teachers/counselors disagree with principals
as they both perceive the extent of delegated authority
and staff involvement principals utilize as they execute
all functions of management: planning, organizing,
directing, and evaluating. They disagree, very signifi
cantly, about principals' execution of the planning,
organizing, and directing functions wherein teachers/
counselors see principals as delegating authority and
involving staff very significantly less than principals
perceive they do. The disagreement is statistically signi
ficant for the evaluating function as well.
15. The composite group (co-administrators, depart
ment heads, and teachers/counselors) agrees with principals
as they both perceive the extent of delegated authority
and staff involvement principals utilize as they execute
the evaluating function of management. They disagree,
very significantly, about principals' execution of the
planning, organizing, and direction functions of management
wherein the composite group sees principals as delegating
256
authority and involving staff very significantly less than
principals perceived they do.
Null hypotheses five through eight analyzed the
statistical diagnoses of all certificated staff and princi
pal preferences for the way the principals should execute
the functions of management (managerial style), and the
findings suggest the following conclusions:
16. Coordinators and principals prefer the same
managerial style for principals. They both prefer the same
extent of delegated authority and staff involvement as
principals execute the management functions: planning,
organizing, directing, and evaluating.
17. Department heads and principals prefer the same
extent of delegated authority and staff involvement as
principals execute the directing and evaluating functions
of management. They disagree, very significantly, about
principals’ execution of the planning and organizing
functions wherein the department heads prefer that princi
pals delegate authority and involve staff very signifi
cantly less than what principals prefer.
18. Teachers/counselors and principals prefer the
same extent of delegated authority and staff involvement
as principals execute the directing and evaluating func
tions of management. They disagree, very significantly,
about principals’ execution of the planning and organizing
functions wherein the teachers/counselors prefer the prin-
257
cipals delegate authority and involve staff very signifi
cantly less than what principals prefer.
19. The composite group (co-administrators, depart
ment heads, and teachers/counselors) and principals prefer
the same extent of delegated authority and staff involve
ment as principals execute the directing and evaluating
functions of management. They disagree, very signifi
cantly, about principals' execution of the planning and
organizing functions wherein the composite group prefers
the principals delegate authority and involve staff very
significantly less than what principals prefer.
Summarizing conclusions 12-15 and 16-19 , the
following conclusions are made:
E. Certificated staffs agree with the extent of
authority delegated to them and the extent they are in
volved in decision making and problem solving in
"evaluating" activities. The principals are too authori
tarian in activities related to planning, organizing, and
directing activities.
F. Certificated staffs prefer the same extent of
delegated authority and staff involvement that principals
prefer in directing and evaluating activities. They
prefer not to be delegated as much authority nor involved
as much as principals prefer in planning and organizing
activities.
Summarizing conclusions E and F, the following
258
conclusion is made:
G. Even though certificated staffs want to be
delegated more authority and involved more than what they
are in planning and organizing activities, they place a
ceiling on their preferred participation which is signifi
cantly below the level of participation the principals
prefer of them.
The next four null hypotheses examined the statis
tical diagnoses of all certificated staff and principal
perceptions of the principals1 administrative effective
ness. Conclusions drawn from the findings are:
20. Co-administrators and principals agree as to
the extent the school accomplishes its goals and objec
tives .
21. Department heads agree with principals about
the way school goals are developed, the principal's
effectiveness in securing and allocating human and finan
cial resources, teacher and administrator congruence in
knowledge of each other's responsibilities, and rating of
the principal's overall administrative effectiveness.
Principals are very significantly less effective than what
they think they are about the general direction in which
the school is moving, and the willingness of principals to
delegate authority.
22. Teachers/counselors and principals agree about
the way school goals are developed, the principal's effec
259
tiveness in securing human and financial resources, and the
rating of the principal’s overall administrative effective
ness. Principals are very significantly less effective
than what they think they are in the general condition in
which the school is moving, the willingness of principals
to delegate authority, teacher and administrator congruence
in knowledge of each other's responsibilities, and the
principal's effectiveness in allocating human and financial
resources to departments.
23. The composite group (co-administrators, depart
ment heads, and teachers/counselors) and principals agree
about the way school goals are developed, the principal's
effectiveness in securing human and financial resources,
and the rating of the principal's overall administrative
effectiveness. Principals are significantly less effec
tive than what they think they are in teacher and adminis
trator congruence in knowledge of each other's responsi
bilities, and the principal's effectiveness in allocating
human and financial resources to departments. They are
very significantly less effective than what they think they
are in the general direction in which the school is moving,
and the willingness of principals to delegate authority.
Summarizing conclusions 20-23, the following con
clusion is made:
H. Principals can improve their leadership and
administrative effectiveness by delegating more decision
260
making authority to certificated staff members, by
developing a process which involves certificated staff
members in a search for school goals and objectives, by
developing and implementing objective procedures for the
allocating of human and financial resources to departments,
and by delineating and communicating the tasks and
responsibilities of teachers and administrators.
The last four null hypotheses explored the statis
tical diagnoses of all certificated staff and principal
perceptions of school climate/faculty morale. Conclusions
gleaned from the findings are as follows:
24. Co-administrators and principals agree as to
the extent of school climate/faculty morale.
25. Department heads agree with principals about
the morale of teachers within departments, the desirability
of recommending a friend apply for a job at their schools,
and the overall rating of faculty working conditions.
School climate/faculty morale is significantly worse than
principals think it is in the principals' awareness of the
professional contribution teachers make to students, and
the principals' responsiveness to feelings and attitudes
of teachers. School climate/faculty morale is very signi
ficantly worse than principals think it is in the morale
of teachers in the schools, and the professional reputation
of teachers in the schools.
26. Teachers/counselors agree with principals about
261
the desirability of recommending a friend apply for a job
at their schools. School climate/faculty morale is sig
nificantly worse than principals think it is in the morale
of teachers within departments. School climate/faculty
morale is very significantly worse than principals think it
is in the morale of teachers in the schools, the princi
pals ’ awareness of the professional contribution teachers
make to students, the principals' responsiveness to
feelings and attitudes of teachers, the professional
reputation of teachers in the schools, and the overall
rating of faculty working conditions.
27. The composite group (co-administrators, depart
ment heads, and teachers/counselors) and principals agree
about the desirability of recommending a friend apply for
a job at their schools. School climate/faculty morale is
significantly worse than principals think it is in the
morale of teachers within departments, and the overall
faculty working conditions. School climate/faculty morale
is very significantly worse than the principals think it
is in the morale of teachers in the schools, the princi
pals ' awareness of the professional contribution teachers
make to students, the principals' responsiveness to
feelings and attitudes of teachers, and the professional
reputation of teachers in the schools.
Summarizing conclusions 24-27, the following con
clusion is made:
262
I. School climate/faculty morale at the schools
is not as good as principals believe it is. School
climate/faculty morale can be improved if principals will
consider the personal needs and goals of certificated staff
members which need to be satisfied as schools accomplish
their goals and objectives. Being more aware of what
teachers are accomplishing in the classroom, and being more
responsive to the feelings and attitudes of teachers, are
the humanistic endeavors through which principals can
improve school climate/faculty morale.
Findings related to the descriptive data collected
suggest the following conclusions:
28. All but one of the 20 principals involved in
the study had professional undergraduate preparation in
the social sciences and/or the sciences.
29. Certificated staff members want to be involved
in decisions which affect them, about which they have
expertise, and for which they will be held accountable.
30. Principals enable certificated staff members
to best perform their tasks and responsibilities when they:
delegate authority and give them freedom to decide; respect
and support their abilities; demonstrate personal interest
in them; are available and practice an "open door" policy;
and follow through on decisions.
31. Principals hinder certificated staff members
as they perform their tasks and responsibilities when they:
263
do not support the staff member's department; plan and
communicate poorly; are not available and do not listen
when they are available; make slow and unilateral deci
sions; and do not demonstrate personal interest in them.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Implementa
tion of the Findings
1. Because principals who possess the more parti
cipative styles of management are generally more effective,
it is recommended that colleges and universities offer
courses which consider the concept of managerial styles.
Knowledge about various management styles needs to be
acquired by both present and future high school principals.
The skills needed to delegate authority and to involve
certificated staff members in decision making and problem
solving are crucial to effective management.
2. Because the congruence between the principal’s
practiced administrative style and the certificated staff's
preferred style for their principal is directly related to
administrative effectiveness, it is recommended that high
school principals diagnose their administrative style
through perceptions of the entire certificated staff. The
staff should be asked to describe the principal's present
(is) style and the style they prefer he use (should). The
instrument used in this study, Diagnosing the Principal's
264
Administrative Style, could be used for this diagnosis.
3. Because certificated staffs want to be dele
gated more authority and also to participate in decision
making and problem solving more than what they do, and
because principals want to delegate more authority and
allow more participation than they do, it is recommended
that a diagnosis of the principal's style of management be
undertaken by all high school principals. Knowledge of the
certificated staff's desire for decentralization and parti
cipation will enable the principal to increase the delega
tion of authority and involvement to productive levels.
4. Because certificated staffs may not want to be
delegated as much authority or involved in decision making
and problem solving as much as their principal prefers, it
is recommended that principals diagnose and identify the
degree of decentralization and participation desired by
their staff.
5. Because school climate/faculty morale is
influenced by managerial style, it is recommended that high
school principals become and remain aware of what teachers
are accomplishing in the classroom, and that they become
and remain responsive to the feelings and attitudes of
teachers.
6. Because certificated staffs want to be involved
in decisions which affect them, about which they have
expertise, and for which they will be held accountable, it
265
is recommended that high schools develop "staff involve
ment" policies which include these considerations.
7. Because humanistic practices foster task and
responsibility accomplishment, and because the lack of
humanistic practices hinders task and responsibility
accomplishment, it is recommended that principals endeavor
to learn about and understand the dynamics of interpersonal
relationships.
Recommendations for Future
Study
8. It is recommended that research be undertaken
to investigate the reasons for the fact that even though
principals want to be more participative, the increased
participation does not occur.
9. It is recommended that an investigator study
the degrees of decentralization and participation within
all the high schools of selected districts. The schools
in districts which are reputed to be decentralized could
be compared with the schools in districts which operate
paternalistically.
10. It is recommended that this study be replicated
for respondents at higher authority levels in districts.
The study could focus on the superintendent and his manage
rial style. Worthwhile data would be generated if "is"
and "should" perceptions of principals, assistant
266
superintendents, and members of the board of education
were described and diagnosed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
267
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albers, Henry H. Management: The Basic Concepts.
New York: John Wiley £ Sons, Inc., 1972.
2. Albrook, Robert C. "Participative Management: Time
for a Second Look." Fortune, May, 1967, pp. 166-
170, 197-199.
3. Alderson, Wroe. "Perspectives on the Planning
Process." Journal of the Academy of Management, II
(December, 1959), 181-185.
4. Argyris, Chris. "Organizational Leadership and
Participation in Management." The Journal of
Business, XXVIII (January, 1955), 26-43.
5. _________ . Personality and Organization. New York:
Harper Brothers, Publishers, 1957.
6. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1960.
7. Bassett, Glenn A. Management Styles in Transition.
New York: American Management Association, Inc.,
1966 .
8. Baumgartel, Howard. "Leadership Style as a Variable
in Research Administration." Administrative
Science Quarterly, II (December^ 19 57), 344-360.
9. Beaubier, Edward W., and Arthur N. Thayer, editors.
"Participative Management and Decentralized
Decision Making." Association of California School
Administrators - Monograph, January, 1973.
10. Bennis, Warren G. "Leadership Theory and Administra
tive Behavior." Administrative Science- Quarterly,
IV (December, 1959), 27-36.
11. Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human
Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World,
Inc., 1964.
268
269
1 2 .
13.
14.
15 .
16 .
17.
18.
19 .
2 0 .
21.
22.
Bibbero, Donald S. "A Study of Management Functions
Common to the Administration of Commercial
Businesses and Institutions of Higher Education."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 19 67.
Bimsow, Oliver H. "Participation of School Personnel
in Administration." Unpublished Doctoral disserta
tion, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska,
1939 .
Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S. The Managerial
Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964.
Blumberg, Arthur. "Supervisory Behavior and Inter
personal Relations." Educational Administration
Quarterly, IV (Spring, 1968), 34-44.
Branch, Melville C. The Corporate Planning Process.
New York: American Management Association, 196 2.
Burkett, Clifford A. "The Relationship Between
Teacher Morale and Democratic School Administra
tion." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, 1965.
Campbell, Roald F. "Application of Administrative
Concepts to the Elementary Principalship." The
National Elementary Principal, XLIV (April, 1965),
21-26.
_____________, Cunningham, Luvern L., McPhee, Roderick
F. The Organization and Control of American
Schools. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc.
1965 .
Carmean, Howard E., and Purdom, William W. "The
Perceptions of Certificated Personnel in Relation
to Selected Educational and Administrative Prac
tices." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
1970.
Carzo, Rocco, Jr. "Some Effects of Organization
Structure on Group Effectiveness." Administrative
Science Quarterly, VIII (March, 1963T1 393-424.
Chmiel, Lily. 'A Study of Morale in Education."
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, 1956.
23.
24 .
25 .
26 .
27 .
28.
29 .
30 .
31.
32.
33 .
34.
270
Crain, John Rudolpho. "Leadership Behaviors of
Elementary School Principals as Perceived by their
Teachers and Superordinates in Centralized and
Decentralized Districts." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, 1969.
Cribbin, James J. Effective Managerial Leadership.
New York: American Management Association, Inc.,
1972.
Crowley, Francis M., and Cleminson, Geraldine F. "The
Role of Authority in Democratic Educational
Administration." American School Board Journal,
CXLVI (June, 1963), 15-17.
Dale, Ernest. Management: Theory and Practice. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965.
Davis, Keith. Human Relations in Business. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 195 7.
Davis, Ralph C. Industrial Organization and Manage
ment . New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.
Dill, William R. "Decision-Making." The Sixty-Third
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II, Chapter IX. Edited by Daniel
EL Griffiths. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1964.
Dimock, Marshall E. A Philosophy of Administration.
Direction: The Heart of Administration. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1958.
Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New
York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1954.
Estes, Nolan. "The Concept of Shared Power." The
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, LV (May, 1971), 69-75.
Etzioni, Anitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex
Organizations. New York: The Free Press of
Glenco, Inc., 1961.
Evenson, Warren L. "Leadership Behavior of High
School Principals." National Association of
Secondary School Principals Bulletin, XLIII
(September, 1959), 9 6-101.
35.
36 .
37.
38.
39 .
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
271
Ewing, Russell H. The Leadership Functions of
Executives and Managers. Beverly Hills,
California: National Institute of Leadership,
1962 .
Fayol, Henry. General and Industrial Administration.
London: Sir Isaac Putnam and Sons, Ltd., 1949.
Fiedler, Fred E. Group Dynamics: Research and
Theory. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
1953 .
______. "Style or Circumstance: The Leadership
Enigma." Psychology Today, II (March, 1969),
38-43.
Fleishman, Edwin A. "Leadership Climate, Human
Relations Training, and Supervisory Behavior."
Personnel Psychology, VI (Summer, 1953), 205-222.
Follett, Mary P. Dynamic Administration. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1940.
George, Claude S., Jr. History of Management Thought.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1968 .
Getzels, Jacob W., and Guba, Egon G. "Social Behavior
and the Administrative Process." The School
Review, LXV (Winter, 1957), 423-441.
Goldman, Harvey. "New Roles for Principals." The
Clearing House, XLV (November, 1970), 135-139.
Golembiewski, Robert. "Three Styles of Leadership anc
Their Uses." Personnel, XXXVIII (July-August,
1961), 34-35.
Gross, Neal, and Herriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership
in Public Schools. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1965.
Guba, Egon G., and Bidwell, Charles E. A Study of the
School as a Social Institution. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1959.
Halpin, Andrew W., and Croft, D. B. Organizational
Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administra
tion Center, University of Chicago, 196 3.
48.
49.
50 .
51.
52.
53 .
54.
55 .
56 .
57 .
272
Halpin, Andrew W., and Winer, B. James. A Factorial
Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions, in
Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measure
ment. Edited by Ralph M. Stogdill and AlvinE.
Coons. Columbus: Ohio State University, 195 7.
Harris, James Coley. "An Investigation of the Funda
mental Principles in the Development and Main
tenance of Morale." Unpublished Master's project,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
1950 .
Hayes, James L. "The Thrill of Discovery." Manage-
ment News, XLIV (April, 1971), 1-2.
Hemphill, John K. "Personal Variables and Adminis
trative Styles Behavioral Science and Educational
Administration." The Sixty-third Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Partf
II, Chapter VIII. Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
_________ , and Coons, Alvin E. Development of the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, in
Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Edited by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E . Coons.
Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957.
_________ ; Griffiths, Daniel E.; and Frederiksen,
Norman. Administrative Performance and Person
ality . New York: Teachers College Bureau of
Publications, 1962.
Hood, Evans C. "A Study of Congruence of Perceptions
Concerning Factors Which Affect Teacher Morale."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State
University, 1965.
Inabnit, Darrell J. "Characteristics of Teacher
Participation in Decision-Making Functions of
Public School Administration." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana, 19 54.
Jay, Anthony. Management and Machiavelli. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196 7.
Johnson, Richard A.; Kast, Fremont E.; and Rosenzweig,
James E. The Theory and Management of Systems.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1967.
273
58.
59 .
60.
61.
62 .
63 .
64.
65 .
66 .
67 .
68 .
69 .
70 .
Jordan, Ralph E. "Love in Administration." Phi Delta
Kappan, XLIX (March, 1968), 381-388.
Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social
Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1966.
Koontz, Harold. Principles of Management. 3rd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1964.
_________ , and O'Donnell, Cyril. Management: A Book
of Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc., 1964.
Krasner, Oscar J. "A Study of Management Precepts in
a Large Organization, with Emphasis on Difference
Between Indigenous and Incoming Managers." Unpub
lished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1969.
Lamberti, Nello A. "A Research Study on the Applica
tion of Management Principles and Techniques to a
Selected Small Manufacturing Plant." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1961.
Lazarus, Harold, ed. Human Values in Management.
New York: Thomas Y~ Crowell Company, 1968 .
Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1958.
Leiman, Harold I. "A Study of Teacher Attitudes and
Morale as Related to Participation in Administra
tion." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York
University, 1961.
Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
_________ . New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.
_________ , and Gibson, Jane. Profile of a School.
Revised September, 196 9. New York": McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc.
Lippett, Ronald 0. "An Experimental Study of the
Effect of Democratic and Authoritarian Group Atmos
pheres." University of Iowa Studies in Child
Welfare - Report, 1940.
274
71.
72.
73 .
74.
75 .
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83 .
84.
Litchfield, Edward H. "Notes on a General Theory of
Administration." Administrative Science Quarterly,
I (June, 1956), 3-29.
Longenecker, Justin G. Principles of Management and
Organizational Behavior. Columbus: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Co., 1969.
McFarland, Dalton E. Current Issues and Emerging
Concepts in Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co. , 1966 .
McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 196 0.
Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge:
The M.I.T. Press, 1966.
_________ . The Professional Manager. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
McMurry, Robert M. "The Case for Benevolent
Autocracy." Harvard Business Review, XXXVI
(January-February , 19 5 8’ )’ , 82-90 .
McNamara, V. D., and Enns, F. "Directive Leadership
and Staff Acceptance of the Principal." Canadian
Administrator, VI (November, 1966), 5-8.
McPherran, Archie L. "Ten Keys to Morale."
California Education, III (October, 1965), 11-13.
March, James G., and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19 58.
Marrow, Alfred J.; Bowers, David G.; and Seashore,
Stanley E. Management by Participation. New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967.
Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New
York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1954.
Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial
Civilization^ New York: ¥he MacMillan Company,
1933 .
Mel, John F. Management Thought in a Dynamic Economy.
New York: New York University "Press, 1963.
85.
86 .
87.
88.
89.
90 .
91.
92 .
93 .
94.
95 .
96 .
97.
275
Miles, Raymond E. "Human Relations or Human
Resources?" Harvard Business Review, XLIII (July-
August, 1965 ) , 149-156. ”
Morse, John J., and Lorsch, Jay W. "Beyond Theory Y."
Harvard Business Review, XLVIII (May-June, 1970),
61-68.
Mouzelis, Nicos P. Organization and Bureaucracy.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.
Newman, William H. Administrative Action. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.
Odiorne, George. "Conflict, the Vital Corporate
Ingredient." Dun’s Review, March, 1964, 51-52,
64-65.
Pfiffner, John M., and Sherwood, Frank P. Administra
tive Organization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.
Price, James L. Organizational Effectiveness.
Homewood, Illinois: Pf! D~] Irwin Services, 196 8 .
Ream, Norman J. Management Control Systems. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 196 0.
Reddin, W. J. Managerial Effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 197 0.
Reynoldson, Roger L. The Interrelationships Between
the Decision-Making Process and the Innovativeness
of Public Schools. Logan,Utah: Utah State
University, 1969.
Roethlisberger, Fritz Jules. Management and the
Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1939 .
Rogers, Ted M., and Wehe, Richard A. "A Preliminary
Assessment of Management Functions." Unpublished
manuscript, Operation PEP, San Mateo County
Schools, 1969.
Rush, Harold M. F. Behavioral Science: Concepts and
Management Application. New York: The Conference
Board, Inc., 1969.
98.
99 .
100 .
101.
102.
103 .
104.
105 .
106 .
107 .
108.
109.
110 .
276
Schmuck, Richard, and Blumberg, Arthur. "Teacher
Participation in Organizational Decisions."
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin, LIII (October, 1969), 179-195.
Sharma, C. L. "Who Should Make What Decisions?"
Administrator’s Notebook, III (April, 1955), 1-4.
Sheldon, Oliver. The Philosophy of Management.
London: Sir Isaac Pitman £ Sons, Ltd., 1923.
Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York:
The Macmillan Company^ 19~57 .
Snively, W. D., Jr. Profile of a Manager.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippmcott Company, 1965.
Spalding, Willard B. "Organizing the Personnel of a
Democratic School System." The Forty-Fifth Year-
book of the National Society for the Study oT
Education, Part II, Chapter IV. Edited by Nelson
B. Henry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1946 .
Stanton, Erwin S. "Fostering Creativity and Innova
tion in Management." Personnel, XL (November,
1963), 45-52.
Starr, Martin K. Management: A Modern Approach.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.
Steiner, George A. "Making Long-Range Company
Planning Pay Off." California Management Review,
IV (Winter, 1962), 28-41.
Stogdill, Ralph M., et al. Leadership and Role
Expectations. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State
University, 19 56.
Stricklin, Wilma D. "Toward a Theory of Organiza
tional Decision-Making." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, 1966.
Strykker, Perrin. "The Subtleties of Delegation."
Fortune, March, 1955, pp. 94-101.
Sweat, Joseph P. "Authoritarian-Democratic Person
ality Traits of High School Principals and Teacher
Morale." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Arkansas, 196 3.
277
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116 .
117.
118 .
119 .
120.
121.
122.
123.
Slater, Philip, and Bennis, Warren G. "Democracy is
Inevitable." Harvard Business Review, XLII (March-
April, 1964), 51-59.
Tannenbaum, Robert, and Schmitt, Warren H. "How to
Choose a Leadership Pattern." Harvard Business
Review, XXXVI (March-April, 1958), 95-101.
Taylor, Frederick W. Principles of Scientific
Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1915.
Thomas, Harvey M. "Creativity: Key to Continuing
Progress." American Management Association
Bulletin Number 4, New York: American Management
Association, June, 1968.
Thompson, Stewart. "What Planning Involves."
American Management Association Research Study, No.
54, New York: American Management Association,
1962 .
Uris, Arthur. How to be a Successful Leader. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953.
Vroom, Victor H. Motivation in Management. New York:
American Foundation for Management Research, 1965.
Weissenberg, Peter. Introduction to Organizational
Behavior. Scranton, Pennsylvania: The Haddon
Craftsmen, Inc., 19 71.
White, Ralph K., and Lippitt, Ronald. Autocracy and
Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.
White, Robert W. "Ego and Reality in Psychoanalylitic
Theory." Psychological Issues, III (April, 1963),
21-36.
Willower, Donald J. "Leadership Styles and Leaders'
Perceptions of Subordinates." Journal of Educa
tional Sociology, XXXIV (October^ 19 6 0), 58-64.
Wolf, William B. "Organizational Constricts: An
Approach to Understanding Organizations." Journal
of the Academy of Management, I (April, 1958),
7-15 .
Young, Stanley. Management: A Systems Analysis.
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company,
1966 .
APPENDICES
278
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
279
280
Q U E ST IO N N A IR E
D ia g n o sin g th e P r in c ip a l's A d m in istr a tiv e S ty le
T h e p r im a r y p u rp o se o f th is stu d y i s to d e s c r ib e and d ia g n o se th e a d m in is tr a tiv e s t y le s
u se d b y th e p r in c ip a ls o f la r g e high s c h o o ls in O range C ou n ty. M ore s p e c if ic a lly , the
stu d y a tte m p ts to d e te r m in e if th e r e is a c o r r e la tio n b etw een th e am oun t o f fa c u lty in
v o lv e m e n t in d e c is io n m akin g and the p e r c e iv e d e f fe c tiv e n e s s o f the p r in c ip a l's a d m in is
tr a tiv e p r a c t ic e s , the s c h o o l's c lim a te , and fa c u lty m o r a le . Individual r e s p o n s e s w ill
be tr e a te d c o n fid e n tia lly and w ill not b e id e n tifie d in th e stu d y n o r w ill d is t r ic t o r sc h o o l
n a m e s be id e n tifie d . M axim u m c o m p le tio n tim e is 3 0 m in u te s.
D is tr ic t N am e S c h o o l N am e Y o u r p r e s e n t p o sitio n
D e p a r tm e n t/D iv isio n N u m ber o f y e a r s in p r e s e n t
p o s itio n (th is y e a r i s o n e)
Y e a r s in ed u ca tio n
A g e S e x B A /B S M ajor and M inor H ig h est d e g r e e e a r n e d
P r in c ip a l Only:
E n r o llm e n t 1 0 /7 2 G rad e le v e ls (9 -1 2 o r 1 0 -1 2 ) # o f c e r tific a te d s ta ff
P e r c e n ta g e o f m i n o r i t y _______ ________
stu d e n ts (e s tim a te s ): B la ck B row n Y e llo w
D o yo u w an t a c o p y o f th e fin d in g s o f th e stu d y ? _________
O ther
D ir e c tio n s:
1 . On th e lin e o p p o site e a c h q u e stio n , p le a s e p la c e an "I" a t th e p oin t w h ic h , in y o u r
e x p e r ie n c e , b e s t d e s c r ib e s y o u r p e r c e p tio n o f y o u r p r in c ip a l's c u r r e n t a d m in is tr a tiv e
p r a c tic e . (1 = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e i s )
2 . T h e n , on the lin e o p p o site e a c h q u e stio n , p la c e an "S" a t th e p oin t w h ic h , in y o u r
e x p e r ie n c e , b e s t d e s c r ib e s w h at y o u think y o u r p r in c ip a l's a d m in is tr a tiv e p r a c tic e
sh o u ld b e . (S = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld b e)
3 . T r e a t e a c h ite m a s a co n tin u o u s v a r ia b le ran g in g fr o m the e x tr e m e a t on e en d to the
e x tr e m e a t th e o th e r e n d . F o r th e p u rp o se o f a n sw e r in g the q u e stio n n a ir e , u s e the
fo llo w in g d e fin itio n s: E d u ca tio n a l P r in c ip le s - D is t r ic t d ev elo p ed and B o a rd o f E du cation
adopted g e n e r a l g o a l s t a t e m e n t s . C o -a d m in istr a to r - a s s is t a n t p r in c ip a l, d ir e c t o r , d ea n ,
c o o r d in a to r , a d m in is tr a tiv e a s s is t a n t o r head c o u n s e lo r - .
E xam p le: P le a s e a n s w e r ea ch q u e stio n tw o w a y s .
Y o u r p e r c e p tio n s: I = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e is_
S ■ w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
1 .0 D ir e c tin g
a . E x ten t to w h ich y o u r
p r in c ip a l c o m m u n ic a te s
to te a c h e r s , in w ritin g ?
V e r y litt le L im ite d Q u ite a b it A g r e a t d eal
Jill- 1 , t ,1 1. .1.1. 1.
2 8 1
Q U EST IO N N A IR E
D ia g n o sin g the P r in c ip a l's A d m in istr a tiv e S ty le
V a r ia b le P le a s e a n sw e r ea ch q u e stio n two w a y s
Y o u r p e r c e p tio n s: I = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e is
S = w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
1 .0 P lan n in g
Item
N o.
1.1 D o y o u know y o u r d is t
r ic t 's E d u ca tio n a l P r in
c ip le s ad op ted b y y o u r
B o a r d o f E d u cation ?
L ittle known
1 1 1
S o m e
k n ow led ge
Q uite w e ll
know n
1 1 1
V e r y w ell
known
11 i
1
1 .2 W ho i s in v o lv e d in d e
v e lo p m e n t o f d is t r ic t
E d u ca tio n a l P r in c ip le s ?
S u p e r in te n
den t p r im a r
ily
J 1 1
S u p t. and
P r in c ip a ls
1 1 1
S u p t ., p r in
c ip a ls , and
te a c h e r s
1 1 1
S u p t ., p r in s
t e a c h e r s , &
c o m m u n ity
1 1 1
2
1 .3 D o y o u know i f y o u r sc h o o l
h a s w r itte n g o a ls and
o b je c tiv e s ?
L ittle known
1 1 I
S o m e
k n ow led ge
1 1 I
Q uite w e ll
known
1 1 1
V e r y w e ll
known
1 N
3
1 .4 W ho i s in v o lv ed in the
d e v e lo p m e n t o f sc h o o l
g o a ls and o b je c tiv e s ?
P r in c ip a l
p r im a r ily
1 1 1
P r i n ., coa d
m in is tr a to r s
& d p t. h ea d s
1 1 1
P r in , c o -
a d s , d e p t,
h e a d s and
te a c h e r s
1 1 1
P r in , c o -
a d s , d p t.h d s
te a c h e r s &
co m m u n ity
1 i: 1
4
1 .5 D o y o u know if y o u r d e
p a r tm e n t h a s w r itte n
g o a ls and o b je c tiv e s ?
(p r in .a n s . fo r a ll d p ts .)
L ittle known
1 1 1
S o m e
kn ow led ge
1 1 1
Q u ite w e ll
known
1 1 1
V e r y w e ll
known
1 1 1
5
1 .6 W ho i s in v o lv ed in d e v e l
o p m e n t o f d ep a rtm en t
g o a ls & o b je c tiv e s ?
!
P r in c ip a l &
d e p t, h ea d
1 1 1
P r in , d e p t,
h ea d and
t e a c h e r s
1 1 1
P r in , d e p t,
i d , te a c h e r s
& stu d e n ts
1 1 1
P r in , d ep t,
h d ,te a c h e r s ,
stu d e n ts &
p a r e n ts i
h i !
6
1 .7 G en era l attitu d e o f c e r
tific a te d e m p lo y e e s t o - |
w a r d s c h o o l & it s g o a ls ?
U n favorab le
1 1 1
S o m e tim e s
u n favorab le
111
U su a lly
fa v o r a b le i
III
S tr o n g ly
fa v o r a b le
1 J 1
7
P ein cep tion s: 1 - w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e i s
S = ■ w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
282
V a r ia b le P le a s e a sn w e r e a c h q u e stio n tw o w a y s .
Y o u r p e r c e p tio n s: I = w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e is
S = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld b e
2 . 0 O rgan izin g
Item
N o.
2 .1 D o e s y o u r sc h o o l h a v e a
w r itte n a d m in istr a tiv e
o rg a n iz a tio n a l ch a rt?
N ot to m y
know led ge
1 1 1
P r in c ip a l
ta lk s about
ch a rt
1 1 1
R e a d ily
a v a ila b le
1 1 1
A v a ila b le
& u n d erstood
1 1 1
8
2 .2 D o th e p r im a r y r e sp o n
s i b i l i t ie s o f a d m in is
tr a to r s o v e r la p ?
O ften
1 1 1
U su a lly
1 1 1
S o m e tim e s
1 1 1
V e r y
s e ld o m
1 1 1
9
2 . 3 T o w h at e x te n t i s autho
r ity fo r d e c is io n m aking
d e le g a te d b y p r in c ip a l to
c o -a d m in is tr a to r s ?
V e r y little
1 1 1
L im ite d Q u ite a b it
1 1 1
A g r e a t d eal
1 1 1
10
2 . 4 T o w h a t e x te n t i s a u th o -
r ity fo r d e c is io n m aking
d e le g a te d b y p rin cip a l to
d ep a rtm en t h ea d s?
V e r y little L im ite d
I'l 1
Q u ite a b it
1 1 1
A g r e a t deal
11
2 . 5 T o w h a t e x te n t i s autho
r it y fo r d e c is io n m aking
d e le g a te d b y c o - a d m in is -
tr a to r s a n d /o r d e p t.h d s .
to te a c h e r s ?
V e r y little
1 1 1
L im ite d
1 1 1
Q u ite a b it
1 1 1
A g r e a t d eal
12
2.6 D o e s the sc h o o l h a v e
w r itte n job d e sc r ip tio n s
f o r a d m in is tr a to r s and
d ep a rtm en t h e a d s?
N ot to m y
k n ow led ge
1 1 1
A d m in s, ta lk
ab ou t th e m
1 1 1
R e a d ily
a v a ila b le
i l l
A v a ila b le &
u n d ersto o d
1 1 1
13
2 . 7 Y o u r g e n e r a l p e r c e p tio n
o f the d e g r e e o f a u th o rity
p r in c ip a l d e le g a te s to
c e r tific a te d sta ff?
V e r y litt le
III.
L im ite d
J 1 1
Q u ite a b it
1 I 1
A g r e a t d ea
1 I I ,
14
P e r c e p tio n s : I = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e is
S = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
283
V a r ia b le
3 . 0 D ir e c tin g /C o o r d in a tin g
P le a s e a n sw e r ea ch q u e stio n tw o w a y s .
Y o u r p e r c e p tio n s: I = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e is_
S = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
Item
N o.
3 .1 E x ten t to w h ich p r in c ip a l
v e r b a lly a n d /o r b y m em c
g iv e s d ir e c tio n to c o -a d
m in is tr a to r s , d e p t. h d s.
and te a c h e r s ?
3 .7
3 .2
3 . 3
3 . 4
3 . 5
3 . 6
E x ten t to w h ich th e s e d i
r e c t iv e s a r e a c c e p te d by
c o - a d m in is t r a t o r s , d e p t,
h e a d s and te a c h e r s ?
E x ten t to w h ich c o - a d -
m in is tr a to r s , d e p t.h d s .
and te a c h e r s v e r b a lly
a n d /o r by m e m o c o m
m u n ica te w ith p r in c ip a l?
c ip a l a c c e p ts upw ard
(fa c u lty to p r in c ip a l)
co m m u n ica tio n ?
H ow w e ll d o e s p r in c ip a l
know and u n d ersta n d
p r o b le m s fa c e d b y c o -
a d m in is tr a to r s , d e p t,
h ea d s and te a c h e r s ?
W h ere is r e s p o n s ib ility
and a c c o u n ta b ility fe lt
f o r a c h ie v in g d e p a r t
m en ta l and s c h o o l g o als?
A m ou nt o f c o o p e r a tiv e
"team w ork" b etw een
p r in c ip a l, c o — a d m in is
tr a to r s , d e p t, h e a d s &
t e a c h e r s ?
V e r y litt le L im ite d Q uite a A g r e a t
I I I I I I.
b it
1 1 1
d ea l
I ll
15
V e r y litt le L im ite d Q uite a A g r e a t
I I I I I I
b it
I I I
d ea l
I I I
16
V e r y little L im ite d Q u ite a A g r e a t
I I I I I I
b it
I I I
d ea l
I I I
17
V e r y litt le L im ite d Q u ite a A g r e a t
I I I
I I I
b it
I I I
d ea l
I I I
10
N ot v e r y w e ll F a ir ly w ell Q u ite w e ll V e r y w e ll
J L I I I I I I I I I I
19
P r in c ip a l P r in . & c o -a d P r in . ,co>- P r in , c o -
p r im a r ily m in is tr a to r s a d s . & d p t. a d s , d e p t. 2 0
h ea d s h d s.&
I I I I I I I I I
t e a c h e r s
I I I
V e r y litt le L im ite d Q u ite a A g r e a t
111 I I I
b it
j I I
d ea l
111
21
P e r c e p tio n s : I = w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e ts_
S * w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld b e
2 84
V a r ia b le P le a s e a n sw e r e a c h q u estio n tw o w a y s .
Y o u r p e r c e p tio n s: 1 = w h at c u r r e n t p r a c tic e i s
S = w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
4 . 0 E v a lu a tin g /S u p e r v is in g
4 .1 W ho c o n tr ib u te s to the
fo r m a l e v a lu a tio n o f
c la s s r o o m te a c h e r s
in y o u r sc h o o l?
P r in c ip a l
on ly
1 1 1
P r in .8 i c o -
a d m in is tr a
t o r s
1 1 1
P r in , c o -
a d s , & d e p t,
h ea d s
1 1 1
P r in , c o -
a d s , d e p t,
h d s . &
te a c h e r s
1 I 1
Item
N o.
22
4 .2 W ho s e t s th e p e r fo r
m a n c e sta n d a r d s for
c la s s r o o m te a c h e r s
in y o u r s c h o o l?
P r in c ip a l
o n ly
1 1 1
P r in .a c o -
a d m in istr a
t o r s
1 j 1
P r in , c o -
a d s , & d e p t,
h e a d s
P r in , c o -
a d s , d e p t,
h d s . &
te a c h e r s
1 1 1
2 3
4 .3 T o w h at e x te n t do
t e a c h e r s d is c u s s th e ir
in str u c tio n a l o b je c tiv e s
w ith th e ir e v a lu a to r s?
V e r y little
1 1 1
L im ited
1 1 1
Q u ite a
b it
1 1 1
A g r e a t
d ea l
1 1 1
24
4 . 4 T o w h at e x te n t a r e "with
in - s c h o o l" in - s e r v ic e
ed u ca tio n a l o p p o rtu n ities
a v a ila b le to te a c h e r s in
y o u r s c h o o l?
V e r y litt le
1 1 1
L im ited
1 1 1
Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t
d ea l
1 1 1
2 5
4 . 5 W hat d o th e t e a c h e r s a t
y o u r sc h o o l f e e l is the
m a jo r r e a s o n fo r the im
p le m e n ta tio n o f the S tu ll
A c t?
T o " fire"
te a c h e r s
1 1 1
T o s a t is f y
le g is la tu r e
T o im p r o v e
te a c h e r s '
a c c o u n ts -
b n i
T o im p r o v e
te a c h in g
(in str u c tio n )
1 l 1
2 6
4 .6 T o w h at e x te n t a r e su p
p l i e s , eq u ip m en t & te x t
b o o k s a v a ila b le to en a b le
te a c h e r s to m e e t th e ir
in str u c tio n a l o b je c tiv e s ?
A v a ila b le
but v e r y
in su ffic ie n t
1 1 1
A v a ila b le
but in ad e
quate
1 1 f
A v a ila b le
8t ad eq u ate
1 1 1
A v a ila b le
& v e r y
s u ffic ie n t
1 1 1
2 7
4 .7 W hat d e g r e e or' in v o lv e
m en t do t e a c h e r s h av e in
th e s e le c tio n o f th e ir
d ep a rtm en t h e a d s?
V e r y litt le
I I 1
L im ited
1 1 1
Q u ite a
b it
1 1 1
A g r e a t
d ea l .
J J .1
2 8
P e r c e p tio n s : I = w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e is_
S = w h a t c u r r e n t p r a c tic e sh o u ld be
285
T h e fo llo w in g q u e stio n s p e r ta in to y o u r p e r c e p tio n s o f y o u r p r in c ip a l's a d m in is tr a tiv e
e f f e c t iv e n e s s , y o u r p e r c e p tio n s o f fa cu lty m o r a le , and y o u r p e r c e p tio n s o f the en v iro n
m en t ( c lim a te ) w ith in w h ich you w o rk .
Y o u r p ercep tio n s: I = w h at c u r r e n t sta tu s is_
S = w h at c u r r e n t sta tu s sh o u ld be
5 . 0 A d m in is tr a tiv e E ffe c tiv e n e s s
5 . t T h e e x te n t o f y o u r s a t i s
fa c tio n w ith th e "way"
s c h o o l g o a ls and p o li
c i e s a r e d ev elo p ed ?
V e r y
litt le
I I I
L im ited
I I I
Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t
d ea l
I I I
5 .2 T h e e x te n t o f y o u r s a t i s
fa c tio n w ith the g e n e r a l
d ir e c tio n in w h ich y o u r
s c h o o l is m o v in g ?
V e r y
litt le
I I I
L im ite d
I I I
Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t
d ea l
I I I
5 . 3 T h e e x te n t o f th e w illin g
n e s s o f y o u r p rin cip a l to
d e le g a te a u th o rity fo r
d e c is io n m akin g?
V e r y
little
I I I
L im ite d
I I I
Q uite a
b it
III
A g r e a t
d ea l
I I I
5 . 4 T h e e x te n t to w h ich y o u r
t e a c h e r s and a d m in is
t r a to r s know e a c h oth er's
t a s k s and r e s p o n s ib ili
t ie s ?
V e r y
litt le
I I I
L im ite d Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t
d ea l
I I I
5 . 5 T h e e x te n t o f y o u r p rin
c ip a l's e ffe c tiv e n e s s a t
s e c u r in g hum an and
fin a n c ia l r e s o u r c e s fo r
y o u r s c h o o l?
V e r y
litt le
I I I
L im ite d
I I I
Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t
d ea l
I I I
5 . 6 T h e e x te n t o f y o u r p rin
c ip a l's e f fe c tiv e n e s s in
a p p r o p r ia te ly a llo c a tin g
h um an and fin a n c ia l r e
s o u r c e s to the s c h o o l's
d e p a r tm e n ts /d iv is io n s ?
V e r y
little
111
L im ite d
III’
Q u ite a
b it
I I I I
A g r e a t
d ea l
I I I
5 .7 W hat is y o u r 'r a tin g o f
y o u r p r in c ip a l's o v e r a ll
a d m in is tr a tiv e e f f e c t iv e -
’ ness^r
B elo w
A v e r a g e
I I I
A v e r a g e
1111
A bove
A v e r a g e |
i I I I
E x c e lle n t
I I I
Item
N o.
29
3 0
31
32
3 3
3 4
P e r c e p tio n s : I = w h a t c u r r e n t sta tu s is_
S - w h a t c u r r e n t sta tu s sh o u ld b e
2 8 6
P le a s e a n sw e r each q u e stio n tw o w a y s .
Y o u r p ercep tio n s: I = w hat c u r r e n t sta tu s is_
S = w hat c u r r e n t sta tu s sh o u ld be
6 . 0 M o r a le /C lim a te
6 .1 Y o u r p e r c e p tio n o f the
m o r a le o f the fa c u lty in
y o u r d ep a rtm en t? (P r in .
a n s . w ith in a ll d e p t s .)
B e lo w
A v e r a g e
I I I
A v e r a g e
I I I
A bove
A v e r a g e
i 11
E x c e lle n t
I I I
Item
N o .
3 6
6 .2 Y o u r p e r c e p tio n o f the
m o r a le o f the fa c u lty in
y o u r s c h o o l?
B e lo w
A v e r a g e
I I I
A v e r a g e
I I I
A bove
A v e r a g e
I I I
E x c e lle n t
I I I
37
6 .3 T o w h at e x te n t is y o o r
p r in c ip a l a w a r e o f the
p r o fe s s io n a l co n trib u
tio n s yo u m a k e to
stu d e n ts ?
V e r y
little
I I I
L im ited
I I I
Q uite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t d ea l
I I I
3 8
6 . 4 T o w h a t e x te n t i s y o u r
p r in c ip a l in te r e s te d in
an d r e s p o n s iv e to the
fe e lin g s and a ttitu d e s o f
t e a c h e r s ?
V e r y
little
I I I
L im ited
I I I
Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t d eal
I I I
3 9
6 . 5 H ow m uch w ou ld you r e
c o m m e n d th a t a "new ly
c r e d e n tia le d " fr ie n d o f
y o u r s a p p ly fo r a jo b a t
y o u r s c h o o l?
V e r y
little
I I I
L im ited
I I I
Q u ite a
b it
I I I
A g r e a t d eal
I I I
4 0
6 . 6 C o m p a red to the o th e r
t e a c h e r s in y o u r D is tr ic t
w h a t is the p r o fe ss io n a l
rep u ta tio n o f y o u r
te a c h e r s ?
B e lo w
A v e r a g e
I I I
A v e r a g e
I I I
A bove
A v e r a g e
I I I
E x c e lle n t
I I I
41
6 .7 W hat is y o u r o v e r a ll
r a tin g o f y o u r fa c u lty
w o rk in g co n d itio n s?
B e lo w
A v e r a g e
I I I
A v e r a g e
I I I
A bove
A v e r a g e
111
E x c e lle n t
J 1 J
42
P e r c e p tio n s : I = w hat c u r r e n t sta tu s is_
5 = w hat c u r r e n t s ta tu s sh o u ld be
287
C o m m en ts
Item
N o.
.0 O f the m a n y d e c is io n s w h ich a r e m a d e a t the v a r io u s a d m in istr a tiv e le v e ls in
y o u r s c h o o l, w h at kind o f d e c is io n s m u st you be in v o lv ed in ?
43
8 . 0 W hat a s p e c t o f y o u r p r in c ip a l's s t y le o f le a d e r s h ip , o r a d m in is tr a tiv e p r a c tic e
e n a b le s yo u to p e r fo r m y o u r ta s k s and r e s p o n s ib ilitie s a s yo u b e lie v e th e y sh o u ld
be p e r fo r m e d ? 4 4
9 . 0 W hat a s p e c t o f y o u r p r in c ip a l's s t y le o f le a d e r s h ip , o r a d m in istr a tiv e p r a c tic e
h a n g j^ E g _ y o u in p e r fo r m in g y o u r ta sk s and r e s p o n s ib ilitie s a s you b e lie v e th ey
sh o u ld b e p e r fo r m e d ? 45
1 0 .0 H ow w ou ld y o u r a te y o u r
p r in c ip a l's o v e r a ll a d m in is
tr a tiv e s t y le ? (D e g r e e o f
fa c u lty in v o lv e m e n t in d e c i
s io n m akin g d e te r m in e s s t y le )
B e lo w
A v e r a g e
A v e r a g e A bove
A v e r a g e
I I I I I I . I I I l I I I I I
E x c e lle n t
4 6
W hen you h a v e fin ish e d a n sw e r in g a ll q u e s tio n s , p le a s e p la c e th e q u e stio n n a ir e in
th e e n v e lo p e p r o v id e d , s e a l it , then tu rn it in to y o u r p r in c ip a l.
• T h an k yo u f o r co n trib u tin g y o u r s k ill and tim e in a n sw e r in g th is q u e stio n n a ir e .
C h a r le s E . G od sh all
P r in c ip a l
N ew p ort H a rb o r H igh S c h o o l
APPENDIX B
MANAGERIAL STYLE RESPONSE CLASSIFICATIONS
288
Autocratic
Bureaucratic
Democratic
Participative
289
MANAGERIAL STYLE RESPONSE
CLASSIFICATIONS (1-16)
1 - Very Low
2 - Low
3 - High
4 - Very High
5 - Very Low
6 - Low
7 - High
8 - Very High
9 - Very Low
10 - Low
11 - High
12 - Very High
13 - Very Low
14 - Low
15 - High
16 - Very High
APPENDIX C
LETTER OF COMMITMENT
290
291
NEWPORT-MESA Unified School D istrict
post office box 1368 • newport beach, California 92663 • (714) 645-0600
May 9, 1973
JOHN w. n i c o l l , Superintendent
, P rin cip al
High S ch o o l
D ear :
Thank you fo r a g re ein g to in volve fifteen of you r facu lty and s ta ff in the a d m in is
terin g o f a q u estion n aire w hich w ill be u sed in m y r e se a r c h stu d y , "A D iagn osis
