211 NB/J

THE PERCEPTIONS OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS,

THEIR SPOUSES, AND THEIR BUILDING COUNSELORS

REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL SOURCES OF

STRESS FOR THE PRINCIPALS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by

Douglas Shouse, B.A., M.Ed,

Denton, Texas

December, 1984

0>

Shouse, Douglas W., The Perceptions of Junior High

School Principals, Their Spouses, and Their Building Coun-

selors Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the

Principals. Doctor of Education (Administrative Leadership),

December, 1984, 136 pp., 24 tables, bibliography, 43 titles.

The purpose of this study was to identify the percep-

tions held by junior high school principals, their spouses,

and school counselors regarding occupational stressors of

the junior high school principals in the State of Texas.

The occupational stressors center around five areas of

concern: (1) administrative constraints, (2) administrative

responsibilities, (3) interpersonal relations, (4) intra-

personal conflicts, and (5) role expectations.

A randomly selected sample of 300 junior high school

principals were sent questionnaires for themselves, their

spouses, and their school counselors. Descriptive statisti-

cal methods were employed to calculate means and standard

deviations of the principals', spouses', and counselors'

perceptions of the occupational stressors of the principals.

T-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to

analyze the data.

Among the selected findings from this study were the

following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Hypotheses Background and Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Additional Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study

II. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE 1 4

Stress: Identification and Definition Stressors of the School Administrator Stress: Coping and Managing Summary

III. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 48

Population and Selection of Sample Instrumentation Data Collection Data Analysis

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 6 2

Summary

V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 108

Findings Conclusions Recommendations Recommendations for Further Research

APPENDICES 120

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 3 3

XXI

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Comparative Perceptions of the Junior High School Principals and Spouses Regarding Occupational Stressors of the Principals . . . 64

II. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference Between Principals and Spouses Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the Principal 66

III. Comparative Perceptions of the Junior High School Principals and Counselors Regarding Occupational Stressors of the Principals . 68

IV. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference Between Junior High Principals and Counselors Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the Principals 70

V. Comparative Perceptions of the Junior High School Principals' Spouses and Counselors Regarding Occupational Stressors of the Principals ^2

VI. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference Between Junior High School Principals' Spouses and Counselors Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the Principals 74

VII. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for Both Principals-Spouses and Principals-Counselors . . . 76

VIII. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for Both Spouses-Principals and Spouses-Counselors . . . . . . 78

IX. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for Both Counselors-Principals and Counselors-Spouses 79

iv

Table Page

X. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for All Groups, Principals-Spouses-Counselors

XI. Rank, Mean, and Standard Deviation for the Five Stressor Areas as Perceived by the

Q O Principals •

XII. Analysis of Variance on the Administrative Constraints Factor with the Other Four

8 4 Factors

XIII. Analysis of Variance on the Interpersonal Relations Factor with the Remaining Factors 84

XIV. Analysis of Variance on the Intrapersonal Conflicts Factor with the Remaining Factors

XV. Analysis of Variance on the Role Expectations Factor with the Remaining Factor . . . . . . . 85

XVI. Analysis of Variance on the Five Stressor Areas as Reported by the Principals

XVII. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by Age 88

XVIII. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by Size of School 90

XIX. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by School District Size . . . . . . .

XX. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by Years of Experience

XXI. Mean Score and Rank Order of Stressors as Reported by the Principals, Spouses, and Counselors . . . . . 95

v

Table Page

XXII. Health Status of the Principals 102

XXIII. Number of Hours Exercised per Week by the Principals 103

XXIV. Methods Principals Reported Useful in Coping with the Tensions and Pressures of Their Job 104

VI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Stress is a scientific concept which has suffered from

being too well known and too little understood (12) . Almost

everyone has an idea of what stress is; however, there is no

commonly accepted definition of the concept of stress (7).

"The century of fear" and "the age of anxiety" were both

labels that had been given to the Twentieth Century by as

early as 1947 (8). Each individual not only is beset by the

pressures of his or her own daily life but is privy to every

disaster in the country and the world through modern news

media and communication methods (8).

We cannot avoid stress. It is more than any single

entity. During every moment of our lives, there is some

demand for life-maintaining energy. Even while we sleep,

the heart, the respiratory apparatus, and many other organs

continue to function (13). Because of this, aging may be

attributed to the sum of all the stresses that the body has

endured during a lifetime (7). A newborn baby, while crying

and struggling, is under considerable stress but shows no

trace of aging, whereas a man of ninety sleeping quietly in

bed is unmistakably old (7). Complete freedom from stress

is death (13).

Selye (13) describes the secret of happiness as the

successful adjustment to the changing conditions of life,

and failure to adapt usually results in disease and unhappi-

ness. Stress has been defined as the sum of all the wear

and tear caused by any kind of vital reaction throughout the

body at any time (13). Mental tensions, frustration, the

sense of insecurity, and aimlessness are among the most

important stressors (13).

There seems to be very little knowledge concerning stress

in the lives of the public school administrator: more specif-

ically, the junior high school principal which is an area of

stressful situations that is virtually unstudied.

Literature and studies that are available concerning

administrator stress primarily center around self-perception

of stress related situations (8, 9, 15). No studies have

been done to reinforce the credibility of these perceptions.

In the case of a junior high school principal, the spouse and

the building counselor might reveal a valuable insight into

the stresses of the administrator. This leads to the

interesting concept of how the views of someone close to the

school administrator would compare to the self-evaluation of

the administrator. Does the school principal, his or her

spouse, and the building counselor, perceive the stressors

in the daily work environment to be the same?

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to ascertain the perceptions

of junior high school principals, their spouses, and the

building counselors regarding stress producing situations in

the work of the principals.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to ascertain through the

perceptions of the junior high school principals, their

spouses, and the building counselors the stressful situations

that affect the principals' daily lives. This information

can now be passed on to professional organizations, the Texas

Education Agency, local districts, and any other group or

organization that is interested in the control of stress.

The long range purpose is for these interested groups

to utilize the information to provide inservice programs,

seminars, workshops, and whatever other activities that might

provide valuable coping strategies for the junior high school

principal. The purpose would be to help these administrators

better deal with the situations they perceive to be most

stressful.

Hypotheses

1. There will be no significant differences between the

perceptions of the junior high school principals and their

spouses regarding job related stress situations.

2. There will be no significant differences between

the perceptions of the junior high school principals and their

counselors regarding job related stress situations.

3. There will be no significant differences between the

perceptions of the principals' spouses and the building

counselors regarding job related stress situations in the

work of the principal.

4. There will be no significant differences in the

perceptions of junior high school principals between the five

subsets of the questionnaire; (a) administrative constraints,

(b) administrative responsibilities, (c) interpersonal rela-

tions, (d) intrapersonal conflict, and (e) role expectations.

5. There will be no significant differences between the

perceptions of junior high school principals in terms of

(a) age, (b) size of school, (c) size of school district, and

(d) total years of experience as a principal.

Background and Significance of the Study

Recent literature depicts a growing concern in regard

to stress and the public school administrator. Several

studies have been done in the area of self-perceived stress

factors in the daily work environment of principals (1, 3,

9, 11, 15)r however, the literature contains nothing in

the area of stress identification outside the realm of self

perception. Each of the referenced studies dealt with ques-

tionnaires designed for self examination.

Principals today are faced with more pressure, more

aggression, more change, and more conflict than ever before

(6). Stress is a normal condition of living in today's

complex society. According to a growing body of organiza-

tional literature, job related stress and its negative side

effects have become a major concern for today's urban school

principal (9). Principals, like their industrial counter-

parts, are concerning themselves more and more with finding

ways of managing the stress that is ever-present in their

work environment.

As stated by Kahn and French (17), individuals who

assume supervisory responsibility are more likely to

experience substantial role conflict and tension than either

of those above or below them in the organizational hierarchy.

A turbulent society, rapidly changing modes of living, rising

expectation, and the climate in many schools and school

districts have created this situation (14).

Washington (17) concluded from his study on "Stress and

the Urban School Principal" that it was advantageous to take

a psychological break, temporarily setting the problem aside

and getting involved in another activity. He offered this

as an effective stress control technique. The results of

Washington's study suggested a strong need for programs

to assist principals in developing skills for dealing with

job related stress.

6

The secret of 3n.ea.lth and happiness lies in successful

adjustment to the ever-changing conditions of life, and the

penalties for failure to adapt are disease and unhappiness

(13). Selye (13) identifies stress as the sum of all the

wear and tear caused by any kind of vital reaction through-

out the body at any one time. Mental tensions, frustrations,

the sense of insecurity, and aimlessness are among the most

important stressors (13). As psychosomatic studies have

shown, stressors are also very common causes of physical

disease such as tension, heart disease, bleeding ulcers,

atrophy, and enlargement of the adrenal glands (13). One

researcher reports that over half of all illness can be

traced to stress (10). Heart disease, high blood pressure,

colitis, asthma, sleep disorders, kidney disease, peptic

ulcers, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, anxiety, depression

and even cancer are some of the more common stress-linked

illnesses (10).

Fallon (5) proposes a "prime of life" approach to

living that maximizes self-fulfillment and minimizes stress

and burnout. He states that hypertension and heart problems

among principals is one of the highest of any of the profes-

sions. Confrontation, conflict, and compromise are constants

which principals face on a daily basis. Fallon (5) sug-

gests in his "prime of life" approach that principals should

develop multiple interest outside their work. They should

not make their work their lives. He suggests such things as

arts and crafts, collecting things, growing things, outdoor

activities, social service, travel, or any combination that

an individual has an interest to pursue (5).

Brown (2) refers to the principal's job as a potentially

stressful situation all the time. He identified sources of

distress for principals as interpersonal clashes, heavy

administrative responsibilities, time constraints, and con-

flicting role expectations.

A 1977 study of 1,200 Oregon administrators by Swent

(15) investigated the sources of stress for superintendents

and principals. This study indicated the number one stressor

to be the effort to comply with federal, state, and local

regulations and policies. Some of the other high stress

factors were related to excessive numbers of meetings,

paperwork requirements, gaining public approval and financial

support, dealing with parent-school conflicts, and teacher

evaluation. Swent noted that administrators must learn to

accept the fact that administration has its limitations.

Changes cannot be made overnight and some changes can never

be made. Knowing what can be done within a given amount of

time reduces the uncertainty of tasks and stressfulness of

the j ob.

As Washington (17) pointed out, administrators will

have to learn how to cope with the stressors in their lives.

The position of the principal was found to be a high risk

8

position in regard to heart disease (4). Education is no

longer a safe place to serve society. It is now a position

that is filled with stress.

Definition of Terms

In the study, a number of terms were of special

importance. They are defined below.

Counselor.—The person on the school campus that is

certified by the state to give guidance to students in the

areas of subjects they should take, career choices available,

and personal problems.

Junior high school.—Any public school identified in

t h e Texas Education Agency Directory as a junior high school.

Principal.—The top administrator of a public junior

high school.

Spouse.—A married person. The husband or wife of each

of the principals in this study.

Stress.~A problem or situation causing mental or

emotional tension or pressure. This definition was taken

from Swent in his study on stress (15).

Stress factors.—Those factors characteristic of each

situation that has potential for creating stress for the

principal of a public junior high school. These consisted

of the items listed in the questionnaire adopted for this

study (15).

Additional Definition of Terms

Form A.—The instrument used to gather data from the

principal in regard to specific stress situations in their

lives. It was designed by Boyd Swent of the University of

Oregon in a five-point Likert-type scale to identify job-

related stressful situations (Appendix A).

Form B.—The Swent questionnaire was adapted in termi-

nology only so as to make the wording appropriate for the

principal's spouse and building counselor to answer (Appendix

B) .

Administrative constraints.—One subset of the question-

naire used for this study was the administrative constraints.

The administrators' job in education does not generally allow

close control over their time. Having little control over

their time, administrators feel compelled to perform great

amounts of work at an unrelenting pace. Personal contacts

are continuous. Further constraints result from time demands

created by outside agencies. The questions pertaining to

administrative constraints are 1, 9, 12, 26, 27, 31, and 32

of Form A and Form B.

Administrative responsibilities.—The second subset of

the questionnaire used for this study was the administrators

responsibilities. There are certain tasks that the public

school administrator must perform. These tasks are basically

those management functions identified as planning, organizing,

staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.

10

The questions pertaining to administrative responsibilities

are 2, 14, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 35 of Form A and Form B.

Interpersonal relations.—A third subset df the ques-

tionnaire used for this study was the interpersonal relations.

These are relations resulting from contact with people both

inside and outside the school. For school administrators,

these people include parents, staff, student, community

members, and superiors. Many of these interpersonal rela-

tions result from the principal's actions as a disturbance

handler. This leads to an emotional situation as most parent-

student-administrator consultations are created out of nega-

tive situations. The questions pertaining to interpersonal

relations are 3, 7, 13, 20, 23, 33, and 34 of Form A and

Form B.

Intrapersonal conflict.—A fourth subset of the ques-

tionnaire used.for this study was intrapersonal conflicts.

Intrapersonal conflicts represent sources of stress result-

ing from the conflicting demands between job tasks and

individual beliefs or goals. The degree of discrepancy

between the event and the individual's interpretation deter-

mines the amount of stress created. The questions pertaining

to intrapersonal conflict are 4, 5, 10, 15, 17, 22, and 28

of Form A and Form B.

Role expectations.—The fifth subset of the question-

naire used for this study was role expectations. This may

include preferences about personal characteristics, what the

11

principal should do, what kind of person they should be,

what they should think or believe, and how they should relate

to others. Role expectations enable the principal to develop

more adequate coping skills. The questions pertaining to

role expectations are 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19, and 30 of Form A

and Form B.

Limitations of the Study

The study was limited to junior high school principals

in the State of Texas, their spouses, and their building

counselors. The study involved all the limitations recog-

nized in collecting data by mailed questionnaire. The study

was done during the late spring, near the end of school,

and this may impact the results of the questionnaire. The

number of stress factors was fairly comprehensive, but is

in no way to be considered a complete list of all stress

factors that confront a junior high school principal. All

returns from female principals were considered as additional

information and not included in the statistical analysis of

the data. After examining the sample of junior high princi-

pals used, it was determined that there was not a sufficient

number of females in the sample that, even with 100 percent

return, would render data sufficient to enable generalizable

conclusions to be drawn.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Baugh, Douglas Samuel, "Perceived Stress Among School Administrative Personnel," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1976.

2. Brown, G. Ronald and Patrick W. Carlton, "How to Conquer Stress When You Can and Cope with It When You Can't," National Elementary Principal, 59 (March, 1980), 37-39.

3. Cook, Gerald L., "Administrative Stress and Coping Behavior of Wyoming Public School Administrators," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1980.

4. Dale, Rosemary Louise, "Administrators, Stress, and Coronary Heart Disease," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1978.

5. Fallon, Berlie J., "The Third-World Escape from Stress and Burnout," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 28-30.

6. Gmelch, Walter H., "The Principal's Next Challenge:_ The Twentieth Century Art of Managing Stress," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 62 (February, 1978), 5-12.

7. Kutash, Irvin L. and others, Handbook on Stress and Anxiety, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.

8. Kutash, I. L. and L. B. Schlesinger, "Successful Psycho-logical Defense: Probing the Defendant's Mind," Journal of the New Jersey Bar Association, 79 (1977), 14-18.

9. Marshall, Gerald Lynn, "A Survey Study of the Percep-tions of Kansas School Administrators on Occupa-tional Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1980.

12

13

10. Salmon, Daniel A., "Paranoia: Perceptions of Public School Principals," Clearing House, 54 (December, 1980), 149-154.

11. Schuetz, Kenneth Edward, "Sources of Perceived Stress Experienced by Illinois Principals," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1980.

12. Selye, Hans, Stress in Health and Disease, Boston, Butterworths, 1976.

13. , The Stress of Life, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw Hill, 1976.

14. Shank, John K., "The Job at the Top; Beloved, Beleaguered, and Too Often Beheaded," Independent School, 1718, (October, 1979), 13-14.

15. Swent, Boyd James, "An Exploratory Study of the Percep-tions of Oregon School Administrators on Occupa-tional Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1978.

16. Texas Education Agency, Texas School Directory, Austin, Texas, 1982-83.

17. Washington, Kenneth R., "Stress: Is It a Major Problem for Urban School Principals?" Clearing House, 55 (May, 1982), 189-191.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

While the studies of the principalship in the United

States are numerous, a limited number of studies of junior

high school principals have been done. None of these relate

to the perceptions of the principals, their spouses, and

their building counselors. More specifically, none directly

focus on the occupational stressors of the junior high school

principal in the State of Texas. Consequently, this chapter

focuses on selected literature and is divided into three

parts: Stress Identification and Definition, Stressors of

the School Administrator, and Stress-Coping and Managing.

Stress: Identification and Definition

The Intermediate Dictionary defines stress as "an over-

load on emotions, nerves, and self-control." A very general

definition at most and only one of many that can be found in

the literature. The Random House Dictionary defines stress

as "any stimulus, such as fear or pain, that disturbs or

interferes with the normal physiological mechanisms of the

organism." Engle (6, p. 74) defines stress both internally

and externally to be all processes, whether originating in

the external environment or within the person, which impose

14

15

a demand or requirement upon the organism. The definition

that seems most appropriate for this study is the definition

given by Boyd Swent which defines stress as a problem or

situation causing mental or emotional tension or pressure

(28).

A relationship between stressful life events and aging

was proposed by Selye who believes that the adaptational

demands made on an individual by stressful life events are a

causal factor in the aging process. Stressful life events

are occurrences that disrupt an individual's usual activi-

ties. They may be perceived as positive or negative and

they may require minor or extensive physical, psychological,

or emotional adaptation. They may be anticipated or

unanticipated and may or may not be under the individual's

control (4).

Cannon's (2) observations of the relationship between

the bodily changes of pain, hunger and the major emotions

provided a necessary link in the argument that stressful

life events can be harmful. He showed the association

between the emotional arousal and changes in basic physiologi-

cal processes but was not able to specify the circumstances

under which these physiological changes become pathological

conditions.

Selye (23, p. 36) made a useful distinction between a

stressor, which is defined as a stimulus, or life event,

16

that impinges on the individual and requires adaptation,

and stress, which is the generalized response caused by the

stressor. He defines stressors as physiological stimuli or

lack thereof and established the first experimental evidence

for the link between stress and disease. In working with

animals, he discovered that many substances and situations

produced similar physiological changes which eventually led

to death. Selye termed this process the biological stress

response and its effects were usually seen as enlargement of

the adrenal cortex, gastrointestinal ulcers, and involution

of the lymph nodes and thymus gland.

In further investigation of the stress response, Selye

hypothesized three distinct stages which he identified as

the General Adaptation Syndrome (25, p. 25). The initial

stage is alarm wherein the organism becomes aware of the

stressor and reacts in the fight or flight paradigm. In the

second stage, adaptation or resistance, the organism does

some adjusting to the stressor and continues to function as

normally as possible given the additional demands. If the

stress continues, the organism enters the third stage,

exhaustion, where it becomes unable to maintain vital

functions and eventually dies (25, p. 32).

Selye (25, p. 66) conceived of adaptation energy as a

fixed resource with each organism having a given amount at

birth to be used over its lifespan. Stress is seen as a

component of life to which the organism is constantly exposed.

17

Complete freedom from stress is death (23, p. 32). Selye

defines stressors as any stimuli that cause an adjustment

of the homeostatic system, regardless of whether they are

perceived as positive or negative. Distress is the term

used to describe the unpleasant connotations that an

individual may ascribe to the feelings that he or she

experiences while under stress (23). Activity associated

with stress may be pleasant or unpleasant? distress is

always disagreeable (23, p. 31).

Lazarus (16, p. 4) maintains that the term stress has

at least four different meanings in psychological research:

(a) the dangerous stimulus stressors that produce emotional

reactions; (b) the cognitive, behavioral, and physiological

changes that are produced by stressful stimuli; (2) an

intervening variable that mediates between stressful stimuli

and emotional responses; and (d) a collective term that

describes a broad area of study. Out of all this, Lazarus

noted that stress occurs where there are demands on the

person which tax or exceed his adjustive resources (16, p. 4),

Spielberger (27, p. 39) points out that the terms stress

and anxiety have been used interchangeably in much of the

literature. He concluded that stress can be defined by

transactions between the person and the environment in which

stressors are linked to anxiety reactions by the perception

of threat (27). May (19, p. 113) defined the relationship

18

between stress and anxiety as: Anxiety is how the individual

relates to stress, accepts it, and interprets it. Stress is

a halfway station on the way to anxiety. Anxiety is how we

handle stress. Anxiety, like stress, has been defined as a

stimulus, a response, and an intervening state of the

individual (10, p. 39). Spielberger (27, p. 29) proposed

that the term stress indicates the objective stimulus

properties of a situation and that the term threat refers to

the person's perception of a situation as being potentially

dangerous.

Most stressors in everyday life are mild and require

little in the way of physical or mental adaptation. These

are referred to as micro-stressors (22, p. 30). You usually

are barely aware of their existence; however, they do put

some demands on you. Repeated exposure to micro-stressors

can do considerable damage to your health (22). Some

examples of micro-stressors might be a constant noise inter-

ruption from a nearby airport, static on a radio station, a

meaningless repetitious job, and a dripping faucet. At the

other extreme are severe stressors, or macro-stressors (22,

p. 31). This might be intense pressure such as a death in

the family, a burning house, a move to a new town or a

narrow escape from an automobile accident. Macro-stressors

can cause wear and tear on your mind and body and may result

in antisocial behavior, especially if many such stressors are

clustered together in a short period of time (22).

19

Researchers are producing increasing amounts of evidence

that stress effects cause illnesses. However, they refer to

stress as what Selye actually called distress, that is when

the demands made upon the individual are too intense, too

uncertain, and too prolonged (23, p. 26). Selye maintains

that many psychosomatic derangements are due to stress (25).

The most common stress induced minor nervous derangements

are headaches, chronic fatigue, and bruxism. These neurotic

behaviors are often viewed as manifestations of maladjust-

ments to the stress of life (25, p. 173).

Vanderpol (29, p. 40) defined the primary symptoms of

stress as feelings of tension, anxiety, frustration, and

isolation; feelings of depression that may take the form of

restlessness, boredom, or burnout; and doubts about one's

adequacy and ability to perform. Other symptoms are noticably

shorter temper when dealing with difficult problems; over-

eating and overweight; and insomnia.

Physical symptoms may also occur. Sometimes these

symptoms are psychosomatic, but other times they require

extensive medical care, as in back problems, coronary artery

disease, and heart attacks, which often begin in times of

severe and protracted stress (29, p. 41). When the signs of

stress are experienced over a long period of time they must

be taken seriously. The individual may attempt to divert

the stress through alcoholism or drug abuse; workaholism;

marital discord resulting in extramarital affairs;

20

excessive blaming of others; hiding all feelings, and taking

on increasingly larger battles or burdens that may precipi-

tate a crisis (29, p. 41).

Spanoil and Caputo (3, p. 37) equate stress with burn-

out and with being worn out when they have given all they

have to give and lack the energy to put into their work.

Burnout is then defined as the inability to cope adequately

with the stress of one's work and personal life (3). Maslock

(3) described burnout as the physical, emotional, and

attitudinal exhaustion which results in a reduction in the

quality of work. Dunham (5, p. 40) has found two main types

of common symptoms of stress and burnout. The first is

frustration and is associated with headaches, stomach upsets,

sleep disturbances, hypertension, fatigue, and in prolonged

cases depressive illness. The second is anxiety and is

associated with feelings of inadequacy, loss of confidence,

confusion of thinking, and occasionally, panic. Dunham

maintains that absenteeism, changing jobs, and early retire-

ment are forms of withdrawal associated with situations

which become too stressful to tolerate.

Stress is seen as an event that depletes adaptive

resources; however, it is also known under certain circum-

stances to attenuate the negative effects of future stresses.

This process is known as the inoculation effect (24). In

rats, pre-treatment with stress under controlled conditions

produces better adaptation in future encounters with the same

21

stresses and in some cases, with other stressors as well.

Heart attacks in animals are more frequently triggered by

unaccustomed stress (24). Research on human populations

also provides some support for a stress inoculation theory.

Individuals with historically low levels of stress are more

likely to experience physiological symptoms following a

stressful life event than individuals who are accustomed to

moderate levels of stress (13).

While an inoculation effect may enhance an organism's

resistance to a stressor, there is a level of stress beyond

which an organism cannot fully adapt (2). Most research on

life events and outcomes indicates that as the number of

life events increases, the number of physiological and

emotional symptoms increase, and the level of functioning

declines (4). Holmes (12) has been associated with several

studies that have related life stress, emotional stress, and

object loss to illness.

Holmes and Rahe (12) conducted a study to rate the

magnitude of forty-three life events according to the

intensity and length of time necessary to adapt to each

event. The events were designed to be a representative

sample of events from key areas of life. They found that

positive life events required nearly equal amounts of life

adjustment as unpleasant events. They undertook a retro-

spective study in which they asked 200 physicians to list

22

all major health changes that they could recall for the

previous ten years. They received a total of eighty-eight

responses. Prior research had shown that two years was the

maximum period necessary for the consequences of life events

to become evident. A two-year limit was designated as the

criterion for temporal association between life events and

illnesses or health changes. This period was considered the

time during which a person was at risk following a cluster

of life events. Their research showed direct relationships

between the magnitude of life crises and the risk of health

changes. Mild crises had a 37 percent chance of being

associated with a health change, moderate crises a 51 percent

chance, and major crises a 70 percent chance (12) . Using

this information as background, Holmes and Rahe conducted

several prospective studies which resulted in very similar

percentages (13).

Rahe utilized 2,500 officers and enlisted Naval personnel

in a study using six-month periods as a base for predicting

health change. The 30 percent of the sample showing the

highest level of life events had nearly 90 percent more first

time illnesses than the lowest 30 percent. It was also

demonstrated that the magnitude of the life events was

positively related to the severity of the illness (13). Rahe

(13) concludes that the greater the magnitudes of life change

the higher the probability of illness. Also, there is a

23

strong positive correlation between magnitude of life change

and seriousness of the illness experienced.

Stress has no single cause and can be produced by any-

thing to which our organisms respond excessively or inappro-

priately. The interference of the fulfillment of our natural

drives leads to as much distress as the forced prolongation

of any activity. Intense levels of distress typically lead

to frustration, fatigue, and exhaustion which can progress

in more severe cases to mental or physical breakdown (23,

p. 29) .

Stressors of the School Administrator

School administrators, like their peers in the corporate

world, are susceptible to the hazards of executive stress and

burnout. According to Gmelch and Swent (9), the problems of

school administrators are quite similar to those faced by

managers in business and industry. The problem with being

a manager in any organization is that too many responsibili-

ties are accepted and evolve into overdemanding roles. For

public school principals these roles manifest themselves as

controller, motivator, persuader, disciplinarian, preserver

of the culture, specialist, firefighter, and parent surrogate.

When all of the cares and responsibilities with which a

principal must deal are accumulated, it is called tension

frustration, or stress (18).

24

In 1977, the National Association of Secondary School

Principals began to uncover the causes of principals' stress

when it reported that principals lacked time, an item lost

in administrative detail (9). Swent (28) conducted a study

to determine what school administrators in Oregon perceived

to be the sources of occupational stress. More than seventy

administrators kept stress logs to record the most stressful

event or series of events that occurred each day for a period

of one week.

From these sources, potentially stressful situations for

public school administrators can be classified in terms of

five general areas of administrative stress: constraints

intrinsic to administration, administrative responsibilities,

interpersonal relationships, intrapersonal conflict, and role

expectations (28). Administrative constraints deal with

stressors related to time, meetings, work load, and compliance

with federal, state, and organizational policies. Administra-

tive responsibility relates to tasks characteristic of nearly

all administrative positions and includes supervising,

evaluating, negotiating, and gaining public support for school

programs. Interpersonal relations include resolving differ-

ences between parents and school and between staff members,

and handling student discipline. Intrapersonal conflict

centers around conflicts between performance and one's

internal beliefs and expectations. Role expectations deal

25

with stress caused by a difference in the expectations of

self and the various publics with which administrators must

deal.

The results of this study showed the following to be

the top ten stressors as reported by the senior high school

principals in Oregon:

1. Complying with state, federal and organizational rules and policies;

2. Meetings taking up too much time; 3. Gaining public approval and financial support for

school programs; 4. Evaluating staff members' performance; 5. Resolving parent-school conflicts; 6. Completing reports and paperwork on time; 7. Participating in school activities outside normal

working hours; 8. Making decisions affecting the lives of individual

people I know; 9. Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls; and 10. Too heavy a workload, one that cannot possibly be

finished during the normal work day (28, pp. 62-65) .

The writings of Kahn (14) provide additional support for

the notion that it is the mid-management jobs that are the

most stressful. He maintains that the "maximum of conflict

and conflict experience" is associated with roles which demand

a high degree of creative problem solving and decision making.

Koff, Laffey, Olson, and Cichon (15) conducted a study

to assess the relative magnitude of stress induced by events

associated with the management of elementary and secondary

schools. The survey questionnaire was developed, pilot

tested, and administered to a national sample of administra-

tors drawn from the membership of the National Association of

26

Secondary School Principals and the National Association of

Elementary School Principals. The instrument was the

Administrative Events Stress Inventory, which contains forty-

eight stress-related events typically associated with

elementary and secondary school administration. The phrases

executive stress and executive burnout are often used to

describe the hazard of being a high—level administrator. A

factor analysis was performed and it suggested that the

forty-eight events fell into four general areas. Area one

was associated with the idea of helplessness and security.

These events include legal action against your school, lack

of books and supplies, overcrowded schools, and criticism in

the press. These are conditions over which the principal has

little power and few resources to change. They can be viewed

as hazards which must be accepted as part of the job. Area

two deals with routine management tasks with problems to be

solved. These challenges involve working with problems of

underachieving students, implementing board curriculum

policies, talking to parents, evaluating teachers, and main-

taining school records. Most principals anticipate these

tasks as part of their job, and receive training and resources

to manage them. Area three centers around teacher conflict.

The problems of directing and evaluating professional staff

are implied by dealing with unsatisfactory performance,

refusal to follow policies, and forced resignations. Area

four deals with student conflict.

27

Area three was listed by the respondents as being the

most stressful. This area dealt with teacher conflict.

Principals associated events with a threat to job security

and status as being highly stressful; and events with low

amounts of stress were routine, expected, and accepted

duties of principals in schools. Principals perceived con-

flicts between administrators and teachers as being more

stressful as one moves from high school to middle to elemen-

tary. Conflicts among students and student problems were

perceived as more stressful by high school than elementary

principals. There were no perceived differences among

elementary, middle, and high school administrators in aspects

of security and routine management of tasks (15).

A majority of the administrators in this study believed

that they had overcome much of the stress related to their

profession. They accepted the stresses as part of their job

and saw them as a challenge to face. Some administrators

cited the degree of organization as an important factor in

overcoming stress (15).

Vanderpol (29) has indicated that school administrators,

whether they are superintendents of large districts or

principals of small schools, all face stress at one time or

another in their jobs. Their ability, or failure, to cope

with stress may reverberate throughout an entire school

system affecting teachers as well as students. However,

principals often consider stress a fact of life, an

28

occupational hazard to be endured with no chance of identify

ing or changing its causes or effects. The result is usually

personal suffering and job ineffectiveness.

Vanderpol (29) classifies the stressors of the principal

into four major categories. The first is the changing role

of the principal. Once unquestioned authorities, principals

must now share decision making with their subordinates, yet

are still held personally accountable for the decisions.

Open meeting requirements put everyone on public display,

vulnerable to any person who has an ax to grind.

A second cause of stress among principals is special

education legislation, both state and federal. These laws,

and a series of ever-changing regulations, make schools

responsible for providing education for all children. This

is a responsibility that no other public organization is

required to equal. Because their actions could come under

fire in a courtroom, school administrators have had to become

quasi-lawyers.

A third factor contributing to stress is teacher layoffs,

or reductions in force, as a result of reduced enrollments.

The necessity of choosing which teachers shall stay and

which shall go places principals in an adversary role with

the teaching staff. Principals must now write more critical

evaluations of their faculty members. This creates a great

deal of tension. Although this may not be verbalized, it

interferes with the normal processes of education.

29

The fourth area is the fact that school administrators

must confront the realities of their own life stage. School

administrators must question their job satisfaction in the

face of a declining institution, and one in which decreasing

budgets and high inflation are the order of the day.

The Herlihys (11) report that the professional life of

a principal is becoming less satisfying for many. In some

areas the resignation rate has risen, an indication that the

rewards are not worth the pressures. A large number are

returning to teaching, staff administration, early retirement,

or new careers. The Herlihy study reported that 82 percent

of the principals responding said that the principalship did

offer the opportunity to fulfill one's capabilities; however,

only one-third of the principals said they planned to stay

in the principalship. This study reports that the crucial

factor which causes principals to leave the principalship is

loneliness (11, p. 8). The conclusion gained from examining

the data on how principals handled stress and the extent to

which they shared problems with others is that the principal-

ship is a lonely position with few opportunities to relieve

stress by discussing problems with people who might be help-

ful.

When principals look to the mechanisms available for

coping with stress, they must make a decision, fight or

flight. The Herlihys offer four suggestions to those who

wish to fight as opposed to flight. The first suggestion

30

is to reaffirm one's values. One must have a clear set of

values and sense of direction. A principal's role calls upon

the principal to think about what is being done, to act, and

to take responsibility for those decisions. The principal

must determine his or her actions on the basis of a clearly

formulated set of values. The second suggestion is to stay

in touch with a sense of humor. Humor enables one to

transcend oneself and take a larger perspective. The third

suggestion is to accept and acknowledge existential loneli—

ness. For those in leadership positions, each must stand

alone in moments of decision. The final suggestion is to

seek out and maintain a mutual support group comprised of

persons with whom one can share professional frustrations

and problems (11).

In a study by Washington (30), a stress questionnaire

designed to elicit qualitative responses was sent to sixty

principals in a large urban Canadian city. The principals

clearly viewed their jobs as having a great capacity for

producing stress. They listed, in order of importance, the

following problem areas: (1) central administration demands,

(2) supervision of teachers, (3) relationships with parents,

(4) government regulations, (5) student problems, and (6)

instructional problems.

The results of the study indicated the following sug-

gestions. (1) Principals need to take strategic psychologi-

cal breaks. They need to set the problem aside and get

31

involved in another activity. (2) Principals need to be

better prepared to deal with stress through their graduate

work. (3) Principals need to develop skills for dealing

with job related stress. To do nothing is to accept the

ripple effect of principal stress and its inevitable

dysfunctions (30) .

Shank (26, p. 13) supports the idea that being the head

of a school is a lonely business. Heavy personal stress

arises from the special nature of the principal's job, the

special problems of carrying it out, and the standards used

to judge performance on the job.. Shank (26) identifies four

sets of circumstances that help to explain the special

isolation and anxiety of the principal's job. First is the

extra pressure created by the principal's basic values. The

principal, while continually struggling to raise people's

expectations for themselves, is often frustrated and dis-

appointed. The school principal is likely to be a thinker

who believes that ideas are of concern in and of themselves

and the identification of motivation cannot be abbreviated.

A second factor identified by Shank (26) is the uncer-

tainty that results from lack of preparation for the job.

The key factors for success in the job are largely unrelated

to prior experience. This includes such skills as personnel

hiring and firing; political skills of balancing constituencies

that never really seem to be in agreement, motivational skills

32

of keeping large numbers of sensitive people happy; and

financial skills associated with budgeting, cost control,

financial analysis and planning.

A third factor is the extra pressure from the many con-

stituencies who sincerely consider themselves to be the

predominent force in the school., This includes trustees,

teachers, parents, influential alumni, and patrons.

The fourth factor in the job of the school principal is

the extra uncertainty caused by the fundamentally fuzzy

nature of a school's mission or basic purpose, which in turn

leads to lack of clarity in the expectations for the princi-

pal. A school principal never really knows what to maximize.

According to Shank (26), the school principal's job is both

rewarding and intensely punishing. It is a lonely business.

The negative impact of excessive stress on administra-

tors poses a most urgent health problem as the national

disease patterns shift from infections to tension-linked

causes. The Giammatteos (7), in the monograph of the National

Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, describe

three attitudes of principals that often cause stress.

These attitudes are apathy, capitulation, and worry.

Apathy is a high level of pent-up hostility. It is a

defense, a barrier against future hurt or disappointment.

Capitulation is rooted in failure to believe in one's

ability to make decisions. The fear is that one will get

into trouble or make a wrong decision, so one capitulates.

33

Apathy and the feeling we must capitulate lead to worry.

Worry develops from lack of predictability. One can not

predict the central office, the teachers' association, the

advisory committee, and at times, yourself. Most of the

worries are not real but perceived by the administrators

(7, p. 56).

Attitudes are not values, they are feelings or emotions

with regard to fact. They become ways to respond to events.

Attitudes control how you see your world. As controllers,

they create much stress (7).

Stress: Coping and Managing

The search for coping methods usually begins with con-

sulting the experts in the field. There are no simple

solutions to the problems created by being under stress.

The real ability to cope is a very personal matter. What

works best for many may not be the answer for all.

Gmelch (8) offers the following methods to help princi-

pals manage stress.

1. Learn to cope with stress through managing time. Setting aside time daily for the organization and planning of tasks helps to substitute the fragmented administrative life with periods for contemplative thought and rational problem solving.

2. Manage by objectives, not by the obvious. Establish-ing clear, detailed objectives helps to eradicate many of the ambiguities of the principalship and eliminates confusion by giving a definite sense of direction.

3. Build mini-vacations into the day. Breaking the daily routine with a midday walk to clear the mind, a change in lunch schedules, a chat on the phone with spouse and children, and a stroll through a nearby library or museum are healthy means of

34

breaking the eight-to-five stress cycle. 4. Re-educate the school in the art of coping. In

assisting people to accept and carry out the challenges of education, principals must accept the responsibility for minimizing the incidents of stress on others and training them to cope with the tensions of the job.

5. Know the limitations of administration. Knowing what can be done in a set amount of time reduces the uncertainty of tasks and the stressfulness of the j ob.

6. Establish and update life goals. Delinquency in self-management contributes to the fact that half of all working people are unhappy with their careers (8, pp. 9-11).

Brown and Carlton (1) point out that due to the nature

of the job, the principal operates in a potentially stressful

situation all the time. Sources of distress for principals

include interpersonal clashes, heavy administrative respon-

sibilities, time constraints, and conflicting role expecta-

tions. School executives can not always tailor their "stress

environments" so it is important that they learn techniques

for coping with the problem. They offer the following tech-

niques for stress reduction.

1. Watch what you eat—good nutrition is a key to stress reduction.

2. Exercise vigorously to maintain health and relieve tension.

3. Be aware of your personal stress limits. 4. Make the best of your time. 5. Reserve some personal time for nonprofessional

activities. 6. Regularize your environment.

7. Use the "relaxation response" (1, pp. 38-39).

School principals must take charge of their own stress-

control program. They must continue to serve education

while at the same time avoiding excessive worry.

35

Gmelch and Swent, working from their group work in 1977

(9), and Swent's study in 1978 (28), concluded that no amount

of research can ever provide one answer for all principals'

stress management problems. They also conclude that stress

management problems is a personal matter with no simple

solutions. They offer four areas where training and improve-

ment will assist the school administrator in stress manage-

ment (9, pp. 18-19).

The first area is management of administrative activities,

They had determined that five of the top ten stressors dealt

with the control of time. To be effective, principals must

analyze where their time is spent. The recommendation is a

time log kept twice a week for several weeks. This should

then be used to distinguish tasks as either high payoff or

low payoff activities. Gmelch and Swent (9, p. 18) refer to

these activities as hipos and lopos. Hipos should get

immediate attention and lopos should be relegated to the

bottom of the list.

The second area is interpersonal influence. This means

working with people. Three of the top ten stressors were

located in this area: staff evaluations, parent-school con-

flicts, and gaining approval for programs. The ability to

work well with others has a significant positive effect on

organizational and individual health. Resolving conflict,

improving communication skills, building trust, and being

36

able to supportively confront parents and staff are important

skills to reduce the stress from interpersonal conflict (9).

The third area is improving community relations. Gain-

ing public approval for school progtams ranks with the most

stressful situations principals face. Principals must pay

more attention to the public they serve and recognize that

there is no substitute for good public relations. Principals

should make their successful programs visible to the com-

munity and not be afraid to market their successes (9).

The fourth area is coping with rules and regulations.

Not only do principals have to be cognizant of the flow of

rules and regulations, but they must also be aware of the

degree to which building organizational rules affect their

staff members. Rules should be issued to facilitate the

goals of education and not perpetuate the bureaucratization

of schools (9).

Koff, Laffey, Olson, and Cichon (15) summarized from

the responses they received from school administrators that

less stress would be perceived in administration if job

expectations were made to coincide more closely with actual

occurrences. Good organization and planning were character-

istics that were cited by administrators as enabling them to

cope better with the stressful situations that occur.

Administrators also highlighted the support of co-workers,

staff, and community as contributing to lack of stress.

37

Vanderpol (29, p. 40) points out that people coping

with stress must avoid the "sandpit syndrome." He clarifies

by saying, "the sandpit is deep; trying to get out of it by

scratching the walls only pulls more sand off the walls,

leading one no closer to escape." Administrators often

assume they alone can solve a problem and that asking help

of others is a sign of weakness. It is important for

administrators to hire a strong support staff to share and

delegate important tasks. Vanderpol (29) lists another

important administrative skill as setting realistic limits

on what can and cannot be solved, and in what time period.

The principal should let parent groups, teachers, or school

boards solve their own disagreements, rather than accepting

the responsibility themselves.

School administrators, in an effort to decrease self-

imposed stress, should utilize professional support groups

of six to twelve peers. These groups meet and share

experiences and common feelings and issues. Support groups

can particularly help decrease self-imposed stress (29).

Shank (26), from his study, offers the following sug-

gestions as possible solutions to stress problems. The

first of his suggestions is that a principal must seek a

realistic balance between what is possible and what is

desirable. A fact of life is that the world is filled with

partial successes. Another suggestion is that principals

must have time to be with other principals. They must have

38

a source to seek sharing for their knowledge and understand-

ing. Principals should engage in routine inservice and work-

shops in an effort to be informed and stay informed (.26,

p. 17).

The Giammatteos take a rather in-depth look at both

stress reduction and stress management in the 1980 monograph

published by the National Association of Secondary School

Principals (7). They offer suggestions on stress reduction

both on and off the job. The primary suggestion is through

physical relaxation (7, p. 39). This can be such things as

gardening, a game of basketball, a discussion with an old

friend, a party, or an evening of tennis.

Another method of stress reduction is through mental

relaxation (7, p. 46). This is based on visualization and

guided imagery. This makes use of that part of the brain

called the hypothalamus, which controls a number of the

body's functions. The hypothalamus collects information by

way of touching, seeing, hearing, and other senses and uses

the data to cause the body to react in an appropriate manner.

The thoughts that occupy our minds are the thoughts that

guide our actions. Therefore, mental relaxation is a key.

It is basically a control of your mind that allows you to

control your body reactions by the thoughts that you think.

The Giammatteos (7) declare that stress management is

rooted in the thesis that the human mind and body have great

natural ability for self-adjustment and repair. To manage

39

stress reactions and to reduce damage incurred during past

stress situations, a person must be able to release sudden

tensions, to assey a situation objectively and without

anxiety, to stay relaxed when appropriate, and to disassociate

from a stressor mentally and physically (7).

Coping is defined by Lazarus (16) as a two-part process:

problem solving and regulation of emotional distress. Problem

solving involves changing the situation for the better, if

possible, either by altering one's actions or by changing the

environment. Regulating emotions involves managing the

sematic and subjective components of stress-related emotions

so that they do not interfere with moral or functioning. It

is noted that these modes occasionally interfere with each

other as in the case where denial of a problem precludes

effective action; however, for the most part, they work con-

gruently (16).

Neugarten (20) has looked at coping in a more general

sense and classified people according to their coping styles.

He applied these concepts to aging by looking at successful

and unsuccessful coping strategies in the elderly. Fifty

people between the ages of seventy and ninety-nine were

studied and four classifications of coping styles were

identified: integrated, armored-defended, passive-dependent

and unintegrated, The people in the first two categories

were more satisfied with their lives and were therefore con-

sidered "successful" while the latter two groups were

40

dissatisfied and "unsuccessful." The conclusion drawn from

this research is that personalities and coping styles do not

change with age, but they do become more rigid (20). The

elderly are less able to implement flexible coping strategies

and tend to become increasingly consistent with themselves

in maintaining more rigid approaches to problem solving and

adaptation. Neugarten (20) also suggests that it is not so

much the occurrence of a life event that precipitates a

crisis but the timing of the event.

Selye (23), in his studies, suggests several ways of

dealing with stress. These include removing unnecessary

stressors from our lives, not allowing certain neutral events

to become stressors, developing a proficiency in dealing with

conditions that we do not want to or cannot avoid, and seek-

ing relaxation or diversion from the demand. In addition,

administrators must learn to recognize overstress, when we

have exceeded the limits of our adaptability; or understress,

when we suffer from lack of self-realization. Our goal

should be to strike a balance between the equally destruc-

tive forces of hypo- and hyperstress, to find as much

eustress as possible and to minimize distress (23). We

cannot hide from every unpleasant experience; in order to

achieve our purposes, we must often put up with unhappiness,

at least for a time.

Schofer (22) maintains that stress is endemic to modern

life. To live is to encounter stress. Selye, to whom the

41

literature has often referred as a pioneer in stress research,

refers to Schofer as having shown a remarkable understanding

of stress as it has presented itself in all its manifesta-

tions to people. Selye stated that Schofer has drawn from

the extensive literature on the subject of stress and has

been able to clarify a common misconception that stress is

always bad (22, foreword). Schofer has taken a twofold

approach to the process of managing and coping with stress.

His approach is to first learn to manage the stressors in

your life and then to develop a stress filter for yourself

(22, p. 55).

Schofer identifies eleven managing techniques as

follows.

1. Become more aware of the nature of stressors in one's daily life. Understanding and anticipating stressors can strengthen one in advance, help to reduce their harmful impact, and assist one in controlling them.

2. Take personal responsibility for one's pace of life and for major life changes. The individual is responsible for how fast or how slowly one lives or how many changes one brings upon oneself in a year's time.

3. Know one's comfort zone. People vary in the range of stimulation that is comfortable, healthy, and productive of growth. Everyone needs to discover how much stimulation is right for them.

4. Find a fit between one's own needs, one's comfort zone, and the demands of one's environment. If a person needs to live slowly, then one should not become a corporate executive. A bad fit can lead to continuing tension. A good fit can minimize stress-related problems.

5. Know how rapidly and how much one's comfort zone can change. One's comfort zone is not set for all time. Flexibility is essential.

42

6. Anticipate the probable stressful effects of major life changes.

7. Avoid clustering too many major life changes. Correct spacing of major life changes is vital to intelligent management of stress.

8. Manage daily life so one has optional lead time, afterburn time, and time for unfinished business. Control one's time, insofar as possible, to fit one's own needs and style.

9. Establish clear priorities and values so one can select opportunities and challenges wisely in a world of overchoice. Clear values can provide guide-lines, for specific decisions.

10. Select activities and challenges that are meaningful to one and avoid meaningless ones whenever possible. Develop sensitivity to one's talents, deep interests, and personal preferences.

11. Take enough risks so one is challenged, but not so many one is overwhelmed (22, pp. 149-152).

Schofer (22) maintains that no matter how well an

individual manages their pace of daily life and their major

life changes, they will encounter many stressors. The harm-

ful effects of these stressors can be minimized by developing

a good stress filter. Schofer offers eight steps in develop-

ing a good stress filter.

1. Maintain a foundation of sound health and fitness. 2. Become more aware of yourself and others around you. 3. Take responsibility for your feelings, thoughts, and

actions. 4. Find ways to develop inner strength. 5. Find ways to express feelings. Feelings from the

distant past and feelings that emerge in everyday living can block an individual's energy if they are not expressed.

6. Maintain patience toward imperfection and tolerance of adversity.

7. Keep a strong, stable support group of family and friends.

8. Create and maintain personal stability zones (22, pp. 155-160).

Schofer (22) maintains that these eight steps toward

building a good stress filter work best in combination. A

43

good stress filter must be combined with intelligent manage-

ment of pace of life and major life changes. The reverse is

also true. An individual must apply the principal of gradual-

ism so they will not be overwhelmed by overchoice (22).

Lemley (17) offers support to the suggestions of Schofer

and refers to school administrators as people who have come

to their positions nurtured in an intellectual, educational,

and social environment characterized by sudden and disruptive

change. He advocates that controlling stress may well begin

by exercising some degree of control over the little things

in the environment that, left unattended, function as

significant stressors. Lemley offers a very basic approach

to administrators for coping with stress that contains the

following ten points:

1. Keep yourself healthy and looking good. 2. Keep your desk looking good. 3. Keep your office attractive. 4. Do not be a slave to routine. 5. Do not procrastinate. 6. Resist the urge to be constantly busy. 7. Learn to be passive and tranquil at times. 8. Do not labor under a feeling of guilt. 9. Avoid mean and stupid people.

10. Avoid worry (17, pp. 21-23).

Lemley concludes by saying that you can reduce stress

in your life and the negative effects it has on you, but

not by someone else's absolute remedy. An individual must

do something positive, something willful, something con-

structive (17, p. 23).

44

Summary

The concept of stress is very old. The literature and

research are rich with psychological and physical ideas that

should help reduce stress; yet, the concept of stress is

vague and a common definition does not exist. Perhaps Selye

expressed the situation best when he said, "Stress is not

something to be avoided. Indeed, it cannot be avoided, since

during every moment of our lives some demand for life main-

taining energy exists. Complete freedom from stress is

death (9, p. 32). Stress is a normal condition of living

in today's society.

The negative impact of excessive stress on administra-

tors poses a most urgent health problem as the national

disease patterns shift from infections to tension-linked

causes (10, p. 59). Life requires constant adaptation to

changing circumstances. Ho society has ever been free of

stress. A stress-free society is a false hope (12, p. 143).

Stress is intrinsic in life itself. Everyone must accept

some degree of stress; however, you can learn to manage

stress so it works for you rather than against you. For

this reason, administrators must become aware of means in

which they can cope with the particular stressors which may

impact their lives the most.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Brown, G. Ronald and Patrick W. Carlton, "How to Conquer Stress When You Can and Cope with It When You Can't," National Elementary Principal, 59 (March, 1980), 37-39.

2. Cannon, W. B., Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage, New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1929.

3. Cunningham, William G., "Teacher Burnout—Solutions for the 1980's: A Review of the Literature," The Urban Review, 15 (Fall, 1983), 1.

4. Dohrenwend, B. S. and B. P. Dohrenwend, "A Brief Histori-cal Introduction to Research on Stressful Life Events," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, pp. 1-7.

5. Dunham, J., "Stress Situations and Responses," Stress in Schools, Hemel Hempstead, England, NAS, 1976, pp. 39-46.

6. Engel, G., "Sudden and Rapid Death During Psychological Stress: Folklore or Folk Wisdom," Annals of Internal Medicine, 74 (1971), 771-782.

7. Giammatteo, Michael C. and Dolores M. Giammatteo, "Executive Weil-Being," Stress and Administrators, Reston, Virginia, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, pp. 1-59.

8. Gmelch, Walter H., "The Principal's Next Challenge: The Twentieth Century Art of Managing Stress," National Association of Secondary School Principal's Bulletin, 62 (February, 1978), 5-12.

9. Gmelch, Walter H. and Boyd Swent, "Stress and the Princi-palship: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Growth," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 16-19.

10. Goldberger, Leo and Shlomo Breznitz, Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.

45

46

11. Herlihy, Barbara and Dennis Herlihy, "The Loneliness of Educational Leadership," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 64 (February, 1980), 7-12.

12. Holmes, T. H. and M. Masuda, "Life Change and Illness Susceptibility," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, 45-72.

13. Holmes, T. H. and R. H. Rahe, "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale," Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11 (1967), 213-217.

14. Kahn, R. A., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

15. Koff, Robert H. and others, "Coping with Conflict— Executive Stress and the School Administrator," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 1-9.

16. Lazarus, Richard S., P sychologica1 Stress and the Coping Process, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1966.

17. Lemley, Raymond E., "Stress Control—Where Does One Begin? An "Up Close and Personal' Look," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 20-24.

18. Manera, Elizabeth and Robert E. Wright, "Knowing the Difference Between Stress and Challenge," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 10-15.

19. May, R., The Meaning of Anxiety, New York, Norton, 1977.

20. Neugarten, B. L., "Personality and Aging," Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977, pp. 141-152.

21. Salmen, Daniel A., "Paranoia: Perceptions of Public School Principals," C l e a r i n g House, 54 (December, 1980), 149-154.

22. Schofer, Walt, Stress, Distress and Growth, California, International Dialogue Press, 1978.

23. Selye, Hans, Stress Without Distress, J. B. Lippincott Company, New York, 1974.

47

24,

25,

26

27,

28,

Selye, Hans, The Art o Charles C. Thomas,

The Stress of Life, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956,

ob Shank, John K., "The J and Too Often Behei {October, 1979), l|

Spielberger, C. D. , An: and Research, New York, Academic Press, 1971,

Swent, Boyd James, "An tions of Oregon Sc Sources of Stress, College of Educaticf>: Oregon, 1978.

Exploratory Study of the Percep-l|iool Administrators on Occupational unpublished doctoral dissertation, n, University of Oregon, Eugene,

29,

30,

Vanderpol, Maurice, "S Principal, 60 (Marcfe

cphool Administrators Under Stress," h, 1981), 39-41.

Washington, Kenneth R. for Urban School Vic (May, 1982), 189-1$

: Predictive Medicine, Illinois, 1967.

at the Top: Beloved Beleagured, ded," Independent School, 39 -14, 17-18.

iety: Current Trends in Theory

"Stress: Is It a Major Problem incipals," Clearing House, 55 1.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The first section of this chapter deals with the popula-

tion of the study and the sample that was studied. The

second section describes the instrument used and the adapta-

tions of the instruments that were made for this research.

The third section explains the methods and procedures used

to gather the data reported in Chapter IV. The final section

discusses the statistical treatment used in the reporting of

the data.

The methodology of this study was a survey research.

The research was done in the context of an exploratory study.

A field study is a scientific inquiry designed to identify

the relations and interactions among sociological, phychologi-

cal, and educational variables in social structures (2). The

researcher looks at an institutional situation and then

investigates the relations among the attitudes, values,

perceptions and behaviors of individuals in the situation.

Kerlinger (2) contends that the purpose of an exploratory

field study is to discover relations among variables and to

lay ground work for later, more systematic testing of

hypotheses.

48

49

Population and Selection of Sample

The population for this study was all of the junior high

school principals in the State of Texas. The junior high

school principal was any principal listed in the Texas Educa-

tion Agency Directory as a junior high school principal. The

directory contained the names of 564 junior high school

principals. The Texas Education Agency Directory contains

the listing of all public schools that are members of the

minimum foundation program in the state (5). This includes

any school that receives financial support from the State of

Texas.

Three hundred principals were randomly selected from

the 564 listed. These 300 principals constituted the sample

that was used in this study. The 300 participants were

selected by assigning numbers to the 564 principals listed

in the Texas Education Agency Directory, and then placing

the numbers in a box and drawing numbers until a sample of

300 had been established. Each number drawn was placed back

in the box prior to the next drawing to insure that each

number drawn had the same probability for being drawn. This

procedure was continued until the sample was completed.

A sufficiently large sample was used in an effort to

obtain significant results. In drawing inferences about the

characteristics of populations from sample statistics, the

sample should be drawn at random from the population (1).

50

A random sample is one in which every member of the popula-

tion has an equal probability of being included (1).

Instrumentation

There were three questionnaires used in this study.

Each principal was asked to complete two of the question-

naires. One questionnaire (Appendix C) contained questions

pertaining to demographic information concerning the principal

and the other questionnaire (Form A, Appendix A) contained

questions concerning the principal's perception of occupa-

tional sources of stress. The third questionnaire (Form B,

Appendix B) was adapted in terminology only from Form A.

Form B contained the same questions as Form A, adapted in

terminology only, so the spouse and the counselor could give

their perceptions of the occupational sources of stress for

the principal.

The questionnaires for the principal were accompanied by

a letter of introduction and explanation, as were the ques-

tionnaires for the spouse and the counselor. The letters

explained the purpose of the study and the questionnaires

(Appendices D, E, F).

The questionnaire for this study was developed by Swent

(4) in his study of the perceptions of Oregon School Adminis-

trators on occupational sources of stress. Form A is a

Likert-type scale of thirty-five items designed to elicit

perceptions of administrators toward those situations that

51

were troublesome in the performance of their job. The

following procedure was utilized in the development of the

original questionnaire by Swent (4) . Forty school adminis-

trators were asked to keep a log of all job related stress-

ful situations that occurred during a week of their lives.

They were also asked to list any other sources of stress

that they could have encountered but did not occur during

the week they kept the log. A survey of administrative

literature was conducted in an effort to identify any other

situations which have posed problems for school administra-

tors. All these situations were combined and identified as

stress factors (4, p. 23).

The stress factors were then categorized into five sub-

sets, with each subset containing seven items to insure that

each subset was similarly weighted. The five subsets were

(a) administrative constraints, (b) administrative responsi-

bilities, (c) interpersonal relations, (d) intrapersonal

conflicts, and (e) role expectations. After the categoriz-

ing was completed, the stress-related factors were all written

in the form of questions. The questions were then placed in

the form of a questionnaire capable of being scored by the

benefit of a Likert-type scale. The questionnaire was then

field tested with a group of twenty-five school administrators.

After the initial testing, the questionnaire was then revised

and tested with a second group of twenty administrators. The

final questionnaire with its five subsets containing their

52

respective questions was then formulated (4, p. 23). The

final questionnaire is illustrated in Appendix A.

An adapted version of the original Swent questionnaire

(Form B) was designed to be completed by the spouse of the

administrator and the building counselor. The adaptation

was performed by the author of this study. After the adapta-

tion, the resulting questionnaire was presented to a panel of

experts for the purpose of establishing appropriateness and

readability. The panel of experts consisted of two univer-

sity professors, two junior high school principals, and a

public school superintendent. The adaptation was in termi-

nology only, so that the questionnaire would read appro-

priately for the spouse and counselor to answer instead of

the original wording for the principal's self report. The

Likert-type scale was retained for scoring purposes. The

adapted questionnaire is shown in Appendix B.

The Swent questionnaire was chosen for this study after

an extensive search for an appropriate instrument. Spiel-

berger's Stair-Trait Anxiety Inventory was considered and

ultimately rejected in lieu of Swent's questionnaire.

Spielberger's inventory was a general inventory not designed

for any particular group. It also suggested a pre-test and

post-test format for best reporting results. These two

factors, along with the fact that Swent"s questionnaire was

designed specifically for school administrators, were the

53

primary determinants in the final decision to use Swent's

questionnaire.

The biographical questionnaire contained questions

designed to collect personal and situational information

about the administrator. It included age, sex, size of

school, size of school district, total years of experience

as a principal, current health status, classification as a

full- or part-time administrator, and number of hours of

physical exercise per week. These items were identified as

possible variables related to stress that a principal might

experience (4).

The age subsets were under forty and forty and over.

The sex was a male or female distinction. The size of

school was divided into two categories, 270 to 999 and 1,000

and over. The school district size was determined by average

daily attendance (ADA) and then divided into three categories.

The three categories were determined by University Inter-

scholastic League divisions. The top three sizes were used,

and they were 270 to 644, 645 to 1,309, and 1,310 and over.

The top three sizes were determined as pertinent for this

study because the Texas School Directory did not list dis-

tricts smaller than 270 ADA as having junior high schools.

Total years of experience as a principal was divided

into three groups. The groups were one to five, six to

fifteen, and sixteen and over. The three groups were

54

determined as the beginning years in the position, the

middle range years and long-term service.

Current physical health was based on self-reporting

categories using a five-point scale on a continuum ranging

from excellent to poor health. Excellent was listed as

five and poor was listed as one.

Hours of physical exercise per week was divided into

the following time periods: less than one, one to three,

four to six, seven to nine, ten to twelve, and thirteen and

over. The principal was also asked to indicate whether his

position was a full- or part-time position.

For the purpose of general information, the final

question was an open-ended question that asked the principal

to identify methods that had personally been found to be

successful in dealing with tension and job pressures. This

information was used for considering further conclusions and

recommendations. The biographical questionnaire is illustrated

in Appendix C.

Each of the thirty-five factors in Form A and Form B

was answered by the respondent as not applicable, never

bothers me, rarely bothers me, occasionally bothers me, or

frequently bothers me. The term, not applicable, was

included so that the respondents could more accurately respond

to their responsibilities without feeling a forced choice.

Since its development, in 1978, the Swent questionnaire

has been used in a number of studies. One of these was

55

conducted by Marshall (3) at Kansas State University.

Marshall reported the results of this study in his disserta-

tion. The dissertation, "A Survey Study of the Perceptions

of Kansas School Administrators on Occupational Sources of

Stress," reported the calculation of an alpha coefficient to

determine the internal consistency of the items on the survey.

The reliability coefficients ranged from a high of .74 to a

low of .50 (3).

Data Collection

On May 11, 1984, the sample of 300 principals taken from

the Texas School Directory (5) list of junior high school

principals was sent a letter of introduction and explanation

along with the questionnaires for themselves, their spouses,

and their counselors. The spouse's questionnaire and the

counselor's questionnaire were in a separate envelope with a

letter (Appendices E and F) of introduction and explanation.

The spouses and counselors were asked to seal their envelopes

after responding for the purpose of trying to secure

independently prepared responses.

For the purpose of this study, it was determined that a

minimum of 120 returns was acceptable. However, in an effort

to insure that a maximum number of returns were received, two

separate follow-up mailings were conducted. Two weeks after

the initial mailing of the questionnaire to the sample of

administrators, the first follow-up mailing was mailed.

56

After ten days, three and one-half weeks after the original

mailing, a second and final follow-up mailing was mailed.

The original sample size of 300 was chosen to help

insure an acceptable number of returns. A return of 120

questionnaires was needed to render data acceptable for

generalizing to the population studied. Every effort was

made to obtain a maximum return of the questionnaires.

The Texas Education Agency Computer Service produced

address labels for all the principals included in the popula-

tion. Three sets of labels were acquired. One set was used

in the original mail out, and one set was used for each of

the follow-up mailings. The questionnaires (Forms A and B),

the biographical questionnaire, and the letters of intro-

duction are illustrated in Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F,

respectively.

Of the 300 questionnaires mailed, 166 were returned. To

be accepted for analysis, the returns had to be 100 percent

complete. A return was rejected for analysis for any of the

following reasons: (1) the principal responding was female,

(2) some questions were not answered; there were blanks left

on the questionnaire, (3) the principal's response was not

accompanied by a response from the spouse and the counselor,

(4) the principal was not a full-time administrator, and (5)

the return was received too late to be included in the

analysis.

57

Of the 166 returns, thirty-three were found to be

invalid. Thirteen returns contained no response from the

spouse. Nine contained no response from the counselor.

There were eight returns that did not have a response from

either the spouse or the counselor. Two returns contained

all three questionnaires, but none of them were answered.

There was only one response from a female principal. The

128 remaining valid responses were coded for analysis. After

the valid responses were coded and filed for analysis, five

valid responses were received but were too late to be

included in the analysis.

The identity and replies of each respondent was held

in strictest confidence. The identities were not important

for the analysis, and the replies were coded in such a manner

that all personal information could be held in confidence.

Each member of the sample was offered a copy of the study in

an effort to increase participation.

Data Analysis

Hypothesis one was analyzed by determining the total

mean for Form A and the total mean for the spouses' responses

to Form B. Analysis of variance was used to determine if a

significant difference existed between the total means. A

significant difference was accepted to the .05 level.

Hypothesis two was analyzed by determining the total

mean for Form A and the total mean for the building counselors'

58

responses to Form B. Analysis of variance was used to

determine if a significant difference existed between the

total means. A significant difference was accepted to the

.05 level.

Hypothesis three was analyzed by determining the total

mean for the spouses' responses to Form B and the total mean

for the building counselors' responses to Form B. Analysis

of variance was used to determine if a significant difference

existed between the total means. A significant difference

was accepted to the .05 level.

Hypothesis four was analyzed by using the total mean of

each of the five subsets contained in Form A. The five sub-

sets and the questions contained in each were (a) administra-

tive constraints (questions 1, 9, 12, 26, 27, 31, 32); (b)

administrative responsibilities (questions 2, 4, 21, 24, 25,

29, 35); (c) interpersonal relations (questions 3, 7, 13, 20,

23, 33, 34); (d) intrapersonal conflict (questions 4, 5, 10,

15, 17, 22, 28); and (e) role expectations (questions 6, 8,

11, 16, 18, 19, 30). Analysis of variance was used to deter-

mine if a significant difference existed between the total

means of each variable. The level of acceptance was to the

.05 level.

Hypothesis five was analyzed by computing the total

means of Form A when grouped according to the variables of

age, size of school, size of school district, and total years

of experience as a principal. Analysis of variance was used

59

to determine if significant difference existed between the

total means of the variables. The level of acceptance was

to the .05 level.

Additional demographic information was collected in the

area of health, status as full- or part-time administrator,

physical exercise, and an open-ended question in the area

of coping with stress. This was utilized as additional

information and considered when drawing conclusions and

making recommendations.

Summary

This chapter presents the methodology of the study. It

includes population and selection of sample, instrumentation,

data collection, and data analysis.

Three questionnaires were used with principals, spouses,

and counselors in junior high schools in Texas. The Biograph-

ical Questionnaire and Form A (occupational stressor inventory)

were used with principals and Form B (adapted occupational

stressor inventory) was used with spouses and the counselors.

The population sample of this study was composed of

randomly selected junior high school principals, their spouses,

and counselors in the State of Texas. There were 300 randomly

selected junior high school principals. The questionnaires

were mailed to the selected principals with complete instruc-

tions for completing the questionnaires. A return envelope

60

was sent with the questionnaires. Every effort was made to

get a maximum number of returns.

Once the data were collected, a computerized program

was used to analyze the data. Means and standard deviations

of principals', spouses', and counselors'perceptions were

calculated. T-tests and analysis of variance were used to

determine the perceptions of the principals, spouses, and

counselors regarding occupational stressors of the principals,

The results are presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ferguson, George A., Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, 5th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981.

2. Kerlinger, Fred W., Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.

3. Marshall, Gerald Lynn, "A Survey Study of the Percep-tions of Kansas School Administrators on Occupa-tional Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1980.

4. Swent, Boyd James, "An Exploratory Study of the Percep-tions of Oregon School Administrators on Occupational Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1978.

5. Texas Education Agency, Texas School Directory, Austin, Texas, 1983-1983.

61

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to ascertain through the

perceptions of the junior high school principals, their

spouses, and the building counselors the stressful situations

that affect the principals' daily lives. These perceptions

were attained through the use of the Swent questionnaire

(Appendix A) along with additional information drawn from a

demographic questionnaire (Appendix C). This information

was then utilized to compile data sufficient to answer the

following questions.

1. Was there a significant difference between the per-

ceptions of the junior high school principals and their

spouses regarding job related stress situations?

2. Was there a significant difference between the per-

ceptions of the junior high school principals and their

building counselors regarding job related stress situations?

3. Was there a significant difference between the per-

ceptions of the principals' spouses and the building

counselors regarding job related stress situations in the

work of the principals?

4. Was there a significant difference in the percep-

tions of junior high school principals among the five subsets

62

63

of the questionnaire; (a) administrative constraints, (b)

administrative responsibilities, (c) interpersonal relations,

(d) intrapersonal conflict, and (e) role expectations?

5. Was there a significant difference between the per-

ceptions of junior high school principals when grouped in

terms of age, size of school, size of school district, and

total years of experience as a principal?

The population sample studied was composed of 300

junior high principals randomly selected from all the junior

high principals in the State of Texas. In all comparisons,

a difference was accepted as significant only if it was equal

to or smaller than .05. Table I presents information regard-

ing the comparison of the perceptions of the principals and

their spouses in regard to job related stressors in the daily

work of the principal.

In order to determine the perceptions of the principals,

their spouses, and the principals' building counselors, a

simple analysis of variance (t-test) was employed to test

Hypothesis I, II, and III. A .05 level of significance was

established for testing the data. Hypothesis I, stated

below, was tested.

Hypothesis I.—There will be no significant differences

between the perceptions of the junior high school principals

and their spouses regarding job related stress situations.

Table I reports the group mean and standard deviation

for the principals and their spouses. There were 128 members

64

in each group and the possible group mean ranged from a low

of 35 to a high of 175. The group mean for principals was

107.132 and the group mean for spouses was 105.578. The

higher the mean score, the greater the perceived level of

stress reported. The standard deviation for principals was

13.764 and the standard deviation for the spouses was 17.145,

TABLE I

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPOUSES REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL

STRESSORS OF THE PRINCIPAL

Group Number of Cases

Group Mean

Standard Deviation

t Value

2-Tail Probability

Principals 128 107.13 13.764 O

00 • .424 Spouses 128 105.58 17.145

Significant at .05 level.

Table I also reports the comparative analysis of the

two groups. A t value of .80 was obtained. The degrees

of freedom were 254. Since the two-tail probability (p =

.42 4) was in excess of the established .05 significance

level, the difference was judged not significant. The t-

test failed to disclose a significant difference between the

perceptions of the principals and their spouses in regard

to occupational stressors in the daily lives of the princi-

pals; therefore, the answer to question one is "no." Con-

sequently, Hypothesis I was retained.

65

Even though the total group perceptions did not prove

to be significantly different, the principals had a larger

group mean than their spouses (X = 107.132 to X = 105.578).

The standard deviations showed the spouses to have a wider

range of scores than the principals (d = 17.145 to 13.764).

Although there was no significant difference between the

total perceptions of the two groups, there were ten of the

thirty-five occupational stressors listed on the Swent ques-

tionnaire that did render significant differences between the

two groups. Table II displays each of the occupational

stressors that rendered a significant difference between the

principals and their spouses.

Table II reports the means for the principals and their

spouses for each of the items rendering a significant differ-

ence. The items have been listed in rank order of the

calculated t value.

Table II also shows the comparative analysis of the

two groups for each item. The range of the t values for

the ten items showing a significant difference was from

4.59 to 1.96. "Administering the teachers contract"

(stressor 29) and "feeling not fully qualified for the job"

(stressor 4) showed a significant difference of .001.

"Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people

(stressor 2) was third with a significance level of .002.

"Being involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24) was

next at .007. "Evaluating staff member performance"

66

!3 W W 03 & 03 EH W W P̂ PQ Eh

03 pa O fe 3 O ryi S 03 w w

q CM H p a o

03 EH JZ; J

U !3 H O En H H EH 3 < 0 PH H p

H 03 U H O

C O w

Q 0 m W IS < PCh H EH w q

Q & 55 < W 0 & W

P4 frj rtj 03 I I I M EH 03

D 03 o p£ CM 0 03 03 01 Q W SS & «3 EH 0} 0}

1-3 h3 rfj < Pu 13 H P U H 13 > H H Pn D P^ IS H

•H ^ d o EH U I PM CM

CD 2

-P H fd >

to CD d CO fd 3 CD 0 2 Ou m

CO I—I <d &

•H O CD d a

"H H PM

g CD -p

!H <D A g

5S

o o

•9< rH O O

* CM O O

*

o o

•K * * * ro CM ro <£>

i—I CM CM ro

o O o o * * * *

* o in o

* o m o

59

75

00 o .7

1

.50

.30

.29

• •

ro ro CM CM CM CM

o rH

CM

r-0h

VD Ch

00 ro <J\ in CM «3»

l> ro ro m OS

o V0 o o\ ro o *

CM CM ro t—1 ro ro

i n i—I o o ro r - i—I ro o i n • * - « »

ro ro CM CM

O CM KD O ^ rH

CM CM

in r-r o »

ro

ch O \o

rH cs ro r o uo o\

i n CPs r ^ o o

kD CO i n CM ro vp *

ro #

ro r o ro CM CM

•Q > i 0 cn

t n CD H * m *» t n CD rH u d rH 3 >1 a) •H

MH g o

•P 0 0 CD

-P 0 fd 0 a . 0 «H CD d *d -P a > i

a o a g <d CD o m rd ^ g rd ^

-P H 0

tr» fd 0 -P 'cd • d •H t n co ^ CD 4^ C ^ -P *H CD O -H CO

MH -P cd co fd t n - H CO u -H -P Ch rH •H -P >

•H id a a H CD rH £S •H 0 (D jC a) t i 1 g u O i - P CD PM << 03

CD J2 CO 4-> CO

CD d o •H 0

u «d 04 CD > tJ» rH d 0 -H > d a -H

•H fd " tn

tP M d to

-H ,£* CD PQ

CO rH CO CD (d CD u M 0 I d CD C/3 d d +3 -H

CD 13 CD <d CD fd ^ CO M CO CD i—1 u ^ -H U CD -P MH 3 CD «d £ CO CD MH d JH CO CO MH 5H d j a MH CD Jh d MH fd -P 0 g •H T3 CD rH CD 0 •H 0 CO Cu CD CD fd +J -H • d rQ 3 to u g •p fd d -P +> * m CD fd

CD Cfl -P 0 CD (d CD rH U m > CO "H rH O > 0 d rQ MH rH t n 4J -H rH 0 0 TJ 0 fd o d & fd co - d 0 & d - m -P CD CO o -P N CD CO a CO o Jh fd CO o CD g •H *H -H 0 g CD CO fd >1

d u fd ^ d o g g u <d a> g Cn cd \ fd "H CD 0 CD rH ft d g o d t n t n *H g o 0 r d o o m

•H $H -P CD d n 0 4-» -P c o o -P 0 CD •H 0 CU t n U

t n ^ J 3 w

fd MH t n § > i d CD t n ^ J CO 3 SH d -P h r d »d •H , d d -P &> a) a)

rH 0 -H CD a d d -P •H -H £ Xi -"J fd Oj > i j Q g fd id •H 0 > i £ •H -P -P > 0 U M a) w EH a & EH ffl

o CM

CM CM

in CM

r - !> CM

CM ro o CO

rH CD >

CD

in o

+3 cd -p

d td o

•H MH •Hi d t n

•rH CO *

67

(stressor 25) had a significance level of .013. "Trying

to resolve differences among students" ranked sixth with

a level of .022. "Complying with state, federal, and

organizational rules and policies" (stressor 27) was seventh

at .023. "Writing memos, letters, and other communications

(stressor 12) and "trying to resolve differences with the

school board" (stressor 13) were eighth and ninth at .036

and .05 respectively. The last stressor showing a significant

difference between the principals and their spouses was

"being unclear on the scope and responsibilities of their

job" (stressor 30) with a level of .05.

A simple analysis of variance (t-test) was employed to

test null hypothesis XI in order to determine the perceptions

of the principals and their building counselors regarding

occupational sources of stress in the daily work of the

principals. A .05 level of significance was established for

testing the data. Hypothesis II was stated previously in

Chapter I as follows below.

Hypothesis II.——There will be no significant difference

between the perceptions of the junior high school principals

and their counselors regarding job related stress situations.

Table III reports the group mean and standard deviation

for the principals and their building counselors. There were

128 members in each group and the possible group mean ranged

from a low of 35 to a high of 175. The group mean for

principals was 107.132 and the group mean for the counselors

68

was 106.898. The higher the mean score, the greater the

level of stress that is perceived. The standard deviation

for principals was 13.764, and the standard deviation for

the counselors was 18.611.

TABLE III

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND COUNSELORS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS

OF THE PRINCIPAL

Group Number of

Cases

Group Mean

Standard Deviation

t Value

2-Tail Probability

Principals 128 107.132 13.764 .11 .909

Counselors 128 106.898 18.611

1 T r 1 Significant at

Table III also shows the comparative analysis of the two

groups. A t value of .11 was obtained. The degrees of free-

dom were 254. Since the two-tail probability (p = .909) was

in excess of the established .05 significance level, the

difference was judged not significant. The-t test failed to

provide a significant difference between the perceptions of

the principals and their building counselors in regard to

occupational stressors in the daily lives of the principals;

therefore, the answer to question two is "no." Consequently,

Hypothesis II was retained.

Even though the total group perceptions did not prove

to be significantly different, the principals had a larger

69

group mean than their building counselors (X - 107.132 to

106.898). The standard deviations showed the counselors to

have a wider range of scores than the principals (sd 18.611

to 13.764). Although there was no significant difference

between the total perceptions of the two groups, there were

nine of the thirty-five occupational stressors that did

render significant differences between the two groups. Table

IV displays each of the occupational stressors that rendered

a significant difference between the principals and their

counselors.

Table IV reports the means for the principals and their

building counselors for each of the items rendering a sig

nificant difference. The items have been listed in rank

order of the calculated t value.

Table IV also reports the comparative analysis of the

two groups for each item. The range of the t values for the

nine items showing a significant difference was from -4.63

to -2.24. "Being involved in the bargaining process"

(stressor 24) and "administering the teacher's contract"

(stressor 29) both showed a significant level of .001. "Pre-

paring and allocating budget resources" (stressor 21) was

third with a level of significance of .003. "Feeling the

progress of my job is not what it should be (stressor 28)

and "imposing excessively high expectations on myself"

(stressor 10) both rendered a significant level of .007.

"Trying to resolve differences with the school board"

70

> H pa h3 < Eh

13 m

EH w a PQ S3 H

W P W ° ^ 6 £3 W O PM & w H ps a is

CO H & P4 O PU

EH W W co as 13 Eh D G

Pq a H

w Pm fa H Q

§ a H

S3 O H GO

a

I

ps o Pm

<

CO CO pa

CO PS P3 EH *H co

pcS P-t H pLl a o

. 13 pa h co Ph ps Pa

PM U EH PS £tS |Z) ffl O " EH O

ffi CO O pd CO fdj

pa Q 13

o CO

S3 O

O CO K CO O H pa h eh PS US c EH PM co PS D o o

^ H U C 53 O D D P h3 H > H Q 53

H ,Q fd O EH JH I

CM

0 3

+> H aj >

to u o t—i CD to d s o a

d fd CD

CM 00 r- ro o 00 CTi vo d fd CD

G\ CO r- r- 00 o in 00 d fd CD CM in r H cn CM vo CM 00 00

S * • ft # • « • ft • S

CM CM 00 CM 00 CM CM 00 00

to t—i fd a a •H cd O CD

d s •H H PM

g CD -P H

M CD r£ e s 13

O O

* i—1 O o

* 00 o o

4c

r-o o

* o o o

* 00 o o

* H r—{ o

* <stf

CM

O

•K VD CM O

0 0 0 0 CM C h VD r-V£> o r- r- in « CM

ft ft

0 0 0 0 CM CM CM CM CM

CM «

CM i

(Ts CM <0 l > V£> in O i—i VD O O 0 0 C h 0 0 o V0 0 0

KD i—1 0 0 CM in 0 0 KD o * ft * ft * * * • *

i—! CM CM 0 0 0 0 CM CM 0 0 0 0

to

CD a )

a )

03 0 O > t 0 CD a ) g

a i H "1 \ X J i to

U w CD r H •» d o u

CD t n CO t n ^ H 0 > 1 to 4 ^ 0 CD

4 3 a CD - P • H r H CD U g u 0 a - P >

O • H X I CD M-4 M CD d 0

CD fd t n to UH fd - P CD Si CD MH

Si tO <D m 0 - P CD > i > i • H 0 0 H g r H X I 0 > 1

+ 3 to 4-> o u fd Si H £ ^ , Q a CD r H 4-3 4 J

CD 0 w Q*£l 0 ) a g • H to • H

PS o CD i—1 CD ^ n d > d CD r H g fd £ i n

- H 0 Si H U CD H • r l 0 > 0 fd r C d 0

u 4-> fd ^ X ! - P ^ to r H 0 *44 H to fd si T S PL, - P O O to to 0 si H 0 cd • H g - p

CD PL,

t n *ns o a O CD d to o - p 4 J CD 4-3 4 J CD

> t n a w + 3 0 0 CD tO 4-3 to a fd fd T S fd

t—! a • H fd CD fd co U X - H U cd T 3 d to

0 • H U r d ' H 0 CD « P CD J d CD t n fd 4 J t n CD

> £ CD o t r> fd 0 Si 4-3 - H d g o d >

d 4 J fd C - P t n - P 4 J - P M-4 • H M t n 4 J - H fd

• H fd to n • H CD t n 0 r H a o t ^ * H - P 0 d - p 4 3

t n • H + 3 M t n £ * r o p* • H CD t n , n d r H fd *44 • H CD 0

t n M d d fd 1 3 • H 0 to Qi a - p - H fd 0 U ^ r H - H 0

d fd • H 0 P . H > i ^ 3 0 X • H - H r H 0 r H Q) d , 3 H X !

• H £ l e o CD r Q CD g CO 04 CD CD t * 1 fd & • H fd 4 H £ CD • d M CD e CD > . d

PQ < P^ PM H EH PM p a

CM (Ts CM

r H CM

00 CM

00 m CM

V£>

1—I cd > <D

i n

o

-P fd

-P d cd o

14-1 • H

d

-H CO *

71

(stressor 13) was sixth at .008. "Feeling that I am not

fully qualified to handle my job" (stressor 4) had a signifi-

cance level of .011. "Evaluating staff members performance

(stressor 25) and "thinking that I will not be able to satisfy

the demands of those with authority over me" (stressor 6)

were eighth and ninth with significance levels of .024 and

.026, respectively.

A simple analysis of variance (t-test) was employed to

test null Hypothesis III in order to determine the percep-

tions of the principals' spouses and the principals' build-

ing counselors regarding occupational sources of stress in

the daily work of the principals. A .05 significance level

was established for testing the data. Hypothesis III was

stated previously in Chapter I as follows.

Hypothesis III.—There will be no significant difference

between the perceptions of the principals' spouses and the

building counselors regarding job related stress situations

in the work of the principals.

Table V reports the group mean and standard deviation

for the principals' spouses and the building counselors.

There were 128 members in each group and the possible group

mean ranged from a low of 35 to a high of 175. The group

mean for spouses was 105.578 and the group mean for the

counselors was 106.898. The higher the mean score, the

greater the stress that is perceived. The standard deviation

72

for the spouses was 17.145 and the standard deviation for the

counselors was 18.611.

TABLE V

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALS' SPOUSES AND COUNSELORS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS

OF THE PRINCIPAL

Group Number of

Cases

Group Mean

Standard Deviation

t Value

2-Tail Probability

Spouses 128 105.578 17.145 -.59 .556

Counselors 128 106.898 18.611

Table V also shows the comparative analysis of the two

groups. A t value of -.59 was obtained. The degrees of

freedom was 254. Since the two-tail probability (p — .556)

was in excess of the established .05 significance level, tne

difference was judged not significant. The t—test did not

provide a significant difference between the perceptions of

the principals' spouses and the building counselors in

regard to occupational stressors in the daily lives of the

principals; therefore, the answer to question three is no.

Consequently, Hypothesis III was retained.

Even though the total group perceptions did not prove

to be significantly different, the counselors had a larger

group mean (X = 106.898 to X = 105.578) and thus perceived

a higher level of stress in the work of the principals than

73

the spouses perceived. The standard deviations showed that

both the spouses (sd = 17.145) and the counselors (sd =

18.611) experienced a wide range of scores. Although there

was no significant difference between the total groups, there

were three of the individual stressors that did render sig-

nificant differences between the two groups. Table VI dis

plays each of the occupational stressors that showed a

significant difference between the two groups.

Table VI reports the group means for the principals'

spouses and the building counselors for each item rendering

a significant difference. The items have been listed in rank

order of the calculated t value.

Table VI also reports the comparative analysis of the

two groups for each item. The range of the t values for the

three items showing a significant difference was from -2.49

to 2.00. "Preparing and allocating budget resources"

(stressor 21) showed a significant level of .013. "Being

involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24) was second

with a significant level of .039. "Imposing excessively

high standards on myself" (stressor 10) was the third item,

with a significance level of .046.

As reported in Table I, there was no significant differ-

ence between the total perceptions of the principals and

their spouses. This allowed Hypothesis I to be retained.

As reported in Table III, there was no significant difference

between the total perceptions of the principals and their

74

53 W

H > w Hi PQ <

EH W W CO PS pa o O J ss w m co PS !3 CO fa D CO fa O H fa U PS H EH Q Q W 2

Eh <! fa 2 o <3 CO O M CO H W H 0} fa D O H O PS <1 2 ft o O CO o H H CO o CO - S3 CO k) H C J c & C 2

PS ft O fa H H H Q U Ej W Z 2 < W H ft PS PS Z) ft o o

Eh O fa C J O X o EH O O S3 2

co a h PS CO P O PS to S3 <! co O O M H M PS S3 PS EH co PS O

1-3 H < 2 C> D Q l"3 1 1 Ml > LJ rn Q S3 H

i—i * * * *

-H rQ oo G\ <JD fd 0 i—S 00 B M o O O i PLI • • *

CM

a\ 00 o CD o o 3 • * «

•P H CM CM CM fd I I >

CO 0 r- CM 00 rj d 00 r-S * r> 0) §*

(—i CM CM S * r> 0) §*

«

00 CM •

00 0 a

cn 00 LT) 00 a>- d a\ CM co m 00 Ch in 3 CD « * •

o g CM rH 00 PU

X* tP tn<w a •H *—1 *

"H & CD rH •P CD CO CD rd £! CO >1 >1 > O -P tfi H g CD o w CD CD rH rH <D d o > d

6 H o -H 0 •H 0 in CD 03 !M M CO o -P 3 nd 04 CO CO •

H <"0 0 CD (D d a w > tn 0 0 -P <d CD h d X -H cd

u 0 -H CD -P tn > a fd +3 a -P d -h tn +J d -H CD •H fd d o fd M tn tn -H CD o fd tn H W 04 •H PU 3 d fd 0 X m CD "H rQ Qa CD •H U CD S d cu PQ H tn

•H U)

U * 0) & rH O 8 CM CM i—\ 0 525

75

building counselors. This allowed Hypothesis II to be

retained. However, even though the total perceptions of

Hypothesis I and Hypothesis II did not render significant

differences, there were some individual items that rendered

significant differences. Table VII displays the individual

items that rendered significant differences and were common

to both hypotheses.

Table VII reports the group means for the principals,

their spouses, and the counselors for each item rendering a

significant difference in the data of both Hypothesis I and

Hypothesis II. The greater the mean score, the greater the

perceived level of stress. The items have been listed in

rank order of the perceived level of stress as reported by

the principals.

"Evaluating staff members' performance" (stressor 25)

was indicated by principals to be a higher stressor than

perceived by either the spouses or the counselors. "Feeling

that I am not fully qualified to handle my job" (stressor 4)

was listed next by principals. Principals again reported a

higher stress perception than the spouses or the counselors.

"Trying to resolve differences with my superiors" (stressor

13) was third and both the spouses and counselors perceived

a higher stress level than did the principals. "Administer-

ing the negotiated contract" (stressor 29) and "being involved

in the collective bargaining process" (stressor 24) were the

76

H H >

W

M <

EH

fa W EN

5 3 H

fa U 5 3 fa P^ fa fa fa H Q

Eh < O H fa H 5 3 O H to <

a 0

FA Q

5 3 fa 05

B <

EC EH

CO PS O to to fa 6 Eh CO

H3 <

D Q

H > H Q 5 3

Q 5 3 <1

CN fa to D O CM co

I

co

PM

H CO U P4 IS o H i-3 PCS fa & TFL

S3

D 0 U 1

to & O < fa p4

H < 1 u EH 53

Q

FA FFI EH

fa O

CO H CO >H

3

5

CO

0 <Js ro o CM rH a i n o 00 cr̂ a) m ro CM VD i n CM

to c d * * » • S a g CO CM CM CM CM

2 0 a

01 CM 00 O ro i n

c d a LD i> l> ro to rd ro o i n KO CTi

3 CD * * • » •

G g 00 CM CM CM rH A CO

to rH rd rH o m CM 04 d o O o

•H fd VD ro rH VsD O CD • • § * e d g r o CM CM CM l—1

•H N

to •Q <D

>i 0 O CO rH -ro d • *

i—! CD M to 53 > i u CD u MH g 0 T* A CD MH M 0

•Q - P CD MH fd fd CD 6 O rH •H 0 0) eC tO CD d <d £* -P -P to g d CD

g fd CD rH CD d o g IH fd , £ > 0 £1 •H 0 <D IH rH 0 •P u -P m H 0 0 Jd 13 CU H -P CD +3 to 0 t n CD

to a -P CD tO d > u* d fd t s u •H rH d

Cn fd JG CD CD M -P 0 -H a g -P -H O A CD O > d

•H H U-4 -P -P -P fd d -H -P 0 t n - H CO M •rH fd rd m d rH t J I rd •H -P fcn 3 n •h fd a -p a d

rH (D rH 3 •H "H •H 0 d fd rd Oi <D tr1 >i £ g o •H > a) M CD fa fa EH c CQ

U CD & i n ro as § CM rH CM CM 1-3

1 3

77

last two items. Again, the spouses and the counselors

registered higher mean scores than the principals.

As reported in Table V, there was no significant differ-

ence between the total perceptions of the spouses and the

counselors. This allowed Hypothesis III to be retained.

Hypothesis I was retained because it reported no significant

differences (Table I). Even though the total perceptions of

Hypothesis I and Hypothesis III did not render significant

differences, there were some individual items that rendered

significant differences and were common to both hypotheses.

Table VIII displays the individual items that rendered

significant differences and were common to both Hypotheses I

and III.

Table VIII reports the group means for the principals,

their spouses, and the counselors for each item rendering a

significant difference in the data of Hypothesis I and

Hypothesis III. The greater the mean score, the greater the

perceived level of stress. There was only one item (stressor

24) that rendered a significant difference common to both

Hypotheses I and III.

"Being involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24)

was the only item that registered a significant difference

common to both Hypotheses I and III. The spouses were the

common respondent to Hypotheses I and III. Out of the thirty

five items tested, stressor twenty-four was the only one that

78

spouses measured significantly different from both the

principals and the counselors.

TABLE VIII

INDIVIDUAL STRESSORS THAT RENDERED A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FOR

BOTH SPOUSES-PRINCIPALS AND SPOUSES-COUNSELORS

No. Item Principals

Mean Spouses Mean

Counselors Mean

24 Being involved in the bargaining process 1.609 1.945 2.242

When comparing Hypothesis II with Hypothesis III, the

counselors are the common respondents. Table IX reports the

group means for the principals, their spouses, and the

counselors for each item rendering a significant difference

common to both hypotheses. The items have been listed in

rank order of the perceived level of stress as reported by

the principals. There were three items common to both

hypotheses.

In the three items showing significant difference in

Table IX, the principals and spouses seem to agree on the

level of stress for the principal and the counselors register

a significantly different perception. "Imposing excessively

high expectations on myself" (stressor 10) was perceived

to have a higher level of stress by the principals and their

79

X H

m h-'i <n

W HI EH

53 H

P W S3 O *3 53 w 03 3 hI W ^3

H H O P 53

H B PS !S Pk C I O 03 H PS Ph O H ^ 03 2 W M O 03 03 H ^ D 03 D O

O P-j < O C D

t P EC 03 W EH PS P ^ O O W PQ 1̂ 1 P W jz; PS cn w o 53 Ph Pm D

O & <U < B EC < &H P

03 w PS HI O eh 03 03 (14

M O PS EH 03 03 H

03 1-3 t * < h3 D < P 53 H <1 > H P 53

03

U i—1 £H 00 CO CM <D fd r - CO tn <D CM 1—1 CM a a • • •

s 00 00 CN 0 a

03 a A

LO to as 00 00 LO pi a CM as «sf 0 g lO 00 as Ot * * *

03 00 CM t—4

W i—1 fd a . fl KD CF\

*H fd 00 00 o 0 Q) LO 00 <v£> « g • * e

•H 00 CN rH M p4

-a t n m t n

•H i—! a X! CD •H

w -P CD >1 >1 aS X! W H 2 o -P 03 0 0 03 CD > G «H a> a a

•H 0 rH O •H 0 03 fd u M 03 03 3 <X3 04

6 CD a *d o CD CD o 0 a cn > t n •P X -H fd CD rH C H CD -P 0 -H

rd tn > £ t n -P d -P & -H £ o -H CD •rH aS

-H CD M tn t n 03 Ck as *-3 tn u O X! 04 0 a fd Q* CD CD ^ *H X? B <D H Pm PQ

CD JQ O i—! B i—1 CNI CM

125

80

spouses as was perceived by the counselors. The counselors

perceived a higher level of stress for "preparing and allocat-

ing budget resources" (stressor 21) than did either the

principals or the spouses. The last of the three common items

was "being involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24).

The counselors again perceived a higher level of stress for

the principals than did the principals or their spouses.

When comparing the individual items that rendered a

significant difference in Hypotheses I, II, and III, there

was only one item common to all three hypotheses. Table X

reports the group means for the principals, there spouses,

and the counselors. "Being involved in the bargaining pro-

cess" (stressor 24) was the only item rendering a significant

difference common to all three hypotheses.

TABLE X

INDIVIDUAL STRESSORS THAT RENDERED A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FOR

ALL GROUPS, PRINCIPALS-SPOUSES-COUNSELORS

NO. Item Principals

Mean Spouses Mean

Counselors Mean

24 Being involved in the bargaining process 1.609 1.945 2.242

The purpose of Hypothesis IV was to determine which

stressors were perceived by junior high school principals

to be most stressful. For preliminary analysis these

81

stressors were grouped into five categories, called factors,

of seven stressors each. The purpose of establishing these

factors of categories was to create general areas of related

stressors to facilitate understanding and analysis. In

addition to the analysis of the descriptive data of the group

means and standard deviation, a one-way analysis of variance

was computed to determine if the differences between the

level of perceived stress was statistically significant

between groups. A .05 significance level was established for

testing the data. Hypothesis IV was stated previously in

Chapter I as follows.

Hypothesis IV.—There will be no significant difference

in the perceptions of the junior high school principals

between the five subsets of the questionnaire; (a) adminis-

trative constraints, (b) administrative responsibilities,

(c) interpersonal relations, (d) intrapersonal conflicts,

and (e) role expectations.

The items on the questionnaire were categorized to

five factors representing stressor areas. These areas were

administrative constraints, administrative responsibilities,

interpersonal relations, intrapersonal conflict, and role

expectations. There were seven related situations in each

factor. The rank, mean, and standard deviation of each

factor as reported by the principals are shown in Table

XI.

82

TABLE XI

DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON THE FIVE STRESSOR AREAS AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS

Rank Factors Mean Standard Deviation

1 Administrative Constraints 24.390 3.836

2 Interpersonal Relations 21.914 3.906

3 Intrapersonal Conflict 21.539 2.983

4 Role Expectations 20.226 3.306

5 Administrative Responsibilities

19.062 3.600

Those stressors included in the administrative constraints

category (questions 1, 9, 12, 26, 27, 31, 32) were perceived

to be the most stressful of the five factors and produced a

mean score of 24.390. The possible range for the mean scores

was seven to thirty—five. The higher the mean score, the

greater the stress is perceived to be. This factor showed

the second largest variance with a standard deviation of

3.836. Interpersonal relations (questions 3, 7, 13, 20, 23,

33, 34) was second with a mean score of 21.914 and standard

deviation of 3.906. This factor showed the greatest variance

of scores. The third factor was intrapersonal conflict

(questions 4, 5, 10, 15, 17, 22, 28) with a mean score of

21.539 and a variance of 2.983. This factor showed the least

variance of all the factors. The fourth factor was role

83

expectations (questions 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19, 30) with a

mean score of 20.226 and a variance of 3.306. The factor

reported by the principals to be the least stressful was

administrative responsibilities (questions 2, 14, 21, 24, 25,

29, 35) with a mean score of 19.062 and a variance of 3.600.

Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV display the analysis of

variance used to determine where significant differences

existed among the five stressor areas as reported by

principals. Table XII reports the degrees of freedom, t

values, and probability when a t-test was performed between

the administrative constraints factor and each of the other

factor areas. The administrative constraints factor rendered

a significant difference between each of the other four

stressor areas. Table XII reports the comparisons in rank

order according to the t values.

Table XIII reports the degree of freedom, t value, and

probability when a t-test was performed between the inter-

personal relations factor and each of the other factors. The

comparison with administrative constraints xs reported in

Table XII. The interpersonal relations factor rendered a

significant difference among three of the other four stres-

sor areas. There was not a significant difference rendered

in the analysis with the intrapersonal conflict factor.

Table XIV reports the degree of freedom, t value, and

probability when a t-test was performed among the intra-

personal conflict factor and each of the other factors not

84

TABLE XII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRAINTS FACTOR WITH THE OTHER FObR FACTORS

Factor Degrees of

Freedom t

Value 2-Tail

Probability

Administrative Responsibilities 254 11.46 .001*

Role Expectations 254 9.30 .001*

Intrapersonal Conflict 254 6.64 .001*

Interpersonal Relations 254 5.12 .001*

•Significant at .05 level.

TABLE XIII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS FACTOR WITH THE REMAINING FACTORS

Factor Degrees of

Freedom t

Value 2-Tail

Probability

Administrative Responsibilities 254 -6.07 .001*

Role Expectations 254 3.73 .001*

Intrapersonal Conflict 254 .86

.389

•Significant at .05 level.

reported in Tables XII and XIII. The intrapersonal conflict

factor rendered a significant difference with each factor

except interpersonal relations. There was no significant

85

difference with interpersonal relations as shown in Table

XIII.

TABLE XIV

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE INTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT A N FACTOR WITH THE REMAINING FACTORS

Factor

Administrative Responsibilities

Role Expectations

Degrees of Freedom

254

254

t Value

-5.99

3.33

2-Tail Probability

.001*

.001*

*Significant at .05 level,

TABLE XV

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE ROLE EXPECTATIONS FACTOR WITH THE REMAINING FACTOR

Factor Degrees of Freedom

t Value

2-Tail Probability

Administrative Responsibilities

- ' i __ * t> ~

254 -2.69 .008*

The role expectations factor rendered a significant

difference with each of the other four factors. Table XV

reports the analysis of role expectations with the adminis-

trative responsibilities factor. The other comparisons are

reported in Tables XII/ XIII, and XIV.

86

The administrative responsibilities factor rendered a

significant difference with each of the other four factors.

The degree of freedom, t value, and probability is reported

in Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV where the comparisons with

each of the other factors is reported.

Table XVI reports the analysis of variance for the five

stressor areas. An F ratio of 40.96 was obtained. Since

this F probability (p = .001) exceeded the established .05

significance level, there was a significant difference in

mean scores of the five stressor areas; therefore, the

answer to question four is "yes." Consequently, Hypothesis

IV was rejected.

TABLE XVI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE FIVE STRESSOR AREAS AS REPORTED BY THE PRINCIPALS

Sources of Variation

Degrees of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F Ratio

F

Between Groups

Within Groups

4

635

2 0 5 6 . 2 8 0

7 9 6 9 . 4 8 4

5 1 4 . 0 7

1 2 . 5 5 4 0 . 9 6 . 0 0 1 *

An analysis of variance was employed to test null

Hypothesis V in order to determine if the biographical areas

of age, size of school, size of school district, and total

years of experience as a principal produce significant

differences in perceptions of the junior high principals.

87

A .05 significance level was established for testing the data.

Hypothesis V was stated previously in Chapter I as follows.

Hypothesis V.—There will be no significant differences

between the perceptions of junior high school principals m

terms of (a) age, (b) size of school, (c) size of school dis-

trict, and (d) total years of experience as a principal.

For the purpose of this study, data reported by female

principals were not included in the analysis. This decision

was made after a review of the junior high school principals

in Texas revealed the fact that there was not a sufficient

number of female junior high school principals. Even if, by

chance, all female principals had been selected in the random

sample, a 100 percent return still would not have produced a

sufficient numer of female respondents to render information

satisfactory for generalizing conclusions. The study pro-

duced only one female respondent.

Table XVII reports the group mean, standard deviation,

t value, degrees of freedom, and two-tail probability for

the principals when they are grouped in the designated age

categories. The respondents were divided into two subgroups

according to age. There were 128 total respondents with 30

reporting their age to be under 40 and 98 reporting their age

to be 40 or over. In determining the age groupings, 40 was

selected as the dividing point since the literature supports

the theory that the age 40 may be a psychological barrier

for some people (1, 2 ) W h i l e this was not a point of

88

§ H Eh < 04

P O o o

o

H

W 0 CD W ^

co m

< p

Oi w H H PM H U D

> » 9 X H PH X

Ph a

W PM a is PQ W M rtj ixi ta &H Eh s

CO O

o CO CO 13 CO o w H P4 Eh Eh Hi cn w a PES

w p-l

M

> H

2 <!

s o u

>i •p

r—I -H * *H rH O

rd -h i—1

EH ,Q o

I rd •

<N & 0 u CM

en g

CD 0 <DM-in3 KD H 0 CD Cv3

tn <D t—!

CD U a pm

CD 3 ro

«P rH rd »

> CM

£ o

M "H LO

<d +> cm m

rd cd in co

£ -H • •

cd > CNS i—1

-P CD cn Q

l> H VX? 00

£ ro in

rd • *

CD cn in

a i—1 o r—i r—1

>i 0 a CD 3 O CO

tJ1 CO OS CD

ixi

CD U tn CD

< > < W 0

- U w rd r—( cd a fd >i fd

Pu o cn •HI o cn

O d fd -H u a)

CD >1 CM TS

£ O

D ^

H CD > CD

LO O

-P fd

-P a rd o •rl

•H

tn •H cn •K

89

contention in this study, it did seem reasonable to use 40

as a dividing point in age grouping. The under 40 age group

reported the higher mean score of 112.367 with the 40 and

over group reporting a mean of 105.531. The standard devia-

tions of the two groups indicated the range of scores to be

very close. The standard deviation for the under 40 group

was 13.83. The standard deviation for the 40 and over group

was 13.408.

A t value of 2.43 was obtained by analysis of variance.

The degrees of freedom was 126. Since the two-tail probability

(p = .017) exceeded the established .05 significance level,

the difference was judged to be significant between the means

of the two age groups of principals.

The respondents were divided into two groups according

to the size of school in which they served as principal.

Table XVIII displays the group mean and standard deviation

of each group. The school sizes were grouped such that the

first group would include schools with an average daily

membership between 270 and 999. The second group would

include schools with an enrollment of 1,000 and over. After

an investigation, it was determined that 270 would be the

bottom limit of the first group because there were no schools

in Texas with an enrollment of less than 270 which were

classified as junior high schools. The first group, smaller

schools, reported a mean score of 107.833. The second group,

larger schools, reported a mean score of 104.385. The

90

H H

X

w

CQ <

Hi < 5S O H

s P-l 13 o a o o J 121 S H O O EC & U < 03 O M Pm PS O

03 W h3 N < H Pn 03 H a >« a m H Pi P f i i W

fU W P m o EH &

0 Pm O IS

W u3 tn 25 S o H 03 H & CU O W 03 U 03 M W m cu

w > H EH

3 < P-i S O o

EH 03

>1 •p

i—1 -H •H «—i KD cd -H if)

1 B ,Q CM I fd *

CM , f i 0 u PA

to S CD 0 CD <4-4 »d KO u o a) CM t n CD «—1 a) n p Fn

CD ^ • 3 rH

-P i—I *

i—S >

CH • d o H 00 M "H rH 00 nj -P oo

*d fd • •

0 -H 00 CO fd > i-H rH -P 0) 03 Q

oo m a CO 00 rd 00 oo CD • *

s r - ^ o o rH rH

> i : i o c CD <N \D 3 O CM i tr1 rH CD 1 u Pm

CD N

•H 03 M

CD i—1 > 0 0 0 & a £ 03 o> fd

o% 1 o

o o r - o

| cxi i—i

-P fd

•P a fd O H

m •H a

•H 03

91

smaller schools reported a standard deviation of 13.811, and

the larger school reported a standard deviation of 13.488.

There were 102 schools responding in the 270 to 999 group.

The 1,000 and over group contained only 26 respondents.

Even though the larger school grouping had considerably fewer

respondents than the smaller school grouping, the two groups

showed very little difference in range of scores.

Table XVIII also reports the analysis of variance for

the two groups representing school size. A t value of 1.14

was obtained. Since the two-tail probability (p = .256) did

not exceed the established .05 significance level, there was

no significant difference between the means of the groups

determined by school size.

The principals were divided into three groups according

to the size of the school district that they represented.

Table XIX is a two-part table that reports both the descrip

tive data and the analysis of variance for the three groups.

Group one contained all respondents from school districts

ranging in size from 270 to 644. Group two ranged in size

from 645 to 1,309. Group three included all districts

ranging in size from 1,310 and over. Group three recorded

the lowest mean score of 104.97. Group two had the highest

mean score of 113.85. Group one recorded a mean score of

109.18. Group two reported the greatest variance in their

response.

92

TABLE XIX

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ^fCIPALS ^CARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS WHEN GROUPED BY SCHOOL

DISTRICT SIZE

Descriptive Data

Size of District Frequency Mean Standard Deviation

270-644 11 109.18 2.05

645-1,309 26 113.85 6.71

1,310 and over 91 104.97 2.17

Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

Between Groups

Within Groups

Degrees of

Freedom

2

125

Sum of Squares

1644.82

22413.72

Mean Square

822.41

179.31

F Ratio

4.587

F Prob.

.012'

^Significant at .05 level.

In the analysis of variance, an F ratio of 4.587 was

obtained. Since this F probability (p = .012) exceeded the

established .05 significance level, there was a significant

difference. The principals of larger school districts

reported significantly lower perceptions of stress than

principals of smaller districts as in groups two and three.

The responses of the principals were divided into three

groups according to their years of experience as a principal.

It was determined that these groups would represent the

beginning years as a principal, the middle range years, and

93

long-term service. Group one represented one to five years

of experience, group two represented six to fifteen years of

experience, and group three represented principals with six-

teen or more years of experience. Table XX reports the

descriptive data and the analysis of variance for the three

groups in regard to principals' perceptions on work stressors

when analyzed by years of experience. The means ranged from

a high of 108.53 for group one to a low of 104.07 for group

three. Group three reported the greatest variance in their

responses.

In the analysis of variance, an F ratio of 1.006 was

obtained. Since the F probability (p = .369) did not exceed

the established .05 significance level, the difference was

judged to be not significant between the means when grouped

by years of experience as a principal.

Hypothesis V required the analysis of the perceptions

of the principals when grouped by age, size of school, size

of school district, and years of experience as a principal.

The analysis of these different areas rendered significant

differences in the perceptions of the principals regarding

occupational stressors when grouped by age and size of school

districts. When grouped by size of school and by years of

experience as a principal no significant differences were

found. Since there was significant difference found within

Hypothesis V, the answer to question five is both "yes" and

"no." "Yes," when grouped by age and size of school district,

94

"No," when grouped by size of school and years of experience

as a principal. Consequently, null Hypothesis V was rejected,

TABLE XX

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS WHEN GROUPED BY

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Descriptive Data

Years of Experience

Frequency Mean Standard Deviation

1 to 5 years 38 108.53 1.39

6 to 15 years 60 107.78 0.65

16 years and over 30 104.07 3.07

Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

Degrees of

Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F Ratio

F Prob.

Between Groups

Within Groups

2

125

381.32

23677.32

190.61

189.42 1.006 .369

The purpose of Table XXI is to report the analysis of

the individual stressors. It reports the mean scores and

rank order of all the stressors as reported by the principals

spouses, and counselors. The range of mean scores for prin-

cipals was from a high of 3.67 on "trying to resolve differ-

ences among staff members" (stressor 33) to a low of 1.61 on

"being involved in the collective bargaining process

95

H X X

m \A m < Eh

EH

O m & o cn PM & w o & h3

ca cn cn ^ £;

P cn O

o o cn Q cn !z; g ^

B -cn cn

w Pm cn o P o

& PM m cn 0 rK *». o cn a

iz; di <S H k a

£5 p h jz; & i< Pu

O a cn

§ < m g

tO

0 i—I CD 0) d 2 O O

d m PS

m ro

* 00

M O 03 CO a) u -P cn

44 20

.46

.20

91

*

*

ro ro ro CM ro

* o 00 LO i—i rH ro

V£> in ro rH rH

a • •

ro ro CM Rank

2*

19

12*

34

21

15

18

33

Mean

3.59

3.04

3.22

2.08

2.96

3.14

3.09

2.21

Rank

<T\ 12

14

31

i i i

21

20

13

33

Mean

3.54

3.38

3.34

2.46

3.07

3.09

3.36

2.26

*d

>i

>i r-1 +3 a CD d D1

CD M

MH

13 CD -P tfl C r̂-i 2 H U fd U O CD

CD x; -P

tn d

*iH -P fd d

•iH TS

O O a

d cd

CD I—I cu o a> a

0 £ O

tn a» a <d •H rH CD 0) PQ -P

>i a

tp fd d g H 0) M-( •H O > M CO CD ^ 04 to 3 fd cn -P

CN

CD •iH >i

| MH rH u •H U CD rH CD rd CO fd d & d d P3 O 0 2 O tT •H 5-i

•iH 4J 04 +> -P (d - fd rH e -9 d -P rH 0 o P3 O -ro nd CD MH MH

PL| d >i CO X •P -H g U CD O

•P 4-> CD d •P 4-> X̂ ^ <D 0 £ d g O CD m fd X!

•P >i g 0 •P >i CO H - n - M

MH rH d M MH fd 43 ^ fd fd fd o fd g O 0 -P tn X5

H O to -P CD H O >1 rH 4J

tp g tPT! d c c d rd

•H 13 •H nj -H CD rH d rH jS ^ CD fd CD O CD CD CD O d CD |X| to Pm -P d

•

ro • »

m

CD g

mh o

to O <d .p d M

fd CD <D g > rH CD O X! 'Tf fd >i

tP -P a) d -h X! -H m

-p o -P o x; O -H a H

MH fd rH d rH O

o

-p 2

•«H £

CD > fd

CD XJ H £

4-> O tP XS d >i £

*H MH ,14 W (D a *H co

-H -P O ^ fd ^ E~t to -P

VJD

tP a o g fd

cn CD O d CD U CD

MH MH •H TS

a) > rH O CO CD U O •P

CD g

MH O

T5 CD •P O CD ft X CD

CO •H

XI tr> 0 o d CD

-P o d

to -p tr> d d CD 'H TS > i ps ?H -P Eh CO

CO n o H Jh CD 0. 0

tJ» to d

•H >i rH £ a) CD >i Em XI

oo

9 6

m u o «H CD W d 3 o o

a cd A

11

13*

15

21

I

30 29 27

*

CM r - ro 00 00 CN o ro CN CM o V£) 00

* • • • • • *

ro ro ro ro CN CN CM

CN

03 0 03 3 O & 03

d td 0 s

a fd &

a ai a) S

* CM

CM CM

ro

LO

CN m

00

r -i—i

o CM ro

* o CM CM

ro oo

CM

* r -CM

O ro r - in cn m H o in r - 00 • • • * • *

ro ro CN CM CM CM

TO <D '3

-H -P d 0 U I i H X X

w

m <

03 rH ctS 0. •H O d

-H U P-!

a rd

a fd 0 S

*-4 o 03 03 CD U -P 03

in i—i

•K in as oo CM

CO in CM

* CM CM

CN a\ !> o O ro in rH CN ro 00 00

ft e ft ft « * *

ro ro ro ro CN CM CN

* V£> CM

O r -

CM

1 -P u d jQ «P CD

U CD CD fd O as & U CD •P £ •m x: -P 03 0 rd d £ 0 CD 03 03

•H o n a 03 •H ,d CD CD T* d a. > M

>i £ ,d -P > d CD 0 rH M 0 0 rH tn -P O fd 0 fd CD 0

-P 03 -H CD .Q CD u *H 04 CD O d M JQ fd 03 4-4 tn a d CD CD rH

JQ CD U 4-1 0 03 fd

P rQ >i CD U i—1 CD -H 4H 03 g D1 g H 03 0 d JO •P 15 O >f 0 M CD CD CD >i 4-4 fd rd •P •P g rd O U g > E d CD CD 03 0) 4-1 4H •H CD U 0 i—1 > U £ Q) -P M U

4H 03 a H CD 03 rH 0 O g fd 0 0) ^ 4-4 03 O 3 > fd •hk. 03 0 •H JH ^d Cu u fd CD 03 G CD 03 d 03 U 4H 0 ^ -0 -P o 03 03 U 0 0 0) CD 03 0 £ 03 X d CD CD g •H u 04 £ a tn g g

0 0 a 03 CD -P •H cp o d >i >i •H d -H g fd 0 03 c -H -H 4H 03 g rQ +> fd o 4J +> SP 0 0

A* £ (d tn 6 ^ tn-H >1 d •P fd 0 -P tnTi rH *H -P d u d d d tn g -H d 03 fd a cd fd 03 O *H 0 -H •H a g a

-H -P «P O CD rH MH X! -P g -H ,£! fd CD CD d rH > Cb 04 PU CD M -P •H s >i4J CD +J a. -P -H fd fd 3 0 g x CD CD U 0 •H Oi -P x o x: > S3 M -P H CD fX| Cum £ o EH £ 03 < CD S +3 0

* *

o •

rH CM •

ro « •

m ft MD

rH rH rH rH i—1 rH rH

97

CD 3 a

• H - P £ 0 a 1 i

H X X

w J PQ *C Eh

CO SH 0 i—!

Ran

k * rH 00 23

1*

17

24*

20

33

0) CO a 3 0 o M

ean

3.5

9

3.3

8 00 00 • CM 3

.59

3.1

9

2.8

3

3.11

CM •

CM

(/} (D CO

Ran

k * CM

22

KD

23

26

16

35

3 0 Oi cn

Mea

n

3.5

9

3.5

8

2.9

1

3.5

1

2.9

0

2.7

7

3.1

3

1.9

5

co i—i cd

04

Ran

k

* If) 00 22* *

CM CM 26

*

17

35

i—i 4J fd fd 3 & T3 •P -H

>

CO -H C 0 G

•rH *H u CO 0 -rH UH co O 0 £ co <D 0 CD •d w £ U CD ^ -P CD > cn -H H

rd i—i g -p CD fd

0 rC! r d 4J +J - p

Cn -P 0 d OH

• H (y a > MH O fti 4H CD

fd Qa

•

r-tH

C\ <5? CM *3* O 00 J 1 m in 00 00 r- CM KO • • * • * « • •

r o CO CM CO CM CM CO i—!

rH fd > 1 g u - H

0 c 0 ?H 0 • h a rH - p 0 >

CD 0 0 X I • H

CD 0 g o t n - P CO - P - P jC" > 1 XS x \ 0 0 0 fd - P g a O o fd * h 0 0 o . •P CO & C3 rH

*rH CD MH g i 0 - H • H i—1 o n3 0 TS •P t n rH i—1 H 0

- H -rH 0 0 £ £ •P - H CU o - P 03 CD 0 - P 0 - H - P X ! * H ?H - P CO - p fd u - P • H "H O 0 fd 2 £ t n fd fd rH CO CO X ! a . o CD CD 0 04 0 £ • H 4J

0^ > i—i 0 0 0 CO 0 CO X fd 0 0 rH 0 PA G to •P CD CD JC! T5 M > i—1 - P CO - P • H 0

- H 0 rH fd 0 PI 0 CD - P 0 H > 1 CO 0 0 U 0 0 • d o > - H •G CD - P - H CO ncs > g U 0 u fd > - P g - P - H £> 0 £ fd +J > o . & - H • H fd rH M U fd & ^ 0 •P r H

- P •P - P • H 0 0 - p CO 0 CP H O fd •P JQ O i 0 CO Cn CO H > G

fd i—1 • H 0 - p - p £ 0 > 1 1 3 co G - H Cn fd Cn co co o • H 0 Cn U 0 a g £ rH fd in £ £ C n - H H a U d • H 0 * H

• H 0 «d 0 •rH 0 > i £ rH fd 3 • H fd Cn rH i—1 Cn fd rH 0 CO i—1 0 . g • H 4H PU 0 rH O • H I S X ! G Cn 0) rCl u CD U) > 1 a 0 CO 0 CO a o - H n CD o 0 CD 0 0 > i JH O M 0 0 0 CO fd u 0 fd PM CO £ Pli PM M XX EH a CM u CM 4-> rd US 04 CQ

•

00 •

<Tt «

o *

rH »

CM •

00 *

1—1 i—1 CM CM CM CM CM

98

"d cd 0 d -H -P d o 0 1 i H X X

w m < EH

to u 0 1—1 R

ank

Ch 13*

22

31

32

ro KD

CD

to d 0 u M

ean

3.36

3.27

3.4!

2.98

2.59

2.56

3.53

3.43

Spouses

Rank

CTk 00

10

14

30

32

i—1

Spouses

Mean

3.35

3.39

3.30

3.20

2.63

2.41

3.68

3.41

to 1—1 fd & R

ank

ro

II

* LO

16

34

30

CM

10

•H

D

d •H

n

Mean

3.64

3.48

3.59

3.30

2.10

2.61

3.66

3.52

rH 0 fd 0

fd B •P

i to B CD u > i O r H CD O i d CD > - P d fd H d n " d -P 0 d fd CU fd 0 O 0 0 CU

(D d CD CD H -p - P to CD to £t rC rQ to T5 fd fd CD

tO fd - P CD H CO rH - H r d - H fd U CD u 0 0 M~i (d CD d -P & - p - P 0 B CD O Cn d U O 0 • H pL)-H

•P H d - O Cn,d Cr> - P rH to CD -P g -H CD - H o to CD to -H Cn U

u <D CD - P U - P - P U d d X3 d d 0 B > fd d fd fd O l - P *ro-H *H CD 0 to fd ^ ts •P N •H CD to - p 4J to m ,d +j CO * H <D ,d d d CD CD M CD IH & d +> -P 0 0 CD «H U u H CD tO fd - P fd 04 S QA 0 - p •P d -H -P Cn Cn U to B ^ w CO •P O •H M to - P £ d fd CD •P 0

fd * H & 0 CD fd •H CD U fd O U Cn • d •H A +J H t H CD X! CD d •p 13 Cn i—1 O - P 0 CD o u - P CD 0 Ou •H CD fd >1 >1 d fd •H d CD -P •P d d fd B - P fd -P O tP o h (d •rH O H tr> *Q to O d fd Cn-H O i fd d > 1 O O d to

*Q • H fd d -P

0 fd •H "H rH i—I PL| •H -H ^ d Cn CD 0 •H d M i—i s r-l M & M Qa rH rH •H •P d a , * ro H & -H CD <d u CD H W M 6 *0 "d CD J3 d B d •H o 0) o > 1 ^ 3 > o CD 0 0 0 0 d d CD O 0 0 CD Q > i CD d U 4J w iw P«4 £ CU £ O fd fd pq - r o 0 <1 o 03 to s B EH 0

LO *

VD • «

00 •

cn o •

rH •

CM CM CM CM CM CM ro ro ro

99

<D 2 S 41 £ 0 O \ 1

H x X

w

m

cn u o t—I CD w £

O a

AS C fd &

£ fd CD a

U3 <D (fi 2 0 01 C/3

Cfl rH cd •rH o £

•H

G rd P$

a cd 0) S

£ rd

£ cd C) s

O tn w CD +J

cn

CM

CTs CM

ro

i> CM

CO

r-<£>

ro

VjD CM

00 «

CM

in CM

O 00

CM

a\ CM

in

CM

r ! ^ d)

to o

O O M-l

H M-l

>i a, o

* CM

O 00

CM

as CM

in •vD CM

* vo CM

o o

CM

CO CO CO

1—1 fd > ^ 0 0 U <-H & a,-p fd M

0 O 04 •

*H jH| rH 3 £

fd 3 p4 «H

fd en a -h g CD

-H O fd •H fd £ u 4J tp fd tp

£ 0 0 -H M CD -P M-J & •H

IW CP M rH •H a o o !U

tr» >iTJ XI °r| n a o U1 EH fd tn *

ft m 00

100

(stressor 24). The range of mean scores for the spouses was

from a high of 3.68 on "feeling that meetings take up too

much time" (stressor 31) to a low of 1.95 on "being involved

in the collective bargaining process" (stressor 24). The

range of mean scores for the counselors was from 3.59 on two

stressors, "trying to resolve parent-school conflicts"

(stressor 20) and "having to make decisions that affect the

lives of individual people that I know" (stressor 17), to a

low of 2.15 on "feeling not enough is expected of me by my

superiors" (stressor 8).

Further examination of the rank order of stressors by

groups reporting revealed that "feeling that meetings take

too much time" (stressor 31) was the highest ranking stressor

common to all three groups. "Trying to resolve parent-school

conflicts" (stressor 20) and "having to make decisions that

affect the lives of individual people that I know (stressor

17) were the only other stressors common to all groups and

ranking in the top 20 percent. Principals and spouses agreed

that "imposing excessively high expectations on myself

(stressor 10) also ranked in the top 20 percent of the stres-

sors. Principals and counselors agreed that "complying with

state, federal, and local organizational rules and policies"

(stressor 27) was also in the top 20 percent. Spouses and

counselors agreed that "being interrupted frequently by

telephone calls" (stressor 1) and "trying to complete reports

and other paperwork on time" (stressor 32) were in the top

101

20 percent of stressors for the principal. The three groups

commonly agreed that "feeling that X am not fully qualified"

(stressor 4), "administering the negotiated contract (stres

sor 29), "trying to resolve differences with my superiors

(stressor 13), and "being unclear on just what my responsi-

bilities are" (stressor 30) were all among the bottom 20

percent of the stressors. "Feeling that not enough is

expected of me by my superiors" (stressor 8) and "being

involved in the collective bargaining process"(stressor 24)

were listed by all three groups as the least stressful of

all -

The previous biographical points of age, school size,

school district size, and years of experience as a principal

were all reported in accordance with their statistical

significance. The following areas of health, exercise and

full- or part-time administrator were not statistically tested,

These areas were treated as additional information and have

been reported in terms of frequency and percentage of occur-

rence. The following is a general description of the nnd-

ings obtained as a result of those questions.

The respondents were asked to rate their health status

on a five-point scale, ranging from excellent to poor. Table

XXII displays the distribution of the principals in the

various categories of health status. Health was rated as

excellent by 47.6 percent of the principals while none felt

they were in poor health. There were 42.2 percent reporting

102

good health and another 9.4 percent reporting average health.

Only one respondent reported his health to be below average.

TABLE XXII

HEALTH STATUS OF THE PRINCIPALS

Health Status Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage

Excellent 6 1 47.6 47.6

Good 54 42.2 89.8

Average 12 9.4 99.2

Fair 1 .8 100.0

Poor 0 0.0 0.0

All principals responding reported that they served as a full-

time administrator.

Table XXIII reports the frequency, in hours, of physical

exercise by the principals. Twenty-one, or 17.2 percent,

reported less than one hour of exercise per week. For 42.2

percent of the principals, exercise took less than four hours

per week of their time. For 24.2 percent of the principals,

exercise totaled from four to six hours per week, while 10.2

percent spent seven to nine hours per week exercising. Only

7.1 percent reported exercising more than ten hours per week.

The final question was an open-ended question designed

to get principals to respond to methods used to cope with

103

TABLE XXIII

NUMBER OF HOURS EXERCISED PER WEEK BY THE PRINCIPALS

r Cumulative

Hours of Exercise Frequency Percentage Percentage

Less than 21 17.2 17.2 1 hour 21 17.2

1 to 3 hours 54 42.2 59.4

4 to 6 hours 31 24.2 83.6

7 to 9 hours 13 10.2 93.8

10 to 12 hours 2 1.6 94.4

13 or more hours 7 5.5 99.9

the tensions and pressures of their jobs. A wide variety of

strategies were reported. Table XXIV reports the different

strategies and the frequency with which they were reported.

An examination of the strategies reported yielded four areas

of classification. The four areas are recreational activi-

ties, exercise activities, relaxation activities, and

miscellaneous activities. The most frequently reported

activities were recreational. Golf and fishing were reported

15.6 and 14.8 percent of the time, respectively. Exercise

activities of yard work, jogging, farming, and gardening were

frequently reported with yard work being reported 14.1 per-

cent of the time. The most frequently reported relaxation

activities were reading and television with reading being

104

TABLE XXIV

METHODS PRINCIPALS REPORTED USEFUL IN COPING WITH THE TENSIONS AND PRESSURES OF THEIR JOB

Stress Coping Strategies Frequency Percent

Recreational Activities

Golf 20 15.6

Fishing 19 14.8

Hunting 7 13.3

Tennis 6 4.7

Softball 4 3.1

Basketball 3 2.3

Music 3 2.3

Swimming 2 1.6

Racquetball 1 .1

Dancing 1 .1

Camping 1 .1

Bike Riding 1 .1

Exercise Activities

Yard Work 18 14.1

Jogging 13 10.2

Farming 11 8.6

Gardening 11 8.6

Exercising 6 4.7

Walking 6 4.7

TABLE XXIV—Continued

105

Stress Coping Strategies Frequency Percent

Relaxation Activities

Reading 13 10.2

Television 6 4.7

Hobbies 4 3.1

Art 1 .1

Atari 1 .1

Miscellaneous Activities

Time with Family 17 13.3

Church Work and Prayer 16 12.5

Leave Job at School 16 12.5

Travel 16 12.5

Solitude 3 2.3

Auto Mechanics 1 .1

Sex 1 .1

reported 10.2 percent of the time. The miscellaneous activi

ties of travel, time with family, leave job at school, and

church work and prayer were reported 13.3, 13.3, 12.5, and

12.5, respectively.

Summary

This chapter dealt with analysis of data. It includes

reports of data generated by junior high school principals,

106

their spouses, and school counselors relative to occupational

stressors of the principals. Group means, standard deviations,

t-test, and analysis of variance were employed to determine

the status of the perceptions of the three groups and to test

the null hypotheses. It was found that:

1. Hypothesis I was retained. No significant differ-

ence was determined between the perceptions of the principals

and their spouses regarding occupational stressors m the

daily lives of the principals.

2. Hypothesis II was retained. No significant differ-

ence was determined between the perceptions of the principals

and the counselors regarding occupational stressors in the

daily lives of the principals.

3. Hypothesis III was retained. No significant differ-

ence was determined between the perceptions of the spouses

and counselors regarding occupational stressors in the daily

lives of the principals.

4. Hypothesis XV was rejected. There were significant

differences in the perceptions of the principals among the

five stressor areas.

5. Hypothesis V was rejected. There were significant

differences in the perceptions of the principals when grouped

in terms of age and size of school districts.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Anderson, S. B., S. Ball, and R. T. Murphy, Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, San Francisco, Jossey Bass Publishers, 1975.

2. Sax, G., Principals of Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation, 2nd ed., California, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1980.

107

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study identifies the perceptions held by junior

high school principals, their spouses, and school counselors

regarding occupational stressors of the junior high school

principals in the State of Texas. The occupational stressors

center around five areas of administrative concern: (a)

administrative constraints, (b) administrative responsibili-

ties, (c) interpersonal relations, (d) intrapersonal conflict,

and (e) role expectations.

All junior high school principals in the State of Texas,

their spouses, and school counselors served as the population

for the study. A randomly selected sample of 300 were sent

questionnaires, and 128 respondents were included in the

analysis.

Three questionnaires were used to collect data from the

participants. The Biographical Questionnaire and Question-

naire, Form A were used to collect data from the principals.

Questionnaire, Form B was used to collect data from the

spouses and counselors.

Descriptive statistical methods were employed to cal-

culate means and standard deviations of the principals,

108

109

spouses', and counselors' perceptions of the occupational

stressors of the principals. T-test and one-way analysis

of variance were used to analyze the data generated by the

principals, spouses, and counselors.

Findings

The following findings resulted from the population

who participated in this study.

1. There was no significant difference between the

principals and spouses in the overall perceptions of the

piriiici.pa.ls1 occupa.tiona.1 strossors*

2. Of the ten individual stressors rendering a signif-

icant difference between the perceptions of the principals

and spouses, four were in the area of administrative respon-

sibility; administrative constraints and interpersonal

relations contained two each; and role expectations and

intrapersonal conflict contained one each.

3. There was no significant difference between the

principals' and counselors' overall perceptions of the

principals' occupational stressors.

4. Of the nine individual stressors rendering a signifi-

cant difference between the perceptions of the principals

and the counselors, four were in the area of administrative

responsibility; intrapersonal conflict contained three; and

role expectations and interpersonal relations contained one

each.

110

5. There was no significant difference between the

spouses' and counselors' o v e r a l l perceptions of the princi-

pals' occupational stressors.

6. Of the three individual stressors rendering a

significant difference between the perceptions of the spouses

and counselors, two were in the area of administrative

responsibilities and the other was in the area of intrapersonal

conflict.

7. The perceptions of the principals were examined

regarding sources of stress. This issue was examined m

reference to two factors, a group of stressors as well as

individual stressors resulting from only one situation. The

five factors are administrative constraints, administrative

responsibility, interpersonal relations, intrapersonal con-

flict, and role expectations. The area of administrative

constraints was reported by principals as the most stressful.

The area of administrative responsibilities was reported as

the least stressful.

8. The principals reported the top three job stressors

as resolving differences among staff members, meetings taking

up too much time, and evaluating staff members' performance,

respectively.

9. The spouses reported the top three stressors of the

principals as meetings take up too much time, making decisions

that affect the lives of people, and being interrupted fre

quently by telephone calls, respectively.

Ill

10. The counselors reported the top three stressors of

the principals as making decisions that affect the lives of

people, resolving parent-school conflicts, and meetings take

up too much time, respectively.

11. Analysis of variance produced significant differ-

ences among the five stressor areas except for the relation-

ship between interpersonal relations and intrapersonal

conflict. This was the only combination that did not produce

a significant difference.

12. A mean score of 3.67 was obtained for the stressor

trying to resolve differences among staff members. This was

the highest mean score reported by the principals.

13. There was a significant difference in their percep

tions of occupational stressors when the principals were

grouped by age. Principals under the age of forty perceived

a much higher level of stress than principals forty and over.

14. The prinipals reported no significant difference

in perceptions when they were grouped by school size.

15. As a total group, the principals perceiving them-

selves as having the greatest level of stress were those

whose school district had an ADA of 645 to 1,309. The

principals reporting the least amount of stress were those

whose school district had an ADA of 1,310 and over.

16. The principals reported no significant differences

in their perceptions of occupational stressors when grouped

by years of experience as a principal.

112

17. Of the principals responding, 90 percent reported

good or excellent health.

18. The principals indicated that 83.6 percent exercised

less than six hours per week.

19. The principals used physiological activity most

frequently to cope with stress. Some of the most popular

activities are golf, fishing, yardwork, and travel.

20. Some of the popular cognitive coping strategies

are prayer and leaving the job at school.

Conclusions

As a result of the data generated by this study as well

as the findings, several conclusions have been made.

There was no significant difference among the total

perceptions of the junior high school principals, their

spouses, and counselors regarding occupational stressors of

the principals. However, it should be noted that there were

differences in perceptions when the stressors were examined

individually. The greatest difference in perceptions of

individual stressors was found in the area of administrative

responsibility. Of the seven individual stressors in the

administrative responsibility area, more than half produced

a significant difference among the three groups. There is a

definite difference of opinion among junior high school

principals, their spouses, and counselors regarding job

responsibilities of the principals.

113

An analysis of the principals' perceptions of the

occupational stressors clearly showed that the administra-

tive constraints factor contained the stressors that princi-

pals felt were the most stressful. They reported that four

of the top ten stressors were contained within that factor.

These included feeling that meetings take up too much time;

complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and

policies; being interrupted frequently by telephone calls;

and trying to complete reports and other paperwork on time.

The remaining high stressors were well distributed over the

other four factors. It should be noted that these are all

areas where the principal has little or no control.

Interpersonal relations and intrapersonal conflict each

contained two of the top ten stressors reported by the princi-

pals. These areas are rated as high stressors particularly

as they relate to solving conflicts and making decisions that

affect people's lives. Noted here is the fact, however, that

principals do have some control in these areas. Role expec-

tations and administrative responsibilities were reported

to have minimal effect. Each of these factors contained only

one stressor in the top ten. Gf particular interest here is

the fact that as principals increase the amount of control

that they have, the level of stress significantly decreases.

When the total group's (principals, spouses, and

counselors) perceptions were analyzed, it was concluded that

114

no one knows the pressures of the junior high principalship

better than the principals themselves. They perceived a

higher stress level in their work than either the spouses or

counselors. Since the counselors perceived a higher stress

level than the spouses, it is concluded that a close working

relationship with the principals must actually be experienced

in order to gain a better perception of the real pressures of

the job. Many principals expressed the physiological coping

strategy of leaving the job at school as their method of

handling the stress. This may actually be a successful

relief and explain in part the difference in perceptions of

the counselors and spouses.

In this study, the variables of age and school district

size produced a significant difference in the perceptions

of the principals. Although the variable of years of

experience as a principal did not produce a significant

difference in the principals' perceptions, it did show that

the longer a person served in the principalship, the lower

the perceived level of stress. This relates to the data on

age in that the younger principals perceived a much higher

level of stress than the older principals and from a logical

viewpoint were less experienced. The conclusions drawn from

these variables are that the larger the district, the more

assistance the principals received with their diverse

responsibilities. The districts employ directors, consultants,

and other educational specialists to assist the principals

115

with the educational responsibilities. The smaller districts

place more of these responsibilities with the principals and

thus increase the stress level.

The additional biographical data collected indicates

that the principals have identified coping strategies that

are effective. They have identified s u c h physiological and

cognitive approaches as golf, fishing, yardwork, jogging,

reading, time with the family, prayer, and leaving the job

at school. The fact that 71 percent of the principals

reported having more than five years experience as a princi-

pal and 90 percent reported their health to be either good

or excellent relates to the fact that stress identification

and experience enable the principals to become proficient m

stress resolution. The principals who are successful in their

position and keep their health are those who have learned

patterns of conflict resolution, learned to anticipate

problems, and learned how to cope and manage those problems.

Recommendations

As a result of careful consideration of the data col-

lected and the conclusions drawn from this study, the first

recommendation is that in the analysis of job performance

for building principals, people should pay close attention

to the literature on stress* Special attention should be

given to the general causes of stress and patterns of stress

resolution* The findings in this study closely resemble

116

the categories that are found in the research literature on

stress. A person who is inexperienced and has a lot of new

responsibilities introduced to them for the first time,

particularly responsibilities that pertain to their per-

formance and the lives of others may endure a high level of

stress.

School boards and superintendents must be made aware

of the significance of stress in the jobs that principals are

expected to do. They must make early training available for

inexperienced principals that teaches them the skills to

reduce stress. The principals should be given training in

how to recognize the origins of stress, how to cope with

those origins in their environment and how to develop patterns

of conflict resolution. These skills are necessary to assure

opportunity for success and good health.

The Texas Education Agency, professional organizations,

local school districts, and any other organizations interested

in the successful development of building principals must be

made aware of the importance of early training for principals

in the area of stress management. The findings of this study

indicate that new building principals need a little more

attention than veteran principals on reducing and resolving

stress around the traditional areas of conflict.

Building principals should give some thought to the

results of this study in that the reported habit of leaving

the job at work seems to insulate the spouse from the stress

117

of the job, and it seems to allow the building principal to

separate the two environments. The principal can then use

the home as a stress reducing strategy. After leaving the

job at school, a number of other strategies could be utilized

as stress reducing agents. The recommendation is that a

principal should discover a successful stress-relieving

activity, whether it be one of the reported strategies or

one more personalized to the principal's interests. But,

above all, a principal must learn to leave his job at school

as much as possible.

The subject of stress and its relationship to school

administration is an area of growing concern. It is recom-

mended that an attention to this material and this research

be included in administrative training courses.

Recommendations for Further Research

The fact that a person seemingly has mastered the job

of being an effective classroom teacher and possibly an

assistant principal does not mean that the person is not new

at dealing with the pressures that come to a building prin-

cipal. That person deserves some attention, and that

attention is probably research attention, research that

begins immediately from the beginning of the school year with

the origins of frustration for a building principal from the

moment of job assignment.

118

Some recommendations for future study would be the

encouragement of diaries for new building principals,

interviews, or questionnaires for principals just starting

their new assignments. These would help identify sources

of stressors that could be dealt with in administrative

training and course work.

In order to take into account the fact that stress

affects job performance, further research is needed to

identify the origins of stress for the building principal so

that patterns of conflict resolution and stress reduction

can be incorporated into administrator training. This study

clearly identifies administrative constraints as the major

area of stress producing situations. It is recommended that

further studies investigate the specific area of administra-

tive constraints to more specifically identify the stress

producing constraints.

A similar study to the one reported here should be con-

ducted in other geographic locations. It should also be

duplicated on other levels of education such as high schools,

middle schools, and elementary schools in an effort to deter-

mine if these same differences in perceptions exist in other

geographic areas and levels of education.

Further study in stressor identification is certainly

important and it is recommended that further research be

conducted in the area of methods for stress reduction.

119

Naturally, any research in this area will be worthwhile,

valid and much needed.

APPENDICES

120

121

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE—FORM A

Rate how each of the following

School administrators have identified the following 35 work-related situations as sources of concern. It is possible that some of these situations bother you more than others.

bother you.

1 — Not applicable 2 — Never bothers me 3 — Rarely bothers me 4 — Occasionally bothers me 5 — Frequently bothers me

Please place a check in the box that most appropriately describes each situation:

1. Being interrupted frequently by telephone

calls

2. Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people

3. Feeling that staff members don't understand my goals and expectations

4. Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job

3. Knowing that I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly

6. Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me

7. Trying to resolve differences between/among students

8. Feeling not enough is expected of me by the School Board

122

9. Having my work interrupted frequently by staff members who want to talk

10. Imposing excessively high expectations on myself

11. Feeling pressure for better job perform-ance over and above what I think is reasonable

12. Writing memos, letters, and other communications

13. Trying to resolve differences with the School Board

14. Speaking in front of groups

15. Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, friends, etc.)

16. Not knowing what the School Board thinks of me nor how they evaluate my performance

17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.)

18. Feeling I have to participate in school activities outside the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time

19. Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by the authority over me

20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts

21. Preparing and allocating budget resources

22. Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned me

123

23. Handling student discipline problems

24. Being involved in the bargaining process

25. Evaluating staff members' performance

26. Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday

27. Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies

23. Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be

29. Administering the teacher's contract (grievances, interpretation, etc.)

30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are

31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time

32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time

33. Trying to resolve differences between/among s taf f members

34. Trying to influence the School Board's actions and decisions that affect me

35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs

PLEASE CHECK TO MAKE SURE ALL QUESTIONS HAVE A MARKED RESPONSE. PLACE THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE WITH THE RESPONSES FROM YOUR SPOUSE AND YOUR BUILDING COUNSELOR. TIIANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE—FORM B

124

A. School administrators have identified the following 35 work-related situations as sources of concern. Utilizing the rating scale below, rate how you feel each of the situations affect the principal. Check the most appropriate response for each statement.

1 — Not applicable 2 — Never bothers him/her 3 — Rarely bothers him/her 4 — Ocassionally bothers him/her 5 — Frequently bothers him/her

Please place a check in the box that most appropriately describes each situation:

1. Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls

2. Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people

3. Feeling that staff members don't understand the principal's goals and expectations

4. The principal feels he/she is not fully qualified to handle his/her job

5. Knowing that he/she can't get information needed to carry out his/her job properly

6. Thinking that he/she will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over them

7. Trying to resolve differences between/ among students

8. Feeling not enough is expected of him/her by the school board

9. Having his/her work interrupted frequently by staff members who want to talk

125

1-0. Imposing excessively high expectations on himself/herself

11. Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what he/she think is reason-able

12. Writing memos, letters, and other communications

13. Trying to resolve differences with the board

14. Speaking in front of groups

15. Attempting to meet social expectations

16. Not knowing what the Board thinks of him/her

17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people he/she knows (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.)

18. Feeling he/she has to participate in school activities outside the normal working hours at the expense of his/her personal time

19. Feeling he/she has too much responsibility delegated to them by the authorities over them.

20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts

21. Preparing and allocating budget resources

22. Feeling he/she has too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned them

23. Handling student discipline problems

24. Being involved in the bargaining process

25. Evaluating staff members' performances

126

26. Feeling that he/she has too heavy a work load, one that he/she cannot possibly finish during the normal workday

27. Complying with state, federal» and organizational rules and policies

28. Feeling that the progress on his/her job is not what it should or could be

29. Administering grievances and interpreting contracts

30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of his/her job are

31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time

32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time

33. Trying to resolve differences between/ among staff members

34. Trying to influence the Board's actions and decisions that affect him/her

35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs

PLEASE CHECK TO HAKE SURE EACH QUESTION HAS A RESPONSE AND THEN PLACE IN THE SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

127

Appendix C

Biographical Questionnaire

Please complete the biographical information requested below. This information will be used to group respondents_ for data analysis purposes. All information will be held in the strictest of confidence. The data will be reported only in statistical form.

Part One—Study Data

1. Age: under 40 40 and over

2. Male Female

3. Size of school: 300-999 1000 and over

4. Size of school district by ADA: 270-644 654-1309 1310 and up

5. Total years of experience as a principal: 1-5 6-15 16 and over

Part Two—Additiona1 Information

1. Current physical health:

Excellent Poor 5 4 3 2 1

2. Are you a full-time administrator? yes no

3. Hours of physical exercise per week:

less than 1 7-9 1-3 10-12 "4-6 12 and over

Recognizing that school administration is a demanding occupation, what ways have you personally found useful in handling the tensions and pressures of your job?

If you would like a copy of the final study results, fill in name and address. _

1• « 1 2 8 Appendix D

Principal's Letter of Introduction

Dear Administrator,

The packet you have received contains questionnaires for you, your spouse, and your building counselor. X am conducting a doctoral dissertation study to determine the major sources of stress among junior high school principals in the State of Texas. This study differs from other studies in that I am not only interested in the self evaluation of the principal, but I am also interested in the perceptions of the principal's spouse and building counselor. Being a junior high principal myself, it will be interesting to see if principals perceive stress in their jobs in the same manner in which their spouses and building counselors per-ceive stress in the principal's job. Your cooperation in completing your questionnaire and then having your spouse and building counselor complete theirs will be greatly appreciated. It is of utmost importance that the three of you answer the questionnaires completely independent of input from each other. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is included for your convenience.

To date, little information has been collected concerning stress and school administrators. I hope this study will not only provide useful information for administrative preparation and inservice programs but that it will also suggest alterna-tives for increased health and longevity of administrators.

For your protection, the data collected will be used only in statistical form. No names will be used. However, your attention is directed to the biographical questionnaire. This is important in that this information will be used to subgroup the respondents for data analysis purposes.

If you would like a summary of the results, please fill in your name and address at the bottom of the biographical questionnaire. I will be glad to send you an abstract of the completed report. If you have questions or would like addi-tional information, please feel free to call Doug Shouse at 817-465-6381.

Thank you for your time.

Doug Shouse Principal Gunn Junior High

129

Appendix E

Spouse's Letter of Introduction

Dear Spouse,

I am conducting a doctoral dissertation study on the perceptions of junior high school principals, their spouses, and their building counselors regarding occupational sources of stress for the principal. The questionnaire attached con-tains questions for you, the spouse, to answer in regard to your perception of stress in the life of your spouse, the principal. Please give a response to all questions. Being a junior high principal myself, it will be most interesting to see if spouses perceive stress in the work of the princi-pal in the same manner that the principal perceives stress in their work.

To date, little information has been collected concern-ing stress and school administrators. Your cooperation in completing your questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. To insure research integrity it is very important that you handle your questionnaire in the following manner. Once you complete your questionnaire, place it in the self-addressed stamped envelope with the principal's questionnaire and the counselor's questionnaire and please mail to me. It is important that you do not discuss the questions with your spouse prior to returning the questionnaire.

I hope this study will not only provide useful informa-tion for administrative preparation and inservice programs but that it will also suggest alternatives for increased health and longevity of principals. It is not necessary for you to sign the questionnaire. No names will be used. For your protection, all data collected will be used and reported only in statistical form.

The principal has been provided information on how to receive a summary of the results of the study. If you are interested, I will be glad to send an abstract of the com-pleted report. If you have questions, or would like addi-tional information, please feel free to call Doug Shouse at 817-465-6381.

Thank you for your time.

Doug Shouse Principal Gunn Junior High

130

Appendix F

Counselor's Letter of Introduction

Dear Counselor,

I am conducting a doctoral dissertation study on the perceptions of junior high school principals, their spouses, and their building counselors regarding occupational sources of stress for the principal. The questionnaire attached contains questions for you, the counselor, to answer in regard to your perception of stress in the work of your principal. Please give a response to all questions. Being a junior high principal myself, it will be most interesting to see if counselors perceive stress in the work of the principal in the same manner that the principal perceives stress in their work.

To date, little information has been collected concern-ing stress and school administrators. Your cooperation in completing your questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. To insure research integrity it is very_important that you handle your questionnaire in the following manner. Please answer the questionnaire totally independent of input from anyone else. Please do not discuss the questions with anyone prior to completing the form. Once you complete the question-naire, place it in the self-addressed envelope with the principal's questionnaire and the principal's spouse's ques-tionnaire. It is not necessary for you to sign the question-naire. No names will be used. For your protection, all data collected will be used and reported only in statistical form.

The principal has been provided information on how to receive a summary of the results of the study. If you are interested, I will be glad to send an abstract of the com-pleted report. If you have questions, or would like addi-tional information, please feel free to call Doug Shouse at 817-465-6381.

Thank you for your time.

Doug Shouse Principal Gunn Junior High

131

Appendix G

Questionnaire Subsets and Related Questions

Administrative Constraints

1. Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls.

9. Having my work interrupted frequently by staff members who want to talk.

12. Writing memos, letters, and other communications.

26. Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday.

27. Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies.

31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time.

32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time.

Administrative Responsibilities

2. Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people.

14. Speaking in front of groups.

21. Preparing and allocating budget resources.

24. Being involved in the collective bargaining process.

25. Evaluating staff members' performance.

29. Administering the teachers contract.

35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs.

Interpersonal Relations

3. Feeling that staff members don't understand my goals and expectations.

7. Trying to resolve differences between/among students.

13. Trying to resolve differences with the board.

132

20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts.

23. Handling student discipline problems.

33. Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members.

34. Trying to influence the board's actions and decisions that affect me.

Intrapersonal Conflicts

4. Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job.

5. Knowing that I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly.

10. Imposing excessively high expectations on myself.

15. Attempting to meet social expectations.

17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people I know.

22. Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me.

28. Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be.

Role Expectations

6. Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the con-flicting demands of those who have authority over me.

8. Feeling not enough is expected of me by my board.

11. Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what I think is reasonable.

16. Not knowing what the board thinks of me, nor how they evaluate my performance.

18. Feeling I have to participate in school activities out-side the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time.

19. Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by the authority over me.

30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Anderson, S. B., S. Ball, and R. T. Murphy, Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1975.

Cannon, W. B., Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage, New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1929.

Fergusen, George A., Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, 5th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Co., 1981.

Goldberger, Lev and Shlorao Breznitz, Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.

Kahn, R. L., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict a n d Ambiguity, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

Kerlinger, Fred W., Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.

Kutash, Irvin L. and others, Handbook on Stress and Anxiety, San Francisco, Jossey-Ball Publishers, 1980.

Lazarus, Richard S., Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1966.

May, R., The Meaning of Anxiety, New York, Norton, 1977.

Sax, G., Principles of Educational and Psychological Measure-ment and Evaluation, 2nd ed., California, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1980.

Schofer, Walt, Stress, Distress and Growth, California, International Dialogue Press, 1978.

Selye, Hans, Stress in Hea1th and Disease, Boston, Butter-worths, 1976.

, Stress Without Distress, New York, J. B. Lippincott Company, 197TT

, The Art of Predictive Medicine, Illinois, Charles cT~Thomas, 1967.

133

134

Selye, Hans, The Stress of Life, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw-Hill, 1976.

Spielberger, C. D., Anxiety; Current Trends in. Theory and Research, New York, Academic Press, 1971.

Articles

Brown, G. Ronald and Patrick W. Carlton, "'How to Conquer Stress When You Can and Cope with It When You Can't," National Elementary Principal, 59 (March, 1980), 37-39.

Cunningham, William G., "Teacher Burnout—Solutions for the 1980's: A Review of the Literature," The Urban Review, 15 (Fall, 1983), 1.

Dohrenwend, B. S. and B. P. Dohrenwend, "A Brief Historical Introduction to Research on Stressful Life Events," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, pp. 1-7.

Dunham, J., "Stress Situations and Responses," Stress in Schools, Hemel Hempstead, England, NAS, 1976, pp. 39-46.

Engel, G., "Sudden and Rapid Death During Psychological Stress: Folklore or Folk Wisdom," Annals of Internal Medicine, 74 (1971), 771-782.

Fallen, Berlie J., "The Third World—Escape from Stress and Burnout," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 28-30.

Giammatteo, Michael C. and Dolores M. Giammatteo, Executive Weil-Being," Stress and Administrators, Reston, Virgina, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, pp. 1-59.

Gmelch, Walter H., "The Principal's Next Challenge: The Twentieth-Century Art of Managing Stress," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 62 (February, 1978), 5-12.

Herlihy, Barbara and Dennis Herlihy, "The Loneliness of Educa-tional Leadership," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 64 (February, 1980), 7-12.

Holmes, T. H. and M. Masuda, "Life Change and Illness Susceptibility," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, pp. 45-72.

135

Holmes, T. H. and R. H. Rahe, "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale," Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11 (1967), 213-217.

Koff, Robert H. and others, "Coping with Conflict—Executive Stress and the School Administrator," National Associa-tion of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 1-9.

Kutash, I. L. and L. B. Schlesinger, "Successful Psychological Defense: Probing the Defendent's Mind," Journal of the New Jersey Bar Association, 79 (1977), 14-18.

Lemley, Raymond E., "Stress Control—Where Does One Begin? An !Up Close and Personal' Look," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 20-24.

Manera, Elizabeth and Robert E. Wright, "Knowing the Differ-ence Between Stress and Challenge," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 10-15.

Neugarten, B. L., "Personality and Aging," Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977, pp. 141-152.

Salmen, Daniel A., "Parnoia: Perceptions of Public Schools Principals," Clearing House, 54 (December, 1980), 149-154.

Shank, John K., "The Job at the Top: Beloved, Beleaguered, and Too Often Beheaded," Independent School, 39 (October, 1979), 13-14, 17-18.

Vanderpol, Maurice, "School Administrators Under Stress," Principal, 60 (March, 1981), 39-41.

Washington, Kenneth R., "Stress: Is It a Major Problem for Urban School Principals?," Clearing House, 55 (May, 1982), 189-191.

Publications of Learned Organizations

Texas Education Agency, Texas School Directory, Austin, Texas, 1982-1983.

Unpublished Materials

Baugh, Douglas Samuel, "Perceived Stress Among School Adminis-trative Personnel," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1976.

136

Cook, Garald L., "Administrative Stress and Coping Behavior of Wyoming Public School Administrators," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1980.

Dale, Rosemary Louise, "Administrators, Stress, and Coronary Heart Disease," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1978.

Marshall, Gerald Lynn, "A Survey Study of the Perceptions of Kansas School Administrators on Occupational Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1980.

Schuetz, Kenneth Edward, "Sources of Perceived Stress Experienced by Illinois Principals," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Illinois State Univer-sity, Normal, Illinois, 1980.

Swent, Boyd James, "An Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Oregon School Administrators on Occupational Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1978.