k VRMr - UNT Digital Library
153
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EIGHT SITUATIONAL FACTORS JJTB HIGH AND LOW SCORES OS THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR DIMENSIONS OF II8T1UCTI0ML SUPERVISORS APPROVED: Graduate Committee: (f&uil vfLotL Committee Member ember Sommi 1 k VRMr Dean of the School of Education ftean of ihe Graduate School
Transcript of k VRMr - UNT Digital Library
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EIGHT SITUATIONAL FACTORS JJTB
HIGH AND LOW SCORES OS THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
DIMENSIONS OF II8T1UCTI0ML SUPERVISORS
APPROVED:
Graduate Committee:
(f&uil vfLotL Committee Member
ember Sommi
1k VRMr Dean of the School of Education
ftean of ihe Graduate School
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SIGHT SITUATIONAL FACTORS AID
HIGH AID LOW SCORJS3 OH THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
DIMENSIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORS
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State College in Partial
Fulfillment of the requirements
For the Degree ©f
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Qna Lee Campbell, B. A., H. A,
Denton, Texas
June, 1961
t * » u of-
LI./* Qi- 1 * . • . . . •
tent u* , • « » • * « • • • • • » ' * • . t i
Ctwptar
I* lif'MiMJOflO* 1
of til* VtypoWmmm
of the stinty of f®»»
Llmitmttms, of tb« Stodgr Mate
girts# f# B» M
u * s&mtim a w*# g&nmxm Mf A *
# •?,% g .4% 5
# # * # * * * « # 4 * • * * » # # # * jgPp
i l l
SC|¥I S5Sivi^fnR5nwS>tl<NuJL
IhmX*pm*8t of 3£fcii*ftiemfltX Xutomxttea ?<***•
h i . Qouxi&tto® .4isy pmemaim of Mm 4#
s*l«ett«a of »urmotvAi Contact of f'aftlsip-aat# Ft»i»iiaf oa im$d9mMp iMhttvlttr £»t«ra*inta£ Oorrvlatiosui
Chapter Page
I ? , ANALYSIS Of FINDINGS 6?
Leadership Behavior Maene ions of s u p e r v i s o r s
Leadership Behavior and P e r s o n a l i t y of t he Leader
Organ! sa t iona l S t r u c t u r e and Leadership Superv i sors and Previous Work S&;[email protected]© Conoepts of Adequacy of Leader Behavior
f . STOMAEf, CONCLUSIONS t AND HSCOmMDAHONS . 90
Summary Conclusions KecoffiifleMations
APPJSKDIZ . . . 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY 136
l v
LIST Of TABLES
fable Bag#
I, Coefficient of Correlation for Raw Scores ©a the leader Behavior Distension* of Con-sideration and Initiating Structure and Scores on Back of the Situational factors , » ©0
II. Tallies of t Score When Supervisors Mem Categorized into Upper and Lower One-Third Groups on the' Basis of Scores on Bach of the Two Behavior Dimensions . , , , , 65
III, Statistical Data ©a the forty Supervisors of This Study 105
IV, Additional Statistical Data on the Forty Supervisors of This Study . * . . 107
LIST Of ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Pag®
1. Distribution of Supervisors into Pour Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Classroom Sxp©ri@»©« of Supervisors * %
2. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lover One-Third Classifications on Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Situational factor ©f Classroom Experience 56
3. Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and on Classroom Experience . • . 109
4. Distribution of Supervisors into tour Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Classroom Experience . 109
5. Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and on Admini strative Sbq)©rience 110
6. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and on Administrative Experience . . . . . 110
7* Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and on Total Score 110
8. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and on Total Score . . 110
9« Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants m Basis of Score® ©n Consideration Dimension and on Number of Teachers Supervised (by Categories) . . . . . . . . Ill
vl
figure Pag®
10. Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores ©a Initiating Structure Dimension and Number of Teachers Supervised ("by Categories) . . . . Ill
11. Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and on Scores on Personality Trait of Ascendancy Ill
12. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and on Scores on Personality Trait of Ascendancy . . . . . . Ill
13 • Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Personality Trait of Besponsibility 112
14. Distribution of Supervisors into Pour Quad-rants on Basis of Soores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Personality frait of Responsibility 112
15. Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Personality frait of Bmotional Stability . • 112
16* Distribution of Supervisors into Pour Quad-rants on Basis of Soores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Personality frait of Emotional Stability 112
17. Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Soores on Consideration Dimension and Personality Trait of Sociability 113
18* Distribution of Supervisors into Pour Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Personality Trait of Sociability 113
vii
Fig*** Pag#
19* Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis ©f Scores on Consideration Dimension and Total Score ©a Personality Traits 11$
20, Distribution of Supervisors into Pour Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Total Score on Personality Traits 113
21# Distribution of Supervisors into four Quad-rants on Basis of Seore® on Consideration Dimension and Teacher Participation in Policy Raking (Teacher Concept). . 114
22# Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Teacher Partici-pation in Policy Making (Teacher Concept) . , 114
23. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Teacher Participation in Policy Making (Supervisor Concept) 114
24. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Teacher Partici-pation in Policy Making (Supervisor Concept) 114
25. Distribution of Supervisors into Four quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Bis#msioa and Influence ©f Supervisor on Job Security (Teacher Concept; 115
26. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants ©a Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Influence of Supervisor on Job Security (Teacher Concept) . . . . 115
2?. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Influence of Supervisor on Job Security (Supervisor Concept) 115
viii
Figure Pag©
• 28. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Influence ©X Supervisor on Job Security (Supervisor Concept) . 115
29. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Teacher Personal Evaluation of leadership Adequacy of Supervisor . . . . 118
30. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and teacher Personal ©valuation of Leadership Adequacy of Supervisor 116
31# Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Teacher Coneept of Group Evaluation of Leadership Adequacy of Supervisor 116
32. Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Teacher Concept of Group Evaluation of Leadership Adequacy of Supervisor . . . . 116
33t Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Consideration Dimension and Over-All Teacher Evaluation of Leadership Adequacy of the Supervisor . , 11?
34> Distribution of Supervisors into Four Quad-rants on Basis of Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension and Over-All Teacher ©valuation of Leadership Adequacy of the Supervisor 117
35» Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Situational Factor of Classroom Experience 120
Figure Pag®
36. Distribution of Supervisor* on Basis of Upper* Middle, and Lower [email protected] Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Situational Factor of Classroom Experience . . . . 1*°
37. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Situational Factor of Experience as Principal or Superintendent . . . *21
38. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Situational Factor of Experience as Principal or Superintendent * 121
39. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Total Average Score on Ltadtr
ojip B0sojpjU<ejton * * • * 122
40. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on Initiating Structure Behavior Dimension and the Total Average Score on Behavior Description yaesticHm&t,If * * • *
41. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Score on the Personality Trait of Ascendancy . . . . . . . . . . 125
42# Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Score on the Personality Trait of Ascendancy 12$
43. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Score on the Personality Trait of Responsibility . . . . . 124
122
figure Pag®
44* Distribution of Supervisors oat Basis of Upper* Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Score on the Personality-Trait of Responsibility 124
45. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Score on the Personality Trait of Emotional Stability 125
46. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Score on the Personality Trait of Saotional Stability . . . . . . . 125
4?. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Score on the Personality Trait of Sociability . • 126
48. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Score on the Personality Trait of Sociability , . 126
49. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Total Score on the Gordon Personal Profile . 7 . 7 . 127
50. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Total Score on the Grordon Personal Profile 12?
51. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the lumber of Teachers Supervised by the Supervisor 128
ad
Figure Page
52, Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure sad the JFunber of Teachers Supervised by the Supervisor . . . 128
53. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Teacher Participation in Policy Making (Teacher Concept) , 129
5*K Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and Teacher Participation in Policy Making (Teacher Concept) 129
55» Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Teacher Participation in Policy Making (Supervisor Concept) 130
56. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on Behavior Dimension of Initiating Struc-ture and Teacher Participation in Policy Making (Supervisor Concept) 150
57. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Influence of Supervisor on Job Security (Teacher Concept) 131
58. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and Influence of Supervisor on Job Security (Teacher Concept) 131
59. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classification® on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and the Influence of Supervisor on Job Security (Supervisor Concept) 132
xii
Figure Pag©
60. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and the Influence of Supervisor on Job Security (Supervisor Concept) . . . . 132
61. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis ©f Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications ©a the Behavior Dimension ©f Consideration and Teacher Personal Svaluation of Leader-ship Adequacy of the Supervisor 135
62. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lover One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and Teacher Personal Svaluation of Leadership Adequacy of the Supervisor . . 133
63. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Teacher Concept of Group Evaluation of Leadership Adequacy of the Supervisor . . . 134
64. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Middle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and Teacher Concept of Group Evaluation of Leadership Adequacy of the Supervisor 134
65. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Consideration and Over-All Teacher Evaluation of Leader-ship Adequacy of the Supervisor . . . . . . 135
66. Distribution of Supervisors on Basis of Upper, Kiddle, and Lower One-Third Classifications on the Behavior Dimension of Initiating Structure and Over-All Teacher Evaluation of the Leadership Adequacy of the Supervisor 155
aclii
CHAPTER I
IlflOKJOflOI
With tli© rapid tempo of scientific, social,
industrial, and cultural changes taking place, it is
evident that there is a need for leadership which ©an he
relied upon for effective administration and improvement
of our educational program. He search has revealed numer-
ous factor® which bear upon the function of leadership as
it plays such a vital role in the ever-changing nature of
this task in the field of public education. Leadership
behavior, as it is influenced by the many situational fac-
tors and role concepts, presents many problems that seek
solution. Recognition of such behavior, and its descrip-
tion, is one of these problems.
Statement of the Problem
fhe problem of this study was to determine whether
there is a significant relationship between certain
situational factors and high and low scores on the leader-
ship behavior dimension© of Instructional supervisors,
fhe behavior dimensions studied were the two dimensions
of Consideration and Initiating Structure, as measured by
the instrument used in the study, in effort was made to
determine to what extent these relationships exist in this
field of education.
More specifically, this problem, was "broken torn into
seeking solutions to the following eight questions:
1. What relationship® exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and the length of
service of supervisors in the previous role of classroom,
teacher?
2. What relationships exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and the length ©f
service of the supervisor in the role of principal or
superintendent?
$. What relationships exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and high and low
total scores?
4. What relationships exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and the number of
employees supervised by instructional supervisors?
*>• What relationships exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and personality
traits of Ascendancy, Responsibility, Emotional Stability,
and Sociability of instructional supervisors, as measured
by the Gordon Personal Profile?
6« What relationships exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and participation
of faculty in determining supervisory policies?
7. What relationships exist between high and low
scores on these two behavior dimensions and the super-
visor's role in selection, reemployment, and promotion
of teachers!
8» What relationships exist between high and low
scores on the two behavior dimensions and the describer's
over-all evaluation of the effective leadership of the
supervisor?
Hypotheses
Although there were many other questions that pre-
sented themselves during the study, the task resolved
itself into the testing of eight major hypotheses, these
hypotheses were stated as null hypotheses and correspond
rather closely with the eight major questions raised
above. null hypotheses tested for significance were:
1, fhere is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and
previous experience of the supervisor in the role of
classroom teacher,
2. There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and length
of previous experience of the supervisor in the role of
superintendent or principal.
3* There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and the
total scores on leadership behavior,
4. There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and the
number of teachers supervised by instructional super-
visors.
5. There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these behavior dimensions and scores of
supervisors on the personality traits of Ascendancy,
Responsibility, Emotional Stability, and Sociability as
measured by the Gordon Personal Profile.
6. There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and scores
on teacher participation in the determining of supervisory
policies.
7. There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and scores
on the role of the supervisor in selection, re-employment,
or promotion of teachers,
8 . There is no significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions «r>d scores
on the over-all ©valuation of the adequacy of the super-
visor's leadership as evaluated by the teachers.
Some minor hypotheses were tested for significance,
and attention was focused on variation© and sub-items of
the above eight mador hypotheses. These, too* may have
some value as an exploratory look at relationships of the
complex factors that influence the scope and effectiveness
of supervision.
Purpose of the Study
In 19^9 the Fifty-First Legislature of the State of
Texas passed the Minimum Foundation School Laws which,
among the many improvements, provided for the organiza-
tional role of instructional supervisors and sought to use
this as one way to effect a more efficient instructional
program for the public school systems of Texas. Such a
role had existed in only a very few school systems of the
state at the time and there has been a marked increase in
the number of such positions being used by the schools of
the state during the following ten-year period. Six years
after the enactment of the Minimum Foundation School Laws
the number of supervisors in the public schools of Texas
had more than doubled (6, p. 30).
The Texas Education Agency studied this professional
position and its relationship to effective instructional
6
programs 1B the schools of Texas, and had some of these
findings translated into law toy proper legislation to pro-
vide for the qualifications of Texas school supervisors
(12, pp. 156-143). Kirk completed a study on the role of
the curriculum director in the administration ©f American
public school systems in 1953 (13). Can&chael*s study of
the status of the supervisor in Texas schools pointed up
some needs for a better understanding of the role of the
supervisor In 1956 (6). fhe Texas Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development held numerous summer
workshops for clarification of the role of supervision in
Texas schools.
Moehlman had recognized instruction as the "supreme
purpose of the schools" (16, p. 232). Wiles (26) had
stressed the importance of the learning situation and its
improvement as the focus of supervision. Ayer's statement
that "teaching at its best is the stimulation and the
direction of learning" (6, p. 1), together with
Carmichael* s observation that "in order to have an effec-
tive supervisory program the supervisor must exercise a
large measure of leadership because he is in a better
position to see clearly the needs, resources, and limita-
tions of the learning situation than the classroom
teacher" (6, p. 2), point the way to the emerging concept
of supervision and its function. Wiles defines
supervision as "a service activity that exist® to help
[email protected] do their ob better" (26, p. 3)» thus further
clarifying the role of the supervisor. In order to suc-
ceed in his job the supervisor must work with people* and
in such a way as to stimulate and direct teachers to work:
together effectively in common educational undertakings,
This same face-to-faoe situational factor influenced
the determination of the limitations of the study as are
spelled out later in this chapter. The purpose of the
study was to look critically at the problem of inter-
relatednes® of the many factors which bear upon the
effectiveness of leadership in instructional improvement.
Berhaps it could be best described as a !* static correla-
tional design" as viewed by some researcher® in the field
(5* pp. 6-7). fhe task of determining causal directions
for the relationships found is left to future research*
thus serving as a sifting process for the more exhaustive
research of causal relationships. In an exhaustive study
of the research prior to 1948, Stogdill (23) bears out the
contention that the old-fashioned "trait" approach to
leadership has given way to a more situational emphasis.
Hemphill (10, 11) further emphasises this with his find-
ings that personal factors may manifest their
effectiveness in interaction with situational factors,
rather than as universal effects to be found in all
s
situation®. The Gordon Personal Profile was used because
it deals with four ©f the five broad, areas of personal
traits found related t© leadership behavior by Stogdill
(23).
This study was designed to provide a basis for
focusing attention upon the complex group of factors that
interact to affect the adequacy of leadership in'this area
of education. It is believed that it will be helpful for
three groups of peoples school administrators* super-
visors, and those engaged in both pre-service and
in-service education of administrators and instructional
supervisors.
The study should help administrators to select and
place key people in position® to facilitate the improve-
ment of instruction and also aid in determining
administrative practices for making the environment and
social situation most conducive to adequate leadership in
this face-to-face interaction process. It should aid in
focusing attention upon the importance of providing
environmental setting® that will most likely produce the
type of leader behavior desired in a particular school
community.
The study should help the supervisor to improve hi®
leadership action by a better understanding of the rela-
tionship between the type of behavior he engages in and
the size and nature of the group he work® with, as well as
the other situational factors involved. If It can male® a
contribution toward the improvement of the effectiveness
of Instructional supervision and can point the way to
further research in the discovering of causal relation-
ships in these areas, it will have been worth-while.
A finer focusing of our concern on understanding the
interaction in such leadership will assist-in pre-service
and in-service teacher education.
Definition of ferms
It is desirable to define certain terms which are
used in this study. Such definitions are given for the
purpose of clarifying the specific meanings that are
attached to these terms as they are to be interpreted in
such descriptions of the study that follow, fhe meanings
stated below should help prevent confusion of interpreta-
tion.
1. Instructional Supervisor. This term is used to
designate those persons who have frequent face-to-face 4
contacts with classroom teachers in a supervisory role as
their major assignment, and on the basis of grade level
rather than special subject level.
2* Leadership* fhis tens is used in the sense that
the National Conference of Professors of Educational
Administration conceive of it as a function of a group.
10
It is a relationship "between persons in which one person
affects another person or a group of persons in such • way
that common direction is given to their efforts through
this on© person. It is in this sense that behavior is
most often implied even though the term behavior may not
be used in conjunction with the term leadership.
3. Consideration. This term is used to describe
that leadership behavior dimension in which the leader's
behavior is indicative of friendship, mutual trust,
respect, and warmth in the relationship of the leader and
the members of the group with which he works*
4. Initiating: Structure. This term will indicate
the leader*s behavior dimension which delineates the rela-
tionships between the leader and the members of the group
and through which he endeavors to establish patterns of
organization, channels of communication, and procedures.
5. Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire.
This term (or LBDQ.) will be used to refer to the forty-
item form of the questionnaire developed by the Bureau of
Business Research of Ohio State University. It is the
instrument used to describe the general leadership
behavior of the supervisory leaders participating In this
study.
6. Situational Factors. This term is used in the
broad sense that indicates those factors of social
11
setting) group attributes, personal traits* and adminis-
trative structure which interact with the behavior ©f the
leader in the social scene. Goncepts are included as well
as the physical factors when they contribute to the inter-
action between leaders and members of the group.
Limitations of the Study
This study was geographically limited to school
systems within a radius of not more than 150 miles of a
metropolitan area of fexas. It was further limited to
those school systems which had an average daily attendance
of white children for the school year of 1958-1959 ©f from
lf000 to 9,000, as determined by the 1959-1960 Public
School Directory» publi shed by the Texas Education Agency
(25). The study was also limited to those instructional
supervisors meeting the following three requirements!
1. Supervisors must have worked directly with
teachers, in a face-to-fac© relationship» as their major
role assignment (excluded were those whose major role
assignment was one of coordinating the work of subordinate
supervisors, or as administrative assistants such a© cur-
riculum directors, et cetera).
2. Supervisors must have had a major role assignment
of either all-level or general supervisor or a specified
grade-level supervisor such as primary, elementary,
12
secondary, ft cetera (this excluded special subject area
supervisors such, as art supervisors, mmsi© supervisors,
et cetera).
3, Supervisors must have worked in their present
position for at least one school year prior to the present
school year,
fen teachers were asked to describe the leadership
behavior of each of the supervisors participating in the
study and these ten teachers were limited to those who
were stated to have worked on® year or more with the
supervisor. Shey were selected at random from the list
furnished by the school.
Basic Assumptions
For the purpose of this study certain basic assump-
tions were made# First, sine# the two test instruments
have been validated, it is assumed that they are reliable
instruments, fhese instruments have been used in maay
previous studies and have been reported in the literature
in the various fields in which they have been used. The
literature on their reliability is reviewed extensively in
the second chapter of this study.
Second, it is assumed that the responses to the tests
and information forms were given in good faith. Every
precaution was taken to insure that they were obtained
15
wd«f m reliable conditions as possible and any conclu-
sions made are made only in the light of the extent to
which such responses represent the good faith of the
respondent*
Finally, the statements of the superintendent© that
the participating supervisors do qualify under the limita-
tions set for this study are accepted#
Helated Studies
The problem of instructional leadership is recognised
as being very complex. Great improvements in supervision
have been made during the past two decades. About 1950
Wiles (26) pointed the way to many desirable means of
improving supervision of instruction. Is a backdrop for
this study recent publications such as those by Helby (15),
Wort (17)» Moehlaan (16), leader (21), Spears (22), and
those by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (1, 2, 3)* were examined to gain a perspective
of supervision and its role in the improvement of our
schools* If such improvement is to come about there must
be leadership. The relationship of leadership to such
improvement is delineated by such sources as The Hole of
the Superintendent of Schools in Instructional Improvement
(19)» Role ©£ the Curriculum Director in the Adminis-
tration o£ American Public School Systems (15),
1#
and Improving Administratlve Leadership for jgafeEAS. .
Schools (18) , and Identification and Definition &f J&e
Criteria Relevant to the Selection of ffob&lfe §®,||S,S.ir,
Administrative Personnel (4). This help a to focus atten-
tion on the problem of dateraining the leadership behavior
most helpful in the improvement of instruction today.
It has long been recognized that research is a most
useful tool in increasing our knowledge of change and how
it is best brought about. This is emphasised in the first
Aanual Phi Beltea gapp» Symposium on Mucatlonal Besearch
(20). Eesearch studies emphasize th® vastness of the
field of leadership. A nation-wide program, known as the
Cooperative Program in Educational Administration set up
eight regional study groups. One of these groups was The
School-Community Development Study at Ohio State Uni-
versity. The Ohio State leadership Studies were initiated
in 1945 and, under the direction of C. L. Shartle, the
next ten years produced many research studies in this
field, from Stogdill's (25) exhaustive study of the
research in the field of personal factors in relation to
leadership in 1948 there began to be a greater emphasis on
situational factors and a shift to viewing leadership as a
behavior in a particular situation rather than a "trait"
of an individual (9» 11» 23). Out of this new approach
grows the focus of this study; behavior of a person, at a
15
time and placef with a specific group, designed to
influence the behavior of member® ©f the group that will
facilitate the performance of a task which is the common
concern of all.
In such a complex area as leadership behavior there
are many studies, hut only those which are most closely
related to this specific problem are reviewed her®, fhie
include® those which hear directly upon the eight situa-
tional factors being studied and also relating to the
leadership function involved. Others are referred to from
time to time in later chapters,
la 1956 Carmichael (6) completed a study of the
status of the supervisor in the independent schools of
feme. He attempted to draw some implications for the
future of supervision as an organizational role in Texas
schools. A rather long questionnaire was submitted to
superintendents and to supervisors. Responses were
received from approximately 70 per cent of each group,
fhis study attempted to determine the activity of super-
visors in many fields rather than to establish relation-
ships . He set up eight broad categories for M s data,
ranging from professional status and relationships with
administrators to responsibility for working with groups
in non-instructional activities (6, pp. 9-10). His find-
ings, however, which have most Implications for this study
16
were! the variations in number of teachers supervised by
each supervisor, the more than 1? per oent of the super-
visors who had served as principals, the wide variation
in practices of faculty participation in determining
supervisory policies, and the variation in practices con-
cerning the role of the supervisor in selection,
re-employment, and promotion of classroom teachers,
finally, two of his conclusions are pertinent to this
study. Me recommends improvement of public relations as
a need, along with wider participation of the supervisor
in the selection and placement of teachers.
In 1958 Briner (4) completed a study concerning the
identification and definition of criteria relevant to
selection of subordinate administrative personnel to work
closely with the superintendent. In the study he seeks to
determine, through synthesis and analysis, some of the
implications which will be helpful to persons who are in a
position to influence the selection and training of
administrative personnel. After securing his data through
the use of a personal interview of the focused type,
together with an open-ended questionnaire, he proceeded to
classify the criteria, thus identified, into the two major
categories of personal attributes and professional
attributes (4, pp. 22-24). A synthesis of these findings
helps foeu© the items studied in this report.
17
Halpin (8) made a study of 64 educational adminis-
trators and 132 aircraft commanders to determine the
extent to which they engaged in leadership behavior
classified under the two dimensions of Consideration and
Initiating Structure. He used the Leader Behavior
D»seglption Questionnaire that had been developed and
refined by Hemphill and Goons, and later by Halpin and
Miner (24). The study focuses attention on leader
behavior in markedly different institutional setting© and
demonstrate® significant differences in leadership ide-
ology and leadership style in the two settings (8f p. 18).
The purpose of the study was to determine whether these
two groups of leaders differ significantly in their
leadership ideology and leadership style (8, p. 19). The
leadership style was described by subordinates in each
ease# He found that the administrators, as measured by
the instrument used, show more consideration and less
initiating structure than the commanders. He also con-
cluded that the aircraft commanders are Inclined to show
less consideration than is desirable whereas the educa-
tional administrators tended to be remiss in not
initiating sufficient structure (8, p. 26). for both
samples of leaders low relationships were found between
the leaders* belief in how they should behave and their
behavior as described by their group members (8, p. 31).
16
Again, Halpin <9) b&s reported a study of the leader-
ship behavior of school superintendents in which fifty of
the same subjects included in the above study were used.
In this study he attempted to look at both the "ideal"
behavior and the "real" behavior ©f superintendents as
viewed by the school board, the staffv and the super-
intendent himself* Within-group difference® were examined
as well as differences in groups, fhe four-quadrant
method of picturing these findings was quite effective in
Implying the desirability of a combination of a high score
on each behavior dimension for effective leadership. In
this study he found the following meansi consideration,
43#5» rod initiating structure, 38.0, when rated by the
staff; consideration, 44.8, and initiating structure,
44.5, when rated by the board; and consideration, 45.4,
and initiating structure, 38.2, when rated by self. These
means may be useful in analysing the findings of the
present study. The four-quadrant method showed nineteen
scoring high on both dimensions, eleven scoring high on
consideration and low on initiating structure, eight low
on both dimensions, and twelve scoring low on considera-
tion and high on initiating structure (9» p. 69)•
Stogdill (23) made an exhaustive study of research In
the field of personal factors associated with leadership,
which he reported in 1948. His major conclusion that is
19
relevant to this study was the finding of no clear agree-
ment on personal trait® that characterize a leader* I®
classed them tinder five very broad headingsi capacity,
achievement, responsibility, participation, and statu®.
In 1959 Iveason (?) reports a study, completed in
1958, in which h® studied the leadership behavior of forty-
high school principals# fhe focus of the study was on the
perceptions and expectation® of the principal, the super-
intendent, and the staff. He found that teachers were
essentially in agreement in describing their principal*®
behavior in both dimensions. He was disappointed to find
a lack of agreement of the superintendent, the principal,
and the staff in describing the principal's behavior on
the consideration dimension, and very little agreement on
the initiating structure dimension. The study did reveal
that a principal can score high on both dimensions, fie
recommends that it would be unwise to use either the
superintendent•s rating or the staff's rating as a sole
criterion of leadership effectiveness (7* p. 100).
In 19^9 Hemphill (11) reported a study of situational
factors in leadership in which he used an exploratory
approach with emphasis being equally divided between the
leader as an individual and the nature of the group situa-
tion in which he functions (11, p. v). Seven Indicators
of leadership adequacy were checked and it was found that
20
the sua of the two ratings on personal impression of
leadership adequacy and group*® impression, of leadership
adequacy provided the superior criterion for judging
adequacy of leadership. This was measured on a fire-
point scale toy the respondent*® personal evaluation of the
leader's quality and his judgment of the group's evalua-
tion of the leader's quality (11, pp. 54-55), By factor
analysis he isolated fifteen group dimension® as situa-
tional factors related to leadership behavior in the 500 i
groups studied. Seventy behavior items were correlated
with each of these fifteen group dimensions and M s eor-
relational tables were used to draw implication® for the
study here reported*
Data to Be Used
fhe primary data to be used in this study consisted
of responses made by instructional supervisors and
teachers who had worked with these supervisors over a
period of one or more years. Although a personal inter-
view was held with each of the forty supervisors
participating in the study and with each of the 400
teachers who were asked to participate in describing
these supervisors, the data used came from written
responses. The primary purpose of the personal interview
was to clarify for the participants the nature of the
study and of the data to be supplied. Emphasis upon
21
franlmess and accuracy la supplying the written responses
was designed to increase the willing and cooperative
participation and to help lend validity t© the study.
fhe personal interview with each of the superin-
tendents supplied the on® item of information for
determining those supervisors and teachers who met the
requirements for participation in the study as outlined
earlier in this chapter. Also, the superintendent sup-
plied the information as to the designation of the
grade level of instructional supervision engaged in by the
supervisor. Information supplied by the superintendent
assisted in more finely focusing the siz@ of the group of
teachers working with each supervisor in those cases where
the number of teachers exceeded 100.
Scores were obtained on the leadership behavior
dimensions of consideration and Initiating structure for
each of the supervisor® by scoring and tabulating the 356
usable returned Leadership Behavior Description question-
naires by the participating teachers. Sach teacher com-
pleted a form for supplying data on the situational
factors studied, these forms were tabulated and trans-
lated into scores as described in detail in Qiapter III.
A copy of this informational form is found in Appendix A.
Each of the forty supervisor® executed a Sordon
Personal Profile which yielded scores on Ascendancy,
22
Responsibility, Emotional Stability, and Sociability, as
mil as a total score. Also, each supervisor completed an
informational form which supplied data for the situational
factors studied. This form is described in Chapter II and
is found in Appendix A of this report*
from these data, then, the translation into scores
for statistical tabulation and study was accomplished.
Appendix B gives a summary of the major statistical
information that was used in the study of the relation-
ships that were found to exist in this field.
Procedure for Collecting and Treating the Data
The procedure for collecting the data for this study
essentially consisted of securing approval from the super-
intendents and supervisors for participation in the study,
individual visits for clarification with each of the
supervisors and teachers involved in the study, and the
use of the United States mail for returning of the written
responses to be tabulated and used in the study. This is
described in a much store detailed manner in Chapters II
and III of this report.
The data thus secured were tabulated and then con-
verted to usable scores for study of relationships between
the two leadership behavior dimensions and the situational
factors. The four-quadrant method of focusing attention
23
da the various relationships was employed. The nine-cell
method was then meet to refine the focus on existing rela-
tionships and thus point the way to tooth the correlational
studies of this study and to other potentially profitable
exploration of other interrelationship® that ®ight exist,
fables were then constructed for the purpose of deter-
mining correlation® and testing the significance of these
relationships. This made possible the testing of the null
hypotheses aet forth at the beginning of this study. It
was on this basis that they were accepted or rejected.
24
3.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGHAPHT
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment, " Yearbook, and Curriculum Development, 1953-•
, Leadership Mr" 3tftgtin«sM#s»r I960 Yearbook, Washington, Association for Supervisi on and Curriculum Development, I960*
. _ search, for Curriculum Improvement« 1957 xearbook, Washington, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development» 1957.
4, Briner, Conrad, "Identification and Definition of the Criteria Relevant to the Selection of Public School Administrative Personnel," unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Education, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1958.
5. Campbell, Donald T., leadership and Its Effect upon the Group. Columbus» Ohio; Bureau of Business Researoh, The Ohio State University, 1956.
6« Carmichael, William R., "The Status of the Supervisor in Texas Independent Schools,n unpublished doc-toral dissertation, School of Education, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1956.
7. Evenson, Warren L., "Leadership Behavior of High-School Principals," Th® Bulletin of tl Association of Secondary School Illirf^piei^er, "IWh 55=TO,
8, Halpin, Andrew W., "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Air-craft Commanders»!* The Harvard Educational Review* XXV, Ho. 1 TSTnW, 1955), 1^52.
24
25
9. Halpin, Andrew V., The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents. School-Community Development £iudy, Monograph Ho. 4, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1956.
10, Hemphill, J. I*, "Relations between Size of the Group and the Behavior of 'Superior* Leaders," Journal of Social Psychology. XXXXI (August, 1950), ir-ag,
IX* . Situational Factors in Leadership, Bureau ofEducational Research, Homograph Ho. 52| Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio Stat# Uni-versity , 1950*
12. Kinsley, J.. 0., |f|>p|gsgn| to toe Iffi! School Law. Auafein'. Texas. fhe Steele Company,
13, Kirk, Dwight L., The Bole of the Curriculum Director in the Admini s t rati on of American Public' Mhool' Systems, mgest ox doctoral Mssertafionj Austin, Texas, College of Education, The Uni-versity of Texas, 1953.
14. Melby, 2. 0., "The Superintendent and the Organiza-' tion of Supervision," Educational Administration and Supervision, If, Ho. 9 U929}, 641-&54.
15* Melchoir, William T., Instructional Supervision. Boston, D. C. Heain and Company, 19£<3.
16. Moehlman, A. B., School Administration, lew York, Houghton IUfflin Company, 1946 •
17. Mort, Paul B., and Francis G. Cornell, American ~ >ho<&c in Transition. Mew York, Teachers Ool-sge» Columbia University, 1941.
18. National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration, Providing and ^proving Admlnii trativg Leadership for American Schools. edite< by Van Miller, Hew torlc, Teachere College, Columbia University, 1951.
19. Hew Mexico Cooperative Program in Educational Administration and State Department ©f Educa-tion, The Bole of the Superintendent of Schools in Instructional Improvement. July. 19%.
26
20. Phi Delta Kappa, first Annual Phi Delta Kappa gygposiua oa Educational Research. edited toy frank Banghart, Bloomington, Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa, lac,, I960.
21. Seeder, Edwin H., Supervision of the Slemeatary Schoolt Hew Torn., Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953 •
22.
23. Stogdill, Ralph H., "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Surrey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology. XI? (1948), 35-71.
24. Stogdill, Halph M., and Alvin I. Coons, Leader Behavior; Its Inscription and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio, Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957.
25. Texas Education Agency, 1959-1960 Public School Directory. Austin, Texas, Texas Education Agency, i960.
26. Wiles. Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools. Mew Xork, Prektice^all7Tn^T1^^7~"
CHAPTER II
SELECTION OF INSTRUMENTS FOR OBTAINING DATA
la order to facilitate the collection of data for
this study it was necessary to select the instruments to
be used for gathering such data. Preliminary to doing
this it became essential to determine the criteria to be
used as a guide to such selection. The three major
requirements set up for this can be stated as follows;
1. Any instrument selected must possess reliability
for collecting the data,
2. The instrument must meet the test of ease of
administration and conserr® the time of the respondents.
3« The instrument oust be suited to the collection
of the data in this unique relationship in such a way as
to center attention upon the behavioral approach to
leadership and not emphasize the "trait" concept as being
paramount.
A study of many instruments revealed that the two
selected were satisfactory and that the situational
information forms constructed do meet these three major
requirements.
2?
28
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
After a careful study of the research in the field of
leadership and instructional supervision, and the examina-
tion of instruments for assessing leadership, it was
decided that a valid and reliable instrument for the pur-
poses of this study would he the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire developed by the Bureau of
Business Research ©f the Ohio State University (15)» This
questionnaire is one based upon one that was originally
constructed by Hemphill and Coons (15) and was refined and
shortened to its present form by Halpln and Winer (15*
p. 4? ) , In its final form there were forty items, of
which thirty were scored.
For this particular study it is very desirable that
the instruments used have a high degree of reliability.
This is all the more important since it is a relationships
study rather than an evaluative study involving effective-
ness. By applying the Bpearman-Brown formula to correct
for attenuation, Halpin and Winer found a reliability of
.95 on the Consideration factor and .86 on the Initiating
Structure factor (15# p. 48). The estimated reliability
by the split-half method is stated to be .83 for
Initiating Structure scores, and .92 for the Consideration
scores, corrected for attenuation, according to a later
report by Halpin (10, p. 6). To check further the
29
reliability of the questionnaire Halpin found that in
several studies the agreement among respondents in
describing their respective leader® was significant at the
,01 level (10, p* 6), Among the groups that have been
studied by the use of this questionnaire are to be found
industrial, military, tad educational settings, these
findings would seen to indicate that this instrument meets
the first requirement set up above.
Having met the first requirement, the Leader Behavior
Description 4uegtionnaire was examined for compliance with
the second requirement of the three set up for selection
of the instruments to be used. This questionnaire is
designed in such a way that the responses are indicated by
the simple process of circling a letter to Indicate the
extent to which the respondent feels that the leader
engages in the stated behavioral practices* fhes©
responses are coded to indicate the following adverbs as
chosen answers: always, often, occasionally, seldom, or
never, fhe time required to respond to the forty state-
ments describing behavior or action by the leader being
studied is reduced to a minimum.
Another advantage of the instrument is that it may be
administered individually or in small groups. Halpin
indicates that it is preferable not to have the leader
physically present while he is being described by the
50
respondents, fhis facilitates its administration by
allowing it to be given to on® or more people without
involving the time of the leader in each instance. Adding
further to the ease of adiainistration is the fact that
when given under specified conditions not more than tea
respondents need describe the behavior of any one leader.
Studies indicate that a minimum of four respondents should
describe each leader but that additional respondents
beyond ten do not significantly change the stability of
the scores on the two behavior dimensions (10, p, 7)*
Brevity, for brevity's sake* is not a virtue, but if
brevity can be accomplished without sacrificing other
values it is often desirable in research* First, it makes
the task of amassing of aany cases feasible. Second, it
reduces to a minimum the time involved for both collecting
the data and processing them. In pointing out the values
of this questionnaire, Fitspatrick considers that it is a
tribute to the competence of the researchers who developed
the Leader Behavior inscription duestionnaire that this
program "rose above superficiality" (8, p. 292).
this instrument for describing behavior is well
suited to the task of centering attention on behavior
rather than on a wtrait" of the leader being described.
®he instructions are conducive to the accomplishing of
such a goal also. The lack of a tendency to indicate
31
evaluation as a factor in the responses facilitates the
approach needed in order to aid in centering attention on
general action by the leader. Ho mention of the dimen-
sions being measured is mad©, either in the instrument
itself or in the instructions to the respondent.
The Instrument chosen to yield a score on these two
behavior dimensions was the only one that was found to be
available for such a study as the one being made here*
Since this instrument was found to be reliable, to be
practical for administration, and seemed to promote the
atmosphere in which behavior description could best be
mad© in the field of supervisory leadership, it was deemed
to be a sound choice for securing the scores to be used in
this study.
Gordon Personal Profile
In searching for an Instrument to describe person-
ality or personal traits it was necessary to delineate the
nature of the function of such an instrument In this par-
ticular study. After reviewing such exhaustive studies as
the one reported by Stogdill (14) in 1948, it was easy to
see that there had been a shift toward leadership as a
function of action or behavior rather than a function of
personal traits on the part of the leader. Bven though
there was no clear agreement on personal traits that
32
characterize a leader, there was an indication that there
might be some relationship between leadership and certain
broad groupings of personal traits.
For this study it wa® necessary to consider only
those ma jor constellations of personality traits that seem
to bear most specifically on the behavior of instructional
supervisors in the face-to-face contact with subordinate
workers that is involved in this situational setting. The
instrument chosen for this purpose is the Gordon Personal
Profile, as developed by Gordon in connection with his
work with the United States Haval Personnel Research Unit,
San Diego, California. This instrument is a simple, short,
and easily administered instrument which makes use of the
"forced-choice" technique. It is designed to give quick,
reliable measures of five aspects of personality which are
especially significant in the daily functioning of the
normal person, fhese five aspects are! Ascendancy (A),
Responsibility (E), Emotional Stability (1), Sociability
(S), and Total or over-all self-evaluation ($) (9, p. 1).
fhese five measures correspond more closely with the five
very broad headings of capacity, achievement, responsi-
bility, participation, and status (14) than any other
brief measure of personal traits examined.
Frlcke thinks that Gordon has shown more sensitivity
than most non-empirical personality test makers to the
33
importance of relating test scores to real life behavior
(5, p. 12?), Hadcliffe, also In fit© fifth Henta! Measure-
ments Yearbook, describes the five main features of the
profile ast (a) factorial derivation of the traits being
measured; (b) use of both Internal and external validating
procedures{ (c) frequent cross validations against
external criteria} (d) use of forced-choice responses? and
(e) the more-than-average validity data reported in the
manual (5, p, 12?)« The forced-choice technique, plus the
us© of tetrads in which all four factors are represented
in each tetrad» should give maximum safeguards against
"faking" on the part of the one taking the test (5, p.
128). These things, plus the fact that it can be taken in
seven to fifteen minutes by the average person, make it
very suitable for the purpose of this study. Its suit-
ability for this study is further enhanced by the fact
that it is self-administering.
The reliability of the scores on each of the factors
has been tested by several methods and found to be
extremely satisfactory. By the split-half method in two
studies the reliability coefficients ranged from a low of
,82 on the factor of ascendancy (A) in one of the studies,
to a high of .94- on the factor of Sociability (S) in the
other (9, p. 12). The test-retest method in one study
yielded reliability coefficients of .84 to .87 on the
34
various factors (9» p. 12). The Kuder-Hichardson method
was used In studying a sample of 200 college freshmen and
yielded a reliability coefficient of «95 o» the Total (T)
score, while the two case® of split-half method above
yielded coefficients of .94 &»d .95 on tht Total (f)
scores (9» p. 12 ) .
Because this inetrwaenti has high reliability, i®
easily administered and scored, and relates itself well
to real life behavior, it appeared to be very acceptable
for this study*
Unique Nature of Instructional Supervision
Instructional supervision is an organizational func-
tion that has existed for aany decades but there 1® a
changed emphasis now present in the basic concept of its
function in the instructional program. Having fallen
somewhat into disrepute in the early 1930*s, supervision
began to receive emphasis again in the early 1940's, This
reawakened interest in supervision was concerned with a
supervision that was a new servicej not a retread of an
old worn-out function. This modem supervision is cen-
tered in service to the teacher, not evaluation of the
teacher (7, p. 8). Crosby characterizes supervision as .
doing something with teachers, not to or for them (7,
p. 110).
55
The rather broad definition of supervision as a
service designed to improve instruction ha® prevailed for
some time (11, p. 4), Writer after writer ha® implied
that the «JobE of supervision and in-service education are
identical and that no distinction should be mad® between
the two (11, p. 18). Certainly, they are aiming at the
same result* the improvement of instruction, Eather than
viewing supervision as autocratic , inspectional, repre-
sentative, cooperative-democratic, Invitational,
scientific, or creative, Bartky defines it as "teaching
teachers on the job to i®prove their instruction'1 in such
a way as to often aake use of many or all of these con-
cepts (4, p« 26). It is easy to see that if supervision
means on-the-job teaching of teachers it will, of neces-
sity, require both individual and group techniques <4,
P • 14-5 ) •
If supervision is teaching, as has been indicated, it
is necessary that the interpretation of the act of teach-
ing b© clarified as it pertains to this organizational
role of Instructional supervision. feacMng may be pic-
tured as "a process which involves face-to-fac® contact
between an individual and other individuals or groups in
which the former directs and guides the latter to the
point of doing quantity or quality work," thus reaching
mutually accepted goals (4, p, 7 ) .
36
Wiles (16) insist« that the person responsible for
supervision be a leader and he skilled in human relations,
group processes, personnel administration, and evaluation.
If this view is accepted it would seem that good super-
vision would indicate a need for supervisors vho can
assume multiple personality roles as they work for
improvement of instruction (4, p. 133). This, then, cen-
ters attention on the leadership role of the one engaged
in this type of supervision.
The introduction of the leadership function into the
picture requires some searching for Implications that
relate directly to the focus of this study. Hemphill (12)
studied on® of the important implications as he approached
the idea of leadership as being situationally oriented.
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
exhibited awareness of this characteristic of leadership
in its I960 Yearbook. Leadership is, of necessity,
situationally centered if it is to function effectively in
a democracy. Leadership is related to the specifics of
time, place, people, and purpose (2, p. 17), These con-
cepts invite a study of the many complex factors to be
taken into consideration as an attempt is mad® to assess
leadership behavior of supervisors.
Leadership behavior or action, if it is to exhibit
the democratic ideals of society, must be exercised in
3 7
such a way as to to© conducive to creating a favorable
climate for growth, and learning on the part of indi-
viduals , and to increase or implement group- interaction
and cooperative planning on the part of the individuals
that sake up the group "being associated with the leader
(2t pp. 182-183)# It was with this concept of leadership
among instructional supervisors that this exploratory
study was undertaken.
Development of Situational Information Forms
The situational information forms were developed
after a study of literature in the field. Attention was
given to insure that the for® would be brief enough to
enable the teacher or the supervisor to furnish the
required information without consuming an excessive amount
of time, This factor, plus the simplicity of the response
mechanism, also helped to secure a larger per cent of
participation. Since the study was to be an exploratory
one, some simple items were included without their being
necessary for the testing of the hypotheses set forth in
the first chapter of this report• These were for the pur-
pose of making it possible to examine these factors as
they might relate to future study of supervisors.
Form A, to be filled out by each teacher, was to
supply information for testing some of the hypotheses and
38
also to give some indlcatio& as to any discrepancies In
concepts between teachers and supervisors ©a some of the
factors used. Form B, to be filled out by the supervisor,
was designed to furnish soiae data for testing the
hypotheses proposed, and to serve as a basis for looking
at some differences la concepts concerning the situational
factors involved*
Caxmichael*s (6) study revealed a variety ©f prac-
tices in respect to the number of teachers supervised by
each supervisor. Item 4 on Form B was set up to get
reliable information on this item. It was simplified by
categorising the information in ten categories. It was
later discovered that this prevented the same statistical
treatment for this information as the other situational
information secured* Since supervision is so closely
allied with human relations (4), and since teacher con-
cepts do influence the human relations involved in
function, it was deemed desirable to secure also the
teacher*s concept of the size of the group involved in
the supervisory process. Item 2 on Form B was designed
to supply this information.
She wide variation in the practices of supervisors in
regard to faculty participation in determining supervisory
policies, found by Carmichael (6), dictated the Inclusion
of item 7 of Form B. Item J of Form A was included in
39
order to cheek again variation in teacher concepts and
supervisor concepts in this relationship. Assigned scores
were determined for each of the responses, as indicated in
Chapter III of this report# this permitted a study of the
congruence of concepts by use of the four-quadrant method,
Wider participation of the supervisor in the selec-
tion and placement of teachers was recommended by
Carmichael (6) along with improvement of public relations.
Item 8 of Form B, and item 4 of form A, were included in
order to secure this information and check variation in
concept®. Again, assigned scores were used for each
response.
Items 5 and 6 of Pora A were patterned after the
findings of Beaphill in regard to the basis for judging
leadership adequacy of leaders (12, pp. 54-55). The same
point scale was used as that used by Hemphill.
Another of Caraich&el's (6) findings concerning the
experience of supervisors in the role of principal, prior
to becoming a supervisor, was the basis upon which the
information requested in item 3 of Form B was Included.
It was deemed desirable to determine whether administra-
tive experience was related to the behavior dimension® as
described by teachers who work with a supervisor. Since
the supervisory relationship is one which involves face-
to-face contacts between the teacher and the supervisor,
40
and since classroom experience was included in the legal
requirements for certification of supervisors in Texas
(15? pp. 156-143)| it was thought to fee appropriate to
include this item as a situational factor.
Such items as age, sex, length of service as a
supervisor, and length of service in present job, were
included for the purpose of aiding in the exploratory look
at supervisory leadership rather than for testing the
hypotheses of the study, the similar items on form A mm
designed to seek this information about the teacher who
described the behavior of the supervisor. It was ejected
that this might be helpful in pointing the way to further
exploratory work in future study of the relationships that
exist in this area*
The cover sheets to accompany these instruments were
designed in such a way as to assist in securing the frank,
and thus more valid, responses from both teachers and
supervisors participating in the study. Copies of these
cover sheets are found in Appendix A* the personal inter-
views were designed to increase further the validity of
the responses secured by these instruments.
The four instruments Just described seemed to meet
the requirements of reliability, ease of administration,
and to center attention on the behavioral approach to this
unique relationship between supervisor and teacher. They
41
eeesed to be in eonformity with, the ideas ©f modem super-
vision as described by the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (1, 2» 3), and by such researchers
as Bartky (4)f Crosby (?)* and Hammock (11). These fac-
tors, together with care in administration and scoring,
seemed to bring the greatest amount of assurance that
maximum value could be placed upon the results as being
reliable data to be used in the correlations and tests of
sigaif icai«se •
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Association for Supervision, and Curriculum Develop-ment, Action for Curriculum Improvement. 1951 Yearbook, Washington, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development» 1951*
2, » Leadership for Improving Instruction. 1960
xearbook, Washington, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, I960.
5. .""feeaearch for Curriculum Improvement. 1957
Yearbook, Washington, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 195?•
Bartky, John A,, Supervision as Human lielatioi Boston,. 0. D. Heath and Company,
5» Buros, Oscar Srisen, editor, fhe fifth Mental Measure-ments Yearbook. Highland Park, lew Jersey, 3?he SrypEon Press, 1959.
6. Carmichael, William R., "The Status of the Supervisor In Texas Independent Schools,** unpublished doc-toral dissertation, School of Education, Baylor University, Waco, $exas, 1956.
?. Crosby, Kuriel, Supervision ag. Co-operative Action, Sew York, Appleton-Century-Croris, Inc., i§57.
8 . Titspatrick, Robert, Review of "Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement,M Personnel Psychology. XI (Summer, 1958), 2^9-^92.
9. Gordon, Leonard 7., Sordon Personal Profile: A Manual, Hew York, World Book Company, 195?.
10. Balpin £ s* 1957
Andrew W., Manual fo
42
45
11. Hammock, Kobert 0., and Balph S. Owings, Supernal? Instruction la Secondary Schools, lew "fork, HcGraiHEd.il Sook Company, tnc.i 1955*
12. Hemphill, J. £., Situational factor® i& Leadership, Bureau of Educational Research, Monograph JFo* 32, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1950.
13. Kinsley, J. C., Supplement to the Handbook of Texas School Lav, Austin, TexasTThe Steck Company, I950,
14. Stogdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Surrey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology. XXf (1948), 35-71•
15. Stogdill, Ralph M., and Alvin 1. Coons,
The Ohio State University, 1957.
16. Wiles, Kimball, Supervision for Better Schools. Hew York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1$50•
CHAPTER III
OOLLSCTIOH AND PROCESSING Gf DATA
After the two instruments were selected for semiring
scores on the two leadership behavior dimensions and the
four personality traits, and after the two forma were
designed for securing the situational information, it was
necessary to determine the details pertaining t© securing
the data needed for the study.
Selection of Participants
The first step in the selection of participants was
to list the schools meeting the requirements of geographic
location and size category as set forth in the first chap-
ter of this report. From the Texas Public School Directory
for the year of 1959-1960 (5) a list of schools falling in
the sia# category and geographic area required, and
reporting supervisors for the school year of 1958-1959,
was made. Additional schools within these two categories
but not listing supervisors for that year were added to
the list. Personal interviews with superintendents of the
school systems listed were then held to determine whether
the school system would participate in the study.
44
45
laeh supert aten&ent was informed of the nature of the
study, the limitations, and what would "be involved if lie
agreed for the school system to participate in the study.
Forty-six supe ri ntendent s were interviewed to determine
whether their school systems would participate in the
study. One superintendent of the participating schools
was not interviewed because of absence fro® his 3oh, hut
consent for that school system to participate was given by
the supervisor and the school principals*
The first question to be clarified in this interview
with the superintendent was whether the school employed a
supervisory leader with a major role assignment of face-
to-face work with teachers, either Individually or in
groups, for the purpose of improvement of instruction.
2?he title of the supervisory position was not the deter-
mining factor here; rather it was the nature of the role
assignment under which the supervisor worked. JSven though
he carried an entirely different title, if his role
assignment was as described above he was deemed eligible
to participate in the study. The next step was to deter*
mine whether the supervisor worked on a grade level basis
such as elementary, secondary, or all-level supervision
rather than in a special subJect area. Finally, it was
determined whether the supervisor had been working in the
present position for one year or more* If the three
46
limitations above were in accord with the requirements of
tli© study, the consent of the superintendent to partici-
pate in the study was sought. In no case was insistence
used to secure consent for participation as it was desired
that it be voluntary.
Of tli© forty-six superintendents contacted twenty-
eight schools participated in the study, 11a©
superintendents stated that the school had no supervisor,
fire disqualified seven supervisors because of failure t©
meet the role assignment limitations, and four had super-
visors who had not been in their present position for on®
year or more. On® superintendent chose not to participate
for understandable circumstances which made it undesirable
to engage in the study. Five supervisors in the partici-
pating schools were disqualified by the superintendents
under the limitations set up for the study$ two because of
role assignment and three because this was their first
year in their present supervisory positions in the school
system.
Upon securing consent for the school to participate
in the study a list of teachers working with each super-
visor was then checked and those teachers with less than
one year of experience working with the designated super-
visor were deleted from the list, A table of random
numbers was then used to select ten teachers from the list
4?
to be asked to fill in tlu> necessary information on the
two instruments used for semiring information from the
teachers. This provided a list of 400 teachers to
describe the leadership behavior of the #0 supervisors
being studied and to give the situational information
required. To insure against th® possibility that a
teacher might not be able to participate because of
absence from school or other reasons, two additional names
were randomly selected for each of the groups of ten
teachers, thus guarding against not being able to secure
ten respondents for each supervisor.
Personal Contact of Participants
In order to insure that the data would be as reliable
as possible, the procedure for collection was planned in
such a way as to promote frankness and sincerity of par-
ticipation on the part of the respondents, Each
supervisor was personally interviewed in order that ques-
tions could be answered and any lack of understanding of
the role of the participant in the study could be clari-
fied. In this interview the supervisor was assured of
anonymity in the study. No name, either of the supervisor
or the school, was to appear on the instruments to be
executed by the supervisor. A cod# was to be used in
order that the forms filled out by the supervisor could be
48
matched with the ones by the teachers who described the
leadership of the supervisor and the situational factors
involved, Thie code was necessary for the tabulation and
statistical treatment of the data, but the coding was
changed so that no supervisor would be able to identify
himself in the report of the study. So school system ©an
be identified in the report. Assurance was given the
participants that no superintendent or other person would
be given any information of individual findings. Finally,
the United States mail was to be used in returning the
forms* A stamped and addressed envelope, with no return
address, was left with the participant for returning the
two forms* All data for the study came from the written
responses and not from the personal interview. Only one
participating supervisor was not contacted personally.
HJhis supervisor was out of town for several days and the
superintendent stated that he would explain the study to
her and secure her participation. A copy of the cover
sheet, giving written instructions and assuring anonymity,
is included in Appendix A.
Bach of the 400 teachers was personally contacted and
only two chose not to participate in the study after it
was explained to the®. In each of these two cases the
additional teacher from the random list was substituted
for the one not choosing to participate. The same
assurances of anonymity and confidential treatment of the
information supplied were given to the teachers as to the
supervisors, la general, a very cooperative attitude wa®
manifested fey the teachers, and they freely asked ques-
tions for clarification of the instructions for filling
out the two forms involved.
Within the geographic limitations of this study a
sufficient number of school systems agreed to participate
to bring the total number of eligible supervisors to
forty. This met the requirements set up in the planning
of the study and made it possible to complete the study
without going outside the proposed area. All other limi-
tations as to participation, as set forth in the first
chapter of this report, were adhered to in their entirety.
Processing 2>at&
As respondents returned their answers, each form was
checked to determine it© acceptableness for use in final
tabulation. On the Leadership Behavior Description
Questionnaire there were tea items that were not to be
scored. If a teacher omitted one or nor© of these ten
items, it did not affect the score, so the form was
usable. If only one of the thirty scored items on the
questionnaire was omitted, the form was accepted and a
score equal to the mean response of the other teachers on
50
this Item was assigned to this item so it would not affect
final tabulation. If more than one scored item wast
omitted, the- form was rejected a® unusable* Behavior
descriptions by two teachers were not used in the tabula-
tion, Every group of teachers returned six or more of
the sets of forme and therefor® no supervisor had to be
dropped from the study because of insufficient returns.
Only two follow-ups were necessary to secure information
from supervisors and only one supervisor was asked to
execute a new form because of incompleteness.
In tabulating the situational information forms where
items were omitted and the information was determinable
from another source» the forms were used? otherwise they
were rejected. Of the 358 replies from the 400 teachers,
2 were not usable, thus leaving 356 usable sets of returns
from the teachers who participated in the study. There
was an average return of 8,9 behavior descriptions of each
of the supervisors and 8.9 descriptions of each of the
situational settings. In the case of only one supervisor
was the number of usable descriptions at the minimum of
six responses as set up as a satisfactory level for use in
the study.
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaires were
scored according to the instructions by the authors (2).
Scores on each of the two behavior dimensions were then
51
determined and were rounded off to the nearest whole
number* a® instructed by the instrument makers, and
recorded in the statistical table for tabulation purposes,
fhese scores ranged from 23 to 55* Also* an average score
for the two dimensions was calculated and recorded,
ranging from 28 to 48. The statistical table in Appendix
1 shows these scores.
The Gordoa Personal Profile was then scored, as
directed in the manual (1), and scores recorded on each of
the four personality traits of Ascendancy, Hesponaibility,
Emotional Stability, and Sociability. Alto, a total score
was determined and recorded, a#©# scores ranged from -6
to 18 on the various traits, and from 7 to 56 on total
score, as shown in the statistical table.
In tabulating the items on the situational informa-
tion forms, every item was tabulated, but only those items
related to the eight situational factors studied were
placed in the statistical table. This information is
recorded on the basis described below. This was neoessaxy
in order to check relationships as planned.
Previous classroom teaching experience of the super-
visor was recorded in terms of number of years. This
ranged from 0 to 50 years. This means that the higher the
score on this factor the more classroom experience the
supervisor has had.
52
Previous experience of the supervisor in the role of
superintendent or principal, although tabulated sepa-
rately, was recorded in the statistical table as number ©f
years in all of the administrative field® combined, This
was done because testing for significance ©f relationship
was to he mad® on the basis of experience as superintend-
ent or principal', This experience ranged from 0 to 24
years* This means that the higher the score on this fac-
tor the more administrative experience the supervisor has
had.
fhe item of number of teachers supervised was tabu-
lated on the basis of teacher concept and supervisor
concept# When these two concepts were compared it was
found that the average difference was less than .3 of one
categoryf s© for statistical purposes the supervisor's
concept was recorded in the table. However* it was not
possible to use the same technique for computing correla-
tion of this item with the behavior dimensions studied
since these scores were categorized rather than continuous.
A rank order was used for this calculation. Since so aany
came in the tenth category of over 100 teachers» an effort
was mad® to rank these on the basis of the number of
teachers, as supplied by the lists from the superin-
tendents , and these rankings were used to look at the
relationships.
53
For the score on teacher concept of the teacher's
participation in determining supervisory policies, an
assigned score was given to each, of the four responses.
On the assumption that democratic action should be valued
more highly than autocratic action, the responses were
scored so that highest scores would, indicate highest
degree of participation of the teacher in determining
problems worked on and how the work should be done.
Response one was scored as a four, .response two as a
three, response three as a two, and response four as a
one. In each case the scores from each teacher's descrip-
tion were added and then averaged and multiplied by ten,
in order to make all scores comparable, whether six:
teachers had described the situation or ten teachers had
described it. The same procedure was used in assigning
scores to the responses by the supervisors, these scores '
were then multiplied by ten for recording in the sta-
tistical table.
In the case of the description of the supervisor* s
role in determining selection, re~earployaent, or promotion
of the teachers, the assigned scores for the responses
were on the basis that the less the participation of the
supervisor in this role the higher the score; response one
was assigned a score of one, response two a score of two,
et cetera. Again, the same process was used, followed by
mi
multiplication of the sooro by ten to pake the More.
statistically comparable• The same process of score
assignment was used for the supervisor's responses.
Plnally, the processing of the responses for the Item
of teacher evaluation of over-all adequacy of leadership
by the supervisor was tone by tabulating as suggested, in
Hemphill's (4) study, 4 five-point system of assigning
the scores to the five responses was used, Sesponse one
was scored as five points, response two as four points,
response three as three points, et cetera, fhe total
scores were then found and averaged for the teachers
describing such leadership adequacy* This score was
multiplied by ten and thus the scores all became sta-
tistically comparable. This was done for the teacher's
personal concept of the supervisor's adequacy of leader-
ship and for the teacher's concept of the group's
evaluation of the supervisor's adequacy of leadership,
$hese two scores were then averaged to arrive at an over-
all score on leadership adequacy, as Hemphill had found
this to be the most reliable of seven indicators studied
(4).
this completed the statistical table for finding the
correlations required and for testing the significance of
the difference of the means when categorized into the
55
upper on© third and the lower one third of the group ©a
scores ©a each of the two leadership behavior dimensions
studied*
Focusing on Leadership Behavior
She first step, following the tabulation ©f the data
and the setting up of the statistical table found in
Appendix 1, was the focusing of attention on leadership
behavior in such a way as to see relationship® between
these two behavior distensions and the situational fac-
tors being studied. This was done in two steps: use
of the four-quadrant method, and finer focusing by use
of the niae-eell method.
The four-quadrant method, as used by Halpin (3,
p. 10), focused attention on the distribution of leaders'
who scored above the mean on the behavior dimension of
Consideration and also above the mean on any of the
situational factors being studied. Likewise, focus
was directed at those scoring below the mean on any
situational factor and either above or below the mean
on on® of the behavior dissensions, in illustration
of this is shown in Figure 1, as it pertains to the
leader behavior dimension of Consideration and the
number of years of classroom experience by the super-
visor.
56
Quadrant IV
24-25-51-34-55-58
(6)
Quadrant I :
3—4—5** 8** 9— 10-11-12-15-16-17-19-22
(14)
j Quadrant III
23-26-27-28-I 29-50-52-55- :
t 36-57-59-40
<12)
Quadrant 11
2-6-7-14-15-18-20-21
(8)
fig# 1—Distribution ©f supervisor® into four quadrants on basis of scores on Considera-tion dimension and on classroom e3Q>©rience of supervisors.
Quadrant I shows those scoring above the mean on
Consideration and also above the mean on classroom
experience. Quadrant II siows those supervisors scoring
above th© mean, on the behavior dimension of Consideration
but below the mean on classroom teaching experience*
Quadrant 111 shows those below the mean oa Consideration
and also below the mean on classroom experience* Quad-
rant IV shows the supervisors scoring below th® mean on
Consideration but above th© mean on amount of classroom
experience* fhe numbers in parentheses indicate the
number of supervisors in each quadrant.
57
la a like manner these relationships' were plotted for
each of the situational fa©tors and the behavior dimension
©f Consideration, Similar focusing was done with the
behavior distension of Initiating Structure and each of the
situational factors, fhese distributions are given in
Appendix G.
A finer focusing was then done by using the nine-
cell method* The supervisors were divided into three
groups on the basis of score® on the behavior dimension
©f Consideration! upper one third, middle one thirdf and
lower one third* Each cell is labeled with a Boaaa
numeral and an Arabic numeral. Cells labeled 1 are upper
one third on behavior dimension? cells labeled II are
middle one third on the behavior dimension; and cells
labeled III are lower one third on the behavior dimension.
Cells labeled 1 are upper one third on the situational
factor, cells labeled 2 are middle one third on the situa-
tional factor, and cells labeled 3 are lower one third on
the situational factor. It can easily be seen that those
in cell 1-1 ranked in the upper one third of the behavior
dimension indicated and in the upper one third in the
situational factor. Similarly, cell II-5 would be those
scoring in the middle one third on the behavior distension
and in the lower one third on the situational factor.
Figure 2 gives the distribution of supervisors by scores
58
on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the situa-
tional factor of number of years of classroom experience.
Cell III-l
31-34-38
Cell II-l
19-22
% *T \
vili
10-11-13 Cell III-2
28-35-36-39
Cell II-2
15-16-17-20 24-2$
Cell 1-2
2—9—12
Cell III-3
27-29-30-32-33-37-40
Cell II-3
14-18-21-23-26
Cell 1-3
6-?
fi§» 2—Distribution of supervisors ©n "basis of upper, middle, and lower one third classifications on behavior dimension of Consideration and situational factor of classroom experience.
fliis provides a finer focus than the four-quadraat
method and aids in fixing attention on relationships that
need to be further explored. Appendix 0 gives the
plotting of the distributions of each of the two behavior
dimensions with each of the situational factors, as
included in the table of statistical information for
determining relationships. Other relationships were also
plotted for the purpose of determining implications for
further study.
59
Determining Correlations
The next step in processing the data obtained in
this study consisted of the development of a table of
coefficients of congelation for each of the two behavior
dimensions and each of the situational factors# These
correlations were examined by using the computational
formula for use of raw scorea (6, p. 144).
_ M M
N ^xry r » « • — — « ..win
(T% 07 *
This formula could not he used for finding the cor-
relation between the behavior dimensions and the number
of teachers supervised by the supervisor, the data not
being continuous. As indicated in the table, this coef-
ficient of correlation was computed by use of the
rank-order method. The data for this correlation came
from an adjusted figure as described in an earlier part
of this chapter. This rank-order is also given in the
statistical table found in Appendix B, The behavior
dimensions are each correlated with each of the sixteen
situational scores from the statistical table and are
shown in Table I which follows.
60
COEFFICIENT OF OOEHiiLAlION FOR RAW SCORES 01 TUE MADER BSE4H0E BIKSISIOIS OF 0QSSID11ATIQI 4MB IHITIATIHG
STRUCTURE AND SCORES 01 BACH OF THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS SfUBXSB
Coefficient ©f Correlation
Situational Factor Consideration Dimension
Initiating Structure ;Dimension
Previous experience ©f the supervisor in the role of classroom teacher .34? • 263
Previous experience of the j supervisor in the role of principal or superintendent -.2914 •.043
Total average ©core of super-visor on leader Behavior Descriutlon QuesHoniisd re .895 .856
Scores of the supervisor on the Gordon Personal Profile
Ascendancy -.544 *•03 7 Responsibility .2005 -.0828 JSraotional stability -.132? -.2033 Sociability ••232 .0076
Total score -.1807 1121
lumber of teachers supervised by the supervisor -.1534* -.2828*
Teacher participation in determination of super-visory policies Teacher concept .5504 .2698 Supervisor concept .345 *.0015
61
TABLE I—Continued
Coefficient of Correlation
Situational Factor Consideration ; dimension
Initiating :Structure Dimension
Bole of supervisor in deter-mination of job security
Teacher concept .0582 ; -.2489 Supervisor concept #197 —.001
Score on the concept of the teacher as to the adequacy of the leadership of the supervisor :
Teacher'a personal concept of the adequacy of leadership .@#9 .6??
Teacher*s concept of the group*@ evaluation of the adequacy of leadership .759 .531
CoaMned score of over-all evaluation of adequacy of leadership .869 .640
*fhese two scores are rank-order correlations
After attention was focused upon the leadership
dimensions and the situational factors by use of the
four-quadrant method and the nine-cell method ©f finer
focusing, and after the correlational table was set up,
the final statistical procedure for the interpretation
©2
of the data was completed. Shia consisted ©f the t®st-
ing of th® significance of the difference of the means
of the tapper oat third and the lower one third of the
supervisors when categorized on the basis of scores on
the dimension of Consideration and when categorised on
the basis of scores on th® behavior dimension of
Initiating Structure.
A® these scores were studied in their original
for® before rounding off to the nearest whole number,
as directed by the manual for scoring the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire« it was found that thirteen
scores fell in the upper on© third and fourteen scores
fell in the lower one third of each of the score dis-
tributions on Consideration and Initiating Structure»
She means were found for each of these two groups on
the basis of the dimension of Consideration and a t
score value was found for each of the sixteen situa-
tional scores found in the statistical table* In a
like manner the supervisors were grouped on th# basis
of Initiating Structure and the js score value was found
for the difference of the mean® for each, of the sixteen
sets of scores on situational factors, fhese value®
are shown in fable II in order that their significance
could be tested in the process of interpreting thee®
findings in the next chapter.
63
IP A HT UP TT «L J* JtMLMIi JuJb
VALUES 01 t SCOBS WHEN SUPERVISORS m m CATEGORIZED IMfO tPPll AND LOWER 01S THIRD GROUPS 01
TEE BASIS Of SCORES 01 EACH Of THE TWO BEHAVIOR DIHENSIOKS
Value ©f t Score
Situational Factor Categorized by Scores on Consideration Dimension
Categorized by Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension
Previous experience of tlx© supervisor in the role of classroom teacher 3. IS? 1.82?
Previous experience of the supervisor in the role of principal or super- i intendsnt -2.24 ; - .620
Total average score of supervisor on Leader Behavior DsscriSMon isles ioiijajiire 5.93 5.529
Scores of the supervisor on the Gordon Personal Profile" """"
Ascendancy 1.036 Responsibility 1.035 -1.1518 Etootional stability -1.293 -1.289 Sociability -2.85 •713
Total aeor® -1.052 - .839
lumber of teachers super-vised by the supervisor *
* e m
» #
m
TABLE II—Continued
Value ©f t Score
Situational factor ; Categorised by Scores on . Consideration Dimension
Categorised .by Scores on Initiating Structure Dimension
Teacher participation in determination of super-visory policies feacher concept i 2.96$ 1.2415
Supervisor concept 1.010 .0614
Hole of supervisor in determination of Job security teacher concept Supervisor concept
.218 1.399
1.1529 » .0614
Scores on the concept of the teacher as to the ade-quacy ©f leadership of the supervisor
Teacher's personal con-cept of the adequacy of leadership 6.594 2.138
teacher's concept of the group's evaluation ©f the adequacy of leadership 6.909 2.996
Combined score of over-all evaluation of adequacy of leadership , 6.88? 3.175
*Not calculated because the data were not continuous
This table of t values made it possible to focus
attention on the differences between the upper group and
65
tlx© lower group. It is particularly useful in the deter-
mination of whether such differences are more pronounced
at the upper level and lower lev#! as compared with mid-
level scores. When combined with the raw score correlation
it aided in determining whether each of the hypotheses
would he rejected or accepted.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1» Gordon, Leonard V,, Gordon Personal Profiles i Manual. lew fork, World Book Company, 195!
2. Halpia, Andrew V., Manual for the Leader Behavioj geacsiption 'Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio Stat® University, 195?.
3* • The Leadership Behavior of School ' r lv * Sttper iiteaSiitB« Sohool-Oorammity frevelopment
Study, Monograph Ho. 4, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1956#
4. Hemphill, J. K», Situational factors in Leadership. Bureau of Educational Beaearch, Monograph No, 32, Columbus» Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1950.
5. Texas Education Agency, 1959-1960 Public School ".rectory, Austin, Texas, Texas EducationAgency,
Underwood| Benton J., and others, s£«»gS£5iiZ. Statistics* Sew York, Appleton-^entury^-Crofts, Inc., 195*.
66
CHAPTER If
AMLTSI3 OF FINDINGS
la interpreting the findings of this study, a four-
step procedure was used for each of the areas analysed.
The first two steps consisted of the use of the four-
quadrant focus to isolate the relationship, and a finer
focusing of the view of this relationship fey us© of the
nine-cell process# The final two steps consisted of ®»
examination of the correlations found, and a look at the
significance of the difference of the means when cate-
gorized into upper, middle, and lower one-third groups
according to scores on each of the two behavior dimen-
sions. This allowed for inspections,! exploration and the
testing of the significance of any relationships found to
exist,
leadership Behavior Dimensions of Supervisors
A look at the description of the leadership behavior
of the forty supervisors studied reveals that a supervisor
may score high on both of the leader behavior dimensions
of Consideration and Initiating Structure. From Figure 3
and Figure 4 of Appendix C it is seen that of the twenty-
two supervisors scoring above the mean on Consideration
67
68
fifteen also scored above the mean on Initiating Struc-
ture. flats ha® implications in a consideration of scores
on the various situational factors and their distribution.
Examining Figure 35 and figure 36 in Appendix D
reveals the finer focus provided by the nine-cell method
which separatee the supervisors into upper, middle, and
lower one-third groups on these dimensions. Here it is
found that of the thirteen who scored in the upper one
third on the behavior dimension of Consideration six also
scored in the upper one third on the dimension of Initi-
ating Structure, fhis verifies the finding by Evenson (4)
that a leader can score high on both of the behavior
dimensions. This is also in line with the implications
drawn by Halpin (5) that high scores on both dimensions
are desirable for effective leadership.
In his study of fifty school superintendents Halpin
(5) found that when their behavior was described by their
subordinate® the mean score on Consideration was 43.5
while the mean was 38.0 on Initiating Structure. From the
statistical table in Appendix B It is found that the mean
score for the forty supervisors of this study is 45.0 ©n
the dimension of Consideration and it is 38.7 on the
dimension of Initiating Structure. It would logically be
expected that the scores of supervisors might be somewhat
higher on the behavior dimension of Consideration than
69
would be the scores of superint©ndent s on tills same diuum-
sion because of the face-to-face relationships that exist
between supervisors and teachers, fh# implications are
that teachers value the behavior dimension of Considera-
tion more highly in assessing adequaoy of leadership than
they do the dimension of Initiating Structure. This would
sees to bear out Carmichael'« (2) recommendation for
improvement of public relations as one need in the field
of instructional supervision in Texas schools. Examina-
tion of Figure 65 and Figure 66 in Appendix D shows that
of the thirteen supervisors scoring in the upper one-
third group on Consideration eleven also scored in the
upper one third on leadership adequacy, while of the thir-
teen scoring in the upper one third on Initiating
Structure only seven scored in the upper one third on
leadership adequacy. This further emphasizes the
importance of the Consideration dimension aa far aa the
concepts of subordinates are concerned.
Because of the changed emphasis on supervision in
recent years it would seem that school administrators
would need to assess the needs of each particular situa-
tion in order to determine whether more emphasis on
Consideration is needed or whether more emphasis on
Initiating Structure is needed to implement the effec-
tiveness of supervision in any given setting, this would
?0
also give further credence to Svenson's recommeadation
that it would "be unwise to use the staff's rating as a
sol® criterion for leadership effectiveness (3, p. 100)#
Leadership Behavior and Personality of the "Leader
As stated earlier, it would seem that there would be
little likelihood of clear relationships between the
leadership behavior dimensions and the personal traits of
leaders. Stogdill (7) had found no such clear agreement
but had grouped personal traits into five broad headings*
and the Gordon Personal Profile used four general traits
which corresponded roughly to these broad headings.
When looking at the findings of this study, the four-
quadrant focus in Appendix 0 indicates the most promising
areas as being in the relationship between scores on the
dimension of Consideration and the personality traits of
Responsibility and Sociability. Of the 22 who scored
above the mean on Consideration, 14 also scored above the
mean on the personality trait of Besponsibility. In the
case of Sociability only 9 of the 22 scored above the mean
on both Consideration and Sociability, thus indicating a
possible negative relationship.
An examination of the finer focus, by use of the
nine-cell process in Appendix D, points toward Ascendancy
as having a possible negative relationship with the
71
"behavior dimension of Consideration since only 3 of the 13
scoring in the upper one third on Consideration also
scored in the tipper on© third on Ascendancy. Hit
existence of a significant relationship between Con-
sideration and Responsibility scores is further mad®
doubtful when it is observed in figure 43 of Appendix D
that only 2 supervisors scored in the upper one third of
both Consideration and liesponsibili ty, A negative rela-
tionship would seem to be indicated in the case of
Consideration and Sociability in which only one person
scored in the upper one third in both of these areas•
fh© even distribution of the score® in the four-quadrant
focus would again cast doubt on this relationship being
real, however,
finally, looking at the relationship between the
behavior dimensions and the total score on the Personal
Profile there is sea© Indication of relationship since
thirteen scored above the mean on both Consideration and
Total score on the profile* This impression is offset,
however, by the fact that only on® person scored in the
upper one third on each of these two scores.
Since it was hypothesised that there would be no
significant correlation between scores on each of the
behavior dimensions and each of th® personality traits
measured by the Gordon Personality Profile. two tests of
72
significance were used to determine whether the null
hypothesis would be accepted or rejected, flits® two tests
were the correlation of the raw scores and the testing of
th# significance of th© difference of the means of the
upper one third and the lower one-third groups when cate-
gorized according to the scores on each of the two
"behavior dimensions,
from the correlation table on page 60 it is seen that
the correlations range from .0076 to -*2033 for the per-
sonality traits and th© behavior dimension of Initiating
Structure, and fro® ,2005 to -.544 for the personality
traits and the behavior dimension of Consideration.
Beferrlng to a table for determining th® values necessary
for significance at the .05 level and the .01 level, it is
found that it would be approximately .31 for significance
at th© 3 cent level and .40 for significance at th®
1 per cent level (8, p. 231). This would indicate that
only in the case of the -.344 correlation could the
hypothesis be rejected at better than th# .05 level and in
no case could it be rejected at the .01 level.
finally, referring to the t value in the testing of
the significance of the difference of the means of the
upper one-third group and the lower one-third group when
categorized on the basis of scores on each of the two
behavior dimensions, the results are seen in the table on
75
page 63. Again, entering a table (8, p. 230) at the
proper number of degrees of freedom, it Is found, that a
t value of 2,06' is needed for significance at the 5 per
cent level and a value of 2,?8 is needed for significance
at the 1 per cent level.
In the case of the "behavior dimension of Considera-
tion and the personality trait of Sociability, as measured
by the Gordon Personal Profile, it is found that there is
a significant difference of the means at better than the
1 per cent level. This difference is negative in direc-
tion which indicates that a lower score on this personal
trait is more likely to occur among supervisors who score
high on the behavior dimension of Consideration than among
those vho score low on Consideration. However, since the
correlation of all scores on these two factors was
approximately ,0? below the level for significance at the
5 per cent level it would seem that the differences in the
sample studied would be more pronounced at the upper and
lower levels but less significant in the scores in th® a&6»
level group. No other t values approached significance in
showing the difference of the means of scores on the
personal traits when categorized into upper and lower one-
third groups on the basis of score® on Consideration and
on Initiating Structure.
74
la view of these findings it ia necessary to accept
hypothesis No. 5, with two possible limitation®. In the
case of the relationship between scores on Consideration
and on the trait of Ascendancy there may be a negative
relationship that would be significant. A larger sample
might either confirm this or further east doubt on it.
In the ease of the relationship between scores on Con-
sideration and on Sociability the difference may be
significant, especially at the lower level and at the
upper level of scores on Consideration. This would bear
out Stogdill (?) when he concluded that there is no clear*
cut agreement between personality traits and scows on
leadership behavior.
Organisational Structure and Leadership
Three of the hypotheses relating to organizational
structure as a situational factor in instructional super-
vision were looked at in this study. These were those
relating to the number of teachers supervised by the
supervisor, the teacher's participation in determining
supervisory policies, and the relationship of the super-
visor in the placement, promotion, and re-employment of
teachers in the school system. As indicated earlier the
first of these had to be treated for rank-order correla-
tion rather than raw score correlation. This was
75
necessary because the information was categorized rather
than continuous.
Examination of figure 51 and figure 52 of Appendix B
indicates some relationship between behavior dimension
scores and the number of teachers supervised. The rather
oven distribution of scores when categorized on the basis
of scores on Consideration suggest that the relationship
iaay not be significant. The fact that only one supervisor
ranked in the upper one third of the scores on Initiating
Structure and also in the upper one third on number of
teachers supervised indicates considerable negative rela-
tionship here* An examination of the correlation table on
page 61 reveals that this negative correlation is only
slightly above ,28 while it would have to be ,31 in order
to be significant at the 5 P©^ ©eat level*
Hypothesis Ho. 4 is thus accepted# there is con-
siderable negative correlation between Initiating Structure
and the number of teachers supervised by each supervisor,
but this is not high enough for the rejection of the
hypothesis with sufficient confidence.
In the ease of hypotheses 6 and 7, a dual approach
was made and the supervisor's concept and the teacher's
concept were checked in each case. Hypothesis 6, which
concerns the degree to which teacher® participate in
determining the problems upon which they work, was seored
76
in such a way that positive correlation would indicate a
higher degree of participation ia determining tins problems
to be worked on and the manner in which such work would be
done* (Phis would ©aphasia® democracy rather than autoc-
racy ia the determination of and the carrying out of
supervisory policies*
Examination of Figure 21 and figure 25 of Appendix C
reveals that sixteen supervisors scored above the mean on
this situational factor and on the behavior dimension of
Consideration according to the teacherfs concept of this
relationship while only six scored in this category
according to the supervisor's concept. This indicates a
decided difference in the degree to which teacher par-
ticipation occurs when viewed by the teacher and when
viewed by the supervisor. A similar discrepancy occurs
in an examination of the behavior dimension of Initiating
Structure and this situational factor. In this case it is
fifteen supervisors above the mean on both the behavior
dimension and the situational factor as viewed by the
teacher and only six scoring above the means on both as
viewed by the supervisor.
From Figure 33 and figure 55 of Appendix 5 it is
observed that there is less discrepancy between teacher
view and supervisor view. Here there are seven in the
upper one third on both Consideration and teacher
7?
participation as viewed by the teacher and nix in the
upper one third of both group® as viewed by the super-
visor. Table I on page 61 show® the correlation to be ,55
as to the teacher*0 concept and .34-5 according to the
supervisor's concept. The .55 correlation is significant
at much better than the 1 per cent level while the *345 is
significant at much better than the 5 per cent level.
fable II on page 64 shows the difference of the means when
categorized on the basis of upper one third and lower one
third on Consideration to be significant at better than
the 1 per cent level according to teacher concept but at
leas than the 5 per cent level according to supervisor
concept.
In view of the findings the null hypothesis that
there is no significant correlation between score® on the
behavior dimension of Consideration and the degree of
teacher participations as measured by the teacher's con**
©apt, is rejected at better than the 1 per cent level of
confidence. It appear® that the level of confidence
according to the supervisor's concept is not sufficiently
high to justify rejecting the hypothesis in this case.
fuming now to Initiating Structure and its relation-
ship to teacher participation in determination of
supervisory policies^ it seems that by neither of the two
tests of significance could the hypothesis be rejected
?8
when it is measured fey the supervisor's concept of the
extent to which the teacher participate® In supervisory
policies. Neither is there sufficient correlation t©
reject it on the basis of teacher concept.
Hypothesis 6 is reacted, as it pertains to the cor-
relation between Consideration and teacher participation
in supervisory policy determination and is accepted as it
pertains to the correlation of Initiating Structure and
this situational factor. In each ease it is understood
that the measure of extent of teacher participation is on
the basis of the teacher's concept of the extent to which
such participation exists.
Hypothesis 7 says that there is no significant cor-
relation between the scores on each of the two behavior
dimensions and the extent to which the supervisor influ-
ences the selection, placement, or promotion of teachers.
Mils was scored in such a way as to provide that positive
correlation would indicate less influence and negative
correlation would Indicate more influence.
Examination of the four-quadrant focus indicates
little relationship in either teacher concept or super-
visor concept when it concerns the behavior dimension of
Consideration or the dimension of Initiating Structure,
The finer focus provided in Appendix B indicates some
79
negative relationship when applied to Initiating Struc-
ture.
fhe negative correlation of -.2489 is the highest on©
found to exist in the table on page 61 to indicate cor-
relations between the two behavior dimensions and this
situational factor. Since a correlation of *31 is needed
for significance at the 5 per cent level» it is concluded
that this is not a significant correlation, from the
table on page 64 it is found that there is a Jt value of
1.15 for this relationship! and since a 2*06 value is
needed for significance at the 5 per cent level, it is
desirable to accept the null hypothesis that there is no
significant correlation. I© other figures approach the
5 per cent level; so it is concluded that hypothesis 7 is
accepted in its entirety* This is to say that there is no
significant correlation between scores on Consideration
and the extent to which supervisors influence the teacher's
Job security. Also, the same is true as it applies to
scores on Initiating Structure and this situational fac-
tor, This is true whether there is use made of the
measure on the basis of teacher concept or on the basis of
supervisor concept. The influence of the supervisor in
employment, placement, or promotion of teachers is not
significantly correlated with the scores on either the
behavior dimension of Consideration or the behavior
80
dimension of Initiating Structure, as measured by the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.
Supervisors and Previous Work Experience
Briner (lt pp. 22-24) isolated two broad fields of
attributes school administrators value in selecting per-
sonnel for leadership positions* These were personal
attributes and professional attributes. Hypotheses 1 and
2 concern work experience as a portion of this second
broad field.
In hypothesis 1 the relationship of previous class-
room experience by the supervisor and each of the two
behavior distensions was examined. A look at the distri-
bution of supervisors by the foujvquadrant method of
Appendix 0 reveals that there might be a positive corre-
lation between Consideration and this situational factor.
It is noted that fourteen of the twenty-two supervisors
above the mean on Consideration are also above the mean on
classroom experience. In the case of Initiating Structure
ten of those above the mean on this behavior dimension
were below the mean on classroom experience, fhis indi-
cates some correlation but not as pronounced as in the
case of Consideration.
A finer focus, as revealed in Appendix Dt further
emphasizes this by revealing eight supervisors in the
81
upper ©ii© third on Consideration also in the upper on®
third on classroom experience. Only mix of the thirteen
in the upper on© third on the dimension of Initiating
Structure were also in the upper one third in olassrooa
experience.
Sine© a correlation of *51 is needed for significance
at the 5 pey cent level and the correlation, as revealed
by the table on page 60, between Consideration and ©lane-
room experience is .547, it is significant at much better
than the 5 cent level. As a final cheek* a look at
the t value for the difference of the means of the upper
one third and the lower one-third groups, when categorised
according to scores on Consideration, is found to be
3»187 • Since 2,?8 is significant at the 1 per cent level,
it is concluded that the correlation by this test is sig-
nificant at better than the 1 per cent level. this
justifies the conclusion that it is significant.
That portion of hypothesis 1 which states that there
is no significant correlation between scores on the
behavior dimension of Consideration and the situational
factor of classroom experience is rejected, and it is con-
cluded with confidence that there is a significant positive
relationship between these scores. This is to say that
those supervisors who score high on the behavior dimension
82
of Consideration are those who have greater classroom
experience than those who score low on this dimension#
In examining that portion of the hypothesis concerned
with the correlation "between scores on Initiating Struc-
ture and on classroom experience, it is found that the
correlation is ,263* This is not sufficiently high to be
significant at the 5 p«r cent level* From the table on
pag© 65 it is noted that the t value for the significance
of the difference of the means is 1.829. Since a value of
2.06 is needed for significance at the 5 c«at level,
it is concluded that this is not significant. There is
considerable correlation but not sufficient to warrant the
rejection of the null hypothesis at a satisfactory level
of confidence. Hypothesis 1, as it relates to the corre-
lation between scores on the behavior dimension of
Initiating Structure and the scores on classroom
experience, is accepted.
Hypothesis 2 concerns the correlation of scores on
each of the two behavior dimensions and the number of
years of previous experience of the supervisor in the role
of principal or superintendent. From Appendix C it is
noted that only six of the twenty-two supervisors scoring
above the mean on Consideration also scored above the mean
on administrative experience. This indicate® a negative
correlation. A look at the finer focus shown in Appendix
83
D reveals only two supervisors scoring in the upper one
third on both Consideration and administrative experience.
Shis points toward considerable negative correlation.
A look at the table on page 60 show® a negative cor-
relation of Just over -.29 in this relationship. With
approximately .31 needed for significance at the 5 per
cent level, this indicates significance at dust above this
level. CheeldLmg the t value of the difference of the
means of the upper and the lower one-third groups when
categorized on the basis of the dimension of Oonsidera-
tion, it is found to be -2.24, indicating significance at
much better than the 5 por cent level. from these two
tests of significance, the hypothesis is rejected and it
is concluded that there is a significant negative correla-
tion between scores of supervisors on the dimension of
Consideration and the number of years of previous experi-
ence of the supervisor in the role of principal or
superintendent. This means that supervisors scoring high
on the behavior dimension of Consideration have less
administrative experience than those who score low on this
dimension.
In the case of Initiating Structure and experience as
a principal or superintendent, it is seen that by the
four-quadrant distribution of the twenty-four supervisors
scoring above the mean on this behavior dimension only ten
84
also scored above the mean on administrative experience,
fills indicates only a very slight negative correlation*
By the nine-cell focus of Appendix D» it is seen that of
the thirteen scoring in the upper one third on initiating
Structure only six also scored in the upper on® third on
administrative experience, while five scored in the lower
one third on this situational factor. The raw score
correlation is found to be -.043 and the t value for the
difference of the lae&ns on this factor when supervisors
are categorized into upper and lower one-third groups on
the basis of Initiating Structure is -.62.
Such slight correlation means that the portion of
hypothesis 2 which states that there is no significant
correlation between scores on Initiating Structure and
experience of the supervisor in the role of principal or
superintendent is accepted. It is concluded that no sig-
nificant relationship exists between scores of supervisor©
on Initiating Structure and their previous administrative
experience.
Concepts of Adequacy of Leader Behavior
Hypothesis 8 concerns the relationship between scores
on each of the two behavior dimensions and teacher evalua-
tion of the adequacy of leadership on the part of the
supervisor. Since it was found by Hemphill (6) that in
85
measuring adequacy of leadership the best of seven
criteria tested was the sum of the subordinate * 8 personal
evaluation of leadership adequacy and the subordinate's
Judgment of the group's evaluation of the leader's
ability, this was used to teat the significance of the
correlation existing. Both the personal evaluation of
leadership adequacy and the group's evaluation were
examined as well as the sua of the two scores. Signifi-
cant correlations were indicated in each case, but the
correlation of the sum of the two was higher than for
either of the two taken separately#
In the distribution of the scores in Appendix C, It
is noted that eighteen supervisors scored above the mean
on Consideration and also above the mean on leadership
adequacy. For Initiating Structure and leadership ade-
quacy, the figure was also eighteen above the mean in both
the behavior dimension and the situational factor of con-
cept of leadership adequacy. By the finer focus of
Appendix D, it is revealed that of the thirteen scoring in
the upper one third on Consideration eleven also scored in
the upper one third on teacher over-all evaluation of
leadership adequacy of the supervisor. In the case of
Initiating Structure, seven of thirteen scored in the
upper one third on the behavior dimension and this situa-
tional factor.
86
IFroa the table on page 61 it is seen that the corre-
1ation between scores on Consideration and oa leadership
adequacy is *869 while for Initiating Structure and this
situational factor it is ,64. The table on page 64 shows
a t value of 6,887 and. 3.175 for these two relationships,
respectively. Since all of these are significant at much
better than the 1 per cent level the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that the correlation between
scores on each of the two behavior dimensions and the
teacher•e over-all evaluation of the leadership adequacy
of the supervisor is significant and in a positive direc-
tion, This implies that supervisors who score high on
either of the behavior dimensions will also be rated more
adequate in their leadership than those who score low on
these behavior dimensions. There is a much higher corre-
lation in the case of scores on Consideration than is true
for Initiating Structure, In both cases it is significant
at much better than the 1 per cent level,
Bather closely related to this was hypothesis 3 con-
cerning the total average score on the deader Behavior
inscription QsMsstiounaire and each of the two dimensions
of behavior measured. It was found that of the twenty-two
scoring aoove the mean on Consideration twenty also scored
above the mean, on the total score on the questionnaire.
8?
la the ease of Initiating Structure, twenty-one scored
above the a®an on this behavior dimension and on the
total score.
The finer focus in Appendix B points up the emphasis
teachers place on Consideration as a valuable asset in
supervisory leadership* Of the thirteen scoring in the
upper one third on Consideration, eleven also scored in
the upper one third on the total score. In the case of
Initiating Structure it is only eight of thirteen in the
upper one third on both the behavior dimension and the
total score, The coefficient of correlation for Considera-
tion and the total score is ,895 while it is ,856 for
Initiating Structure and the total score. The t score
value for the difference of the means of the total score
when categorised into upper and lower one-third groups on
the basis of scores on Consideration is 5.93, and when
categorized on the basis of scores on Initiating Structure
it is 5.529. All of these are significant at better than
the 1 per cent level.
Hypothesis 3 is rejected at much better than the 1
per cent level, and it is concluded that there i® a sig-
nificant correlation between scores on the specific
behavior dimensions and the total score, fhls indicates
that supervisors may score high on both behavior dimen-
sions .
80
This analysis lias led to either the acceptance ©r the
rejection of each of the hypotheses posed at the beginning
of this study# Inspection of the distribution of super-
visors on the basis of scores on each of th# two behavior
dimension® and each of the situational factor® was
utilised* loth the four-quadrant process and th© nine-
cell distribution into upper# middle» and lower one-third
group® were used* Two tests of significance were used,
These were the raw score coefficient of correlation and
th# £ score test of significance of the difference of the
means on the situational factors when categorised into
upper and lower one-third groups on the basis of scores
on each of the two behavior dimensions. The next chapter
summarizes the findings and formulate® the conclusions
reached.
M M M U BIBLIOGRAPHY
I* Briner, Conrad* "Identification and Definition ©f the Criteria Relevant to the Selection of Public Selia©1 Administrative Personnel/* unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1958•
2* Caraiohael, William R., "The Status of the Supervisor in fexas Independent Schools," unpublished doc-toral dissertation, School of Education, Baylor University, Waco, Texm, 1956»
3. Bvenson, Warren L., "Leadership Behavior of High- • School Principals," J&e Bulletin of the Ilational
>ol » #
"fhe Leadership Behavior of Sigh-School Principals; Perceptions and Expectation® ©f Superintendents, Principals, and Staff/* unpublished doctoral.dissertation, Department of Mucatioa, University of Chicago» Chicago, Illinois, 1958.
5. Halpin, Andrew V.• The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendenta. School Study, Monograph Ho# #, State University, 1956.
6. Hemphill, J. I., Situational Factors in Leadership> Bureau of Educational Besearch, Monograph Ho . $2, Oeluabma, Ohio, She Ohio State University, 1950,
7. Stegdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated with Leadershipi A Survey of the Literature," Journal o£ Psychology. XXf (1948), 35-71*
8* Underwood, Benton J., and others, jQ.eaefttmry Sta-tistical lew York, Appleton-Centuxy-Crofts, Inc.,
89
CHAPTBE ?
StJBMAKr, CONCLUSIONS, AND RlCOMKMDA3!IOKS
Summary of Findings
©a.® purpose of M s study was to discover what
relationship# assist between the two behavior dimensions of
instructional supervisors and the situational factors
studied* Also, a part of the purpose was to deteraiae to
what extent these relationships «xlst« It Is desirable
to summarize briefly the findings of the study as a basis
for formulation of the conclusions arrived at as a result
of such findings* Among the aa^or findings of the study
are the following:
1« The forty supervisors had a range of scores from
30 to 55 on the behavior dimension of Consideration, with
a mem score of 45.0 on this item.
2. These supervisors had a range of scores from 23
to 46 on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure,
with a mean score of 38.? on this dimension.
3. SShe rang® of scores of these supervisor# was from
28 to 48 on the total average score on the deader
Questionnaire while the mean score was 41.9,
90
91
4. The classroom experience of these supervisors
ranged Jfroa 0 to 30 year® with, a mean of 15*4 years,
% Si© number of years of previous experience of the
forty supervisors la the role of principal or superin-
tendent ranged from. 0 to 24 year® with a mean of 3.9
years,
6* flie scores of the supervisors ranged from -6 to
13 on Ascendancy, -2 to 18 on Besponsibility, 1 to 16 on
Emotional Stability* - 2 to 14 on Sociability, and 7 to 36
on the total score on the Gordon Pergonal Profile, The
aean scores were 5*1 ©a Ascendancy, 12.1 on Hesponsi-
bility, 9.7 on Emotional Stability, 3.5 on Sociability,
and 30.0 on the total score on the profile.
7. The scores of the supervisors on degree of
teacher participation in determining supervisory policies
ranged from 19 to 31 by teacher concept and from 20 to 40
by the concept of the supervisor, The m&m scores were
25*7 and 31*7S* respectively.
8. The scores of these supervisors on the influence
of th© supervisor in the determination of the teacher®1
employment ranged from 21 to 43 according to the teacher* a
concept and from 20 to 50 according to the concept of the
supervisor. The mean scores were 31*& and 37*0, respec-
tively.
92
9. 2?he number of teacher* supervised by each. super-
visor rauxg«d from the oategory of 21 through 30 to more
than 300 teachers. $he mean was the category of 71
through 80,
10* fh® scores on over-all teacher evaluation of th®
leadership adequacy of the forty supervisors ranged from
27 to 4? with a mean score of 38*8.
11. Significant correlations at approximately the
5 per ©est level or better were found between score# on
the behavior dimension of Consideration and the situa-
tional factors of classroom experience of the supervisor,
total score of the supervisor on the leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire - and the personal trait of
Ascendancy (negative correlation). Also* significant at
th® 5 pei* cent level or better were the correlations
between score® on this behavior dimension and teacher
participation in determination of supervisory policies
(teacher concept and supervisor concept), and teachers'
over-all evaluation of the leadership adequacy of the
supervisor. Of these correlations those significant at
better than the 1 per cent level were those of total
leader Behavior Description Questionnaire score, teacher's
concept of teacher participation in determination of
supervisory policies, and the teacher over-all evaluation
of the adequacy of the leadership of the supervisor.
93
12# When categorised into upper one-third and lower
one-third groups on the basis of scores on the behavior
dimension of Consideration5 the difference of the mean
score of the two group® was found to he significant at the
5 per cent level or better on the situational factors of
©l&ssroo® experience of the supervisor, supervisor*a
experience in the role of principal or superintendent
([email protected]), and the total score on the Lta&ar Behavior
Description Questionnaire* It was also significant at
this level in the case of the factors of the personal
trait of Sociability (negative), teacher concept of
teacher participation in determination of supervisory
policies, and teacher over-all evaluation of the adequacy
of the leadership of the supervisor.
13. Significant correlations at the 5 per cent level
or better were found between scores on the behaidor dimen-
sion of Initiating Structure and total scores on the
deader Behavior Description &uesticarnalr® and on the over-
all teacher evaluation of adequacy of leadership of the
supervisor*
14. The same two factors showed a significant dif-
ference of the mean scores of the upper and lower [email protected]
groups when categorised on the basis of scores on the
behavior dimension of Initiating Structure.
94
Conclusions
In arriving at conclusion© from the findings of the
study, it is to be kept in mind that such conclusions are
deemed to apply only to the sample of supervisors studied.
$hey are considered to be significant» howswr, for other
supervisors who fall within the descriptive limitations of
the ones used in the study, fhis would seem true because
essentially all the supervisors meeting these limitations
and located within the geographic area covered were used.
Furthermore, these conclusions are held to be valid only
to the extent that responses of the participating teachers
and supervisors mm sad® in good faith* It is believed
that the conditions of the study encouraged responses in
good faith and as frank wad honest expressions of the
respondents* concepts on these items,
'Ihe following conclusions are considered to be
justified by the findings of this study:
1# Hypothesis 1 is accepted when applied to
Initiating Structure and classroom experience of the
supervisor and is rejected when applied to Consideration
and the factor of classroom ®m@* It is concluded
that there is no significant correlation between scores of
supervisors on the behavior dimension of Initiating
Structure and the previous classroom experience of super-
visors. It is further concluded that there is a
significant correlation between scores ©f supervisors on
the behavior dimension of Consideration and their scores
on classroom experience.
2. Hypothesis 2 is accepted as it pertain® to
Initiating Structure and previous experience of the super-
visor in the role of principal or superintendent and is
rejected as It pertains to this role of adainlstrative
experience and the "behavior dimension of Consideration.
It Is concluded that there is no significant correlation
between scores of supervisors on Initiating structure and
their previous administrative experience. It is concluded
that there is a significant negative correlation between
scores on Consideration and the nunber of years of pre-
vious experience of the supervisor la the role of
principal or superintendent.
3* Hypothesis 3 1® rejected a® it applies to the two
behavior dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Struo-
ture in their relationship to the total score on the
Maider Behavior Ascription Questionnaire, It Is con-
cluded that there is a significant correlation between
scores on each of these two behavior dimensions and the
total score,
4-, Hypothesis 4 is accepted as it relates to the
correlation between scores on each of the two behavior
dimensions and the number of teachers supervised by the
96
supervisor. It is concluded that there is no significant
correlation between the scores of supervisors ©a the two
behavior dimensions and the number of teachers supervised
by these supervisors*
5, Hypothesis 5* as it pertains to each of the two
behavior dimensions, is accepted with two possible limi-
tations, It is concluded that there is no significant
correlation between score® of supervisors on the two
behavior dimensions and their scores on the four per-
sonality traits# It is concluded that there Is
considerable negative correlation in the relationship
between Consideration and the personal trait of Ascendancy
but not enough to reject the null hypothesis* fhe rela-
tionship between score® on Consideration and the personal
trait of Sociability are such that it is concluded that
there is a significant negative correlation at the upper
and the lower one-third levels but less correlation at the
mid-level#
6. Hypothesis 6 is rejected as it pertains to the
relationship between scores on Consideration and on the
extent of teacher participation in determining supervisory
policy. This is based on the teacher's concept of the
extent of this participation. This hypothesis is accepted
as it pertains to the relationship between Initiating
Structure and such partlcipation. It is concluded that
97
there Is a significant correlation "between, scores on the
behavior dimension of Consideration and the extent to
which the teacher participates in determining supervisory
policy "but no such correlation aa concerns the dimension
of Initiating Structure and this participation#
7. Hypothesis ? is accepted as it relates to the
correlation between each of the two behavior dimensions
and the influence of the supervisor in placement, selec-
tion, and promotion of teachers. It is concluded that
there is no significant correlation between the scores of
supervisors on the two behavior dimensions of Considera-
tion and Initiating Structure and the factor of the
influence of the supervisor on the security of employment
of the teacher,
8. Hypothesis 8 is rejected in its entirety# It is
concluded that there is a significant correlation between
the scores of supervisors on the behavior dimensions of
Consideration and Initiating Structure and their score on
the over-all teacher evaluation of the adequacy of leader-
ship of the supervisor.
9. It is concluded that the Leader Behavior Descrip-
tion Questionnaire does discriminate between leader
behavior of instructional supervisors as revealed by the
range of scores in this study.
96
10. Supervisors generally score higher cm the
"behavior dimension of Consideration than on Initiating
Structure.
11. Supervisors may score high on both leader
behavior dimension®, and when they do so teachers evaluate
their adequacy of leadership more highly.
12# In evaluating leadership adequacy of the super-*
visor, teachers value those behavior actions character!«®d
as Consideration more highly than those included in the
classification of Initiating Structure.
1,3. The face-to~face relationships of instructional
supervisor® and teachers make it especially desirable that
supervisors behave in such a way that they will score high
on the behavior dimension of Consideration, as measured by
t&e Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.
14* There is a difference between the supervisor's
concept of teacher participation in determination of prob-
lems to b® worked on and how the work shall proceed and
the teacher's concept of the extent of such participation.
In general, the supervisor conceives of the level 'Of such
participation as being higher than it is conceived by the
teachers themselves.
15# There is a difference in the teacher* s concept
of the influence of tae supervisor in teacher selection,
placement, and promotion and the supervisor's concept of
99
the extent of this influence, Hean scores Indicate that
teachers feel that supervisors have more influence in this
respect than is indicated by the supervisor's concept of
the extent of such influence#
Kecommendations
1. School administrators should make use of a leader
"behavior description instrument such as the on# used in
this study, not as a sol© criterion but as an additional
tool, in selection, placement of, and evaluation of per-
sonnel for positions of leadership in the field of
instructional supervision*
2. School administrators should continually study
the ways by which the situational factors of this study,
as well as other situational factors, may be so arranged
as to promote the type of behavioral action needed as
supervisors work with teachers to improve instruction in
each particular school system.
5. The designers of pre-service and in-service edu-
cation programs should give attention to those learning
experiences which will improve the ability of the pros-
pective supervisor to engage in leader behavior which will
enhance the leadership effectiveness in the two dimensions
of Consideration and Initiating Structure.
100
4. Pre~s@rviee and in-service education programs
should seek to provide understanding among supervisors and
prospective supervisors of the nature and extent of the
relationships that exist between supervisory leadership
and the many situational factors that exist in the social
setting in which such work will take place.
5. Supervisors should constantly evaluate their own
"behavioral action in the light of its effect in causing
the teachers to conceive of such action as signifying
warmth, mutual trust, friendship, and respect.
6. Supervisors should seek to constantly open
channels of communication between teacher add supervisor,
establish procedures of work, clarify the oxp
structure, and improve the democracy of the
tionship in the efforts to improve instruct!
anizational
working rela-
on.
7. Future research studies should be undertaken to
determine the causal factors involved in the
existing between behavioral action of super?
situational factors of the group setting in
such relationships may be increased or decre
be desirable for improving leadership action
of those leaders engaged in efforts to iiaproW
instruction.
relationships
isors and the
order that
aeed as would
on the part
APPHSTDIX A
To tli# Supervisor! Your superintendent has given his approval, for par-
ticipation in this study of the leadership behavior of instructional supervisors as related to certain situa-tional factors involved in the working relationships in the public schools of Texas. Some of the teachers of your school system will participate in the study by describing your leader behavior in the presence of various situational factors. So effort is to be made to evaluate that behavior but only to determine what behavior is related to the various situational settings under which you work.
lour cooperation is needed in supplying the informa-tion and data requested on the information sheet enclosed. Also a Personality Profile score is needed for the study. The Profile is a description and not a "rating" or "©valu-ation81 of personality. Your name should not appear on either of the two forms? only a letter code will appear. This is in order to make all the information anonymous. The code will be used only to "match" the descriptions with the ones furnished by teachers and will be used only for tabulation purposes and to enable proper statistical treatment* They will be re-coded for use in the study and no one, not even you, will be able to identify the descriptions and information as found in the report.
Will you please take the following three steps, and in this order:
1. till in the information requested in the Situa-tional Information Form MB.n
2. Carefully study the directions for the Gordon Personal Profile and then make the necessary responses required on it# Please do not skip any items.
3. Fold the Situational Information Form and the Gordon Personal Profile, place the® in the addressed and stamped envelope provided, and drop in the mail.
Your sincere and frank responses on these two forms will be appreciated and it is hoped that it may lead to some recommendations for Improvement of situational set-tings for effective instructional supervision. I wish to thank you for your cooperation and for your spending the necessary time and effort to insure the success of this study.
Very sincerely,
102
To to© filled out by: Codei., SUPERVISOR
SITUATIONAL IHOBMXOlf (FOfiK MB")
1. Sex: H | F . (Check one)
2* 'What is your Age in .years? ^ years, 3. Previous professional experience: (Xrs# in each ©a®
that applies) *1) Classroom teacher: years* ;2) Elementary School Principal: _ years. !3; High School Principal: years. • 4) Superintendent t years,
4. umber of teachers you supervise: (Check one) a* 20 or less * f. 61 through 70 « b. 21 through 50 g» 71 through 80 ... c. 31 through 40 . h. 81 through 90 . d. 41 through 30 i. 91 through 100 » e. 51 through 60 « more than 100
5. How long have you been an instructional supervisor? (Mo. of yrs.) Answer; .years,
6. How long have you served in your present position? (Mo, ©f yrs.) Answer years.
7. Do the teachers under your supervision have a voice in the determination of supervisory policies concerning what problems will be worked on, when you will work on them, and how you will proceed? (Check the most nearly correct statement.)
(1) They are the determining factor in these matters .-
(2) They are consulted and have some voice in such
(3) fley'have little voice in determining these matters .
(4) They have no voice in determining these matters
8, What role do you play in selecting, re-employing, and promoting the teachers of your group? (Check most applicable statement.)
(1) I determine these matters more than anyone else •
(2) I have considerable voice in determining these matters «
(3) I have some influence in determining these matters .
(4) I have very little voice in determining these matters .
(5) I have no voice in determining these matters
103
To the Teachert Tour superintendent M s given his approval for parti-
cipation in this study of the leadership behavior of instructional supervisors as related to certain situational factors involved in the working relationships in the pub-lic schools. lour cooperation in supplying the informatics requested will he greatly appreciated and it is hoped that it night lead to recommendations for improvement in work-ing relationships in instructional supervision,
fen teachers of your school system were selected at random to furnish this information and your name will not appear anywhere on the information sheets# Tour response® will he completely anonymous and no one else will he able to identify your answers unless you reveal the code number that you place upon it* fhe same code number is placed on the situational Information form "A" and on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire so the two ©an he "paired" together, but in no case does your name appear to identify it. Shis coding is necessary in order to tabu-late the information and to treat it statistically. It will not be used for any other purpose. Only you and I will know the code you use edge not to " reveal it under any circumstances.
Please take the following steps, and in this orderi 1. Read the code instruction on the small paper slip
clipped to this material, Decide on the letters or numbers you want to use and then place this identical code on the front of the situational information sheet (form WA") and on the front of the Leader Behavior Description questionnaire, (ton may wish to copy down the code you have selected, just for your own personal record.)
2. fill in, to the best of your ability, the informa-tion requested on the situational information form.
3. lead the instructions for the Leader Behavior description Questionnaire and follow them as care-fully as possible, The name of the supervisor you are to he considering appears at the bottom•of this sheet. Encircle one (and only one) of the letter® for each of the 40 items.—Do not skip any
4. fold the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and the Situational Information form, place them in the addressed and stamped envelope provided, and drop it in the sail.
fhe success of the study will depend upon your cooperation, sincerity, and frankness in carrying out this part of the work. I wish to thank you for your help in supplying the data requested. lame of 3UPEKVIS0H to be °* Campbell
described; , To be know as Supervisor w *
104
lo toe filled out by* Coda: , TEACHER
. SITUATIONAL INF0HMATIG1T (FOJtti aAn) 1. Indicate following information about yourself: (Cheok
on© in each) Sext • Hale ; Female Ages 25 oFTesB ; 26^EErough 30 $ 31 through 55_l 36 througlTSo ? 41 througiiS^; 46 through 50 i over 30 «
(5) low many years have you worked with this supervisor? 1 through 5 years ; 6 through 10 yrs. s over 10 yrs, .
Approximately, how many teachers does this supervisor work with? twheok one;i a. 20 or lees . f. 61 through 70 b. 21 through 30 g. 71 through 80 o, 31 through 40 . h. 81 through 90 . d» 41 through 50 i. 91 through 100 @« 51 through 60 ®ore than 100 Do you have a voicein the determination of supervisory policies concerning what problems you will work on, when you will work on them, and how you will proceed? Check most nearly correct statement) s >1) I am the determining factor in these matters . ,2) I am consulted and have some voice in these matters
(3) 1 have little influence in determining these mat-ters
(4) 1 have no voice in determining these matters^, 4. What amount of influence do you feel this supervisor
has in selecting you as a teacher, determining your re-employment, or determining your promotion to a bet-ter position? (Check the most applicable statement)! (1) Here influence than anyone else (2) Considerable Influence (3) Some influence , . (4) Very little Influence . (5) STo influence whatever «
5. What is your general over-all impression of the quality of leadership shown by the supervisor you have been describing? (Cheok one): (1) Excellent . 0 } Fair , (5) Bad (2) Good . (4) Poor .
6. What would you consider was the group' s over-all impression of the quality of leadership shown by this leader? (Check one):
Excellent . (3) Fair . (5) Bad Good . (4; Poor .
APHSIBIX B
TABLE III
S T A T I S T I C A L D A T A OS T H I S FG1TX 8 U P 1 3 E Y I 3 0 B S OF T H I S S T U D !
N o m
m B m
Leadex»s&±p B e h a v i o r
S c o r e s
q *» «r4 •e ' 0 k ® •d «rl 03 s o o
» e «rl H '
^ P *i*l 14 i s H CO
s Q*"> O a Id U ri S CEJ © o • < Iff w*
5 5 4 1 4 8 5 5 4 1 4 ? 5 2 4 2 47 5 1 4 0 4 6 5 3 . 4 5 4 8 5 1 ! 4 5 4 ? 5 1 ! 3 9 Q.h 5 0 5 2 1 4 1 5 0 36 4 3
# 9 li.il "rr 4 ? 4 § 4 2 4 5 # 9 4 5 4 6 4 9 4 6 1 4 8
3 4 4 1 4 ? 5 8 4 3 4 7 3 6 4 2 4 7 4 6 4 7 47 3 9 4 3 4 7 4 2 4 4 . 4 ? 5 8 4 2 4 6 4 5 4 6 3 8 4 2
H <*
P e r s o n a l P r o f i l e Scores
Democ-racy in Super-vision'
m N o. ©
J & 4* © K> J sl
si 4$ m ' N
H
§ 3
& *rt H • H i : * *ri
l , O e
A
1 * 4 O H
: 2 .
J ? * 4 HI <rt A «rtl
O $
S : 0
r*f
4 » © g-i tr*
4* 04 ¥ $ 0 0
$4 ©
5 <$
1 «sn
u 0
; li
S i m 0 Qiti m
4 * 1 7 7 3 3 1 2 9 4 0 d § * 1 5 1 3 0 • 3 2 . 27 4 0 4 1 4 6 I 8 3 2 1 2 9 3 0 6 : 1 3 4 2 2 5 3 1 3 0 0 1 3 j 9 6 ' 2 8 2 8 3 0 6 1 2 1 1 5 3 4 2 3 3 0 2 1 1 0 4 - 2 1 4 2 4 3 0 2 1 5 1 1 2 3 i 3 2 3 0 3 0 8 1 3 1 3 1
2 | 3 6 2 7 3 0 9 1 3 7 * 3 4 2 9 j 4 0 6 ; 10 ; 1 1 ? 1
3 4 2 3 3 0 1 1 12 4 , 3 4 2 7 4 0 - 6 12 I 3 - 2 i ? 2 9 3 0
2 i s ; 1 5 , 3 ' 3 6 2 3 3 0 6 1 5 1 1 2 ! 0 ; 3 3 2 7 3 0 2 10 12 - 1 , 2 3 2 7 4 0
1 1 1 9 5 8 4 3 2 2 9 3 0 4 1 4 1 1 - 2 27 2 4 3 0 ? 1 5 1 1 1 • 2 4 2 4 3 0
- 3 1 7 3 ' 0 1 7 3 0 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 2 5 2 6 2 0 6 ( 1 5 8 1 6 1 37 \ 3 0 4 0
3 4
9 10 n 12 1 5 14 15 16 1? is 1 9 20 21 22
IS 10 21 25
9 26 16 30 24 1?
12 1? 1 5
3 1 9 10
9 25
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 ? 9 0 3 14 1
1 0 5
TABLE 111—Continued
106
$4 O «
t m
s
Lea&ereMp Behavior Scores
o •H 4» t m
0} fl
0 ^ " #
« » S S f4w
19 N 05 ©
A • © O fl$
m 6* TJ § © o
&t CO <0
flio ® N ^
«*
Personal Profile B m m s
t © o -4
•H f*
m
8 & c$
"Sfc £** O H •H *rf
4* fit O <S - 4» Cft
•H H
1
Democ-racy in Super-vision
4» P» ®
O o
H * 4s
© m
u ©
•H4» B f I I 55 O
S o
23 2# 25 26 2?
29 30 31 32 33 3* 35 36 37 38 39 40
45 4$ #3 A A T T
43 43 43 43 41 40 40 39 38 38 36 33 33 30
39 40 lilt ••-•#•• • ? •
31 40 3? 42 42 32 36 40 42 40 28 33 32 23 34
42 43 44
42 40 4 3 42 36 38 40 40 39 33 36 33 26 32
16 17
0 3
13
21 1 4 20 16 10
2 20 10
3
0 10 0 3 4 1 0
24 13
3 18 14
3 0 0 1
12 2 8 4 1 3
13 3 4 2 4 3 6 9 12
5 -3 12
1 1? 10 14 11 13 -2 12 12 17 16 13 16
7 6
1? 12
; 4
11 14 12 13
9 13
1 15 12 15 16 16 11 11
1 3 10 13
4 1 § 2 a 3
14
0 0 3
10 9 1 7
28 34 36
20 34
34 34 36 36 54 36 34 i29 34 ' 2 0
22 *£0 22 24 27 24 21 26 24 25 23 26 27 29 22 18 23 19
30 20 30 40 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 Mi w 30 30 30 30 30 30
10?
1IBM X?
ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL DATA OS TH.B FOBTT s w p m r t m m of t h i s s w w
Supervisory Bole ia dob
Deten&inatiott
Sfumber ©f Teachers Smptr-
fi«@d (bj^ Categories)
Evaluation of Leadership Adequacy
u ©
w
t
ca
49 £1$
0 o
.*3 o
6*1
4» Pi m o
h 0 © *ri
# & £
/ * • %
*4 It O O 4» to 0 HI 4» $ a © o
%hi w
i»i /•*% # f|.|t
o § ii
t*r *d
M w
§5 O *ri 4# if p
HI
& k a>
jLJ 90
0 «sf
§4 O
iLi 5? o et 4» 0 P4*H # # o 01 £} ;S 0 r 4 0 0 ft
<& ft f 3 # 5 0 H &*e*
0 #
i © & wM e Q Q k J g w *tS 'rl H §"§ |
•H 0 S*
"§31 cHl «<
1 2 3
•5 6 7 8 9 10 u 12
15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 2 3 24
32 3? 29 26 23 #2 40 3 7
30 31 31 43 21 28 43
3? 31 23 30 32 29 2? 29
40 40 30 40 30 40 50 50 30 $o 40 ^0 30 30 50 30 40 20 30 30 40 20 40
6 a 10
f 10 3 7 10 10 10 4 10 10 10 9 5 10 10 8 3 10 5 10
>5 -5
3 >5
11 1? 39 12 23 3 12 25 40 23.3 6 23*3 36,3 23*5 21
9 34 23»3 17 9
36 9
34
if# MM* TT 4% 46 43 44 43 48 A$f •TT |f If. IT ™
42 4? h i t r™TT
40 39 3© 46 39 42 40 AA. 3S 38
46 42 43 42 4 1 41 42 4? 42 41 39 4$ 41 40 37 37 43 47 40 34 44 37 32
45 43 M, T T Ail, TT 42 43 43 47 43 43 41 46 43 40 3a 36 44 43 41 37 M L
38 33
f m m IV—Continued
108
Supervisory in Job
Determination
Number of Teachers Super-
vised ("by Categories)
Evaluation of Leadership
Adequacy
to o (0
t B* Sp 03
•P 9 § o to s ! a» £-4
•p &
<s * 0
aj
1
I m
®o
ti 0 O 4* (0 ©*-l 43 as ft O O to M
ft 0 *r»f % u
to 0>
s §
•fifnd O < 0 P V< fr» ©
° Ef 4» 0 P.-H i*4» O «f
toil f g
cJs
ti 0
/ * %
#
£| fiy| rf *Ff* O O m dw I S * ? 3 "
a*
i l i
2^ 2® 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
29 26 40 30 26 30 39 29 34 24 29 41 28 38 53 25
50 30 50 40 20 40 50 30 30 30 20 40 30 50 30 30
8 8 10
4 10 10 10 2 10 10 3 8 10 8
1? 1? 25.5 6 3& 31 31 1
36.5 31
3 1? 25.5 1? 1? $
42 34 41 41 36 43 31 34 39 35 38 33 33 28
35 34 36 38 35 39 30 35 36 34 33 31 32 26 29 24
39 34 40 40 36 41 31 34 38 35 36 32 33 27 29 27
APPENDIX C
The illustrations that follow give the distribution.
of the supervisors of this study as they scored abov© the
mean or "below the mean on the behavior dimension indicated
and on each of the situational factors studied* Quadrants
I and II always contain those above the mean oa the behav-
ior dimension. Quadrants III and IT are those below the
mean on the behavior dimension. In a similar manner,
Quadrants 1 and I? contain those above the mean on the
situational factor involved while Quadrants II and III
contain those scoring below the mean on the situational
factor. This enables the focusing of attention on the
relationships between the behavior dimensions and each of
the situational factors*
Quadrant IT
24-25-31-34-35-38
(6)
Quadrant I 1 A— 10-11-12-13-16-17-19-22
(14)
Quadrant III 23-26-27-28-29-30-32-33-36-37-39-40 ;
(12)
Quadrant II 2-6-7-14-15-18-20-21 (8)
Pig. 3—-Distribution of supervisors into four quad-rants on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and on classroom experience.
Quadrant IT
8-9-16-22-31-38
(6)
Quadrant 1 I-3-4.5-IO-II-12-13-17-19-24-25-34-5 5 <»>
Quadrant III 14-15-20-26-28-32-36-27-39-40
(10)
; Quadrant 11 2-6-7-18-21- : 23-27-29-30- i 33
(10)
Pig. 4—Distribution of supervisors into four quad-rant© on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimen-sion and classroom expedience.
109
X10
: Quadrant 1?
2,5-26-29-32 • 35.34-55-.56
(8)
Quadrant I
10-15-16-17 18—21
(6)
Quadrant III
24-25-27-28 : 3t/Y 11 2tf 1 sto 59-40
(10)
Quadrant 11
7-8-9-11-12-14-15-19-20-22
(16)
fig* 5—Mstribution of supervisors into four quad-rants on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and on administrative experi-ence ,
Quadrant IV
23-24-25-27- i 29-50
(6)
Quadrant 1 \
1—2—3—4— 5-6-7.9.IO-II-I2-: 13-15-16-17-
: 18—19—20—21 : 22 • (20)
Quadrant III
26-28-31-52— 33-34.35.36-37-38-59-40
(12)
(.Quadrant II j
8-14
—*21 1
• • Quadrant IV
: 16-26-52-56
j (4)
Quadrant 1
;10-15-17-18 21-25-29-35 : 54-35
(10)
Quadrant III
8—9—14—15— 20—22—28—51— 37-38-39-40
(12)
:Quadrant II
1—2—3—4—5—6— 7-11-12-19-24-25-27-50
(14)
fig, 6—IHstributi011 of supervisors into four quad-rants ©a basis of scores ©a Initiating Structure dimen-sion and on administrative experience.
Quadrant IV
9-15-16-20-22
— -CD -
Quadrant 1 I
I-2-*3-4-5~6-7-10-11-12-15—17—18—19— 21—23—24—25— 27-29-50
(21) Quadrant 111
: 8—14—26—28— 51-52-56-57-38-39-40
(11)
• Quadrant II
33—34—55
(3)
„ 7—Di stributi on of supervisor® into four quad-rants ©11 basis of scores on Consideration dimension and on Total score.
fig* 8--Distribution of supervisors into four quad-rants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimen-sion and on Total score*
Ill
Quadrant If
24-25-26-2?-29-30-31-33-34-36-37-38-39
(13)
Quadrant X
2-3-5-8-9-10—12—13—14— 15-17-18-19-21
ci4)
Quadrant III
23-28-32-35-40
(5)
Quadrant II
1S~2Q~22
(B)
Fig. 9—Distribution of supervisors into four quad-rants en basis of scores on Consideration dimension and on nuaber of teachers supervised (by categories),
j Quadrant IV
23-25-29-35-36-37-40
(?)
Quadrant I
4—6—9-10—11— 12-15-17-19-21-22
(11)
Quadrant III
24-26-27-28-30-31-32-33-34-38-39
ill)
Quadrant XI
1—2—3—5—7—8— 13-14-16-18-20
( I D
Eg, 11—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on "basis of scores on Consideration dimension and on scores on personality trait of Ascendancy.
quadrant IT
ftuft. O r ^ m 1 /? „.r 1
26-31-56-37-38-39 j
(10)
Quadrant I
2-3-5-10-12-13-17-18-19-21-24-25-27-
o** 33*** 3^ (17)
Quadrant III 1
16-20-22-28-32-40 j
(6) j
Quadrant II
1-4—6—7~11~ 25-55
(7)
Fig. 10—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants en basis of scares on Initiating Structure dimension and number of teachers supervised (by categories)#
Quadrant IV
:9-15-32-36-37-40
(6)
Quadrant I 4—6—10—11— 12-17-19-21-23—25—29—35
(12)
Quadrant III
8-14-16-20-26—28—31—32— 38-39
(10)
Quadrant II
1-2-3-5-7-13-13-24-2?-30-33-34 ;
(12)
fig, 12—Distribution ©f supervisors into four quadrants m basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and on scores on personality trait of Ascendancy,
112
Quadrant IV
24-26-28-32-55-34-35-33 ;
(8)
Quadrant I
1—2—3—4—5**®*" 9—10—14—15— 18-19-20-22
(14)
Quadrant III
23-25-27-29-30-31-36-37-39-40
(10)
Quadrant II
6-7-11-12-13-16-17-21 :
(@)
Fig. 13—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and personality trait of Responsibility.
Quadrant IV 23-24-25-26-28—30—31—32— 33-34-35-36-! 39—40
(14)
Quadrant I
2-6-8-9-11- • 14-15-16-18-
: 19
(10)
Quadrant III:
27-29-37- :
38 j
(4)
Quadrant II
1— 3—4— 5-7-10^12-13-17- !• 20-21-22 '
! (12)
Fig. 15—Distribution of supervisors Into four quadrants on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and personality trait of E&otional Stability.
Quadrant I? -
8—9—14—15—20-22—26—28—32— : 38
(10)
Quadrant I
10-18-19—24— .33-34-35
(12)
Quadrant III
16-31-36-37-39—40
(6)
Quadrant II
6—7—11—12— 13-17-21-23-25-27-29-50
(12)
Eg, 14—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and personality trait of .Responsibility.
Quadrant IV
8-9-14-15-16-26-28-31-32-36-39-40
(12)
Quadrant I
2-6-11-18-19—23—24—25— • ;30—33—34—35
(12)
Quadrant lit
20-22-37-33
(4)
•Quadrant II
10-12-13-17-21-27-29 1 (12)
Fig-. 16—-Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and personality trait of Iteotioaal Stability*
115
Quadrant IV
25-25-29-51-36-57-38-40
(8)
Quadrant I
5-5-6-10-11-12-17-21-22
(9)
Quadrant III
24-26-27-28-50-52-55-54-35-39
(10)
Quadrant II
1-2-4-7-8-9-15-14-15-16-18-19-20
(15)
fig*. 17—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and personality trait of Sociability.
Quadrant If 24-25-26-28-30-51-52-55-54-55-56-58-40
C13)
Quadrant 1
1—2—5—6—8— 9-10-11-12-14-15-17-22
(13)
Quadrant III
23-27-29-37-39
(5)
Quadrant II
4-5-7-15-16-18—19—20—21
(9)
Slg. 19—attribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of ©cores on Consideration dimension and Total score on personality traits*
: Quadrant I? •
22-51-36-37-58-40
(6)
Quadrant I
5-5-6-10-11-12-17-21-25-25-29
(11)
Quadrant III
S-9-14-15-16—20—26—28— 32-59
(10)
Quadrant II
1—2—4—7—13— 18-19-24-27-30-55-54-55
(15)
Fig. 18—Di stribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and personality trait of Sociability.
Quadrant 1?
8—9—14—15— 22—26—28—51— 32—36—58—40
(12)
Quadrant I 1-2-5-6-10-11-12-17-24-25-50-55-54-55
(14)
Quadrant III
16-20-57-59
(4)
Quadrant II
4-5—7—15—18-19-21-25-27-29
(10)
fig* 20—Di stribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and Total score on personality traits.
114
quadrant If
24-27-50-54-
55-36
! (6)
Quadrant I 1—2—5—4—5—8—
: 9-10-12-15-j 15-16-17-20-:21-22
(16)
Quadrant III
25—25—26—28— 29-51-52-55-
; 57-58-59-40
(12)
!Quadrant II
6-7-11-14-18—19
(6)
H§* 21—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrant© on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and teacher participation in policy making (teacher concept)*
Quadrant IV |
26-27-54 ,
(5)
Quadrant I :
1—2—10—12— , 16-22 j
(6)
Quadrant III 25-24-25-26-29-50-51-52-55-55-56-57-58—59—40
1
Quadrant II 5-4-5—6—7— 8-9-11-13-14-15-17-18-19-20-21
. as) j
. -- 2J-—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Consideratim dimension aaj teactor participation in policy making (supervisor concept).
Quadrant IV
i 8-9-15-16-20-22-56
(7)
: Quadrant 1 1—2—5—4—5— 10-12-15-17-•• 21-24-27-50-54-55 i (15)
Quadrant III
14-26-28-51-:32-57-58-59-40
1. C 9 )
Quadrant II
6—7—11-18-19-25-25-29-55
m
M.g» 22—Distribution of supervisor® into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and teacher participation in policy malting (teacher concept.) *
Quadrant IV
16—22—26 •
(3)
Quadrant X
1-2-10-12-27-54
(6)
Quadrant III 8—9—14—15— 120-28-51-52-56-57-58-59- ^ 40
Quadrant II 5-4-5—6—7— 11—15—17—18— 19-21-25-24-25-29-50-55-55 —. (18)
Fig. 24—Distribution ©f supervisors into four quadrants ©a basis ©f scores on Initiating Structure dim@n@ioa and teacher par-ticipation in policy staking (.supervisor concept;.
1X5
Quadrant I? j
27-31-33-36-38-39
(6)
Quadrant I
1-2-6-7-8-12-15-16-20-22
(10)
Quadrant III
23-24-25-26-28-29-30-32- . 34—35—37—40
(12)
Quadrant II
3-4-5-9-10-11-13-14-17-18-19-21
(12)
fig. 25—distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of seorts on Oonsideration dimension and influence of supervisor on Job security (teacher concept)•
Quadrant IV
24-25-27-28-30-31-36-38
(8)
Quadrant I
10—11—12—15— 16-17-21-22
(14)
quadrant III
23-26-29-32-33-.34-.35-.37~
39-40 (10)
Quadrant II
3—5—9—13—14— 18-19-20
(8)
Fig. 27—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrantb on 'basis of scores on Consideration dimension and influence of supervisor on job security (supervisor concept).
Quadrant IV
8—15—16—20— 22-31-36-38-39 ; (9)
Quadrant I
1«»2—6—7—,12'— 27-33
(7)
Quadrant III
9-14-26-28-32-57-40
(7) ;
Quadrant II 3—4—5—10—11— 13-17-18-19-21—23—24—25— 29-30-34-35
(1?)
fig. 26—Bistribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and influence of supervisor on job security (teacher conoept)•
Quadrant IV
8-15-16-22- ' 28-31-36-38
(8)
Quadrant I 1-2-4-7-10-6-11-12-17-21-24-25-27-30
(14)
Quadrant III
9-14-20-26-32-37-39-40
(8)
Quadrant II
3-5-13-18-19-23-29-33-34—35
(10)
Fig, 28—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and influence of supervisor on job security (supervisor concept).
116
Quadrant I?
25-27-28-30
W
1 Quadrant I X—2—3—4** 5** 6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-
: 17-19-21-25-27-30
(18) ;
Quadrant III 23-24-26-29-31-32-33-34-35-36-37-38-39-40
(14)
Quadrant II
15-16-18-22
(4)
Fig, 29—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and teacher personal ©valua-tion of leadership adequacy of supervisor*
Quadrant If
27-28-30 1 (3)
Quadrant I i 1—2—3—4—5—6** 7-8—9-10—11— 12-13-14-17-18-19-21
(18) ;
Quadrant III 23-24-25-26-29-31-32-33-i 34-35-36-37- : 38-39-40
(15)
Quadrant II
15-16-20-22
W ;
Hg. 31—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrant® on basis of scores on Consideration dimension and teacher concept of group evaluation of leadership adequacy of supervisor.
Quadrant IV
8—9—14—20— 28
(5)
Quadrant I 3—4—5**
6-7-10-11- • ; 12-13-17-19-21-25-27-30
(17)
quadrant III
15-16-22-26-; 31-32-36-37-38—39—40
(11)
Quadrant II
18-23-24-29- ' 33-34-55
(7)
Fig# 30—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants ©a basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and teacher per-sonal evaluation of leadership adequacy of supervisor.
Quadrant If
8-9-14-28
(4)
(iuadrant I 1— 2—3—4—5—i6— 7-10-11-12-13-17-18-19-21-27-30 .
(17)
Quadrant III
15—16—20—22— 26-31-32-36-37-38-39-40
(12)
Quadrant II
23-24-25-29-33-34-35
(7)
32--Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and teacher con-cept of group evaluation ©f leadership adequacy of supervisor.
117
quadrant IV i
25-27-28-30
(4)
: Quadrant I 1—2— 3—4— 5—6— 7—8—9—10—11— ; 12-13-14-15-16—20—22
(13)
Quadrant 111 23-24-26-29-31-32-33-34- . 35—36—37—38— 39-40
(14)
Quadrant 11
17-18-19-21
(4)
fig*.. 33—Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on "basis of scores on Consideration dimension and over-all teach.©!" evaluation of l«adersliip adequacy of the supervisor.
iQuadrant If
8-9-14-28
(4)
: Quadrant X 1—2—3—4—5—6— 7-10-11-12- 1
13-17-18-19-21-25-^7-30
(18)
Quadrant III 15-16-20-22-26-31-32-36-37-38-39-40
(xa)
Quadrant II
23-24-29-33-34-35
(6)
Hg. 34—-Distribution of supervisors into four quadrants on basis of scores on Initiating Structure dimension and over-all teacher evaluation of leadersliip adequacy of the supervisor.
APPENDIX 3
The illustrations that follow give the distribution
of the forty supervisors of this study as they scored in
the upper, middle , or lower one third on the behavior
dimension indicated and on the situational factors
studied, fhe ©ells are numbered with Soman numerals to
indioate the score group for the behavior dimension and in
Arabic numerals for the situational factors indicated#
Cells 1-1, 1-2, and 1-5 indicate upper one third on
behavior dimension and upper one third on situational
factor, upper on© third on behavior dimension and middle |
one third on situational factor* and upper one third on
behavior dimension and lower one third on situational
factor, respectively.. In a similar way cell|s numbered !
H-l, II-2, and 11-3 indicate middle one third on behavior
dimension and upper, middle, and lower on® third on
situational factor# fhis provides for a finer focusing
of attention upon the relationships of each jof the two !
behavior dimensions and the situational factors involved.
It is a very siaple matter to determine whether any of
the same supervisors scored high on the behavior dimen-
sion of Consideration and on the situational factor,
and also high on the behavior dimension of Initiating
118
1X9
Structure. Any other desired interrelationships stay be
easily checked by inspection of two or more of the dis-
tributions, This is helpful In drawing implications for
testing signiflean©®•
120
Cell III-l
31-34-38
Cell II-l
19-22
Cell 1-1
l~5*4h>5»8~ 10-11-13
Cell III-2
28-35-36-39
Cell II-2
15-16-17-20-24-25
Cell 1-2
2-9—12
Cell III-3
27-29-30-32-33-37-40
Cell II-3
14-18-21-23-26
Cell 1-3
6-7
35—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications en the behavior dimension of Consideration and situational factor of classroom experience#
Cell III-l
8-31-38
Cell II-l
1-4-11-J2
Cell I-l
3-5-10-13 19-34
Cell III-2
9-16-20-28
Cell 11-2
2—15—24—35
Cell 1-2
12-17-25
Cell 111-3
14-26-32-37- i 40
Cell II-3
7-18-23-27-33
Cell 2-3
,< 6—21—29—30
Fig. 36—Distribution, of supervisors ©a 'basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the situa-tional factor ©f classroom experience*
121
Cell III-l Cell II-l
'
Cell 1-1
29-32-33-34-35-36
16—17—18—21— 26 10-13
Cell II1-2 Cell 11-2 Cell 1-2
28-30-37-40 20—22—23—24 1—4—5-8-11
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
27-31-38-39 14-15-19-25 2— 3-6—7—9—12
Tig, 37—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lover one-third olassifioations on the behavior dimension of Consideration Mid situational faotor of experience as principal or superintendent »
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
16-26-32-36 18-33-35 10-13-17-21-29-34
Cell III-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
8-20-28-37-40
11—22— 23-24 5—30
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
9-14-31-38-39 2-7-15-27 3-6-12-19-
25
Fig# 38—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the situa-tional factor ©f experience as principal or superintendent.
"I
Cell 111-1 Cell II-l Cell X~1
17-21 1-.2-3-4- 5— 6-7-10-11-12-13 :
Cell III-2 Cell I1-2 ; Cell 1-2
27-29-30 15—16—18—19— 20-22-23-24-25
9
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
28-51-32-33- ! 34-35-36-37-38-39-40
14-26 8
fig* 39—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper,, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the total average score on Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
1—2—4—7—11 3-5-6-10-12-13-17-21
Cell Ill-ei Cell 11-2 Cell 1-2
9-16-20 15-18-22-23-24-27 19-25-29-30
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3 8—14—26—28— 31-32-36-37-39-39-40 :
33-35 34
Pig. 40—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper* middle, and lower one-third classifications on Initiating Structure behavior diaension and the total average score on Leader Behavior Description .ueatloanairc.
123
Cell III-l Cell Ii-l Cell 1-1
29-56-37-40 17-19-21-22-23-25
9-10—12
"f *1 •*»% 00 XX XII—£ Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
30-31-35-38 15-18-26 1-2-3*^—6-11
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
27-28-32-33-34-39 14-16-20-24 5-7-8-13
M g . 41—Bistribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the score on the personality trait of Ascendancy.
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
9-36-37-40 22-23 10-12-17-19-21-25-29
Cell 111-2 Cell II-2 Cell X-2
26-31-38 X—2—4—11— 15-18-35 3—6—30
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
8-14-16-20-28-32-39
— — J 7—24—27—33 5-13-34
tig. 42—Distribution of supervisor® on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the score on the personality trait of Ascendancy*
124
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
28-32-33-34-35-38
14-15-20-22-24 1-8
' Cell III-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
30-31-39 18—26 2— 3—4— 5—6—' 9-10-12
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
27-29-36-37-40
16—17-19-21-23-25
7-11-13
Fig. 43—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle« and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the score on the personality trait of Hesponsibility •
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
8—14—20—28— 32-38
1-15-22-24-33-35
34
Cell II1-2 Cell 11-2 Cell 1-2
9-26-31-39 2—4—18 3-5-6-10-12-30
Cell III-3 Cell 22-3 Cell 1-3
16-36-37-40 7-11-23-27 13-17-19-21-25-29
Fig,. 44—Distribution of supervisors on "basis of upper, middle* and lower one-third classifications ©a the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the soore on the personality trait of Responsibility.
Cell III-l
28-30-31-32-33-34-40
Cell II-l
14-24-25-26
Cell 1-1
2-9
Cell III-2
27-35-36-39
Cell 11-2
15-16-18-19-23
Cell 1-2
5—6—8—11
Cell 111-3
29-37-38
Cell II-3
1 n *%f% oi
- ...J
Cell 1-3
12-13
Fig# #5—:Mstribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the score on the personality trait of Emotional Stability.
Cell III-l
9-14—26-28-31-32-40
Cell II-l
2-24-33
Cell 1-1
25-30-34
Cell 111-2
8-16-36-39
Cell 11-2
11-15-18-23-27-35
Cell 1-2
5-6-19
Cell III-3
20-37-38
Cell 11-3
1—4—7—22
Cell 1-3
3—10—12—13— 17-21-29
Fig* 46—Distribution of supervisors 00. basis of upper, middle, tad lower one-third elassifleatioas on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the score 011 the personality trait of Emotional Stability.
126
Call III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
29-31-36-57-58-40
21—22—25 5-5-6-11
Cell III-2 Cell 11-2 Cell 1-2
28-50-52-35 14-17-25-26 1—8—9—10—12
Call III-5 Cell II-5 1 Cell 1-5
27.35.54-59 15-16-18-19-20—24 2-4-7-15
fig. 47—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lover one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the score on the personality trait of Sociability.
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
31-36-37-38-40 11-22 5-5-6-21-
25-29
Cell III-2 Cell I1-2 Cell 1-2
0—9—14-26-28-52 1-25-55 10-12-17-50
Cell III-5 Cell II-5 0«11 1-3
16-20-59 2-4-7-15-18-24-27-55 15-19-5*
fig* 48— Ustxitoution of supervisors on basis ©1 upper* middle, and lower one-third classifications on th.% behavior [email protected] of Initiating Structure and the score on tli© personality trait of'Sociability,
12?
Cell III-l
31-32-35-34-35-36-38-40
Cell II-l
14-22-25-26
Sell 1-1
9
Cell III-2
2&"J0
Cell 11-2
15-17-24
Coll 1-2 |
10—11—12
Cell 111-5
2 7~2*r*?
Cell 11-3
16—18—19—20— 21-23
Cell 1-3
4-5-7-13
fig* 49—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration sad the fotal score on the Gordon Personal Profile.
Cell III-l
9—14—26— 31** 32-36-58-40
Cell 11-1
22-33-35
Cell 1-1
25-34
Cell XH-2
8-28
Cell 11-2
I-2-II-I5-24
Cell 1-2
3-6—10—12— 17-30
Cell III-3
16-20-37-39
Cell 11-3
4-7-18-23-2?
Cell 1 - 3
5-13-19-21- i 29 !
fig. 50—distribution of supervisor* 011 basis of upper* middle, and lower ©[email protected] classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the total score on the tlordon Personal Profile,
128
Cell III-l ; Cell II-l Cell 1-1
2S-32-35-40 16-20-22-23 1—4—6—7—11
Cell 111-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
56-38-39 14-15-19-25-26
2-5-8-10-12
Cell II1-3 Cell 11-3 Cell 1-3
27-29-30-31-33-3^-37
17-18-21-24 3—9—13
fig# $1—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper,- middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and the number of teachers supervised by the supervisor.
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
16-20-28-32-40
1-4-7-11-22-25-35
6
jf*# -"i •"» mt .ijws,
0#1X 111^2 Cell 11-2 Cell 1-2
8-14-26-36-38-39
2-15 5-10-12-19-25
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
9-31-37 18-24-27-33 3-13-17-21-29—30—34
Fig, 52—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper» middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the number of teachers supervised by the supervisor.
129
Cell III-l : Cell II-l Cell 1-1
J4-J6 17-20-22-24 ^ 10-13
Cell III-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
28-30-52-55 15-16-18-21-26-27 2—9-12
Cell III-5 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
29-31-33-37-36-39-40 ' 14-19-23-25 6-7-11
fig* 53—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle » and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and teacher partici-pation in policy making (teacher concept).
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
8-20-36 1-4-22-24 3—5—10—15— 17-54
Cell III-2 Cell 11-2 Cell 1—2
9-16-2G-28-32
2-15-18-27-35 12-21-30
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
14-31-37-38-39—40 7-11-23-33 6—19-25—29
fig# 54—Distribution of guperrisor® on basis of upper* Middlef and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and teacher participation in policy making (.teacher concept).
130
Cell III-l Oell II-1 Cell 1-1
27-54-36 16-20-22-26 1—2—4-8—10— 12
Cell III-2 I Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
28-30-31-32-35
15-17-18-19 3-.5-.9-i3
Oell III-3 : Oell II-5 Cell 1-5
29-33-3?-38-39-40
14-21-23-24- ! 25
6—7—11
tig* 55--Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and teacher partici-pation la policy making (supervisor concept)#
Oell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1 :
8—16—20—26— 36
!«• 2—4—22— 27 ' 10-12-34
Cell III-2 Cell I1-2 Cell 1-2
1 9-28-31-32 15-18-35 3-5-13-17-19-50
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-5
14-37-38-39- : 40
7-11-23-24-33 6—21—25—29
fig* 56—Distribution of supervisors on basis ©f upper, middle» and lower one-third classifications on behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and teacher participation in policy making (supervisor concept).
131
Cell III-l
27-31-33-36-38
Cell II-l ;
15-16-22
Cell 1-1
2-6-7-S-13
Cell 111-2
28-30-39
Cell II-2
17-19-20-21-24-25
Cell 1-2
1—9—10—11
Cell III-3
29-32-54-55-37-40
Cell II-3 ;
14-18-23-26
; Oell 1-3
3—4—5—13
Fig. 57—Blat» upper, middle, and behavior dimension supervisor on job s
ibution of supervisors on basis of lower one-third classifications on the of Consideration and the influence of eeurity (teacher concept).
Cell III-l
8-16-31-36-38 :
Cell II-l
2-7-15-22-27-33
Cell 1-1
6-12
Cell III-2
9-20-28-39
Cell I1-2
1-11-24
Cell 1-2
10-17-19-21-25-30
Cell 111-3
14-26-32-37-40
Cell II-3
4-18-23-35
Oell 1-3
5—5—13—29— : 34
fig, 58—Distribution of supervisors ©a basis of «PP®r» middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and influence of supervisor on job security (teacher concept).
132
Cell III-l Cell II-l ' Cell 1-1
27-31-36-58 15—16—22—25 6-7-8-10-12
Cell 111-2 Cell II-2 dell 1-2
28-30-33-39 17-20-21-24 . 1-2-4-9-11
Cell 111-5 • Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
29-32-34-35-57-40
14-18-19-23- 1
26 3-5-13
Pig. 59—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications ©n the behavior dimension of Consideration and the influence of supervisor on Job security (supervisor concept).
/i *» «*• n | G6±l IXX**1
Cell II-1 Cell 1-1
8-16-31-36-38 7-15-22-27 6-10-12-25
Cell III—2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
9-20-28-39 1—2—4—11— 24-33
17-21-30
Cell III-3 Cell 11-3 Cell 1-3
14-26-32-37-40 18-25-35 3-5-13-19-
29-34
Fig# 60—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and the influ-ence of supervisor on Job security (supervisor concept).
m
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
17-18-21 1—2—3—4—6—8— 9-10-12-13
(toll III-2 Cell 11-2 Cell 1-2
27-28-30-33 14-15-19-20-23-2^ 5-7-11
0©11 III-3 Cell 11-3 Cell 1-3
29-31-32-34-35-3^-37-38-39-40
16—22—24—26
fig. 61—Distribution of supervisors ©a basis of upper, aiddle» and lower one-third elassifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and teacher personal evaluation of leadership adequacy of the supervisor.
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
8-9 1-2-4-18 3-6-10-12-13-17-21
Sell III-2 Cell I1-2 Cell 1-2
14-20-28 7-11-15-23-27-33 5-19-25-30
Sell 111-3 Cell 11-3 Cell 1-3
16-26-31-32-36-37-38-39-40
22-24-35 • 29—34
fig* 62—Diatrlbution of supervisors on baale of upper% middle, and lower one-third classifications on the "behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and teacher personal evaluation of leadership adequacy of the super-visor.
134
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
17-21 1*2—3*4—5— 6~7-8~9~l2~ 13
Cell III-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
27-28-30-33 14-15-16-18-19-23-25
10-11
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
29-31-32-34-35-36-37-38-39—40
20-22-24-26
Pig* 63—Bistrlbution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and teacher concept of group evaluation of leadership adequacy of the supervisor.
Cell IXI-1 Cell II-l Cell 1-1
8—9 1«.2~4~7 3—5—6—12— 13-17-21
Cell III-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
14-16-28 11—15**18*23— 27-33 10-19-25-30
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
20-26-31-32-36-37-38-39-40
22-24-35 29*34
Fig, 64—Bistrlbution of supervisors on basis ©f upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and teacher concept of group evaluation of leadership adequacy of the supervisor.
155
Cell 111-1 Cell II-l Cell I—1
17-21 1-2-3-4-6-7—8—9—10—12— 13
Cell III-2 Cell I1-2 Cell 1-2
27-28-30-53 14-15-18-19-20-23-25 5-11
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
29-31-32-3*-35—36—37—3S— 39-40
16-22-24-26
Pig. 65—Distribution of supervisors on basis of upper, middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Consideration and over-all teacher evaluation of leadership adequacy of the supervisor.
Cell III-l Cell II-l Cell 1-1
8-9 1.2-4-7 3—6—10—12— 13-17-21
Cell III-2 Cell II-2 Cell 1-2
14-20-28 11-15-18-23-27-33 5—19—25—30
Cell III-3 Cell II-3 Cell 1-3
16-26-31-32-36-57-38-39-40
22-24-35 29—34
fig* 66—Distribution of supervisors on "basis of upper, Middle, and lower one-third classifications on the behavior dimension of Initiating Structure and over-all teacher evaluation of the leadership adequacy of the supervisor*
mmiQQmem
Books
* Bartky, John A,, Supervision as Human Relations* Boston D. C. Heath and Ooapaay, 1955.
Buros, Ose&r Sxisen, editor, a ® H e n M SMSffiSSStSSt Yearbook. Highland Park« New Jersey, The Gryphon E5ss7T959.
Campbell, Donald T,, Leadership agd Its M&ggfe u£0£ the Group, Columbus, Ohio, Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio Stat© University, 1956.
Campbell, Eoald P., and Ruasell T» Gregg, Administrative Behavior in Education, Hew York, Harper and Brothers, 3 $ 7 T
Crosby, Burial, Supervision a§ Co-operative Action, lew York, Appleton-Oentury-Crofta, tnc•, 1957.
Gouldner, Alvin V,, Studies in Leaderahip» New York, Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1950•
Griffiths, Daniel E., Administrative Theory> Hew York, Appleton-Centuiy-Crofts, Inc., 1959.
Guba, Kgon G.» and Charles 1, Bidwell, Administrative
Guetskow, Harold, editor, Groups. Leadership and Men, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carnegie Presa, 1951.
Halpin, Andrew ¥., ^he Leadership Behavior o£ School Superintendents," Sohool-Coamunity Development Study, Monograph Ho, 4, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1956.
Haamock, Hobert G«, and Ralph S. Owings, Supervising Instruction in Secondary Schools, Hew York, McGraw-- — — — — IBs.
156
m Hare, A. Paul, Edgar !. Borgatta, and Robert F. Bales,
Small Groups % lew York, Alfred A, Knopf, 1955»
Hemphill, J. K., Situational Factors in Leadership. Bureau of Educational Research t Monograph to'7 W » (Sfolnatou# $ Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1950*
Hinsley, Law
Ittleson, V. H«, and H. Cantril, Perception* Garden City, lew York, Doubleday and Company, inc., 1954-•
Kirk, Dwight L., |he Bole of the Ourrioylua Mreetor in the Admlnlstration of Amerloan Public School Systems. iSigeat of' Doctoral ftTsseriiation, Ausiin, Texas, College of Education, The University of Texas, 1955.
Melchoir, William T., Instructional Supervision. Boston, D# C. Heath and Company,
lierton, f» K«, Har^jorie Flake, and Patricia L. Kendall, The Focused Interview. Glencoe, Illinois, The Free fress, l*-rm
Koehlman, A. B», School Adalnlstration. Hew York, Houghton Mifflin Company,
Kort, Paul R«, and Francis Q. Cornell, American School® in Transition, lew York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941.
Ramseyer, John A., and others, Factors Affecting Educa-tional A&a&nistration* Columbus,Ohio, College of BcLucaiion, The Ohio St ate University, 1955.
Seeder, Bdwin II., Supervision of |h£ Elementary School. Hew York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955.
Scott, Ellis L,, Leadership and Perceptions of Organisa-tion. Columbus, Ohio, Bureau of Jsusiness Research, the Ohio State University, 1956.
Spears, Harold, Improving the Supervision of Instruction, lew York, Prentice-HalT7 ™
Stogdill, Ralph M,, and Alvin E, Coons, deader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, Columbus, Ohio, Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State Univer-sity, 1957.
138
Stogdi.ll, Balph K.t Ellis L. Scott, and William B. Jaynes, Leadership and Sole laroeetatlons, Coluabus, Ohio, Bureau ofBusiness Research, The Ohio State University, 1955.
Texas Education Agency, 1959-1960 Public School Austin, Texas, Texas Education Agency,
Underwood, Benton J.» and others, Elementary Statistics, lev Tork, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 195^ •
Wiles, Kimball, Supervision for Better Schools, lew York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19557
Articles
Svenson, Warren L., "Leadership Behavior of High-School Principals,n f|e Bulletin of the Rational Association
Secondary School Principals« lS>ffX tiep"©eatier, 1959)» 9&-101.
Fitzpatrick, Robert, He view of "Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement," Personnel Psychology % H (Suismer, 1958), 289-292.
Halpin, Andrew W., "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders," The Harvard Educational Review, XXV, Ho. 1 (Winter, 1955)» 18-32.
Hemphill, J» K., "delations between Size of the Group and the Behavior of "Superior1 Leaders,* Journal of Social Psychology, XXHI (August, 1950},11-257
Helby, I* 0., "She Superintendent and the Organization of Supervision," Educational Administration and Super-vision. XV, So. 9 U929),
Seeman, M., "Hole Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership," Sociological Beview, XVIII (1953), 373-380.
Stogdill, jRalph M., "Personal Factors Associated with leadershipt A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology, XX? (19W), 35-71. ' "
m
Publications of Learned Organisations
American Association of School Administrators, Studies in School Admini strati on. edited by Hollie A/Ttoore, Jr., American Association of School Administrators t 1957-
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Action for Curriculum Improvement, 1951 Yearbook, Washington, Association for Supervision and Cur-riculum Development, 1951.
leadership for Improving Instruction* i960 Yearbook, Washington, Associationfor Supervision and Cur-riculum development, I960.
Yearbook, and Cur-
riculum Development, 1957.
National Conference of Professors of Sdueatlonal Adminis-tration, provldinfi and I p i ^ n g Administrative
M W y M edited by Van Killer, Wew York, feaehers College, Columbia University, 1951*
lew Mexico Cooperative Program in Eduoational Administra-tion and State Department of Education, The Hole of
Sup.erlntenaeo.fr of Schools in Instructionif Improvement. JulvT 1956.
Phi Delta Kappa, nrat Annual m M k gggp Smm.sim fin Muoatloml SlearcE« eliled fy Pranl: Bstnghartf Bloomington, Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., I960.
Unpublished Materials
Briner, Conrad, "Identification and Definition of the Criteria Relevant to the Selection of Public School Administrative Personnel,M unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1958.
Carraichael, William B., "The Status of the Supervisor in Texas Independent Schools," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sohool of Education, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1956.
140
Evenaon, Warren L., "fhe Leadership Behavior of High-Sehool Principals: Perceptions and Expectations of Superintendents, Principals, and Staffunpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1958.
Test Baxmals
Gordon, Leonard V., Gordon Personal Profile* A Manual. Mew York, world BookCompany, 1953. "
Halpin, Andrew W.» Manual for the Leader Behavior DescriB-ion Wtte.stionaaire, Columbus, Ohio, Bureau of Business h.e search, The Ohio State University, 1957*