o f the A d m in istra tiv e S ty le s o f High S ch o o l P r in c ip a ls." P le a se a d m in ister the
r e se a r c h q u estion n aire to the fifteen facu lty and sta ff m em b ers (including y o u rse lf)
in one " s ittin g ." It is v e r y im portan t that the people in the fifteen p o sitio n s liste d
below co m p lete the q u estio n n a ire. T he d epartm ent o r d iv isio n heads should pick
th e ir two te a c h e r s u sing the c r ite r ia su g g ested if p o ssib le .
1. P rin cip al
2 . C o -a d m in istr a to r - C ounseling and Guidance or Student P erso n n el
.3 . C ou n selor (op p osite educational philosophy from co -a d m in istra to r )
4 . D epartm ent o r d iv isio n head fo r E nglish
5 . One fe m a le , tenured tea c h e r of E n glish (d ifferen t educational
6 . One m a le , tenured tea c h e r of E n glish (p h ilosop h ies if p o ssib le
7 . D epartm ent o r d iv isio n head fo r F oreign Language
8 . One fe m a le , tenured tea c h e r of F oreign Language (d ifferen t educational
9 . One m a le , tenured tea c h e r o f F oreign Language (p h ilosop h ies i f p o ssib le
10. D epartm ent or d iv isio n head fo r G irls P h y sica l Education
11. One ten u red , "coach oriented" tea c h e r of G irls P h y sica l Education
12. One ten u red , "physical education oriented" tea ch er o f G irls P h y sica l Education
13. D epartm ent o r d iv isio n head fo r Industrial A rts
14. One ten u red , "industrial a r ts oriented" tea c h e r of Industrial A rts
15. One ten u red , "vocational education oriented" tea c h e r of Industrial A r ts.
If so m eo n e is a b sen t on the day you a d m in ister the q u estio n n a ire, p le a se a d m in ister
it to the a b sen tee the day h e /s h e r e tu r n s.
If fo r any rea so n a co -a d m in istr a to r o r a d ep a rtm en t/d iv isio n head is not ava ila b le
fo r the ten d ays you have the q u e stio n n a ire s, o r if he is unw illing to co m p lete the
q u e stio n n a ire , p le a se s e le c t so m eo n e from you r sta ff who would be co n sid er ed a
stro n g ap plican t fo r the rep la cem en t o f the "unavailable" p erson if the p osition w ere
vacan t.
NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL
600 IRVINE AVENUE - NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 -PHONE (714) 648-1121
292
L etter to , May 9 , 1973
P age 2
If you do not have tw o tenured te a c h e r s in one or m ore o f the fou r d ep artm en ts
in volved , p le a se s e le c t a p robationary tea ch er or te a c h e r s.
T h e su g g ested se le c tio n c r ite r ia a re im portan t, but the m o st im portan t c r iter io n
i s that I r e c e iv e fifteen com p leted q u estion n aires from you . Do the b e st you can
to m ee t the se le c tio n c r ite r ia .
Upon co m p letio n , each of the fifteen resp ond en ts is to put h is /h e r q u estion n aire
in the en velop e provid ed , then s e a l the en velope and give it to you . When you have
a ll fifte en e n v e lo p e s, p lace them in the la r g e en velope p rovid ed .
I hope that you w ill be ab le to a d m in ister the q u estion n aire so m etim e betw een
M ay 15 and M ay 2 3 , 1973. The q u estion n aires w ill be in you r hands no la te r than
May 15. I w ill c a ll you on May 24 to s e e when I should p ick up the com p leted
questionn ai r e s .
Thank you fo r you r a s s is ta n c e .
S in c e r e ly ,
C h a rles E . G odshall
P rin cip a l
dr
APPENDIX D
GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTERING QUESTIONNAIRE
293
294
NEWPORT-MESA Unified, School D istrict
p o st office box 136S • new port beach, California 92663 • (714) 645-0600
JOHN w. NICOLL, Superintendent
May 14, 1973
, P rin cip al
High S ch ool
In c a s e you don't have m y f ir s t le tte r a t you r fin g e r tip s, I w ill r e ite r a te so m e
o f m y su g g e stio n s about ad m in isterin g the q u e stio n n a ire s. T he follow in g fifteen
people need to co m p lete a q uestionn aire: 1) P rin cip al; 2 ) C o -a d m in istr a to r ,
C oun seling and Guidance; 3 ) C oun selor; 4) E n glish D iv isio n /D ep a rtm en t Head;
5) one fe m a le , tenured tea c h e r o f E nglish; 6 ) one m a le , tenured te a c h e r o f E nglish;
7 ) F o reig n Language D iv isio n /D ep a rtm en t Head; 8) one fe m a le , tenured tea c h e r
o f a fo reig n language; 9) one m a le , tenured tea ch er of a foreign language;
10) G ir ls P h y sica l Education D iv isio n /D ep a rtm en t Head; 11) one "coach oriented"
ten ured tea c h e r o f G irls P h y sica l Education; 12) one "physical education oriented"
tenured tea c h e r of G irls P h y sica l Education; 13) Industrial A rts D iv isio n /D e p a r t
m ent Head; 14) one "vocational education oriented" tenured tea c h e r of Industrial
A rts; 15) one "industrial a r ts oriented" tenured tea c h e r of In du strial A r ts . You
m ight a sk you r d iv isio n /d ep a rtm en t heads to s e le c t th e ir two tea c h e rs u sing the
su g g ested s e le c tio n c r ite r ia .
If fo r any re a so n a c o -a d m in istr a to r o r a d ep a rtm en t/d iv isio n head is not ava ila b le
fo r the ten d ays you have the q u e stio n n a ire s, o r if he is unw illing to co m p lete the
q u e stio n n a ire , p le a se s e le c t so m eo n e from you r sta ff w ho would be co n sid ered a
stro n g ap plican t fo r the rep la cem en t of the "unavailable" p erson i f the p osition
w e r e va ca n t.
If you do not have two tenured te a c h e r s in one o r m ore o f the four d ep artm en ts in
v o lv e d , p le a se s e le c t a p rob ation ary tea c h e r or te a c h e r s .
The su g g e ste d s e le c tio n c r ite r ia a r e im portant, bu t th e m o st im portant c r ite r io n
i s that I r e c e iv e fifte en com p leted q u estio n n a ires from you . Do th e b e st you can
to m eet the s e le c tio n c r ite r ia .
If at a ll p o s s ib le , I p r e fe r that you a d m in ister a ll fifteen q u estion n aires at one
" sittin g ." T he p ilot sc h o o ls that a d m in istered the q u estion n aires in a sh o r t m eetin g
a fte r sch o o l had co m p lete s u c c e s s . T h ose who p a ssed out the q u estio n n a ires to
NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL
600 IRVINE AVENUE-NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 - PHONE (7141 548-1121
D e a r
295
L e tte r to , M ay 14, 1973
P age 2
th e s e le c te d resp on d en ts had d ifficu lty co llectin g th em . V our p erson al input
to the group a s a w hole is im p ortan t. Of c o u r s e , any w ay you can a cco m p lish
th e ob jective (15 com p leted q u estio n n a ires) w ill be g ra tefu lly a c c ep ted . P le a se
em p h a size that each q u estion is to be an sw ered two w a y s.
I hope you can a d m in ister the q u estion n aire betw een today and May 2 3 r d . I w ill
c a ll you on May 2 4 to s e e w hen I sh ould p ick up the com p leted q u e stio n n a ire s.
I ap p reciate y o u r h elp .
S in c e r e ly ,
C h a rles E . G odshall
P rin cip a l
d r
APPENDIX E
CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEMS 43, 44, AND 45
296
297
CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONSES
Item *+3: Decisions for Staff Involvement
1. Goals and objectives
2. Those involving my classroom or department
3. Those involving school policy
4. Those about which I have expertise
5. Budget (funds) (finances)
6. Curriculum
7. Those for which I am held accountable (results)
8. Those that will affect me and/or my students
9. Personnel (hiring) (evaluating)
Item 44: Principals' Enabling Behaviors
1. Availability
2. Good listener (open door)
3. Sets good example as leader (good planning/
organizing)
4. Delegation of authority (shared decisions)
5. Leaves me alone (freedom)
6. Demonstrates interest in me and others
7. Has respect for my abilities (support)
8. Good personality (human) (friendly)
9. Follow through (no delay in decisions coming from
principal's office)
Item 45: Principals' Handicapping Behaviors
1. Not available (off campus)
2. Poor personality (poor human relations) (not
friendly)
3. Does not listen to suggestions (closed door)
4. Decisions come too slow (late)
5. Doesn't know I exist (leaves me "too" alone)
6. Makes unilateral decisions (does not delegate
authority)
7. Poor planning (does not follow through)
8. Doesn't understand my department (no support)
9. Poor communication

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Assumption Of Selected Quasi-Jurisdictional Responsibilities By Central Educational Agencies In California

PDF

The professional load of the elementary school principalship after twenty years: a comparative analysis

PDF

The Controller In Public Education

PDF

Computer Based Management Information System--A Model To Faciliate Decision-Making In Medium To Large School Districts

PDF

The Parent And The Elementary School Principal In Conflict Situations

PDF

Auditing Junior College Districts In California

PDF

A Study Of Management Functions Common To The Administration Of Commercial Businesses And Institutions Of Higher Education

PDF

Relationships Of School Board Members To Superintendents

PDF

The Reassignment Of Elementary School Principals In Los Angeles County

PDF

Changes In Organizational Climate Associated With Implementation Of An Educational Management System In A Large Urban School District

PDF

The role of the school business manager as perceived by board members, superintendents, and business managers

PDF

The characteristics of effective elementary school principals

PDF

Role Expectations For The Position Of Assistant Superintendent Of Instruction As Seen By Key Secondary Personnel

PDF

Evaluation Of Short-Term Training For Rehabilitation Counselors: Effectiveness Of An Institute On Epilepsy

PDF

Legal Legislative Effects On Public School District Organization In California - A Case Study

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher And Administrator Views Of The Component Parts Of Teacher Evaluations

PDF

A Study Of The Comparability Of The Wisc And The Wais And The Factors Contributing To Their Differences

PDF

Legal Implications Of The Law Of Agency To School Board Delegation Of Authority In Negotiating With Teacher Organizations

PDF

Factors In The Selection Of State School Board Members And The Chief State School Officer

PDF

Accounting, Inventory, And Stock Control Applications Of Data Processing Equipment In School Business Management

Asset Metadata

Creator Godshall, Charles Edward (author)

Core Title A Diagnosis Of The Management Styles Of High School Principals

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Muelder, Wallace R. (committee chair), Schrader, Don R. (committee member), Smart, Margaret Ellis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-684489

Unique identifier UC11356413

Identifier 7417343.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-684489 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7417343.pdf

Dmrecord 684489

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Godshall, Charles Edward

Type texts

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

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA