00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content 7Q-8538
PHILLIPS, Jerry Louis, 1931-
TODD, Donald Franklin, 1931-
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP
TRAINING AND PERSONALITY TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATES OF SCHOOLS. iPages 2Q4-211, "Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule" not microfilmed
at request of author. Available for consultation
at University of Southern California Library] .
University Microfilms, A X ER O X C om pany, Ann Arbor, M ichigan
7Q-8538
PHILLIPS, Jerry Louis, 1931-
TODD, Donald Franklin, 1931-
Both authors received degrees at University of
Southern California, Ed.D., 1969
Education, administration
\ University Microfilms, A X ER O X C om pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan
i
I ..................................
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP TRAINING
AND PERSONALITY TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATES OF SCHOOLS
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
Donald Franklin Todd
and
Jerry Louis Phillips
August 1969
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.
Dean
Guidance Commit fee
Chairman
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Basic Difficulty
Need for the Study
Purpose of the Study
Limitations
Delimitations
Assumptions
Definitions of Terms
Organization of the Remainder of the
Dissertation
Organizational Climate
Personality Characteristics in Leadership
Chapter Summary
Introduction
The Sample
The Survey Instruments
The Experimental Program
Statistical Procedures Used in Testing
the Hypotheses
Rationale for Analytical Procedures
Chapter Summary
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 25
III. PROCEDURE 65
ii
Chapter Page
IV. PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS.............. 108
Introduction
Findings
Chapter Summary
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 148
Summary
Summary of Research Findings
Conclusions
Implications
Recommendations
Suggestions for Further Study
APPENDICES............................................162
A. Leadership Development Program Training Sessions 163
B. Organizational Climate Description Question
naire (OCDQ) .............................. 185
C. Correspondence with Principals Regarding the
O C D Q ................................... 195
D. Edwards Personal Preference Survey (EPPS) . . . 203
E. Correspondence with Principals Regarding the
E P P S ................................... 212
F. Experimental School Organizational Climate
Profiles, Pretest and Posttest ............ 215
G. Control School Organizational Climates
Profiles, Pretest and Posttest ................217
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... 219
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Stratification of Schools in the Sample
According to Tenure of Principals in Current
Assignments............................... 71
2. Stratification of Schools in the Sample
According to Average Daily Attendance . .. 72
3. Components of Organizational Climate ........ 75
4. Experimental School OCDQ Climate Similarity
Posttest Scores for the Six Prototypic
Climates................................... Ill
5. Control School OCDQ Climate Similarity Post
test Scores for the Six Prototypic Climates 112
6. Prototypic Profiles for Six Organizational
Climates Ranked on a Continuum from Openness
to Closedness............................. 113
7. Experimental and Control School OCDQ Pretest
Climate Profile D Score Correlations with
the Prototypic Open School Profile ........ 119
8. Experimental and Control School OCDQ Posttest
Climate Profile D Score Correlations with
the Prototypic Open School Profile ........ 120
9. Comparison of OCDQ Subtest Score Shifts,
Pretest to Posttest, for Experimental and
Control Schools .......................... 126
10. Intercorrelations of OCDQ and EPPS Variables . 129
iv
Table Page
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Comparison of Personality Traits of Principals
on the Basis of Whether Their Schools Were
Identified as More Open or More Closed . . .
Organizational Climate Profile D Score Differ
ences for Schools Administered by Longer-
Tenured and Shorter-Tenured Principals . . .
Organizational Climate Profile D Score Differ
ences for Larger and Smaller Schools . . . .
Comparison of Personality Traits of Older
Principals and Younger Principals ........
Comparison of Personality Traits between
Principals Who Participated in the Leader
ship Development Program and Those Who Did
Not Participate . . ......................
Experimental School Organizational Climate
Profiles, Pretest and Posttest ............
Control School Organizational Climates
Profiles, Pretest and Posttest ............
132
135
138
140
144
215
217
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Diagram of the Getzel-Guba Theory of Adminis
tration as a Social Process............... 49
2. The Interplay between Role and Personality
in a Behavioral A c t ....................... 51
3. Comparison of Experimental and Control School
Posttest Scores on the Eight Subtests of the
OCDQ.............. ........................ 114
4. Characteristics of the Open Organizational
Climate on the Eight Subtests of the OCDQ . 121
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In a recent issue of the Review of Educational
Research (32:399-403), Brown and House point out that a
school's "organizational climate," "atmosphere," or
"feeling-tone" has become established as a variable of
major importance that affects every aspect of school admin
istration.
Until recently, the concept of school organizational
climate was a nebulous, informal rating of the desirability
of working in or attending schools or school systems.
Teachers, administrators, classified employees, parents,
students, and indeed, entire communities engaged in elab
orate, though relatively subvisible exchanges of information
which contributed to the mystery of a school's "image."
This feeling about the atmosphere or "personality" of the
school or school system, formerly the domain of intuitive
judgments, has been mapped in a pioneer work by Halpin and
Croft which embraced the conceptual problem of organiza
tional affect as an identifiable gestalt derived from, yet
1
more than, the attitudes, values, and behaviors of the
individual members of the organization.
The "personality" of the organization, as Halpin
and Croft described organizational climate, is the product
of the interaction between the personalities which consti
tute the organization. Leader personality and behavior,
though no longer considered to be the almost exclusive
determinants of group effectiveness, continue to be the
focus for considerable attention as a major influence upon
the product of the interdependence between the leader and
the group members. The elementary school organization is
an ongoing interaction system composed essentially of
teachers and a principal. As the official leader, the
principal may very well determine the style of interaction
between the leader and the group.
Basic Difficulty
The importance of organizational climate as an
influential force to be considered in educational adminis
tration has led to considerable normative and correlational
research exploring relationships between organizational
climate and other important variables. Brown and House
related elements in three major areas of inquiry:
3
(1) organizational personality and cohesion; (2) climate
and the principal; and (3) academic achievement and climate
(32:399-403).
The claim that climate is to the organization what
personality is to the individual has been criticized as
incomplete because of the restriction of the definition of
climate as a function of the social interaction between
principal and teachers. Within the constraints of this
limitation, however, there has evolved substantial support
for serious consideration of climate as a relatively stable
index which is related to the success of the school at
significant levels to other variables of accepted
importance.
Climate is sensitive to cultural and social impair
ment; schools in disadvantaged areas show either less
openness or less desirable subscale scores. Open climates
are found in schools which exhibit emergent rather than
traditional values. The hypothesis that the principal's
own personality and character have a great influence upon
the atmosphere of the school has been supported also.
Open-climate schools tend to have confident, self-secure,
cheerful, sociable and resourceful principals, while closed-
climate schools tend to have principals who are evasive,
4
worrying, submissive, conventional and frustration-prone.
Over-all climate scores and pupil achievement did not
appear to interface in any systematic or conclusive manner.
There are, however, significant relationships between
climate subtest scores and academic achievement. Subtests
of consideration and intimacy have been found to correlate
positively with achievement; subtests of production emphasis
and aloofness correlate negatively (32:399-403).
The importance of organizational climate as a major
variable related in significant ways to fundamental ele
ments of the educational enterprise has been established.
This factor has been identified, dimensionalized, and
examined from numerous perspectives. A task which appears
both worthy and timely, in light of the development of
research on organizational climate and the accelerating
pursuit of excellence, is the search for appropriate means
to improve the organizational climate of schools.
Need for the Study
The search for new strategies to cope with leader
ship problems which are growing in frequency and magnitude
at a rapidly accelerating rate is foremost in the minds and
programs of contemporary leaders in education. The
California Elementary School Administrators' Association
(CESAA) 1969 annual administrative conference was convened
with these words:
Strategies for Educational Leadership is a timely
theme for the 1969 State CESAA Conference. The times
demand it, for strategies are desperately needed to
adequately cope with the leadership problems at hand.
(61)
The importance of seeking means of improving the
organizational climate of schools appears evident. The
pervasiveness of this dimension of the organization as a
significant influence or correlate to other important
organizational factors has been established. When consid
ering the human nature of both the product and the process
of the educational enterprise, the plausibility of organi
zational affect as a determinant of success increases in
acceptability. The possibility of climate improvement for
reducing organizational dysfunction, or better, for
releasing synergic forces to improve the organizational
affect, seems both likely and in need of further
exploration.
A heightened awareness of attitudinal determinants
of behavior supports the need for assessing affective
results of in-service training programs which remain as a
principal means of updating skills and knowledge to meet
change. Major changes are occurring in education and will
continue with increasing rapidity. The data derived from
this study, it is hoped, may help to provide insights into
processes which can be employed to maintain the institution
of public education in a self-renewing state of dynamic
equilibrium.
If personality does affect change in organizational
climate in a measurable way, the knowledge has implication
for personnel recruitment, assignment, evaluation, and pro
motion. In larger school systems, transfer of personnel
may be managed to fit the requirements of a particular
school and community by assigning a principal whose person
ality traits more optimally meet the requirements of the
situation. Such a transfer should help to move the school
in the desired direction.
Purpose of the Study
o
The purpose of this investigation was to identify
and evaluate change in the organizational climates of
elementary schools which occurred following a leadership
development program for the principals of the subject
schools, and to explore relationships between principals'
personality characteristics and the climates of their
schools. Three major questions were posed for the inves
tigation:
1. What measurable change in the organizational
climate of elementary schools occurred following
participation of the principals of the subject
schools in a leadership development program
which emphasized participative management and
systems approaches to decision-making?
2. What relationships existed between measured
personality attributes of principals and the
organizational climate dimensions of the schools
in which they served?
3. Were there any significant differences between
measured personality attributes of principals in
"open" and "closed" school organizational
climates?
In addition to the three major questions raised, the
study sought to answer four supplementary questions:
4. What relationships existed between the princi
pals ' length of service in the schools and the
organizational climates of the schools?
8
5. What relationships existed between the organiza
tional climates of larger schools and those of
smaller schools?
6. What relationships existed between the person
alities of younger principals and those of older
principals?
7. What relationships existed between the person
alities of principals who participated in a
leadership development program and those of
principals who did not participate in the
program?
The answer to the first major question was sought
by testing the following three hypotheses:
I. Ha : open climate experimental >
open climate control.
At the posttest, the organizational climate of
the experimental schools will be more open than
the organizational climate of the control
schools, this relationship being reflected by
differences in climate similarity scores between
the two groups of schools.
II.
III.
9
Ha : rxy * °‘
There will be significant differences between
the organizational climates of schools and the
prototypic open school climate, as reflected by
a comparison between the observed organizational
climate profiles and the prototypic open school
climate profile.
Ha : ud experimental ^ ud control.
There will be a significant difference in organ
izational climate change between experimental
and control schools, as reflected by a difference
between the subtest mean score shifts of these
two groups of schools.
In other words, differences in OCDQ subtest
mean score shifts will be found between experi
mental and control schools.
1. For teacher groups, these differences will
appear in subtests measuring disengagement,
hindrance, esprit, and intimacy.
2. For administrators, these differences will
appear in subtests measuring aloofness, pro
duction emphasis, thrust, and consideration.
10
The answer to the second major question was sought
by testing the following hypothesis:
IV. Ha : rxy ? 0.
There will be a significant difference between
principals1 personality traits as measured by
the EPPS and dimensions of the schools1 organi
zational climate as measured by the OCDQ, when
subtest scores are compared for the principals
and schools studied.
The answer to the third major question was sought
by testing this hypothesis:
V. Ha : U 0pen f U closed.
There will be a significant difference in person
ality traits between principals whose schools
are characterized as having more "open" organi
zational climates and principals whose schools
are characterized as having more "closed"
organizational climates; this relationship will
be reflected by differences in performance on
the EPPS between the two groups.
Answers to the supplementary questions were sought
by testing the following hypotheses:
VI.
VII.
VIII.
11
Ha : Dd shorter-tenure ^ Dd longer-tenure.
In experimental schools, there will be a greater
difference in organizational climate change
between schools administered by shorter-tenured
principals and schools administered by longer-
tenured principals; this difference will be
reflected in the former group's greater increase
in the OCDQ profile similarities to the proto
typic open school profile.
Ha : Dd smaller > Dd larger.
In experimental schools there will be a greater
difference in organizational climate change
between smaller schools and larger schools; this
difference will be reflected by a greater
increase in the OCDQ climate profile similarities
to the prototypic open school profile on the
part of smaller schools.
Ha * ^ older ^ U younger.
There will be a significant difference in person
ality traits between younger and older princi
pals, as reflected by differences in EPPS scores.
IX.
following
1.
2.
12
Ha : u experimental ^ u control.
There will be a significant difference in per
sonality traits between experimental school
principals and control school principals, as
revealed by differences in EPPS scores for the
two groups.
Limitations
Fundamental to the nature of this study were the
limitations.
Schools which comprised the experimental group
were randomly selected from elementary schools
of the Fresno City Unified School District whose
principals participated in a leadership develop
ment program offered by the district, while the
control group consisted of all schools in the
district whose principals elected not to parti
cipate in the leadership development program.
Participants in the above-mentioned leadership
development program were self-selected.
The Organizational Climate Description Question
naire is a relatively new instrument, and
13
extensive validation was lacking at the time of
the present study.
4. There are certain intrinsic limitations to the
questionnaire method of gathering data, such as
possible differences in the interpretation of
questions, inaccurate answers resulting from
lack of necessary information, or insincerity on
the part of the respondent.
5. The limited size and diversity of the sample
population may have affected the general appli
cability of the findings.
6. The quality and influence of the above-mentioned
leadership development program was limited by
the size of the participating group and by the
financial and professional resources available.
Delimitations
In order to establish the desired parameters for
the study, the following delimitations were imposed.
1. The study was confined to an experimental group
of sixteen schools and a control group of nine
schools.
2. All participants in the study were from the
Fresno City Unified School District.
3. The leadership development program which con
stituted the experimental variable for the study
consisted of eleven meetings over a seven-month
period.
4. Principal personality and school organizational
climate measurements were obtained by means of
administration of the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (EPPS) and the Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), respectively.
Assumptions
In establishing a point of departure for the study,
several assumptions were made.
1. A group's perceptions of a leader's behavior is
one dimension of the leader's behavior that is
operationally valid.
2. A group's perceptions of the behavior of members
of the group is one dimension of the group
members' behavior that is operationally valid.
3. Elementary school organisational climate is
amenable to change, and this change can be
15
reflected accurately in findings derived from
administration of the OCDQ.
4. An open organizational climate is preferable to
a closed organizational climate.
5. The survey participants possessed the knowledge
necessary to answer the questionnaires, and
their responses were given in good faith.
6. Additional information about the relatedness of
the school organizational climate, principals'
personalities, and leadership development pro
grams can provide a basis for greater insight
into the process of educational administration.
Definitions of Terms
Certain terms are used here with meanings that may
be specific to this particular investigation. Most of them
are associated with the two survey instruments used.
Terms Pertaining to the
Organizational Climate Description
Questionnaire (OCDQ)
Organizational climate. The organizational quality
or "personality" of the school is referred to as its organ
izational climate.
16
Open climate. By definition, an open climate is
the climate that is most desirable— the situation in which
the members enjoy high esprit, low disengagement, and low
hindrance, and in which they feel no need for a high degree
of intimacy. The behavior of the principal represents an
appropriate integration between his own personality and the
role he is required to play as principal; he has high
thrust and high consideration; he is not aloof and does not
have to emphasize production.
Autonomous climate. An autonomous climate is a
school situation in which the principal gives the teachers
almost complete freedom to provide their own structures for
interaction and to find ways within the group to satisfy
their social needs. Teacher characteristics include low
disengagement, low hindrance, moderately high esprit, and
relatively low intimacy. Principals' behavior includes high
aloofness, low production emphasis, high thrust, and average
consideration.
Controlled climate. The situation which is charac
terized by a press for achievement at the expense of
social-needs satisfaction. Teacher behavior is character
ized by low disengagement, high hindrance, low intimacy
17
and high esprit. Principals' characteristics typically
include average aloofness, high production emphasis,
average thrust, and low consideration.
Familiar climate. The situation characterized by
the conspicuously friendly manner of both principal and
teachers, emphasizing high social-needs satisfaction and
little or no goal achievement direction. Teacher behavior
is characterized by high disengagement, low hindrance,
average esprit and high intimacy. Principals' behavior is
marked by low aloofness, low production emphasis, moderate
thrust, and high consideration.
Paternal climate. A paternal climate is a school
situation characterized by the principal's ineffective
attempts to control the teachers as well as to satisfy their
social needs. Teacher behavior is characterized by high
disengagement, low hindrance, low esprit, and low intimacy.
The principal's behavior is characterized by low aloofness,
high production emphasis, average thrust, and average
consideration.
Closed climate. By definition, a closed climate
is the least desirable climate; the situation in which the
18
group members obtain little satisfaction in respect to
either task-achievement or social needs. The teachers are
disengaged, there is high hindrance, the esprit is at a low
ebb, and teachers obtain what little satisfaction they can
from average intimacy with other teachers. The principal
is highly aloof, has high production emphasis, little
thrust and low consideration.
Disengagement. Disengagement refers to the teach
ers' tendency to be "not with it." This dimension describes
a group which is "going through the motions," a group that
is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. It
corresponds to the more general concept of anomie, as first
described by Durkheim (4:277). In short, this subtest
focuses upon the teachers1 behavior in a task-oriented
situation.
Hindrance. This term refers to the teachers1 feel
ing that the principal burdens them with routine duties,
committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers
construe as unnecessary busy-work. The teachers perceive
that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating
their work.
19
Esprit. This term denotes "morale." The teachers
feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that
they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplish
ment in their job.
Intimacy. The teachers' enjoyment of friendly
social relations with each other is expressed by the term
intimacy. This dimension describes a social-needs satis
faction which is not necessarily associated with task-
accomplishment.
Aloofness. .Aloofness refers to behavior by the
principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal.
He "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and
policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an
informal, face-to-face situation. His behavior, in brief,
is universalistic rather than particularistic; nomothetic
rather than idiosyncratic. To maintain this style, he
keeps himself— at least, emotionally— at a distance from
his staff.
Production emphasis. Behavior by the principal
which is characterized by close supervision of the staff's
output is referred to as production emphasis. The principal
20
is highly directive, and plays the role of a "straw boss."
His communication tends to go in only one direction, and he
is not sensitive to feedback from the staff.
Thrust. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal
which is characterized by his evident effort in trying to
"move the organization." "Thrust" behavior is marked not
by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to
motivate the teachers through the example which he person
ally sets. Apparently, because he does not ask the teachers
to give of themselves any more than he willingly gives of
himself, his behavior, though starkly task-oriented, is
nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers.
Consideration. Behavior by the principal which is
characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers
"humanly" and to try to do a little something extra for
them in human terms is referred to as consideration.
Terms Pertaining to the
Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (EPPS)
Abasement. Absement refers to the acceptance of
blame when things go wrong.
21
Achievement. Achievement refers to accomplishment
of tasks requiring skill and effort.
Affiliation. Affiliation refers to the formation
of strong attachments.
Aggression. Aggression refers to a tendency to
to attack contrary points of view.
Autonomy. Autonomy refers to being independent of
others in making decisions.
Change. Change refers to an interest in new
experiences.
Deference. Deference refers to a tendency to
accept suggestions of others.
Dominance. Dominance refers to the ability to per
suade or influence others.
Endurance. Endurance refers to a tendency to keep
at a job until completed.
Exhibition. Exhibition refers to a desire to be
noticed by others.
22
Heterosexuality. Heterosexuality refers to engage
ment in social activities with the opposite sex.
Intraception. Intraception refers to a tendency to
analyze the motives and behaviors of others.
Nuturance. Nuturance refers to assisting others in
need of help.
Order. Order refers to a preference for having
things organized.
Succorance. Succorance refers to a desire to
receive help and understanding from others.
Tenure of Principals
Longer-tenured principals. Principals who have
served in their schools for three or more years, including
the year during which the investigation was conducted, are
referred to as longer-tenured principals.
Shorter-tenured principals. Principals who have
served in their schools for two years or less, including
the year during which the investigation was conducted, are
referred to as shorter-tenured principals.
23
Size of Schools
Larger elementary schools. Those schools which
have an enrollment of 600 or more pupils are referred to as
the larger elementary schools.
Smaller elementary schools. Those schools which
have an enrollment of 599 or fewer pupils are referred to
as the smaller elementary schools.
Organization of the Remainder
of the Dissertation
The balance of the dissertation consists of four
chapters. Chapter II reports the results of a review of
the literature and research related to the concepts of
organizational climate and personality characteristics in
leadership. Chapter III explains the methods employed in
the selection of the research subjects, the instruments and
methods utilized in gathering the data, the research design,
the leadership development program, and the statistical
analysis employed in testing the hypotheses. Chapter IV
contains a report of the research data pertaining to
organizational climate and leadership personality. The
results are analyzed in terms of the four major hypotheses
and the five supplementary hypotheses they were developed
to test. Chapter V includes a summary of the entire study
together with conclusions drawn from the research findings
and recommendations for further utilization of the results
of the research project.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature related to this study is reviewed in
this chapter under two major sections, the first of which
deals with the organizational climate of schools, and the
second with the personality characteristics of leaders.
Each of these sections consists of three subsections.
Those pertaining to organizational climate deal with:
(1) the development of the concept of organizational cli
mate, (2) the Organizational Climate Description Question
naire, and (3) research utilizing the Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire. Subsections under the
second major section deal with: (1) personality character
istics in leadership, (2) the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule, and (3) studies utilizing the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule.
Organizational Climate
Organizational climate is a relatively new element
in organization theory, a burgeoning growth point at the
25
26
present time in the development of the social sciences.
The nature of educational organizations as they are, and the
variables that make them so, is a new field of research
with far-reaching implications for education.
Moreover, the emergent nature of organizational
climate as a conceptualization of the affective dimensions
which influence group success has allowed for a fluidity in
the development of definitions and applications of the idea.
Students of organizational stress or growth are yet in the
process of crystallizing the concept of climate.
Development of the Concept of
Organizational Climate
The review of research related to the development
of the concept of organizational climate is presented in
the historical sequence of landmark studies leading to the
development of the Organizational Climate Description
Questionnaire (OCDQ) (51).
Barnard identified the significance of the balance
between the needs of the individual and the needs of the
organization by contributing the concepts of organizational
"efficiency" and "effectiveness" to the field of organiza
tion theory (2:60-61). Hemphill and Coons devised the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire which contributed
27
to the widely used dimensions of "initiating structure" and
"consideration" (8:6-38). Andrew Halpin employed these two
major dimensions of leader behavior, initiating structure
and consideration in an examination of effective leadership
among aircraft commanders, later replicating the study with
superintendents of schools (37:18-32).
Cornell, another early researcher into the area of
organizational climate, evaluated four school systems and
observed:
No two school systems are alike in their organiza
tional climate. As we became better acquainted with
the four systems, we felt that we could discern differ
ences in organizational climate (35:221).
Cornell utilized five variables in the examination of
organizational climate:
1. Teacher morale.
2. The extent to which teachers and administrators
share in decision making or the teacher perception
of the degree of deconcentration of administrative
power.
3. The degree to which teachers feel that they are
given responsibility while participating in decision
making.
4. The extent to which teachers feel that their ideas
are taken into account in final decisions.
5. The extent to which teachers intereact directly
with administrative personnel concerning school
problems. (35:220)
28
Gibb described climate as the "feeling" that the
observer gained upon visiting a classroom. Qualitatively,
it is the supportiveness-defensiveness continuum of the
teacher-and-pupil interaction (27:121). Gibb maintained
that the key determiner of the supportive climate is the
attitude of willingness to share in problems that are
common to the group members. He identified five social
needs or "roles" which required the group's attention in
addition to the energy expended on work tasks. These roles
were (1) initiating ideas or actions, (2) regulating and
controlling actions, (3) giving information about ideas,
(4) engaging in producing ideas, and (5) evaluating the
ideas and activities that have been produced. These "roles"
were not thought to be the exclusive domain of teacher or
pupil, but were accomplished at different times by group
members (27:131).
Getzels and Thelen provided, another approach to the
description of organizational climate with the revision of
the Guba-Getzels model as applied to instructional groups.
In working out a balance between the institution
and the individual, the group develops a "culture" or
perhaps better here, a climate, which may be analyzed
into the constituent intentions of the group, and, in
effect, the group climate represents another general
dimension of the social system. (26:79)
29
Getzels and Thelen asserted that "the member finds
emotional support for risk taking and the consequent
increased individual security encourages 'open' transactions
between personality and role" (26:80). Three leadership
styles were identified in this research: nomothetic,
idiographic, and transactional. The nomothetic leader
stresses the requirements of the organization, the idio
graphic leader the needs of the individual, and the trans
actional leader maintained an optimal balance between the
two (5:151-159).
Argyris studied organizational homeostasis in a
bank, finding it to be maintained by deliberate selection
of personnel and by the maintenance of a prescribed
employee culture which stemmed from desired employee and
administrative relationships and behaviors (30:501-20).
Mathews .^ondjAe-ted -early research in organizational
climate measuring five dimensions of administrative climate
in nine western hospitals. These rubrics were leadership,
goal-integration, decision-making, influence, and personal
relations. The measures of these dimensions were made on a
continuum ranging from a "social philosophy" of administra
tion (with generally supportive interaction, and wide
participation of the entire staff in decision-making), to
30
a "technological philosophy" (with decisions, rules, and
regulations made at the top of the organization's hierarchy
and passed down to the personnel (40:21-35).
Development of the OCDQ Instrument
The development of the Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) by Andrew W. Halpin and
Don B. Croft is described in Chapter III of this study.
The concept of organizational climate was defined by these
authors as "organizational personality." The concepts of
"open-ness" and "closed-ness" of climate were based partly
upon Rokeach1s work on The Open and Closed Mind and partly
upon Lewin's hypotheses about the structure of "mind"
(11:194-238). Halpin and Croft borrowed Lewin's character
ization of the open climate as being functionally flexible,
and that of the closed climate as being functionally rigid.
In defining the more global concepts of organizational
climate, the authors referred to borrowing from similar
concepts such as Hemphill's group dimensions (21), Cattell's
syntality (34:161-84), and Argyris' organizational climate
(30:501-20). They clarified the parameters of their
definition of organizational climate by stating:
... in this report we will deal with only one compo
nent of organizational climate; when we speak of
31
organizational climate within the present context we
will refer exclusively to the social interaction
between the principal and the teachers. (51:9)
The questionnaire (OCDQ) is a sixty-four item
Likert-type instrument containing eight subtests— four
(aloofness,-production emphasis, thrust, and consideration)
relating to leader behavior and four (disengagement,
hindrance, esprit, and intimacy) dealing primarily with
teacher behavior. The subtest scores are used to construct
profiles for each school. Six types of organizational
climate were differentiated, ranging on a continuum from
"open" through "autonomous," "controlled," "familiar," and
"paternal" to "closed."
Climate on the "open" end of the continuum is
characterized by high esprit and job satisfaction. At this
end of the continuum, group members possess incentive to
keep the organization "moving" and are proud to be associ
ated with the school. Social needs and organizational
goals are equally satisfied and achieved.
"Closed" climate is characterized by a high degree
of apathy on the part of all members of the organization.
Esprit is low because the group members secure neither
social-needs satisfaction nor satisfaction from task
achievement.
• ' 32
The questionnaire was developed during the first
phase of a long-range research project submitted to the
Cooperative Research Branch of the United States Office of
Education. Halpin and Croft considered their research to
be exploratory and recognized that they were dealing with
only one component of organizational climate. Despite its
exploratory nature and the recognized limitations of this
initial study, Lonsdale stated: "Some of our most heuristic
studies of the next few years will be those examining and
assessing various dimensions of organizational climates
within educational organizations" (29:170). Although
Halpin and Croft made no claim to having established a
theory, Lipham concluded that their research qualified for
consideration on these terms (28:139).
Studies Utilizing the OCDQ
Early in 1964, Brown and House estimated that well
over one hundred OCDQ studies would have been completed by
October of 1967. Undoubtedly, numerous additional investi
gations utilizing this instrument have been concluded since
that time. Much of this work has been normative and corre
lational in nature, intended to help to validate the
instrument, and to determine the extent of the relationships
33
which could be inferred from climate scores. The research
which is reviewed in this section is a representative
sample of some of the more current work which has been done
with the OCDQ.
In a study of relationships between external
variables and the OCDQ among seventeen randomly-selected
elementary schools in the northern suburban Chicago area,
Smith analyzed five factors for correlation with the OCDQ:
(1) situation— real and perceived, (2) size, (3) principal
— professional stability, (4) principal— perceived behavior,
and (5) principal— attributes. Smith's findings were as
follows:
1. The subtests . . . were statistically significantly
correlated with selected variables. Forty-five
of a possible 184 correlations were statistically
significant at or beyond the .05 level. In other
words, forty-five relationships between the OCDQ
and external variables were identified.
2. Six variables did distinguish between schools with
autonomous and closed climates. The same six
variables were significantly different between
familiar and closed climate schools at or beyond
the five per cent level of confidence.
3. The five factors identified through the factor
analysis of the original thirty-one variables
proved useful in relating external variables to
the . . . OCDQ: Situation— Real and Perceived,
Size, Principal— Professional Stability, Principal
— Perceived Behavior, and Principal— Attitudes.
34
4. The variables which constituted the Situation—
Real and Perceived were especially powerful when
related to the OCDQ. Twenty-nine of the fifty-four
intercorrelations were statistically significant at
or beyond the .05 level of confidence.
5. Three of the five factors dealt with the principal.
The essential characteristics of each factor were,
however, quite different. One factor dealt with
the professional stability of the principal, another
his behavior, the third with his attributes. This
distinction, identified by the factor analysis,
seemed promising. (63:115-17)
As a result of these findings, Smith was led to conclude:
1. The concept of organizational climate as identified
by the . . . OCDQ was empirically sound and viable.
2. The specific findings relative to the correlations
of variables to OCDQ subtests, intervariable
correlations, and those relative to the climates
identified by the OCDQ seemed consistent one with
another. This observation seemed to add further
support to the OCDQ as an instrument useful in
identifying organizational climate.
3. The questionnaire was externally consistent as well
as internally so. In addition, the empirical
findings appeared to be consistent with the internal
definitions of organizational climate devised by
Halpin and Croft.
4. Since there appeared to be a strong relationship
between variables in the factor, Situation— Real
and Perceived, and since some of the variables in
this factor did not deal directly with the princi
pal, it may be possible to alter the organizational
climate without replacing the principal. The data
also suggested significant characteristics of
principal behavior.
5. The data throughout the study seemed to emphasize
the importance to the organizational climate of the
school of a relatively consistent perception of the
35
situation on the part of the teachers and the
principal.
6. ... it is not enough to identify the organiza
tional climate of an elementary school. In addi
tion, it is important to study the profile of
subtest scores in assessing the organizational
climate. (63:117-18)
Hall explored relationships between the organiza
tional climate of elementary schools and selected career
characteristics of the involved superintendents at the
district level. The study sample included districts in the
Santa Clara and San Mateo counties (California) that were
administered by superintendents of two or more years1
tenure and had an average daily attendance of more than
1,000 pupils. The twenty-eight eligible districts were
placed into four classifications on the basis of the origin
and tenure of the superintendents. Four types of super
intendents— (1) Outside Long Tenure, (2) Inside Long Tenure,
(3) Outside Short Tenure, and (4) Inside Short Tenure— were
represented by a quadrant of seventeen schools from four
districts so that, altogether , sixty-eight schools from
sixteen districts were studied. These conclusions were
reached:
1. The length of tenure and origin of superintendents
tend to be meaningfully related to organizational
climates in the schools under their jurisdiction.
It is concluded that the district superintendent
is a significant factor in the creation and
36
maintenance of patterns of social interaction at
the school level.
2. A more desirable (more Open) climate tends to be
developed and maintained in schools within dis
tricts administered by Outsider Superintendents
than by those administered by Insider Superin
tendents .
3. A more desirable (more Open) climate tends to be
developed and maintained in schools within dis
tricts administered by superintendents of Short
Tenure than in those administered by Long Tenure
Superintendents.
4. The most desirable working relationships appear to
be developed within the staffs of schools in
districts administered by superintendents who are
Outsiders of Short Tenure. The least desirable
(most Closed and least Open climates) patterns of
social interaction tend to develop in districts
administered by Insiders of Short Tenure.
5. Teachers serving in districts administered by
superintendents of Long Tenure generally perceive
greater social needs satisfaction.
6. Staffs tend to perceive their principals as more
sympathetic, thoughtful and considerate in dis
tricts administered by Outsiders of Short Tenure
and Insiders of Long Tenure.
7. Superintendents who have been selected for their
positions from outside the district administer
more dynamic and more imaginative school programs
than do superintendents promoted from within the
system.
8. The wealth of a community or its commitment to
education as expressed by tax rate are generally
not related to the selection of an outsider or
the promotion of an insider to the superintendency;
nor are these factors related to the length of
tenure of the superintendent. No significant
differences tend to exist in the allocation of
37
available funds under Insiders and Outsiders of
long or short tenure.
9. Superintendents of Short Tenure who have been
selected from outside the district tend to possess
more formal training for their positions.
10. Insiders tend to administer more practical,
reliable, basic and disciplined programs and
staffs. Insiders are generally conservative and
conventional while outsiders are more adaptable
and forward-looking.
11. Outsiders tend to administer more Adaptable,
Dynamic, Imaginative and Individualistic programs
and staffs.
12. Long Tenure Superintendents administer more
cautious schools, while Short Tenure Superintend
ents administer more imaginative programs.
(50:105-109)
McFadden investigated the validity of the OCDQ
through the employment of nonparticipant observers as out
side criterion referents. A randomly-selected sample of
thirty schools from the Hall data pool of sixty-eight
schools from sixteen elementary school districts in San
Mateo and Santa Clara counties (California) constituted the
research population. Three nonparticipant observers were
randomly assigned twenty schools for observations and
ratings of OCDQ subtest dimensions and school climate. Two
observers participated in the observation and ratings of
ten schools in common. Each pair rated only ten schools,
but the three paired ratings produced two sets of ratings
38
for each of the thirty schools of the sample. Inter-rater
agreement and OCDQ-rater observations were analyzed. The
results of the Adaptability Adjective Check List, a cross-
validational instrument devised and utilized by Hall, were
employed as an auxiliary criterion to test the validity of
the OCDQ.
McFadden's findings led to the following conclu
sions:
1. Outside (nonparticipant) observers are able to
agree significantly in their ratings of the eight
OCDQ subtest categories of principal and teacher
behavior.
2. Outside (nonparticipant) observers are able to
agree significantly in their evaluations of the six
climate types derived from the OCDQ.
3. The observers' ratings of the subtest dimensions
do not agree significantly with the measures of the
subtest dimensions obtained with the OCDQ.
4. The observers' evaluations of specific school
climates do not agree significantly with the cli
mate evaluations obtained with the OCDQ.
5. The climate designations of the sample of schools
studied, as obtained by the sum-of-subtest-score-
differences-from-the-prototypic-profiles, do not
agree with the climate descriptions, in terms of
subtest scores that were provided by Halpin and
Croft.
6. The prototypic profiles reported by Halpin and
Croft for their sample were not found frequently
among the schools in this study.
39
7. The mean AACL score varies meaningfully with the
Openness of the school's climate as measured with
the OCDQ.
8. The AACL, as an instrument for assessing the
adaptability or functional flexibility of a school,
merits further use in the study of school organi
zations. (56:88-89)
Pritchard, in another validation study, utilized
the perceptions of non-faculty school personnel as observ
ers to assess the quality of faculty interaction. These
perceptions were used as an outside criterion to check the
concurrent validity of the OCDQ.
Thirty elementary schools were selected from the
Hall study of sixty-eight elementary schools from sixteen
districts in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties (Cali
fornia) . All of the non-faculty school personnel, classi
fied and certificated, connected with the sample schools in
any capacity were requested to complete a Short Form OCDQ.
Pritchard's research findings led him to conclude:
1. Non-faculty school personnel (classified and
certificated) are able to agree significantly in
their ratings of five of the eight subtest dimen
sions of principal and teacher behavior.
2. Certificated non-faculty raters assign higher
numerical ratings to both favorable and unfavorable
characteristics of principal and teachers than do
classified non-faculty raters in a majority of
schools in the study sample.
40
3. Non-faculty school personnel ratings agree signif
icantly with OCDQ subtest ratings in hindrance,
thrust, and consideration.
4. Classified non-faculty school personnel do not
perceive the eight dimensions of climate more like
the principal and teachers than do the certificated
non-faculty personnel.
5. Non-faculty school personnel agree significantly
in their ratings of four of the eight OCDQ subtest
dimensions with Observer Group 1 of the nonpartici
pant observers of the McFadden study; while
significant agreement in only one subtest is
achieved with Observer Group 2.
6. Rater groups achieve significant agreement more
frequently when rating the subtests pertaining to
the principal1s behavior than when rating the sub
tests describing group behavior.
7. The climate designations of the thirty schools do
not agree in all subtest dimensions with the
prototypic descriptions for the six discrete types
of climates identified in the Halpin and Croft
sample.
8. Non-faculty school personnel consistently assign
more favorable mean ratings to schools in the
study sample identified by the OCDQ as open than
to schools identified as closed.
9. The eight subtest dimensions of the OCDQ are
viable concepts which can be used to assess the
favorability of work atmosphere surrounding an
elementary school.
10. The Halpin and Croft concept of six prototypic
profiles goes beyond the ability of the OCDQ to
differentiate the social interaction in elementary
schools. (60:107-109)
Change in organizational climate after leader
succession was investigated by Petrie. Altogether, 253
41
teachers and administrators from fourteen elementary
schools that had recently experienced leader succession
were examined. Descriptive variables thought to influence
school climates were considered in assessing change in
climate. These variables included socioeconomic status,
organizational members' age, training, and experience.
Petrie found that one or more of the organizations changed
significantly on all dimensions of leader and group behavior
following leader succession. There were significant
changes in all dimensions of leader behavior after leader
succession, and there were significant associations between
several dimensions of group behavior and leader behavior
after leader succession. No significant correlations were
found between change in organizational climate and the
selected organizational variables following leader
succession (59:153-57).
Tanner studied relationships between the organiza
tional climates of schools and the social behavior of
selected elementary, junior high, and senior high school
building administrators. The Test of Social Insight (TSI)
was utilized to determine the principals1 social behavior
for comparison with the OCDQ results. Tanner found signif
icant relationships between the organizational climates of
schools, as measured by the OCDQ, and the problem-solving
modes of building principals, as measured to the TSI at all
three levels (elementary, junior high and senior high
school), but that the level and extent of the significance
decreased with each higher grade level category. Signifi
cant organizational climate differences were found for all
three levels of educational organization, and the problem
solving modes of superintendents and assistant superintend
ents were found to be related significantly to the mean
organizational climates of school districts (64:157-66).
A study of the relationship of teacher perception
of organizational climate to local-cosmopolitan latent role
orientation was conducted by Palmer. Twelve elementary
schools in an urban community in upstate New York were
surveyed utilizing the OCDQ and the Local-Cosmopolitan
Scale. The findings led Palmer to conclude:
1. In elementary schools classified as "closed" or
"not definitely closed," as measured by the OCDQ,
teachers perceiving the climate toward the "open"
end of the climate continuum exhibited signifi
cantly lower local-cosmopolitan scores than teachers
perceiving the climate toward the "closed" end.
2. In elementary schools classified as "not definitely
closed," there is a significant relationship between
the subtest scores of disengagement and esprit and
the teachers' local-cosmopolitan scores; in "closed"
climate schools, the relationship exists between
esprit and the local-cosmopolitan scores.
43
3. The teachers' perceptions of the principals 1
behaviors tend to be similar for those having
low and high local-cosmopolitan scores, whereas
the perceptions of staff behaviors esprit,
disengagement, intimacy, and hindrance are more
closely related to the teachers1 local-cosmopolitan
scores.
4. The subtest of thrust seems to give some evidence
of being an important determinate of organizational
climate.
5. The findings of major Hypotheses III and IV do not
support the assumption that principals are influ
enced in their competency judgments of teachers by
the Local-Cosmopolitan latent role orientations of
their teachers. (58:81-82)
Personality Characteristics in Leadership
In general, leadership research may be divided into
two categories: (1) individual-centered research, usually
called the "trait" approach, and (2) group-centered
research, frequently referred to as the "situational" or
"situationist" approach. The first point of view empha
sizes the discovery of personality traits common to all
leaders, while the second stresses the study of the inter
action between the behavior of leaders and the characteris
tics of the specific situation in which the leaders
function. If one follows the first approach, one is led to
examine leadership as an attribute or set of attributes
possessed by the leader; pursuit of the situational approach
44
leads to the view that leadership is primarily an aspect of
organization.
This section traces the research on personality
characteristics in leadership from early individual trait-
centered studies to the more current situation-oriented
research.
Trait-centered Research
Most early research on leadership characteristics
sought to identify the personal traits of leadership which
would distinguish leaders from other persons in the group
situation. Researchers looked for the unitary trait that
characterizes a leader, wherever found. Initial probes in
this direction attempted to distinguish the qualities or
traits that were commonly found in leaders. Gibb synthe
sized the results of these studies into a list of six
general characteristics frequently found in leaders:
(1) energetic, (2) self-confident, (3) intelligent,
(4) verbally fluent, (5) persistent, and (6) having insight
into human nature (6:914).
Instead of simplifying the concept of leadership,
these early probes generated long lists of desirable person
ality traits which, as Lipham mused, "became not unlike
descriptions of the good Boy Scout" (28:126).
45
Ralph Stogdill conducted an exhaustive review of
early leadership studies and categorized them according to
twenty-eight personal factors which he grouped under five
general headings:
1. Capacity (intelligence, alertness, verbal facility,
originality, judgment).
2. Achievement (scholarship, knowledge, athletic
accomplishments).
3. Responsibility (dependability, initiative, per
sistence, aggressiveness, self-confidence, desire
to excel).
4. Participation (activity, sociability, cooperation,
adaptability, humor).
5. Status (socio-economic status, popularity).
(46:25)
At the end of his meticulous search, Stogdill was
led to conclude:
The total weight of evidence presented in this
group of studies suggests that if there are general
traits which characterize leaders, the patterns of such
traits are likely to vary with the leadership require
ments of different situations. (46:61)
Even though the traits approach to the study of
leaders1 personalities did produce some interesting results
it was ultimately recognized that it focused on only one
dimension of a problem of infinite complexity, and that it
could never lead to an adequate understanding of leadership
Pierce and Merrill supported this position with the
46
statement. "Perhaps one of the results of the research is
the conclusion drawn that the study of personal character
istics, per se, is only one aspect of the study of
leadership" (15:332).
Situation-oriented Research
A growing recognition of the limitations of the
trait approach led researchers to broaden the scope of such
studies to include situational and interactional consider
ations. His review of early leadership personality studies
led Stogdill to conclude:
A person does not become a leader by virtue of the
possession of some combination of traits, but the
pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must
bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics,
activities and goals of the followers. Their leader
ship must be conceived in terms of the interaction of
variables which are in constant flux and change.
(46:64)
Jennings supported this position when he concluded
that the study of leadership gains in meaning when situa
tional matters are considered (10:205).
Broadened theoretical frameworks were conceived and
developed in attempts to garner more dependable data on the
leadership phenomenon. In his analysis of the Ohio State
University studies of leadership, Seeman identified three
approaches to the study of leadership: (1) the
47
inter-personal network emphasis, (2) the group character
istics emphasis, and (3) the total-cultural emphasis
(44:375) .
Several more recent studies have used a broader
approach in examining leadership and have demonstrated
promising methodology and substantive findings. Hemphill's
1962 research conducted at Columbia University Teacher's
College utilized the "in-basket test" as a vehicle to
observe and record the behavior of principals on simulated
but realistic problems. The study revealed many orderly
relationships between the principal's personality factors
and his performance. Hemphill concluded: "The style of
the administration of a principal may be understood in part
as an expression of measurable personality characteristics"
(9:432) .
A noteworthy observation regarding the nature and
relationship of leaders and followers was made by Ackerson:
The correlation of "leaders" and "follower" are not
of opposite sign and similar magnitude or would be
expected of traits supposed to be antithetical. It may
be that the true antithesis of "leader" is not
"follower," but "indifference," i.e., the incapacity or
unwillingness either to lead or to follow. Thus it may
be that some individuals who under one situation are
leaders may under other conditions take the role of
follower, while the true "opposite" is represented by
the individual who neither leads nor follows. (1:38)
48
One of the most thoroughly developed and clearly
conceptualized descriptions of the interactional approach
was contributed by Getzel and Guba, who perceived a social
system as consisting of two dimensions: (1) the "nomothet
ic," a task-oriented dimension made up of the institution,
role and expectations; and (2) the "ideographic,1 1 a social-
oriented dimension which included the individual, person
ality, and need disposition. Conceptually, the two
dimensions were simultaneously independent, yet phenomenally
interactive. The transaction between the nomothetic and
ideographic aspects of this model blended into a third
dimension which was composed of the elements of group,
climate, and intentions. The processes within a social
system were seen as a dynamic transaction between roles and
personality (5:150-65). The model is diagrammed pictori-
ally in Figure 1.
A review of more recent studies reveals that most
researchers have accepted the multi-dimensional approach to
the study of leadership. Leadership behavior is generally
perceived as an interplay between role and personality.
Getzels provides a graphic description of this concept, in
which a rectangle represents the total role and personality
possibilities of any behavioral act. A diagonal line
FIGURE 1
DIAGRAM OF THE GETZEL-GUBA THEORY OF ADMINISTRATION
AS A SOCIAL PROCESS
Nomothetic Dimension
.Institution------ >Role ►Expectation.
Social System
Observed Behavior
Individual ^Personality »Need Disposition
Ideographic Dimension
Source: J. W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process," in Administrative
Theory in Administration, ed. by A. W. Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administration
Center, 1959), p. 156.
50
dividing the rectangle results in a continuum of role-
expectations from those with high role and low personality
demands on the left to the opposite extreme of high
personality and low role requirements on the right (5:156).
Figure 2 depeicts this concept. This figure also displays
the points where three exemplary occupations might fall on
the continuum. Getzels uses this chart to suggest that
military behavior is based primarily upon role demands,
while a free-lance artist relies primarily on personality
dispositions. It is readily apparent in this diagram that
the administrative process may be interpreted as involving
almost equal parts of role and personality requirements
within the social setting.
The situational influence upon leadership was
tested by Hemph.ill in an elaborate study involving reports
from 500 group members regarding the leader's behavior and
the quality of the group. Of the sixteen dimensions
measured, only hedonic tone and vercidity were significantly
correlated with leader behavior. The findings suggest that
the behavior of successful leaders varies widely depending
upon the demands of the particular situation, and Hemphill
was able to generalize: "Adequate leadership results in
FIGURE 2
THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ROLE AND PERSONALITY
IN A BEHAVIORAL ACT
4
Role
Personality
Military Professional Artistic
Source: J. W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process," in Administrative
Theory in Administration, ed. by A. W. Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administration
Center, 1959), p. 156.
U1
H*
52
keeping the group together and its members satisfied"
(17:213).
Similar findings were reported by Guba and Bidwell
who studied the role of the administrator and its relation
ship to other institutional roles. Getzels and Guba's
model served as a basis for this study of varied school
situations, the purpose of which was "to permit the
measurement of possible changes in those variables result
ing from changes in administrative practice" (7:12).
Perhaps the most significant implication of the study per
tained to the administrator's role: "The administrator is
constantly charged with maintaining a balance between
enforcement of the organizational expectations and the
provision for the fulfillment of individual needs" (7:76).
In some respects the recent literature suggests
that the current emphasis on a multi-dimensional-situational
approach may have been carried to excess, and that a
counter-reaction has begun. No longer are extreme situa
tional positions being defended; rather, a more moderate
stance now recognizes the importance of the personal
characteristics of the leader, but also takes into account
the leader's role in a social situation.
53
Gibb claimed that failure to establish a definite
relationship between personality and leadership may be due
to one or more of three factors:
1. Personality descriptions and measurements themselves
are not yet adequate. Reliable means of measuring
basic personality dimensions are still needed. It
may be that in leadership research the really
significant aspects of personality have not yet
been investigated.
2. The groups studied have usually differed markedly
from one another, and this may have had the effect
of concealing a relationship between personality
and the exercise of leadership within a more
homogeneous set of groups or family of situations.
3. Leadership itself is known to be a complex, and
probably not consistent, pattern of functional
roles. There could be a relation between personal
ity and the taking of particular roles which is not
reflected in a study relating personality to a
variable pattern of roles. (6:889)
Despite the disappointing results of early studies
in pinpointing specific personality traits of successful
leaders, not only has research continued in this area, but
is increasing greatly. Even though some evidence indicated
that leadership is an interacting process between persons
in a social environment and that at times the situation may
determine the leader, this did not negate the importance of
the influence of individual personality variables, since
these traits are what identify the person involved in the
process. Stated another way, leadership might be viewed
54
as consisting of two basic elements, personality and
process. An adequate explanation of leadership will give
attention to both of these components. As Stogdill
reported:
The very studies which provide the strongest argu
ments for the situational nature of leadership also
supply the strongest evidence indicating that leader
ship patterns as well as non-leadership patterns of
behavior are persistent and relatively stable. (46:65)
An examination of contemporary related studies
indicates that researchers are continuing to probe the area
of leader personality in the hope of identifying one or
more of those illusive traits that set the leader apart.
Often leader behavior was examined and compared as an
indicator of personal differences. Such a study was con
ducted by David Koch, who examined twenty-eight randomly-
selected elementary school principals. Perceptions of the
principals' leader behavior were obtained from teachers 1
responses on three different standardized instruments.
Koch found that favorable scores on measurements of leader
ship were probably a result of a congruence of expectations
rather than of any one factor. He concluded that the
leadership phenomenon is many-faceted and that present
approaches to its measurement are inadequate (54).
55
In order to obtain a better structuring of their
studies, researchers have attempted to place partial con
trols on the situations, reasoning that if circumstances
and expectations can be held relatively constant, the
personal traits of the leaders would tend to be the
differentiating variable.
One such study was conducted by Lewin, Lippett,
and White, who identified three styles of leadership:
authoritative, democratic and laissez-faire. Leadership
behavior was planned to match each of the three styles, and
leaders with appropriate basic personalities were assigned
to carry out these roles. The authoritarians gave orders,
issued disruptive commands, engaged in nonconstructive
criticism, and issued praise and approval. The democratic
leaders gave guiding suggestions, stimulated self-confidence,
were more jovial and confident, and more matter-of-fact.
The laissez-faire leaders, who intended to be passive,
permissive and friendly, actually gave more information
than did the others, but otherwise resembled the democratic
leaders more than they did the authoritarians.
The experiments did demonstrate the different
effects that leadership style has on group atmosphere and
performance. It was discovered that the democratic style
resulted in an atmosphere that was healthier for individual
growth, that individuals took responsibility for achieving
group tasks, and that expressions of individuality were
highest. Laissez-faire groups were marked by behavior that
was active but not productive. The autocratic groups were
highly dependent upon the leader, did little work without
direction, and displayed a narrow range of individual
differences (12).
Recently Johnson, Carnie, and Lawrence examined the
personality traits of innovative superintendents and com
pared them with tradition-oriented superintendents.
Fifteen of the most innovative schools and fifteen of the
least innovative schools were selected from eighty-six
schools so categorized by the state departments of educa
tion in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. The
most innovative and least innovative were identified by use
of a specially adapted Educational Innovation Check-list.
The researchers observed that "highly innovative superin
tendents were more outgoing, more assertive, more venture
some, more imaginative, more experimenting, and more relaxed
than less innovative superintendents" (23:135).
57
Studies Utilizing the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS)
The EPPS has been used in studies since its origi
nation in 1954. Only the more current and relevant of
these studies are reviewed here.
Concerned about the arbitrary use of standardized
psychological tests for the selection of potential school
principals, Nunnery (43) conducted an extensive study
involving use of the EPPS and other tests. The research
was carried out in three phases over a six-year period.
Nunnery and co-workers from the staff of the
Department of Educational Administration and Supervision at
the University of Tennessee found it necessary to develop
an external criterion to test the effectiveness of standard
ized tests in identifying successful principal prospects.
This criterion was called the "Tennessee Rating Guide" and
was used by teams to direct their observations of princi
pals' on-the-job behavior.
The subjects involved in the first two studies were
master's students and the third study examined practicing
administrators. Though many of the findings in the third
study conflicted with those in the first two, certain
sections of both the Thurstone Temperament Schedule and the
58
EPPS demonstrated significant consistency with the ratings
obtained on the Tennessee Rating Guide. It was concluded
that no single instrument could serve adequately to predict
the effectiveness of the school administrator. However,
"two instruments, the EPPS and the Thurstone Temperament
Schedule used in the third project, showed considerable
promise" (43:355).
Lipham attempted to determine the drives, motives,
and attitudes of principals by using several instruments.
The principals1 effectiveness was rated by the superintend
ent and four assistants on a five-point rating scale.
Personality variables were measured by the participants1
reactions to a quasi-projective sentence completion test,
an interview, an adjective list, and the EPPS. Significant
personality differences were discovered between principals
rated as effective and those rated as ineffective. Effec
tive principals tended to engage in strong purposeful
activity, were more concerned with achieving success and
status, related better to others, and were emotionally
stable. The ineffective principals were distinguished as
being deliberate and preoccupied with speculative reasoning,
acceptant of present level of achievement and status,
having a servile attitude, lacking in social skills, being
59
highly dependent on others for support, and likely to
exhibit strong emotional reactions in upsetting situations
(55) .
The EPPS has been used in school settings to inves
tigate personality patterns of teachers. Two such studies
were conducted by Hogan (52) and Anderson (48) . The major
focus of Hogan's study centered on identifying differences
in the perception of the personality variables of beginning,
novice, and experienced women elementary school teachers.
This study revealed that teachers from all three experience
levels held stereotypes of the personality structure of
elementary teachers and that this stereotype related to
factors of experience, tenure, age, and marital status,
but not to grade-level or school-community variables.
Anderson compared personality patterns of elementary school
teachers in schools possessing open organizational climates
with teachers in schools with closed organizational cli
mates. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire
was used to identify the organizational climate of schools;
the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was administered
to identify personality traits of teachers. This study
discovered no significant differences between the person
ality profiles of the seventy-one teachers from schools
60
with open climates as compared to fifty-five teachers from
schools with closed climates. Anderson did find, however,
that teachers aged 20-29 years were significantly different
on their EPPS responses from their older counterparts—
those aged 50 years or older.
The EPPS has been used with college students, both
undergraduate and graduate, in efforts to discover possible
personality differences between groups. Brown set out to
discover whether there were significant personality differ
ences between achieving and non-achieving college students.
The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values and the EPPS
were administered to a sample of 100 subjects from an
available pool of 326 summer college freshmen. No signifi
cant differences were found between the two groups when
considering patterns of mean scores of the tests. However,
a group discrimination significant at the .05 level of
confidence was achieved in certain of the variables meas
ured. Brown concluded: "The achieving group may be
characterized as more achievement-oriented, more orderly,
more enduring and less heterosexually needful than the
non-achieving group" (49:35).
Smith attempted to ascertain, by means of responses
to the EPPS, whether two groups— one counselors, the other
61
non-counselors— could be differentiated according to
personality traits. He discovered a significant difference
between the two groups in six of the fifteen EPPS variables,
and concluded that the EPPS offers promise for use as an
aid in the selection of counselors (62).
A study similar to Smith's was reported by Mott,
who administered the EPPS to three sub-doctoral-level
groups; counselor education majors; counselors; and graduate
students in administration, curriculum and supervision.
The data revealed significant differences between the three
groups in five of the fifteen personality variables
measured (51:53-54).
Chapter Summary
Organizational climate is a relatively new concep
tualization of the attitudinal or affective dimensions
which influence group success. Early research leading to
the development of the organizational climate concept dealt
with the satisfaction of individual needs and organizational
needs and the dynamic interrelationships which existed
between individuals and groups. Behavioral characteristics
of groups and individuals within groups were analyzed and
categorized, and provided insight into the descriptions of
62
successful groups in terms of productivity and/or member
satisfaction.
The OCDQ, a 64-item test, was developed by Halpin
and Croft in 1962 as an instrumental expression of organi
zational climate referring exclusively to the social
interaction between principals and teachers in elementary
schools. Leader behavior and teacher behavior were
dimensionalized, generating school profiles from which six
types of school organizational climates could be derived.
Numerous investigations have been conducted utiliz
ing the OCDQ, much of which has been normative and
correlational in nature. Some of the more current research
employing the OCDQ has continued to explore validity and
relationships with other variables significant to the
educational establishment. Factors found to be related
significantly to climate scores, or, to subtest scores
were as follows: accurate perception of the school situa
tion shared by principal and teachers, origin and tenure of
leaders, leader succession, the problem-solving modes of
building principals, and certain measurable personality
attributes of teachers.
Early studies of leader personalities resulted in
inconclusive findings, often in the form of unrelated or
63
conflicting lists of desirable traits. The failure ade
quately to describe leadership and the lack of compatibility
of data from the different kinds of research detracted from
the establishment of a solid basis of usable information.
Having found little reward in the trait approach to
the study of leadership, researchers turned their attention
to the examination and identification of other elements in
the leadership process, namely, role perception, situational
considerations, and interactional elements. This multi
dimensional approach broadened the scope of leadership
studies, and possibly provided a more realistic viewpoint,
but added new shadings to the leadership phenomenon that
was already less than clear.
More recent research has attempted to tighten both
the design and focus of leadership studies. Controls have
been employed so that fewer variables must be considered
and research outcomes can be delimited. Much of the con
temporary research is being based on carefully designed
examination of behavior, compared in terms of specific
criteria of effectiveness. These studies appear to be
producing useful information about the leadership process.
Research in this area is still in its infancy, and
more solid data are needed on personality variables of the
64
leader, situational and role dimensions, and the relation
ships and interdependencies of these elements.
The EPPS has been used as an effective instrument
in many personality studies of school leaders and others in
and out of education. This schedule promises to provide
the necessary discrimination capability in a variety of
comparative studies.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
Introduction
This chapter contains an explanation of the method
employed in selecting and grouping subjects, a description
of the instruments utilized to gather data, a delineation
of the data-gathering procedure, and a discussion of the
research design, including an explanation of the leadership
development program. The statistical analysis applied to
each hypothesis is explained.
The basic questions raised by this study required
utilization of a variety of research designs and statistical
procedures. A major purpose of this research was to
determine the possible effect of the leadership development
program on the original climate of the schools administered
by the participants. This aspect of the study required a
longitudinal approach with pre and post testing. Compara
tive data were provided by including a control group in the
research design.
65
66
A second purpose of the study sought to determine
possible relationships between groups categorized according
to the personality traits of principals. This portion of
the study had no longitudinal dimension and, therefore,
required only a single administration of the personality
test. Comparisons made between OCDQ results and EPPS
scores always used the pretest results of the OCDQ because
it was administered at approximately the same time of the
year as was the EPPS.
For some questions the control group had no func
tion. When this occurred, the control and experimental
groups were combined into a single group thus providing, in
essence, a larger and more reliable sampling population.
The Sample
Selection of the Schools
The total population from which the research sub
jects were selected consisted of the principals and teachers
of fifty-three elementary schools in the Fresno City Unified
School District in Fresno, California. This population was
divided into three groups. One consisted of thirty-nine
principals who participated in a leadership development
program (cf. post, pages 84 to 89), together with the
teachers in the schools they administered. The second
group contained nine principals who did not participate in
the leadership development program, together with the
teachers in the schools they administered. The third
group, consisting of four principals and the teachers in
their schools, was excluded from the sample because of
possible sample contamination. One of the four schools was
administered by one of the researchers in this study; two
of the schools were administered by principals who were
partially involved in conducting the leadership development■
program; and one was a school for special education that
contained staffing patterns and procedures unlike any other
school in the district. This left an eligible population
of forty-eight.
Categorization of the Sample
The research design called for an experimental and
a control group. The distinguishing element between the
two groups was the principal1s participation or non
participation in the leadership development program.
Participation in the leadership program. The
experimental-group principals, sixteen in number, were
drawn randomly from the thirty-nine schools whose principals
68
participated in the leadership development program con
ducted by the district office. The nine principals who
formed the control group were those who did not participate
in the leadership development program.
Tenure of the principals. To insure a representa
tive sample from the standpoint of principal tenure, the
thirty-nine schools were formed into two groups according
to length of service of the principal in the school. The
principals in twenty-three schools had served in their
current assignments for two years or less, and the princi
pals of sixteen schools had served for three years or more.
Numbers were assigned to the individual schools in the two
tenure groups; they were selected using a table of random
numbers as described by Borg (3:169-71). This procedure
produced eight cases from each of the selected strata.
The nine schools, the principals of which chose not
to participate in the leadership training program, were
identified as the control group.
The total number of subjects (teachers and princi
pals) who responded at the pretest stages of the investiga
tion was 520; 345 of these were from the sixteen
experimental schools and 175 were from the nine control
69
schools. These responses represented 81.3 per cent of the
total possible number.
The total number of subjects (teachers and princi
pals) who responded at the posttest stage of the investiga
tion was 484, 332 of whom were from the sixteen experimental
schools and 151 of whom were from the nine control schools.
Together, the two groups of schools represented 75.6 per
cent of the total possible sample.
The desirability of randomization of both control
and experimental groups was not ignored. This, however,
became impracticable when the district leadership decided
to make the in-service education program available to all
principals who wished to participate. This resolution
introduced sampling bias into both groups and reduced the
potential control group population to a level that made
randomization impracticable. All of the principals included
in the samples were males, although among the fifty-three
principals comprising the total population, two were
females.
Two stratifications were made of the experimental
and control groups: (1) on the basis of school size, and
(2) on the basis of length of tenure of the principal.
These groupings of subjects generated eight experimental
70
schools and four control schools in which the principals
had served for three years or more, and eight experimental
and five control schools in which the principals had served
for two years or less. The years of service in both cases
included the experimental year. This stratification is
summarized in Table 1.
In this table, it is seen that the length of tenure
of all the principals in the total sample was reasonably
well distributed. Twenty-eight of the fifty-three elemen
tary school principals in the district had served in their
respective schools for two years or less.
Size of school. A further stratification subdivided
the schools according to school size. Elementary schools
with an average daily pupil attendance of 600 or more were
classified as larger schools, and schools with an average
daily attendance of 599 or less were classified as smaller
schools. This arrangement produced five larger experi
mental schools, four larger control schools, eleven smaller
experimental schools, and five smaller control schools.
Results of this grouping are displayed in Table 2.
An average daily attendance of 612 was found for
the fifty-three elementary schools in the district.
71
TABLE 1
STRATIFICATION OF SCHOOLS IN THE SAMPLE ACCORDING
TO TENURE OF PRINCIPALS IN CURRENT ASSIGNMENTS
Experimental Group (N=16) Control Group (N=9)
School Principal's Years School Principal's Years
Number of Service Number of Service
Two Years or Less
1 2 17 2
2 1 18 2
3 1 19 1
4 1 20 2
5 2
6 2
7 2
8 1
Three Years or More
9 4 21 4
10 17 22 3
11 6 23 9
12 6 24 9
13 3 25 4
14 4
15 11
16 3
72
TABLE 2
STRATIFICATION OF SCHOOLS IN THE SAMPLE ACCORDING
TO AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
Experimental Group Control Group
School
Number
ADA
School
Number
ADA
Larger Schools (600+ ADA)
1 820 17 838
7 1099 21 602
8 929 22 640
15 1053 24 825
16 714
Smaller Schools (599- ADA)
2 506 18 105
3 596 19 595
4 493 20 456
5 430 23 571
6 284 25 439
9 306
10 590
11 533
12 591
13 424
14 518
73
The Survey Instruments
Two instruments were utilized in this research— the
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ)
and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). Both
instruments are ipsative scales which measure personality.
The OCDQ measures the subjective quality, or "personality"
of the school organization and the EPPS measures individual
personality.
The Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire
The questionnaire used was a 64-item Likert-type
instrument developed by Halpin and Croft in a feasibility
study prepared for the United States Office of Education.
Because of the significance of the OCDQ in the present
study, a brief description of the test and developmental
procedures employed in its production is given at this
point.
Development of the instrument. Three forms of the
OCDQ preceded the refined form (Form IV) utilized in this
research. Originally, 1,000 items were obtained and
classified into constellations. These items were reduced
in number and parameters through statistical procedures and
74
judgment until Form II, containing 160 items grouped
according to sixteen dimensions, was developed. Form II
was administered, and the 160 items were tested to determine
whether they differentiated among schools, and to ascertain
which dimensions survived cluster analysis. Eight dimen
sions survived this examination (see Table 3). The eight
dimensions were thrust, consideration, production emphasis,
aloofness, disengagement, hindrance, esprit, and intimacy.
The first four of these dimensions related to the leader,
and the last four to the group.
Form III resulted from administration of the ques
tionnaire in seventy-one elementary schools in six states.
Intercorrelations were computed for eighty items, and the
matrix cluster-analyzed to see how well the individual
items fit the dimensions to which they were assigned.
Sixty-four items passed the hurdles of content and correla
tional analysis and were included in Form IV.
A factor analysis and an eight-factor varimax
rotational solution for the sixty-four items verified the
assignment of each item to an appropriate subtest, furnish
ing a relatively distinct measure of differentiated types
of social interaction. The complete Form IV of the OCDQ
is exhibited in Appendix A. Definitions of what is
75
TABLE 3
COMPONENTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
Description of Group Leader
Organizational Characteristics Characteristics
Climate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Open L* L H* M* L L H H
Autonomous L L H H H L H M
Controlled L H H L M H M L
Familiar H L M H L L M H
Paternal H L L L L H M H
Closed H H L M H H L L
*Low
Column headings:
1 = Disengagement
2 = Hindrance
3 = Esprit
4 = Intimacy
*High *Moderate
5 = Aloofness
6 = Production Emphasis
7 = Thrust
8 = Consideration
Note:
The OCDQ is an experimental instrument; profiles
having been constructed from data gathered from a fortuitous
sample. Researchers employing this instrument have tended
to agree that the data generated by the subtests are
generally valid and reliable (cf. supra, Chapter II,
pages 30 to 43). There is less agreement regarding the
ability of the instrument to differentiate accurately and
precisely between types of climates extant in individual
schools.
76
measured in the eight subtests and the six different
organizational climates were given in Chapter I under
"Definitions of Terms." Smith presented the components of
the several organizational climates and the relative
relationships of subtest scores for each climate as follows
(63:17) :
Methodology. The portion of this research which
investigated change in organizational climate was conducted
along a pretest-posttest control group design. Baseline
data that pertained to the organizational climates of the
schools were obtained through the administration of the
OCDQ as a pretest in October of 1968. The treatment was
conducted during the period from October 1968 through April
1969. After this, the OCDQ was re-administered as a
posttest.
Research design. The design of the study may be
depicted graphically as follows:
Experimental Group I: R--Mt-- T -----Mt2
Control Group II: Mfc--------------Mt
R = Randomization T = Treatment
M = Measurement t^= Pretest t2 = Posttest
77
Halpin and Croft issued a note of extreme caution
regarding the use and interpretation of prototypic climate
profile information. Their warning stemmed from the limi
tations imposed by the utilization of a fortuitous sample
from which the data were gathered and from the statistical
procedures employed in standardization imposing an arbitrary
mean upon the fortuitous sample (51:186-87; 60:105-108;
56:86-89). Pritchard and McFadden questioned the validity
of the six prototypic profiles, noting that great subtest
score differences could occur without changing the climate
assignment, and that few schools obtain scores which closely
approximate the prototypic pattern.
In planning for the use of the OCDQ in the present
study, the serious questions raised by Halpin and Croft and
by subsequent researchers regarding the categorization of
school climate on the basis of criteria derived from the
fortuitous sample utilized in the original research, were
duly considered. The decision was made to utilize the
instrument, since what was sought in this study was not an
estimate of the organizational climates of the schools, per
se, but evidence of change in climate scores and subtest
scores.
78
Administration of the OCDQ. The questionnaire was
administered as a pretest during the period from October 14
through November 1, 1968. It was repeated as a posttest
during the period from May 5 to May 16, 1969.
Pour letters explaining the purpose of the assess
ment and the procedures to be followed, and expressing
appreciation for participation in the study were sent to
the cooperating principals (see Appendix C). These letters
were in addition to the cover letters included with the
OCDQ which were addressed to the teachers and principals
completing the instrument. Two of the four letters accom
panied the instruments at each test period, one letter
followed the pretest by a few weeks, and the other preceded
the posttest by a few weeks. These letters served to gain
or maintain the cooperation of the respondents by assuring
subject anonymity, stating legitimate school district
interest in and approval of the research activities, and
expressing appreciation of the researchers for respondent
cooperation. The Administrator of Elementary Education for
the Fresno City Unified School District was most helpful
with this phase of the project.
The OCDQ instruments were distributed to the
schools at a ratio of one per respondent. Principals were
79
requested to distribute the instruments to all teachers in
their schools. Teachers were instructed to complete the
questionnaire, seal it in an envelope provided, and return
it to the principal, who would forward the bundle of
unopened envelopes to the researchers. In two schools,
principals designated teachers to collect the questionnaires
for return. (See Appendix D for copies of letters and
instructions to respondents.)
Rationale for utilization of the OCDQ. The princi
pal has been identified as the key determiner of climate in
the school. Halpin and Croft were impressed with this fact
(51:10). Pigors and Myers maintained that the managerial
philosophies which managers hold and communicate in action,
constitute the organizational climate (16:6-7, 55).
McGregor noted that it is the superior in the superior-
subordinate relationship who really determines the quality
of the climate (13:141-44). Johnson and Marcum, too,
believed that the burden of the climate for change rests
with the school principal as the chief agent for openness
or closedness (23:6).
80
The Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule
Description. The second research instrument, the
EPPS, is a 225-item test designed to measure the relative
strengths of fifteen personality variables or needs. Each
need is represented by nine statements. Each statement is
paired twice with other statements representing every other
need.
The format requires the subject to make forced
choices between paired comparisons, thus providing ipsative
scores reflecting intra-individual differences. The subject
is instructed to select the statement that is the most
characteristic or self-descriptive. The EPPS provides a
profile stability score, a consistency score, and scores
for each of the fifteen needs.
The fifteen personality variables measured by the
EPPS are designated as follows:
1. achievement
2. deference
3. order
4. exhibition
5. autonomy
6. affiliation
81
7. intraception
8. succorance
9. dominance
10. abasement
11. nurturance
12. change
13. endurance
14. heterosexuality
15. aggression
Validity. Attention has been given to controlling
the influence of the social desirability of the choices by
matching statements with similar scale values. Comparison
of the fifteen variables of the EPPS with the K scale of
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Edwards
yielded low correlations, indicating that the items in the
EPPS are reasonably free from social bias (20:22-23).
Silverman repeated Edwards' study, using two measures of
social desirability. The results reaffirmed Edwards' find
ings that social desirability is a minor factor in
influencing EPPS scores (45:404).
Various studies have been conducted to test the
correlative and predictive validity of the EPPS. In
82
general, predictive validity studies employing the EPPS
have obtained positive results (39:19-26; 47:147-50;
42:168-72).
A degree of concurrent validity was established by
Edwards when significant correlations were established
between the EPPS and several other personality measures
(20:21). The research of Bernardin contributed to the data
supporting the construct validity of the autonomy and
deference scales of the EPPS (31:67).
Reliability. The reliability of the EPPS has been
tested by both split-half and test-retest techniques.
Edwards found that coefficients of internal consistency for
the fifteen personality variables ranged from .60 to 187.
Stability coefficients based on records of eighty-nine
students who took the EPPS twice after a one-week interval
showed a range from .74 to .88 (20:19).
Caputo1s examination of the reliability of the EPPS
entailed a test-retest procedure with a fifteen-month
interval. The correlations between Ss1 scores on the
individual EPPS needs of the two tests were significantly
positive (33:885).
83
A copy of the EPPS is displayed in Appendix B. The
fifteen personality variables examined by the EPPS were
defined in Chapter I (cf. supra, pages 20 to 22).
Administration of the EPPS. The EPPS was adminis
tered in order to obtain a measure of the personality
traits of the subjects. Since this study did not attempt
to examine personality changes, it was not necessary to
administer both a pretest and a posttest.
Each subject in the control and experimental groups
was mailed a copy of the EPPS together with a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study and requesting assist
ance by completing the EPPS (see Appendix E). Participants
were advised to return the completed form to the researcher
in the self-addressed envelope provided. Six weeks after
the initial distribution, follow-up contacts were made with
subjects who failed to return the completed instrument.
These contacts were made by telephone or in person. The
researcher encouraged the prospective respondent to answer
the questions. When necessary, a second copy of the EPPS
was provided. After a single follow-up contact, completed
instruments were received from all subjects in both experi
mental and control groups.
84
The sections of this study which examined princi
pals ' personalities was not longitudinal and therefore
required only a single administration of the EPPS. This
was performed in October 1968. The same schools that were
given the OCDQ were also administered the EPPS; however, no
distinctions were made between experimental and control
groups since such a division would have served no function
for this portion of the study. When comparisons were made
between EPPS and OCDQ findings, only the pretest scores of
the OCDQ were used.
The Experimental Program
Administration of the Leadership
Development Program
The experimental variable or treatment in this
portion of the investigation was a leadership development
program titled "Operation RENEWAL," the second word being
an acronym for Revitalizing Education through New Executive
Ways of Leadership. The project was fully funded by the
Fresno City Unified School District and was directed by
one of the researchers, Don Todd, with the assistance of
the other researcher, Jerry Phillips. The program contained
two major areas of emphasis: system approaches to
85
educational management, and participative management
science. Thirteen in-service training sessions of approxi
mately six hours duration each were conducted during the
period from October 14, 1968 through April 9, 1969.
In all, 125 persons participated in the leadership
development program, of whom forty-one were elementary
principals.
Rationale for Program Content
Halpin and Croft stressed the importance of seeking
appropriate means to improve the organizational climate of
schools. The subtests and climate classification dimen
sions were specifically excluded as potential dimensions
along which change can be induced by means of a direct
frontal attack (51:122). Recurrent in the original climate
research conducted by Halpin and Croft, and reported in
other authoritative work in management psychology and
organizational theory was the fundamental point that group
members need to enjoy social-needs satisfaction and satis
faction from task accomplishment (51:121).
Authenticity was suggested by Halpin and Croft as a
possible avenue for change induction. Operational defini
tions of authentic behavior, or appropriate means of
86
achieving it, were not specifically stated. However, the
authors did recommend that "the first step is to learn much
more than we know now about the interpersonal conditions
that make authentic behavior possible" (51:122). The
authors listed three questions relevant to authenticity
which needed to be answered:
1. What are the conditions within the profession of
education which reinforce authenticity of behavior?
2. What are the conditions which reinforce inauthen
ticity?
3. What changes are needed in the profession— in the
recruiting and training of teaching candidates, and
in the administration of schools— to increase the
likelihood that the profession as a whole will
become more "authentic"? (51:158)
The substantive content and the procedural
approaches were planned to increase the competency of par
ticipants on two fronts: social-needs satisfaction, and
satisfaction from task achievement. Both elements in the
program, participative management science, and systems
approaches to educational management were felt to be
mutually supportive. Both sought to establish for the
participants a more accurate and therefore a more authentic
understanding of the interdependent relationships inherent
in an organization or a society— individuals, groups,
purposes, and procedures.
87
Program Components and Materials
The participative management science component
generally provides for training in the social-needs satis
faction domain. Cognitive material included appropriate
Harvard Business Review "Human Relations Series" reprints,
selected books illustrative of participative management
science, and discussion of the findings and implications of
research in behavioral science related to organizational
and managerial success.
Affective experience was provided through a series
of "interaction exercises" described as "an opportunity for
individuals to learn how people work in groups to achieve
individual and organizational goals, how leadership is
exercised, and how they can be most effective in group
activities" (53) . These activities were exercises in
small-group dynamics in which participants played no roles
— rather, they played themselves. The exercises were
followed by extensive debriefing in which management and
interaction concepts elicited by the involvement activities
game were discussed. The learning did not come from the
task activity but from directing attention to the processes
and roles employed to achieve the task. This approach to
88
increasing interpersonal competence was congruent with the
suggestions of Moment and Zaleznik (14:161-69).
The system approach to educational management com
ponent generally provided training for task-achievement
satisfaction. The goal of this part of the program was to
improve'planning, problem-solving, and decision-making
functions of administration. Specifically, certain tools
and techniques originally developed by military and indus
trial establishments constituted the substance of this part
of the program. The management procedures of system
analysis, problem definition, and networking which had been
adapted for education by Operation PEP: Preparing Educa
tional Planners for California, were utilized in the
program.
The booklet, System Technology Planning, a collec
tion of material prepared by Roger Kauffman and Robert
Corrigan for the 1967-68 Operation PEP program, was basic
to this element of the program.
Great emphasis was placed upon clarification of
purpose and specification of objectives for the school
district and the subsystems within the school system.
Preparing Instructional Objectives by Robert Mager;
abstracts from A Manager's Guide to Objectives by Larry
89
Harty and Bruce Monroe; and the EPIC book, A Systematic
Approach to Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives
(Tucson: Educational Innovators Press, Inc., 1968) were
utilized, as were lectures and work activities to increase
skills in the preparation of statements of purpose.
Statistical Procedures Used in
Testing the Hypotheses
At this point, all research hypotheses are restated
in the null form for ease of statistical analysis.
Hypothesis I
Hq : open climate experimental =
open climate control* ^ posttest, there will be no
difference in organizational climate between experimental
and control schools, this relationship being reflected by
no difference in climate similarity scores between the two
groups of schools.
Test statistic. The Halpin-Croft profile analysis
procedure was utilized to determine the degree of similarity
between the observed profiles of scores and the set of six
pre-selected profiles which constituted the norms estab
lished by Halpin and Croft. The lowest absolute score
90
difference between the observed profile and each of the six
prototypic profiles determines the climate profile most
similar to the observed profile.
Sample studied. The sample utilized to investigate
the first major hypothesis consisted of the sixteen
randomly-selected schools represented by principal partici
pation in the leadership development program and the nine
schools whose principals did not participate in the program.
Hypothesis II
Hq : rXy = 0. There will be no significant differ
ences between the organizational climates of schools and
the prototypic open school climate, this relationship being
reflected by no difference between the observed organiza
tional climate profiles and the prototypic open school
climate profile.
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. The product-moment coefficient of
correlation between the observed climate profile D scores
and the prototypic open climate profile was utilized. The
91
D or dissimilarity scores were the result of the applica
tion of the Cronbach-Gleser procedure for profile analysis.
Sample studied. The sample utilized to investigate
the second major hypothesis consisted of the sixteen
randomly-selected schools whose principals participated in
the leadership development program and the nine schools
whose principals did not participate in the program.
Critical value. In order to achieve a .05 level of
significance for an N with 14 degrees of freedom, it was
necessary to obtain a value of r which was >. .497. The
necessary value of r for 7 degrees of freedom was > . .666.
Results of these comparisons are reported herein by subtest
or subsection; however, the decision regarding tenability
of the hypothesis was based upon finding significant rela
tionships in at least one-third of the subsections of the
hypothesis.
Hypothesis III
Ho : ud experimental = ud control* There will be
no significant difference in organizational climate change
between experimental and control schools, as reflected by
no difference between the subtest mean score shifts of
these two groups.
92
In other words, no differences in OCDQ subtest mean
score shifts will be found between experimental and control
schools.
1. No differences between teacher groups will be
found in the subtests:
a. Disengagement
b. Hindrance
c. Esprit
d. Intimacy
2. No differences between administrators will be
found in the subtests measuring:
a. Aloofness
b. Production Emphasis
c. Thrust
d. Consideration
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. Subtest score differences between
pretests and posttests for each school for both groups of
schools administered by program participants and non
participants were obtained. The Mann-Whitney U test was
conducted on the differences between the two groups, and
93
directional shifts were reported. The significance of the
observed values of the resulting U scores was obtained by
converting the U scores to standard scores and comparing
them to the established levels of significance.
Sample studied. The sample utilized to investigate
the third major hypothesis consisted of the sixteen
randomly-selected schools whose principals participated in
the leadership development program and the nine schools
whose principals did not participate in the program.
Critical value. A Mann-Whitney U score of £ 37
which would result in a z score of >. 1.96 with an associated
probability of £ .025 was required to reject the null
hypothesis. Results of these comparisons are reported
herein by subtest or subsection; however, the decision
regarding the tenability of the hypothesis was based upon
finding significant relationships in at least one-third of
the components of the hypothesis.
Hypothesis IV
H0 s rXy = 0. There will be no significant differ
ence in principals' personality traits as measured by the
EPPS and the dimensions of the schools' organizational
94
climates as measured by the OCDQ when subtest scores are
compared for the principals and schools studied.
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. The Pearson product-moment coeffi
cient of correlation between the 25 principal scores on
the fifteen subtests of the EPPS was utilized.
Sample studied. The sample utilized to investigate
the fourth major hypothesis consisted of the 25 principals
and schools studied in this research.
Critical value. In order to achieve a .05 level of
significance for an N with 23 degrees of freedom it was
necessary to obtain a value of r which is > . .337. Results
of these comparisons are reported herein by subtest or
subsection; however, the decision regarding the tenability
of the hypothesis was based upon finding significant rela
tionships in at least one-third of the components of the
hypothesis.
Hypothesis V
H0 : UQpen = Uciose(j. There will be no significant
difference in personality traits between principals whose
95
schools are characterized as having more "open" organiza
tional climates and principals whose schools are character
ized as having more "closed" organizational climates; this
relationship will be reflected by no differences in per
formance on the EPPS between the two groups.
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. The Mann-Whitney U test was
employed to determine whether differences existed between
the personality traits of the principals serving in more
"open" schools and those serving in more "closed" schools
by comparing the two groups in each subtest areas of the
EPPS. The significance of the observed value of each U
score was obtained by converting each U score to a standard
score and comparing this to the established level of
significance.
Sample studied. Schools that had more "open" and
more "closed" organizational climates were determined by
ranking them according to their pretest "esprit" scores on
the OCDQ, and casting out the central 4 ranked subjects.
The sample employed to investigate the major hypothesis
96
consisted of 21 of the 25 principals studied in this
research. The group identified as more "open" contained
10 subjects and the group identified as more "closed" con
sisted of 11 subjects.
Critical value. The Mann-Whitney U score of £ 26
which would result in a z score of > . 1.96 with an associated
probability of < . .05 was required to reject the null
hypothesis. Results of these comparisons are reported
herein by subtest or subsection; however, the decision
regarding the tenability of the hypothesis was based upon
finding significant relationships in one-third or more of
the components of the hypothesis.
Hypothesis VI
Ho : Dd shorter-tenure = Dd longer-tenure'
experimental schools, there will be no significant differ
ence in organizational climate change between schools
administered by longer-tenured principals and schools
administered by shorter-tenured principals; this relation
ship will be reflected by no difference in the OCDQ climate
profile similarities to the prototypic open school profile
between the two groups.
97
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. D score differences using the
Cronbach-Gleser formula were obtained for the two samples
by comparing pretest and posttest D scores. The Mann-
Whitney U test was utilized to compare the D score differ
ences between groups. The significance of the observed
value of the resulting U score was obtained by converting
the U score to a standard score and comparing it with the
established level of significance.
Sample studied. The sample employed to investigate
hypothesis VI, the first supplementary hypothesis, provided
sixteen sets of pretest and posttest OCDQ scores. Eight of
these sets pertained to schools whose principals had served
for two years or less in their current assignments, while
the other pertained to eight schools whose principals had
served for three years or more in their current assignments.
Critical value. A Mann-Whitney U score of <. 15
which would result in a z score of >. 1.65 with an associated
probability of <. .05 was required to reject this null
hypothesis.
98
Hypothesis VII
H0 • Dd smaller = larger* exPsrimental
schools there will be no significant difference in organi
zational climate change between larger and smaller schools,
as reflected by no difference in the OCDQ climate profile
similarities to the prototypic open school profile between
larger and smaller schools.
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. D score differences derived from
use of the Cronbach-Gleser formula were obtained for the
two samples by comparing pretest and posttest D scores.
The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare the D score
differences for the two groups. The significance of the
observed value of the resulting U score was obtained by
converting the U score to a standard score and comparing it
with the established level of significance.
Sample studied. The sample utilized to investigate
the seventh hypothesis, the second supplementary hypothesis,
consisted of sixteen sets of pretest and posttest OCDQ
scores. Five sets pertained to the larger experimental
99
schools, while eleven sets pertained to the smaller experi
mental schools.
Critical value. A Mann-Whitney U score of <. 12
which would result in a z score of >. 1.65 with an associated
probability of < .05 was required to reject the null
hypothesis.
Hypothesis VIII
Ho : U Q i d e r = U y O U n g e r . There will be no signifi
cant difference in personality traits between younger and
older principals, as reflected by no differences in EPPS
scores.
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. The Mann-Whitney U test was
employed to determine whether differences existed between
the personality traits of older and those of younger princi
pals by comparing the two groups in each subtest area of
the EPPS. The significance of the observed value of each
resulting U score was obtained by converting the U scores
to standard scores and comparing these with the established
level of significance.
100
Sample studied. The two groups of older and
younger principals were determined by (1) calculating the
arithmetic mean of the ages of the twenty-five principals
tested, and (2) placing the principals with ages below the
mean in the younger group, and those with ages above the
mean in the older group. The mean age was 45 years, and
no subject was 45 years of age at the time of testing.
The resulting groups comprised: fourteen subjects in the
younger group and eleven in the older group.
Critical value. A Mann-Whitney U score of £ 40
which would result in a z score of > 1.96 with an associated
probability of £ .025 was required to reject the null
hypothesis. Results of these comparisons are reported
herein by subtest or subsection; however, the decision
regarding the tenability of the hypothesis was based upon
finding significant relationships in one-third or more of
the components of the hypothesis.
Hypothesis IK
Ho : Experimental = ucontrol* There will be no
significant difference in personality traits between experi
mental and control school principals, as reflected by no
differences in EPPS scores between the two groups.
101
Level of significance. The level of significance
established for this hypothesis was a = .05.
Test statistic. The Mann-Whitney U test was
employed to determine whether differences in personality
traits existed between participating and nonparticipating
principals by comparing the two groups on each of the sub
test areas of the EPPS. The significance of the observed
value of each resulting U score was obtained by converting
U scores to standard scores and comparing these with
established levels of significance.
Sample studied. The sample employed to test
hypothesis IX, the final supplementary hypothesis, consisted
of the 16 experimental group principals and nine control
group principals.
Critical value. A Mann-Whitney U score of £ 37
which would result in a z score of >. 1.96 with an associated
probability of < .025 was required to reject the null
hypothesis. Results of these comparisons are reported
herein by subtest or subsection; however, the decision
regarding the tenability of the hypothesis was based upon
finding significant relationships in one-third or more of
the components of the hypothesis.
102
Rationale for Analytical Procedures
Four principal statistical procedures were utilized
in testing the data. There were the Mann-Whitney U test,
the Cronbach-Gleser D test, the Pearson product-moment test
of correlation, and the Halpin and Croft profile analysis
procedure. Three of these procedures, the Mann-Whitney
test, the Cronbach-Gleser D test and the Halpin-Croft
profile analysis procedure are possibly not as well known
as some other methods of statistical analysis. A brief
explanation of these procedures and the rationale underlying
their inclusion in this study follows.
Mann-Whitney U test
The Mann-Whitney U test is one of the most powerful
of the non-parametric tests, a most useful alternative to
the parametric t test when working with small samples. The
power-efficiency of the Mann-Whitney test compared to the
t test approaches 95 per cent for moderate sized samples.
The Mann-Whitney test is more powerful than the median
tests because it considers the rank value of each observa
tion, thus using more of the information contained in the
data (19:116-27). This statistic was employed to test the
significance of hypotheses III, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.
103
Michael recommended the Cronbach-Gleser D test as
an alternative to general methodological difficulties
encountered in the assessment of similarity between
profiles (41:104-105).
Cronbach-Gleser D Test
McFadden (56:86-89) and Pritchard (60:105-109)
challenged the Halpin and Croft method of classifying
schools based on the similarity of the school profile to
one of the six prototypic profiles as a function of the
summed absolute differences between subtest scores. The
Cronbach-Gleser D test is a test of dissimilarity which
takes into consideration the elevation, scatter and shape
of one profile compared to another profile. This approach
utilizes more of the information provided in the data than
does the absolute score difference technique, thus con
tributing to a more accurate comparison of score sets
(36:456-73). This procedure was employed in the examination
of data under hypotheses II, VI, and VII.
Halpin-Croft Profile Analysis
The original profile analysis procedure developed
by Halpin and Croft and depicted in the research report
(51:165) was included in order to present a comprehensive
104
statement of the research results. Moreover, because of
the common usage of this approach to the assessment of data
provided by the Organizational Climate Description Ques
tionnaire, results from this particular analysis are
essential to the comparison of these data with data gener
ated by other investigations utilizing this experimental
instrument. This procedure was utilized in the examination
of the data under hypothesis I.
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient,
the most widely used measure of correlation is subject to a
smaller standard error than other correlational techniques.
The product-moment correlation was used to test hypotheses
II and IV.
Justification for Using "Esprit"
Subtest as an Indication of Openness
In the original study of organizational climates by
Halpin and Croft the researchers painstakingly developed
six prototypic profiles for schools which formed a continuum
from "open" to "closed." The six climates identified were
referred to as (1) open, (2) autonomous, (3) controlled,
(4) familiar, (5) paternal, and (6) closed.
105
Even though Halpin and Croft used the six proto-
typic profiles, these authors recognized certain limitations
inherent in the treatment and warned against generalizing
on their findings. A more direct and possibly more valid
approach appeared to be to use the subtest "esprit" as the
indicator of openness and closedness. Halpin and Croft
concluded:
The ranking of the climates on openness roughly
parallels the scores which the schools receive on
"esprit," the best single indicator of "morale." As we
trace the loadings on "esprit" through the six climates,
we note that those loadings become increasingly smaller
as we move from the more "open" to the more "closed"
climates. We, therefore, have chosen to regard
"esprit" as the "key" subtest for describing a school's
organizational climate. (51:78)
It should also be noted that the "esprit" score had one of
the highest reliability coefficients in the test-retest
reliability check made of the OCDQ.
Recent studies, such as that of Anderson (48), have
used the "esprit" subtest of the OCDQ to determine "open"
and "closed" climates. Anderson ran intercorrelations on
each of the OCDQ subtests and found six of the seven
correlation coefficients that exceeded .500 belonged to
"esprit" (48:115).
106
Chapter Summary
The methodology employed to test the hypotheses
advanced for this investigation have been described in this
chapter.
Sections of the study utilized experimental and
control groups selected from the fifty-three elementary
schools in Fresno City Unified School District. Sixteen
schools comprised the experimental group, and were selected
randomly from those whose principals participated in a
leadership development program. Nine schools comprised the
control group, the principals of which chose not to
participate in the program. Both groups were stratified
according to school size and tenure of principal.
Instruments used to collect the data included the
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire and the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The OCDQ measured
the atmosphere or climate of the subject schools and
reported these findings on a six-step continuum ranging from
open to closed. The EPPS was employed to measure and
compare fifteen personality traits of the school principals.
The OCDQ was administered at the beginning and at
the end of the Leadership Development Program. The EPPS was
administered only once at the beginning of the program.
107
The experimental treatment consisted of a leader
ship development program which emphasized systems analysis
techniques and participative management procedures. This
program was conducted on a bi-weekly schedule from mid-
October to April and provided thirteen training sessions
each of approximately six hours' duration.
The statistical procedure was defined by listing
each null hypothesis and the methods used to analyze the
relationships between variables.
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter, the results of the statistical
analysis of the data are presented. The procedures followed
were in accordance with the research designs explained in
the preceding chapter.
The questions raised in Chapter I which formed the
framework for the research are repeated. Each question is
followed by the null hypothesis or hypotheses formulated to
test the question. For every hypothesis a brief description
of the research procedure employed is provided. In addition
to a narrative account, research findings are reported in
tabular and graphic form.
Based on the data presented, each null hypothesis
is accepted or rejected.
108
109
Findings
The First Question
The first major question posed for this investiga
tion was: "What measurable change in the organizational
climate of elementary schools occurred following participa
tion of the principals of the subject schools in a leader
ship development program which emphasized participative
management and systems approaches to decision-making?"
The answer to the first major question was sought
through the utilization of three null hypotheses. The
findings and data relevant to the first three hypotheses
are reported in this section.
Hypothesis I. HQ : open climate experimental =
open climate control' This null hypothesis stated that
following participation by principals in a leadership
development program there would be no difference in the
organizational climates between experimental and control
schools; this, it was claimed, would be reflected by no
difference in climate similarity scores between the two
groups of schools.
The Halpin-Croft profile analysis procedure was
employed to determine the degree of similarity between the
110
observed profiles of scores and the set of six pre-selected
profiles which constituted the norms established by Halpin
and Croft. The lowest absolute score difference between
the observed profile and each of the six prototypic pro
files determines the climate profile most nearly similar to
the observed profile. The profile similarity comparison
was conducted between the profiles for the sixteen randomly
selected schools whose principals participated in the
leadership development program (experimental schools) and
the profiles for the nine schools whose principals did not
participate in the program (control schools).
Tables 4, 5, and 6, together with Figure 3 summa
rize the data pertaining to hypothesis I. Table 4 displays
the posttest climate similarity scores for the sixteen
experimental schools by school and weighted mean scores for
this group of schools. Table 5 contains the posttest
climate similarity scores for the nine control schools and
weighted mean scores for the nine schools in this group.
Table 6 presents the prototypic profiles for the six
organizational climates ranked with respect to openness
versus closedness. The diagram depicted in Figure 3 pre
sents the posttest weighted mean score profiles for
experimental schools and control schools in line graph form.
Ill
TABLE 4
EXPERIMENTAL SCHOOL OCDQ CLIMATE SIMILARITY POSTTEST
SCORES FOR THE SIX PROTOTYPIC CLIMATES
Experi
mental
Climate Characteristics
School Open Autonomous Controlled Familiar Paternal Closed
1 64 70 81 84 93 74
2 38 58 95 46 78 108
3 96 77 66 94 103 54
4 88 72 74 103 99 57
5 35 53 103 45 80 112
6 50 56 96 47 87 88
7 88 62 95 55 72 54
8 69 45 55 87 91 81
9 90 80 50 97 88 64
10 76 51 61 94 100 70
11 78 51 48 98 89 81
12 56 69 90 56 72 104
13 39 65 100 65 73 102
14 48 29 91 48 89 104
15 62 42 105 35 81 91
16 94 82 113 56 59 47
Weighted
Mean Score 52 40 91 93 93 97
Note: An underscored number indicates the prototypic climate that was
most similar to the observed climate profile. For example,
school 1 yielded its lowest score of 64 in the "Open" column,
meaning that the climate for school 1 is more similar to the
open climate than any of the other five prototypic climates.
112
TABLE 5
CONTROL SCHOOL OCDQ CLIMATE SIMILARITY POSTTEST SCORES
FOR THE SIX PROTOTYPIC CLIMATES
Control
School
Climate Characteristics
Open Autonomous Controlled Familiar Paternal Closed
17 101 60 80 87 110 63
18 84 69 63 88 67 83
19 116 97 82 94 68 30
20 43 58 69 73 76 94
21 62 51 54 96 87 92
22 51 56 72 83 88 91
23 103 84 75 89 79 55
24 82 87 91 71 60 75
25 53 55 77 56 84 104
Weighted
Mean Score 93 58 74 90 86 55
Note: An underscored number indicates the prototypic climate that was
most similar to the observed climate profile. For example,
school 1 yielded its lowest score of 64 in the "Open" column,
meaning that the climate for school 1 is more similar to the
open climate than any of the other five prototypic climates.
TABLE 6
PROTOTYPIC PROFILES FOR SIX ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATES
RANKED ON A CONTINUUM FROM OPENNESS TO CLOSEDNESS
Climate
Group Characteristics Leader Characteristics
Disengagement Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Aloofness
Production
Emphasis Thrust Consideration
Open 43 43 63 50 42 43 61 55
Autonomous 40 41 55 62 61 39 53 50
Controlled 38 57 54 40 55 63 51 45
Familiar 60 42 50 58 44 37 52 59
Paternal 65 46 45 46 38 55 51 55
Closed 62 53 38 54 55 54 41 44
Source: Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, "The Organizational Climate of Schools,"
Cooperative Research Contract Number SAE 543, July, 1962.
Standard Scores
FIGURE 3
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SCHOOL POSTTEST
SCORES ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF THE OCDQ
Characteristics of the Group Behavior of the Leader
Disen- Production Consid-
Aloofness Emphasis gagement Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Thrust eration
68
/\ 70
65
60
57/
55
50
45
45
40
35
= Climate of Experimental Schools
= Climate of Control Schools
Note: Standard scores had a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
115
In comparing the weighted mean posttest scores for
the two groups of schools, the following climate similarity
score arrays occurred:
Open Autonomous Controlled Familiar Paternal Closed
91 93 93 97
74 90 86 55
Here it is seen that the experimental schools are
more similar to the open climate than are the control
schools by a score difference of 41 points. The experi
mental schools are more similar to the autonomous climate
than are the control schools by a score difference of
18 points. The control schools are more similar to the
controlled climate than are the experimental schools by a
score difference of 17 points. The control schools are
more similar to the familiar climate than are the experi
mental schools by a score difference of 3 points. The
control schools are more similar to the paternal climate
than are the experimental schools by a score difference of
7 points. The control schools are more nearly similar to
Experi
mental 52 40
Control 93 58
116
the closed climate than are the experimental schools by a
score difference of 42 points.
Examination of the individual experimental school
posttest scores reveals that five schools obtained open
climate similarity scores, three obtained autonomous cli
mate similarity scores, two obtained controlled climate
similarity scores, four obtained familiar climate similarity
scores, none obtained paternal climate similarity scores,
and three obtained closed climate similarity scores.
School number twelve obtained identical climate similarity
scores for open and for familiar climates.
The same data for the control schools revealed that
three schools had open climate similarity scores, two
obtained autonomous climate similarity scores, one a con
trolled climate similarity score, none a familiar climate
similarity score, one a paternal climate similarity score,
and two closed climate similarity scores.
In summary, the posttest weighted mean climate
similarity scores revealed that the climates of the experi
mental schools were most nearly like that of an autonomous
climate, which is the second most open climate, while the
climates of the control schools were most like that of the
closed climate. Moreover, the experimental school climate
117
similarity score was 41 points more similar to the open
climate than was that of the control schools. Almost the
reverse was true of the closed climate similarity scores.
The control schools obtained a climate similarity score
that was 42 points more nearly similar to the closed cli
mate than was the score for the experimental schools.
While the experimental schools were definitely more
open than the control schools following the conclusion of
the leadership development program, no school or group of
schools approximated any of the six prototypic climates
very closely when the Halpin-Croft climate similarity
assignment method was used. The closest approximation
(lowest score) was for school 19, which obtained a closed
climate similarity score of 30 points absolute score
difference between the climate profile for school 19 and
the prototypic closed profile.
Halpin and Croft expressed a strong confidence in
the validity of the two profiles at each end of the listing
— that is, the open and the closed climate profiles. The
score differences of 41 points between open climate
similarity scores, and of 42 points between closed climate
similarity scores appears to support the discriminating
characteristics of these two climates.
118
Hypothesis II. HQ : rXy = 0. The second hypothesis
was that no differences existed between the organizational
climates of schools and the prototypic open school climate,
this relationship being reflected by no differences between
the observed organizational climate profiles and the
prototypic open school climate profile.
The Pearson product-moment coefficient of correla
tion was employed to identify relationships between the
experimental or control school OCDQ climate score profile D
scores and the prototypic open school profile. The D or
dissimilarity scores were the result of the application of
the Cronbach-Gleser profile analysis method. The level of
significance set for hypothesis II was .05 for a two-tailed
test. The coefficient of correlation required for signifi
cance at the .05 level was .497 or greater for the sixteen
experimental schools and .666 or greater for the nine
control schools.
Table 7 lists the pretest coefficients of correla
tion calculated for each of the sixteen experimental schools
and the nine control schools. Table 8 displays the posttest
coefficients of correlation for both groups of schools.
Figure 4 diagrams the prototypic open score profile.
119
TABLE 7
EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SCHOOL OCDQ PRETEST
CLIMATE PROFILE D SCORE CORRELATIONS WITH
THE PROTOTYPIC OPEN SCHOOL PROFILE
Experimental Control
School D r School D r
1 1.115 .378 17 1.156 .332
2 .495 .877* 18 1.721 -.482
3 1.542 -.190 19 1.886 -.779*
4 1.474 -.086 20 .981 .519
5 .577 .834* 21 1.484 -.102
6 .681 .768* 22 .762 .709*
7 .686 .765* 23 1.567 -.228
8 .875 .617* 24 1.688 -.425
9 1.177 .307 25 .918 .579
10 1.648 -.358
11 1.044 .455
12 .856 .633*
13 .750 .718
14 .946 .552*
15 .949 .549*
16 .687 .764*
Weighted
Mean
Profile .625 .805 1.485 -.102
*These correlations achieved significance at the
.05 level (.497 or greater for the experimental schools,
and .666 or greater for the control schools).
120
TABLE 8
EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SCHOOL OCDQ POSTTEST
CLIMATE PROFILE D SCORE CORRELATIONS WITH
THE PROTOTYPIC OPEN SCHOOL PROFILE
Experimental Control
School D r School D r
1 1.256 .211 17 1.689 -.427
2 .769 .704* 18 1.507 -.136
3 1.686 -.421 19 1.943 -.888*
4 1.606 -.290 20 .828 .657
5 .624 .805* 21 1.123 .369
6 .857 .632* 22 .861 .629
7 1.598 -.278 23 1.830 -.675*
8 1.196 .285 24 1.540 -.186
9 1.674 -.401 25 .897 .598
10 1.399 .021
11 1.416 -.003
12 .913 .583*
13 .602 .819*
14 .947 .551*
15 1.073 .424
16 1.713 -.468
Weighted
Mean
Profile 1.019 .480 1.709 -.461
*These correlations achieved significance at the
.05 level (.497 or greater for the experimental schools,
and .666 or greater for the control schools).
Standard Score
FIGURE 4
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF THE OCDQ
Characteristics of the Group Behavior of the Leader
Disen- Production Consid-
Aloofness Emphasis Hindrance Esprit Thrust eration Intimacy gagement
63
50
Note: Standard scores had a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
to
122
At the pretest stage, ten school climate profile D
scores from the experimental group achieved significant
coefficients of correlation with the prototypic open pro
file. Climate profiles for schools 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13,
14, 15, and 16 had significant positive correlations with
the open climate profile. The weighted mean profile D
score correlation coefficient of .805 was significant.
Two school climate profile D scores from the con
trol group achieved significant coefficients of correlation
with the prototypic open profile. The climate profile for
school 19 had a significant negative correlation with the
open profile. The weighted mean profile D score coeffi
cient of correlation of -.102 was not significant.
At the posttest stage, six school climate profile D
scores from the experimental group achieved significant
coefficients of correlation with the prototypic open
profile. Climate profiles for schools 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, and
14 had significant positive correlations with the open
profile. The weighted mean profile D score yielded a .480
coefficient of correlation. This was almost sufficient to
achieve significance for the two-tailed test and would have
exceeded the significance level had a one-tailed test been
employed.
123
Two school climate profile D scores from the con
trol group achieved significant coefficients of correlation
with the prototypic open profile. Climate profiles for
schools 19 and 23 both exhibited significant negative
correlations with the open profile. The weighted mean
profile D score displayed a -.461 coefficient of correla
tion. This was not sufficient to achieve significance at
the level prescribed.
Both groups of schools were more open at the
pretest stage than at the posttest stage, as was determined
by Cronbach-Gleser profile comparison procedures. This
method of profile analysis has been shown to be considerably
more rigorous than the Halpin-Croft procedure. The climate
change in both groups was toward the closed end of the
open-closed continuum, the experimental schools maintaining
a relatively more open position on both testings.
Hn»othesis III. Hq : Ud experimental = Ud control.
It was hypothesized that no difference would be found in
organizational climate change between experimental and con
trol schools, and that this would be reflected by no
difference between the subtest mean score shifts for these
two groups; in other words, no differences in OCDQ subtest
124
mean score shifts would be found between experimental and
control schools. (1) No differences between teacher groups
would be found in the subtests for disengagement, hindrance,
esprit, and intimacy. (2) No differences between adminis
trators would be found in the subtests measuring aloofness,
production emphasis, thrust, and consideration.
The third hypothesis thus contains eight sub
sections, one for each subtest of the OCDQ. Subtests one
through four refer to characteristics of the teacher group
and subtests five through eight to characteristics of the
principal's behavior. The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized
to compare the set of ranked scores associated with the
median amount of subtest mean score change which occurred
for both experimental and control schools. The subtest
mean score differences which occurred for each school
between pretest and posttest were ranked for the two school
groups, and these differences in rank were utilized in
applying the Mann-Whitney test of significance. The level
of significance was set at .05 for a two-tailed test
requiring a Mann-Whitney U score equal to or smaller than
37, which would result in a z score equal to or greater
than 1.96 and an associated probability of .05 or smaller.
125
Table 9 summarizes the findings pertaining to the
third hypothesis. Data reported for each subtest include
the U scores with the resulting z scores and associated
probabilities.
Three of the OCDQ subtest mean score changes for
the experimental and control schools when compared reached
significance at the .05 level.
It will be noted that data for the subtest hindrance
yielded a Mann-Whitney U score of 24, resulting in a z score
of 2.717 and an associated probability of .007. The
prototypic open climate score for this subtest was 43. The
average pretest scores were: experimental, 41; control, 51.
The average posttest scores were: experimental, 44;
control, 47. The average score shifts for the two groups
of schools were: experimental, +3; control, -4.
Data for the subtest aloofness yielded a Mann-
Whitney U score of 31 resulting in a z score of 2.321 and
an associated probability of .020. The prototypic open
climate score for this subtest was 42. The average pretest
scores were: experimental, 50; control, 57. The average
posttest scores were: experimental, 57; control, 55. The
average score shifts for the two groups of schools were:
experimental, +7; control, -2.
126
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF OCDQ SUBTEST SCORE SHIFTS,
PRETEST TO POSTTEST, FOR EXPERIMENTAL
AND CONTROL SCHOOLS
Subtest
Mann-Whitney
U Score
Resulting
z Score
Associated
Probability
Disengagement 61 .623 .535
Hindrance 24 2.717 .007*
Esprit 43 1.642 .101
Intimacy 50 1.246 .213
Aloofness 31 2.321 .020*
Production Emphasis 25 2.661 .008*
Thrust 58 .793 .430
Consideration 49 1.302 .194
*Subtest climate score changes were significant at
the .05 level.
127
The data for subtest production emphasis revealed
a Mann-Whitney U score of 25 resulting in a z score of
2.661 with an associated probability of .008. The proto
typic open climate score for this subtest was 43. The
average pretest scores were: experimental, 48; control, 43.
The average posttest scores were: experimental, 47;
control, 50. The average score shifts for the two groups
of schools were: experimental, -1; control, +7.
The Second Question
The second major question posed for this investiga
tion asked: "What relationships existed between measured
personality attributes of principals and the organizational
climate dimensions of the schools in which they served?"
The null hypothesis advanced to answer this question
was stated as follows:
Hypothesis IV. HQ : r =0. It was hypothesized
that no significant difference would be found between
principals' personality traits, as measured by the EPPS and
dimensions of the schools' organizational climates, as
measured by the OCDQ, when subtest scores were compared for
the principals and schools studied.
128
The Pearson product-moment test of correlation was
employed to identify relationships between the eight
dimensions of the OCDQ and fifteen personality variables
measured by the EPPS. With a sample size of twenty-five
and a level of significance of .05, comparisons were deemed
significant if the correlation was numerically greater
than .337.
Table 10 displays the coefficients of correlations
calculated for each of the 120 comparisons. The eight
subtest areas of the OCDQ are listed on the X axis of the
grid and the fifteen personality traits measured by the
EPPS are presented along the Y axis. The correlations
which achieved significance are noted.
Six relationships generated a higher correlation
figure than the .337 figure established as the minimum
level of significance. Two of the relationships were
positively correlated and four were negatively correlated.
"Disengagement," as measured by the OCDQ, was found
to have a significant positive correlation with the
"deference" subtest of the EPPS. "Deference" was also
significantly correlated with the "esprit" dimension of the
OCDQ but in a negative direction.
129
TABLE 10
INTERCORRELATIONS OF OCDQ AND EPPS VAR'.
(N - 25)
Personality
0*C-D«Q* V a r i a b 1 €
Characteristics Ach. Def. Ord. Exh. Aut. Aff. Int. Sue. Dc
Disengagement -.102 .341* .121 -.221 .042 -.024 .129 -.199
Hindrance -.312 -.115 -.294 .076 -.292 .106 .264 -.000
Esprit .172 -.363* -.170 .167 .019 -.094 -.217 -.039 .
Intimacy -.246 -.236 -.326 .044 .240 .300 -.157 .150 -.
Aloofness .005 .146 .210
00
0
I “ l
1
.054 -.356* .252 .138 .
Production Emphasis .205 .003 .085 .102 -.174 -.149 -.476* -.150
Thrust .202 .091 .307 -.060 -.076 .131 .120 .095 -.
Consideration .118 .057 -.121 • 0b6 .037 .148 -.080 .034 -.:
*These correlations achieved significance at the .05 level.
TABLE 10
INTERCORRELATIONS OF OCDQ AND EPPS VARIABLES
(N - 25)
0‘C*D*Q. Variables
... .
ef. Ord. Exh. Aut. Aff. Int. Sue. Dom. Aba. Nur. Chg. End Het. Agg.
341* .121 -.221 .042 -.024 .129 -.199 .156 .205 -.003 -.098 -.069 -.305 .220
L15 -.294 .076 -.292 .106 .264 -.000 .035 .008 .093 .128 -.164 -.031 .297
363* -.170 .167 .019 -.094 -.217 -.039 .034 -.241 .054 .097 -.013 .321 .032
336 -.326 .044 .240 .300 -.157 .150 -.187 -.067 .403* -.081 -.135 .227 .086
L46 .210 -.108 .054 -.356* .252 .138 .155 -.015 -.037 -.076 .188 -.203 -.047
)03 .085 .102 -.174 -.149 -.476* -.150 .276 -.059 -.077 .215 .055 .134 -.018
191 .307 -.060 -.076 .131 .120 .095 -.217 .123 -.099 -.189 .164 -.139 -.342*
>57 -.121 .066 .037 .148 -.080 .034 -.122 -.012 -.170 .016 -.115 .183 -.093
lations achieved significance at the .05 level.
130
"Intimacy" and "nurturance" achieved the highest
positive correlation coefficient of .403. "Aloofness"
exceeded the established level of significance with "affili
ation" in a negative direction. The matching of "production
emphasis" with "intraception" resulted in the highest
correlation of all comparisons at -.476. "Thrust" was
negatively correlated with "aggression" at a significant
level.
The Third Question
The third major question posed for this investiga
tion was as follows: "Were there any significant differ
ences between measured personality traits of principals in
open and closed school organizational climates?"
The fifth hypothesis advanced to answer this ques
tion was:
Hypothesis V. H : U = U Here it was
--------- o open closed
hypothesized that there would be no significant difference
in personality traits between principals whose schools were
characterized as having more open organizational climates
and those whose schools were characterized as having more
closed organizational climates, and that this would be
131
revealed in the levels of performance of the two groups on
the EPPS.
This hypothesis was tested by dividing the twenty-
five principals tested into two groups according to scores
received in the "esprit" subtest of the OCDQ, casting out
the four cnetral-most scores and employing the Mann-Whitney
U test to identify significant differences between the two
groups with respect to their rank order placement on the
list of fifteen personality variables measured by the EPPS.
Data pertaining to this hypothesis are summarized
in Table 11, which lists the fifteen personality traits
measured by the EPPS. Also shown are the U scores, corres
ponding Z scores, and levels of significance resulting from
comparisons of the two groups.
It will be noted that only one personality trait
achieved significance at the .05 level, that of "abasement."
The principals of the schools identified as "closed" scored
significantly higher in "abasement" than did the principals
of schools considered as "open." The personality trait of
"abasement" is defined in the EPPS with such phrases as:
"to feel guilty when one does something wrong, to accept
blame when things do not go right and to feel inferior to
others in most respects."
132
TABLE 11
COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY TRAITS OF PRINCIPALS ON THE
BASIS OF WHETHER THEIR SCHOOLS WERE IDENTIFIED
AS MORE OPEN OR MORE CLOSED
(N = 25)
Personality Trait U Score Z Score Probability
1. Achievement 39.5 1.09 .1379
2. Deference 49.0 .42 .3372
3. Order 43.0 .85 .1977
4. Exhibition 42.0 .92 .1788
5. Autonomy 48.0 .49 .3121
6. Affiliation 52.0 .21 .4168
7. Intraception 41.0 .99 .1611
8. Succorance 47.0 .56 .2877
9. Dominance 42.5 .88 .1894
10. Abasement* 25.0 2.11 .0174
11. Nurturance 55.0 0.00 .5000
12. Change 40.0 1.06 .1446
13. Endurance 48.5 .46 .3228
14. Heterosexuality 36.0 1.34 .0901
15. Aggression 47.0 .56 .2877
*Significance was achieved with a Mann-Whitney U
Score of 26 and a corresponding Z score of > 1.65 with an
associated probability of < .05.
133
The personality trait of "heterosexuality" achieved
the only other score which approached significance. Prin
cipals of open schools ranked higher on this trait but the
difference between the two groups was not statistically
significant.
The Fourth Question
A series of four supplementary questions followed
the first three major questions proposed for this study.
The first of these supplemental questions is referred to as
question number 4; it asks: "What relationships existed
between the principals1 length of service in the schools
and the organizational climates of the schools?" The
answer to this question was sought through the testing of
null hypothesis VI.
Hyfiothesis. VI. Hq : Dd shorter_tenure =
Dd longer-tenure* It was hypothesized that no difference
would be found in the organizational climate change of
experimental schools when the schools were compared on the
basis of the length of principal's tenure; and that this
relationship would be reflected by no difference between
schools administered by longer-tenured and shorter-tenured
134
principals when their climate profile similarities to the
prototypic open school profile were compared.
The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare the
set of ranked D score changes from pretest to posttest for
the eight schools administered by longer-tenured principals,
and for the eight schools administered by shorter-tenured
principals. The D scores for both groups were obtained by
applying the Cronbach-Gleser profile analysis procedure to
the observed school profiles and comparing them with the
prototypic open profile. The level of significance was set
at .05 for a one-tailed test, requiring for rejection of
the null hypothesis a Mann-Whitney U score equal to or
smaller than 15. This score would result in a z score
equal to or greater than 1.65, with an associated probabil
ity of .05 or smaller.
Table 12 summarizes the data pertaining to pretest
and posttest D scores and the D score differences for the
two groups of schools administered by longer-tenured and
shorter-tenured principals.
The Mann-Whitney U score obtained by comparing the
ranked D score differences for the two groups was 24, which
resulted in a z score of .840 and an associated probability
of .201. The average D score differences for the two
135
TABLE 12
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE PROFILE D SCORE DIFFERENCES
FOR SCHOOLS ADMINISTERED BY LONGER-TENURED
AND SHORTER-TENURED PRINCIPALS
School
Pretest
D Score
Posttest
D Score
D Score
Difference
Longer-Tenured Principals
1 1.115 1.256 -.141
2 .394 .769 -.274
3 1.542 1.686 -.144
4 1.474 1.606 -.132
5 .577 .624 -.047
6 .681 .857 -.176
7 .686 1.598 -.912
8 .875 1.196 -.321
Shorter-Tenured Principals
9 1.177 1.674 -.497
10 1.648 1.399 + .249
11 1.044 1.416 -.372
12 .856 .913 -.057
13 .750 .602 + .148
14 .946 .947 -.001
15 .949 1.073 -.124
16 .687 1.713 -.026
136
groups were as follows: schools administered by longer-
tenured principals, -.154; schools administered by
shorter-tenured principals, -.210.
The Fifth Question
The fifth question (the second supplementary ques
tion) posed for this investigation was, "What relationships
existed when comparisons were made between the organiza
tional climates of larger schools and those of smaller
schools?" The answer to this question was sought through
the testing of null hypothesis VII.
HYfi°tteslg. VII- Hc : Da smaller = Dd larger.
It was hypothesized that no difference in organizational
climate change would be found between the larger and smaller
experimental schools; this similarity would be reflected
by no difference in the OCDQ climate profile similarities
to the prototypic open school profile between larger and
smaller schools.
The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare
the set of ranked D score changes from pretest to posttest
for the eleven smaller and five larger schools. The D
scores for both groups of schools were obtained by applying
the Cronbach-Gleser profile analysis procedure to the
137
observed school profiles and comparing them with the proto
typic open profile. The level of significance was set at
.05 for a one-tailed test requiring a Mann-Whitney U score
equal to or smaller than 12 for rejection of the null
hypothesis. This U score would result in a z score equal
to or greater than 1.65 and an associated probability of
.05 or smaller.
Table 13 summarizes the data pertaining to the
pretest and posttest D scores and the D score differences
between larger and smaller schools.
The Mann-Whitney U score obtained by comparing the
ranked D score differences for the two groups of schools
was 13 which resulted in a Z score of 1.642 and an associ
ated probability of .051. The average D score differences
for the two groups were as follows: larger schools, -.505;
smaller schools, -.093.
The Sixth Question
The sixth question (the third supplemental question)
raised by this study was the following: "What relationships
existed between the personalities of younger principals and
the personalities of older principals?"
The null hypothesis advanced to answer this question
was as follows:
138
TABLE 13
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE PROFILE D SCORE DIFFERENCES
FOR LARGER AND SMALLER SCHOOLS
School
Pretest Posttest D Score
D Score D Score Difference
Larger Schools
1 1.115 1.256 -.141
7 .686 1.598 -.912
8 .875 1.196 -.321
15 .949 1.073 -.124
16 .687 1.713 -1.026
Smaller Schools
2 .495 .769 -.274
3 1.542 1.686 -.144
4 1.474 1.606 -.132
5 .577 .624 -.047
6 .681 .857 -.176
9 1.686 1.674 -.497
10 1.648 1.399 + .249
11 1.044 1.416 -.372
12 .856 .913 -.057
13 .750 .602 + .148
14 .946 .947 -.001
139
Hypothesis VIII. HQ : U older = U younger. Here,
it was hypothesized that no difference in personality
traits would be found between younger and older principals
when the subtest EPPS scores made by the two groups of
principals were compared.
The twenty-five principals tested were divided into
two groups according to age. The mean age of 45 years was
used as the point dividing the total sample into younger
and older groups. The former group consisted of fourteen
members whose ages ranged from 31 to 44 years. Ages of the
eleven principals ranged from 48 to 61 years.
The Mann-Whitney U test was used to identify sig
nificant differences in central tendency between the ranked
scores for the two groups in each of the 15 personality
variables measured by the EPPS. Significance was estab
lished when the Mann-Whitney U test score resulted in a
z score of 1.96 or greater with an associated probability
of .025 or less.
Table 14 shows the results of the comparisons made
between the two groups for all fifteen personality
variables, together with the associated U scores, z scores
and probabilities. Variables that were significantly
140
TABLE 14
COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY TRAITS OF OLDER PRINCIPALS
AND YOUNGER PRINCIPALS
(N = 25)
Personality Trait U Score Z Score Probability
1. Achievement 75.5 .08 .4681
2. Deference 57.5 1.07 .1423
3. Order* 39. 2.08 .0188
4. Exhibition 67. .55 .2912
5. Autonomy 65.5 .63 .2643
6. Affiliation 44.5 1.78 .0375
7. Intraception 56.5 1.12 .1314
8. Succorance 66.5 .57 .2843
9. Dominance 62. .82 .2061
10. Abasement 48.5 1.56 .0594
11. Nurturance 66. .60 .2743
12. Change 57.5 1.07 .1423
13. Endurance* 31.5 2.49 .0064
14. Heterosexuality* 41. 1.97 .0244
15. Aggression 56.5 1.12 .1314
*Significance was achieved with a Mann-Whitney
U score of < 37 and a corresponding Z score of > 1.65 with
an associated probability of < .05.
141
different for the two groups are indicated by an asterisk
following the name of the variable.
In this table, it will be noted, significant differ
ences occurred between groups for the three personality
categories of "order," "endurance" and "heterosexuality."
The data pertaining to "order" revealed that older princi
pals scored significantly higher than did younger princi
pals. Some of the statements that reflected manifest needs
associated with "order" in the responses to the EPPS were:
"to have written work in on time, to have things arranged,
so that they run smoothly without change."
The personality variable, "endurance," achieved the
highest level of significance of any variable tested.
Again, the older principals scored significantly higher
than did the younger principals. The manifest needs associ
ated with "endurance" included such expressions as: "to
keep at a job until it is finished, to work hard at a task
and to avoid being interrupted while at work."
The older and younger groups also manifested a
significant difference in the personality variable "hetero
sexuality." As might be expected, the younger principals
scored higher in this variable than did the older
principals. Heterosexuality was represented by such
142
manifest needs as: "to go out with members of the opposite
sex, to be regarded as physically attractive by those of
the opposite sex, and to become sexually excited."
The personality variables of "affiliation" and
"abasement" approached, but did not achieve, significance.
The younger principals scored higher in "affiliation" while
the older principals scored higher in "abasement." The
need statements related to "affiliation" included: "to
be loyal to friends, to make as many friends as possible,
and to do things with friends rather than alone." The
phrases indicative of "abasement" included: "to feel
guilty when one does something wrong, to feel better when
giving in and avoiding a fight than when having one's own
way, and to feel inferior to others in most respects."
The Seventh Question
The final question raised by this study was: "What
significant relationships existed between the personalities
of principals who participated in a leadership development
program and those of principals who did not participate
in the program?"
The following hypothesis was advanced to answer
this question:
143
Hypothesis IX. H_:U . , n = U
---------- o experimental control
That is, there is no significant difference between person
ality traits of principals who participated and those who
did not participate in the leadership development program,
as determined by a comparison of the EPPS subtest scores
of the two groups.
To test this hypothesis, the EPPS was administered
to the sixteen principals who participated and to the nine
who did not participate in the leadership development
program. The raw scores were converted to standard scores,
and the Mann-Whitney U test employed to test the probabil
ity that the two groups were drawn from the same population.
Table 15 exhibits the results of a comparison of
the two groups on the fifteen personality variables
measured. Also shown are the U scores, Z scores, and
probability factors. The personality variables that
achieved significance at the .05 level are noted.
Two personality variables, it is seen, were signifi
cantly different when the two groups were compared. The
principals who participated in the leadership development
program scored significantly higher in "achievement" and
in "dominance" than did the nonparticipating principals.
One other score approached significance; this was the
144
TABLE 15
COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY TRAITS BETWEEN PRINCIPALS
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM AND THOSE WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE
(N = 25)
Personality Trait U Score Z Score Probability
1. Achievement* 31 2.32 .0204
2. Deference 64 .40 .6892
3. Order 71 .06 .9522
4. Exhibition 57 .74 .4592
5. Autonomy 57 .85 .3594
6. Affiliation 65.5 .37 .6114
7. Intraception 48.5 1.33 .1836
8. Succorance 53 1.08 .2802
9. Dominance* 35.5 2.07 .0384
10. Abasement 51.5 1.16 .2460
11. Nurturance 55 .96 .3370
12. Change 59 .74 .4592
13. Endurance 69 .17 .8650
14. Heterosexuality 62 .57 .5686
15. Aggression 64 .45 .6528
*Significance was achieved with a Mann-Whitney
U score of < 37 and a corresponding Z score of > 1.65 with
an associated probability of < .05.
145
personality variable of "intraception." The nonparticipat
ing group scored higher on this variable, but not enough
higher to achieve significance at the .05 level.
Chapter Summary
The research reported herein was designed to answer
three major and four supplementary questions regarding
changes in the organizational climates of elementary
schools, relationships between principals' personality
characteristics and the climates of their schools, and
relationships between the personality characteristics of
various groupings of elementary school principals. The
results of the study were reported in the present chapter.
i
In brief, the research findings revealed that
following participation in the leadership development pro
gram the organizational climates of schools administered by
participants in the program were more "open" than were the
climates of schools administered by nonparticipating princi
pals. There were significant coefficients of correlation
between climate profiles determined for the two groups of
schools and the prototypic open school profile established
by Halpin and Croft. For the experimental group, ten
school climate profiles at the pretest stage and six school
146
climate profiles at the posttest stage were significantly
correlated with the open school profile. The control group
exhibited one positive and one negative significant school
climate correlations to the prototypic open profile at the
pretest stage and two significant negative correlations to
the prototypic open profile at the posttest stage. There
were significantly different school climate score changes
between experimental and control schools with respect to
the three OCDQ subtest areas of "hindrance," "aloofness,"
and "production emphasis." In all three areas, the average
scores for the experimental schools increased while the
average scores for the control schools decreased. These
score shifts resulted in a closer posttest approximation of
the prototypic open climate scores for the experimental
schools in the subtests for "hindrance" and "production
emphasis." The average score shift for control schools
resulted in a closer open climate profile approximation to
the subtest for "aloofness" prototypic score.
There were six significant correlations between the
school climate dimensions and the personality traits of the
school principals: "disengagement" and "deference," and
"intimacy" and "nurturance" showed significant positive
correlations. "Deference" and "esprit," "aloofness" and
147
"affiliation," "production emphasis" and "intraception,"
and "thrust" and "aggression" were all negatively correlated
at a significant level. The principals whose schools were
identified as being more "closed" ranked significantly
higher in "abasement" than did the principals whose schools
were identified as being more "open."
This research revealed no significant relationships
between such variables as the length of time the principal
had served in his school or the size of the school and the
organizational climate of the school.
The analysis of personality traits of younger and
older principals revealed significant age differences with
respect to the EPPS subtests of "order," "endurance," and
"heterosexuality." The older principals scored higher in
"heterosexuality."
Principals in the experimental group differed from
principals in the control group with respect to two EPPS
subtests— "achievement" and "dominance," the experimental
group principals scoring significantly higher in both of
these personality characteristics.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a review of the problem, a
summary of the procedures employed to collect the data,
conclusions drawn from the findings, and a discussion of
the implications and recommendations arising from the study.
Summary
The Problem
It is recognized that a school's climate affects,
and is affected by, virtually all aspects of its operations.
The principal is in a unique position to influence the type
of climate that characterizes the school. Considering the
importance of the issue, and the dearth of relevant data,
additional information concerning such matters as ways of
improving organizational climate, and the personality traits
of principals that influence school climate would be
extremely beneficial for use in educational planning.
148
149
This study was undertaken in an effort to provide
information that might lead to better understandings of
certain factors that affect the school organizational
climate and the influence of principals1 personalities upon
school climate.
More specifically, this research undertook to
(1) determine whether relationships existed between a
principal's participation or nonparticipation in a leader
ship development program and the climate of the school he
administers; (2) explore relationships between a principal's
personality characteristics and the climate of the school;
and (3) investigate personality relationships between
certain groupings of elementary school principals.
Three major and four supplementary questions were
considered for this study. They were as follows;
Major questions
1. What measurable change in the organizational
climates of elementary schools occurred follow
ing participation of their principals in a
leadership development program which emphasized
participative management and systems approaches
to decision-making?
150
2. What relationships existed between measured
personality attributes of principals and the
organizational climate dimensions of the schools
in which they served?
3. Were there any significant differences between
measured personality attributes of principals
in "open" and in "closed" school organizational
climates?
Supplementary questions
4. What relationships existed between the princi
pals 1 length of service in the schools and the
organizational climates of the schools?
5. What relationships existed between the organi
zational climates of larger and those of smaller
schools?
6. What relationships existed between the person
alities of younger principals and those of
older principals?
7. What relationships existed between the person
alities of principals who participated in a
leadership development program and those of
principals who did not participate in the
program?
Design of the Study
The portion of this research which investigated
change in organizational climate was conducted along a
pretest-posttest control group design. The Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) was administered
as a pretest in October, 1968 and as a posttest in May,
1969. The experimental treatment consisted of principal
participation in a leadership development program consisting
of thirteen semi-monthly training sessions, each lasting
for approximately six hours. The program encompassed two
major area!s of emphasis: system approaches to educational
management, and participative management science.
The section of this study which dealt with the
personalities of principals was based upon data collected
through a single administration of the Edwards Personal
Preference Survey (EPPS) in October, 1968 to all principals
in experimental and control schools.
The subjects who participated in the research
included the teachers and principals from a sample of
twenty-five elementary schools selected from the total popu
lation of fifty-three in the Fresno City Unified School
District. Sixteen of the twenty-five schools were experi
mental schools, so designated because the principals of
these schools participated in the district-sponsored
leadership development program. The remaining nine schools
were designated control schools because the principals did
not participate in the leadership development program.
The schools were selected so that a representative sample
was obtained from the standpoint of principal tenure and
size of school.
The OCDQ pretest and posttest results were examined
by means of the Halpin-Croft climate assignment procedures,
the Cronbach-Gleser profile similarity assessment method,
the Mann-Whitney U test for significance, and the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient. The EPPS results
were analyzed by means of the Pearson product-moment corre
lation coefficient and the Mann-Whitney U test for
significance.
Summary of Research Findings
Research procedures produced the following findings
1. Following the principals1 participation in the
leadership development program, the organizational climates
of the experimental schools were more "open" than were the
climates of the control schools. In spite of this, no
school or group of schools approximated any of the six
153
prototypic climates established by the Halpin-Croft climate
assignment method.
2. At both the pretest and posttest stages of the
research project, significant coefficients of correlation
occurred in the climate profiles between both experimental
and control schools and the prototypic "open" school profile
established by Halpin and Croft. The climate change in
both groups was toward the closed end of the open-closed
continuum, the experimental schools maintaining relatively
a more open position at both evaluation periods. Among the
fifty-four comparisons between observed climate profiles
and the prototypic open climate profile, there were twenty-
one significant relationships.
3. Significant organizational climate score changes
occurred when experimental and control schools were compared
in the three OCDQ subtest areas of "hindrance," "aloofness,"
and "production emphasis." In the area of "hindrance," the
average score changes for both groups was approximately the
same, the experimental group more nearly approximating the
prototypic open climate hindrance score at the posttest
stage. In the area of "aloofness," the average score
change of the experimental schools was more than three times
that of the control schools; here the control group more
154
nearly approximated the open climate "aloofness" score at
the posttest stage. In the area of "production emphasis,"
the average score change for the control schools was seven
times that of the experimental schools; here the experi
mental group more nearly approximated the prototypic open
climate production emphasis score at the posttest stage.
Significant score shifts occurred in three of the eight
subtests.
4. Six significant correlations existed between
the organizational climate dimensions of elementary schools
and the personality traits of the principals who adminis
tered the schools. "Disengagement" and "deference," and
"intimacy" and "nurturance" had significant positive corre
lations. "Deference" and "esprit," "aloofness" and
"affiliation," "production emphasis" and "intraception,"
and "thrust" and "aggression" were negatively correlated at
a significant level. The remaining fifty-four correlations
did not achieve significance at the established level.
5. Among the fifteen comparisons made between the
personality traits of principals in more "open" and more
"closed" schools, one significant relationship was identi
fied. The principals of schools identified as more "closed"
scored significantly higher in the personality trait,
155
"abasement," than did the principals of schools identified
as more "open."
6. No significant relationships existed between
the organizational climates of schools and the length of
time the principals had served in their schools.
7. No significant relationships existed between
the organizational climates of schools and the sizes of the
schools.
8. Significant differences existed in three of the
fifteen correlations computed for personality traits
between older and younger principals. The older principals
scored significantly higher in "order" and "endurance,"
while the younger principals scored higher in "hetero
sexuality. "
9. Significant differences were found in two of
the fifteen correlations of personality traits between
principals in experimental schools and those in control
schools. The experimental school principals scored signifi
cantly higher than control school principals in both
"achievement" and "dominance."
156
Conclusions
Major Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the
findings as they relate to the testing of hypotheses:
1. Null hypotheses I and II are not tenable; the
findings indicate that a leadership development program for
principals, such as was offered in this research, is related
beneficially to the maintenance of more "open" school
organizational climates. The data are inconclusive, how
ever, regarding the effect of a leadership development
in-service program for principals upon the improvement of
their schools1 organizational climate.
2. Null hypothesis III is not tenable, the findings
indicating that participation by the principal in a leader
ship development program is associated with at least
moderate improvement in the dimensions which constitute
organizational climate.
3. Null hypothesis IV is tenable; that is, little
relationship exists between the personality characteristics
of principals and the organizational climates of their
schools.
157
4. Null hypothesis V is tenable within the frame
work of the findings. The personality of the principal is
not a major determiner-of-^he.. .organi z.ational climate of the
school. Factors other than those measured influence the
degree of openness or closedness of the school. ,
5. Null hypothesis VI is tenable: organizational
climate is not affected by the length of the principal1s
tenure.
6. Null hypothesis VII is tenable. Therefore,
school size is not related directly to organizational
climate.
7. Null hypotheses VIII and IX are both tenable.
The personality of the principal does not appear to be
related to age or to voluntary participation in in-service
programs.
Secondary Conclusions
The following conclusions pertain to the instru
mentation of the survey phase of the study.
1. The Cronbach-Gleser profile comparison procedure
proved to be a valuable research tool.
2. The six prototypic organizational climates
established by Halpin and Croft were not replicated by any
of the schools studied in this research. The validity of
158
the Halpin-Croft climate assignment procedure seems ques
tionable insofar as this research is concerned.
3. Change in organizational climate for both
experimental and control schools toward the closed dimension
of the open-closed continuum may be attributed to variables
unaccounted for in this research.
Implications
1. The leadership development program was highly
successful in the judgment of the participants; one of the
serendipitous results was the improved morale and rapport
between the administrators and teachers who participated
in the endeavor. The success of future programs in affect
ing organizational climate would probably be enhanced by
the participation of entire faculties under circumstances
that would provide for smaller groups than were employed
for Operation Renewal.
2. This study provided some evidence that certain
dimensions of the school's climate correspond to certain
personality traits of principals. These correlations might
be used for predictive purposes if further research supports
these findings. It might, for instance, be possible with
some degree of confidence to predict what certain dimensions
159
of the school's climate will be when given the corresponding
personality traits of the principal.
3. Differences found between older and younger
principals may have some implications for the placement of
principals. The older principals would appear to function
more effectively in a structured setting where it is
possible to work with a minimum of interruptions. Younger
principals would perform better where more social contacts
are possible, particularly those related to the opposite
sex as indicated by the young principals' significantly
higher heterosexuality score.
Recommendations
As a result of this study, six recommendations per
taining to the organizational climate of schools and the
personality characteristics of principals are offered.
1. The leadership development program should be
replicated for entire school faculties under circumstances
that provide for small-group interaction.
2. School district administration should become
vitally concerned with the organizational climates of
schools.
160
3. School districts and other educational agencies
should continue to seek effective means of assessing and
influencing organizational climate.
4. More attention should be devoted to matching
principal personality with school climate in combinations
designed to improve the effectiveness of principals and the
efficiency of schools.
5. School personnel departments should make greater
use of studies related to staff personality and school
climate to improve selection, placement, and training pro
cedures .
6. Attempts to field-test educational administra
tion theories and postulates should be encouraged by local
educational agencies, despite the multiple obstacles
inherent in social research.
Suggestions for Further Study
On the basis of the findings, some areas in the
fields of organizational climate and leadership personality
appear to invite further research.
1. The importance of maintaining and improving
organizational climate suggests that the experimental por
tion of this investigation be replicated under more
161
rigorously controlled research conditions.
2. Utilization of the Cronbach-Gleser profile
comparison procedure as a viable alternative to the Halpin
and Croft climate assignment method should be investigated
further.
3. The reliability and validity of the OCDQ should
be explored further.
4. The organizational climates of schools and
personalities of principals studied in this research proj
ect should be reassessed periodically to determine the
extent and direction of future climate change.
5. Further research regarding means of influencing
organizational climate and the variables which affect it
should be conducted.
6. Personality traits of different populations
should be examined within the framework of OCDQ findings.
Of particular value would be such groupings as male and
female principals, and locally-educated and non-locally-
educated principals.
7. Personality variables other than those measured
by the EPPS should be compared to the "open" and "closed"
school climates determined by the OCDQ to discover addi
tional factors affecting the school climate.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
TRAINING SESSIONS
163
164
THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:
ITS PURPOSES, DESIGN AND COMPONENTS
Purposes:
This inservice program emerged as a response to
expressed needs of school leaders to update and improve
their management skills.
The goals of this project were to assist partici
pants to become more effective and efficient in planning,
problem-solving, decision-making, establishing and achiev
ing goals and evaluating change. It was also the intent of
this program to introduce and facilitate the adoption of
improved management styles as well as to examine inter
personal relationships.
At appropriate times throughout the series, provi
sions were made to allow participants to apply new-gained
knowledge and insight to topics of current concern to the
school district. Notable examples were training sessions
six, twelve and thirteen.
To achieve these goals program elements were derived
from two fields of study which were both contemporary and
relevant: (1) Systems Analysis, and (2) Management
Psychology.
165
The systems component consisted of such elements as
Program Evaluation and Review Techniques (PERT), defining
operational objectives, quality assurance and evaluation,
and change strategies.
The management psychology element included activi
ties involving group dynamics and interpersonal relation
ships, examination of motivational forces influencing
individual and group behavior and comparisons of various
management approaches.
Though no clear line was drawn between the two
basic elements of the program, the system approaches focused
on content in terms of new skills and techniques while the
management psychology portion offered ideas on process;
i.e., the framework that gives direction and meaning to the
content.
Design
The Leadership Development Program was conducted
approximately every two weeks from October 14, to May 26,
1969. This resulted in 13 six-hour training and study
sessions. The approximate 125 participants were often
divided into groups of 10, 30, 60 or other sized groups that
would be most appropriate to the topic being presented.
166
Training materials were usually sent to partici
pants in advance of each meeting providing for study time.
During lecture sessions frequent use was made of the
projected transparencies and other visual aids. Active
involvement was encouraged even in lecture presentations
through use of exercise sheets to be worked out by the
participants and later discussed with peers or the session
leaders.
Activities labeled "interaction exercises" were
carefully developed small-group task activities. The tasks
were simple but deeply involving. These activities were
designed to "force out" behavior that reflected the partici
pants' attitudes about such phenomena as self-concept,
competitiveness versus cooperativeness, group pressure,
communication and leadership. The activities were followed
by post-exercise discussions in which members reacted to
the interaction exercises. The discussions were guided by
the director to maximize learning about the self, about
interpersonal behavior, and about relevant management
science principles. Participants often were involved in
different roles and thus received feedback on performances
under a variety of conditions.
167
Evaluation forms were distributed at the end of
each training session. Participants were requested to rate
the programs offered, thus providing an appraisal which
served as a valuable aid in planning future meetings.
Both college and district credit was made available
to participants desiring it.
Components
The components of the year's program were summarized
and listed on the following pages. Each session was out
lined on a separate page noting, whenever possible, (1) the
consultant-instructor who was responsible, (2) the topic of
the presentation or exercise, (3) the procedure used to
deliver the message, and (4) the printed training materials
provided for participants. No attempt was made to specify
details of the presentation or the format; however, the
schedules should provide a general description of the total
program.
TRAINING SESSION #1 October 14, 1968
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
Dr. Jefferson Eastmond,
President, World Wide
Education & Research
Institute
2. Dr. Dan Dawson, Professor
of Education, University
of Southern California
Developing an Operational 1.
Philosophy for Education,
and
Societal Trends for a
Concerns Analysis
Self-Renewal, and 2.
Maximizing Group Work
Lecture presentation
using manual
Lecture presentation
keynote address
Materials
1. Training manual entitled "Developing an Operational Philosophy of Education,"
(adapted from a PEP booklet - 37 pages)
2. Training manual entitled "Societal Trends and Factual Considerations for a Concerns
Analysis," (adapted from a PEP booklet - 25 pages)
3. A year's program schedule with a summary of systems elements (9 pages)
4. Participant pre-test battery (19 pages)
5. Overview of group dynamics (8 pages)
TRAINING SESSION #2 November 6, 1968
Consultant - Instructor
1. Dr. Jefferson Eastmond
World Wide Consulting
2. Dr. Kent Fielding, Con
sultant, World Wide
Education and Research
Institute
3. Dr. Jefferson Eastmond
and FSC students
4. Dr. Kent Fielding
5. Dr. Kent Fielding
6. Dr. Jefferson Eastmond
7. Group leaders chosen
from participants
Topic
1. Structure of Total 1.
Environment
2. Social Analysis 2.
3. How to Study Your Own 3.
Home Town
4. Change Strategy 4.
5. Group Formation and 5.
Maintenance
6. Winnowing Concerns for 6.
Priority Needs
7. Group Work on Concerns 7.
Analysis
Procedure
Lecture presentation
Lecture presentation
Lecture presentation with
graphics
Lecture presentation
with group discussion
Lecture presentation
Lecture presentation
Four groups of 30 met to
analyze identified local
educational concerns
using technique explained
in presentations
169
TRAINING SESSION #2— Continued
Materials
1. Training manual "Social Analysis and Strategies for Change" (15 pages)
2. Training manual "Guidelines for Conducting a Community Analysis" (14 pages)
Outline "Procedure of Community Analysis" (3 pages)
3. Change Strategies Discussion Outline (single page)
4. Training manual "Winnowing Expressed Concerns for Priority Needs" (14 pages)
170
TRAINING SESSION #3 November 20 & 21, 1968
All participants were requested to attend the combined CASCD - CASCWA Convention held
in Fresno on these dates.
It was felt that this conference would be of particular value to those in the training
program since several of the presentations dealt with issues being discussed in the
training sessions. Participants were encouraged to attend the most relevant
sessions. Examples include a presentation by the Far West Laboratory entitled "Modify
ing Teacher Behavior" and a presentation by Edward Fierson entitled "Playing the
Rebellion Game."
Training materials were developed and mailed to the participants as a reading
assignment.
The materials were:
1. "An Educational Accounting System for Human Resource Development" (57 pages)
2. "School Systems Evaluation through Individual Achievement Patterns According
to Socio-Economic Status" Exercises included (52 pages)
3. "A Design and Assessment Structure for Comprehensive Planning in Education"
Exercises included (45 pages)
4. "Interpersonal Barriers to Decision Making" Harvard Business Review
Reprint (13 pages) 171
TRAINING SESSION #4 December 4, 1968
Consultant-Instructor
1. Dr. Robert Mager, Con
sultant American
Institute of Research
(AIR)
Topic
1. Understanding Behavioral
Objectives - How to
recognize, write and use
precisely stated objec
tives in education
2. Dr. Clyde James, Con
sultant; Mrs. Ruth
Shonkwiler, Coordinator,
Fresno City Unified
School District
2. Understanding Behavioral
Objectives - How to
recognize, write and use
precisely stated objec
tives in education
Procedure
1. Mager Workshop
All administrators in the
Administrative Development
Program were invited to
attend a workshop on behav
ioral objectives conducted
by Robert Mager. This
workshop was held in Fresno,
December 12, 1968.
2. Popham Materials Workshop
All teachers in the Adminis
trative Development Program
were invited to attend a
workshop conducted by two
qualified district person
nel. At this session
behavioral objectives were
discussed and Popham's film
strips and worksheets were
used to teach the under
standings and skills
involved.
172
TRAINING SESSION #4— Continued
Materials
1. "Whose Fault Was It?" Harvard Business Review reprint (4 pages)
2. Fresno City Unified School District's test on objectives (4 pages)
3. Dr. Popham film strips and worksheets
4. Behavioral Objectives Workbook (28 pages)
5. Preparing Instructional Objectives by Robert Mager (60 pages)
TRAINING SESSION #5 December 18, 1968
Consultant-Instructor
1. A1 Buchner, Assistant
Director (Operation PEP)
Topic
1. Networking Techniques
2. Richard Nortman, Technical 2,
Assistant, University of
Southern California
Interaction Exercises
"Scrambled Squares"
Procedure
1. Lecture presentation
with overlays and parti
cipant exercise sheets
2. An activity providing
opportunity for parti
cipants to interact in
controlled situation and
examine how people
behave in groups when
attempting to achieve
individual and organiza
tional goals
Materials
1. Selected Bibliography on Organizational Changes with Specific References to Educa
tional Organizations (3 pages)
2. Developing the "D" in Educational R & D (an 11-page monograph prepared by
Richard E. Schutz)
3. Individualized Inservice - A Professional Approach (7 pages)
4. Understanding Leadership - Reprint from Harvard Business Review (7 pages)
174
TRAINING SESSION #5— Continued
5. "Networking Techniques" printed duplications of overlays used during presentation
(18 pages)
6. Program Evaluation Review Technique - Application to Education by Desmond Cook
7. A Problem Description - Exercise materials (11 pages)
8. Organizational Feedback: Why and How (2 pages)
9. What Research Says about the Nature of Educational Leadership taken from 1960
Yearbook of the ASCD, NEA (2 pages)
10. PERT study assignment sheet
11. Organizational Development assignment sheet
12. Management science bibliography
175
TRAINING SESSION #6 January 8, 1969
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
1. Dr. Donald H. DeLay 1. Teaching/Learning Proc- 1. Lecture presentation
Managing Associate, Davis, ess— a report of and question and
MacConnell, Ralston, Inc., research answer period
Educational Consultants
2. Don Todd, Principal, Fresno 2. Foundations of Partici- 2. Lecture presentations
City Unified School District pative Management and discussions
and Jerry Phillips, Associate
Director, Regional Planning
and Development Center
Materials
1. Conditions for Manager Motivation - reprint from Harvard Business Review (13 pages)
2. Who Are Your Motivated Workers? - reprint from Harvard Business Review (15 pages)
3. Study assignment sheets (3 pages)
4. A Study of the Motivation of Elementary School Teachers - a research abstract
(3 pages)
176
TRAINING SESSION #7 January 22, 1969
Consultant - Instructor
1. Dr. Les Shuck, Director
of Research and Development
Newport/Mesa School District
2. Richard Nortman, Technical
Assistant, University of
Southern California
3. Don Todd, Principal, Fresno
City Unified School District,
and Jerry Phillips, Associate
Director, Regional Planning
and Evaluation Center
Topic
Problem Definition 1,
Group Decision Making 2.
Self Appraisal
Activity
Materials
1. Systems Technology Planning — Booklet (98 pages)
2. Simulations, Games and Exercises (6 pages)
3. Excerpts from Readings (2 pages)
Procedure
Lecture presentation
Small group interaction
exercises requiring
group cooperation in
decision making (NASA
games)
Small group analysis
and discussion session
on participant
responses to the
Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
and the Likert Scale of
Management Styles
! - ■
- j
TRAINING SESSION # 7— Continued
4. Interaction Exercises (4 pages)
5. Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (6 pages)
6. Likert Scale of Management Styles (2 pages)
7. Toward a More Effective Enterprise - reprinted from Harvard Business Review
(22 pages)
178
TRAINING SESSION #8 February 5, 1969
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
1. Dr. Les Shuck, Director of 1. System Analysis 1. Lecture presentation with
Research & Development, films, overlays and parti-
Newport/Mesa School District cipant exercises
2. Dr. Dan Dawson, Professor of 2. Role Identification 2. Discussion/presentation,
Education, University of in Group Interaction interaction exercise
Southern California, and (square peg) and feedback
Richard Nortman, University discussion
of Southern California
Materials
1. Training manual entitled, "Selected Application of Systems Analysis Concepts as
Related to School District Operations," (prepared by Les Shuck - 16 pages)
2. Films, "Modeling" and "Tough Sledding"
3. Abstract of Role Development and Interpersonal Competence by Likert (3 pages)
4. Abstract of The Human Organization by Rensis Likert (3 pages)
5. Abstract of Utilization of Group Resources in Decision Making (Jay Hall and
Vincent O'Leary) (3 pages)
6. Conflicts in Human Values - reprint from Harvard Business Review (12 pages)
179
TRAINING SESSION #9 February 19, 1969
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
1. Dr. Robert Mager, Consultant 1. Preparing Instructional 1. Lecture/slide pre-
American Institute of Objectives - Affective sentation with
Research (AIR) Domain participant exercises
and discussion
Materials
1. Classification of objectives - taken from Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The
Classification of Educational Goals by Krathwokl, Bloom and Masia (11 pages)•
2. Summary of Human Side of Enterprise by McGregor (20 pages)
3. Ten Guides to Better Group Decision Making taken from Bales (2 pages)
4. Interaction Process Analysis, Categories of Communicative Acts - taken from
Bales (single page)
5. Interaction Process Analysis System of Categories - taken from Bales (single page)
TRAINING SESSION #10 March 5, 1969
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
Bruce Monroe and Larry Harty 1. Levels of Operationally 1. Lecture presentation
Project Directors, Instruc
tional Systems Group
Richard Nortman, Technical
Assistant, University of
Southern California
Stated Objectives
2. Communication styles
and group problem
solving
using chalk board,
overlays and partici
pant exercises
2. An interaction exer
cise (Name) involving
communications and
intergroup cooperation
Materials
1. "A Manager's Guide to Objectives" by Harty and Monroe (12 pages)
2. Check sheet for analysis of objective components (single page)
3. Check sheet for instructional decisions (single page)
4. Check sheet for characteristics of potential objectives (2 pages)
5. Directions for use of "Instructional Objectives" (single page)
6. Instructions and materials required for the interaction exercise - Name (single page)
7. Barriers and Gateways to Communication - reprint from Harvard Business Review
(7 pages)
181
TRAINING SESSION #11 March 19, 1969
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
1. Robert Hansen, Administrative 1. Evaluation of Educa- 1. Lecture presentation
Assistant of Planning and tional Programs
Research, Fresno City Unified
School District; and Gordon
Graves, Program Evaluator,
Fresno City Unified School
District
The presentations were followed with small group sessions at which time participants
worked through the programmed materials, Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives.
Materials
1. Simplified Designs for School Research - by Dr. James Popham (25 pages)
2. Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives edited by Dr. Robert J. Armstrong, et al.
(95 pages)
182
TRAINING SESSION #12 April 9, 1969
Consultant - Instructor Topic Procedure
Dr. Staton Webster, Professor
University of California
at Berkeley
Public School
Integration
Film followed by
speaker-led discussion
of issues related to the
film
2. Dr. Julian Nava, Member
Los Angeles Board of
Education
Racial and ethnic
group concerns
related to public
schools
Film followed by
speaker-led discussion
of issues related to the
film
The films and discussion were followed by a "Conpar" panel session. The panel members
included the consultant-instructors and representatives from the public school system
and the community at large.
Materials
1. Film "Los Angeles Blow-Out"
2. Film "If, Then What?"
00
TRAINING SESSION #13 May 26, 1969
All participants were requested to attend the "Educational Facilities Forum"
being conducted by the Title III Center in Fresno on this date. Fresno City Unified
School District had recently passed a 17.5 million dollar school bond election and was
faced with a large building and school plant rehabilitation program. It was felt that
this forum would serve as an appropriate session for this professional development
program.
The sessions dealt with such areas as "New Facilities to Match New Programs,"
and "Planning for the Future." These presentations were made by noted educators and
architects which included Harold Gores, President of the Educational Facilities Lab,
Inc., sponsored by the Ford Foundation; James D. MacConnell, Director of the School
Planning Lab at Stanford University; Charles Gibson, Chief of the Bureau of School
Planning, State Department of Education; and John Shaver, a practicing architect with
Charles W. Shaver, Architect, Salina, Kansas.
(This training session occurred subsequent to the OCDQ post-test administration.)
APPENDIX B
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION
QUESTIONNAIRE (OCDQ)
185
186
STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATE STUDY
Dear Faculty Member:
You are invited to participate in a study of the
patterns of interaction between teachers and principals.
Our district administration has given us permission to ask
for your help in this research project. Your part will be
to complete this questionnaire which will take fifteen to
thirty minutes of your time. We urge you to complete the
questionnaire independently without consulting others on
the staff, seal it in the envelope provided and return it
to your principal.
The items in this questionnaire (Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire, A. W. Halpin and D. B.
Croft) describe typical behaviors or conditions that occur
within an elementary-school organization. Please indicate
to what extent each of these descriptions characterizes
your school. Please do not evaluate the items in terms of
"good" or "bad" behavior, but read each item carefully and
respond in terms of how well the statement describes your
school.
The descriptive scale on which to rate the items is
printed at the top of each page. Please read the
187
Instructions which describe how you should mark your
answers.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to secure a
measure of the effectiveness of an administrative staff
development program. The questionnaire results provide a
description of the different ways in which teachers behave
and of the various conditions under which they must work.
After you have answered the questionnaire, we will examine
the behaviors or conditions that have been described as
typical by the majority of the teachers, and we will con
struct from this description a portrait of the Organiza
tional Climate of schools. This measurement will occur
twice, once before the staff development program and once
after the completion of the program.
When you have completed the questionnaire, please
seal it in the attached envelope and return it to your
principal who will be responsible for returning all the
unopened envelopes together in one package.
Your cooperation is greatly
appreciated,
Don Todd, Director
OPERATION RENEWAL
(A Staff Development Project)
RESPONSES OF INDIVIDUALS WILL NEVER BE IDENTIFIED IN ANY WAY
NOR WILL THE IDENTITIES OF INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS BE REVEALED.
188
Marking Instructions
Printed below is an example of a typical item found
in the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire;
1. Rarely occurs
2. Sometimes occurs
3. Often occurs
4. Very frequently occurs
Teachers call each other by their first
names. 1 2 © 4
In this example the respondent marked alternative
3 to show that the interpersonal relationship described by
this item "often occurs" at his school. Of course, any of
the other alternatives could be selected, depending upon
how often the behavior described by the item does, indeed,
occur in your school.
Please mark your response clearly, as in the
example. PLEASE BE SURE THAT YOU MARK EVERY ITEM.
189
5-7
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
School:
(Write in the name of your school)
Please place a check mark to the right of the appro
priate category.
Position:
Sex:
Age:
Years of
experience in
education:
Years at
this school:
Principal
Teacher
Other
Man
Woman
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or over
0-9
10-19
20-29
30 or over
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2 .
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
0-4
5-9
10-19
20 or over
1.
2.
3.
4.
190
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
1. Rarely occurs
2. Sometimes occurs
3. Often occurs
4. Very frequently occurs
Teachers' closest friends are other
faculty members at this school. 12 3 4
The mannerisms of teachers at this school
are annoying. 12 3 4
Teachers spend time after school with
students who have individual problems. 12 3 4
Instructions for the operation of teaching
aids are available. 12 3 4
Teachers invite other faculty members to
visit them at home. 12 3 4
There is a minority group of teachers who
always oppose the majority. 12 3 4
Extra books are available for classroom use. 12 3 4
Sufficient time is given to prepare admin
istrative reports. 12 3 4
Teachers know the family background of
other faculty members. 12 3 4
Teachers exert group pressure on non-
conforming faculty members. 12 3 4
In faculty meetings, there is a feeling
of "let's get things done." 12 3 4
Administrative paper work is burdensome at
this school. 12 3 4
Teachers talk about their personal life to
other faculty members. 12 3 4
26. Teachers seek special favors from the
principal. 12 3 4
191
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
1. Rarely occurs
2. Sometimes occurs
3. Often occurs
4. Very frequently occurs
School supplies are readily available for
use in classwork. 12 3 4
Student progress reports require too much
work. 12 3 4
Teachers have fun socializing together
during school time. 12 3 4
Teachers interrupt other faculty members
who are talking in staff meetings. 12 3 4
Most of the teachers here accept the faults
of their colleagues. 12 3 4
Teachers have too many committee require-
ments. 12 3 4
There is considerable laughter when
teachers gather informally. 12 3 4
Teachers ask nonsensical questions in
faculty meetings. 12 3 4
Custodial service is available when needed. 12 3 4
Routine duties interfere with the job of
teaching. 12 3 4
Teachers prepare administrative reports by
themselves. 12 3 4
Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty
meetings. 12 3 4
Teachers at this school show much school
spirit. 12 3 4
The principal goes out of his way to help
teachers. 12 3 4
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
192
1. Rarely occurs
2. Sometimes occurs
3. Often occurs
4. Very frequently occurs
The principal helps teachers solve personal
problems. 12 3 4
Teachers at this school stay by themselves. 12 3 4
The teachers accomplish their work with
great vim, vigor, and pleasure 12 3 4
The principal sets an example by working
hard himself. 12 3 4
The principal does personal favors for
teachers. 12 3 4
The teachers eat lunch by themselves in
their own classrooms. 12 3 4
The morale of the teachers is high. 12 3 4
The principal uses constructive criticism. 12 3 4
The principal stays after school to help
teachers finish their work. 12 3 4
Teachers socialize together in small select
groups. 12 3 4
The principal makes all class-scheduling
decisions. 12 3 4
Teachers are contacted by the principal
each day. 12 3 4
The principal is well prepared when he
speaks at school functions. 12 3 4
The principal helps staff members settle
minor differences. 12 3 4
193
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
1. Rarely occurs
2. Sometimes occurs
3. Often occurs
4. Frequently occurs
The principal schedules the work for the
teachers. 12 3 4
Teachers leave the grounds during the school
day. 12 3 4
The principal criticizes a specific act
rather than a staff member. 12 3 4
Teachers help select which courses will be .
taught. 12 3 4
The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. 12 3 4
The principal talks a great deal. 12 3 4
The principal explains his reasons for
criticism to teachers. 12 3 4
The principal tries to get better salaries
for teachers. 12 3 4
Extra duty for teachers is posted con
spicuously. 12 3 4
The rules set by the principal are never
questioned. 12 3 4
The principal looks out for the personal
welfare of teachers. 12 3 4
School secretarial service is available for
teachers' use. 12 3 4
The principal runs the faculty meeting like
a business conference. 12 3 4
68. The principal is in the building before
teachers arrive. 12 3 4
194
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
1. Rarely occurs
2. Sometimes occurs
3. Often occurs
4. Frequently occurs
Teachers work together preparing adminis
trative reports. 12 3 4
Faculty meetings are organized according to
a tight agenda. 12 3 4
Faculty meetings are mainly principal-
report meetings. 12 3 4
The principal tells teachers of new ideas
he has run across. 12 3 4
Teachers talk about leaving the school
system. 12 3 4
The principal checks the subject-matter
ability of teachers. 12 3 4
The principal is easy to understand. 12 3 4
Teachers are informed of the results of a
supervisor's visit. 12 3 4
Grading practices are standardized at this
school. 12 3 4
The principal insures that teachers work to
their full capacity. 12 3 4
Teachers leave the building as soon as
possible at day's end. 12 3 4
The principal clarifies wrong ideas a
teacher may have. 12 3 4
APPENDIX C
CORRESPONDENCE WITH PRINCIPALS
REGARDING THE OCDQ
195
196
October 14, 1968
TO: All Elementary School Principals, Fresno City Unified
School District
FROM: Don Todd, Director, OPERATION RENEWAL
REGARDING: Evaluation of OPERATION RENEWAL
Dear Colleague:
Your help is needed with the evaluation of the staff
development program, OPERATION RENEWAL. The Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) is being used as
one measure of the effectiveness of the program and, with
your cooperation, will be administered both before and
after the staff development program.
1. Please distribute one of the enclosed questionnaires
to each of your teaching staff members for comple
tion during the period October 14-November 1, 1968.
2. Though it is not essential, it is suggested that
you assemble your faculty at some convenient time
during this period to facilitate the completion of
the questionnaires and gathering of the responses.
3. You are requested to complete one of the question
naires also. Some of the questions may be difficult
for you to answer, but you are requested to do the
best you can with each item.
4. Completion time required is 15-30 minutes.
5. Please seal your questionnaire in the envelope
provided, gather all the teachers' responses in
their sealed individual envelopes and return all of
your schools1 responses to me in the large 9x12
envelope attached.
Thank you for your cooperation
with this request,
Don Todd, Director
OPERATION RENEWAL
Ericson Elementary School
Approved for distribution:
Dr. Jerry Rosander
197
11-7-68
TO: All Elementary Principals who participated in the
administration of the Organizational Climate Descrip
tion Questionnaire.
FROM: Don Todd, Director, Operation RENEWAL
RE: Evaluation of Operation RENEWAL
1. Thank you for your help with the OCDQ!
2. Samples were selected randomly: total of 28 schools.
There are 2 strata— approximately half where principal
has been at the school for 2 years or less (including
this year) and half 3 years or more (including this
year). (28 of the 52 principals who constitute the
total population are in the 2 year or less category).
3. The test instrument was developed in 1962 by A. Halpin
and Donn Croft. The 64 items are the result of inten
sive item analysis for validity and reliability and is
even yet an experimental instrument which like most
standardized types of instruments does not fit all
situations well. Some items are rather irrelevant in
some circumstances. However, the sample size will tend
to compensate for this weakness. The instrument is
limited to examination of social interaction between
principals and teachers and has been used in more than
200 studies, however, the present study presents a
unique application of the concept of climate in the
attempt to effect and measure change of climate.
4. What will be done with the test results?
a. Scores will be computed twice for each of the 4
school groups: (2 years or less/3 years or more;
program participant/non-participant) and will be
analyzed for statistically significant difference
in score shift.
198
b. Scores will be reported by groups, and the anonym
ity of each school, principal and teacher will be
protected.
c. Because the test represents a narrow band of the
milieu which affects climate, (social interaction
between staff) negative results could be used to
substantiate other needs such as additional staff,
improved facilities, increased community support,
etc.
d. This is not a principal-evaluation program.
Individual school results by teacher will not be
available to anyone. Climate profiles for pre and
post tests can be available to individual princi
pals upon request at the conclusion of the study.
These results should be interpreted, however, with
an eye toward the limitations of the test— the
tentativeness of the items, the narrow field of
inquiry and the host of problems which always
accompanies social research.
199
February 26, 1969
TO: SCHOOL:
FROM: Dr. Jerry Rosander, Administrator, Elementary
Education
REGARDING: Disposition of Evaluation Material for OPERATION
RENEWAL
First, I want to thank you for your help with the
evaluation of OPERATION RENEWAL. Your cooperation and that
of your teachers is very much appreciated. I also want to
reassure you that your candid assistance with this task
will in no way reflect upon you personally.
Increasing attention is being given to attitudinal
determinants of group success, yet we know very little about
programmatic ways of improving attitudes or "climate." The
purpose of the use of the Organizational Climate Description
Questionnaire and the Edwards Personal Preference Inventory
is to assess the influence of the in-service program
OPERATION RENEWAL, upon the affective or attitudinal factors
in our schools and to investigate some relationships which
exist between personality characteristics and organizational
climate. This is program evaluation, not principal
evaluation.
Here is what will be done with the information
gathered:
1. All data will be reported objectively and anony
mously in school groups— not individually. This
information will constitute a tentative assessment
of the climate of our elementary schools and one
evaluation of the success of OPERATION RENEWAL.
2. Elaborate effort has been taken to maintain the
anonymity of teachers, principals and schools that
assist in the evaluation.
200
a. Individual teacher responses will not be avail
able to anyone.
b. Individual principals may request and receive
total response scores for their schools follow
ing the post-test. Only the school principals
and the evaluators, Don Todd and Jerry Phillips
will have access to this information, which can
be used by the principal as he desires for
self-appraisal. A general reporting and inter
pretation session will be scheduled for all
evaluation participants in late summer.
201
April 28, 1969
TO: SCHOOL:
FROM: Don Todd, Director, OPERATION RENEWAL
REGARDING: Evaluation of OPERATION RENEWAL
Dear Colleague:
Thank you for helping with the evaluation of the
staff development program, OPERATION RENEWAL. Your assist
ance with the pre-test administration of the Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) was most helpful,
and it is time now for the posttest evaluation.
All individual responses will be held strictly
confidential. Summary evaluations for your school will be
available only to you at your request.
1. Please distribute one of the enclosed questionnaires
to each of your teaching staff members for comple
tion during the period April 28-May 9.
2. Though it is not essential, it is suggested that
you assemble your faculty at some convenient time
during this period to facilitate the completion of
the questionnaires and gathering of the responses.
3. You are requested to complete one of the question
naires also. Some of the questions may be difficult
for you to answer, but you are requested to do the
best you can with each item.
4. Completion time required is 15-30 minutes.
5. Please seal your questionnaire in the envelope
provided, gather all the teachers' responses in
their sealed individual, envelopes and return all of
your school1s responses to me by May 9 in the large
llhxl4h envelope attached.
6. Do you wish a summary evaluation for your school?
YES NO ______ (Please check one.)
Thank you for your cooperation
with this request,
DON TODD, Director
OPERATION RENEWAL
Ericson Elementary School
Approved for distribution:
Dr. Jerry Rosander
APPENDIX D
EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SURVEY (EPPS)
203
PLEASE NOTE:
Pages 204-211, "Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule",^c)1953 by
The Psychological Corporation
not microfilmed at request of
author. Available for consul
tation at University of Southern
California Library.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS.
APPENDIX E
CORRESPONDENCE WITH PRINCIPALS
REGARDING THE EPPS
212
213
October 23, 1968
To: (Subject's Name)
. From: Jerry Phillips, Associate Director
Title III Regional Planning and Evaluation Center
Re: Your Participation as a Subject in an Educational
Study
This letter is a follow-up of our recent phone
conversation at which time we discussed your involvement in
a study presently being conducted in Fresno. You have been
selected as a member of a sample that we will be studying.
We recognize how busy you are, so testing has been kept to
an absolute minimum.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule complete with instructions.
Please respond to this inventory and return it in the self-
addressed envelope provided by November 15, 1968. All data
will remain confidential and reporting will not reveal
individual identities.
We will be happy to interpret the EPPS results for
you and report to you the general findings of this study.
If you would like this information please indicate your
wishes below.
Your assistance is vital to the success of this
study.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Jerry Phillips
214
Please indicate your wishes.
I would like an interpretation of my EPPS.
I would like a summary of the study's findings.
Approved for distribution:
Dr. Jerry Rosander
JP:fk
APPENDIX F
EXPERIMENTAL SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATE PROFILES, PRETEST
AND POSTTEST, TABLE 16
215
TABLE 16
EXPERIMENTAL SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE PROFILES,
PRETEST AND POSTTEST
School
Pretest Posttest
Variables Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 40 53 60 66 43 44 48 42 43 51 60 67 42 49 42 43
2 37 41 56 54 43 44 60 61 39 41 49 56 43 45 60 64
3 44 59 62 46 57 48 33 47 48 56 56 58 54 50 30 43
4 47 51 64 54 57 46 33 44 47 48 60 54 60 53 34 40
5 44 34 61 56 43 46 54 58 45 35 58 59 41 44 55 59
6 37 43 63 53 54 40 59 47 54 44 63 56 47 33 55 45
7 45 31 58 54 50 45 61 51 66 41 50 54 58 42 46 38
8 38 37 49 48 54 46 63 60 32 41 52 54 59 55 57 45
9 36 36 54 58 49 62 49 53 39 52 50 53 53 64 34 52
10 45 52 59 47 57 62 37 38 38 42 60 57 58 56 38 46
11 41 35 56 46 53 59 62 44 36 45 54 51 64 56 52 39
12 54 32 56 56 47 38 54 57 48 33 53 47 48 46 53 67
13 42 35 57 55 38 56 57 55 48 37 58 56 37 48 63 49
14 35 36 52 57 56 47 57 57 40 41 50 66 49 39 57 54
15 41 42 50 58 55 34 57 59 52 40 49 61 52 32 56 54
16 35 41 61 59 48 43 52 57 64 49 42 62 47 44 37 51
OCDQ variables included: 1, Disengagement; 2, Hindrance;
3, Esprit; 4, Intimacy; 5, Aloofness; 6, Production Emphasis; 7, Thrust;
and 8, Consideration.
216
APPENDIX G
CONTROL SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE PROFILES,
PRETEST AND POSTTEST, TABLE 17
217
TABLE 17
CONTROL SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE PROFILES,
PRETEST AND POSTTEST
School
Pretest Posttest
Variables Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17 37 53 53 54 61 34 56 48 45 61 47 58 62 40 42 40
18 52 52 41 57 64 38 39 54 38 43 43 43 64 55 48 60
19 52 51 43 50 69 51 37 43 60 51 43 50 62 55 35 41
20 36 46 60 40 60 47 60 48 30 42 61 53 48 54 53 54
21 41 41 46 52 69 49 54 44 38 35 53 47 59 56 60 47
22 38 34 55 53 53 48 63 52 42 32 54 52 51 52 64 48
23 58 62 44 47 54 32 51 47 56 61 34 45 61 43 50 46
24 54 63 42 56 39 49 37 56 48 47 47 64 39 59 36 55
25 35 55 53 53 47 37 54 63 41 48 54 48 50 35 52 67
OCDQ Variables included: 1, Disengagement; 2, Hindrance;
3, Esprit; 4, Intimacy; 5, Aloofness; 6, Production Emphasis; 7, Thrust;
and 8, Consideration.
218
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Parts of Books
Ackerson, L. Children1s Behavior Problems: Relative
Importance and Inter-correlation Among Traits.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938.
Borg, Walter R. Educational Research An Introduction.
New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1965.
Durkheim, Emile. Le Suicide. Paris: Librarie Felix
Alcan, 1930.
Getzels, J. W. "Administration as a Social Process,"
in Administrative Theory in Administration.
Edited by Andrew W. Halpin. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center, 1959.
Gibb, Cecil A. "Leadership," Handbook of Social
Psychology, Vol. II. Special Fields and Applica
tions . Cambridge: Addison Wesley, 1954.
Guba, Egon G., and Bidwell, Charles E. Administrative
Relationships. Chicago: Midwest Administration
Center, University of Chicago, 1959.
Hemphill, John K., and Coons, Alvin E. "Development
of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,"
in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measure
ment. Edited by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E.
Coons. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957.
221
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Hemphill, John K.; Griffiths, Daniel; and Fredriksen,
Norman. Administrative Performance and Personality.
New York: Teachers College, Bureau of Publica
tions, Columbia University, 1962.
Jennings, Helen H. Leadership and Isolation: A Study
of Personality in Interpersonal Relations. New
York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1943.
Lewin, Kurt. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1935.
Lippitt, Ronald, and White, Ralph K. "An Experimental
Study of Leadership and Group Life," in Readings
in Social Psychology. Edited by Maccoby, Newcomb,
and Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1958.
McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New
York: The McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960.
Moment, David, and Zaleznik, Abraham. Role Development
and Interpersonal Competence. Boston: Harvard
University, Division of Research, Graduate School
of Business Administration, 1963.
Pierce, Truman M., and Merrill, E. C., Jr. "The
Individual and Administrator's Behavior," in
Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by
Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg. New York:
Harper and Bros., 1957.
Pigors, Paul, and Myers, Charles A. Personnel Admin
istration: A Point of View and a Method. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1965.
Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1961.
Scott, Ellis L. Leadership and Perceptions of Organ
ization, Bureau of Business Research, College of
Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio.
19. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-HillBook
Co., Inc., 1956.
222
Reports— Published
20. Edwards, Allen L. Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule Manual. New York: The Psychological
Corporation, 1959.
21. Hemphill, John K. Group Dimensions: A Manual for
Their Measurement. Monograph No. 87. Columbus:
The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business
Research, 1956.
22. . Situational Factors in Leadership. Mono
graph No. 32. Columbus: Ohio State University
Bureau of Business Research, 1949.
23. Johnson, Homer M., and Marcum, LaVerne. "Organiza
tional Climate and the Adoption of Educational
Innovations." Reported in Education U.S.A.,
Washington, D.C. Published in cooperation with
American Association of School Administrators, The
Department of Elementary School Principals and The
National Association of Secondary School Princi
pals, February 17, 1969.
24. Stogdill, Ralph M., et_al. A Predictive Study of
Administrative Work Patterns. Research Monograph
No. 85. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau
of Business Research, 1956.
Yearbooks
25. Buros, Oscar K., ed. The Sixth Mental Measurements
Yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon
Press, 1965.
26. Getzels, Jacob W., and Thelen, Herbert A. "The Class
room as a Unique Social System," in The Dynamics
of the Instructional Groups, Fifty-Ninth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education,
1960.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
223
Gibb, Jack R. "Socio-psychological Processes of
Group Instruction," The Dynamics of Instructional
Groups, Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, 1960.
Lipham, James M. "Leadership and Administration,"
Behavioral Science and Educational Administration.
Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths. Sixty-Third Year
book of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1964.
Lonsdale, Richard C. "Maintaining the Organization in
Dynamic Equilibrium," in Behavioral Science and
Educational Administration. Edited by Daniel E.
Griffith. Sixty-Third Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Articles in Journals
Argyris, Chris. "Some Problems in Conceptualizing
Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank."
Administrative Science Quarterly, II, 1958.
Bernardin, Alfred C., and Jessor, Richard. "A Con
struct Validation of the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule with Respect to Dependency."
Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXI, 1957.
Brown, Alan F., and House, John H. "The Organizational
Component in Education." Review of Educational
Research, XXXVII, 1967.
Caputo, D. V., and Others. "Test-retest Reliability
of the EPPS." Education and Psychology, 1966.
Cattel, Raymond B. "New Concepts for Measuring
Leadership in Terms of Group Syntality." Human
Relations, IV, 1951.
224
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Cornell, Francis G. "Socially Perceptive Administra
tion." Phi Delta Kappan, March 1955.
Cronbach, Lee J., and Gleser, Goldine C. "Assessing
Similarity between Profiles." Psychological
Bulletin, November 1953.
Halpin, Andrew. "The Leader Behavior and Leadership
Ideology of Educational Administrators and Air
craft Commanders." Harvard Educational Review,
XXV, Winter 1955.
Harris, Edwin F., and Fleishman, Edwin A. "Human
Relations Training and the Stability of Leadership
Patterns." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955.
Krug, R. E. "Over and Under Achievement and the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule." Journal of
Applied Psychology, XLIII, 1959.
Mathews, B. Phelps. "Inconsistency: A Complex Prob
lem in Administration." Hospital Administration,
VII, Fall 1962.
Michael, William B. "Development of Statistical
Methods Especially Useful in Test Construction
and Evaluation." Review of Educational Research,
February 1956.
Mongar, E. E. "Competition, Achievement, and Person
ality." Journal of Counseling Psychology, IX,
1952.
Nunnery, Michael. "How Useful Are Standardized
Psychological Tests in the Selection of School
Administrators?" Educational Administrators and
Superintendents, XL, November 1959.
Seeman, Melvin. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in
Leadership." American Journal of Sociology, 1953.
Silverman, R. E. "The Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule and Social Desirability." Journal of
Consulting Psychology, XXI, 1957.
225
46. Stogdill, Ralph M. "Personal Factors Associated with
Leadership." The Journal of Psychology, XXV, 1948.
47. Worell, L. "The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
in Achievement and Verbal Paired-Associates
Learning." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, LX, 1960.
Unpublished Materials
48. Anderson, Paul Donald. "Relationships between Organi
zational Climate of the Elementary School and
Personal Variables of the Principal." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1964.
49. Brown, Maurice B. "Multiple Discriminant Analysis of
the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the
Study of Values Scores of Achieving and Non-
Achieving Low Ability College Freshmen."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University, 1965.
50. Hall, Clarence Luther. "The Relationship of Origin and
Tenure of Superintendents to the Organizational
Climate and Adaptability of Schools." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1965.
51. Halpin, Alexander W., and Croft, Don B. "The Organi
zational Climate of Schools." Cooperative Research
Contract Number SAE 543, July 1962.
52. Hogan, E. E. "A Study of Differences in the Perception
of Elementary Teacher Personality Structure."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963.
53. Holmen, M. G. "Interaction Exercises." A dittoed
paper prepared for use in the University of
Southern California Graduate School of Business
Administration, October 1968.
226
54. Koch, D. F., Jr. "A Comparative Study of Leadership
Behavior of Elementary School Principals." Unpub
lished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois, 1967.
55. Lipham, James. "Personal Variables Related to Admin
istrative Effectiveness." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Education, University
of Chicago, 1960.
56. McFadden, Edward Clayton. "The Non-Participant
Observer and Organizational Climate." Unpublished.
Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1966.
57. Mott, Carol C. "A Study of Personality Variables
among Counselor Education Majors, Counselors, and
Graduate Students in Administration, Curriculum
and Supervision." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Florida State University, 1962.
58. Palmer, Timothy A. "The Relationship of Teacher Per
ception of Organizational Climate to Local-
Cosmopolitan Latent Role Orientation." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, State University of New
York, Buffalo, 1967.
59. Petrie, Thomas Alan. "Change in Organizational Climate
after Leader Succession." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1966.
60. Pritchard, James Leon. "Validation of the Organiza
tional Climate Description Questionnaire against
Perceptions of Non-Faculty School Personnel."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University, 1966.
61. Silverbrand, Edmund. Invitational letter from Presi
dent Silverbrand to members of the California
Elementary Schools Administrators' Association,
convening the 1969 Administrative Conference,
January 2, 1969.
227
62. Smith, Amos Charles. "A Comparison of Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule Patterns of Doctoral
Graduates in Guidance and Counseling with Other
Doctoral Graduates in Education." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1962,
63. Smith, David Coles. "Relationships between External
Variables and the Organizational Climate Descrip
tion Questionnaire." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1966.
64. Tanner, Hugh Gordon. "A Study of the Relationship
between the Organizational Climate of Schools and
the Social Behavior of Selected School Administra
tors." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1966.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets