Title: Interrelationships among leadership style, organizational climate, and team effectiveness among selected high school administrative teams
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098640/00001
 Material Information
Title: Interrelationships among leadership style, organizational climate, and team effectiveness among selected high school administrative teams
Alternate Title: Interrelationships among leadership style, organizational climate, and team effectiveness..
Physical Description: ix, 123 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Still, Wilfred Franklin, 1942-
Copyright Date: 1979
 Subjects
Subject: Leadership   ( lcsh )
High school principals -- United States   ( lcsh )
School personnel management -- United States   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Wilfred Franklin Still.
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 117-122.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098640
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000096863
oclc - 06473431
notis - AAL2297

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

interrelationshi00stil ( PDF )


Full Text












INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLE,
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
AMONG SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE TEAMS












BY

WILFRED FRANKLIN STILL


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1979
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer wishes to express his gratitude to the

members of the doctoral committee: Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough,

chairman, Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery, and Dr. William D. Hedges.

The educational and professional experiences of the

writer were greatly enhanced by each member of the commit-

tee.

The writer also is greatly appreciative of his wife,

Jackie, and all others who encouraged him while this study

was being conducted.


1















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . v

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . ... . . vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . ... .

The Problem . . . . . . . . 6
Assumptions . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Terms . . . . . .. 10
Hypotheses . . . ... . . . 14
Procedures .... ... ... ... ... 15
Organization of the Study . . ... ... 22

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . .. 23

Overview of Leadership Theory and Research 23
Fiedler's Contingency Model .... . . 30
Description of the High School Leadership
Situation . . . . . .. . 49
Chapter Summary . . . . . ... 51

III. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA . . ... . .. 55

Initial Phase Data . ... . . . 56
Final Phase Data .. . . . . ... 64
Statistical Analysis of Data . . .. 66
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . 78

IV. DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS . 80

Relationship Between Leadership Style and
Team Effectiveness ... .... ... .. 80
Relationship Between Organizational Climate
and Team Effectiveness . . . ... 84
Relationship Between Leadership Style and
Organizational Climate . . . . .. 37
Interrelationships Among Leadership Style,
Organizational Climate, and Team Effec-
tiveness . . . . . . . . 90
Chapter Summary ... . . . . . . 100











Page

CHAPTER

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . 102

Summary . . . . . . . .. 102
Conclusions . . . . . ... . 105
Implications for Educational Administra-
tors . . . . . . . . . 107

APPENDIX

A. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS . . . . . .. 114

B. HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS INDEX ADMINIS-
TRATION INFORMATION . . . . . .. 115

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . 117

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . 123














LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Predicted Correlations Between Leader LPC
Scores and Group Effectiveness According
to Fiedler's Contingency Model 36

2. Least Preferred Coworker Scores of the
Principals 56

3. Administrative Team Membership and Mean GA
Scores 59

4. Rank Order of Schools According to Mean GA
Scores 60

5. Mean GA Scores Indicated by Administrative
Teams in Final Sample 61

6. Principal GA Scores and Mean Group GA Scores 63

7. Developmental Press HSCI Data 65

8. Principals' LPC Scores and Team HSCI Scores 67

9. Rank Order of Team HSCI Scores Indicated by
High LPC and Low LPC schools 69

10. Developmental Press HSCI Data Indicated by
High GA and Low GA Schools 70

11. Rank Order of Team HSCI Scores Indicated by
High GA and Low GA Schools 72

12. LPC Scores and Mean GA Scores Listed by
School 73

13. Rank Order of LPC Scores and Mean GA Scores
Indicated by the Initially Selected Schools 74

14. Principals' LPC Scores and Team IISCI Scores
Within High GA Schools 75

15. Rank Order of LPC Scores and HSCI Scores
Within High GA Schools 76










Table Page

16. Principals' LPC Scores and Team HSCI Scores
Within Low GA Schools 77

17. Rank Order of LPC Scores and HSCI Scores
Within Low GA Schools 78

18. Categorization of the Leadership Situation
According to Octants 92















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLE,
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
AMONG SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE TEAMS

By

Wilfred Franklin Still

August 1979

Chairman: Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough
Major Department: Educational Administration

The problem of this study focused upon the inter-

relationships among leadership style, organizational cli-

mate, and group effectiveness among selected high school

administrative teams. A secondary emphasis of this

research was to examine the relevancy of the contingency

model of leadership effectiveness developed by Fiedler for

selected high schools. Answers to the following questions

were sought during the course of this investigation:

1. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the effectiveness of high school

administrative teams?

2. Is there a relationship between the organizational

climate of the administrative team and the effectiveness of

the administrative team?










3. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the organizational climate of the

administrative teams?

4. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the effectiveness of high school

administrative teams having a most cooperative group

climate?

5. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the effectiveness of high school

administrative teams having a least cooperative group

climate?

The principals and administrative teams of 20 high

schools constituted the initial sample of the study. The

Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale, developed by Fiedler,

was used to identify the principal's leadership style. The

organizational climate of the administrative team was mea-

sured with the Group Atmosphere (GA) scale, developed by

Fiedler. The six administrative teams indicating the most

cooperative organizational climate and the six teams indi-

cating the least cooperative organizational climate

comprised the population of 12 administrative units selec-

ted for the final sample of the study. The effectiveness

of the high school administrative teams comprising this

final sample was measured by utilizing the High School

Characteristics Index (HSCI) developed by Stern.


viii










No statistically significant relationships were found

during the process of answering the five research questions

associated with this study (p < .05).

The writer concluded that no significant inter-

relationships existed among leadership style, organiza-

tional climate, and team effectiveness among high school

administrative teams selected for this study. However, the

correlations found during the analysis of data associated

with questions 4 and 5 were in the negative and positive

direction, respectively. These correlations were both in

the direction predicted by Fiedler. Statements made by

Fiedler and other writers in the literature suggested that

these findings support the contingency model of leadership

effectiveness.















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Effective organizational performance is a significant

goal of formal organizations. Many factors contribute to

the effective performance of organizations. One of the

most significant factors affecting organizational per-

formance is leadership. Hellriegel and Slocum (1976)

emphasized the significance of leadership in attaining

effective performance of people in organizations in the

following statement:

While many different sets of factors are poten-
tially important, it is clear that leaders are
in a position to exercise great influence over
these factors. The effectiveness of the
manager is probably the single most important
factor in affecting the performance of sub-
ordinates. (p. 291)

Ivancevich, Szilagyi, and Wallace (1977) placed much

significance on the leadership element in organizations

when they stated,

Leadership has been considered one of the most
important elements affecting organizational
performance. For the manager, leadership is
the focus of activity through which the goals
and objectives of the organization are accom-
plished. (p. 269)

As in other formal organizations, the leadership

element in educational institutions is a factor









contributing to organizational performance. Schultz

focused attention upon leadership responsibilities of

school administrators in a 1977 publication:

School administrators are key elements in the
question of quality education. While teachers
are certainly the pivotal figures in the
educational process, their efforts are some-
times limited, subverted, or nullified by
poor administrators. Good administrators
tend to encourage, enhance, and help release
teachers' potential. In any organization,
the person at the top sets the tone . .
Educational upgrading requires the improve-
ment of school administration. (p. 1)

While placing importance on teachers' roles in pro-

viding educational services, Campbell, Bridges, and

Nystrand (1977) also focused on the principalship in this

comment:

We do not wish to minimize the roles played
by classroom teachers as the public schools
attempt to meet their obligations. Teach-
ing and learning go on only through the
teachers. At the same time, teachers and
researchers alike have repeatedly indicated
that a good part of what any school does is
dependent upon the administrative leader-
ship given to that school. The principal,
for instance, has a key role in setting the
tone, establishing the conditions, and
providing the stimulation for the kind of
living and learning in his school. (p. 381)

The principal of a high school in many communities

is the leader of a large organization. A survey of the

1978-79 high school enrollments provides support for the

notion that high schools with enrollments in excess of

1,500 students are not rare (Curriculum Information

Center, 1978). While the principal is responsible for










accomplishing the numerous administrative tasks associated

with managing a large high school, this one person does

not complete these tasks without assistance. The prin-

.cipalship of a large high school consists of an adminis-

trative team, rather than a single individual. The high

school principal of the 1970s is assisted by an assembly

of administrative assistants, deans, business managers,

secretaries, and clerical assistants. This group of

people together engages in the necessary administrative

processes for accomplishing the tasks of the principalship.

While existence of the administrative team does

relieve the principal of much of the direct responsibility

for the operation of the school, it is imperative that the

principal provide effective leadership for this team to

be productive (Gorton, 1976, p. 86). Emphasizing the

importance cf this leadership function, Holland (1968)

stated that "if the principal does not assume this func-

tion, he will cease to be the navigator of the educational

ship and become only its figurehead" (p. 65).

High school principals have been observed employing a

wide range of styles while engaged in the process of

leadership (Evenson, 1959). The leadership style employed

by a principal will be a reflection of the leader's

personality (Fiedler, 1969). Fiedler (1967) described

the leadership style of a leader along a task-oriented-

interpersonal relationship-oriented continuum (pp. 36-60).










This description is based upon the underlying need-

structure of the individual. This need-structure motivates

a leader's behavior in various leadership situations and

is responsible for the consistency of leadership style over

different situations.

The stability of the leadership style phenomenon was

shown when Fiedler (1969) stated:

Changing a man's leadership style means try-
ing to change his personality. .. A leader's
style is not likely to change because of a
few lectures or even a few weeks of intensive
training. (p. 43)

Individuals interacting as do the high school adminis-

trative team comprise the interpersonal aspect of the

organization (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 57). This inter-

personal aspect of the organization is also referred to in

the literature as organizational climate or atmosphere.

Burns and Stalker (1961) defined organizational climate in

terms of a mechanistic-organic continuum. Descriptions

such as friendly-unfriendly, cooperative-uncooperative,

and tense-relaxed are among those used by Fiedler (1967)

to describe the personality of a group (p. 32).

A major goal of educational institutions is to pro-

vide a situation where effective learning is likely to

occur (Garland & O'Reilly, 1976). Effective performance

of the high school administrative team is essential for

providing a school environment conducive to learning.

Bishop (1971) shared his views on the administrative










staff's responsibility for providing an appropriate learn-

ing environment:

While it is recognized that teachers share
responsibility with the administration of any
school for the establishment of a climate
which is open and conducive to healthy student
interactions and productive interpersonal rela-
tions, the author is equally convinced that
the creation of any type of school environment,
be it open or closed, must be placed first
upon the principal and his immediate adminis-
trative staff. (p. 220)

The quality of the learning climate provided for

students, therefore, is a legitimate indication of adminis-

trative team effectiveness.

The leadership style of the principal is constantly

interacting with the climate of the school administrative

team. Educational administrators are interested in being

able to enhance group performance. The interaction of

leadership style with group climate can be related to

group performance. Fiedler and Chemers (1974) commented

on this matter:

Whether or not certain organizational climates
produce, or are associated with, more effec-
tive performance, it seems likely that organi-
zational climate will interact with the
leader's task- or relationship-motivation in
affecting organizational performance. (p. 110)

Fiedler (1967) developed a model of leadership effec-

tiveness. According to this model, the performance of a

group is contingent upon both the leadership style of the

leader and the degree to which the situation favors the

leader's style. Fiedler's Contingency Model supports the










postulate that it is important for district-level adminis-

trators to consider both the climate of the work group and

leadership style when selecting principals for schools

(p. 247).

A study of the application and extension of Fiedler's

Contingency Model to the leadership situation present

within selected high school administrative teams seemed

appropriate in view of the predictive and heuristic func-

tions this theory potentially can provide for the field of

educational administration.


The Problem


Statement of the Problem

This study was focused upon the interrelationships

among leadership style, organizational climate, and team

effectiveness among selected high school administrative

teams. During the course of this investigation answers

to the following questions were sought:

1. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the effectiveness of high school

administrative teams?

2. Is there a relationship between the organizational

climate of the administrative team and the effectiveness

of the administrative team?

3. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the organizational climate of the

administrative teams?










4. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the effectiveness of high school

administrative teams having a most cooperative group

climate?

5. Is there a relationship between the leadership

style of principals and the effectiveness of high school

administrative teams having a least cooperative group

climate?


Delimitations

The scope of this investigation was restricted to the

relationships among three variables: (a) the leadership

style of the high school principal, (b) the organizational

climate of the administrative team, and (c) the effective-

ness of the administrative team. Twenty selected high

schools in four school districts of Florida were included

in the analysis.

The scope of this investigation was also restricted

by the latitude of the instruments selected to measure the

variables. The Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale,

developed by Fiedler (1967), was used to measure the

leadership style of principals. The organizational climate

of administrative teams was measured with the Group

Atmosphere (GA) scale designed by Fiedler (1967). The High

School Characteristics Index (HSCI),developed by Stern

(1970),was used to measure the effectiveness of the

administrative teams.










Additional restrictions to the scope of this investi-

gation were the number of administrative teams, adminis-

tration team members, and students selected to complete

the research instruments used in this study. A total of

20 high school principals completed the LPC scale. The

number of administrative team members in each school

ranged from 8 to 16. A total of 221 administrative team

members provided usable responses to the GA scale. The

number of students selected from each school to participate

in this study ranged from 61 to 90. A total of 739

students from 12 schools provided usable responses to the

HSCI.


Limitations

Several limitations should be considered regarding

this study.

Since the study was limited to 20 accessible schools

in a single state, one may not generalize the results to

the population of high schools at large. That is, to the

extent that the principals, administrative teams, and high

schools selected are not representative of the population

of these subjects at large, results cannot be generalized

beyond the sample investigated.

Since this study was an ex post facto investigation,

only a relationship among the variables can be established.

Causality could not be determined through this study.









Events occurring during the duration of the investiga-

tion may have affected the validity and reliability of

the measurements of the variables associated with the

research problem.


Justification for the Study

This study added information to the growing body of

knowledge about leadership, which is considered one of the

most significant factors affecting organizational perfor-

mance (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1976; Ivancevich et al., 1977;

Schultz, 1977).

Information relevant to the usefulness of Fiedler's

Contingency Model when applied to the high school setting

was provided by this study.

Knowledge useful for effectively utilizing the talents

of leaders in the most appropriate situations was gained

from this study of the applicability of Fiedler's theories

to the high school principalship (1967, p. 247).

Further justification for this study is derived from

the opinion of Fiedler and Chemers concerning the signifi-

cance of a study conducted by Csoka (1972) in which the

interrelationships among leadership style, group climate,

and group performance were studied. Fiedler and Chemers

(1974) commented as follows:

This study is important for two reasons. First
of all, it provides a bridge between the
Contingency Model and a large area of organiza-
tional theory which has been relatively










unconcerned with an interactional approach to
leadership. Second, it shows how the larger
organization affects the operation of its
subunits. (p. 111)

The principal of a high school is responsible for

providing the services which the administrative team dis-

seminates throughout the organization. The principalship

position has great influence upon the degree to which the

goals of high schools are achieved (Anderson & Van Dyke,

1963; Bishop, 1971; Campbell et al., 1977; Gorton, 1976).

A study focusing upon the leadership function of the prin-

cipalship seemed appropriate in light of this position's

significance to the effectiveness of the organization.


Assumptions


An assumption was made that the leadership situation,

as defined in Fiedler's Contingency Model (1967), is

essentially the same in high schools having an enrollment

in excess of 1,500 students. An additional assumption

critical to this study was that the measurement techniques

utilized would demonstrate sufficient reliability and

validity for the data generated to be appropriately

paralleled with the contingency model.


Definition of Terms


Administrative team. This is defined as the group

of persons whose primary occupational responsibility is to










accomplish the administrative tasks associated with the

operation of a high school. This group includes the

principal, assistant principals, administrative assistants,

deans, business managers, secretaries, and clerical

assistants of the high school.

Effectiveness of the administrative teams. Concep-

tually, this term is defined as the degree of success

achieved by the administrative team in providing students

with a self-actualizing environment (Stern, 1970, pp. 288-

292). Operationally, this term refers to the mean

"developmental press" score derived from the responses of

a sample of students in each school participating in this

study on Stern's High School Characteristics Index (HSCI).

Final sample. This term refers to the 12 administra-

tive teams that were selected after the 20 administrative

teams sampled initially had completed the Group Atmosphere

(GA) scale. The mean GA scores for the administrative

teams were ranked from the highest to the lowest. The

administrative teams with the six highest GA scores and

the six lowest GA scores were selected for the final

sample.

Group Atmosphere (GA) scale. This term refers to the

instrument selected to measure the organizational climate

of the administrative teams.

Iigih Least Preferred Coworker scores. Operationally,

this term refers to scores indicated on the Least Preferred

Coworker scale that are greater than or equal to 70.










High school. A school is defined as a high school if

it includes the grade levels 9, 10, 11, and 12 or 10, 11,

and 12.

Initial sample. This term refers to the 20 adminis-

trative teams that were selected at the beginning of this

study.

Leadership. This term is defined as a relationship

between people in which influence and power are unevenly

distributed on a legitimate basis. The leader-follower

interaction involves some kind of psychological or economic

exchange (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 4).

Leadership situation. This term refers to environ-

mental factors within the organization that tend to affect

the performance of the principal. The nature of the group

task, the organizational climate, and the leader's position

power are significant environmental factors that comprise

the leadership situation (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, pp. 56-

72).

Leadership style. Conceptually, this term is defined

as a relatively enduring set of behaviors which is charac-

teristic of the leader regardless of the situation

(Fiedler & Chomers, 1974, p. 40). Operationally, this

term is defined as the score resulting from the leader's

responses on Fiedler's Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)

scale.










Least cooperative group climate (low GA). Opera-

tionally, this is defined as the organizational climate of

an administrative team in which the team members' responses

on Fiedler's Group Atmosphere (GA) scale result in a mean

team score ranked 15 or lower out of 20 teams studied.

Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. This term

refers to the instrument selected to measure the leadership

style of principals.

Low Least Preferred Coworker scores. Operationally,

this term refers to scores indicated on the Least Preferred

Coworker Scale that are less than 70.

Most cooperative group climate (high GA). Operation-

ally, this is defined as the climate of an administrative

team in which the team members' responses on Fiedler's

Group Atmosphere (GA) scale result in a mean team score

ranked six or higher out of 20 teams studied.

Organizational climate. Conceptually, this term is

defined in terms of a cooperative-uncooperative continuum.

Operationally, the term is defined as the mean score

resulting from the responses made by administrative team

members on Fiedler's Group Atmosphere scale.

Relationship-motivated leader (high LPC). Operation-

ally, this term refers to a leader who scores greater than

or equal to 70 on Fiedler's Least Preferred Coworker scale.

Task-motivated leader (low LPC). Operationally, this

term refers to a leader who scores less than 70 on Fiedler's

Least Preferred Coworker scale.











Hypotheses


During the course of this study the following five

null hypotheses were tested. The level of significance for

rejecting the null hypotheses was .05. These hypotheses

are numbered according to the respective research ques-

tions to which they relate:

1. The High School Characteristics Index scores in

final sample high schools led by principals having high

Least Preferred Coworker scores do not differ from the

High School Characteristics Index scores associated with

principals indicating low Least Preferred Coworker scores.

2. The High School Characteristic Index scores

associated with final sample administrative teams indica-

ting high Group Atmosphere scores do not differ from the

High School Characteristics Index scores associated with

final sample administrative teams indicating low Group

Atmosphere scores.

3. There is no correlation between the Least Pre-

ferred Coworker score of principals and the mean Group

Atmosphere score among the initial sample administrative

teams.

4. There is no correlation between the Least Pre-

ferred Coworker score of principals and the mean High

School Characteristics Index score among the final sample

schools having administrative teams that indicated high

Group Atmosphere scores.










5. There is no correlation between the Least Pre-

ferred Coworker score of principals and the mean High

School Characteristics Index score among the final sample

schools having administrative teams that indicated low

Group Atmosphere scores.


Procedures


Overview of Research Design

This study was conducted to determine the relationship

among the leadership style of the principal, the organiza-

tional climate of the administrative team, and the effec-

tiveness of the administrative team in providing an appro-

priate learning environment for students. The principals

and administrative teams of 20 schools were initially

selected for the study. The leadership style of the prin-

cipal and the organizational climate of the administrative

team was measured by administering two instruments to the

appropriate research subjects. The six administrative

teams indicating the most cooperative organizational cli-

mate and the six teams indicating the least cooperative

organizational climate comprised the 12 administrative

units selected for the final sample of the study. The

dependent variable, the team's effectiveness in providing

an environment conducive to learning, was measured by

assessing the student's perception of the quality of the

learning environment provided.










Instrumentation

Measurement of leadership style. The Least Preferred

Coworker (LPC) scale, developed by Fiedler (1967), was used

to identify the leader's style. Selection of this instru-

ment was stimulated by its close association with the

theoretical model upon which this study is based. This

instrument consists of 16 eight-point bipolar scale items.

The LPC score is the sum of the 16 item scores.

Internal consistency estimates for the LPC scale range

from .85 to .95. A test-retest reliability coefficient of

.68 for the LPC score was reported by Fiedler (1967, p. 48).

Using a six-weeks gap between evaluations, Garland and

O'Reilly (1976) found the test-retest coefficient for the

LPC scale to be .64.

Measurement of organizational climate. The organiza-

tional climate of the administrative team was measured with

the Group Atmosphere (GA) scale designed by Fiedler (1967).

This instrument consists of 10 eight-point bipolar scale

items. The GA score is the sum of the 10 item scores.

A split-half reliability coefficient of .90 was reported

for this instrument. In addition to the data concerning

the split-half reliability, Fiedler indicated that the GA

scale yielded consistent scores in three different task

situations. Intercorrelations of .76, .73, and .83 were

reported for the three sessions.











Measurement of administrative team effectiveness. The

effectiveness of the high school administrative team was

measured by utilizing the High School Characteristics

Index (HSCI),developed by Stern (1970),for completion by

students. This instrument was developed by Stern to mea-

sure the extent to which high schools provide experiences

that enhance the development of human capacities. The

HSCI has been demonstrated to measure effectively the

quality of the learning environment afforded to students

(Bishop, 1971; Garland & O'Reilly, 1976; Stern, 1970).

The HSCI consists of 300 short true-false items that

can be related to five first-order factors that are en-

compassed by a single second-order factor. This second-

order factor describing environmental variables that

facilitate human growth was labeled "developmental press"

by Stern. Garland and O'Reilly have summarized the HSCI

first-order factors that comprise the second-order factor,

developmental press, as follows:

1. Intellectual Climate. This factor reflects
the qualities of a staff and plant spe-
cifically devoted to scholarly activities
in the humanities, arts and social
sciences. .

2. Expressiveness. This factor suggests a
non-conforming environment which en-
courages open emotional expression, high
activity, aesthetic experiences, and
expressions of dependence on others for
assistance.

3. Group Life. Schools high on this fac-
tor are characterized by fun-loving,
friendly, actively outgoing environments










which provide for mutually supportive
group activities of a warm, friendly
nature.

4. Personal Dignity. This scale reflects
a concern for the maintenance of a high
level of self-determination and per-
sonal responsibility among students
while providing for expressions of
dependency and defensiveness. . .

5. Achievement Standards. This environ-
ment is characterized by high standards
of achievement, an emphasis on striv-
ing for success through personal effort
and on planned, organized, purposeful
activities. . (p. 16)

The Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients for the

first-order HSCI factors have been reported to range from

.74 to .97 (Stern, 1970, pp. 254-255).

An examination of the relationship between the first-

order HSCI factors and the Blishen Occupational Class

Scale resulted in Pearson correlations ranging from .01

to .06 (Garland & O'Reilly, 1976). Garland and O'Reilly

argued that these correlations indicate that the values,

attitudes, and motivations reflected in a measure of

socioeconomic status of students have no apparent in-

fluence on responses to the HSCI. Bishop (1971) studied

the relationship between intellectual ability and HSCI

scores. In reference to this study Bishop concluded that

students, regardless of their intellectual ability, seem

to share similar attitudes and perceptions concerning the

characteristics of the learning environment (p. 219).











Selection of the Sample

Selection of the initial sample of schools. The

administrative teams of 20 high schools in four school

districts in Florida were the participants in this study.

The smallest administrative team was comprised of eight

members. The largest administrative team selected for

this study had 16 members. The mean number of team members

was 11.250. The selected county school districts were

Brevard, Marion, Orange, and Volusia. The selected high

schools all had a pupil enrollment of 1,500 or more. The

principal of any selected school had occupied the position

of principal in the sampled school during the school year

prior to the time of this study. The 20 selected schools

represented all of the schools within the selected dis-

tricts that meet both the pupil enrollment and the con-

tinuity of principalship criteria.

Final sample selection. After the 20 previously

selected administrative teams had completed the GA scale,

a preliminary analysis of data available from the GA

scale was conducted. The mean GA scores for the adminis-

trative teams were ranked from the highest to the lowest.

The administrative teams with the six highest GA scores

and the six lowest GA scores were selected for the final

sample.

Students from the schools associated with this final

sample were selected to complete the HSCI. Students










selected to complete the HSCI were all enrolled in the

twelfth grade of the participating schools. This procedure

of cluster sampling only twelfth grade students was recom-

mended by Garland and O'Reilly (1976) and justified by data

gathered by Bishop (1971) in conducting a study of this

nature. A random selection was made of three sections in

each school of a required twelfth grade course in which

students were randomly assigned. The students enrolled in

the selected sections completed the HSCI. The number of

students selected from each school by this cluster sampling

technique ranged from 61 to 90. The mean number of students

selected from a school was 69.583.


Collection of the Data

Data in the form of responses to the LPC and GA

scales were collected by the researcher. The LPC scale

was administered to the principals of the 20 administra-

tive teams selected for the initial sample. The GA instru-

ment was administered to all members of each administrative

team sampled, including the principal. Arrangements for

the administration of these scales was made by mail, tele-

phone, and personal interview with the principals sampled.

Both the LPC and GA scales are simple instruments that

were completed by the respondents in a period of less than

five minutes. The instruments were collected and scored

by the researcher.










The administration of the HSCI to the students sampled

in the 12 schools in the final sample represented an addi-

tional phase of data collection. Arrangements for selec-

tion of the course sections to be included in the sample

were made in cooperation with the principal of the schools

involved. The teachers of the sampled sections were

identified, and personal contact was made with these in-

dividuals by the researcher. Instructions foradministra-

tion of the HSCI were relayed to the teachers, and the

teachers administered the instrument to students during a

class period. The instrument is appropriate for completion

by high school students and was completed in a single 50-

minute class period. The HSCI answer sheets were collected

by the researcher and sent to a computer processing center

for optical scanning and scoring.


Analysis of the Data

The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance pro-

cedure was used to test for the significant differences

associated with hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 (p < .05).

The size of the groups that were compared while in testing

for the significant differences associated with these

hypotheses was six in all cases. The Kruskal-Wallis test

was used because of the reported appropriateness of this

procedure for use with sample sizes ranging from 5 to 10

(Siegel, 1956, pp. 184-186; Roscoe, 1975, pp. 304-305;

Wallis & Roberts, 1965, p. 599).










Testing of hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 was accomplished

by determining the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient

in each instance. The sample size associated with

hypothesis 3 was 20, and the sample size associated with

both hypotheses 4 and 5 was six. The Spearman Rank Corre-

lation test was reported to be an appropriate procedure

for use with sample sizes ranging from 4 to 30 (Siegel, 1956,

p. 211). Tied scores occurred in the data associated with

hypotheses 3 and 4. The Spearman procedure was reported

to include an effective method for analyzing data including

tied scores (Roscoe, 1975, pp. 109-110). Fiedler (1973)

also reported that the Spearman procedure is appropriate

for testing hypotheses similar to hypotheses 3, 4, and 5

of this study.


Organization of the Study


The study was organized into five chapters. The

problem of the study, assumptions, definitions, hypotheses,

and procedures that were used for collecting and analyzing

the data are presented above. Chapter II consists of a

review of the literature related to the study. Chapter III

presents the data gathered during the study. A discussion

of the data is presented in Chapter IV. A summary of the

study and its implications comprise Chapter V.
















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


This review is presented in four major sections. The

first section consists of an overview of the literature

related to leadership theory and research. It is followed

by a section devoted to literature and research relevant

to Fiedler's Contingency Model. Next, there is a de-

scription of the high school leadership situation, followed

by a chapter summary.


Overview of Leadership Theory and Research


Numerous classification systems have been used by

scholars in an attempt to categorize the various theories

of leadership. Stogdill (1974) identified six approaches

to the study of leadership. These approaches are (a) great

man theories, (b) environmental theories, (c) personal-

situational theories, (d) interactional-expectation

theories, (e) humanistic theories, and (f) exchange

theories. A discussion of theoretical approaches to

leadership by Ivancevich, Szilagyi, and Wallace (1977)

is conducted within a framework of trait, behavioral, and

situational theories of leadership. This overview will

be organized according to the following categorization of









leadership theories presented by Cunning and Gephart

(1973): (a) great man theory, (b) traits theory,

(c) behavioral theory, and (d) situational theory.


The Great Man Theory of Leadership

Early leadership theorists were influenced by an 1879

study by Galton in which he "attempted to explain leader-

ship on the basis of inheritance" (Stogdill, 1974, p. 17).

According to William James (1880) the elements that induce

creative changes in society are great men. Bass (1960)

made the following statement concerning proponents of the

great man theory:

The eighteenth century rationalists believed
that the personal characteristics of signifi-
cant figures coupled with good luck determine
the course of history. . The outstanding
exponent of the "Great Man Theory" was
Carlyle, who believed a genius would contri-
bute somehow no matter where he was found.
(p. 15)

Sherif and Sherif (1953) listed Nietzche and T. S.

Eliot among the proponents of the great man theory.

Jennings (1960) maintained that "great changes in the

history of an organization or society generally result from

the innovative efforts of a few superior individuals"

(p. 1). A further suggestion made by Jennings was that

"the parent of our modern approach to leadership is the

great man theory" (p. 3).

Stogdill (1974) stated that the great man theorists

concluded that "if the leader is endowed with superior










qualities that differentiate him from his followers, it

should be possible to identify these qualities. This

assumption gave rise to the trait theories of leadership"

(p. 17).


A Trait Theory of Leadership

A number of studies made prior to 1940 (e.g., Bernard,

1928; Bogardus, 1934; Fleming, 1935; Wetzel, 1932) attempted

to explain leadership in terms of personality traits and

character. The identity of significant leadership traits

identified in these studies was consistently varied. Bird

(1940) reviewed 20 studies which considered 79 traits. He

discovered that only 35% of the traits identified

were mentioned in more than one study. Only four of the

traits appeared in five or more studies (Stogdill, 1974)

indicated that there was little agreement as to the

abilities possessed by leaders.

Stogdill (1948) conducted a review of research

studies in which some attempt was made to identify the

traits of leaders. including only traits that were the

focus of three or more studies reviewed, Stogdill still

reported a list of 29 traits associated with leadership.

Stogdill made the following statement concerning

this 1948 review:

The items with the highest overall correlation
with leadership are originality, popularity,
sociability, judgment, aggressiveness, desire
to excel, humor, cooperativeness, liveliness.











and athletic ability. . In spite of consider-
able negative evidence, the general trend of
results suggests a low positive correlation
between leadership and such variables as chro-
nological age, height, weight, physique,
energy, appearance, dominance, and mood con-
trol. (p. 67)

The diversity of the evidence and the fact that per-

sons occupy leadership positions in varied situations were

emphasized in this review. In regard to the leadership

situation, Stogdill concluded that the characteristics of

the followers bear a relevant relationship to the personal

characteristics of the leader. Reporting his views concern-

ing the relationship between changes in the leadership

situation and the traits of the leader and followers,

Stogdill made the following statement:

The factor of change is especially character-
istic of the situation, which may be radically
altered by the addition or loss of members,
changes in inter-personal relationships,
changes in goals, competition of extra-group
influences, and the like. The personal
characteristics of the leader and of the
followers are, in comparison, highly stable.
(p. 68)

The trait theory of leadership does not focus atten-

tion upon the interpersonal relationships that exist among

the leader and members of the group. Ivancevich et al.

(1977) commented regarding this limiting factor of the

trait theory of leadership:

In addition, focusing on individual traits does
not show what the individual actually does in
a leadership situation. Traits identify who
the leader is, not the behavioral patterns he
or she will exhibit in attempting to influence
subordinate actions. The trait approach has










ignored the subordinate and his or her effect
on leadership. Influence is the relationship
between two or more people; therefore, focus-
ing on one part only of the influence rela-
tionship provides an incomplete view of the
leadership process. (p. 277)


Behavioral Theories of Leadership

The basis of the behavioral theories of leadership

"was the belief that effective leaders utilized a particular

style to lead individuals and groups to achieving certain

goals, resulting in high productivity and morale"

(Ivancevich et al. 1977, p. 277). Contradictory results of

research on leadership traits led to a shift in attention

"to a leadership style approach to the theory of leader-

ship" (Johnson & Johnson, 1975, p. 21). Based upon an

earlier experiment by Lewin, Lippitt, and White, an inves-

tigation of three leadership styles was conducted by

Lippitt and White in the late 1930s and early 1940s

(Olmsted, 1959, pp. 38-42). The leadership styles studied

by Lippitt and White were autocratic, democratic, and

laissez-faire.

Although the Lippitt and White studies were an inspira-

tion for other democratic-autocratic leadership studies

and writings, Stogdill (1974) reported that there is

confusion in the literature:

Considerable confusion has permeated the liter-
ature as a result of the fact that admirers of
Lippitt and White research have at times equated
democratic leadership with the laissez-faire
pattern of behavior. They have claimed for the











latter form all the results and benefits of
the democratic pattern of behavior. (pp. 366-
367)

After presenting a review of a great number of studies

that focused upon democratic-autocratic styles of leader-

ship, Stogdill (1974) provided the following remarks in

summary:

The above results clearly indicate that neither
democratic nor autocratic supervision can be
advocated as a method for increasing produc-
tivity, but member satisfaction is associated
with a democratic style of supervision.
Several studies suggest that satisfac-
tion with supervision differs with the size and
composition of the group. Satisfaction with
democratic leadership tends to be highest in
small, interaction-oriented groups. Members
are better satisfied with autocratic leader-
ship in large, task-oriented groups. (p. 370)

The behavioral approach to the study of leadership was

the emphasis of studies conducted at Ohio State University

during the 1950s. During the course of the Ohio State

University studies, two independent leadership dimensions

were identified. These are "initiating structure" and

"consideration." Initiating structure considered the

degree to which the leader organized and defined the task.

Consideration was defined as behavior that demonstrates

a concern for the welfare of group members. The Leader

Behavior Description Questionnaire and the Leadership

Opinion Questionnaire were developed to measure factors

associated with the leadership dimensions under study

(Stogdill, 1974, pp. 128-129).










While the Ohio State studies contributed much to the

bank of knowledge in the field of leadership theory, the

results of the studies were not consistent when conducted

in different settings (House, Filley, & Kerr, 1971).

Ivancevich et al. (1977) considered the major criticism of

the initiating structure-consideration approach to leader-

ship theory to be "the fact that situational factors and

the influence of these factors on leadership effectiveness

model were not considered" (p. 279).


Situational Theories of Leadership

In his 1948 review of the literature, Stogdill analyzed

124 studies which indicated that patterns of leadership

traits differed as the situation was changed. Terman's

1904 study was given by Stogdill as an illustration of an

early study detecting effective leadership traits in varied

situations. Stogdill reported Terman's finding that

children who are leaders in one situation may not be the

group leader when placed with different children in other

settings. A study conducted among groups of boys by

Hare (1957) indicated that self-oriented and group-oriented

leaders do not differ in aggression on the school's play-

ground, but self-oriented leaders are more aggressive in

the neighborhood.

Hemphill (1949) described groups in terms of 15

variables in conjunction with a study of the situational


A











element in leadership. IIemphill found that leadership

effectiveness is most highly correlated with the group

members' satisfaction with the group and the cohesiveness

existing in the group (p. 33). The general trend of the

research reviewed by Stogdill (1974) supports the hypothe-

sis that groups tend to accept as leaders those persons

who exhibit characteristics and talents that will facili-

tate the accomplishment of the group's specific task (p.

169).

Fiedler (1967) identified three situational variables

that interact with the leader's behavior in determining

the effectiveness of a leadership style: task structure,

group atmosphere, and leader's position power. Chemers

and Rice (1974) reported that Fiedler's approach to leader-

ship theory "stands at the center of an important and

growing interest in contingency theories of leadership"

(p. 91).


Fiedler's Contingency Model


As previously pointed out, no single personality trait

or leadership style has been consistently related to

effective leadership. Fiedler (1967) advanced the follow-

ing notion:

The effectiveness of a group is contingent
upon the relationship between leadership style
and the degree to which the group situation
enables the leader to exert influence. (p. 15)











In addition to integrating the existing theories of

leadership, Fiedler's Contingency Model focuses on groups

existing in natural settings. Fiedler (1967) indicated

that less than 5% of the studies he reviewed dealt with

groups in a natural setting. He made the following remarks

concerning the appropriate context for group leadership

research and theorizing:

This means that most data about small groups,
and the theories which are based on them,
are derived from a highly selected and un-
representative sample of the teams which are
found in the real world. (p. 17)

Fiedler and Chemers (1974) submit that the contingency

model is appropriate for providing an adequate explanation

of "the full range of leadership phenomena" (p. 11).


Overview of the Contingency Model

Four factors serve as the framework for Fiedler's

Contingency Model: (a) leadership style assessment,

(b) task structure, (c) group atmosphere, and (d) the

leader's position power. The contingency model was

developed within the context of this framework.

Leadership style. The leadership style of a person

is measured by use of an instrument developed by Fiedler

(1967) called the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale

(pp. 36-60). The respondents are asked to describe the

person with whom they could work least well. This least

preferredco-worker is to be described as a composite of


1











allco-workers one has ever had. The description is made

by rating that person on a simple bipolar scale. The LPC

score is obtained by totaling up point values for all the

items. A low score indicates that an individual is

oriented toward rejecting those who are least preferred

as fellow-workers. The lower the score, the greater the

task orientation of the leader. A high LPC person per-

ceives both good and bad attributes in the least preferred

co-worker. This person is more motivated to use a relations-

oriented leadership style.

The basic goal of the high LPC leader is to maintain

favorable relations with other persons. If the high LPC

leader reaches this goal, the leader then strives to reach

the secondary goals of status and esteem. These goals

call forth the need to be admired and recognized (Fiedler

& Chemers, 1974, p. 76).

The low LPC leader has a different motivational sys-

tem. Task accomplishment is this person's basic goal.

Self-esteem is gained through achievement of task related

goals. As long as the goal of task accomplishment presents

no difficulties, this type of leader tends to be friendly

and pleasant when relating to subordinates. If the

accomplishment of the task is threatened, good inter-

personal relations assume an importance secondary to

accomplishing the task.


~











Task structure. The task structure is defined as the

degree to which the group task is routine or complex. The

components of the task structure include: (a) goal clarity,

(b) goal-path multiplicity, (c) decision verifiability, and

(d) decision specificity (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 67).

Groups engaged in routine tasks are likely to have

clearly defined goals and output that can be easily eval-

uated. They generally are involved in jobs that can be

solved in a few steps and in problems having only one

correct solution.

In more complex task situations, the goals are less

clear, and the method of accomplishing the task may vary

from situation to situation. The task is also difficult

to monitor while in progress, and there may be several

acceptable solutions to problems.

Group atmosphere. This element of the contingency

model is defined as the degree of confidence, trust, and

respect subordinates have in the leader. Fiedler (1967)

identified this factor as leader-member relations (p. 158).

A method for identifying leader-member relations is the

Group Atmosphere (GA) scale. This scale is completed by

the leader. A high GA score indicates that good leader-

member relations exist, and a low GA score suggests that

the relationship between the leader and subordinates is

poor (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 65). The more friendly

the relationship between the leader and followers, the











easier it is for the leader to obtain group cooperation

and effort. When a poor relationship exists between the

subordinates and the leader, the leader may have to resort

to special favors to get good performance.

Position power. Position power is defined as the

extent to which the leader possesses a legitimate power

base. A common way in which power is vested in the leader

is by providing him with the right to direct, evaluate, and

reward and punish those he is asked to supervise. Fiedler

& Chemers (1974) assumed that most managers have high

position power, and "in most situations, the subordinates

have a clear idea of the leader's legitimate authority,

and only rarely is this authority seriously challenged"

(p. 68).

Development of the contingency model. Beginning in

1951 at the University of Illinois, Fiedler and his asso-

ciates conducted a 12-year study of over 800 groups. The

findings of these studies served as the theoretical base

upon which the contingency model was constructed. Basket-

ball teams, policy-making groups, consumer sales coopera-

tives, bomber crews, and management teams were among those

selected as experimental subjects by Fiedler (1967) and

his associates. These groups were selected for sLudy

because in these group settings, "the members had to

interact and coordinate their efforts to achieve a common

goal" (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 79).










Objective performance criteria, which reflected the

major assigned goal of the group, were used wherever pos-

sible. The groups selected for study also reflected the

spectrum of leadership styles and leadership situations

Fiedler (1967) predicted as being influential in group

effectiveness in accomplishing goals (p. 61).

Fiedler (1967) reported the notion that the effective-

ness of a group is contingent upon the relationship between

the leadership style of the group's leader and the nature

of the leadership situation (p. 15). According to Fiedler,

three elements comprise the leadership situation: (a) task

structure, (b) the leader's position power, and (c) group

atmosphere. Fiedler further categorized the leadership

situation into eight categories that he labeled octant 1

through octant 8. Fiedler and his associates classified

and analyzed the data gathered during their extensive

studies in a manner consistent with the eight octants

model of leadership effectiveness.

Table 1 shows the correlations between leader LPC

scores and group effectiveness predicted for each octant

by the contingency model presented by Fiedler (1967,

pp. 133-146). The octant number, three situational

variables, and predicted correlation are shown in the

columns of this table. The ocrants are arranged in order

of the favorableness of the leader situation, from most

favorable to least favorable. According to Fiedler's











Contingency Model a leader will have the most control and

influence in groups that fall into octant 1. In this first

octant the leader is accepted, has high position power,

and leads a group performing relatively structured tasks.

The leader's control and influence decrease from octant 1

through octant 8.


Table 1

Predicted Correlations Between Leader LPC Scores and
Group Effectiveness According to Fiedler's
Contingency Model


Leader
Group Task position Predicted
Octant atmosphere structure power correlation


1 good structured strong -.52
2 good structured weak -.58
3 good unstructured strong -.33
4 good unstructured weak .47
5 poor structured strong .42
6 poor structured weak .20
7 poor unstructured strong .05
8 poor unstructured weak -.43




A negative correlation between leader LPC scores and

group effectiveness predicts that low LPC leaders perform

better than high LPC leaders. Positive correlations be-

tween these same variables indicate that high LPC leaders

will be most effective (Fiedler, 1967, pp. 270-271).

Fiedler and Chemers (1974) provided the following

summary of the major hypothesis emerging from the contin-

gency model:










The Contingency Model leads to the major hypothe-
sis that leadership effectiveness depends upon
the leader's style of interacting with his group
members and the favorableness of the group-task
situation. Specifically, low LPC leaders who
are primarily task-motivated perform best under
conditions that are very favorable or very
unfavorable for them. Relationship-motivated
leaders perform best under conditions that are
of moderate favorableness. (p. 81)


Overview of Literature Related
to the Contingency Model

Organizational climate. Feidler (1967) did not use

the term "organizational climate" in identifying the ele-

ments of the leadership situation associated with the con-

tingency model. In a 1974 discussion of the leadership

situation, Fiedler and Chemers emphasized the concept of

organizational climate and described the concept as repre-

senting the "interpersonal aspects of the situation" (p. 57).

The organization's character "is often referred to as

the organizational climate" (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1976, p.

11). Lewin (1951) used the concept of friendly, tense,

and hostile to describe dimensions of the group climate or

atmosphere. In characterizing the study of behavior, Lewin

stated that the general characteristics of the atmosphere

are as important to human behavior as is "the field of

gravity for the explanation of events in classical

physics" (p. 240).

McGregor (1960) made the following statement related

to the nature of organizational climate:











The day-by-day behavior of the immediate superior
and of other significant people in the managerial
organization communicates something about their
assumptions concerning management which is of
fundamental significance. . Many subtle
behavioral manifestations of managerial atti-
tude create what is often referred to as the
"psychological climate" of the relationship.
(pp. 133-134)

Various dimensions of organizational climate have been

studied. Halpin and Croft (1962) studied different aspects

of organizational climate, leadership, and group member

behavior within schools. These researchers classified

organizational climate along an open-closed continuum.

Halpin and Croft found that an open climate provides for

esprit if the leader is hardworking. An aloof leader

provides for group member disagreement within a closed

climate. The findings of Halpin and Croft "suggest that

the type of leadership in a group and the responses of the

followers are related to various characteristics of the

group itself" (Stogdill, 1974, p. 237).

Likert (1961) studied authoritative and participative

management systems. He compared the several aspects of

the organizational climate as perceived by members of the

organization. Likert suggests that there is a causal

relationship between the type of management control directed

toward the group and the morale and success level perceived

by group members (pp. 223-233).

Etzioni (1964) described the social interactions of

persons within organizations in terms of exchange, conflict,










cooperation, and bargaining (pp. 111-112). Elaborating on

Etzioni's construct, Hill (1972) discussed the organiza-

tional climate in terms of a conflict-cooperation continuum.

Hill stated that even though personal interactions affect

the members of organizations, "it is not clear whether

cooperative relationships have positive or negative conse-

quences for the recipients of the organization's actions"

(p. 323). While evidence has been presented that indicates

a reduction of labor turnover and an increase in employee

satisfaction can be enhanced by a cooperative organizational

climate, a cooperative climate does not tend to increase

group effectiveness (Bayfield & Crockett, 1955; Csoka,

1972). Fiedler and Chemers (1974) advocate the notion

that the organizational climate will interact with the

leader's style, but they argue that "there is very little

empirical evidence from field studies that one type of

climate is necessarily more conducive to effective organi-

zational performance than another" (p. 110).

Validation of the model. Fiedler's Contingency Model

of Leadership Effectiveness has been tested in numerous

field and laboratory studies. Hunt (1967) conducted a

field study of the contingency model in the following three

settings: (a) a large physical science research laboratory,

(b) a heavy machinery plant, and (c) a supermarket chain.

Hunt's study confirmed the validity of the contingency










model for octants 1, 3, 5, and 7. The remaining four

octants were not tested in this study.

Fiedler (1971) reported the results of two studies

conducted among groups of public health volunteers. A 1966

study conducted by Fiedler, O'Brien, and Ilgen and a 1968

study directed by O'Brien are included in this report.

The contingency model was tested in octants 1, 4, 6, and 8

by these studies. The median correlations reported for

these two studies support the model, with the exception of

octant 6 findings. A correlation between LPC scores and

group performance of .67 was reported in the 1966 study.

This variation from correlations predicted by the contin-

gency model was not found in the 1968 study (Fiedler, 1971).

A validation study was conducted by Shima in 1968.

This study was conducted among 32 groups of Japanese high

school students. Fiedler (1971) analyzed the findings of

Shima and classified the leadership situation of this

study as corresponding to octants 2 and 4. The correspond-

ing correlations were -.26 and .71, "thus supporting the

model" (Fiedler, 1971, p. 136). Fiedler (1971) reported in

a 1969 study in which Skrzypek conducted a test of the

contingency model among all eight cells. Subjects for this

study were selected from a group of West Point cadets whose

LPC scores fell either one standard deviation above or

below the mean. Structured and unstructured tasks were

contrived for the groups to accomplish. Skryzpek reported










that none of the correlations was significant (p < .05)

With the exception of octant 3, the correlations did all

represent the positive or negative directions predicted by

the contingency model.

Chemers and Skrzypek (1972) conducted another study

at West Point. The methodology used in this study was

essentially the same as that employed by Fiedler (1967)

except that instead of relying on post hoc measures of

group atmosphere, leader-member relations were independently

manipulated in the experiment. The leaders in the low

power situation were instructed to act as chairmen, and

the group was told that the leader had no real power to

reward or punish group members. In the high power situa-

tion, groups were informed that it was the leader's respon-

sibility to evaluate the performance of each group member

and assign a score which would become part of the cadet's

service record. The manipulations employed by the

experimenters yielded the complete octant spectrum present

in the contingency model. When the resultant correlations

were plotted against the curve predicted by the contingency

model, a close agreement between the two curves was reported

by Chemers and Skrzypek. The rank order correlation be-

tween predicted and obtained curve points was .86 (p < .05).

Chemers and Rice (1974) make the following comment regard-

ing this study:










The Chemers and Skrzypek (1972) study, by nature
of its clean methodology and strong results,
provides extremely powerful support for the con-
tingency model curve. It establishes the pre-
dictive validity of the model and indicates that
experimental studies of leadership can be quite
useful. (p. 104)

In an analysis of four field studies conducted between

1967 and 1969, Fiedler (1971) reported that the median

correlations for field studies are quite similar to those

predicted by the contingency model. The medians were

reported to all be in the predicted direction, and 13 of

the 15 specific correlations found were in the expected

direction (p < .05). Fiedler (1973) presented the follow-

ing argument in defense of a charge that field studies focus-

ing on less than the full spectrum of the contingency model

are inadequate validity support for the model:

One can hardly ask basketball teams, open-hearth
steel crews, or grocery department employees to
drop what they are doing in order to work on
creative unstructured tasks under leaders whose
position power is variously low or high. Nor
could we ask a chemical research team or
boards of directors to play a quick game of
basketball or to operate a meat market ..
(p. 364)

Criticism of the model. Fiedler (1967) conducted a

large field experiment conducted in conjunction with the

Belgian naval forces. The study included 96 three-man

teams. The teams were assembled so that 48 teams would be

culturally homogeneous and 48 teams, heterogeneous. Homo-

geneous teams were comprised of members who spoke the same

language. This language factor is a key element of the









critical argument made by Graen, Alvares, Orris, and

Martella (1970) concerning this study. Graen et al.

claimed that this language variable added a variable to

the research design that presented a 16-cell experimental

model. These critics argue that a 16-cell model is in-

appropriate for testing the 8-cell contingency model.

Fiedler (1967) conducted an analysis of the experimen-

tal data gathered from the heterogeneous groups in terms of

an 8-cell model. In a discussion concerning the complete

analysis of the data gathered during this study, Fiedler

(1967) stated that "while only one of the sixteen correla-

tions was significant, only one of the eight correlations,

namely, .03, was not in the hypothesized direction" (p. 119).

Graen et al. (1970) took issue with Fiedler's assessment

of the correspondence of correlations to the hypothesized

direction being "employed as an alternative criterion of

reliable results" (p. 289).

In a more elaborate explanation of their viewpoint

concerning the statistical validity of Fiedler's conclu-

sions, Graen et al. commented as follows:

The danger in rejecting the usual criterion of
statistical reliability is that we may be
forced into generating empirically most of the
sampling distribution of our statistic under
the null hypothesis before we can accept that
hypothesis. . (p. 289)

A 1969 study conducted by Mitchell was cited by Graen

et al. as an additional illustration of the questionable

validity of the contingency model. Summarizing their











presentation of the findings of this study, Graen et al.

(1970) stated, "It should be noted that the curve generated

by plotting the median correlation for each octant is

opposite that predicted by the contingency model" (p. 291).

Ashour (1973) presented a critical review of the con-

tingency model. He was also critical of Fiedler's process

of accepting correlations obtained in the predicted direc-

tion regardless of whether or not these statistics were

statistically significant. Ashour argued that the model

lacks validity since it was generated from a broad sampling

of settings and procedures. Each of these early formative

studies dealt with no more than two octants. Ashour made

the following comment regarding these early studies:

The limited representation of the octants raises
the possibility that the data obtained could
merely be a function of the populations sampled
rather than reflecting true differences between
octants. (p. 348)

Yunker (1973) field tested the contingency model of

leadership effectiveness. The study was limited to a test

of two octants of the model. The subjects of the investi-

gation were 780 presidents and members representing 62

collegiate chapters of a national business fraternity.

Yunker's findings did not support l'iedler's Contingency

Model in the two octants tested. The researcher in this

instance suggested that the methods used by Fiedler to

measure the situational dimension of the contingency model

may be unnecessarily complex. Yunker derived a simplified











measure of the situational favorableness. This revision

produced findings that strongly supported the model in the

two octants sampled.

An investigation of the application of the contingency

model has been conducted by Mellor (1974) in the elementary

school setting. The effectiveness of the principal's per-

formance in each school sampled was determined by measures

of student academic achievement and school environment.

Mellor reported that the student achievement measures were

controlled for intelligence quotient, socioeconomic status,

and race. The 44 schools participating in the study were

classified into four octants of the contingency model. In

an analysis of the data gathered, Mellor found no signifi-

cant correlations between principal's LPC scores and

student achievement (p < .05). Correlations between the

principal's LPC score and school environment were also not

found to be significant (p < .05). These correlations in

octants 5 and 7 were reported to be in the opposite direc-

tion of that predicted by the contingency model. Mellor

concluded that the contingency model does not provide a

reliable basis for predicting the relationship between

leadership style and group effectiveness in the operational

setting corresponding to this study.

Many of those critical of the contingency model have

suggested that modifications and extensions be made to the

model (Ashour, 1973; Graen et al., 1970; Yunker, 1973).










Commenting on the practice of extending and modifying the

contingency model, Fiedler (1971) made the following

statement:

Some investigators . have not followed the
methodology originally described. . These
differences in methodology and divergencies
from the model are, of course, quite appro-
priate and desirable. (p. 132)

Extensions of the model. Fiedler (1971) reported a

1966 study by Shaw and Blummer in which leadership behavior

was varied under experimental conditions. Nine leaders were

instructed to behave in a highly controlling and directing

manner, while a second set of nine leaders was told to be

passive and permissive. This test of the contingency model

used the leaders' LPC scores but did not include the GA

measure since the leader-member relations element was

experimentally manipulated. The results of this test of

octants 2 and 4 of the contingency model "conform to the

general expectations of the model" (Fiedler, 1971, p. 141).

Bell (1970) applied the contingency model to co-acting

groups among 43 institutions within the North Carolina

Community College system. The institutions were classified

and grouped into the octant which described the particular

leadership situation. Correlations were run between LPC

scores of the leaders and the group effectiveness measures.

Bell reported findings that significantly conformed with

Fiedler's Contingency Model. The researcher concluded that

this study presents evidence for the argument that the










contingency model is applicable to groups in which members

co-act. In a co-acting group, members act in relative

independence from theirco-workers as group goals are

accomplished.

Fiedler (1971) reported a 1967 study by Lawrence and

Lorsch in which leader-member relations were not included

in the research design. The performance of six chemical

processing companies was compared during this study. Four

subsystems were present within each of these organizations:

(a) production, (b) sales, (c) applied research, and

(d) basic research. The structure of these subsystem units

was rated and used as a basis for predicting the leader-

ship situation. The experimenters found "that a low LPC

manager would perform better in a structured situation,

while a high LPC manager would perform better in unstruc-

tured situations" (Fiedler, 1971, p. 142). These research-

ers suggested that the leader-member relations might be

less important at the higher levels of an organization.

Fiedler (1971) made the following statement in reference

to this view of leader-member relations:

This seems reasonable since the manager at the
third and higher levels usually has very few
direct contacts with production workers at the
non-supervisoy levels, and relatively few con-
tacts with first-line supervisors. (p. 142)

A field study conducted by Garland and O'Reilly (1976)

represents another extension of the contingency model.

These researchers constructed a factorial research design










that identified combinations of high, intermediate, and low

LPC principals and high and low GA scores and assigned the

combinations to the appropriate design cells. Garland and

O'Reilly expressed an interest in Likert's theories that

challenge the implied independence of the leadership style

and situational favorability factors of Fiedler's Contin-

gency Model. Garland and O'Reilly (1976) made the follow-

ing remarks in relation to this point:

According to Likert, the process of activity
in an organization can be conceptualized in
terms of causal variables (e.g., leadership
style) and intervening variables which, in
turn, predict end-result variables.
(p. 14)

While the F ratios for two of the null hypotheses for-

mulated by Garland and O'Reilly were not significant, it

was reported that the performance of good-group-atmosphere

staff groups led by high, intermediate, and low LPC prin-

cipals differed significantly from that of poor group

atmosphere groups led by intermediate LPC principals

(F (7.37) = 3.80; p < .01). The null hypothesis that was

rejected was designed to test the impact of group atmo-

sphere on group performance. The researchers concluded

that while the contingency model has proved to be quite

powerful, this study showed that those principals who had

worked with staffs for over two years and had "enjoyed good

leader-member relationships, ran good schools" (Garland &

O'Reilly, 1976, p. 27). The researchers further describe

their extended study of the contingency model as an










initial effort toward integrating two useful theories of

leadership.

Hunt (1971) extended the contingency model to an

organizational setting having two managerial levels. The

study was conducted among 26 teams, each headed by an

executive in a simulated organization. All teams were

assigned complex problems. Each team was comprised of two

interdependent sections. Both sections were headed by a

manager, the leader of the second level of management in

the organization. The teams were grouped into four

executive-manager leadership-style combinations according

to LPC scores. After analyzing the relationship between

LPC scores of the executive and the manager and team per-

formance, Hunt remarked:

Specifically, executives with low LPC scores
and managers with high LPC scores had the best
performing groups while the poorest perform-
ing groups were found with executives with
high LPC scores and managers with low LPC
scores. (p. 483)


Description of the High School Leadership Situation


The high school principal occupies the position of a

designated leader of a team of individuals organized to

conduct the administrative processes necessary for accom-

plishing the goals of the school.


Position Power

The principal of a high school has the responsibility










of organizing and administering the human and physical

resources "efficiently and effectively so that the school

objectives can be successfully achieved" (Gorton, 1976,

p. 43). Among the activities of the high school principal

are the tasks of (a) recruiting and recommending qualified

personnel for employment, (b) supervising and evaluating

the performance of staff members, (c) stimulating the

professional growth of staff personnel, (d) leading the

staff in the formulation of instructional objectives, and

(e) making decisions concerning the curriculum organization

and content (Chernow & Chernow, 1976; Corbally, Jensen, &

Staub, 1961; Gorton, 1976). The principal of a high school

is an established designated leader of the organization.

The person associated with the title "principal" is respon-

sible for the implementation of district policy within the

high school (Landers & Myers, 1977, p. 5).

A checklist was developed by Hunt (1967) for use in

determining the leader position power in organizations. An

application of the 12 items in Hunt's checklist places

the position power of the high school principal high on the

scale (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 133; Garland & O'Reilly,

1976).


Structure of the Group Task

As previously stated, the tasks of the administrative

team are complex and varied (Campbell, Bridges, & Nystand,










1977, pp. 116-149). In 1968 McNamara conducted a study

among high schools and determined that while the tasks of

elementary schools were largely structured, the tasks of

high schools were primarily unstructured (Fiedler & Chemers,

1974). Garland and O'Reilly (1976) also found that the

task structure of high schools can be appropriately classi-

fied as unstructured. Fiedler and Chemers make the follow-

ing summarizing statement concerning the task structure

and position power of the high school principal:

The schools are fairly large . and the
principal has to deal with teenagers who
are notoriously difficult to handle. More-
over, the secondary school principal generally
has to interact with various civic, govern-
mental, and parent organizations, and he
must make policy on a variety of questions
which arise. Thus, although he has moderately
high position power, his task is likely to be
unstructured. . (p. 133)


Chapter Summary


The study of leadership has been categorized in this

review into four approaches to leadership theory: (a) great

man, (b) trait, (c) behavioral, and (d) situation. Research

efforts were focused upon the behavioral and situational

approaches to leadership theory, as conflicting evidence

became associated with great man and trait theoretical

studies of leadership (Stogdill, 1974). The situational

approach to leadership, as described in this discussion,

includes the leadership style element of the behavioral










approach but adds the situational dimension to the theo-

retical construct.

Fiedler (1967) advanced the theoretical construct that

leadership effectiveness is dependent upon both the leader's

style of leadership and the group leadership situation.

The contingency model developed by Fiedler includes the

following four factors that describe the leader and the

leadership situation: (a) leadership style, (b) task

structure, (c) group atmosphere, (d) position power.

The contingency model Fiedler developed was the result

of 12 years of study with 800 laboratory and field study

groups. The model can be graphically represented in terms

of eight cells that represent combinations of the leader-

ship situation variables and a corresponding listing of

group performance correlated with LPC score.

The interpersonal relations among the members of

organizations have been identified as a significant aspect

of the leadership situation (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974).

Lewin (1951), McGregor (1960), Halpin and Croft (1962),

and Likert (1961) stressed the significance of the group

climate. Likert suggested that a causal relationship

exists between the behavior of leaders and the organiza-

tional climate perceived by the members of the organiza-

tion. Bayfield and Crockett (1955) reported that a

cooperative climate, generally viewed as advantageous,

does not tend to enhance increased group performance.










Numerous studies have been conducted as validations of

the predictable power of the contingency model. The

laboratory and field studies that have been reported tend

to support the contingency model (Fiedler, 1971). A study

reported by Chemers and Skrzypek (1972) identified evidence

that supported the contingency model's predictive power over

all eight cells.

Criticism has been leveled at the contingency model on

a number of occasions over several issues. The method-

ology employed by Fiedler (1967) in the Belgian Navy experi-

ment was challenged by Graen et al. (1970). Fiedler's

practice of accepting correlations that are not statisti-

cally significant as evidence for validation of the con-

tingency model is also questioned by Graen et al. Ashour

(1973) was critical of the many experiments encompassing

only a few of the octants of the model that are cited as

validation evidence by Fiedler.

Among the studies extending the contingency model are

those reported by Bell (1970), Fiedler (1971), Garland

and O'Reilly (1976), and Hunt (1971). These studies do

represent a variety of research designs, but the research-

ers were all able to successfully predict a substantial

number of findings. These predictions were based upon the

theoretical principles associated with the contingency

model.





54



The leadership situation in large high schools has

been identified as one in which the position power of the

principal is high and the group task is relatively un-

structured (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974). This description of

the leadership situation within a large high school is

consistent with the leadership situations described by

octants 3 and 7 of the contingency model developed by

Fiedler (1967, p. 121).














CHAPTER III

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA


The focus of this study was upon the interrelation-

ships among leadership style, organizational climate, and

group effectiveness. The data were collected in two phases

as described in the procedures section of the study. Dur-

ing the initial phase of data collection, the Least

Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale was administered to the 20

participating high school principals. The principal and all

other members of the administrative teams selected for this

study also completed the Group Atmosphere (GA) scale dur-

ing this phase.

An analysis of the data gathered during the initial

stage of this study was conducted to identify the subjects

for the final stage of the investigation. Students from

the 12 schools identified for this final sample were admin-

istered the High School Characteristics Index (HSCI)

according to the procedures previously stated.

During the course of the analysis of the data related

to the problem, the five null hypotheses associated with

the research questions stated in Chapter I were tested.











Initial Phase Data


Leadership Style Data

The principals of the 20 schools selected as research

subjects completed the LPC scale. Scoring of the prin-

cipals' LPC responses was accomplished according to pro-

cedures described by Fiedler (1967, p. 44). The LPC scores

are listed in Table 2 along with the fictitious names of

the selected schools. The schools are listed in decreasing

order of LPC scores.


Table 2

Least Preferred Coworker Scores


School


Space High
Central High
Palm High
Redwood High
Beach High
Champion High
Southern High
Pioneer High
Sand High
Union High
Coast High
Lakeside High
Summer High
Ocean High
High Banks High
Fern High
Westbrook High
Northern High
Highland High
Pine Ridge


of the Principals


Least Preferred
Coworker score


38
34











The reader will recall from the discussion in Chapter I

that a high LPC score indicates a relationship-motivated

style of leadership (low task motivation), whereas a low

LPC score is indicative of a task-motivated leader. The

highest score among the 20 principals was 119. The lowest

score was 34. The mean score for the total group was

70.85.

Posthuma (1970) studied the responses of 2,415 indi-

viduals to the LPC scale. The individuals Posthuma selec-

ted as research subjects were engaged in a diverse range

of leadership roles. Posthuma reported that the mean LPC

score was 59. Although the mean LPC score that was reported

for this study is greater than that reported by Posthuma,

this difference is to be expected. It is likely that high

school principals will indicate higher LPC scores (be more

relationship oriented) than a sample of leaders selected

from the normal population (Garland & O'Reilly, 1976).

Halpin (1966) also presented data that are consistent with

the data reported for this study. Halpin concluded that

school administrators are more relationship motivated than

are some other groups of administrators (pp. 99-111).

As stated in the definition of terms section of

Chapter I, principals who indicated a score of 70 or above

on the LPC scale were classified as relationship-motivated

(high LPC) leaders. Principals scoring below 70 on the

LPC scale were classified as task-motivated (low LPC)leaders.










These classifications are consistent with the definitions

given by Fiedler (1967, p. 44).

A survey of the LPC scores listed in Table 2 shows

that 10 principals scored 70 or above on the LPC scale and

10 principals scored less than 70 on the LPC scale. There-

fore, according to the leadership style classification

definitions established for this study, 10 of the partici-

pating principals were classified as high LPC leaders, and

the remaining 10 were classified as low LPC leaders.


Organizational Climate Data

Members of the selected high school administrative

teams, including the principals, completed the GA scale.

Usable scales were scored as Fiedler (1967) directed

(p. 116). School names, the number of members in each

administrative team, usable number of GA scale forms ob-

tained, and the mean GA scores are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 shows the GA scores listed in descending order.

The mean GA scores ranged from a high score of 79.333

to a low score of 61.500. The mean score for the total

group of GA scores was 72.281. Posthuma (1970) studied

the responses of 2,415 subjects on the GA scale and re-

ported that the mean GA score for field study groups was

64.9. Although the mean score for the total group of GA

scores for this study was substantially greater than that

determined by Posthuma, the range of the scores was









sufficient to allow an effective differentiation between

high and low GA groups whenthese data was used (Chemers &

Skrzypek, 1972; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974).


Table 3

Administrative Team Membership


and Mean GA Scores


Number
Administrative of usable Mean GA
School team membership instruments score

Fern High 9 9 79.333
Highland High 16 16 77.118
Westbrook High 9 9 76.889
Sand High 8 8 76.875
Redwood High 10 10 75.900
Palm High 8 8 75.375
High Banks High 12 12 75.300
Beach High 10 10 74.399
Pine Ridge High 12 12 74.333
Lakeside High 11 11 72.273
Champion High 15 12 72.133
Central High 10 10 71.600
Union High 10 10 70.889
Northern High 9 9 70.778
Pioneer High 15 15 70.706
Ocean High 11 10 70.455
Space High 9 9 70.222
Summer High 13 13 65.539
Southern High 12 12 63.999
Coast High 16 16 61.500




Selection of Final Sample

The administrative teams that participated in this

study,and shown in Table 3,were assigned a rank order num-

ber consistent with the mean GA score indicated by each

team. This rank order listing is shown in Table 4. Fern

High School was ranked first and Coast High School last.












The final selection of schools was based on these find-

ings.


Table 4

Rank Order of Schools According to Mean GA Scores


Rank order Name of Rank order Name of
number school number school

1 Fern High 11 Champion High
2 Highland High 12 Central High
3 Westbrook High 13 Union High
4 Sand High 14 Northern High
5 Redwood High 15 Pioneer High
6 Palm High 16 Ocean High
7 High Banks High 17 Space High
8 Beach High 18 Summer High
9 Pine Ridge High 19 Southern High
10 Lakeside High 20 Coast High




The administrative teams with the six highest mean GA

scores and the six lowest mean GA scores were selected for

the final sample. Those administrative teams indicating

the six highest GA scores were labeled the most cooperative

climate group. The administrative teams indicating the

six lowest GA scores were labeled the least cooperative

climate group.

Table 5 shows the most cooperative (high GA) and least

cooperative (low GA) administrative teams listed by school

name. The schools are listed in descending order of GA

score within both the high GA and low GA group categories.


__










Table 5

Mean GA Scores Indicated by Administrative Teams
in Final Sample

Schools Mean GA score

Most cooperative
schools (high GA)

Fern High 79.333
Highland High 77.118
Westbrook High 76.889
Sand High 76.875
Redwood High 75.900
Palm High 75.375


Least cooperative
schools (low GA)

Pioneer High 70.706
Ocean High 70.455
Space High 70.222
Summer High 65.539
Southern High 63.999
Coast High 61.500




The mean GA scores within the most cooperative group

ranged from a high of 79.333 to a low score of 75.375. The

highest score was indicated by the Fern High administrative

team, and Palm High's administrative team indicated the

lowest. The mean of the total mean GA scores reported for

the most cooperative group was 76.915, and the mean deter-

mined for the total mean GA scores in the least cooperative

group was 67.070.

The organizational climate factor for this study was

measured by having all members of the administrative teams











participating in the study complete the GA scale. Fiedler

(1967) had only the leader complete the GA scale as the

leader-member relations were measured. This deviation from

Fiedler's original methods was made to measure the opinions

of team members concerning the quality of the relationship

between group members and the principal and the relation-

ship among all team members. This approach was taken in

part due to the support that Fiedler and Chemers (1974) gave

to a 1972 study conducted by Csoka in which all group

members were included in the measurement of leader-member

relations (p. 111). Table 6 shows the GA scores reported

by the principals in this study and the mean GA group

scores. The scores are listed according to the descending

order of mean GA group scores. The mean GA rank order

number previously discussed is also included in Table 6.

Principal GA scores ranged from a high of 80 to a low

of 54. The mean principal GA score was 71.2. The princi-

pals of three high schools, Fern, Highland, and Westbrook,

indicated the highest principal GA score listed. The

principal of Space High indicated the lowest principal GA

score listed. A study of the principals' GA scores among

the six high schools ranked I through 6 and the six high

schools ranked 15 through 20 according to mean group GA

scores presents a finding of interest. The data listed

in Table 6 show that if either the mean GA scores or the

principals' GA scores are used for ranking the schools











according to climate ratings, the same schools would be

included in the group ranked 1 through 6 and the group

ranked 15 through 20. Hence, the same schools would be

assigned to the most cooperative and least cooperative

groups that comprised the final sample if either princi-

pal GA or mean group GA scores were used.


Table 6

Principal GA Scores and Mean Group GA Scores


Mean GA
Principal rank order Mean group
School GA score number GA score

Fern High 80 1 79.333
Highland High 80 2 77.118
Westbrook High 80 3 76.889
Sand High 75 4 76.875
Redwood High 76 5 75.900
Palm High 77 6 75.375
High Banks High 70 7 75.300
Beach High 70 8 74.399
Pine Ridge High 72 9 74.333
Lakeside High 70 10 72.273
Champion High 70 11 72.133
Central High 71 12 71.600
Union High 70 13 70.889
Northern High 70 14 70.778
Pioneer High 69 15 70.706
Ocean High 68 16 70.455
Space High 54 17 70.222
Summer High 67 18 65.539
Southern High 66 19 63.999
Coast High 69 20 61.500




The fact that both sets of GA scores resulted in the

same schools being assigned to the two climate groups

further supports the claim that this study demonstrates











a close association with the model of leadership effective-

ness proposed by Fiedler.


Final Phase Data


Review of Procedure

The effectiveness of the 12 administrative teams com-

prising the final sample was assessed through the use of

the High School Characteristics Index (IISCI). A random

selection was made of three sections in each school of a

required twelfth-grade course in which students were

randomly assigned. The students enrolled in the selected

sections completed the HSCI. Student responses to the HSCI

were reported on HSCI scale scan sheets. The scan sheets

completed by the students from the 12 schools sampled were

sent to the Test Scoring and Evaluation Services Department

of Syracuse University for scoring.


High School Characteristics Index Data

All student HSCI scale response sheets containing more

than five missing responses or otherwise not properly

completed were rejected during the scoring procedure.

Table 7 shows the number of scales returned, number of

usable scales, mean developmental press IISCI scores, and

standard deviation of the mean scores by school. The HSCI

scores are listed in descending order.

A total of 835 scales were returned, of which 739 were

usable. The HSCI scores ranged from a high of 176.500 to











a low of 134.305. Fern High School was associated with the

highest HSCI score,and the lowest score was indicated by

Redwood High. The mean of the total mean HSCI scores,

listed in Table 7,was 160.898. Stern (1970) reported a

mean of 183.52 and a standard deviation of 36.55 for the

developmental press HSCI score (p. 255). These data re-

sulted from a study involving 947 respondents within 12

high schools. The mean of 160.8985 that was reported for

the data listed in Table 7 is within one standard deviation

of the mean reported by Stern.


Table 7

Developmental Press HSCI Data

Number Number Mean
of scales of usable HSCI Standard
School returned scales score deviation

Fern High 62 54 176.500 28.684
Westbrook High 64 53 170.660 26.160
Space High 90 85 170.624 25.795
Highland High 77 68 168.088 34.404
Pioneer High 77 71 167.183 28.669
Sand High 56 51 166.157 22.380
Ocean High 61 55 165.364 35.016
Summer High 63 54 161.611 22.891
Palm High 77 69 153.956 27.447
Southern High 60 54 149.685 29.168
Coast High 76 66 145.439 37.733
Redwood High 72 59 134.305 24.759



As stated previously,the developmental press factor

of the HSCI was identified by Stern (1970) as a measure

of the quality of the learning environment afforded students.

The greater the HSCI score,the more effective the











administrative team is in providing experiences that enhance

the development of human capacities (Bishop, 1971; Garland &

O'Reilly, 1976; Stern, 1970).


Statistical Analysis of Data


During the statistical analysis phase of this study,

the five previously stated null hypotheses were tested.

The following discussion of the analysis of the data is

organized in a manner consistent with these hypotheses.


Null Hypothesis 1

According to this null hypothesis the HSCI scores in

final sample high schools led by principals having high LPC

scores would not differ from the HSCI scores associated

with principals indicating low LPC scores (p < .05).

Table 8 shows the high and low LPC principals listed

with their respective LPC and HSCI scores by school.

Schools being led by principals indicating high and low

LPC scores are grouped separately in Table 8. Within each

of these LPC groups the schools are listed in descending

order of LPC score.

The scores for the highest LPC schools ranged from

119 to 70. Whereas the scores for low LPC schools ranged

from 68 to 38. Among the high LPC schools, the principal

of Space High indicated the highest LPC score, and the

principal of Sand High indicated the lowest LPC score.

Among the low LPC schools, the principal of Coast High











indicated the highest LPC score, and the principal of

Highland Hiigh indicated the lowest LPC score.


Table 8

Principals' LPC Scores and


Team HSCI Scores


Principal's Team
School LPC score HSCI score



Iigh LPC schools

Space High 119 170.624
Palm High 96 153.956
Redwood High 93 134.305
Southern High 87 149.685
Pioneer High 82 167.183
Sand High 70 166.157


Low LPC schools

Coast High 68 145.439
Summer High 61 161.611
Ocean High 55 165.367
Fern High 50 176.500
Westbrook High 50 170.660
Highland High 38 168.088






The reader will recall from the definitions section of

Chapter I that the LPC score is the operational descrip-

tion of the leadership style employed by the principal.

The higher the LPC score, the more relationship motivated

is a leader. Lower LPC scores indicate that a leader tends

to be task motivated. As previously defined, LPC scores











greater than or equal to 70 on Fiedler's LPC scale indi-

cate that a leader is relationship motivated. Less than

70 scored on the LPC scale indicates that a leader is

task motivated.

Among the high LPC schools, the team HSCI scores

ranged from a high score of 170.627 to a low score of

134.305. The highest team HSCI score was reported for

Space High,and the lowest team HSCI score was reported for

Redwood High. The mean of the team HSCI scores among these

schools was 156.985.

Among the low LPC schools, the team HSCI scores

ranged from a high score of 176.500 to a low score of

145.439. The highest team HSCI score was reported for

Fern High, and the lowest team HSCI score was reported for

Coast High. The mean of the team HSCI scores among these

schools was 164.610.

The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance

procedure was used to test for the significant differences

associated with hypothesis i. The 12 team HSCI scores

for the two groups of schools were rank ordered from

lowest to highest. These ranks are shown in Table 9.

The HI resulting from the Kruskal-Wallis one-way

analysis calculation indicated that there were no signifi-

cant differences between the effectiveness of the high

LPC and low LPC groups of schools (11 (1) = .923; p < .05).

Null hypothesis 1 was accepted.







69




Table 9

Rank Order of Team HSCI Scores Indicated by High LPC
and Low LPC Schools



Team IISCI score
Schools rank order number



High LPC schools

Space High 10
Palm High 4
Redwood High 1
Southern High 3
Pioneer High 8
Sand High 7



Low LPC schools


Coast High 2
Summer High 5
Ocean High 6
Fern High 12
Westbrook High 11
Highland High 9







Null Hypothesis 2

Null hypothesis 2 stated that the HSCI scores associ-

ated with final sample administrative teams indicating high

GA scores would not differ from the HSCI scores associated

with final sample administrative teams indicating low GA

scores (p < .05).












Development press HSCI data relevant to this

hypothesis have been listed in Table 10. The schools are

listed according to descending order of mean HSCI scores

within both the high GA schools and low GA schools groups.



Table 10

Developmental Press HSCI Data Indicated by High GA and
Low GA Schools




Schools Team HSCI scores



High GA schools


Fern High 176.500
Westbrook High 170.660
Highland High 168.088
Sand High 166.157
Palm High 153.956
Redwood High 134.305



Low GA schools

Space High 170.624
Pioneer High 167.183
Ocean High 165.364
Summer High 161.611
Southern High 149.685
Coast High 145.439


The reader will recall from a previous discussion in

this chapter that high GA schools have administrative teams

that perceive their groups' climates as being most coopera-

tive according to the definition provided in Chapter I.











Low GA schools are likewise categorized according to the

definitions in Chapter I. Administrative teams assigned to

the low GA schools category perceive their groups' climates

as being least cooperative.

Among the high GA schools, the team HSCI scores ranged

from a high of 176.500 to a low of 134.305. The highest

mean HSCI score was indicated for Fern High, and Redwood

High was associated with the lowest score. The mean of

the team HSCI scores among these schools was 161.611.

Among the low GA schools, the school mean HSCI scores

ranged from a high of 170.624 to a low of 145.439. The

highest mean HSCI score was indicated for Space High, and

Coast High was associated with the lowest score. The mean

of the team HSCI scores among these schools was 159.984.

The Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance procedure was

used to test for the significant differences associated

with hypothesis 2. The 12 team HSCI scores for the two

groups of schools were rank ordered from lowest to highest.

These ranks are shown in Table 11.

The H resulting from the Kruskal-Wallis one-way

analysis calculation indicated that there were no signifi-

cant differences between the effectiveness of the high GA

and low GA groups of schools (II (1) = .641; p < .05).

Null hypothesis 2 was accepted.











Table 11

Rank Order of Team HSCI Scores Indicated by High GA
and Low GA Schools


Team HSCT score
Schools rank order number


High GA schools

Fern High 12
Westbrook High 11
Highland High 9
Sand High 7
Palm High 4
Redwood High 1


Low GA schools

Space High 10
Pioneer High 8
Ocean High 6
Summer High 5
Southern High 3
Coast High 2




Null Hypothesis 3

Null hypothesis 3 stated that there is no correlation

between the LPC score of principals and the mean GA score

among the initial sample administrative teams (p < .05).

Table 12 shows the LPC scores of principals and the

mean GA scores of the schools associated with each specific

LPC score. The LPC and GA scores are listed by school and

are arranged according to descending mean GA score. The

mean GA scores ranged from a high of 79.333 to a low of

61.500. Fern High was associated with the highest mean










GA score, and Coast High was associated with the lowest GA

score. The LPC scores ranged from a high of 119 to a low

of 34. Space High is associated with the highest LPC

score listed and a mean GA score of 70.222. Pine Ridge

High is associated with the lowest LPC score listed and

mean GA score of 74.333.


Table 12

LPC Scores and Mean GA Scores Listed by School


LPC Mean
School score GA score

Fern High 50 79.333
Highland High 38 77.118
Westbrook High 50 76.889
Sand High 70 76.875
Redwood High 93 75.900
Palm High 96 75.375
High Banks High 51 75.300
Beach High 87 74.399
Pine Ridge High 34 74.333
Lakeside High 65 72.273
Champion High 87 72.133
Central High 107 71.600
Union High 70 70.889
Northern High 47 70.778
Pioneer High 82 70.706
Ocean High 55 70.455
Space High 119 70.222
Summer High 61 65.539
Southern High 87 63.999
Coast High 68 61.500




The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was deter-

mined for the data shown in Table 12 to test null hypothe-

sis 3. The LPC scores and the mean GA scores for the

selected schools were rank ordered. As Roscoe (1975)











recommended when tie scores were encountered, the ranks

were summed and divided equally among the tied scores.

Hence, scores that have the same numerical value also have

the same rank (p. 107). These ranks are shown in Table

13.


Table 13

Rank Order of LPC Scores and Mean GA Scores Indicated by
the Initially Selected Schools


LPC score Mean GA score
School rank order number rank order number

Fern High 4.5 20
Highland High 2 19
Westbrook High 4.5 18
Sand High 11.5 17
Redwood High 17 16
Palm High 18 15
High Banks High 6 14
Beach High 15.5 13
Pine Ridge High 1 12
Lakeside High 9 11
Champion High 15.5 10
Central High 19 9
Union High 11.5 8
Northern High 3 7
Pioneer High 13 6
Ocean High 7 5
Space High 20 4
Summer High 8 3
Southern High 14 2
Coast High 10 1




The calculation of the Spearman Rank Correlation Co-

efficient for the data shown in Table 13 did not detect a

significant relationship (r = -.325; p < .05; n = 20).

Null hypothesis 3 was accepted.











Null Hypothesis 4

Null hypothesis 4 stated that there is no correlation

between the LPC score of principals and the mean HSCI score

among the final sample schools having administrative teams

that indicated high GA scores.

Table 14 shows the LPC scores of principals and the

mean HSCI scores within the high GA schools. The HSCI

scores are listed in descending order in Table 14. The

HSCI scores ranged from a high of 176.500 to a low of

134.305. The highest HSCI score was reported for Fern High,

while the lowest HSCI score was reported for Redwood High.

The LPC scores ranged from a high of 96 to a low of 38.

Palm High was associated with the highest LPC score, while

the principal of Highland High reported the lowest LPC

score listed in Table 14. The principals of two schools,

Fern High and Westbrook High, indicated an LPC score of 50.


Table 14

Principals' LPC Scores and Team ISCI Scores
Within High GA Schools


Principal's Team
School LPC score HSCI score

Fern High 50 176.500
Westbrook High 50 170.660
Highland High 38 168.088
Sand High 70 166.157
Palm High 96 153.956
Redwood High 93 134.305











Testing of null hypothesis 4 was accomplished by

calculating the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for

the LPC and HSCI scores shown for each school listed in

Table 14. The LPC scores and the HSCI scores were rank

ordered according to the procedures followed in testing

hypothesis 3. These ranks are shown in Table 15.

Table 15

Rank Order of LPC Scores and HSCI Scores
Within High GA Schools

LPC score HSCI score
School rank order number rank order number

Fern High 2.5 6
Westbrook High 2.5 5
Highland High 1 4
Sand High 4 3
Palm High 6 2
Redwood High 5 1


The calculation of the Spearman Rank Correlation

coefficient for the data shown in Table 15 did not detect

a significant relationship (r = -.754; p < .05; n = 6).

Null hypothesis 4 was accepted.

Null Hypothesis 5

Null hypothesis 5 stated that there is no correlation

between the LPC score of principals and the mean HSCI score

among the final sample schools having administrative teams

that indicated low GA scores (p < .05).

Table 16 shows the LPC scores of principals and the

mean HSCI scores within the low GA schools. The HSCI scores











are listed in descending order in Table 16. The HSCI

scores ranged from a high of 170.623 to a low of 145.439.

The highest HSCI score was reported for Space High,while

the lowest HSCI score was reported for Coast High. The LPC

scores ranged from a high of 119 to a low of 55. Space

High was associated with the highest LPC score, while the

principal of Ocean High reported the lowest LPC score

listed in Table 16.


Table 16

Principals' LPC Scores and Team HSCI Scores
Within Low GA Schools


Principal's Team
School LPC score IISCI score

Space High 119 170.624
Pioneer High 82 167.183
Ocean High 55 165.364
Summer High 61 161.611
Southern High 87 149.685
Coast High 68 145.439




Testing of null hypothesis 5 was accomplished by cal-

culating the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for the

LPC and HSCI scores shown for each school listed in Table

14. The LPC scores and the HSCI scores were rank ordered

according to the procedures followed in testing hypotheses

3 and 4. These ranks are shown in Table 17.

The calculation of the Spearman Rank Correlation











Coefficient for the data shown in Table 17 did not detect

a significant relationship (r = .314; p < .05; n = 6).

Null hypothesis 5 was accepted.


Table 17

Rank Order of LPC Scores and HSCI Scores
Within Low GA Schools


LPC score HSCI score
School rank order number rank order number

Space High 6 6
Pioneer High 4 5
Ocean High 1 4
Summer High 2 3
Southern High 5 2
Coast High 3 1




Chapter Summary


The major data for this study were presented in this

chapter. A description was given of the two phases of data

collection associated with the research design selected for

this study.

The administrative teams of 20 high schools were the

source of the primary phase data. The LPC scale was admin-

istered to the principals of the 20 selected high schools.

Members of the 20 participating administrative teams com-

pleted the GA scale. The LPC scores indicated by the prin-

cipals and the mean scores indicated by administrative team

members were listed in this chapter. A rank order was











presented of the mean GA scores. The six highest mean GA

schools and the six lowest mean GA schools were selected

for the final sample of subjects for this study.

The effectiveness of the administrative teams compris-

ing the final sample was measured by administering the HSCI

to a random sample of senior students from each administra-

tive team's school. The mean developmental press factor

score of the IISCI measurement for each school was listed in

this chapter.

The statistical analysis of the data presented in this

chapter yielded the following findings:

1. No significant differences were detected between

the effectiveness scores of the teams led by principals

labeled high LPC leaders and the teams led by the princi-

pals labeled low LPC leaders.

2. No significant differences were detected between

the effectiveness scores indicated by high GA teams and low

GA teams.

3. No significant correlation was found between the

LPC score of principals and the mean GA score among the

20 initially selected administrative teams.

4. No significant correlation was found between the

LPC score of principals and the mean effectiveness score

among administrative teams classified as high GA teams.

5. No significant correlation was found between the

LPC score of principals and the mean effectiveness score

among administrative teams classified as low GA teams.

















CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS


The data obtained from this study are fundamental to

answering the research questions associated with the

research problem. Also important is the relationship of

the data to selected literature. This chapter includes a

discussion of the data and of its relationship to the

literature. This chapter is organized into sections that

focus upon the relationships among the variables that are

pertinent to the research questions associated with this

study.


Relationship Between Leadership Style
and Team Effectiveness


The relationship between the leadership style of

principals and the effectiveness of high school administra-

tive teams was the focus of research question 1. The find-

ings associated with this research question are discussed

and related to selected literature in this section of

Chapter IV.


Findings Associated with Question 1

Research question 1 was stated in Chapter I in the

following manner: Is there a relationship between the










leadership style of principals and the effectiveness of

high school administrative teams?

The Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale and the High

School Characteristics Index (IISC1) were used to measure

the leadership style of the principals and the effective-

ness of the administrative teams respectively.

As part of the process of answering this research

question, principals' leadership styles were classified

into relationship-motivated and task-motivated leader cate-

gories. Relationship-motivated principals scored 70 or

higher on the LPC scale, and task-motivated principals

scored less than 70 on the LPC scale. HSCI scores indi-

cated the extent to which students were provided with a

self-actualizing environment. The operational definitions

of both leadership style and group effectiveness presented

in Chapter I were utilized in formulating the following null

hypothesis: The HSCI scores in high schools led by princi-

pals having high LPC scores will not differ from the HSCI

scores associated with principals indicating low LPC scores

(p < .05).

The data in Chapter III showed that, according to the

Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, there was not

a significant difference between the effectiveness of

administrative teams led by relationship-motivated princi-

pals (p < .05). Consequently, it can be stated that no

significant relationship between the leadership style of










principals and the effectiveness of high school administra-

tive teams was found by this investigation.


Relationship of Question 1 Findings
to Selected Literature

Research question 1 focused upon the relationship be-

tween leadership style and group effectiveness. The follow-

ing discussion emphasizes the relationship of the findings

associated with question 1 to selected literature. The

writer stated previously that no significant relationship

was found between the leadership style of principals and

the effectiveness of high school administrative teams.

Fiedler (1967) reported that empirical investigations

focusing upon the relationship between leadership style and

group effectiveness date back to the 1938 studies of Lewin

and Lippitt (p. 12). As reported in Chapter II these

early studies were expanded into an extensive study of

three leadership styles by Lippitt and White (Olmsted,

1959, pp. 38-42). The three leadership styles studied

by Lippitt and White were autocratic, democratic, and

laissez-faire. A large number of studies have been stimu-

lated by this pioneer work of Lewin, Lippitt, and White.

Stogdill (1974) reported that although numerous studies

have focused upon democratic and autocratic leadership

styles, significant findings supporting one leadership

style over another are not consistently reported in the

literature (p. 370).











During the 1950s,studies conducted at Ohio State

University focused upon the behaviors exhibited by leaders

demonstrating differing leadership styles. These studies

contributed much knowledge to the field of leadership

theory, but the findings associated with these studies were

not consistent over differing leadership situations (House

et al., 1971; Ivancevich et al., 1977).

The reader will note that the leadership situation was

not a factor associated with research question 1 of this

study. The lack of significant findings in the answering

of question 1 is consistent with these reports in the

literature of research focusing upon the relationship of

various leadership style categories to group effectiveness.

Studies relating the leadership style classifications

developed by Fiedler and utilized in this study have been

reported in the literature. Hopfe (1968) conducted a

study among college department chairpersons in which the

Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) score of leaders was com-

pared with effectiveness ratings of the departments

studied. The departments were not separated into most

cooperative (high GA) and least cooperative (low GA) groups

by the investigator. IIopfe found that departmental per-

formance was not significantly correlated with leaders'

LPC scores (r = .048; p < .05). This finding is consis-

tent with the findings associated with question 1.











Fiedler (1967) reported that his early research was

directed toward determining the leadership style that is

most appropriate for fostering high effectiveness among

groups (pp. 39-42). As his research continued, it became

apparent that the relationship between leadership style and

effectiveness depends upon factors within the leadership

situation. A factor identified as a pertinent element to

the leadership situation was the relationship between the

group members and the leader. This factor was not included

as an element in this research question, and the lack of

a significant finding associated with question 1 is consis-

tent with Fiedler's approach to leadership theory.


Relationship Between Organizational Climate
and Team Effectiveness


The relationship between the organizational climate

within high school administrative teams and the effective-

ness of these groups was the focus of research question 2.

The findings associated with this research question are

discussed and related to selected literature in this

section of Chapter IV.


Findings Associated with Question 2

Following is research question 2 as stated in Chapter

1: Is there a relationship between the organizational

climate of the administrative team and the effectiveness

of the administrative team?










The Group Atmosphere (GA) scale and the High School

Characteristics Index (HSCI) were used to measure the

organizational climate and the effectiveness of the admin-

istrative teams respectively.

During the process of answering this research ques-

tion, the administrative teams were classified into most

cooperative (high GA) and least cooperative (low GA) organi-

zational climate groups according to the definitions stated

in Chapter 1. The operational definitions of both organiza-

tional climate classifications and group effectiveness

presented in Chapter I were utilized in formulating the

following null hypothesis: The HSCI scores associated with

administrative teams indicating high GA scores will not

differ from HSCI scores associated with administrative

teams indicating low GA scores (p < .05).

When this null hypothesis was tested with the Kruskal-

Wallis one-way analysis of variance as shown in Chapter III,

no significant difference was detected between the

effectiveness of the most cooperative administrative teams

and the least cooperative administrative teams (p < .05).

Therefore, it can be stated that there was not a signifi-

cant relationship between the organizational climate of

the administrative team and the effectiveness of the

administrative teams associated with this study.


Relationship of Question 2 Findings
to Selected Literature

Research question 2 focused upon the relationship










between leadership style and group effectiveness. The

following discussion emphasizes the relationship of the

findings associated with question 2 to selected literature.

The reader will recall that no significant relationship

was found between the organizational climate within the

selected administrative teams and the effectiveness of

these groups.

This finding was consistent with research results

reported by Garland and O'Reilly (1976). Garland and

O'Reilly reported that the performance of good-group-

atmosphere groups did not differ significantly from that

of poor-group-atmosphere groups when the groups were led

by the entire spectrum of leadership style principals.

A conclusion drawn by Hill (1972) further supports

the findings of this study. Hill indicated that findings

generally reported in the literature do not indicate that

cooperative organizational climate has "either positive

or negative consequences for the recipients of the organi-

zation's action" (1972, p. 323).

It is found in the literature that employee turnover

and employee satisfaction are affected by organizational

climate. Bayfield and Crockett (1955) and Csoka (1972)

reported that while labor turnover reduction and increased

employee satisfaction can be enhanced by a cooperative

organizational climate, a cooperative climate does not

tend to increase group effectiveness.










Fiedler and Chemers (1974) reported that there is

little empirical evidence from field studies that one type

of organizational climate is more likely to foster a

different level of effectiveness than another type of cli-

mate (p. 110). This report by Fiedler and Chemers is

consistent with the findings associated with research

question 2 reported for this study.


Relationship Between Leadership Style
and Organizational Climate


The relationship between the leadership style of

principals and the organizational climate found within high

school administrative teams was the focus of research

question 3. The findings associated with this research

question are discussed and related to selected literature

in this section of Chapter IV.


Findings Associated with Question 3

The writer presented the following statement of re-

search question 3 in Chapter I: Is there a relationship

between the leadership style of principals and the organi-

zational climate of administrative teams?

The Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale and the

Group Atmosphere (GA) scale were used to measure the

leadership style of the principals and the organizational

climate of the administrative teams respectively.











The null hypothesis associated with this particular

research question was as follows: There is no correlation

between the LPC score of principals and the mean GA score

among the 20 initially selected administrative teams

(E < .05).

Testing of this null hypothesis was accomplished by

calculating the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for

the pairs of scores associated with this hypothesis. This

analysis did not detect a significant correlation between

the variables associated with research question 3 (p < .05).

Hence, it was found that there was no significant relation-

ship between the leadership style of principals and the

organizational climate of the high school administrative

teams who participated in this study.


Relationship of Question 3 Findings
to Selected Literature

Research question 3 focused upon the relationship

between leadership style and organizational climate. The

following discussion emphasizes the relationship of the

findings associated with question 3 to selected literature.

The reader will recall that no significant relationship

was found between the leadership style of principals and

the organizational climate within high school administra-

tive teams.

Contrary to the findings of this study, Gibson,

Ivancevich, and Donnelly (1973) reported that leadership











styles are a major force in creating the climate of the

organization (p. 318). Likert (1961) reported similar con-

tradictory findings.

MIcGregor (1960) suggested that the leader's style is

not necessarily related to the climate of the relationship

among group members. It was stated by McGregor that while

the superior exerts more control than the subordinates over

the nature of the organizational climate, personal atti-

tudes and prejudices can affect the leader's influence over

the situation (p. 142). These comments made by McGregor

support the plausibility of the findings of this study.

It seems appropriate to review the leadership style

construct utilized in this study. The relationship- and task-

motivated continuum developed by Fiedler (1967) describes

the need structure of the leader. This need structure,

measured by the LPC scale, affects a leader's performance

in a rather complex manner. A leader's exhibited leader-

ship style may vary according to the conditions among which

the leader is operating. In instances where relationship-

motivated leaders have their relationship needs met, they

will concern themselves "with such status-enhancing activi-

ties as ordering people around, assigning tasks and assum-

ing responsibility" (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 78).

According to Fiedler (1972) the observable style or

behavior of the leader is likely to change in response to

the leader's need-satisfaction balance. A high or low LPC










leader does not exhibit relationship-motivated or task-

motivated leadership behavior in all leader-group member

encounters. Therefore, the opportunity for the leadership

style to interact in a consistent manner with organiza-

tional climate is minimal. Not finding a significant

relationship between the leadership style of principals and

the organizational climate of the administrative teams

is consistent with Fiedler's theoretical view of the

relationship studied through this research question.


Interrelationships Among Leadership Style,
Organizational Climate, and Team Effectiveness


The interrelationships among leadership style, organi-

zational climate, and team effectiveness were the focus

of research questions 4 and 5. Research questions 4 and

5 both include all three factors essential for a study

based upon the theoretical model of leadership effective-

ness proposed by Fiedler (1967). The three factors in-

cluded in these two research questions were the leadership

style employed by the high school principal, the principal's

leadership situation, and the effectiveness of the group

being led.

Inasmuch as the findings of the research questions

being discussed are closely related to the contingency

model of leadership effectiveness proposed by Fiedler, a

review of this model is presented for the reader. This

review of the contingency model is followed by a discussion











of the findings of research questions 4 and 5. The find-

ings associated with both questions are related to

selected literature in this section of Chapter IV.


Review of Fiedler's Contingency Model

Fiedler (1967) advanced the concept that the effec-

tiveness of a group is contingent upon the relationship

between the style of leadership employed by the leader and

the nature of the leadership situation (p. 15).

The leadership situation was described by Fiedler as

being comprised of three elements: (a) task structure,

(b) the leader's position power, and (c) group atmosphere.

Fiedler further categorized the leadership situation into

eight categories that he labeled octant 1 through octant

8. This conceptualization of the leadership situation is

shown in Figure 1. The three major elements used to

describe the leadership situation that are shown in Figure

1 are categorized as follows: (a) the task structure is

categorized as either structured or unstructured; (b) the

leader's position power is categorized as either strong or

weak; and (c) the group atmosphere is categorized as

either good or poor.

The description of the high school leadership situa-

tion according to the contingency model was presented in

Chapter II. This description identified the leadership

situation in a large high school as one in which the

position power of the principal is high and the task of the




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs