Citation
An analysis of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida

Material Information

Title:
An analysis of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida
Added title page title:
Leader behavior of community education
Creator:
Stefurak, Albert Linwood, 1945-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 124 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic communities ( jstor )
Community associations ( jstor )
Community education ( jstor )
Community schools ( jstor )
Educational administration ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Personal information ( jstor )
Professional training ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Tolerance for uncertainty ( jstor )
Community schools -- Administration -- Florida ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D
Leadership ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 117-122.
General Note:
Photocopy of typescript. Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms International, 1978.--22 cm.
General Note:
Vita.
General Note:
Typescript.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Albert Linwood Stefurak.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Albert Linwood Stefurak. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022296953 ( ALEPH )
04393893 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS IN FLORIDA











by

Albert Linwood Stefurak











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 1977















ACKNOWLED F MENTS


I wish to thank all those individuals who have contributed to my successful doctoral program, My three year tenure at the University of Florida brought me in contact with many truly outstanding people who added a great deal to my professional growth and development,

A very special thanks goes to my wife, Monty, for the

strength and support she provided. In addition, I w-uld like to congratulate her fc her p- serverance and endurance as we passed this was.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- -------------------------------------- i

LIST OF TABLES-------------------------------------------- iv

ABSTRAT------------------------------------------------------viii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------- I
Statement Of The Problem----------------------- 2
Del'mitations And Limitations--------------------- 5
Justification For The Study -------------------- 6
Definition Of Ter - --------------- ----- ---------- 10
Procedures ---------------------------------------- 11
Summary---------------------------------------------- 18

I SELECTED PFVIEW O RELATED LITERATURE---------- 20
Leadership Theory------------------------------ 20
Community Education History and Philosophy----- 29 Summary -------------------------------------------- 37

III FINDINGS Or THE L9^--XI I -------------------- 39
Summary Of The LRB'--X II Results--------------- 40
Summary---------------------------------------------- 69

i\ FINDINGS OF THE LEDER BEHAVIOR PROFILE-------- 72
Su a-,, y Of Leader iehavio- Profie Results----- 73 Sur~ y---------- ----------------------------- 85

v DISCUSSION, CONCL.: IONS, iPLICAI ONS,
AIC RECC'MENDAT ' NS------------------------- 87
Discussion---------------------------- ---------87
Corclusion ------------------------------------- 96
Rec'mmenda'ions F. Futur- Study--------------- 98

APPENDIX A------------------- --------------------------- 102

APPENDIX B-------------------------------------------------- 113

APPENDIX C--- --------------------------------------------- 114

REFEPFr:ES---------------------------- --------------------117

BIOG;4APICAL SKETCH-- ----------------------------------------123
















LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE 1.0 O--LBDQ--XII RESULTS------------------------------- 41

TABLE 1.1--REPRESENTATION---------------------- 4-------------41

TABLE i.2--REPRESENTATION----------------------------- 42

TABLE 1.3--REPRESENTATION----------------------------- 42

TABLE I .4--REPRESENTATION----------------------------- 42

TABLE i.5--REPRESENTATION----------------------- ----------43

TABLE 2.1--DEMAND RECONCILIAT ON-------------------------- 44

TABLE 2 2--DEMIAND RECONCILIAT ON--------------------------- 44

TABLE 2.3--DE'AND RE'ICILIAT N--------------------------------44

TABLE 2.4--DEMAND RECONCIL N--------------------------------- 45

TABLE 2.5--DEMAND RECONCILIPT'ON--------------------------- --- 45

TABLE 3.1--TOLERANCE OF U'CEITAINTY------------------------- 46

TABLE 3.2--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY------------------------ 46

TABLE 3.3--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY------------------------ 47

TABLE 3.4--TOLERANCE OF UNCEAINTY- ----------------------- 47

TABLE 3.5--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY------------------------ 48

TABLE 4.1--PERSUASIVENESS--------------------- -------------48

TABLE 4.2--PERSUASIVENESS----------------------- ---------- 49

TABLE 4.3--PERSUASIVENESS--------- ---------------------- 49

TABLE . 4--PEPSUASIVENES---------------------------------- 50

TABLE L 5--PERSUASIVENES----------------------- ----------- 50



1 V











LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

TABLE 5.1--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE -------------------------- 51

TABLE 5.2--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE ------------------------------51

TABLE 5.3--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE-------------------------- 51

TABLE 5.4--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE -------------------------- 52

TABLE 5.5--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE -------------------------- 53

TABLE 6.1--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM------------------------------- 53

TABLE 6.2--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM----------------------------- 54

TABLE 6.3--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM----------------------------- 54

TABLE 6.4--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM----------------------------- 55

TABLE 6.5--TOLERANCE OF FREEDCM------------------------------- 55

TABLE 7.1--RO.E RETENTION-----------------------------------------56

TABLE 7.2--ROLE RETENTION-------------------------------------- 56

TABLE 7.3--ROLE RETENTION--------------------------------------- 56

TABLE 7.4--ROLE RETENTION----- ----------------------------- 57

TABLE 7.5--ROLE RETENTION------------------------------------ 57

TABLE 8.1--CONSIDERAT I ON -------------------------------- 58

TABLE 8.7--CONSIDERATION ------------------------------------ 58

TABLE 8.3--CONSIDERATION ------------------------------------ 59

TABLE 3.4--CONSIDERATIONN ------ ------------------------------ 59

TABLE 8.5--CONSIDERATION ------------------------------------- 59

TABLE 9.!--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS---------- --------------------- 60

TABLE 9.2--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 60

TABLE 9. 3--PROD:JCTION EMPHASIS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 61

TABLE .4--PRODJCTION EMPHASIS ------------------------------- 61

TABLE " 5--PROD'CTION FMPHAS I ---------- - ----------------... 62


v











LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

TABLE 10.1--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY-------------------------------- 62

TABLE 10.2--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY ----------------------------- 62

TABLE 10.3--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY ----------------------------- 63

TABLE 10.4--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY----------------------------- 63

TABLE 10.5--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY- ----------------------------- 64

TABLE II.1--INTEGRATION------------------------ ------------64

TABLE 11.2--INTEGRATION------------ ----------- -----------65

TABLE 11.3--INTEGRATION----------------------------------------65

TABLE II.4--INTEGRATION---------------------- ---------------65

TABLE I1.5--INTEGRATION----------------------- -------------- 66

TABLE 12.1--SUPERIOR ORIFITATION---------------------------- 67

TABLE 12.2--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION---------------------------- 67

TABLE 12.3--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION---- ----------------------- 68

TABLE I;.4--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION---------------------------- 68

TABLE 12.5--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION----------------------------- 69

TABLE 13.0--CORPELATION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES------------ 70

TABLE 14.1--LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL)--------- 74

TABLE 14.2--LBDQ--XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL) ---------------------- 75

TABLE 15.1--Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL)--- 76 TABLE 15.2--Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS--COORDINATORS (ACTUAL)------ 77

TABLE 16.O--ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" - "ACTUAL"--------- 78

TABLE 16.1--REPRESENTATION----------------------------- 78

TABLE 16.2--DEMAND RECONCILIATION--------------------------- 79

TABLE I .3--TO' tRANCE OF UNCERTAINTY ------- ----------------- 79



v.












LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

TABLE 16.4--PERSUASIVENESS---------------------------------- 80

TABLE 16.5--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE- ------------------------ 81

TABLE 16.6--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM----------------------------- 81

TABLE I .7--ROLE RETENTION---------------------------------- 82

TABLE 16.8--CONSIDERATION----------------------------------- 82

TABLE 16.9--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS----------------------------- 83

TABLE '6.10--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY---------------------------- 83

TABLE 16.11--INTEGRATION------------------------------------- 84





































VI















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


AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS IN FLORIDA

by

Albert Linwood Stefurak December 1977

Chairman: Dr. Phillip A. Clark Major Department: Educational Administration

This study was conducted to determine the ideal nature of leader behavior of community 9'ucation coordinators based on the opinion of national community education authorities as well as to assess the actual nature of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida according to Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader behaviors. Specifically, the following questions were addressed:

1. Is there a relationship between the actual behavior exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the ideal leader behavior suggested by the national authorities?

2. Is there a relationship between the personal variables of sex. age, years of experience as a community education coordinator, previo-;s professional experience, and the 12 leader behavior categories:




'"











Representation

Demand Reconcil iation

Tolerance of Uncertainty

Persuasiveness

Initiation of Structure

Tolerance of Freedom

Role Retention Consideration

Production

Emphasis

Predictive Accuracy

Integration

Influence with Superiors?

Using an abridgement of the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire--XII, the Directors of the Centers for Community Education in 45 colleges and universities were surveyed to determine the ideal leader behavior of 15 selected coordinators as measured by five members of each coordinator's school community advisory council usirg the LBDQ--XII. In addition, the results of the LBDQ--XII were analyzed on the basis of five personal variables.

The following conclusions are based on the results of this study. Evidence from the comparison of ideal and actual leader behavior supports the conclusion that there are significant differences between the ideal leadership behavior suggested by national authorities and the ctual leader behavior exhibited by



ix












community education coordinators on 10 of the 12 constructs of the LBDQ--XII. Only two of the constructs, Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom, were not significantly different.

Concerning the five personal variables, the following conclusions were reached:

1. The variable of sex produced no significant differences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs.

2. The variable of age produced no significant differences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs.

3. The variable of years experience as a coordinator produced the significant difference in the perceived behavior of the coordinators in the constructs of Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation. There was no significant difference in the other nine constructs.

h. The variable of training in community education produced no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 constructs.

5. The variable of previous professional experience produced no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs.








X















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Many writers have indicated the changing role of education in society. Havighurst (Saxe, 1975) points out that various changes in situations and events have cumulated to make the school system more important today than it was 50 years ago. Educators are being confronted with many innovations and constantly changing values. Consequently, the educational system is also becoming more vulnerable to outside forces that impinge upon it. "Two of these situations are the rise of the community school movement and the rise of community control of the schools movement (p. viii).

An orientation to community education is based upon an

assumption that the individuals to be served by the educational establishment have a basic right to active participation in all aspects of the process. However, according to Saxe (1975), "school-community relations are adversely affected by an organizational phenomenon--bureauracy--and by psychological factors of educators--attitudes, opinions, and interests" (p. 1). When the organizational structure has been constructed in an attempt to address these situations, the individual charged with carrying out the community education function should be equipped to deal with the challenge. Community educators must provide the









2

appropriate leadership to allow community members to become involved in the educational decision-making process.

The major concern of this study was to examine leadership performance of community education coordinators in the development of community involvement in the community education process. Specifically, the focus of the investigation is on the behavior of individuals as they perform the function of leadership.


Statement Of The Problem

This study was designed to determine the "ideal" nature of leader behavior based on the opinion of national community education authorities as well as to assess the actual nature of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida according to Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader behavior (Stogdill, 1974).

Specifically, the following questions were addressed: i. Is there a relationship between the "actual" frequency

of leader behaviors exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the "ideal" frequency of

leader behavior suggested by the national authorities?

2. Is there a relationship between the following six

variables:

i. sex

IL. age

iii. years experience as a community education coordinator

iv. training in community education









3

v. previous professional experience

vi. professional aspirations

and the 12 leadership behavior categories based on the dimensions of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-XII?

The preceding questions were answered according to the ratings received by the selected community education coordinators on the 12 leadership behavior constructs. Construct 1: Representation

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators speak and act as the representative of the group based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 2: Demand Reconci!lation

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which

community education coordinators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 3: Tolerance for Urc-ertainty

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, ace, years experience, etc.?

Construct 4: Persuasiveness

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators use persuasion and











argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions based on personal data variables, i.e.. sex, age, years experience, etc.?

Construct 5: Initiation of Structure

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators clearly define their own role and allow followers to know what is expected of them, based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?

Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action, based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 7: Role Retention

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which

community education coordinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience,

etc.?

Construct 8: Consideration

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators regard the comfort, wellbeing, status and contribution of followers based upon the personal data variable, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?










5

Construct 9: Production Emphasis

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators apply pressure for productive output based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which

community education coordinators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 11: Integration

Is there e difference ir the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain a closely-knit organization ard resolve intermember conflict based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?

Construct 12: Superior Orientation

Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status based upon the personal data variable., i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?


Delimitations And Limitations

The following restrictions were observed in conducting the study:









6

1. The study of leadership behavior was based on data from 75 people located in various school districts in the state of Florida.

2. The persons chosen to participate were selected by community education coordinators and may not have been representatIve of the community at large.

3. The leader behaviors measured were restricted to

those dimensions measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--XII.

The following limitations were recognized in this investigation:

1. The resulting data are the perceptions of community members and not necessarily the actual behavior exhibited by the coordinator.

2. Responses may have been influenced by the respondent's desire to provide a positive image of leader behavior for the individual coordinator.

3. Data were gathered from the state of Florida only;

therefore, the generalizations drawn from the data are limited.


Justification For The Study

"The general function of organization and administration for community education is similar to that of any other organized educational endeavor: the character of the function is, however, influenced by the values that determine the philosophy" (Moore. 1972, p. 168). In addition, Moore stated that some basic assumptions should be mde concerning the characteristics









7

and goals of an effective community education organization.

Specifically, these assumptions should include:

-Reliance on democratically established
goals, and a viable philosophy should be substituted, in the main, for the
authority-oriented approach.

-The administrative staff should be an
"open" one, not fearing change or
challenge.

-The administrative climate should reflect the philosophy of community education, using a problem solving approach.

-A flat and flexible administrative organization, in contrast to a vertical
one, offers the best promise.

-The individual school and community must be seen as an educational unit, with freedom to adapt to the need of
the local area and delegated authority
commensurate with assigned responsibility.

-Administration should recognize that
not all wisdom is found in the administrative staff but is liberally possessed
by laymen and the teaching staff.

-Increasingly, decisions should be made
by those possessing the competence to do
so, not merely the rank or position.

-Leadership should bring people, ideas,
and resources together to produce an optimum opportunity for all learners.
(p. 159)

One of the problems faced by administrators in establishing community education is that of resistance to change on the

part of the public. Preparation programs of which most administrators are products, urge that the people be told about the

schools. Parents must be brought into the school, and the

school's programs sold to the people. Very few efforts have been









8

made which allow parents, students, and community members opportunities to express their feelings about the schools with school leaders. "information flow has been primarily one way. Legitimate outlets have not been provided for protest or discontent'' (Cunningham, 1971, p. 176).

Community educators bear an unusual burden for a strong program of communication and public relations. Establishing the rapport necessary for such communication requires the community educator to possess specialized human, technical, and conceptual skills (Weaver, 1975). These skills thus form the foundation upon which leader behavior is developed. Clark and Stefurak (1975) considered the community education leader most facile in human, technical and conceptual skills when his leader behavior is "other-centered."

This approach vests leadership in
others, rather than in status leaders.
Leaders using this approach make it
possible for others to emerge, assume responsibility, and participate in decision making. They help people become as involved in task development and completion as they wish to be involved, and encourage them to apply their skills and
creativity to mutually determined goals
(p. 19).

Such an approach to the organization and administration of community education requires an open flexible type of administration able to deal with direct community input.

There have been many attempts at so-called citizen participation in education over the years. However, as an attempt to increase public involvement, the state of Florida, in 1973, mandated that each school system must have a school advisory









9

council. Furthermore, within this mandate is the additional requirement that such councils are to be "broadly representative of the community served by the school" (Chapter 73-338; Laws of Florida). The school-community advisory council should provide the linkage between the community, its problems, and potential solutions.

However, Deshler and Erlich (1972), speaking of the

community advisory council movement in general, stated that "participation can very easily be phoney. Real lasting pervasive power must reside in effective collaboration between the community (including the students) and the school in all decision making" (p. 175).

According to Moore (1972), "the essence of the community education philosophy is that the program must serve and be responsive to the entire community. . . . The insecure administrator who depends upon status authority and a 'tight ship' operation will be very uncomfortable with this approach" (pp.169-170). Thus, the leadership provided by the community education coordinator plays a vital role in the development of the community education process. Considering the frequency of interpersonal interactions with a variety of publics, specific patterns of facilitative leadership behaviors should be involved in the role of community educator.

In general, this study should assist in the clarification and understanding of the leader behavior of community education coordinators as well as what variables might influence those behaviors.









10

Definition Of Terms

Community education. An operational philosophy of

education, when actualized serves the entire community by providing for all the educational needs of the community members. It provides the educational establishment a systematic methodology for bringing total community resources to bear on community problems in an effort to enhance community development.

Community education coordinator. That individual charged with the responsibility of developing and administering community education within the school center.

Leader. An individual who, based on his office or

official status in a group o- organization, is placed in the position of being able to influence the activities of that group or organization as it attempts to achieve its goals. In this study, the leader is identified as the community education coordinator.

Leader behavior. Those behaviors exhibited by an individual while he engages in influencing group or organizational activities.

School-community advisory council. "A representative

group of school-community members who hold common the common goal of community development through the identification of problems and the application of solutions" (Flint Community Schools, 1973, p. 1). An active council works to address community needs as determined by joint effort of the council and the community education coordiator.









11

Procedures

The procedures section is divided into three parts.

The first part includes the design of the study and selection of the sample. The second section is an explanation of the development of the instruments and the data collection process. The final section deals with the treatment of the collected

data.

Design and Sample

Community education coordinators. The community education coordinators were identified with assistance from the Florida Department of Education, Adult and Community Education Section. The Department of Education provided a list of 263 community education coordinators for the school year 1975-76. The list of coordinators was divided by male and female and each list was numbered. Using a random numbers table, 10. male and 10 female coordinators were chosen. The chosen coordinators were contacted by mail and asked to participate in the study. Two additional groups of five males and five females were randomly selected to provide alternate samples to complete the 20 coordinators. Those individuals who chose not to participate did so because they either did not have a school-community advisory council, did not relate to an existing school-community advisory council, or no longer functioned in the role of community education coordinator.

School-community advisory council members. The coordinators wore requested to identify the chairperson of their advisory council as well as four members to participate in the









12

study. The selection of only five advisory council members for each coordinator in the study could bias the results since the selection was done by the coordinator being rated. However, the same bias effect would apply equally to all respondents.

Directors of university centers for community education.

A total of 56 Center Directors was sampled to determine the "ideal" leader behavior. This constitutes the total population of individuals responsible for directing academic community education leadership training programs in the United States during fiscal year 1977. The names and addresses of these individuals were provided by the University of Florida Center for Community Education. Instrumentation and Data Collection

Instrument. The instrument used in this study was the

Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII developed by Ralph Stogdill (1963). The questionnaire was designed to obtain descriptions of leaders, through 12 dimensions of leader behavior. The leader behavior is perceived objectively in terms of the frequency of occurrence within the 12 dimensions. A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix A. In addition to the basic instrument, a personal data sheet was developed. This questionnaire was for personal data such as age and sex, as well as specific information concerning years experience as a community educatior coordinator, training in community education, previous professional experience and professional aspirations. A copy of the personal data questionnaire is included in Appendix B.









13

The third instrument, the Leader Behavior Profile was developed by the researcher for the purpose of identifying the "ideal" importance or priorities for the 12 dimensions of leader behavior measured by the LBDQ--XII. The profile is an abridgement of the LBDQ--XII and consists of the 12 categories which the LBDQ--XII measures. This instrument was used to assess the opinion of Community Education Center Directors concerning the priorities for specific leader behaviors. A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix C. Data Treatment

LBDQ--XII consists of 100 items describing leader behavior. Each item is answered using a structured answer format with one of five possible responses: always, often, occasionally, seldom, never. Each item receives a score from five to one. Each subscale score consists of the sum of the scores from the items of the subscale.

Stogdill (1970) concluded that subscales of the LBDQ--XII were differentially related to different dimensions of leader personality, member satisfaction, and group performance. His theoretical work was based on the factors of identifiable behavior patterns.

The following 12 dimensions of leader behavior were defined in the LBDQ--XII.

1. Representation. The perceived degree to which an

individual speaks and acts as the representative of the group.

2. Demand Reconciliation. The perceived degree to which an individual reconciles con l icting demands and reduced disorder to the system.









14

3. Tolerance for Uncertainty. The perceived degree to which an individual is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset.

4. Persuasiveness. The perceived degree to which an individual uses persuasion and argument effectively and exhibits strong convictions.

5. Initiation of Structure. The perceived degree to which an individual clearly defines his own role and allows followers to know what is expected of them.

6. Tolerance of Freedom. The perceived degree to which an individual allows followers scope for initiative, decision, and action.

7. Role Retention. The perceived degree to which an

individual actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others.

8. Consideration. The perceived degree to which an

individual regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of followers.

9. Production Emphasis. The perceived degree to which an individual applies pressure for productive output.

10. Predictive Accuracy. The perceived degree to which an individual exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately.

11. Integration. The perceived degree to which an individual maintains a closely knit organization and resolves intermember conflict.










15

12. Superior Orientation. The perceived degree to which

an individual maintains cordial relations with superiors; has

influence over them, and is striving for higher status.

The Leader Behavior Profile consists of the 12 behavior

constructs measured by the LBOQ--XII. The respondent was

requested to rank in order of importance the 12 categories of

leader behavior. A forced-choice method was used for ranking

the 12 categories. Values were assigned based on the following scale: Most Important, Very Important, Moderate Importance, Slight Importance, Little or No Importance. Each

category received a score from five to one. This parallel

scale enabled a comparison between the LBDQ--XII subscales and

the Leader Behavior Profile categories.

Validity

In Stogdill's (1970) Review of Research on the LBDQ--XII,

he explained the test of validity given.

In order to test the validity of the
subscales of the L.B.D.Q.--XII, Stogdill
(1963) with the assistance of a playwright, wrote a scenario for each of the subscales.
The items in a subscale were used as a basis
for writing the scenario for that pattern
of behavior. Experienced actors played the role of supervisor and workers. Each role was played by two different actors. Motion pictures were made of the role performance.
Observers used L.B.D.Q.--XII to describe
the behavior of the supervisor. No significant difference was found between two different actors playing the same role. However, the actors playing a given role were
described significantly higher in that role
than in other roles. Since each role was
designed to portray the behaviors represented by the items in its respective subscale, and
since the same itens were used by the observers to describe the playing of the role, it can be









16

concluded that the scales measure what
they are purported to measure (p. 5). Reliability

A modified Kuder-Richardson formula was used to determine the reliability of the LBDQ--XII. Each item was correlated with the remainder of the items in the subscale. The resulting reliability coefficients ranged from .54 to .87 for nine different groups of leaders, indicative of sufficient reliability for use in this study (Stogdill, 1963). Administration

The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII can be used by a leader to describe his own behavior, or by associates of the leader to describe a given leader.

The LBDQ--XII (Appendix A) was administered to five school community advisory council members. The community education coordinator completed the personal data sheet (A.ppendix B).

The Leader Behavior Profile was completed by Center Directors from the Centers for Community Education. Method of Securing Data

Initial contact with the 20 community education coordinators was made by mail. Each coordinator was asked to participate in the study and to provide information concerning the school-community advisory.council. Following this initial contact, the researcher contacted each coordinator by phone to discuss the study and obtain a date for gathering the data.

Copies of the LBDQ--XII and the personal data sheet were mailed to the coordinator. Instructions were given for the








17

questionnaire to be distributed by the chairperson of the advisory council. Upon completion of the questionnaire, the chairpersons were to return the questionnaires and the coordinators' personal data sheet directly to the researcher. Instruction for completing the survey were placed on the first page of the instrument (Appendix A). The instrument required approximately 30 minutes to complete. A series of follow-up contacts were made with those individuals who were slow in returning the questionnaires.

The Leader Behavior Profile was mailed with a cover letter to each of the directors of University Centers for Community Education. Directions for completing the survey were placed on the first page of the instrument. The instrument required approximately 15 minutes to complete. A follow-up contact was made with the Directors who were negligent in returning the survey.

Method of Statistical Analysis

Data for analysis were drawn from the administration of

the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII and the Leader Behavior Profile. The data received from the LBDQ--XII were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to answer each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05 level of significance was used for each of the constructs. A follow-up test was performed on those variables found to be significant using Tukey's HSD procedure. The data for each question was









18

based upon the ratings of the participant coordinators made by the advisory council members

The data received from the Leader Behavior Profile were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure. Effect coding was used on the raw data to compensate for the unequal number in each group. Raw scores from the LBDQ--XII and the Leader Behavior Profile were changed to z-scores to conform to the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and to standardize the mean scores for the two sets of data. A simple linear regression procedure was used in computing the F-test and thus provided for orthogonal comparisons between the "ideal" behavior as determined by the Center Directors and the "actual" behavior as reported by the advisory council members. The .01 level of significance was used.

The services of the University of Florida Computer Center were employed to analyze the data. Computer analysis were run using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.


Summary

The sample population for this study was composed of 20 community school coordinators from Florida who were randomly selected. Each of the coordinators identified five schoolcommunity advisory council members to participate in the study. In addition, all the directors of university Centers for Community Education were surveyed.









19

The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form X11, developed by Ralph Stogdill was the instrument used to assess community council members perceptions of the coordinators' leader behavior. A personal data sheet was developed to obtain from the selected coordinators the information used for analysis.

The Leader Behavior Profile, an abridgement of the

LBDQ--XII, was used to collect data from the Center Directors concerning "ideal" leader behavior. These data were used to compare the "ideal" behaviors with the "actual" behaviors of the coordinators.

The data for each of the 12 constructs for the LBDQ--XII were grouped by personal data variables and analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedures using the .05 level of significance. Data for comparison of the Center Directors' "ideal" with the coordinators' "actual" were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure. The .01 level of significance was used for this analysis.

Chapter II contains a review of related literature and relative studies pertaining to the leadership in community education.
















CHAPTER 11

SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


The purpose of this chapter is to review literature and research relevant to the study of community education coordinators. The focus of this study is on the leadership behavior of community education coordinators. This chapter contains two sections entitled: Leadership Theory and Community Education History and Philosophy.


Leadership Theory

Leadership theories are reviewed in light of the leadership theme of this study. There are basically six categories of leadership theories. In this specific research effort, the "interaction-expectation" theories were chosen for the basis of the study. Literature pertaining to the other five types of leadership theories will only be briefly discussed. Environmental Theories

Murphy (1941) contended that leadership qualities were not part of the individual, but a function of the situation. The leader evaluates the situation and is the instrumental factor through which the solution is achieved.

The cultural setting, according to Schneider (1937) is the controlling factor in leadership. He found that great




20









21

military leaders in England emerged in proportion to the number of conflicts.

Great Man Theories

Dowd (1936) concluded that individuals possess different degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force; therefore, a superior few will inevitably emerge as leaders.

Bernard (1926) advanced similar conclusions from his

study in social psychology. He maintained that leadership can be explained in terms of traits of personality and character. Therefore, trait theories could be used to explain leadership. Personal-Situational Theories

By combining the two previously mentioned theories, another method for describing and studying leadership was established. Case (1933) suggested that leadership is produced by three factors: (1) the personality traits of the leader, (2) the nature of the group and of its members, and (3) the event confronting the group.

Gibb (1954) maintained that when group formation and

interaction take place, leadership is a natural interaction phenomenon.

Bennis (1966) established five considerations when developing leadership theory: (1) impersonal bureaucracy and rationality of measures, (2) informal organization and interpersonal relations, (3) benevolent autocracy which gets results because it structures the relationship between superior and subordinates, (4) job enlargement and employee-centered supervision that permits individual self actualization, and (5)








22

participation management and joint consultation that allow integration of individual and organizational goals.

Cattell (1951) suggested that leadership represents a dynamic interaction between the goals of the leader and the goals of the followers. It functions to help the group decide upon a goal and to help the group find the means to the goal. Humanistic Theories

The development of effective and cohesive organizations was a major concern of Argyris and McGregor.

Argyris (1964) identified a basic conflict between the

organization and the individual. He stated that it is the individual's character to be self-directive and to seek fulfillment through exercising initiative and responsibility. On the other hand, it is the tendency of organizations to structure member roles and to control performance in the interest of achieving specified objectives.

McGregor (1966) perceived leadership on the basis of two

organizational types--Theory X and Theory Y. A Theory X leader attempts to direct and motivate people from the assumption that people are passive and resistant to organizational needs. Theory Y presumes that people already possess motivation and desire for responsibility and therefore, the leader attempts to structure conditions in order to make possible fulfillment of their needs while directing their efforts to achieve the organizational objectives.

Likert (1967) observed that leadership is based on interaction. The leader builds group cohesiveness and motivation










23

by providing freedom for responsible decision making and exercise of initiative.

Exchange Theories

Jacobs (1965) conceptualized leadership in terms of a social exchange theory. It is based on the assumption that the group provides status and esteem satisfaction to the leader in exchange for his contribution to goal attainment. Leadership implies an equitable exchange relationship between leader and followers. Acknowledgement of role obligations allows each party to satisfy the expectations of others on an equitable basis.

Interaction-Expectation Theories

Homans (1950) based his theory of leadership on three

variables: action, interaction, and sentiment. Leadership is defined in terms of organization of interaction. The greater the frequency of interaction and participation between members, the greater the mutual liking and clarity of group norms. The higher the rank of a person within the group, the wider the interaction, the more likely his activities conform to group norms, and the greater the number of group members for whom he originates interaction.

The Ohio State Leadership Studies (Stogdill, 1974) were organized in an attempt to develop a more definitive theory of leadership. According to Stogdill (1974), much of the research which had taken place earlier focused upon an attempt to differentiate the traits of leaders. Bird (1940), Jenkins (1947),









24

and Stogdill (1948) indicated that the trait approach was less than satisfactory in explaining leadership.

Since the trait approach had proved unsuccessful, a new approach was suggested. 'Attempts were made to study the behaviors rather than the traits of leaders--in other words, to describe an individual's behavior while he acted as a leader of a group or organization' (Stogdill, 1974, p. 128).

Realizing leadership is to a degree situational, Halpin

(1959) provided a concise explanation of the behavioral approach to the study of leaders:

First of all, it focuses upon observed
behavior rather than upon a posited
capacity inferred from this behavior.
No presuppositions are made about a
one-to-one relationship between leader behavior and an underlying capacity or
potentiality presumably determinative of this behavior. By the same token,
no apriori assumptions are made that the leader behavior which the leader exhibits in one group situation will be manifested in other group situations. . . . nor does the term . .. suggest that this behavior
is determined either innately or situationally. Either determinant is possible, as
is any combination of the two, but the
concept of leader behavior does not itself
predispose us to accept one in opportion
to the other. (p. 12)

Although differences in terminology emerged, theorists

and researchers alike reached rather remarkable agreement on at least two major dimensions or variables associated with leader behavior. Barnard (1938) delineated the difference between organizational efficiency and organizational effectiveness. Likewise, Cartwright and Zander (1953) identified leader behaviors oriented toward maintenance of efficiency and effectiveness which









25

they categorized as goal attainment activities and work-group maintenance activities. These behaviors strongly paralleled those found in the writings of Barnard.

Similarly, Kahn and Katz (Cartwright and Zander, 1953) delineated two major behaviorial styles among supervisors. They noted that some supervisors were production-oriented and tended to stress efficiency, production, and goal attainment; while others were employee-oriented and stressed motivation, morale, and employee satisfaction.

Initially, two major dimensions of leader behavior were identified by researchers at Ohio State University. Hemphill (1950) and his associates at Ohio State developed a list of approximately 1800 items describing different aspects of leader behavior. Through a process of sorting into sub-scales, 150 items were found to be consensus assignments. These were used to develop the list form of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).

Halpin and Winer (1957) delineated two basic dimensions to leader behavior--initiating structure and consideration--following the work of Hemphill (1950). There is nothing unique about these two dimensions of leader behavior. The ideas embodied in the concepts of initiating structure and consideration may have been used by effective leaders for a long time in guiding their behavior with group members, "while the concepts themselves, with different labels perhaps, have been invoked frequently by philosop'hers and social scientists to explain the leadership phenomena" (Halpin, 1966, p. 87).










26

Many other individuals have hypothesized similar dimensions. In an attempt to summarize evidence to substantiate these dimensions, Bass (1960) cited more than 20 studies which had been conducted in organizational environments (pp. 101-105).

Halpin and Croft (Stogdill, 1974) were not satisfied that leader behavior could be adequately described with two factors. They developed a four factor scale: Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration (p. 142).

Agreeing with Halpin and Croft (1962) that two factors were not sufficient to describe the complexities of leader behavior, Stogdill (1959) developed a new theoretical framework known as the exoectancy-reinforcement theory of role attainment. According to Stogdill, as group members interact, their roles are defined by mutually confirmed expectations relative to the performances and interactions. As each individual interacts, he is judged by the contributions he makes to the group. The initiation and maintenance of structure defines the level of interaction and expectation. In the predistinguished leadership positions, the leader is expected to play a role that differs from the roles of other group members.

This expectancy reinforcement model is applicable to the study of community education coordinators. Stogdill's research has yielded several leadership surveys. One form, the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII, will be used in this study. The leader behavior approach has been used previously in a variety of manners for the study of school administrators and community education coordinators.









27

For example, Halpin (1956) studied 50 Ohio school superintendents to determine the relationship between the superintendent's own perception of how he or she behaved on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire as compared with the school board and staff perceptions. Sharpe (1956) studied the leadership of principals--described by teachers, staff members, and self. The three groups held similar ideals of leader behavior.

Brown (1966) focused on the leader behavior of 170 principals in Alberta, Canada. Using the LBDQ--XII, the findings indicated that (1) teachers' estimates of the school's performance were not sensitive to the perception of leadership in the school,

(2) teacher satisfaction was sensitive to the perception of the school leadership, and (3) confidence in principal was related to school leadership.

Jacob (1965) compared "high" and "low" innovating principals using the LBDQ--XII. He found that the high innovating principals received higher ratings on six dimensions of leader behavior: Initiating Structure, Predictive Accuracy, Representation, Integration, Persuasion,and. Consideration.

In a study of the perceptions of principals and community school coordinators with respect to the variables authority, responsibility, and delegation,Mitchell (1973) found no significant difference between the principal's perception and the coordinator's perception of the coordinator's behavior in Initiating Structure or Consideration. Likewise, Gregg (1975), in a recent study of community education coordinators, determined that, within an advisory council setting, coordinators and council









28

members would prefer the director use more behavior indicative of both Initiating Structure and Consideration than those they presently used. However, there was an even greater preference for leader behavior indicative of Consideration than that of Initiating Structure.

Walker (1971), using the LBDQ, found that in comparing

effectiveness and personal factors of community education coordinators, the effectiveness was independent of age, experience as a coordinator, and grade level of teaching experience. Directors with seven or more years of public school experience were more effective in Initiating Structure than those with less than seven years experience. However, he found no difference in Consideration. Community education coordinators with master's degrees were more effective in Initiating Structure and Consideration than those with bachelor's degrees.

According to Hencley (1973), studies based on a behavioral approach support some basic generalizations about leaderships:

1. Educational leaders are perceived
to possess unique leader behavior
orientations.

2. Preferences and expectations for
leader behavior vary widely among
reference groups.

3. The leader's perceptions of his own
behavior differ from others' perceptions. (pp. 148-149)

Halpin (1966) contends that what the .leader does and how

he does it as perceived by others who work with the leader is the nucleus of leader behavior. Evaluation of leader behavior can be made in terms of the individual, the group, or both.









29

According to Owens (1970), the study of leadership

should be an observed behavior. Thus, research should give attention to what happened or appears to be happening rather than on finding the cause of observed behavior.


Community Education History and Philosophy

Although Clark and Olsen (1977) trace the historical roots of community education to the thirteenth century, history is not clear as to when the concept was really first applied. Totten and Manley (1969) speculated that some community school principles were used when people first began to live together in any form of community and began to transmit the process of learning from elders to youth (p. 15). Berridge (1969) traced the use of public school facilities for community activities to the Colonial Period in American history. Schools were used for adult evening classes as early as 1810 in Providence, Rhode Island, and approximately 30 years later in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Chicago (Mann, 1956, p. 11).

Barnard (1938), writing in the middle and later nineteenth century, advocated the school as a vehicle for improving social, moral and economic conditions through citizen involvement.

Dewey & Dewey (1962) advocated community use of public school facilities in 1915:

In using the school plant for any
activities . . the people of the community feel that they are using
for their own ends public facilities
which have been paid for by their
taxes. They want to see real, tangible,
results in the way of more prosperous
and efficient families and better civic









30

conditions, coming from the increased
plant in the district school. Because the schools are public institutions in
fact as well as name, people know whether
the schools are really meeting their needs
and they are willing to work to see they
do. (p. 164)

Totten and Manley (1969) gleaned from the writings of

Dewey a list of concepts from which the philosophy of community

education was conceived. They are as follows:

1. There must be a two way interaction
between the community and the school.

2. The school itself must be organized
as a community. The school has a corporate life of its own and is itself a genuine social institution, a community.

3. Learning must be planned in consideration of the total environment of
the individual.

4. The school should be organized around
the social activities in which children will engage after leaving school.

5. Society has a definite effect upon
discipline in the school.

6. Social environment supplies the intangible attitudes and determination
to improve the society.

7. Education should be consciously used
by society as an instrument for its
own improvement.

8. The future adult society should be an
improvement over that in which its
members lived as children.

9. Education may be consciously used to
eliminate obvious social evils through
starting the young on paths that will
not produce these ills.










31

10. Activity and learning go hand in
hand. People learn by doing. Hence, the program of learning for children and adults alike is related to life as it goes on outside the classroom.
(pp. 16-17)

Hart (1924), a contemporary of Dewey, also stressed

the idea that education could not be produced by school alone. It had to be a joint effort of the schools and the community.

Everett (1938), Clapp (1939), Cook (1941), and Olsen

(1945) were significant contributors to the community school movement. Their writings promoted the concept of the essential nature of linking education with the community.

Seay (Henry,1945), writing for the National Society for the Study of Education, described the community school thusly:

'Community school' is the term currently
applied to a school that has two distinctive phases--service to the entire community . . . and discovery, development and use of resources of the community as part of the educational
facilities of the school. The concern
of the community school with local
community is intended not to restrict
the school's attention to local matters,
but to provide a focus from which to
relate study and action in the larger community--the state, the region, the
nation and the world. (p. 209)

Many educational leaders during the 1930's and 1940's

felt keenly the need to redesign the public education program to meet the needs of local communities. However, despite the abundance of writing, few districts chose to adopt the community school concept.

In 1935, the Flint, Michigan schools initiated a community school program. With financial support from the Charles Stewart









32

Mott Foundation, the Flint Board of Education developed and

conducted educational programs of an enrichment and competency

nature-=programs beyond those normally undertaken by a public

school system. Assuming that a child is molded and developed

by his total environment, the Foundation supported a series

of programs designed to uplift the entire population. Programs in health services for children, adult education, adult

recreation, civic affairs, socialization, and curriculum enrichment have been offered through the public schools. Within

this concept, the school became much more than a six-hours-aday institution for youth. It became a community education

center with programs in health, adult education, recreation,

compensatory education, and enrichment for all the residents of

the community (Clancy, 1965).

Mott (1959) explained the community education philosophy

in Flint as follows:

After 25 years of experimentation, the
Mott Foundation considers the public
school the ideal instrument to achieve
the end of community education, for the public school has played the traditional
role of common denominator in our society, and today is an institution truly
representative of all classes, creeds, and colors . . . the physical plant of
the schools, representing a huge community investment, are perfectly suited for community recreation and education
and the use of these facilities eliminates the need for costly duplication . . the
schools are geographically suited to serve as neighborhood centers of recreation, education and democratic action and by their
nature are readily accessible to every man,
woman and child . . . and if experimental
programs can be proved feasible with a
school system, the transition from private
support to public support is relatively
easy (pp. 141-161).










33

Sparked by the impetus given by the Mott Foundation,

community education has emerged into a comprehensive and

dynamic concept. Clark and Olsen (1977) stated that:

Today's thinking about community education culminates the contributions of
hundreds of writers and practitioners community education, simply stated, is an operational philosophy of education and a system for community development.
It is comprehensive in scope and of high potential, equally applicable to any organization, association, or agency that
provides learning opportunities for community members. It is a philosophy that subscribes to the systematic involvement of community members of all ages in the
educational process. It further suggests
the maximum utilization of all human,
physical and financial resources of the
community. It is a philosophy that
stresses interinstitutional and agency
coordination and cooperation. It recognizes that learning is lifelong and that we provide various types of learning experience for community members, regardless of their ages. It is a philosophy
that advocates democratic involvement
of community members in problem-solving
and stresses that educational curriculum,
programs, and services should be community
centered (pp. 81-90).

Campbell (1969) saw the community education coordinator

as the connecting link between theory and practice.

He is the one person, perhaps more than any other, who interprets educational programs to the people, and
then in reverse makes known to the
central office the desire of the
people in the neighborhoods. . . .
He and the principal get citizens
into the educational act as committee members assisting with the evolvement, execution, and evaluation of the educational programs (pp. 48-49).










34
The operational setting of a community educator is the community. According to Melby (1972),a well developed community education program multiplies the number of human contacts and draws heavily from the inputs of the public.

Because of the emphasis on interpersonal interaction with a variety of publics, the community educator must possess a high degree of competency in dealing with others. The development of community education requires an underlying ability to provide leadership for community members as they work toward community educational goals.

Minzey and LeTarte (1972) stated it thusly:

The organizational structure may be developed in several ways, but must provide for maximum opportunity for
every community member to be aware of what is happening and to express his concerns in a way that they will
have impact on the proper people.
(p. 34)

To accomplish such a goal, it has been suggested (Nance, 1972) that community education coordinators possess the usually preferred personality characteristics such as honesty, resourcefulness, etc. But above all, he should be trustworthy. He must be able to establish a relationship with all elements of the community built upon the highest level of trust. Much of the effectiveness of a community education coordinator depends upon the degree to which he can build good human relations. He must maintain a friendly atmosphere, encourage participation, and help people feel that they are a vital part of the community school. He must devise procedures that will enable people to









35
practice leadership skills and further develop their own leadership potential. (pp. 52-55)

Likewise, Clark and Stefurak (1975) identified characteristics used by Wittmer and Myrick to describe facilitative teachers, as keys to facilitative leadership for community educators. The interpersonal qualities were identified as follows:

(1) effective listening; focusing on the
personal meaning that accompanies the
spoken word, (2) genuineness; being yourself at all times, not playing roles,
(3) understanding; being attuned to the
perceptions of other people, (4) respect;
accepting each person as a human being
without passing judgment on him, (5) intelligence; knowing how to lead and how
to help others to lead, (6) skills in
interpersonal communications; being
aware of the impact of your words and
actions on others. (p. 19)

Berridge (1973) describes a community education coordinator as an "encourager or an initiator" (p. 66). These terms were fitting, in fact his job requires the coordinator to encourage individuals, groups, agencies, and institutions to become actively involved in the educational process. The coordinator is also the initiator in that he functions as the agent to facilitate planning and implementing projects. His major task is to broaden the base of involvement within the community. To perform with success, the coordinator must exhibit behavior which is indicative of consideration and empathy for others in order to work in harmony with the public. Berridge (1973) stated that:









36

In effect, he is constantly putting
others ahead of himself and is building their self-concepts. In effect, the coordinator is constantly trying
to work himself out of a job. (p. 67)

Totten (1969) succinctly stated the role of a community

education leader.

Most communities are denied the benefits
of community education because of a
scarcity of dedicated leaders. The development of leaderhship ability on the
part of people of all ages is one of the
major goals of community education. (p. 19)

Working with the community as equal partners in decisionmaking is essential to success of community education. However,

developing such a relationship is no simple task.

A point often overlooked in discussions of community-school development is the
key importance of the administrator himself: (a) his philosophical orientation toward the relation of education and the
community, (b) the kind of administrative
behavior he displays, (c) his personal
characteristics, and (d) the nature and extent of his professional preparation.
(Anderson and Davies, 1956, p. 78)

Weaver (1975) suggested that community education training

should address skill development in the conceptual, human, and

technical areas. Specifically he stated that training must

enable the individual to:

(1) Develop ability to analyze the
elements in the leadership situations and select appropriate leadership styles

(2) Develop and apply required styles of
leadership

(3) Develop personal requisites to community education leadership









37

(4) Develop technical skills appropriate
to community education leadership

(5) Develop human skills appropriate to
community education leadership

(6) Develop conceptual skills appropriate
to community education leadership.
(p. 26)

Minzey and LeTarte (1972) established similar criteria for community education training. They indicated that the training needs fall under four general headings: (a) understanding community education philosophy; (b) technical skills for implementing community education; (c) humanitarian concerns; and (d) general administrative skills (pp. 176-178).

Kliminski (1974) used a superordinate rating for evaluating the technical, conceptual, and human skills of 40 selected community education coordinators. In this study it was found that coordinators chosen as successful had a significantly larger number of semester hours of course work in community education, had worked with community education a significantly longer period of time, and had significantly more intensified training in community education than had other coordinators.


Summary

The review of selected related literature indicated that

leadership can be interpreted through the measurement of leader behavior. Little research has been done concerning the leader behavior of community education coordinators.

Community education is a growing movement in the field of education. The underlying basis to its philosophy is the









38

democratic involvement of community members in the decisionmaking process. Many of the writings in the field stress the need for facilitative leadership as a basis for effective performance. The training institutions which produce community education leaders are providing technical, human, and conceptual skills which should enable the community education leaders to exhibit behaviors indicative of facilitative leadership.

Facilitative leader behaviors are essential to the development of leadership ability in community members. Active leadership by community members is necessary for effective community education development. The focus of this research effort was to analyze the leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida. The ability to predict leader behavior by identifying specific personal data would enable administrators to select those individuals best prepared to deal with the requirements of the community education role.
















CHAPTER Ill

FINDINGS OF THE LBDQ--XII


The analysis of data as set forth in chapter I is reported in this chapter. Data for analysis were drawn from administration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII. The LBDQ--XII was administered to five members of each participating coordinator's advisory council. Each coordinator completed the personal data form.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to answer the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior based on the personal data variables. A follow-up test was done on those variables found to be significant using Tukey's HSD procedure. The significance level was set at .05. Each question was answered on the basis of the ratings of the participant coordinators provided by the advisory council members.

Two computer programs were run using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences--Version H, Release 6.02. The first analysis was used to identify the mean scores and standard deviation of all the coordinators on each of the 12 constructs. Coordinators were assigned to categories based on their responses to the personal data variables. The coordinators were then compared by groups and a test for statistical significance differences among groups was performed in the second computer run.



39









40

Summary Of The LBDQ--XII Results

Of the 100 questionnaires distributed, 75 were returned, yielding a total return rate of 75%. Fifteen of the 20 coordinators chosen actually participated. Table 1.0 indicates the results of the responses on the LBDQ--XII by behavior construct. Statistical analysis of the LBDQ--XII results were applied to each of the 12 behavior constructs and interpreted using a one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-HSD procedure. Tests were run for comparisons on the basis of the personal data variables. For the purposes of these analyses, the responses on the personal data variable of training were grouped. The responses to academic community education training and a full year internship were grouped as academic training. The responses to two-week workshops and in-service workshops were grouped as in-service workshops. The category of supervised field experience had no responses. The category of onthe-job training was used intact. The results of the analysis are reviewed by each of the 12 leader behavior constructs. Construct 1: Representation

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in

the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 1.1 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinates are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicated that the difference between the males and females'was not significant at the .05 level. Table









41

1.2 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age.

TABLE I.O--LBDQ--XII RESULTS
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Category Score Score Score Deviation Representation 32.00 47.00 44.15 4.24 Demand Reconciliation 37.00 48.00 43.00 3.14 Tolerance of Uncertainty 35.00 44.60 39.68 2.63 Persuasiveness 33.80 45.00 40.53 3.28 Initiation of Structure 34.60 44.60 40.80 2.70 Tolerance of Freedom 36.00 45.40 41.45 2.60 Role Retention 32.00 47.80 41.92 4.70 Consideration 38.40 46.80 44.72 2.20 Production Emphasis 31.20 39.00 34.57 2.24 Predictive Accuracy 36.40 45.20 40.01 2.42 Integration 36.00 48.00 42.49 3.66 Superior Orientation 35.00 43.80 39.84 2.74
n = 15


TABLE 1.1--REPRESENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 42.29 1.7 0.211 Female 6 39.43 The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.3 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a









42

TABLE 1.2--REPRESENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 40.00 0.2 0.799 Age: 31-40 6 40.83 Age: 41-over 6 42.03


TABLE 1.3--REPRESENTATION
F F'
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less than
three years 5 39.72 1.7 0.217 Experience: 3-6 years 8 42.88 Experience: over 6 years 2 37.80 community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.4 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.


TABLE 1.4--REPRESENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 41.20 2.4 0.127 Training: in-service 6 38.67 Training: on-the-job 6 41.20 Table 1.5 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the









43

type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.


TABLE 1.5--REPRESENTATION
- F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 40.20 0.4 0.628 Previous experience:
secondary 8 40.57 Previous experience:
other 4 43.00


The sixth variable of professional aspiration was not

analyzed for any of the constructs. Thirteen of the coordinators had professional aspirations of becoming public school principals. Three of the coordinators each listed three different professional aspirations: a certified public accountant; a college professor; a trainer of community education coordinators. Because of the break down of the grouping, a statistical comparison was not considered. Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to to the system. Table 2.1 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the personal data variable sex. The results









44

indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level.


TABLE 2.1--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 44.08 3.1 0.098 Female 6 41.36 Table 2.2 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 2.2--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 43.53 1.2 0.327 Age: 31-40 6 41.50 Age: 40-over 6 44.23 Table 2.3 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 2.3--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than three years 5 41.32 1.8 0.197 Experience: 3-6 years 8 41.70 Experience: over 6 years 2 44.38








45

Table 2.4 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 2.4--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 42.66 1.9 0.177 Training: in-service 6 41.40 Training: on-the-job 6 44.76 Table 2.5 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 2.5--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 41.73 0.9 0.427 Previous experience:
secondary 8 42.60 Previous experience:
other 4 43.00 Construct 3: Tolerance of Uncertainty

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education









46

coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 3.1 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 3.1--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 39.93 .19 0.666 Female 6 39.30 Table 3.2 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by t-he personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 3.2--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 41.87 1.3 0.292 Age: 31-40 6 39.10 Age: 41-over 6 39.17 Table 3.3 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.









47

TABLE 3.3--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 5 38.76 2.8 0.097 Experience: 3-6 years 8 40.93 Experience: over 6 years 2 37.00 Table 3.4 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 3.4--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: Academic 3 42.07 3.4 0.064 Training: In-service 6 38.00 Training: On-the-job 6 40.16 Table 3.5 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.









48

TABLE 3.5--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 40.5 .21 0.807 Previous experience:
secondary 8 39.3 Previous experience:
other 4 39.8 Construct 4: Persuasiveness

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings, as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators use persuasion and argument effectively when the coordinators were grouped by sex, age, training, and previous experience. However, a significant difference was found when the coordinators were grouped according to years experience as a community education coordinator. Table 4.1 reports the results of responses to the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 4.1--PERSUASIVENESS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 40.20 .22 0.650 Female 6 41.03










49

Table 4.2 reports the results of the responses to the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 4.2--PERSUASIVENESS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 41.53 .31 0.742 Age: 31-40 6 40.83 Age: 41.and over 6 39.73


Table 4.3 reports the results of the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. Those coordinators with over six years experience were perceived to use persuasion and argument significantly less. than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience. Using the Tukey-HSD procedure, those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience did not differ significantly.

TABLE 4.3--PERSUASIVENESS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 5 40.40 11.7 0.002 Experience: 3-6 years 8 42.18 Experience: over 6 years 2 34.30*

*Group 3 differed significantly from groups I and 2









50

Table 4.4 reports the results of the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 4.4--PERSUASIVENESS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: Academic 3 41.40 1.6 0.241 Training: In-service 6 38.77 Training: On-the-job 6 41.86 Table 4.5 reports the results of the responses for the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 4.5--PERSUASIVENESS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 41.07 .94 0.417 Previous experience:
secondary 8 39.50 Previous experience:
other 4 42.20 Construct 5: Initiation of Structure

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which the community education coordinators









51

clearly define his/her role and lets followers know what is expected of them when the coordinators were grouped by sex, age, and previous experience. However, a significant difference was found when the coordinators were grouped according to training and years experience as a community education coordinator. Table 5.1 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 5.1--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 41.31 .79 0.394 Female 6 40.03 Table 5.2 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 5.2--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 41.00 .11 0.887 Age: 31-40 6 40.37 Age: 41-over 6 41.13 Table 5.3 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience










52

as a community education coordinator. Those coordinators with three to six years experience in community education were perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly defined their role and let followers know what is expected of them than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with more Than six years experience.

TABLE 5.3--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 5 39.28 17.4 0.000 Experience: 3-6 years 8 42.78* Experience: over 6 years 2 36.70

*Group 2 differs significantly from groups I and 3 Table 5.4 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the groups was significant at the .05 level. However, when the Tukey-HSD procedure was applied, none of the three groups were found to differ significantly from each other.

TABLE 5.4--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 42.27* 5.05 0.025 Training: in-service 6 38.62* Training: on-the-job 6 42.23*

*No group differs significantly from the other based on Tukey procedure.










53

Table 5.5 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 5.5--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 41.27 .16 0.846 Previous experience:
secondary 8 40.40 Previous experience:
other 4 41.25 Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members between the perceived degree to which the community education coordinators allow followers scope for initiative, decision, and action. Table 6.1 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 6.1--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 41.13 .32 0.585 Female 6 41.93









54

Table 6.2 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 6.2--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 43.06 .70 0.519 Age: 31-40 6 40.93 Age: 41-over 6 41.16 Table 6.3 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 6.3--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 3 41.24 1.9 0.177 Experience: 3-6 years 6 42.32 Experience: over 6 years 6 38.50 Table 6.4 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.










55

TABLE 6,4--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 43.93 1.9 0.178 Training: in-service 6 40.60 Training: on-the-job

Table 6.5 reports the results of the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 6.5--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 42.53 .59 0.573 Previous experience:
secondary 8 41.60 Previous experience:
other 4 40.35 Construct 7: Role Retention

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. Table 7.1 reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not









56

significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 7.1--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 41.53 .14 0.710 Female 6 42.50 Table 7.2 reports the results of the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 7.2--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 42.80 .30 0.746 Age: 31-40 6 40.70 Age: 41-over 6 42.70 Table 7.3 reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 7.3--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 3 40.80 1.4 0.227 Experience: 3-6 years 6 43.59 Experience: over 6 years 6 38.00










57

Table 7.4 reports the result; of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 7.4--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob.

Training: academic 3 39.80 .62 0.555 Training: in-service 6 41.43 Training: on-the-job 6 43.46 Table 7.5 reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 7.5--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 42.40 2.8 0.097 Previous experience:
secondary 8 39.77 Previous experience:
other 4 45.85 Construct 8: Consideration

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to whic, community educaion coordinators regard the comfort, weli-bein',, status and contribution of









58

followers. Table 8.1 reports the results of the responses For the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 8.1--CONSIDERATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 44.95 .24 0.634 Female 6 44.36 Table 8.2 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 8.2--CONSIDERATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 44.80 .00 0.982 Age: 31-40 6 44.63 Age: 41-over 6 44.76 Table 8.3 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level









59

TABLE 8.3--CONSIDERATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 3 44.00 3.4 0.067 Experience: 3-6 years 6 45.80 Experience: over 6 years 6 42.20 Table 8.4 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 8.4--CONSIDERATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob.

Training: academic 3 45.33 1.0 0.397 Training: in-service 6 43.73 Training: on-the-job 6 45.40 Table 8.5 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 8.5--CONSIDERATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 44.67 .60 0.565 Previous experience:
secondary 8 44.22 Previous experience:
other 4 45.75










60

Construct 9: Production Emphasis

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators apply pressure for productive output. Table 9.1 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 9.1--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS
F F
Variable 'otal n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 34.51 .01 0.864 Female 6 34.66 Table 9.2 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 9.2--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 33.06 1.0 0.387 Age: 31-40 6 35.33 Age: 41-over 6 34.56 Table 9.3 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community educat'on coordinator. The results indicate









61

that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 9.3--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob.

Experience: less
than 3 years 3 34.20 .09 0.901 Experience: 3-6 years 6 34.72 Experience: over 6 years 6 34.90 Table 9.4 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 9.4--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 35.66 .81 0.470 Training: in-service 6 34.86 Training: on-the-job 6 33.73 Table 9.5 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had, The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy

There was no significart difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree t~ which community education









62

TABLE 9.5--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 34.60 1.2 0.322 Previous experience:
secondary 8 35.27 Previous experience:
other 4 33.15

coordinators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 10.1 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 10.1--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 39.64 .50 0.496 Female 6 40.56 Table 10.2 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 10.2--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 38.20 1.4 0.266 Age: 31-40 6 41.03 Age: 41-over 6 39.90









63

Table 10.3 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 10.3--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 3 39.64 2.8 0.093 Experience: 3-6 years 6 41.00 Experience: over 6 years 6 37.00 Table 10.4 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 10.4--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 39.06 .79 0.479 Training: in-service 6 39.53 Training: on-the-job 6 40.60 Table 10.5 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 le-el.










64

TABLE 10.5-,-PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 41.80 2.1 0.154 Previous experience:
secondary 8 38.92 Previous experience:
other 4 40.85


Construct 11: Integration

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain a closely knit organization and resolve intermember conflict. Table 11.1 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE II.1--INTEGRATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 43.13 .67 0.432 Female 6 41.53 Table 11.2 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age category es was not significant at the .05 level.










65

TABLE 11.2--!NTEGRATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 43.00 .09 0.904 Age: 31-40 6 42.76 Age: 41-over 6 41.96 Table 11.3 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 11.3--INTEGRATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob.

Experience: less
than 3 years 3 41.00 1.9 0.181 Experience: 3-6 years 6 44.09 Experience: over 6 years 6 39.80 Table 11.4 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE II.4--!NTEGRATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 44.60 1.1 0.336 Training: in-service 6 40.86 Trairti-g: on-the-job 6 43.06








66

Table 11.5 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE II.5--INTEGRATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience:
elementary 3 42.80 1.0 0.385 Previous experience:
secondary 8 41.35 Previous experience:
other 4 44.55 Construct 12: Superior Orientation

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status when the coordinators are grouped by sex, age, training, and previous experience. However, a significant difference was found when the coordinators were grouped according to years experience as a community education coordinator. Table 12.1 reports the results of the responses for the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate tnat the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level.









67

TABLE 12.1--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Male 9 39.53 .26 0.618 Female 6 40.30 Table 12.2 reports the results of the responses for the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 12.2--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 39.73 .06 0.928 Age: 31-40 6 40.16 Age: 40-over 6 39.56 Table 12.3 reports the results of the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that those community education coordinators with more than six years experience are perceived to be less concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for higher status than coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience. In addition, those coordinators with three to six years experience are perceived to be more concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them,and strivin- for higher status than those










68

coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with more than six years experience.

TABLE 12.3--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less
than 3 years 3 38.80* 4.5 0.034 Experience: 3-6 years 6 41.32* Experience: over 6 years 6 36.50*

*Each group differs significantly from the other Table 12.4 reports the results of the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 12.4--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 41.46 1.7 0.218 Training: in-service 6 38.36 Training: on-the-job 6 40.50 Table 12.5 reports the results of the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was computed to determire if a relationship existed between the variables under study. For the purpose of this comparison, the level of









69

TABLE 12.5--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
F
Variable Total n X Ratio Prob.

Previous experience:
elementary 3 42.33 1.7 0.208 Previous experience:
secondary 8 39.02 Previous experience:
other 4 39.60

significance was .01. The mean score on each of the 12 behavior constructs was used for this procedure. Table 13.0 reports the results of the correlation matrix. The results indicate a significant relationship between two of the personal data variables as well as eight of the 12 behavior constructs.


Summary

Data from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-XII were.analyzed using a one-w:ay analysis of variance to answer each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05 level of significance was used for each of the constructs. Findings from this procedure indicated that of the 12 constructs only Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation were affected by the personal data variables.

Persuasiveness was found to be significantly different

when the coordinators were grouped by the number of years experience. Those with over six years experience were significantly less persuasive than those with less than three years and those with three to six years.







TABLE 13.0--CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES
0 0 c
0 . Z C C
w MU C 4- C 0 0 c 0)o 3 E ) - 4- U -D SL 0 a) n D ) � .) ) c - a c- a a) L a . - a > 4 < a. a- > - O r 0 . < Sex 1.0 -.40 -.58 * -.21 -.28 -.34 -.43 -.12 .12 -.23 .15 .10 .13 .03 .19 -.22 .44
Age 1.0 .49 .52 .23 .19 .17 -.33 -.21 -.10 -.23 .04 .00 .18 .18 .00 -.04
Years 1.0 .08 -.12 .01 .19 -.30 -.38 -.02 -.19 -.05 .06 .11 -.18 .06 -.05
Training 1.0 .23 .31 .34 -.14 .15 .14 -.34 .30 .09 -.34 .32 -.07 -.03
Previous Experience 1.0 .24 .34 -.08 .15 .01 -.29 .30 .19 -.26 -.08 .20 -.31
Representation 1.0 .75 * .46 .65 * 74 *.19 .66 * .84 *-.01 .35 .73 * .50
Reconciliation 1.0 .65 *.50 .72 *.19 .72 * .69 *-.34 .17 .64 * .17
Uncertainty 1.0 .42 .74 *.68 .39 .64 *-.12 .22 .61 * .40
Persuasion 1.0 .78 *.33 .67 * .65 *-.02 .34 .50 .57 * Structure 1.0 .47 .62 * .83 * .05 .41 .72 * .58 * Freedom 1.0 .13 .42 .12 .24 .22 .47 Role Retention 1.0 .77 *-.17 .24 .58 .36 Consideration 1.0 .15 .38 .84 * .60 * Production 1.0 -.06 .16 .34 Accuracy 1.0 .41 .50 Integration 1.0 .61 * Superior Orientation 1.0
*Significant at the .01 level










71

Initiation of Structure was found to be significantly different when coordinators were grouped according to experience and training. Those coordinators with three to six years experience exhibited behavior indicative of Initiation of Structure more frequently than those with less than three years and those with over six years. When the coordinators were grouped by training, a significant difference was also found between the groups. However, the more conservative Tukey procedure revealed that none were more significant than the others.

Superior Orientation was found to be significantly different when coordinators were grouped according to experience. Those coordinators with more than six years experience were less concerned with Initiation of Structure than those coordinators with three to six years experience. In addition, those with three to six years experience were more concerned with Initiation of Structure than those coordinators with less than three years and those coordinators with more than six years.

In brief, the personal data variable of experience effected significant differences in three categories while the personal data variable of training effected only one category. The additional personal data variable produced no significant difference across any of the 12 leader behavior subscales.

The findings of the survey of national authorities and the data from the LBDQ--XII will be presented in chapter IV.
















CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE


The findings presented in this chapter address the second part of a two-part research problem. The data contained herein report the results of the survey of national authorities as well as an analysis of variance between the ideal behavior as perceived by national authorities and the actual behavior of community education coordinators as perceived by community advisory council members. Data for analysis were drawn from administration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--XII and the Leader Behavior Profile. The LBDQ--XII was administered to members of each participating coordinator's advisory council. The Leader Behavior Profile was administered to the Directors of Centers for Community Education in universities throughout the nation.

A one-way analysis of variance using a simple linear

regression procedure was used to answer the question concerning the differences in "ideal" behavior as suggested by the national authorities and the "actual" behavior of coordinators as perceived by the community advisory council members. The significance level for this analysis was set at .01.

Three computer programs were run using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences--Version H, Release 7.0.



7?









73

Effect coding was used on the raw data to compensate for the unequal number between the two groups. Raw scores for the two groups were converted to z-scores. This conversion allowed two sets of data to be standardized thus,conforming to the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and standardized mean scores necessary for analysis of variance.

Three computer programs were run. The first two runs were used to compute the mean score and standard deviation for both the center directors and coordinators on each of the 12 categories. On the third run, center directors and coordinators were compared using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression orocedure to test for significant differences in each of the 12 behavior categories.


Summary Of Leader Behavior Profile Results

Of the 59 questionnaires distributed, 45 were returned, yielding a total return rate of 76%. Table 14.1 reports the results of the responses on the Leader Behavior Profile. The results indicate that the center directors consider Tolerance of Freedom--the degree to which the coordinators allow followers scope for initiative, decision, and action, as ideally being the most important category of behavior. In addition, the results indicate that the center directors consider Role Retention-the degree to which the coordinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others, as ideally being the least important category of behavior.









74

TABLE 14.1--LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL)
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Category Score Score Score Deviation Representation 10.00 50.00 23.11 13.78 Demand Reconciliation 10.00 50.00 21.77 10.28 Tolerance of Uncertainty 10.00 50.00 31.56 11.66 Persuasiveness 10.00 50.00 23.77 12.48 Initiation of Structure 10.00 50.00 30.22 11.77 Tolerance of Freedom 10.00 50.00 36.00* 13.38 Role Retention 10.00 50.00 14.44+ 9.89 Consideration 10.00 50.00 34.22 7.53 Production Emphasis 10.00 50.00 17.55 10.25 Predictive Accuracy 10.00 40.00 24.66 9.19 Integration 10.00 50.00 28.22 10.06 Superior Orientation 10.00 40.00 23.55 10.25

n - 45

* = most important category of "ideal" behavior + = least important category of "ideal" behavior

Table 14.2 reports the results of the responses on the

LBDQ--XII as previously reported in chapter III. The results indicate that the most frequent actual behavior exhibited by the community education coordinators was in the category of consideration--the perceived degree to which the coordinator regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of followers. In addition, the results indicate that the least freque,'t actual behavior exhibited by the community education coordinators was in the category of Production Emphasis--the









75

perceived degree to which the coordinator applies pressure for productive output.

TABLE 14.2--LBDQ--XII RESULTS (ACTUAL)
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Category Score Score Score Deviation Representation 32.00 47.00 44.15 4.24 Demand Reconciliation 37.00 48.00 43.00 3.14 Tolerance of Uncertainty 35.00 44.60 39.68 2.63 Persuasiveness 33.80 45.00 40.53 3.28 Initiation of Structure 34.60 44.60 40.80 2.70 Tolerance of Freedom 36.00 45.40 41.45 2.60 Role Retention 32.00 47.80 41.92 4.70 Consideration 38.40 46.80 44.72* 2.20 Production Emphasis 31.20 39.00 34.57+ 2.24 Predictive Accuracy 36.40 45.20 40.01 2.42 Integration 36.00 48.00 42.49 3.66 Superior Orientation 35.00 43.80 39.84 2.74

n = 15

* = most frequent category of "actual" behavior

+ = least frequent category of "actual" behavior

Table 15.1 reports the responses of the center directors

on the Leader Behavior Profile after the conversion to z-scores. Table 15.2 reports the responses for the community education coordinators on the LBDQ--XII after the conversion to z-scores. This conversion was necessary to provide for homogeneity of variance and standardized mean scores.









76

TABLE 15.1--Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS--CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL)
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Category Score Score Score Deviation Representation -2.00 1.00 - .82 .134 Demand Reconciliation -2.00 2.00 - .82 .029 Tolerance of Uncertainty -3.00 1.00 - .84 1.16 Persuasiveness -2.00 2.00 - .62 1.24 Initiation of Structure -3.00 1.00 - .97 1.17 Tolerance of Freedom -3.00 1.00 - .40 1.33 Role Retention -2.00 2.00 -1.55 .990 Consideration -2.00 1.00 - .57 .753 Production Emphasis -3.00 1.00 -2.24 1.02 Predictive Accuracy -2.00 2.00 - .35 1.24 Integration -5.00 1.00 -2.06 1.58 Superior Orientation -2.00 2.00 - .46 1.34

n = 45


Table 16.0 reports a summary of the results of the

analysis of variance between the center directors' "ideal" and the coordinators' "actual" behavior. Of the 12 categories, 10 were found to be significantly different at the .01 level. Only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different between center directors and

coordinators.









77

TABLE 15.2--Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS--COORDINATORS (ACTUAL)
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Category Score Score Score Deviation Representation .00 1.00 .73 .458 Demand Reconciliation 1.00 2.00 1.26 .458 Tolerance of Uncertainty .00 1.00 .13 .352 Persuasiveness .00 1.00 .73 .458 Initiation of Structure .00 1.00 .20 .414 Tolerance of Freedom -1.00 .00 - .13 .352 Role Retention .00 1.00 .73 .458 Consideration .00 1.00 .86 .352 Production Emphasis -1.00 .00 - .86 .352 Predictive Accuracy 1.00 2.00 1.60 .507 Integration -1.00 1.00 .40 .737 Superior Orientation 1.00 2.00 1.53 .516

n = 15


Category 1: Representation

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in

degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Representation and the degree to which coordinators actually speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 16.1 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Representation. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.









78

TABLE 16.0--ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" - "ACTUAL"

Category F Significance

Representation -.54 24.63 Demand Reconciliation -.71 61.27 Tolerance of Uncertainty -.32 7.07 n.s. Persuasiveness -.55 26.13 Initiation of Structure -.41 11.77 Tolerance of Freedom -.20 2.47 n.s. Role Retention -.80 106.60 * Consideration -.57 28.02 Production Emphasis -.64 40.43 * Predictive Accuracy -.64 40.42 Integration -.57 28.60 * Superior Orientation -.62 36.58 *

n = 60


TABLE 16.1--REPRESENTATION
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob. Center Director (ideal) -.82 .134 1,58 24.63 Coordinator (actual) .73 .458 Category 2: Demand Reconciliation

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Demand Reconciliation and the degree to which the coordinators actually reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system. Table 16.2 reports the results of the









79

analysis for the category of Demand Reconciliation. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of their ideal behavior.

TABLE 16.2--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -.82 .029 1,58 61.27 Coordinators (actual) 1.26 .458 Category 3: Tolerance of Uncertainty

There was no significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Tolerance of Uncertainty and the actual degree to which the coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 16.3 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Tolerance of Uncertainty.

TABLE 16.3--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -.84 1.16 1,58 7.07 Coordinators (actual) .13 .352 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was not significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was consistent with the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.









80

Category 4: Persuasiveness

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Persuasiveness and the degree to which the coordinators actually used persuasion and argument effectively and exhibited strong convictions. Table 16.4 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Persuasiveness.

TABLE 16.4--PERSUASIVENESS
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -.62 1.24 1,58 26.13

Coordinators (actual) .73 .458 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 5: Initiation of Structure

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Initiation of Structure and the degree to which the coordinators actually clearly define their own role and allow followers to know what is expected of them. Table 16.5 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Initiation of Structure. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.









81

TABLE 16.5--INITIATION OF STRUCTURE
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Director (ideal) -.97 1.17 1,58 11.77 Coordinator (actual) .20 .414 Category 6: Tolerance of Freedom

There was no significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Tolerance of Freedom and the actual degree to which the coordinators allow followers scope for initiation, decision, and action. Table 16.6 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Tolerance of Freedom. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was not significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was consistent with the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.

TABLE 16.6--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -.40 1.33 1,58 2.47 Coordinators (actual) -.13 .352 Category 7: Role Retention

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Role Retention and the degree to which the coordinators actually actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. Table 16.7 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Role Retention.









82

TABLE 16.7--ROLE RETENTION
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -1.55 .990 1,58 106.60 Coordinators (actual) .73 .458 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of ideal behavior. Category 8: Consideration

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Consideration and the degree to which the coordinators actually regard the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of followers. Table 16.8 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Consideration.

TABLE 16.8--CONSIDERATION
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -.57 .753 1,58 28.02 Coordinators (actual) .86 .352 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 9: Production Emphasis

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the










83

category of Production Emphasis and the degree to which the coordinators actually apply pressure for productive output. Table 16.9 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Production Emphasis.

TABLE 16.9--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob. Center Directors (ideal) -2.24 1.02 1,58 40.43 Coordinators (actual) - .86 .352 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 10: Predictive Accuracy

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Predictive Accuracy and the degree to which the coordinators actually exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 16.10 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Predictive Accuracy.

TABLE 16.10--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob.

Center Directors (ideal) -.35 1.24 1,58 40.42 Coordinators (actual) 1.60 .507 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the










84

coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 11: Integration

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Integration and the degree to which the coordinators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember conflict. Table 16.11 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Integration.

TABLE 16.11--INTEGRATION
Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D.F. Prob. Center Directors (ideal) -2.06 1.58 1,58 28.60 Coordinators (actual) .40 .737 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 12: Superior Orientation

There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Superior Orientation and the degree to which the coordinators actually maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them,and are striving for higher status. Table 16.12 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Superior Orientation. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level.











This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.


Summary

Data from the Leader Behavior Profile and the Leader

Behavior Description Questionnaire--XII were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure. The 12 behavior categories were analyzed to ascertain the difference between the "ideal" frequency of leader behavior suggested by the national authorities and the "actual" frequency of leader behavior exhibited by selected community education coordinators. The .C1 level of significance was used for each of the 12 categories. Findings from this procedure indicate that of the 12 categories, only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different. There was consistency between the "ideal" frequency and the "actual" frequency in both of these categories.

The additional 10 categories were found to be significantly different at the .01 level. The actual behavior of coordinators proved to always be more frequent than the ideal rating indicated by the center directors.

Thus, findings from the analysis of data in chapter III indicate that personal data variables of experience produced significant differences in three categories; while the personal data variable of training produced a significant difference in only one category. Findings in chapter IV indicate









86

a significant difference between ideal behavior and actual behavior in 10 of the 12 categories.

In Chapter V, the discussion, conclusions, and recommendations concerning the findings reported in chapters III and IV will be set forth.















CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion

This study was designed to address two questions concerning leader behavior of community education coordinators based on the 12 constructs of Stogdill's taxonomy of leader behavior (Stogdill, 1974). Specifically, the following questions were addressed:

1. Is there a relationship between the "actual"

frequency of leader behaviors exhibited by selected

community education coordinators and the "ideal"

frequency of leader behavior suggested by the

national authorities?

2. Is there a relationship between selected personal data variables and the behavior exhibited by selected coordinators based on the 12 dimensions of the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire--XII?

A sample of 15 community school coordinators within the State of Florida participated in the study. Each coordinator identified five school-community advisory council representatives to provide the LBDQ--XII rating input. Each representative rated the coordinators on the 12 subscales of the LBDQ--XII.



87









88

Scores for each coordinator were combined and averaged to provide a mean score for each of the 12 subscales.

The coordinators were then grouped according to these personal data variables: sex, age, years experience as a coordinator, training in community education, previous professional experience, and professional aspirations.

A one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedure

were used to analyze the 12 constructs for significant differences based on the personal data variables. For the purpose of this analysis, a .05 level of significance was used.

To address the question concerning the "ideal" versus the "actual" leader behavior, a survey of national authorities was conducted. An abridgement of the LBDQ--XII was used to determine the ideal frequency of leader behavior as perceived by the directors of the Centers for Community Education in 45 colleges and universities in the United States. These data were used to compare the "ideal" behavior with "actual" behavior as measured by the LBDQ--XII. A one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression was used to test for significant differences in each of the 12 subscale categories. For the purpose of this analysis, a .01 level of significance was used. Sampling

The process of selecting a sample of coordinators for this study revealed that many (50% of those identified by the sampling process) do not have or relate to any school-community advisory council. The fact that this type of situation exists










89

suggests two problems. First, there may be a lack of understanding or commitment to the concept of community involvement in the processes of education at the school or district level. Second, there may exist a perception that community education programs are not part of the "regular" education program and therefore should not be addressed by school-community advisory councils. Consequently, the leader behavior of participants in this study may not accurately reflect the behaviors of all coordinators in Florida.

The five coordinators who did choose to participate, but failed to return the data, did so for various reasons. Prolonged illness, inability to collect circulated instruments, cancelled council meetings, and disbanded councils all led to the reduced return. In retrospect, the data collection procedure would have been enhanced by the researcher attending advisory council meetings and collecting data in person. LBDQ--XII Findings

Responses to the 100 items of the LBDQ--XII provided no significant differences at the .05 level between coordinators when grouped by the variables of sex, age, previous professional experience, and professional aspirations across all 12 subscales. The variable of years experience as a coordinator and training in community education were not significant at the .05 level across nine categories and 11 categories respectively. Reasons for these similarities should be discussed.










90

First, leader skills and behaviors may be very similar

between all community education coordinators. It is suggested that the position of community school coordinator is perceived as an entry level administrative position; thus, a certain level of leader behavior must be observable before an individual becomes a community education coordinator. It may also be contended that once the individual performs in the role, he or she acquires characteristics which are common to all who function in this role. This is not to suggest that all community education coordinators are alike, however, the findings of the LBDQ--XII indicate that there are few distinguishable differences in leader behavior among the community education coordinators.

Secondly, this study used the perception of schoolcommunity advisory council members as the basis for evaluating leader behavior. Since the council group structure affords certain status and function to the role of community education coordinator, there may be expectations on the part of council members for the coordinator to exercise prominent leadership. Both status and function are ascribed to the position and not the individual; hence, the ratings of leader'behavior may be based on expectations for the position and not the actual behavior of the individual in that position.

However, the study did reveal some significant difference at the .05 level. When the coordinators were grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator, the coordinators were perceived to exhibit differing degrees of leader




Full Text
76
TABLE I 5. 1--Z-SCORE CONVER$ I 0NS--CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL)
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Representat ion
-2.00
1 00
- .82
. 134
Demand Reconciliation
-2.00
2 00
- 82
.029
Tolerance of Uncertainty
-3.00
1 .00
- .84
1.16
Persuasiveness
-2.00
2.00
- 62
1 .24
Initiation of Structure
-3.00
1 .00
- .97
1.17
Tolerance of Freedom
-3.00
1 .00
- .40
1 .33
Role Retention
-2.00
2.00
-1.55
.990
Consideration
-2.00
1 00
- .57
. 753
Production Emphasis
-3.00
1 00
-2.24
1 .02
Predictive Accuracy
-2.00
2 00
- -35
1 24
Integration
-5.00
1 00
-2.06
1 58
Superior Orientation
-2.00
2.00
- .46
1 34
n = 45
Table 16.0 reports a
summary of
the results of the
analysis of variance between the center directors' ideal" and
the coordinators' actual
behavior.
Of the 1
2 ca tego r
i es ,
10 were found to be signi
f i c a n t 1 y d i
fferen t at
the .01
level.
Only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were
not significantly different between center directors and
coordinators.


56
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 71--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P r o b .
Male 9 41.53 .14 0.710
Female 6 42.50
Table 7.2 reports the results of the seventh construct when
the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of
age. The results indicate that the difference between the
three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 7.2--R0LE RETENTION
_ F F
Va r ¡able Totaln X Ratio Prob.
Age :
2 1
-30
3
42 ,
. 80
Age:
31-
-40
6
40.
. 70
Age :
41
-over
6
42 .
,70
Table 7-3 reports the results of the responses for the seventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience
as a community education coordinator. The results indicate
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 7.3--R0LE RETENTION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Experience:
less
than 3
years
3
-fc~
o
CO
o
1 4
0.227
Experience:
3-6 years
6
43.59
Experience:
over 6 years
6
38.00


1 10
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasiona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
58. The coordinator asks the members to work hardei A B C D E
59. The coordinator is accurate in predicting the
trend of events A B C D E
60. The coordinator gets his/her superiors to act
for the welfare of the group members A B C D E
61. The coordinator gets swamped by details A B C D E
62. The coordinator can wait just so long, then blows up A B C D E
63. The coordinator speaks from a strong inner conviction A B C D E
6A. The coordinator makes sure that his/her part in the
group is understood by the group members A B C D E
65. The coordinator is reluctant to allow the members
any freedom of action A B C D E
66. The coordinator lets some members have authority
that he/she should keep A B C D E
67. The coordinator looks out for the personal
welfare of the group members A B C D E
68. The coordinator permits the members to take it
easy in their work A B C D E
69. The coordinator sees to it that the work of the
group is coordinated A B C D E
70. The coordinator's work carries weight with
his/her superiors A B C D E
71. The coordinator gets things all tangled up A B C D E
72. The coordinator remains calm when uncertain
about coming events A B C D E
73. The coordinator is an inspiring talkei A B C D E


CHAPTER I
I NTRODUCTION
Many writers have indicated the changing role of education
in society. Havighurst (Saxe, 1975) points out that various
changes in situations and events have cumulated to make the
school system more important today than it was 50 years ago.
Educators are being confronted with many innovations and con
stantly changing values. Consequently, the educational system
is also becoming more vulnerable to outside forces that impinge
upon it. "Two of these situations are the rise of the community
school movement and the rise of community control of the schools
movemen t (p. vi i i).
An orientation to community education is based upon an
assumption that the individuals to be served by the educational
establishment have a basic right to active participation in all
aspects of the process. However, according to Saxe (1975),
"school-community relations are adversely affected by an organi
zational phenomenon--bureauracy--and by psychological factors of
educa tors--attitudes, opinions, and interests" (p. 1). When the
organizational structure has been constructed in an attempt to
address these situations, the individual changed with carrying
out the community education function should be equinped to deal
with the challenge. Community educators must provide the
1


38
democratic involvement of community members in the decision
making process. Many of the writings in the field stress the
need for facilitative leadership as a basis for effective per
formance. The training institutions which produce community
education leaders are providing technical, human, and conceptual
skills which should enable the community education leaders to
exhibit behaviors indicative of facilitative leadership.
Facilitative leader behaviors are essential to the de
velopment of leaders hip ability in community members. Active
leadership by community members is necessary for effective
community education development. The focus of this research
effort was to analyze the leader behavior of selected community
education coordinators in Florida. The ability to predict leader
behavior by identifying specific personal data would enable ad
ministrators to select those individuals best prepared to deal
with the requirements of the community education role.


6
1. The study of leadership behavior was based on data
from 75 people located in various school districts in the
state of Florida.
2. The persons chosen to participate were selected by
community education coordinators and may not have been repre
sentative of the community at large.
3. The leader behaviors measured were restricted to
those dimensions measured by the Leader Behavior Description
Ques tionnair e-- X II.
The following limitations were recognized in this investi
gation:
1. The resulting data are the perceptions of community
members and not necessarily the actual behavior exhibited by
the coordinator.
2. Responses may have been influenced by the respondent's
desire to provide a positive image of leader behavior for the
individual coordinator.
3. Data were gathered from the state of Florida only;
therefore, the generalizations drawn from the data are limited.
Justification For The Study
"The general function of organization and administration
for community education is similar to that of any other or
ganized educational endeavor: the character of the function is,
however, influenced by the values that determine the philosophy"
(Moore, 1972, p. 168). In addition, Moore stated that some
basic assumptions should be made concerning the characteristics


7
and goals of an effective community education organization.
Specifically, these assumptions should include:
-Reliance on democratically established
goals, and a viable philosophy should
be substituted, in the main, for the
authority-oriented approach.
-The administrative staff should be an
"open" one, not fearing change or
chal 1enge.
-The administrative climate should re
flect the philosophy of community edu
cation, using a problem solving approach.
-A flat and flexible administrative or
ganization, in contrast to a vertical
one, offers the best promise.
-The individual school and community
must be seen as an educational unit,
with freedom to adapt to the need of
the local area and delegated authority
commensurate with assigned responsibility.
-Administration should recognize that
not all wisdom is found in the adminis
trative staff but is liberally possessed
by laymen and the teaching staff.
-Increasingly, decisions
by those possessing the
so, not merely the rank
shouId be made
competence to do
or position.
-Leadership should bring people, ideas,
and resources together to produce an
optimum opportunity for all learners.
(p. 159)
One of the problems faced by administrators in establish
ing community education is that of resistance to change on the
part of the public. Preparation programs of which most adminis
trators are products, urge that the people be told about the
schools. Parents must be brought into the school, and the
school's programs sold to the people. Very few efforts have been


2
appropriate leadership to allow community members to become
involved in the educational decision-making process.
The major concern of this study was to examine leader
ship performance of community education coordinators in the
development of community involvement in the community education
process. Specifically, the focus of the investigation is on
the behavior of individuals as they perform the function of
leadership.
Statement Of The Problem
This study was designed to determine the "ideal" nature
of leader behavior based on the opinion of national community
education authorities as well as to assess the actual nature
of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators
in Florida according to Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader be
havior (Stogdill, 197*0*
Specifically, the following questions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between the "actual" frequency
of leader behaviors exhibited by selected community
education coordinators and the "ideal" frequency of
leader behavior suggested by the national authorities?
2. Is there a relationship between the following six
variables:
i .
sex
M. age
iii. years experience as a community education coordinator
iv. training in community education


17
questionnaire to be distributed by the chairperson of the
advisory council. Upon completion of the questionnaire, the
chairpersons were to return the questionnaires and the coor
dinators' personal data sheet directly to the researcher.
Instruction for completing the survey were placed on the first
page of the instrument (Appendix A). The instrument required
approximately 30 minutes to complete. A series of follow-up
contacts were made with those individuals who were slow in re
turning the questionnaires.
The Leader Behavior Profile was mailed with a cover letter
to each of the directors of University Centers for Community
Education. Directions for completing the survey were placed
on the first page of the instrument. The instrument required
approximately 15 minutes to complete. A follow-up contact was
made with the Directors who were negligent in returning the
survey.
Method of Statistical Analysis
Data for analysis were drawn from the administration of
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII and the
Leader Behavior Profile. The data received from the L B DQ-- X I I
were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to answer
each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader
behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05 level of
significance was used for each of the constructs. A follow-up
test was performed on those variables found to be significant
using Tukey's HSD procedure. The data for each question was


93
experience could perceive themselves as professional peers
of other administrators and would not be as concerned with
trying to influence them or strive for higher status.
In addition to these described differences, the variable
of training produced a significant difference in the category
of Initiation of Structure. Those coordinators with in-service
training scored somewhat lower on the Initiation of Structure
subscale than those coordinators with academic training and
those coordinators with on-the-job training. However, when the
more conservative Tukey's procedure was performed, none of the
three groups were significantly different from the others.
These results would tend to indicate that training and work ex
perience cannot be isolated as variables in this situation.
In-service, academic and on-the-job training do not discriminate
clearly for this particular subscale.
The correlation matrix for all variables provides addi
tional information to evaluate these findings. As shown by
other studies done by Stogdill, Goode, and Day (1963, 1964, and
1965) the subscales of the L B DQ-- X I I are not independent of one
another. Generally, the results suggest that certain categories
are influenced strongly by a single subscale while some cate
gories are influenced by more than one. For example, those
coordinators scoring high in the category of Consideration, also
score high in Integration (r = .8^) and Superior Orientation
(r = .60) while those scoring high in the category Representation,
also score high in Consideration (r = .8 A) Reconciliation


32
Mott Foundation, the Flint Board of Education developed and
conducted educational programs of an enrichment and competency
nature-=programs beyond those normally undertaken by a public
school system. Assuming that a child is molded and developed
by his total environment, the Foundation supported a series
of programs designed to uplift the entire population. Pro
grams in health services for children, adult education, adult
recreation, civic affairs, socialization, and curriculum enrich
ment have been offered through the public schools. Within
this concept, the school became much more than a six-hours-a-
day institution for youth. It became a community education
center with programs in health, adult education, recreation,
compensatory education, and enrichment for all the residents of
the community (Clancy, 1965).
Mott (1959) explained the community education philosophy
in Flint as follows:
After 25 years of experimentation, the
Mott Foundation considers the public
school the ideal instrument to achieve
the end of community education, for the
public school has played the traditional
role of common denominator in our so
ciety, and today is an institution truly
representative of all classes, creeds,
and colors . the physical plant of
the schools, representing a huge com
munity investment, are perfectly suited
for community recreation and education
and the use of these facilities eliminates
the need for costly duplication . the
schools are geographically suited to serve
as neighborhood centers of recreation, edu
cation and democratic action and by their
nature are readily accessible to every man,
woman and child . and if experimental
programs can be proved feasible with a
school system, the transition from private
support to public support is relatively
easy (pp. 141-161).


community education coordinators on 10 of the 12 constructs
of the L B D Q X I I Only two of the constructs, Tolerance of
Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom, were not significantly
different.
Concerning the five personal variables, the following
conclusions were reached:
1. The variable of sex produced no significant dif
ferences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators
in any of the 12 behavior constructs.
2. The variable of age produced no significant dif
ferences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators
in any of the 12 behavior constructs.
3. The variable of years experience as a coordinator
produced the significant difference in the perceived behavior
of the coordinators in the constructs of Persuasiveness,
Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation. There was
no significant difference in the other nine constructs.
The variable of training in community education
produced
no
behavior
o f
5.
produced
no
behav!o r
of
s t r uc t s .
The variable of previous professional experience
x


TABLE 13.Q--CORRELATI ON MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES
Sex
Age
Years
Training
Previous Exp.
Representat¡or
Reconc¡1iat¡or
Uncertainty
Persuasion
Structure
Freedom
Role Ret.
Consideration
Product ion
Accuracy
Integration
Super
Orientation
Sex 1.0 -.40
1
vjn
CC
*
-.21
-.28
-34
-.43
-.12
.12
-.23
.15
.10
13
03
19
-.22
.44
Age 1.0
.49
.52
.23
19
.17
-.33 -
-.21
-.10
-.23
.04
.00
.18
.18
.00
-.04
Years
1 .0
.08
-.12
.01
.19
-.30 -
-.38
-.02
-.19
-.05
.06
. 1 1
-.18
.06
-.05
Training
1.0
.23
.31
.34
-.14
.15
.14
-.34
30
.09
-.34
32
-.07
-.03
Previous Experience
1.0
.24
3^
-.08
.15
.01
-.29
30
.19
-.26
-.08
.20
-31
Representa tion
1.0
.75 .46
.65 -
; .74
*.19
.66 *
.84 *
-.01
35
73 *
50
Reconci1iat ion
1.0
.65 '
*.50
72
*.19
.72 *
.69 *
-.34
.17
.64 *
17
Uncertainty
1.0
.42
7**
*.68 *
39
.64 *
-.12
.22
.61 *
.40
Persuasion
1.0
.78
*.33
.67 *
.65 *
-.02
34
50
57 *
Structure
1 .0
.47
.62 *
.83 *
05
.41
.72 *
.58 *
Freedom
1 .0
.13
.42
.12
.24
.22
47
Role Retention
1 .0
.77 *
-.17
.24
.58
36
Cons¡deration
1.0
.15
38
.84 *
.60 *
Production
1.0
-.06
.16
34
Accuracy
1 .0
.41
.50
1ntegration
1.0
.61 *
Superior Orientation
1.0
-'Significant at the .01 level
o


46
coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postpone
ment without anxiety and upset.
Table 3-1 reports the results of the responses for the third
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference
between males and
females was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE
3.1--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
F F
Total n X Ratio Prob.
Ma 1 e
9 39-93 .19 0.666
F ema1e
6 39.30
Table 3-2 reports
the results of the responses for the third
construct when the coordinators are grouped by t'he personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 32--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
F F
Total n X Ratio Prob.
Age: 21-30
3 4 1.87 1.3 0.292
Age: 31 A0
6 39.10
Age: 41 0 v e r
6 39.17
Table 3-3 reports the results of the responses for the third
construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience
as a community education coordinator. The results indicate
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 level.


65
TABLE
11.2--!NT E G RAT ION
F
F
Variable
Total
n X
Ratio
P ro b .
Age: 21-30
3
43.00
09
0.904
Age: 3 1 40
6
42.76
Age: 4 1 -ove r
6
41.96
Table 11.3 reports the
results of
the responses
for the
el even t h
construct when the coordinators are grouped by
years ex-
perience as a community education
coo rdina to r .
The res u
Its in-
dicate that the difference between
the three groups was
not
significant at the .05
level .
TABLE
1 1 3-- NTEGRATION
F
F
Variable
Total
n X
Ratio
P r o b .
Experience: 'ess
than 3 yea rs
3
41.00
1 .9
0.181
Experience: 36 years
6
44 09
Experience: over 6 years 6
39.80
Table 11.4 reports the
results of
the responses
for the
eleventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped by
type of com-
munity education training. The results indicate that the dif-
ference between the three groups was not significant at
the .05
level.
TABLE
11.4--! NTEGRAT1 ON
F
F
Variable
Total
n X
Ratio
P ro b .
Training: academic
3
44.60
1 1
0.336
Training: in-service
6
40.86
Training: on-the-job
6
43-06


78
TABLE 16.O ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" "ACTUAL"
Category
F S i
gn i fi canee
Representation
--5A
2A 63
Demand Reconciliation
-.71
61.27
.U
Tolerance of Uncertainty
- .32
7.07
n s .
Persuasiveness
- .55
26.13
*
Initiation of Structure
- A 1
11.77
.1,
Tolerance of Freedom
- .20
2 A 7
n s .
Role Retention
- .80
106.60
.u
Consideration
- 57
28.02
JU
Production Emphasis
- 6 A
A0. A3
JU
Predictive Accuracy
- 6 A
A0 A2
*
Integration
- 57
28.60
*
Superior Orientation
- .62
36.58
JU
o
vO
II
c
TABLE 1 6 1--
REPRESENTATION
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation D.
F
F. Prob.
Center Director (ideal)
- .82
1 3 A
1 ,
58 2 A.6 3
Coordinator (actual)
.73
. A 58
Category 2: Demand Reconc
i 1 i a t i on
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Demand Reconciliation and the degree to which the
coordinators actually reconc i Ie conf1 ict ing demands and reduce
disorder to the system. Table 16.2 reports the results of the


LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 5 1 " I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE 51
TABLE 5 2--I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE 51
TABLE 5 3 I NITIATION OF STRUCTURE 51
TABLE 5-^ INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 52
TABLE 5 5 INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 53
TABLE 6. 1- -TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 53
TABLE 6.2- -TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 5^
TABLE 6. 3--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 5^
TABLE 6.4--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 55
TABLE 6. 5--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 55
TABLE 7 1 R 0E RETENTION 56
TABLE 7-2--ROLE RETENTION 56
TABLE 7.3--ROLE RETENTION 56
TABLE 7.^--ROLE RETENTION 57
TABLE 7-5--ROLE RETENTION 57
TABLE 8 1--CONS I DERAT I ON 58
TABLE 8. 7--C0NS I DERAT I ON 58
TABLE 8 3--CONS I DERAT I ON 59
TABLE 3.^--CONSIDERATION 59
TABLE 8 5--CONS I DERAT I ON 59
TABLE 9 1--PRODUCT I ON EMPHASIS 60
TABLE 9. 2--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS 60
TABLE 9. 3--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS 61
TABLE 0. ^PRODUCTION EMPHASIS 61
TABLE 5 5--PR0Di;CT I ON FMPHASIS 62
v


concluded that the scales measure what
they are purported to measure (p. 5).
Reliability
A modified Kuder-Richardson formula was used to determine
the reliability of the L B D Q-- X I I Each item was correlated
with the remainder of the items in the subscale. The resulting
reliability coefficients ranged from .5^ to .87 for nine dif
ferent groups of leaders, indicative of sufficient reliability
for use in this study (Stogdi'l, I963).
Administration
The Leader Behavior Description Quest ionnaire--Form XII
can be used by a leader to describe his own behavior, or by
associates of the leader to describe a given leader.
The L B D Q-- X I I (Appendix A) was administered to five school
community advisory council members. The community education
coordinator completed the personal data sheet (Appendix B).
The Leader Behavior Profile was completed by Center Dir
ectors from the Centers for Community Education.
Method of Securing Data
Initial contact with the 20 community education coordina
tors was made by mail. Each coordinator was asked to partici
pate in the study and to provide information concerning the
schoo1 -community adv i sory. counci 1 Following this initial con
tact, the researcher contacted each coordinator by phone to
discuss the study and obtain a date for gathering the data.
Copies of the L B DQ-- X I I and the personal data sheet were
mailed to the coordinator. Instructions were given for the


57
Table 7-4 reports the resu
It} of the
responses
for the
seventh
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
type of
com-
munity education training.
The resu
Its indicate that the
difference between the three groups
was not significant
at the
.05 level.
TABLE 7-4-
-ROLE RETENTION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Training: academic
3
39 80
. 62
0.555
Training: in-service
6
4 1 A3
Training: on-the-job
6
4 3-46
Table 7-5 reports the resu
Its of the
responses
for the
seventh
construct when the coordinators are
grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The
r es u1t s
indicate
that the difference between t^e three categories was not sig-
nificant at the .05 level.
TABLE 7-5-
-ROLE RETENTION
Variable
To ta 1 n
I
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
42.40
2.8
0.097
Previous experience:
secondary
8
39.77
Previous experience:
other
4
45.85
Construct 8: Consideraticn
There was no significan difference at the .05 level in the
ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between
the perceived degree to which community educaion coordinators
regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of


66
Table 11.5 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The results indi
cate that tiie difference between the three experience groups
was not sign:ficant at the .05 level.
TABLE 1 1 .5-- INTEGRATI ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
42 80
1 0
0.385
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
41.35
Previous experience:
other
4
44.55
Construct 12: Superior Orientation
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have in
fluence over them, and are striving for higher status when the
coordinators are grouped by sex, age, training, and previous ex
perience. However, a significant difference was found when the
coordinators were grouped according to years experience as a
community education coordinator. Table 12.1 reports the re
sults of the responses for the twelfth construct when the coor
dinators are grouped according to the personal data variable of
sex. The results indicate tnat the difference between the males
and females was not significant at the .05 level.


The third instrument, the Leader Behavior Profile was
developed by the researcher for the purpose of identifying
the "ideal" importance or priorities for the 12 dimensions
of leader behavior measured bv the L B DQ-- X I I The profile
is an abridgement of the L B D Q. X I I and consists of the 12
categories which the L B DQ-- X I I measures. This instrument was
used to assess the opinion of Community Education Center Direc
tors concerning the priorities for specific leader behaviors.
A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix C.
Data Treatment
L B DQ-- X I I consists of 100 items describing leader behavior.
Each item is answered using a structured answer format with one
of five possible responses: always, often, occasionally, seldom,
never. Each item receives a score from five to one. Each sub
scale score consists of the sum of the scores from the items of
the subscale.
Stogdill (1970) concluded that subscales of the L B DQ-- X I I
were differentially related to different dimensions of leader
personality, member satisfaction, and group performance. His
theoretical work was based on the factors of identifiable be
havior patterns.
The following 12 dimensions of leader behavior were defined
in the L B DQ-- X1 I .
1. Representation. The perceived degree to which an
individual speaks and acts as the representative of the group.
2. Demand Reconciliation. The perceived degree to which
an individual reconciles conflicting demands and reduced dis
order to the system.


23
by providing freedom for responsible decision making and
exercise of initiative.
Exchange Theories
Jacobs (1965) conceptualized leadership in terms of a
social exchange theory. It is based on the assumption that
the group provides status and esteem satisfaction to the leader
in exchange for his contribution to goal attainment. Leader
ship implies an equitable exchange relationship between leader
and followers. Acknowledgement of role obligations allows
each party to satisfy the expectations of others on an equit
able basis.
I nteraction-Expectation Theories
Homans (1950) based his theory of leadership on three
variables: action, interaction, and sentiment. Leadership is
defined in terms of organization of interaction. The greater
the frequency of interaction and participation between members,
the greater the mutual liking and clarity of group norms. The
higher the rank of a person within the group, the wider the
interaction, the more likely his activities conform to group
norms, and the greater the number of group members for whom he
originates interaction.
The Ohio State Leadership Studies (Stogdill, 197M were
organized in an attempt to develop a more definitive theory of
leadership. According to Stogdill (197^), much of the research
which had taken place earlier focused upon an attempt to dif
ferentiate the traits of leaders. Bird (1940), Jenkins (19^7),


40
Summary Of The LBDQ--XM Results
Of the 100 questionnaires distributed, 75 were returned,
yielding a total return rate of 75%. Fifteen of the 20 coor
dinators chosen actually participated. Table 1.0 indicates
the results of the responses on the L B D Q. X I I by behavior con
struct. Statistical analysis of the LBDQ--XI I results were
applied to each of the 12 behavior constructs and interpreted
using a one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-HSD pro
cedure. Tests were run for comparisons on the basis of the
personal data variables. For the purposes of these analyses,
the responses on the personal data variable of training were
grouped. The responses to academic community education train
ing and a full year internship were grouped as academic training.
The responses to two-week workshops and in-service workshops
were grouped as in-service workshops. The category of super
vised field experience had no responses. The category of on-
the-job training was used intact. The results of the analysis
are reviewed by each of the 12 leader behavior constructs.
Construct 1: Representation
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between
the perceived degree to which community education coordinators
speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 1.1
reports the results of the responses for the first construct
when the coordinates are grouped by the personal data variable
of sex. The results indicated that the difference between the
males and females' was not significant at the .05 level. Table


92
may develop role conflicts as a result of changing values and/or
changing demands placed upon them as they exercise leadership.
The difference in perception of role by the coordinator and
others can lead to conflicts and, thus, an inability to success
fully communicate with followers.
Likewise, Superior Orientation was significantly different
when the coordinators were grouped by years experience. Each
group differed significantly from the others. Those coordina
tors with over six years experience were perceived to be less
concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors,
having influence over them, and striving for higher status than
those coordinators with less than three years experience and
those with three to six years experience. However, those
coordinators with three to six years experience were perceived
to be the most concerned with maintaining cordial relations
with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for
higher status. This measurable difference between the three
groups can be related to the professional aspirations of the
coordinators. Coordinators new to the position (less than three
years) could be still attempting to orient themselves to their
role while trying to strive for advancement. Thus, they could
exhibit less superior orientation than the three to six year
group. Those coordinators in the three to six year group would
have had sufficient time to develop security in the position and
would be much more inclined to exhibit behaviors indicative of
superior orientation in an effort to secure professional ad
vancement. However, those coordinators with over six years


67
TABLE
12.1
--SUPERIOR ORIENTAT1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Male
9
39.53
.26
0.618
Fema 1 e
6
40.30
Table 12.2 reports
the
results of the
responses
for the
twe 1f t h
construct when the
coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age.
The results indicate that
the difference
between the three
age
groups was not s
ig nifica n t
at the
LTV
O
1 eve 1 .
TABLE
12.2
--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Age: 21-30
3
39-73
. 06
0.928
Age: 31"4 0
6
40.16
Age: 40-over
6
39-56
Table 12.3 reports
the
results of the
twelfth construct
when
the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community
education coordinator. The results indicate that those com
munity education coordinators with more than six years ex
perience are perceived to be less concerned with maintaining
cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them,
and striving for higher status than coordinators with less than
three years experience and those coordinators with three to
six years experience. In addition, those coordinators with
three to six years experience are perceived to be more concerned
with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having in
fluence over them, and striving for higher status than those


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the Department of Educational Administration and Super
vision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council,
and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Decembe r 197 7
Dean, Graduate School


Tolerance for Uncertainty. The perceived degree to
3 .
which an individual is able to tolerate uncertainty and post
ponement without anxiety and upset.
4. Persuasiveness. The perceived degree to which an
individual uses persuasion and argument effectively and ex
hibits strong convictions.
5- Initiation of Structure. The perceived degree to
which an individual clearly defines his own role and allows
followers to know what is expected of them.
6. Tolerance of Freedom. The perceived degree to which
an individual allows followers scope for initiative, decision,
and action.
7. Role Retention. The perceived degree to which an
individual actively exercises the leadership role rather than
surrender leadership to others.
8. Consideration. The perceived degree to which an
individual regards the comfort, well-being, status, and con
tribution of followers.
9. Production Emphasis. The perceived degree to which
an individual applies pressure for productive output.
10.Predictive Accuracy. The perceived degree to which
an individual exhibits foresight and ability to predict out
comes accurately.
11* Integration. The perceived degree to which an in
dividual maintains a closely knit organization and resolves
intermember conflict.


74
TABLE 14.1--LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL)
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Representation
10.00
50.00
23.11
13.78
Demand Reconciliation
10.00
50.00
21.77
10.28
Tolerance of Uncertainty
10.00
50.00
31.56
11.66
Persuasiveness
10.00
50.00
23.77
12.48
Initiation of Structure
10.00
o
o
o
LA
30.22
11.77
Tolerance of Freedom
10.00
50.00
36.00*
13.38
Role Retention
10.00
50.00
14.44+
9.89
Consideration
10.00
50.00
34.22
7.53
Production Emphasis
10.00
50.00
17-55
10.25
Predictive Accuracy
10.00
40.00
24.66
9.19
Integration
10.00
50.00
28.22
10.06
Superior Orientation
10.00
40.00
23-55
10.25
LA
-^r
i
c
* = most important
category of
" i dea 1 "
behavior
+ = least important
ca teqory of
"ideal"
behavior
Table 14.2 reports the results of the responses on the
L B DQ-- X I I as previously reported in chapter III. The results
indicate that the most frequent actual behavior exhibited by
the community education coordinators was in the category of
cons ideration--the perceived degree to which the coordinator
regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of
followers. In addition, the results indicate that the least
frequent actual behavior exhibited by the community education
coordinators was in the category of Production Emphasis--the


75
perceived degree to which the coordinator applies pressure
for productive output.
TABLE 14.2--LBDQ--XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL)
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
Ca tego ry Score Score Score Deviation
Representation
32,
. 00
47.
. 00
44.
. 1 5
4,
. 24
Demand Reconciliation
37
. 00
48.
. 00
43 .
. 00
3,
. 1 4
Tolerance of Uncertainty
35.
,00
44 ,
. 60
39.
.68
2 ,
63
Persuasiveness
33
.80
45 ,
. 00
40.
, 53
3
.28
Initiation of Structure
34.
, 60
44.
, 60
A0.
, 80
2 .
.70
Tolerance of Freedom
36.
, 00
45
.40
4 1 .
,45
2 ,
. 60
Role Retention
32.
. 00
47.
,80
4 1 .
.92
4.
.70
Consideration
CO
,40
46.
, 80
44.
.72*
2 .
.20
Production Emphasis
31 .
, 20
39.
.00
34.
, 57 +
2 .
. 24
Predictive Accuracy
36.
,40
45.
, 20
40 .
,01
2 ,
.42
Integration
36.
, 00
48.
. 00
42 .
. 49
3
. 66
Superior Orientation
35.
,00
43.
,80
39.
. 84
2 ,
.74
n = 15
* = most frequent category of "actual" behavior
+ = least frequent category of "actual" behavior
Table 15-1 reports the responses of the center directors
on the Leader Behavior Profile after the conversion to z-scores.
Table 15.2 reports the responses for the community education
coordinators on the L B D Q-- X I I after the conversion to z-scores.
This conversion was necessary to provide for homogeneity of
variance and standardized mean scores.


Representation
Demand Reconciliation
Tolerance of Uncertainty
Persuasiveness
initiation of Structure
Tolerance of Freedom
Role Retention
Consideration
Product ion
Empha sis
Predictive Accuracy
Integration
Influence with Superiors?
Using an abridgement of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire--XII, the Directors of the Centers for Community
Education in 45 colleges and universities were surveyed to
determine the ideal leader behavior of 15 selected coordinators
as measured by five members of each coordinator's school com
munity advisory council using the L B D Q X I I In addition, the
results of the L B DQ-- X I 1 were analyzed on the basis of five
persona 1 variables.
The following conclusions are based on the results of this
study. Evidence from the comparison of ideal and actual leader
behavior supports the conclusion that there are significant dif
ferences between the ideal leadership behavior suggested by
national authorities and the ctual leader behavior exhibited by


Table 2.A reports the results of the responses for the second
construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of com
munity education training. The results indicate that the dif
ference between the three groups was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 2.A--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r ob .
Training: academic
3
A 2 6 6
1 .9
0.177
Training: in-service
6
A 1 AO
Training: on-the-job
6
AA 76
Table 2.5 reports the results of the responses
for the second
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to
the
type of previous experience
they have
had. The
results i
ndica t e
that the difference between
the th ree
experience categories was
not significant at the .05
level .
TABLE 2.5--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
41.73
0.9
0 A 2 7
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
A2.60
Previous experience:
other
A
A3.00
Construct 3: Tolerance of
Uncertainty
There was no significant difference at the
.05 level
i n
the ratings as reported by
the advisory council
members,
be -
tween the perceived degree to which community education


120
Kliminski, G. C. A study of the skills of successful directors
of community education in Michigan (Doctoral dissertation,
Western Michigan University, 1974). (University Microfilms
No. 74-24, 648).
Laws of Florida. Chapter 7 3 ~ 3 3 8 Section 230.32, sub-section b.
State of Florida, Department of Education, Tallahassee, 1973-
Likert, R. The hyman organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-
Mann, G. C. The development of public school adult education.
Public School Adult Education. Washington, D. C.: National
Association of Public School Adult Education, 1956.
McGregor, D. Leadership and motivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1966.
Melby, E. D. Approaches to role change in community education.
Phi Delta Kappan, November 1972, jj_4_ (3), 171172.
M i nzey, Jack D. ,
to proces s.
& LeTarte, C. Community education: From program
Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1972.
Mitchell, B. M. Analysis of the perception of the role of the
subordinate and superordinate with respect to authority,
responsibility and delegation in the community schools of
Flint at the attendance center level (Doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1973)- (University Microfilms
No. 73-29, 750).
Moore, H. E. Organizational and administrative problems and
practices. Phi Delta Kappan November 1972, 5j4 (3), 1 6 8 1 7 0 .
Mott, H. C. S. The Flint community school concept as I see it.
Journal of Educational Sociology, 1958, 4_, 141-161.
Murphy, A. J. A study of the leadership process. American
Sociology Review, 1941, 6_, 674- 687.
Nance, E. E. The community education coordinator. Community
Education Jou rna 1 November 1972, 1_ (5), 5 2-55-
Olsen, E. G. School and community. New York: Prentice-Ha 1 1 ,
Inc., 1945.
Owens, R. G. Organizational behavior in schools. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Ha 1 1 1970.
&xe, Richard W. School community interaction. Berkley: McCutchan
Publishing Corp., 1975-


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EQCJQX9YZ_WDS4TT INGEST_TIME 2015-02-20T18:26:49Z PACKAGE AA00028744_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE
The findings presented in this chapter address the second
part of a two-part research problem. The data contained here
in report the results of the survey of national authorities
as well as an analysis of variance between the ideal behavior
as perceived by national authorities and the actual behavior
of community education coordinators as perceived by community
advisory council members. Data for analysis were drawn from
administration of the Leader Behavior Description Question
naire- X I I and the Leader Behavior Profile. The L B DQ-- X I I
was administered to members of each participating coordinator's
advisory council. The Leader Behavior Profile was adminis
tered to the Directors of Centers for Community Education in
universities throughout the nation.
A one-way analysis of variance using a simple linear
regression procedure was used to answer the question concern
ing the differences in "ideal" behavior as suggested by the
national authorities and the "actual" behavior of coordinators
as perceived by the community advisory council members. The
significance level for this analysis was set at .01.
Three computer programs were run using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences--Version H, Release 7.0.
7?-


60
Construct 9: Production Emphasis
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators apply pressure for productive output. Table 9-1
reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct
when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable
of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males
and females was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 9 1--PRODUCT I ON EMPHASIS
Vari
able
"ro t a 1 n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Male
9
3 A 51
.01 0.86A
Female
6
3 A 66
Tabl
e 9.2 reports
the results of the
responses
for the ninth
construct when the
coord
inators are
grouped by
the personal
data
variable of age. The results i
ndicate that the difference
between the three
age groups was not
significant at the .05
leve
1 .
TABLE 9.2-
-PRODUCT 1 ON
EMPHAS 1 S
Va r i
able
Total n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Age :
2 1-30
3
33.06
1.0 0.387
Age :
31 -AO
6
35-33
Age :
A 1-over
6
3 A 56
Tabl
e 9.3 reports
the results of the
responses
for the ninth
construct when the
coo r d
inators are
grouped by
years experience
as a
community educat on
coordinator
. The results indicate


// / z' ^ ^
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
This study was designed to address two questions con
cerning leader behavior of community education coordinators
based on the 12 constructs of Stogdill's taxonomy of leader
behavior (Stogdill, ] 31k) Specifically, the following ques
tions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between the "actual"
frequency of leader behaviors exhibited by selected
community education coordinators and the "ideal"
frequency of leader behavior suggested by the
national authorities?
2. Is there a relationship between selected per
sonal data variables and the behavior exhibited
by selected coordinators based on the 12 dimen
sions of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire--XII?
A sample of 15 community school coordinators within the
State of Florida participated in the study. Each coordinator
identified five schoo1 -community advisory council representa
tives to provide the L B DQ-- X I I rating input. Each representa
tive rated the coordinators on the 12 subscales of the L B DQ-- X I I .
87


122
Walker, J. E. The relationship between the
characteristics, personal factors, and
community school directors (Doctoral d
State University, 1971). (University
^780).
Weaver, D. Strategies for training communi
Community Education Journal, May-June
29, 32.
pe rsona1 ity
effectiveness of
issertation, Utah
Microfilms No. 72-
ty education teachers.
1975, 5 (3), 25-27;


80
Category 4: Persuasiveness
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Persuasiveness and the degree to which the coor
dinators actually used persuasion and argument effectively and
exhibited strong convictions. Table 16.4 reports the results
of the analysis for the category of Persuasiveness.
TABLE 1 6.4--PERSUASIVENESS
Mean Standard F
Group Score Deviation D F P r o b .
Center Directors (ideal) -.62 1.24 1,58 26.13
Coordinators (actual) .73 .458
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 5: Initiation of Structure
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Initiation of Structure and the degree to which the
coordinators actually clearly define their own role and allow
followers to know what is expected of them. Table 16.5 reports
the results of the analysis for the category of Initiation of
Structure. The results indicate that the difference between
the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates
that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more
frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.


33
Sparked by the impetus given by the Mott Foundation,
community education has emerged into a comprehensive and
dynamic concept. Clark and Olsen (1977) stated that:
Today's thinking about community educa
tion culminates the contributions of
hundreds of writers and practitioners . .
community education, simply stated, is
an operational philosophy of education
and a system for community development.
It is comprehensive in scope and of high
potential, equally applicable to any or
ganization, association, or agency that
provides learning opportunities for com
munity members. It is a philosophy that
subscribes to the systematic involvement
of community members of all ages in the
educational process. It further suggests
the maximum utilization of all human,
physical and financial resources of the
community. It is a philosophy that
stresses i nteri nst i tut i ona1 and agency
coordination and cooperation. It recog
nizes that learning is lifelong and that
we provide various types of learning ex
perience for community members, regard
less of their ages. It is a philosophy
that advocates democratic involvement
of community members in problem-solving
and stresses that educational curriculum,
programs, and services should be community
centered (pp. 81-90).
Campbell (1969) saw the community education coordinator
as the connecting link between theory and practice.
He is the one person, perhaps more
than any Other, who interprets edu
cational programs to the people, and
then in reverse makes known to the
central office the desire of the
people in the neighborhoods. . .
He and the principal get citizens
into the educational act as comm'ttee
members assisting with the evolvement,
execution, and evaluation of the edu
cational programs (pp. ^8-^9).


8.
Research should be conducted to determine if
1 00
community education has application as an
operational philosophy for community colleges
and universities, as well as public schools.
9.A study should be conducted to determine if
moving the responsibility for community
education from the Department of Education
Adult Education Division to the Commissioner's
Cabinet level would foster community educational
programming at the four division levels and
increase cooperation and coordination among
the divisions.
10. Studies should be conducted to determine the
feasibility of developing community education
in-service training modules for use by local
school districts in their on-going staff de
velopment programs. The three Centers for
Community Education in Florida could provide
the necessary resources for the development
of these modules. The modules could then be
utilized by both instructional and administra
tive employees at the local district level.
11. Research should be conducted to determine the
most effective method of gaining community
input for community needs assessment, program
development and evaluation.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i wish to thank all those individuals who have con
tributed to my successful doctoral program. My three year
tenure at the University of Florida brought me in contact with
many truly outstanding people who added a great deal to my
professional growth and development,
A very special thanks goes to my wife, Monty, for the
strength and support she prov'ded. In addition, I w^uld like
to congratulate her fc her pp oerverance and endurance as we
passed this wav-
i


APPENDIX C
I am presently conducting a study dealing with the
nature of leadership behaviors of community education
coordinators. The initial phase of the study requires
base data for a behavior profile. Each Center Director
is being asked to provide input for the development of
the p ro fi 1e .
I would appreciate your taking just five minutes
from your busy schedule to complete the short survey
enclosed. Please return in the self-addressed envelope
at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you for your immediate attention and coopera
tion.
Sincerely,
A. L. Stefurak
Center Associate
ALS/cr
e n c
o s u r e s


LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 1 6. 4--PERSUAS I VENESS 80
TABLE 1 6. 5--I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE 8l
TABLE 1 A 6--T0LERANC E OF FREEDOM 8l
TABLE 1A.7--R0LE RETENTION 82
TABLE 1 6. 8--CONS I DERAT I ON 82
TABLE 1 6.9 PRCDUCTI ON EMPHASIS 83
TABLE 1 6 1 O--PRED I CT I VE ACCURACY 83
TABLE 1 6 1 1--I NTEGRAT I ON 84


(r = .75), Structure (r = .7^), Integration (r = .73), Role
Retention (r = .66), and Persuasion (r = .65). The findings
obtained from this analysis of subscale correlation suggest
that followers are able to describe the coordinators in terms
of several factors.
Leader Behavior Profile Findings
Responses to the Leader Behavior Profile indicate sig
nificant differences at the .01 level between the ideal fre
quency of leader behavior determined by the national authori
ties and the actual frequency of leader behavior as measured
by the L B D Q X I I on 10 of 12 subscales. Two of the subscales,
Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not
significantly different between center directors and coordina
tors. Reasons for these measurable differences should be re
counted .
Initially, there seems to be a significant distortion
between theory and practice. The professional literature in
community education ascribes to the role of coordinator
characteristics of a process facilitator. That is, the role
of indirect or low profile leadership which is to assist a group
in learning useful ways for accomplishing tasks and working as
a unit. The major factor being to assist group members in mak
ing decisions. On the other hand, practice, as measured by the
L B D Q X I I shows that coordinators are exercising a much more
prominent leadership role and taking a direct active part in the
decision making process. This is best exemplified by the


AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS
IN FLORIDA
by
Albert Linwood Stefurak
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE CO
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNC I L OF
FOR THE
UN I VERS ITY OF FLOR I DA
1977

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i wish to thank all those individuals who have con
tributed to my successful doctoral program. My three year
tenure at the University of Florida brought me in contact with
many truly outstanding people who added a great deal to my
professional growth and development,
A very special thanks goes to my wife, Monty, for the
strength and support she prov'ded. In addition, I w^uld like
to congratulate her fc her pp oerverance and endurance as we
passed this wav-
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ¡ ¡
LIST Or TABLES ¡ v
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION
Statement Of The Problem
Del 'mitations And Limitations
Justification For The Study
Defrnition Of Tern
Procedures
Summa ry
I SELFCTED PFVIEW 0^ RELATED LITERATURE
Leadership Theory
Community Education History and Philosophy
Summa ry
III FINDINGS n<- THE L B D ~ X I I
Summary Of The L B DO-- X I I Results
Summary
IV FINDINGS 0F THE LF./'DER BEHAVIOR PROFILE
Summary Of Leader Behavior Profile Results
S UfT"' T ry
v DISCUSSION, CONCL "-IONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDAT!ONS
Discussion
Co^cl usions
Recrmmenda V ions F Future Study
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
v i i i
1
2
5
6
1 0
1 1
18
20
20
29
37
39
AO
69
72
73
85
87
87
96
98
1 02
1 1 3
1 1 A
1 1 7
1 23
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 .0 LBDQ XI I RESULTS 4l
TABLE 1 ^-REPRESENTATION 41
TABLE ^--REPRESENTATION 4 2
TABLE 1 ^REPRESENTATION 42
TABLE 1 .^--REPRESENTATION 42
TABLE I ^""REPRESENTATION 43
TABLE 2. 1- -DEMAND RECONCILIATION 44
TABLE 2 2--DEMAMD R E f. O N C I L I A T i 0 N 44
TABLE 2 3--DEMAND R E ( r'N C I L I AT ON 44
TABLE 2.4--DEMAND RECONCILIARON 45
TABLE 2.5" DEMAND RECONC I L I A T 0 N 45
TABLE 3 1 --TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 46
TABLE 3. 2--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 46
TABLE 3 3--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 47
TABLE 3 4--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 47
TABLE 3 5--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 48
TABLE 4. T-PERSUASIVENESS 48
TABLE A.2--PERSUASIVENESS 49
TABLE 4 3--PERSUAS I VENESS 49
TABLE ,!.4--PEpSUAS I V E N E S p 50
TABLE 4 5--PERSUAS I VENES? 50

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 5 1 " I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE 51
TABLE 5 2--I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE 51
TABLE 5 3 I NITIATION OF STRUCTURE 51
TABLE 5-^ INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 52
TABLE 5 5 INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 53
TABLE 6. 1- -TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 53
TABLE 6.2- -TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 5^
TABLE 6. 3--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 5^
TABLE 6.4--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 55
TABLE 6. 5--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 55
TABLE 7 1 R 0E RETENTION 56
TABLE 7-2--ROLE RETENTION 56
TABLE 7.3--ROLE RETENTION 56
TABLE 7.^--ROLE RETENTION 57
TABLE 7-5--ROLE RETENTION 57
TABLE 8 1--CONS I DERAT I ON 58
TABLE 8. 7--C0NS I DERAT I ON 58
TABLE 8 3--CONS I DERAT I ON 59
TABLE 3.^--CONSIDERATION 59
TABLE 8 5--CONS I DERAT I ON 59
TABLE 9 1--PRODUCT I ON EMPHASIS 60
TABLE 9. 2--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS 60
TABLE 9. 3--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS 61
TABLE 0. ^PRODUCTION EMPHASIS 61
TABLE 5 5--PR0Di;CT I ON FMPHASIS 62
v

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 1 0. 1--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 62
TABLE 10.2 PREDI CTIVE ACCURACY 62
TABLE 1 0 3--PRED I CT I VE ACCURACY 63
TABLE 10.4 PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 63
TABLE 10.5 PREDI CTIVE ACCURACY 64
TABLE 1 1 1 -- I N T E G RAT I ON 64
TABLE 1 1 2--I NTEGRAT I ON 65
TABLE 1 1 3--! NTEGRAT I ON 65
TABLE 1 1 4--I NTEGRAT I ON 65
TABLE 1 1 5--I NTEGRAT I ON 66
TABLE 1 2 1--SUPER I OR OR I E N T A T I ON 67
TABLE 1 2.2--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 67
TABLE 1 2 3--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 68
TABLE 1 2 4--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 68
TABLE 1 2. 5 SUPERI OR ORIENTATION 69
TABLE 1 3 0--C0RRELAT ION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES 70
TABLE 14. 1 LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL) 74
TABLE 14.2--LBD0.--XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL) 75
TABLE 151--Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL) 76
TABLE 15.2--Z-SC0RE CONVERSI 0NS--C00RDINATORS (ACTUAL) 77
TABLE i6.0--ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" "ACTUAL" 78
TABLE 1 6. 1 --REPRESENTATI ON 78
TABLE 1 6. 2--DEMAND RECONCILIATION 79
TABLE I ( 3--T0' FRANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 79

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 1 6. 4--PERSUAS I VENESS 80
TABLE 1 6. 5--I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE 8l
TABLE 1 A 6--T0LERANC E OF FREEDOM 8l
TABLE 1A.7--R0LE RETENTION 82
TABLE 1 6. 8--CONS I DERAT I ON 82
TABLE 1 6.9 PRCDUCTI ON EMPHASIS 83
TABLE 1 6 1 O--PRED I CT I VE ACCURACY 83
TABLE 1 6 1 1--I NTEGRAT I ON 84

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
AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS
I N FLOR I DA
by
Albert Linwood Stefurak
December 1977
Chairman; Dr. Phillip A. Clark
Major Department: Educational Administration
This study was conducted to determine the ideal nature of
leader behavior of community education coordinators based on
the opinion of national community education authorities as well
as to assess the actual nature of leader behavior of selected
community education coordinators in Florida according to
Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader behaviors. Specifically, the
following questions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between the actual behavior
exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the
ideal leader behavior suggested by the national authorities?
2. Is there a relationship between the personal variables
of sex. age, years of experience as a community education coor
dinator, previous professional experience, and the 12 leader be
havior categories:

Representation
Demand Reconciliation
Tolerance of Uncertainty
Persuasiveness
initiation of Structure
Tolerance of Freedom
Role Retention
Consideration
Product ion
Empha sis
Predictive Accuracy
Integration
Influence with Superiors?
Using an abridgement of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire--XII, the Directors of the Centers for Community
Education in 45 colleges and universities were surveyed to
determine the ideal leader behavior of 15 selected coordinators
as measured by five members of each coordinator's school com
munity advisory council using the L B D Q X I I In addition, the
results of the L B DQ-- X I 1 were analyzed on the basis of five
persona 1 variables.
The following conclusions are based on the results of this
study. Evidence from the comparison of ideal and actual leader
behavior supports the conclusion that there are significant dif
ferences between the ideal leadership behavior suggested by
national authorities and the ctual leader behavior exhibited by

community education coordinators on 10 of the 12 constructs
of the L B D Q X I I Only two of the constructs, Tolerance of
Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom, were not significantly
different.
Concerning the five personal variables, the following
conclusions were reached:
1. The variable of sex produced no significant dif
ferences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators
in any of the 12 behavior constructs.
2. The variable of age produced no significant dif
ferences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators
in any of the 12 behavior constructs.
3. The variable of years experience as a coordinator
produced the significant difference in the perceived behavior
of the coordinators in the constructs of Persuasiveness,
Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation. There was
no significant difference in the other nine constructs.
The variable of training in community education
produced
no
behavior
o f
5.
produced
no
behav!o r
of
s t r uc t s .
The variable of previous professional experience
x

CHAPTER I
I NTRODUCTION
Many writers have indicated the changing role of education
in society. Havighurst (Saxe, 1975) points out that various
changes in situations and events have cumulated to make the
school system more important today than it was 50 years ago.
Educators are being confronted with many innovations and con
stantly changing values. Consequently, the educational system
is also becoming more vulnerable to outside forces that impinge
upon it. "Two of these situations are the rise of the community
school movement and the rise of community control of the schools
movemen t (p. vi i i).
An orientation to community education is based upon an
assumption that the individuals to be served by the educational
establishment have a basic right to active participation in all
aspects of the process. However, according to Saxe (1975),
"school-community relations are adversely affected by an organi
zational phenomenon--bureauracy--and by psychological factors of
educa tors--attitudes, opinions, and interests" (p. 1). When the
organizational structure has been constructed in an attempt to
address these situations, the individual changed with carrying
out the community education function should be equinped to deal
with the challenge. Community educators must provide the
1

2
appropriate leadership to allow community members to become
involved in the educational decision-making process.
The major concern of this study was to examine leader
ship performance of community education coordinators in the
development of community involvement in the community education
process. Specifically, the focus of the investigation is on
the behavior of individuals as they perform the function of
leadership.
Statement Of The Problem
This study was designed to determine the "ideal" nature
of leader behavior based on the opinion of national community
education authorities as well as to assess the actual nature
of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators
in Florida according to Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader be
havior (Stogdill, 197*0*
Specifically, the following questions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between the "actual" frequency
of leader behaviors exhibited by selected community
education coordinators and the "ideal" frequency of
leader behavior suggested by the national authorities?
2. Is there a relationship between the following six
variables:
i .
sex
M. age
iii. years experience as a community education coordinator
iv. training in community education

3
v .
V i .
and the 12
d¡mens ions
previous professional experience
professional aspirations
leadership behavior categories based on the
of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--
XII?
The preceding questions were answered according to the
ratings received by the selected community education coor
dinators on the 12 leadership behavior constructs.
Construct 1: Representation
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators speak and act as the repre
sentative of the group based on the personal data variables,
i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators reconcile conflicting demands
and reduce disorder to the system based on the personal data
variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators are able to tolerate un
certainty and postponement without anxiety and upset based
on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years ex
perience, etc.?
Construct 4: Persuasiveness
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators use persuasion and

4
argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions based on
personal data variables, i.e.. sex, age, years experience,
etc.?
Construct 5: Initiation of Structure
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators clearly define their own
role and allow followers to know what is expected of them,
based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years
experience, etc.?
Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators allow followers scope for
initiative, decision and action, based on the personal data
variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 7: Role Retention
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators actively exercise the leader
ship role rather than surrender leadership to others based on
the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience
etc.?
Construct 8: Consideration
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators regard the comfort, well
being, status and contribution of followers based upon the
personal data variable, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc

5
Construct 9: Production Emphasis
is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators apply pressure for pro
ductive output based on the personal data variables, i.e.,
sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators exhibit foresight and ability
to predict outcomes accurately based on the personal data
variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 11: Integration
Is there ? difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators maintain a closely-knit
organization and resolve intermember conflict based on the
personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience,
etc.?
Construct 12: Superior Orientation
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators maintain cordial relations
with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving
for higher status based upon the personal data variable., i.e.,
sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Delimitations And Limitations
The following restrictions were observed in conducting
the study:

6
1. The study of leadership behavior was based on data
from 75 people located in various school districts in the
state of Florida.
2. The persons chosen to participate were selected by
community education coordinators and may not have been repre
sentative of the community at large.
3. The leader behaviors measured were restricted to
those dimensions measured by the Leader Behavior Description
Ques tionnair e-- X II.
The following limitations were recognized in this investi
gation:
1. The resulting data are the perceptions of community
members and not necessarily the actual behavior exhibited by
the coordinator.
2. Responses may have been influenced by the respondent's
desire to provide a positive image of leader behavior for the
individual coordinator.
3. Data were gathered from the state of Florida only;
therefore, the generalizations drawn from the data are limited.
Justification For The Study
"The general function of organization and administration
for community education is similar to that of any other or
ganized educational endeavor: the character of the function is,
however, influenced by the values that determine the philosophy"
(Moore, 1972, p. 168). In addition, Moore stated that some
basic assumptions should be made concerning the characteristics

7
and goals of an effective community education organization.
Specifically, these assumptions should include:
-Reliance on democratically established
goals, and a viable philosophy should
be substituted, in the main, for the
authority-oriented approach.
-The administrative staff should be an
"open" one, not fearing change or
chal 1enge.
-The administrative climate should re
flect the philosophy of community edu
cation, using a problem solving approach.
-A flat and flexible administrative or
ganization, in contrast to a vertical
one, offers the best promise.
-The individual school and community
must be seen as an educational unit,
with freedom to adapt to the need of
the local area and delegated authority
commensurate with assigned responsibility.
-Administration should recognize that
not all wisdom is found in the adminis
trative staff but is liberally possessed
by laymen and the teaching staff.
-Increasingly, decisions
by those possessing the
so, not merely the rank
shouId be made
competence to do
or position.
-Leadership should bring people, ideas,
and resources together to produce an
optimum opportunity for all learners.
(p. 159)
One of the problems faced by administrators in establish
ing community education is that of resistance to change on the
part of the public. Preparation programs of which most adminis
trators are products, urge that the people be told about the
schools. Parents must be brought into the school, and the
school's programs sold to the people. Very few efforts have been

8
made which allow parents, students, and community members
opportunities to express their feelings about the schools with
school leaders. "information flow has been primarily one way.
Legitimate out'ets have not been provided for protest or dis
content" (Cunningham, 1971, p. 176).
Community educators bear an unusual burden for a strong
program of communication and public relations. Establishing
the rapport necessary for such communication requires the
community educator to possess specialized human, technical,
and conceptual skills (Weaver, 1975). These skills thus form
the foundation upon which leader behavior is developed. Clark
and Stefurak (1975) considered the community education leader
most facile in human, technical and conceptual skills when his
leader behavior is "other-centered."
This approach vests leadership in
others, rather than in status leaders.
Leaders using this approach make it
possible for others to emerge, assume
responsibility, and participate in de
cision making. They help people become
as involved in task development and com
pletion as they wish to be involved, and
encourage them to apply their skills and
creativity to mutually determined goals
(p. 19).
Such an approach to the organization and administration of
community education requires an open flexible type of admin
istration able to deal with direct community input.
There have been many attempts at so-called citizen par
ticipation in education over the years. However, as an attempt
to increase public involvement, the state of Florida, in 1973,
mandated that each school system must have a school advisory

9
council. Furthermore, within this mandate is the additional
requirement that such councils are to be "broadly representa
tive of the community served by the school" (Chapter 7 3 ~ 3 3 8 ;
Laws of Florida). The schoo1 -community advisory council should
provide the linkage between the community, its problems, and
potential solutions.
However, Deshler and Erlich (1972), speaking of the
community advisory council movement in general, stated that
"participation can very easily be phoney. Real lasting per
vasive power must reside in effective collaboration between
the community (including the students) and the school in all
decision making" (p. 175).
According to Moore (1972), "the essence of the community
education philosophy is that the program must serve and be
responsive to the entire community. . The insecure admin
istrator who depends upon status authority and a 'tight ship'
operation will be very uncomfortable with this approach"
( pp 169 170). Thus, the leadership provided by the community
education coordinator plays a vital role in the development of
the community education process. Considering the frequency of
interpersonal interactions with a variety of publics, specific
patterns of fcil ¡tat ¡ve leadership behaviors should be involved
in the role of community educator.
In general, this study should assist in the clarification
and understanding of the leader behavior of community education
coordinators as well as what variables might influence those be
haviors.

Definition Of Terms
Community education. An operational philosophy of
education, when actualized serves the entire community by
providing for all the educational needs of the community
members. It provides the educational establishment a systemati
methodology for bringing total community resources to bear on
community problems in an effort to enhance community develop
ment.
Community education coordinator. That individual charged
with the responsibility of developing and administering com
munity education within the school center.
Leader. An individual who, based on his office or
official status in a group o organization, ¡ s placed in the
position of being able to influence the activities of that
group or organization as it attempts to achieve its goals. In
this study, the leader is identified as the community education
coo rdina to r.
Leader behavior. Those behaviors exhibited by an indi
vidual while he engages in influencing group or organizational
activities.
Schoo1 -community advisory council. "A representative
group of schoo1 -community members who hold common the common
goal of community development through the identification of
problems and the application of solutions" (Flint Community
Schools, 1973, p. 1). An active council works to address com
munity needs as determined by joint effort of the council and
the community education coordinator.

Procedures
The procedures section is divided into three parts.
The first part includes the design of the study and selection
of the sample. The second section is an explanation of the
development of the instruments and the data collection process.
The final section deals with the treatment of the collected
data.
Design and Sample
Community education coordinators. The community education
coordinators were identified with assistance from the Florida
Department of Education, Adult and Community Education Section.
The Department of Education provided a list of 263 community
education coordinators for the school year 197576. The list
of coordinators was divided by male and female and each list
was numbered. Using a random numbers table, 10 male and 10
female coordinators were chosen. The chosen coordinators were
contacted by mail and asked to participate in the study. Two
additional groups of five males and five females were randomly
selected to provide alternate samples to complete the 20 coor
dinators. Those individuals who chose not to participate did
so because they either did no^ have a schoo1 -community advisory
council, did not relate to an existing schoo1 community advisory
council, or no longer functioned in the role of community edu
cation coordinator.
$ chop 1 -community advisory council members. The coordina
tors were requested to identify the chairperson of their ad
visory council as well as four members to participate in the

1 2
study. The selection of only five advisory council members
for each coordinator in the study could bias the results
since the selection was done by the coordinator being rated.
However, the same bias effect would apply equally to all
respondents.
Directors of university centers for community education.
A total of 56 Center Directors was sampled to determine the
"ideal" leader behavior. This constitutes the total popula
tion of individuals responsible for directing academic com
munity education leadership training programs in the United
States during fiscal year 1977. The names and addresses of
these individuals were provided by the University of Florida
Center for Community Education.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Inst rument. The instrument used in this study was the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII developed
by Ralph Stogdill (1963). The questionnaire was designed to
obtain descriptions of leaders, through 12 dimensions of
leader behavior. The leader behavior is perceived objectively
in terms of the frequency of occurrence within the 12 dimensions.
A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix A. In addition
to the basic instrument, a personal data sheet was developed.
This questionnaire was for personal data such as age and sex,
as well as specific information concerning years experience as
a community education coordinator, training in community educa
tion, previous professional experience and professional aspira
tions. A copy of the personal data questionnaire is included
in Appendix B.

The third instrument, the Leader Behavior Profile was
developed by the researcher for the purpose of identifying
the "ideal" importance or priorities for the 12 dimensions
of leader behavior measured bv the L B DQ-- X I I The profile
is an abridgement of the L B D Q. X I I and consists of the 12
categories which the L B DQ-- X I I measures. This instrument was
used to assess the opinion of Community Education Center Direc
tors concerning the priorities for specific leader behaviors.
A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix C.
Data Treatment
L B DQ-- X I I consists of 100 items describing leader behavior.
Each item is answered using a structured answer format with one
of five possible responses: always, often, occasionally, seldom,
never. Each item receives a score from five to one. Each sub
scale score consists of the sum of the scores from the items of
the subscale.
Stogdill (1970) concluded that subscales of the L B DQ-- X I I
were differentially related to different dimensions of leader
personality, member satisfaction, and group performance. His
theoretical work was based on the factors of identifiable be
havior patterns.
The following 12 dimensions of leader behavior were defined
in the L B DQ-- X1 I .
1. Representation. The perceived degree to which an
individual speaks and acts as the representative of the group.
2. Demand Reconciliation. The perceived degree to which
an individual reconciles conflicting demands and reduced dis
order to the system.

Tolerance for Uncertainty. The perceived degree to
3 .
which an individual is able to tolerate uncertainty and post
ponement without anxiety and upset.
4. Persuasiveness. The perceived degree to which an
individual uses persuasion and argument effectively and ex
hibits strong convictions.
5- Initiation of Structure. The perceived degree to
which an individual clearly defines his own role and allows
followers to know what is expected of them.
6. Tolerance of Freedom. The perceived degree to which
an individual allows followers scope for initiative, decision,
and action.
7. Role Retention. The perceived degree to which an
individual actively exercises the leadership role rather than
surrender leadership to others.
8. Consideration. The perceived degree to which an
individual regards the comfort, well-being, status, and con
tribution of followers.
9. Production Emphasis. The perceived degree to which
an individual applies pressure for productive output.
10.Predictive Accuracy. The perceived degree to which
an individual exhibits foresight and ability to predict out
comes accurately.
11* Integration. The perceived degree to which an in
dividual maintains a closely knit organization and resolves
intermember conflict.

The perceived
15
12. Superior Orientation. The perceived degree to which
an individual maintains cordial relations with superiors; has
influence over them, and is striving for higher status.
The Leader Behavior Profile consists of the 12 behavior
constructs measured by the L 3 D Q-- X I I The respondent was
requested to rank in order of importance the 12 categories of
leader behavior. A forced-choice method was used for ranking
the 12 categories. Values were assigned based on the follow
ing scale: Most Important, Very Important, Moderate Impor
tance, Slight Importance, Little or No Importance. Each
category received a score from five to one. This parallel
scale enabled a comparison between the L B DQ-- X I I subscales and
the Leader Behavior Profile categories.
Validity
In Stogdill's (1970) Review of Research on the L B DQ-- X I I ,
he explained the test of validity given.
In order to test the validity of the
subscales of the L.B.D.Q. XI I Stogdill
(1963) with the assistance of a playwright,
wrote a scenario for each of the subscales.
The items in a subscale were used as a basis
for writing the scenario for that pattern
of behavior. Experienced actors played the
role of supervisor and workers. Each role
was played by two different actors. Mot:on
pictures were made of the role performance.
Observers used L.B.D.Q..--X1 I to describe
the behavior of the supervisor. No signifi
cant difference was found between two dif
ferent actors playing the same role. How
ever, the actors claying a given role were
described significant1y higher in that role
than in other roles. Since each role was
designed to portray the behaviors represented
by the items in its respective subscale, and
since the same items were used by the observers
to describe the playing of the role, it can be

concluded that the scales measure what
they are purported to measure (p. 5).
Reliability
A modified Kuder-Richardson formula was used to determine
the reliability of the L B D Q-- X I I Each item was correlated
with the remainder of the items in the subscale. The resulting
reliability coefficients ranged from .5^ to .87 for nine dif
ferent groups of leaders, indicative of sufficient reliability
for use in this study (Stogdi'l, I963).
Administration
The Leader Behavior Description Quest ionnaire--Form XII
can be used by a leader to describe his own behavior, or by
associates of the leader to describe a given leader.
The L B D Q-- X I I (Appendix A) was administered to five school
community advisory council members. The community education
coordinator completed the personal data sheet (Appendix B).
The Leader Behavior Profile was completed by Center Dir
ectors from the Centers for Community Education.
Method of Securing Data
Initial contact with the 20 community education coordina
tors was made by mail. Each coordinator was asked to partici
pate in the study and to provide information concerning the
schoo1 -community adv i sory. counci 1 Following this initial con
tact, the researcher contacted each coordinator by phone to
discuss the study and obtain a date for gathering the data.
Copies of the L B DQ-- X I I and the personal data sheet were
mailed to the coordinator. Instructions were given for the

17
questionnaire to be distributed by the chairperson of the
advisory council. Upon completion of the questionnaire, the
chairpersons were to return the questionnaires and the coor
dinators' personal data sheet directly to the researcher.
Instruction for completing the survey were placed on the first
page of the instrument (Appendix A). The instrument required
approximately 30 minutes to complete. A series of follow-up
contacts were made with those individuals who were slow in re
turning the questionnaires.
The Leader Behavior Profile was mailed with a cover letter
to each of the directors of University Centers for Community
Education. Directions for completing the survey were placed
on the first page of the instrument. The instrument required
approximately 15 minutes to complete. A follow-up contact was
made with the Directors who were negligent in returning the
survey.
Method of Statistical Analysis
Data for analysis were drawn from the administration of
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII and the
Leader Behavior Profile. The data received from the L B DQ-- X I I
were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to answer
each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader
behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05 level of
significance was used for each of the constructs. A follow-up
test was performed on those variables found to be significant
using Tukey's HSD procedure. The data for each question was

1 8
based upon the ratings of the participant coordinators made
by the. advisory council members
The data received from the Leader Behavior Profile were
analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple
linear regression procedure. Effect coding was used on the
raw data to compensate for the unequal number in each group.
Raw scores from the L B DQ-- X I I and the Leader Behavior Profile
were changed to z-scores to conform to the assumptions of homo
geneity of variance and to standardize the mean scores for the
two sets of data. A simple linear regression procedure was
used in computing the F-test and thus provided for orthogonal
comparisons between the "ideal" behavior as determined by the
Center Directors and the "actual" behavior as reported by the
advisory council members. The .01 level of significance was
used.
The services of the University of Florida Computer Center
were employed to analyze the data. Computer analysis were run
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
S umma ry
The sample population for this study was composed of 20
community school coordinators from Florida who were randomly
selected. Each of the coordinators identified five school-
community advisory council members to participate in the study
In addition, all the directors of university Centers for Com
munity Education were surveyed.

19
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII,
developed by Ralph Stogdill was the instrument used to assess
community council members perceptions of the coordinators'
leader behavior. A personal data sheet was developed to obtain
from the selected coordinators the information used for analysis.
The Leader Behavior Profile, an abridgement of the
L B D Q-- X I I was used to collect data from the Center Directors
concerning "ideal" leader behavior. These data were used to
compare the "ideal" behaviors with the "actual" behaviors of
the coord ina tors.
The data for each of the 12 constructs for the LB DQ-- X I I
were grouped by personal data variables and analyzed using a
one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedures using the
.05 level of significance. Data for comparison of the Center
Directors' "ideal" with the coordinators' "actual" were analyzed
using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear re
gression procedure. The .01 level of significance was used for
this analysis.
Chapter II contains a review of related literature and
relative studies pertaining to the leadership in community
education.

CHAPTER I I
SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to review literature and
research relevant to the study of community education coor
dinators. The focus of this study is on the leadership be
havior of community education coordinators. This chapter con
tains two sections entitled: Leadership Theory and Community
Education History and Philosophy.
Leadership Theory
Leadership theories are reviewed in light of the leader
ship theme of this study. There are basically six categories
of leadership theories. In this specific research effort, the
"interaction-expectation" theories were chosen for the basis
of the study. Literature pertaining to the other five types
of leadership theories will only be briefly discussed.
Environmental Theories
Murphy (19^1) contended that leadership qualities were
not part of the individual, but a function of the situation.
The leader evaluates the situation and is the instrumental
factor through which the solution is achieved.
The cultural setting, according to Schneider (1937) is
the controlling factor in leadership. He found that great
2 0

21
military leaders in England emerged in proportion to the num
ber, of conflicts.
Great Man Theories
Dowd (1936) concluded that individuals possess different
degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force; therefore,
a superior few will inevitably emerge as leaders.
Bernard (1926) advanced similar conclusions from his
study in social psychology. He maintained that leadership can
be explained in terms of traits of personality and character.
Therefore, trait theories could be used to explain leadership.
Persona1 -Situationa1 Theories
By combining the two previously mentioned theories, another
method for describing and studying leadership was established.
Case (1933) suggested that leadership is produced by three
factors: (l) the personality traits of the leader, (2) the
nature of the group and of its members, and (3) the event
confronting the group.
Gibb (1954) maintained that when group formation and
interaction take place, leadership is a natural interaction
phenomenon.
Bennis (1966) established five considerations when de
veloping leadership theory: (l) impersonal bureaucracy and
rationality of measures, (2) informal organization and inter
personal relations, (3) benevolent autocracy which gets results
because it structures the relationship between superior and
subordinates, (4) job enlargement and employee-centered super
vision that permits individual self actualization, and (5)

22
participation management and joint consultation that allow
integration of individual and organizational goals.
Cattell (1951) suggested that leadership represents a
dynamic interaction between the goals of the leader and the
goals of the followers. It functions to help the group decide
upon a goal and to help the group find the means to the goal.
Humanistic Theories
The development of effective and cohesive organizations was
a major concern of Argyris and McGregor.
Argyris ( 1 9 6 ) identified a basic conflict between the
organization and the individual. He stated that it is the in
dividual's character to be se 1f-directive and to seek fulfill
ment through exercising initiative and responsibility. On the
other hand, it is the tendency of organizations to structure
member roles and to control performance in the interest of
achieving specified objectives.
McGregor (1966) perceived leadership on the basis of two
organizational types--Theory X and Theory Y. A Theory X leader
attempts to direct and motivate people from the assumption that
people are passive and resistant to organizational needs. Theory
Y presumes that people already possess motivation and desire
for responsibility and therefore, the leader attempts to struc
ture conditions in order to make possible fulfillment of their
needs while directing their efforts to achieve the organiza
tional objectives.
Likert (1967) observed that leadership is based on inter
action. The leader builds group cohesiveness and motivation

23
by providing freedom for responsible decision making and
exercise of initiative.
Exchange Theories
Jacobs (1965) conceptualized leadership in terms of a
social exchange theory. It is based on the assumption that
the group provides status and esteem satisfaction to the leader
in exchange for his contribution to goal attainment. Leader
ship implies an equitable exchange relationship between leader
and followers. Acknowledgement of role obligations allows
each party to satisfy the expectations of others on an equit
able basis.
I nteraction-Expectation Theories
Homans (1950) based his theory of leadership on three
variables: action, interaction, and sentiment. Leadership is
defined in terms of organization of interaction. The greater
the frequency of interaction and participation between members,
the greater the mutual liking and clarity of group norms. The
higher the rank of a person within the group, the wider the
interaction, the more likely his activities conform to group
norms, and the greater the number of group members for whom he
originates interaction.
The Ohio State Leadership Studies (Stogdill, 197M were
organized in an attempt to develop a more definitive theory of
leadership. According to Stogdill (197^), much of the research
which had taken place earlier focused upon an attempt to dif
ferentiate the traits of leaders. Bird (1940), Jenkins (19^7),

2 4
and Stogdil] (19-48)
than satisfactory in
Since the trait
ndicated that the trait approach was less
explaining leadership.
approach had proved unsuccessful, a new
approach was suggested,
behaviors rather than the
describe an individual's
a group or organization"
Realizing leadership
(1959) provided a concise
to the study of leaders:
"Attempts were made to study
the
t r a i t s
of 1 eaders--in other
wo rd s ,
to
behavior
wh i
le he acted as a
leader
o f
(S togd i 1
1 1
974, p. 128).
is toa
deg
ree situational,
Ha 1p i n
explana
t i o n
of the behaviora
1 approach
First of all, it focuses upon observed
behavior rather than upon a posited
capacity inferred from this behavior.
No presuppositions a-e made about a
one-to-one relationship between leader
behavior and an underlying capacity or
potentiality presumably determinative
of this behavior. By the same token,
no apriori assumptions are made that the
leader behavior which the leader exhibits
in one group situation will be manifested
in other group situations. . nor does
the term . suggest that this behavior
is determined either innately or situation-
ally. Either determinant is possible, as
is any combination of the two, but the
concept of leader behavior does not itself
predispose us to accept one in opportion
to the other. (p. 12)
Although differences in terminology emerged, theorists
and researchers alike reached rather remarkable agreement on at
least two major dimensions or variables associated with leader
behavior. Barnard (1938) delineated the difference between
organizational efficiency and organizational effectiveness.
Likewise, Cartwright and Zander (1953) identified leader behaviors
oriented toward maintenance of efficiency and effectiveness which

25
they categorized as goal attainment activities and work-group
maintenance activities. These behaviors strongly paralleled
those found in the writings of Barnard.
Similarly, Kahn and Katz (Cartwright and Zander, 1953)
delineated two major behaviorial styles among supervisors.
They noted that some supervisors were production-oriented and
tended to stress efficiency, production, and goal attainment;
while others were employee-oriented and stressed motivation,
morale, and employee satisfaction.
Initially, two major dimensions of leader behavior were
identified by researchers at Ohio State University. Hemphill
( 1950) and his associates at Ohio State developed a list of
approximately 1800 items describing different aspects of leader
behavior. Through a process of sorting into sub-scales, 150
items were found to be consensus assignments. These were used
to develop the list form of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ).
Halpin and Winer (1957) delineated two basic dimensions to
leader behavi or--initi ating structure and considerati on--fo1 1 ow
ing the work of Hemphill (1950). There is nothing unique about
these two dimensions of leader behavior. The ideas embodied in
the concepts of initiating structure and consideration may have
been used by effective leaders for a long time in guiding their
behavior with group members, "while the concepts themselves, with
different labels perhaps, have been invoked frequently by philos
ophers and social scientists to explain the leadership phenomena"
(Halpin, 1966, p. 87).

26
Many other individuals have hypothesized similar dimen
sions. In an attempt to summarize evidence to substantiate
these dimensions, Bass (I960) cited more than 20 studies which
had been conducted in organizational environments (pp. 101-105).
Halpin and Croft (Stogdill, 197*0 were not satisfied that
leader behavior could be adequately described with two factors.
They developed a four factor scale: Aloofness, Production
Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration (p. 142).
Agreeing with Halpin and Croft (1962) that two factors
were not sufficient to describe the complexities of leader be
havior, Stogdill (1959) developed a new theoretical framework
known as the expectancy-reinforcement theory of role attainment.
According to Stogdill, as group members interact, their roles are
defined by mutually confirmed expectations relative to the per
formances and interactions. As each individual interacts, he is
judged by the contributions he makes to the group. The initiation
and maintenance of structure defines the level of interaction
and expectation. In the predistinguished leadership positions,
the leader is expected to play a role that differs from the roles
of other group members.
This expectancy reinforcement model is applicable to the
study of community education coordinators. Stogdill 's research
has yielded several leadership surveys. One form, the Leader
Behavior Description Questi onna ire--Form XII will be used in
this study. The leader behavior approach has been used previously
in a variety of manners for the study of school administrators and
community education coordinators.

27
For example, Halpin (1956) studied 50 Ohio school superin
tendents to determine the relationship between the superintendent's
own perception of how he or she behaved on the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire as compared with the school board and
staff perceptions. Sharpe (1956) studied the leadership of prin
cipa 1 s -- d e s c r i bed by teachers, staff members, and self. The three
groups held similar ideals of leader behavior.
Brown (1966) focused on the leader behavior of 170 prin
cipals in Alberta, Canada. Using the LBDQ--XI I the findings in
dicated that (1) teachers' estimates of the school's performance
were not sensitive to the perception of leadership in the school,
(2) teacher satisfaction was sensitive to the perception of the
school leadership, and (3) confidence in principal was related to
school leadership.
Jacob (1965) compared "high" and "low" innovating principals
using the L B D Q-- X I I He found that the high innovating principals
received higher ratings on six dimensions of leader behavior:
Initiating Structure, Predictive Accuracy, Representation, Inte
gration, Persuasion, and. Consideration.
In a study of the perceptions of principals and community
school coordinators with respect to the variables authority,
responsibility, and de1egat i on, Mitche1 1 (1973 ) found no signifi
cant difference between the principal's perception and the coor
dinator's perception of the coordinator's behavior in Initiating
Structure or Consideration. Likewise, Gregg (1975), in a recent
study of community education coordinators, determined that,
within an advisory council setting, coordinators and council

28
members would prefer the director use more behavior indicative
of both Initiating Structure and Consideration than those they
presently used. However, there was an even greater preference
for leader behavior indicative of Consideration than that of
Initiating Structure.
Walker (1971), using the LBDQ, found that in comparing
effectiveness and personal factors of community education coor
dinators, the effectiveness was independent of age, experience
as a coordinator, and grade level of teaching experience. Di
rectors with seven or more years of public school experience
were more effective in Initiating Structure than those with less
than seven years experience. However, he found no difference in
Consideration. Community education coordinators with master's
degrees were more effective in Initiating Structure and Considera
tion than those with bachelor's degrees.
According to Hencley (1973), studies based on a behavioral
approach support some basic generalizations about leaderships:
1. Educational leaders are perceived
to possess unique leader behavior
orientations.
2. Preferences and expectations for
leader behavior vary widely among
reference groups.
3. The leader's perceptions of his own
behavior differ from others' per
ceptions. (pp. 148-149)
Halpin (1966) contends that what the leader does and how
he does it as perceived by others who work with the leader is the
nucleus of leader behavior. Evaluation of leader behavior can
be made in terms of the individual, the group, or both.

29
According to Owens (1970), the study of leadership
should be an observed behavior. Thus, research should give
attention to what happened or appears to be happening rather
than on finding the cause of observed behavior.
Community Education History and Philosophy
Although Clark and Olsen (1977) trace the historical roots
of community education to the thirteenth century, history is
not clear as to when the concept was really first applied.
Totten and Manley (1969) speculated that some community school
principles were used when people first began to live together
in any form of community and began to transmit the process of
learning from elders to youth (p. 15). Berridge (1969) traced
the use of public school facilities for community activities to
the Colonial Period in American history. Schools were used for
adult evening classes as early as 1810 in Providence, Rhode
Island, and approximately 30 years later in Cincinnati, Cleveland,
and Chicago (Mann, 1956, p. 11).
Ba rna rd (1938), writing in the middle and later nineteenth
century, advocated the school as a vehicle for improving
social, moral and economic conditions through citizen involve
ment.
Dewey & Dewey (1962) advocated community use of public
school facilities in 1915:
In using the school plant for any
activities . the people of the
community feel that they are using
for their own ends public facilities
which have been paid for by their
taxes. They want to see real, tangible,
results in the way of more prosperous
and efficient families and better civic

30
conditions, coming from the increased
plant in the district school. Because
the schools are public institutions in
fact as well as name, people know whether
the schools are really meeting their needs
and they are willing to work to see they
do. (p. 1 6 A)
Totten and Manley (1969) gleaned from the writings of
Dewey a list of concepts from which the philosophy of community
education was conceived. They are as follows:
1.There must be a two way interaction
between the community and the school.
2.The school itself must be organized
as a community. The school has a cor
porate life of its own and is itself
a genuine social institution, a com-
mun i ty.
3.Learning must be planned in consider
ation of the total environment of
the individual.
k. The school should be organized around
the social activities in which child
ren will engage after leaving school.
5. Society has a definite effect upon
discipline in the school.
6. Social environment supplies the in
tangible attitudes and determination
to improve the society.
7.Education should be consciously used
by society as an instrument for its
own imp rovemen t.
8.
The future adult society should be an
improvement over that in which its
members lived as children.
9. Education may be consciously used to
eliminate obvious social evils through
starting the young on paths that will
not produce these ills.

10.
Activity and learning go hand in
hand. People learn by doing. Hence,
the program of learning for children
and adults alike Is related to life
as it goes on outside the classroom.
(pp. 16-17)
Hart (1924), a contemporary of Dewey, also stressed
the idea that education could not be produced by school alone.
It had to be a joint effort of the schools and the community.
Everett (1938), Clapp (1939), Cook (1941), and Olsen
(1945) were significant contributors to the community school
movement. Their writings promoted the concept of the essential
nature of linking education with the community.
Seay (Henry, 1945), writing for the National Society for the
Study of Education, described the community school thusly:
'Community school1 is the term currently
applied to a school that has two dis
tinctive phases--service to the entire
community . and discovery, develop
ment and use of resources of the com
munity as part of the educational
facilities of the school. The concern
of the community school with local
community is intended not to restrict
the school's attention to local matters,
but to provide a focus from which to
relate study and action in the larger
community--the state, the region, the
nation and the world. (p. 209)
Many educational leaders during the 1 9 3 0 s and 19 4 0 1 s
felt keenly the need to redesign the public education program
to meet the needs of local communities. However, despite the
abundance of writing, few districts chose to adopt the com
munity school concept.
In 1935, the Flint, Michigan schools initiated a community
school program. With financial support from the Charles Stewart

32
Mott Foundation, the Flint Board of Education developed and
conducted educational programs of an enrichment and competency
nature-=programs beyond those normally undertaken by a public
school system. Assuming that a child is molded and developed
by his total environment, the Foundation supported a series
of programs designed to uplift the entire population. Pro
grams in health services for children, adult education, adult
recreation, civic affairs, socialization, and curriculum enrich
ment have been offered through the public schools. Within
this concept, the school became much more than a six-hours-a-
day institution for youth. It became a community education
center with programs in health, adult education, recreation,
compensatory education, and enrichment for all the residents of
the community (Clancy, 1965).
Mott (1959) explained the community education philosophy
in Flint as follows:
After 25 years of experimentation, the
Mott Foundation considers the public
school the ideal instrument to achieve
the end of community education, for the
public school has played the traditional
role of common denominator in our so
ciety, and today is an institution truly
representative of all classes, creeds,
and colors . the physical plant of
the schools, representing a huge com
munity investment, are perfectly suited
for community recreation and education
and the use of these facilities eliminates
the need for costly duplication . the
schools are geographically suited to serve
as neighborhood centers of recreation, edu
cation and democratic action and by their
nature are readily accessible to every man,
woman and child . and if experimental
programs can be proved feasible with a
school system, the transition from private
support to public support is relatively
easy (pp. 141-161).

33
Sparked by the impetus given by the Mott Foundation,
community education has emerged into a comprehensive and
dynamic concept. Clark and Olsen (1977) stated that:
Today's thinking about community educa
tion culminates the contributions of
hundreds of writers and practitioners . .
community education, simply stated, is
an operational philosophy of education
and a system for community development.
It is comprehensive in scope and of high
potential, equally applicable to any or
ganization, association, or agency that
provides learning opportunities for com
munity members. It is a philosophy that
subscribes to the systematic involvement
of community members of all ages in the
educational process. It further suggests
the maximum utilization of all human,
physical and financial resources of the
community. It is a philosophy that
stresses i nteri nst i tut i ona1 and agency
coordination and cooperation. It recog
nizes that learning is lifelong and that
we provide various types of learning ex
perience for community members, regard
less of their ages. It is a philosophy
that advocates democratic involvement
of community members in problem-solving
and stresses that educational curriculum,
programs, and services should be community
centered (pp. 81-90).
Campbell (1969) saw the community education coordinator
as the connecting link between theory and practice.
He is the one person, perhaps more
than any Other, who interprets edu
cational programs to the people, and
then in reverse makes known to the
central office the desire of the
people in the neighborhoods. . .
He and the principal get citizens
into the educational act as comm'ttee
members assisting with the evolvement,
execution, and evaluation of the edu
cational programs (pp. ^8-^9).

The operational setting of a community educator is the
community. According to Melby (1972), a well developed com
munity education program multiplies the number of human con
tacts and draws heavily from the inputs of the public.
Because of the emphasis on interpersonal interaction with
a variety of publics, the community educator must possess a
high degree of competency in dealing with others. The develop
ment of community education requires an underlying ability to
provide leadership for community members as they work toward
community educational goals.
Minzey and LeTarfe (1972) stated it thusly:
The organizational structure may be
developed in several ways, but must
provide for maximum opportunity for
every community member to be aware
of what is happening and to express
his concerns in a way that they will
have impact on the proper people.
(P 3*0
To accomplish such a goal, it has been suggested (Nance,
1972) that community education coordinators possess the
usually preferred personality characteristics such as honesty,
resourcefulness, etc. But above all, he should be trustworthy.
He must be able to establish a relationship with all elements
of the community built upon the highest level of trust. Much
of the effectiveness of a community education coordinator de
pends upon the degree to which he can build good human relations.
He must maintain a friendly atmosphere, encourage participation,
and help people feel that they are a vital part of the community
school. He must devise procedures that will enable people to

35
practice leadership skills and further develop their own leader
ship potential. (pp. 52- 55)
Likewise, Clark and Stefurak (1975) identified character
istics used by Wittmer and Myrick to describe facilitative
teachers, as keys to facilitative leadership for community
educators. The interpersonal qualities were identified as
fo 1 lows:
(1) effective listening; focusing on the
personal meaning that accompanies the
spoken word, (2) genuineness; being your
self at all times, not playing roles,
(3) understanding; being attuned to the
perceptions of other people, (A) respect;
accepting each person as a human being
without passing judgment on him, (5) in
telligence; knowing how to lead and how
to help others to lead, (6) skills in
interpersonal communications; being
aware of the impact of your words and
actions on others. (p. 19)
Berridge (1973) describes a community education coordinator
as an "encourager or an initiator" (p. 66). These terms were
fitting, in fact his job requires the coordinator to encourage
individuals, groups, agencies, and
institutions to become ac
tively involved in the educational
process. The coordinator is
also the initiator in that he functions as the agent to facili
tate planning and implementing projects. His major task is to
broaden the base of involvement within the community. To per
form with success, the coordinator must exhibit behavior which
is indicative of consideration and empathy for others in order
to work in harmony with the public. Berridge (1973) stated
that:

36
In effect, he is constantly putting
others ahead of himself and is build
ing their self-concepts. In effect,
the coordinator is constantly trying
to work himself out of a job. (p. 67)
Totten (1969) succinctly stated the role of a
education leader.
Most communities are denied the benefits
of community education because of a
scarcity of dedicated leaders. The de
velopment of leaderhship ability on the
part of people of all ages is one of the
major goals of community education. (p.
Working with the community as equal partners i
making is essential to success of community educati
developing such a relationship is no simple task.
A point often overlooked in discussions
of community-school development is the
key importance of the administrator him
self: (a) his philosophical orientation
toward the relation of education and the
community, (b) the kind of administrative
behavior he displays, (c) his personal
characteristics, and (d) the nature and
extent of his professional preparation.
(Anderson and Davies, 1956, p. 78)
Weaver (1975) suggested that community educati
should address skill development in the conceptual,
technical areas. Specifically he stated that train
enable the individual to:
(1) Develop ability to analyze the
elements in the leadership situa
tions and select appropriate leader
ship styles
(2) Develop and apply required styles of
leadership
(3) Develop personal requisites to com
munity education leadership
community
19)
n decision-
on However,
on training
human, and
ing must

37
(4) Develop technical skills appropriate
to community education leadership
(5) Develop human skills appropriate to
community education leadership
(6) Develop conceptual skills appropriate
to community education leadership.
(p 26)
Minzey and LeTarte (1972) established similar criteria
for community education training. They indicated that the
training needs fall under four general headings: (a) under
standing community education philosophy; (b) technical skills
for implementing community education; (c) humanitarian concerns;
and (d) general administrative skills (pp. 17 6 17 8) .
Kliminski (197^) used a superordinate rating for evalu
ating the technical, conceptual, and human skills of 40 selected
community education coordinators. In this study it was found
that coordinators chosen as successful had a significantly
V
larger number of semester hours of course work in community
education, had worked with community education a significantly
longer period of time, and had significantly more intensified
training in community education than had other coordinators.
Summary
The review of selected related literature indicated that
leadership can be interpreted through the measurement of leader
behavior. Little research has been done concerning the leader
behavior of community education coordinators.
Community education is a growing movement in the field
of education. The underlying basis to its philosophy is the

38
democratic involvement of community members in the decision
making process. Many of the writings in the field stress the
need for facilitative leadership as a basis for effective per
formance. The training institutions which produce community
education leaders are providing technical, human, and conceptual
skills which should enable the community education leaders to
exhibit behaviors indicative of facilitative leadership.
Facilitative leader behaviors are essential to the de
velopment of leaders hip ability in community members. Active
leadership by community members is necessary for effective
community education development. The focus of this research
effort was to analyze the leader behavior of selected community
education coordinators in Florida. The ability to predict leader
behavior by identifying specific personal data would enable ad
ministrators to select those individuals best prepared to deal
with the requirements of the community education role.

CHAPTER I I I
FINDINGS OF THE L B D Q. X I I
The analysis of data as set forth in chapter 1 is reported
in this chapter. Data for analysis were drawn from adminis
tration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form
XII. The L B D Q X I I was administered to five members of each
participating coordinator's advisory council. Each coordinator
completed the personal data form.
A one-way analysis of variance was used to answer the
12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior
based on the personal data variables. A follow-up test was
done on those variables found to be significant using Tukey's
HSD procedure. The significance level was set at .05. Each
question was answered on the basis of the ratings of the par
ticipant coordinators provided by the advisory council members.
Two computer programs were run using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences--Versi on H, Release 6.02. The
first analysis was used to identify the mean scores and standard
deviation of all the coordinators on each of the 12 constructs.
Coordinators were assigned to categories based on their responses
to the personal data variables. The coordinators were then com
pared by groups and a test for statistical significance dif
ferences among groups was performed in the second computer run.
39

40
Summary Of The LBDQ--XM Results
Of the 100 questionnaires distributed, 75 were returned,
yielding a total return rate of 75%. Fifteen of the 20 coor
dinators chosen actually participated. Table 1.0 indicates
the results of the responses on the L B D Q. X I I by behavior con
struct. Statistical analysis of the LBDQ--XI I results were
applied to each of the 12 behavior constructs and interpreted
using a one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-HSD pro
cedure. Tests were run for comparisons on the basis of the
personal data variables. For the purposes of these analyses,
the responses on the personal data variable of training were
grouped. The responses to academic community education train
ing and a full year internship were grouped as academic training.
The responses to two-week workshops and in-service workshops
were grouped as in-service workshops. The category of super
vised field experience had no responses. The category of on-
the-job training was used intact. The results of the analysis
are reviewed by each of the 12 leader behavior constructs.
Construct 1: Representation
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between
the perceived degree to which community education coordinators
speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 1.1
reports the results of the responses for the first construct
when the coordinates are grouped by the personal data variable
of sex. The results indicated that the difference between the
males and females' was not significant at the .05 level. Table

1.2 reports the results of the responses for the first con
struct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data
variable of age.
TABLE 1 .0--LBDQ--XI I RESULTS
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Representation
32.00
47-00
44.15
4.24
Demand Reconciliation
37 00
48.00
43 00
3.14
Tolerance of Uncertainty
35-00
44.60
39.68
2 63
Persuasiveness
33.80
45.00
40.53
3.28
Initiation of Structure
34. 60
44 60
40.80
2 70
Tolerance of Freedom
36.00
45.40
41.45
2.60
Role Retention
32.00
47-80
4 1.92
4 70
Consideration
38.40
46.80
44.72
2.20
Production Emphasis
3 1.20
39.00
34 57
2.24
Predictive Accuracy
36.40
45.20
40.01
2 .42
Integration
36.00
48.00
42.49
3.66
Superior Orientation
35.00
43 80
39.84
2.74
n = 15
TABLE 1.1--
REPRESENTAT10M
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Ma 1 e
9
42.29
1 7
0.211
F ema 1 e
6
39.43
The results indicate that the difference between the three age
categories was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.3
reports the results of the responses for the first construct
when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a

42
TABLE 1.2--REPRESENTATION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Age: 21-30
3
-p-
o
o
o
0 2
0.799
Age: 3 1 4 0
6
40.83
Age: 41-ov e r
6
42.03
TABLE 1
3*
-REPRESENTATION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
T
P rob .
Experience
three
: less than
years
5
39-72
1 .7
0.217
Experience
: 3*6 years
8
42 88
Experience
: over 6 yea rs
2
37.80
commu nit y
education coord
inator. The results
indicate that the
difference
between the
three
groups
was not s
ig nifica n t
at the
.05 level.
Table 1.4
reports
the results of
the responses for
the first
construct when
the
coordinators are
grouped by
type of
commu nity
education train
i ng .
The
results indicate that
the
d i fference
between the
three
groups
was not s
i g nifica n t
at the
.05 level.
TABLE 1
.4-
-REPRESENTATION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Training:
a ca d em i c
3
41.20
2 4
0.127
Training:
in-service
6
vO
co
COi
Training:
on-the-job
6
41.20
Table 1.5 reports the results of the responses for the first
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the

4 3
type of previous experience they have had. The results indi
cate that the difference between the three experience categories
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 1 .5--REPRESENTATI ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
40.20
0.4
0.628
Previous experience:
secondary
8
40.57
Previous experience:
other
4
43.00
The sixth variable of professional aspiration was not
analyzed for any of the constructs. Thirteen of the coordin
ators had professional aspirations of becoming public school
principals. Three of the coordinators each listed three
different professional aspirations: a certified public account
ant; a college professor; a trainer of community education
coordinators. Because of the break down of the grouping, a
statistical comparison was not considered.
Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to
to the system. Table 2.1 reports the results of the responses
for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped
according to the personal data variable sex. The results

44
indicate that the difference between the males and females
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 2.1--DEMAND
RECONC1L1 AT 1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Male
9
44.08
3 1
0.098
Fema1e
6
41.36
Table 2.2 reports the results
of the
responses
for the
second
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
the personal
data variable of age. The results i
nd i cate that the di
fference
between the three age categories was
not sign!
f i ca n t at
the .05
level.
TABLE 2.2--DEMAND
RECONC1 L1 AT 1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Age: 21-30
3
43.53
1 2
0.327
Age: 31-40
6
41.50
Age: 40-over
6
44.23
Table 2.3 reports the results
of the
responses
for the
second
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
years experi-
ence as a community education
coordi
nator. The results
indicate
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 2.3--DEMAND
RECONCILIATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Experience: less
than three years
5
4 1.32
1 8
0.197
Experience: 3-6 years
8
41 .70
Experience: over 6 years
2
44.38

Table 2.A reports the results of the responses for the second
construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of com
munity education training. The results indicate that the dif
ference between the three groups was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 2.A--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r ob .
Training: academic
3
A 2 6 6
1 .9
0.177
Training: in-service
6
A 1 AO
Training: on-the-job
6
AA 76
Table 2.5 reports the results of the responses
for the second
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to
the
type of previous experience
they have
had. The
results i
ndica t e
that the difference between
the th ree
experience categories was
not significant at the .05
level .
TABLE 2.5--DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
41.73
0.9
0 A 2 7
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
A2.60
Previous experience:
other
A
A3.00
Construct 3: Tolerance of
Uncertainty
There was no significant difference at the
.05 level
i n
the ratings as reported by
the advisory council
members,
be -
tween the perceived degree to which community education

46
coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postpone
ment without anxiety and upset.
Table 3-1 reports the results of the responses for the third
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference
between males and
females was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE
3.1--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
F F
Total n X Ratio Prob.
Ma 1 e
9 39-93 .19 0.666
F ema1e
6 39.30
Table 3-2 reports
the results of the responses for the third
construct when the coordinators are grouped by t'he personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 32--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
F F
Total n X Ratio Prob.
Age: 21-30
3 4 1.87 1.3 0.292
Age: 31 A0
6 39.10
Age: 41 0 v e r
6 39.17
Table 3-3 reports the results of the responses for the third
construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience
as a community education coordinator. The results indicate
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 level.

hi
TABLE 3 3--T01ERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r 0 b .
Experience
: less
than
3 years
5 .
38.76
2.8
0.097
Exper i ence
: 3_6 years
8
40.93
Experience
: over 6 years 2
37.00
Table 34
reports the
results of the
responses
for the
third
construct
when the coordinators are
grouped by
type of
com-
munity education train
ing. The results Indicate that the
difference
between the
th ree g roups
was not significant
at the
.05 level.
TABLE 3-4-
-TOLERANCE OF
UNCERTA1NTY
F
F
Variable
Total n
X
Ratio
P r 0 b .
Training:
Aca d emic
3
hi. 07
3.4
0.064
Training:
In-service
6
38.00
Training:
On-the-job
6
40.16
Table 3-5
reports the
results of the
responses
for the
third
construct
when the coordinators are
grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The
r e s u 1 t s
i n -
d ¡ cate that the difference between the three experience
categories was not significant at the .05 level.

48
TABLE 3 5--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
Total n
I
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
40. 5
. 2 1
0.807
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
39-3
Previous experience:
other
4
39.8
Construct 4: Persuasiveness
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings, as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor-
dinators use persuasion
and argument
effecti
v e 1 y
when
the
coordinators were grouped by sex, age
, train
i ng ,
and previous
experience. However,
a
significant d
ifference was found when
the coordinators were
grouped accord i
ng to years
experience
as a community educat
i o n
coordinator.
Table
4. 1
reports the
results of responses
t o
the fourth construct
when the
coordin-
ators are grouped by
the
personal data variable
of sex
The
results indicate that
the difference
between
ma 1
e s and
f ema1e s
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 4
. 1 -
-PERSUAS1VENESS
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Ma 1 e
9
40.20
. 22
0.650
Female
6
41.03

4 9
Table 4.2 reports the results of the responses to the fourth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the .05
level.
TABLE 4 2--PERSUASIVENE5S
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P rob .
Age: 21-30 3 41.53 -31 0.742
Age: 31-40 6 40.83
Age: 41.and over 6 39-73
Table 4.3 reports the results of the fourth construct when the
coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community
education coordinator. Those coordinators with over six years
experience were perceived to use persuasion and argument sig
nificantly less, than those coordinators with less than three
years experience and those coordinators with three to six years
experience. Using the Tukey-HSD procedure, those coordinators
with less than three years experience and those coordinators with
three to six years experience did not differ significantly.
TABLE 4.3--PERSUAS1VENESS
_ F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P ro b .
Experience: less
than 3 years 5 40.40 11.7 0.002
Experience: 36 years 8 42.18
Experience: over 6 years 2 34.30*
* Group 3 differed significantly from groups 1 and 2

50
Table 4.4 reports the results of the fourth construct when
the coordinators are grouped by type of community education
training. The results indicate that the difference between the
three groups was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE A.4--PERSUASIVENESS
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Training:
Academic
3
41.40
1 6
0.241
Training:
In-service
6
38.77
Training:
On-the-job
6
41 .86
Table 4.5
reports the results of the
responses
for the
fourth
construct
when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience
they have
had The
resu1ts
indicate
that the
difference between
the expe r
ience categories was not
significant at the .05 level

TABLE 4.5--PERSUAS1VENESS
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Previous experience:
e1 ementa ry
3
. 41.07
94
0.417
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
39.50
Previous experience:
other
4
42 20
Construct
5: Initiation of
Structure
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the
ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the
perceived degree to which the community education coordinators

51
clearly define his/her role and lets followers know what is
expected of them when the coordinators were grouped by sex,
age, and previous experience. However, a significant difference
was found when the coordinators were grouped according to train
ing and years experience as a community education coordinator.
Table 5-1 reports the results of the responses for the fifth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference
between the males and females was not significant at the .05
level.
TABLE
5. 1
--INITIATION OF
STRUCTURE
Variable
Total n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Ma 1 e
o
A 1 3 1
79 0.3 9 A
Female
6
AO 03
Table 5.2 reports
the
results of the
responses
for the fifth
construct when the
coord ina to rs are
grouped by
the persona 1
data variable of age.
The results i
ndicate that the difference
between the three
age
categories was
not signi
f¡cant at the
.05 level.
TABLE
5.2
--IN1T1 AT 1 ON OF
STRUCTURE
Variable
Total n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Age: 21-30
3
Al 00
.11 0.887
Age: 31-AO
6
A0.37
Age: 41-over
6
A 1 1 3
Table 5-3 reports
the
results of the
responses
for the fifth
construct when the
coo rdinators are
grouped by
years experience

as a community education coordinator.
52
Those coordinators
with three to six years experience in community education were
perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly defined their
role and let followers know what is expected of them than
those coordinators with less than three years experience and
those coordinators with more than six years experience.
TABLE 5.3~-1NITI AT I ON OF STRUCTURE
_ F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P rob .
Experience: less
than 3 years 5 39.28 1 7 .4 0.000
Experience: 3'^ years 8 2 7 8
Experience: over 6 years 2 36.70
*Group 2 differs significantly from groups 1 and 3
Table 5.4 reports the results of the responses for the fifth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community
education training. The results indicate that the difference
between the groups was significant at the .05 level. However,
when the Tukey-HSD procedure was applied, none of the three
groups were found to differ significantly from each other.
TABLE 5.4-
-INITIATION OF
STRUCTURE
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Training:
a ca d emic
3
42.27*
5.05
0.025
Training:
in-service
6
38.62*
Training:
on-the-job
6
42.23*
* N o group differs significantly from the other based on
Tukey procedure.

53
Table 5-5 reports the results of the responses for the fifth
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
previous experience they have had. The results indicate that
the difference between the experience categories was not
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 5.5--INITI AT I ON OF STRUCTURE
Variable
Total
lx
c
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
41.27
. 1 6
0.846
Previous experience:
seconds ry
8
-tr-
O
-C-
o
Previous experience:
other
A
41.25
Construct 6: Tolerance of
Freedom
There was no significant difference at the .05 level
i n
the ratings as reported by
the a d vi
sory counc
il members be-
tween the perceived degree
to which
the community education
coordinators allow followers scope
for initiative, decision,
and action. Table 6.1 reports the
results of
the responses for
the sixth construct when the coordinators are
g rouped by
the
personal data variable of
sex. The
results i
ndica te that
the
difference between the mal
es and females was
not significant at
the .05 level.
TABLE 6.1--TOLERANCE
OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Male
9
41.13
32
0.585
Female
6
41.93

54
Table 6.2 reports the results of the responses for the sixth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 6.2--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r 0 b .
Age:
2 1-30
3
43 06
70
0.519
Age :
31-40
6
40.93
Ag e :
4 1 -over
6
41.16
Table
6.3 reports the results
of the
responses
for the s
i x t h
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
years ex-
perience as
a community education coordinator.
The results
indicate that the difference
between
the three
groups was not
s i g n i
fica n t
at the .05 level.
TABLE 6.3--T0LERANCE
OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
E x p e r
ience:
than 3
less
years
3
41.24
1 .9
0.177
Expe r
i ence:
3-6 years
6
42.32
Expe r
ience:
over 6 years
6
38.50
Table
6.4 reports the results
of the
res ponses
for the s
i xth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the type of
community education training. The results indicate that the
difference between the three groups was not significant at the
.05 level.

55
TABLE 6.4--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
X
F
Rat
i o
F
P r o b .
Training: academic
3
43.93
1 .9
o
CO
Training: in-service
6
40.60
Training: on-the-job
Table 6.5 reports the results of the s
ixth construct
when
the
coordinators are grouped
according to
the type
of previous
experience they have had.
The results
indicate
that
the
d i f -
ference between the experience categor
¡es was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 6.5-
-TOLERANCE OF
FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
K
F
Rati
o
F
P rob .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
42.53
. 59
0.573
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
41.60
Previous experience:
other
4
40.35
Construct 7: Role Retent
i o n
There was no significant difference at the
.05 1
eve 1
i n
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than
surrendering leadership to others. Table 7-1 reports the results
of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators
are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results
indicate that the difference between males and females was not

56
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 71--ROLE RETENTION
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P r o b .
Male 9 41.53 .14 0.710
Female 6 42.50
Table 7.2 reports the results of the seventh construct when
the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of
age. The results indicate that the difference between the
three age categories was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 7.2--R0LE RETENTION
_ F F
Va r ¡able Totaln X Ratio Prob.
Age :
2 1
-30
3
42 ,
. 80
Age:
31-
-40
6
40.
. 70
Age :
41
-over
6
42 .
,70
Table 7-3 reports the results of the responses for the seventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience
as a community education coordinator. The results indicate
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 7.3--R0LE RETENTION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Experience:
less
than 3
years
3
-fc~
o
CO
o
1 4
0.227
Experience:
3-6 years
6
43.59
Experience:
over 6 years
6
38.00

57
Table 7-4 reports the resu
It} of the
responses
for the
seventh
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
type of
com-
munity education training.
The resu
Its indicate that the
difference between the three groups
was not significant
at the
.05 level.
TABLE 7-4-
-ROLE RETENTION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Training: academic
3
39 80
. 62
0.555
Training: in-service
6
4 1 A3
Training: on-the-job
6
4 3-46
Table 7-5 reports the resu
Its of the
responses
for the
seventh
construct when the coordinators are
grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The
r es u1t s
indicate
that the difference between t^e three categories was not sig-
nificant at the .05 level.
TABLE 7-5-
-ROLE RETENTION
Variable
To ta 1 n
I
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
42.40
2.8
0.097
Previous experience:
secondary
8
39.77
Previous experience:
other
4
45.85
Construct 8: Consideraticn
There was no significan difference at the .05 level in the
ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between
the perceived degree to which community educaion coordinators
regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of

58
followers. Table 8.1 reports the results of the responses
for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped
according to the personal data variable of sex. The results
indicate that the difference between the males and females
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 8. 1--CONS I DERAT ION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Ma 1 e
9
44.95
. 24
0.634
Female
6
44.36
Table 8.2 reports
the
results of the responses
for the
eighth
construct when
the coordinators are
grouped by
the personal
data variable
o f
age .
The
r e s u 1 t s
indicate that the di
f f er-
ence between the
three
age
ce t eg o r i
es was not
significant at
the .05 level.
TABLE
8.2-
-CONS 1 DERAT 1 ON
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Age: 21-30
3
44.80
. 00
0.982
Age: 31-40
6
44.63
Age: 41-ove r
6
44.76
Table 8.3 reports
the
resu 1
ts of the responses
for the
eighth
construct when
the coordinators are
g rouped by
years ex
-
perience as a community education coordinator. The results
indicate that the difference between the three groups was not
significant at the .05 level

59
TABLE 8.3--C0NSI DERAT I ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Experience:
'ess
than 3
years
3
44 00
3.A
0.067
Experience:
3-6 years
6
A5.80
Experience:
over 6 years
6
42 20
Table 8.A reports the results of the responses for the eighth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of com
munity education training. The results indicate that the
difference between the three groups was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 8.4--CONSIDERATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Training: academic
3
45-33
1 0
0.397
Training: in-service
6
43-73
Training: on-the-job
6
45.40
Table 8.5 reports the
results of the
responses
for the el
i g h t h
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to
the
type of previous exper
i ence
they have
had. The
results i
indicate
that the difference between
the three
experience categories was
not significant at the
.05
level .
TABLE
8.5-
-CONS 1 DERAT 1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Previous experience:
e1 eme n ta ry
3
44.67
. 60
0.565
Previous experience:
second ary
8
44.22
Previous experience:
other
4
45.75

60
Construct 9: Production Emphasis
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators apply pressure for productive output. Table 9-1
reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct
when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable
of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males
and females was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 9 1--PRODUCT I ON EMPHASIS
Vari
able
"ro t a 1 n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Male
9
3 A 51
.01 0.86A
Female
6
3 A 66
Tabl
e 9.2 reports
the results of the
responses
for the ninth
construct when the
coord
inators are
grouped by
the personal
data
variable of age. The results i
ndicate that the difference
between the three
age groups was not
significant at the .05
leve
1 .
TABLE 9.2-
-PRODUCT 1 ON
EMPHAS 1 S
Va r i
able
Total n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Age :
2 1-30
3
33.06
1.0 0.387
Age :
31 -AO
6
35-33
Age :
A 1-over
6
3 A 56
Tabl
e 9.3 reports
the results of the
responses
for the ninth
construct when the
coo r d
inators are
grouped by
years experience
as a
community educat on
coordinator
. The results indicate

61
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 1 eve 1 .
TABLE 9
3-
-PRODUCT 1 ON
EMPHAS1S
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Experience
than
: less
3 years
3
34.20
.09
0.901
Experience
3-6 years
6
34.72
Experience
: over 6 years
6
34.90
Table 9-4
repor ts the
r e s u 1 t s
of the
responses
for the
ninth
construct
when the coordi
nators are
grouped by
type of
com-
munity education train
i ng
. The resu
Its indicate that the
difference
between the
three
groups
was not significant
a t
the .05 1 eve 1 .
TABLE 9
.4-
-PRODUCTION
EMPHAS1S
Variable
"r 0 t a 1 n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Training:
academic
3
35.66
.81
0 .470
Tra in i ng :
in-service
6
34.86
Training:
on-the-job
6
33.73
Table 9-5
reports the
resu1ts
of the
responses
for the
ninth
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The results in
dicate that the difference between the three experience
categories was not significant at the .05 level.
Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree 1c which community education

62
TABLE 95--PRODUCT I ON EMPHASIS
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
34.60
1 2
0.322
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
35 27
Previous experience:
other
A
33.15
coordinators exhibit fo
resight and
ability to
predict ou tcomes
accurately. Table 10.1
reports the
results of the responses
for the tenth construct
when the coordinators
are grouped
by
the personal data variable of sex.
The res u1
ts indicate
that
the difference between males and females was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 10.1
--PREDICTIVE
ACCURACY
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Ma 1 e
9
39.64
50
0.496
Female
6
40.56
Table 10.2 reports the
results of
the responses
for the
tenth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by
the persona 1
data variable of age.
The results
indicate that the di
ffe rence
between the three age
categories was not signif
i can t at
the
.05 level.
TABLE 10.2-
-PREDICTIVE
ACCURACY
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Age: 21-30
3
38.20
1 4
0 266
Age: 31-40
6
41.03
Age: 4l-over
6
39.90

6 3
Table 10.3 reports the results of the responses for the tenth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by years ex
perience as a community education coordinator. The results
indicate that the difference between the three groups was not
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 10.3 PRfIDI CTIVE ACCURACY
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Experience
than
: less
3 years
3
39.64
2.8
0.093
Experience
: 3"6 yea rs
6
41.00
Expe rience
: over 6 years 6
37.00
Table 10.A
reports the
results of the
responses
for the
tenth
construct
when the coordinators are grouped by type of
com-
munity education traini
ng. The results indicate
that the
d i fference
between the
three groups was not sign
i fica n t
a t
the .05 level.
TABLE 10. If--
PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Training:
academic
3
39.06
.79
0.479
Training:
in-service
6
39.53
Training:
on-the-job
6
40. 60
Table 10.5
repor ts the
results of the
res pons es
for the
tenth
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The results in-
dica^e that the difference between the three experience
categories was not significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 10.5 PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
64
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Previous experience:
e1 ementa ry
3
O
CO
-3"
2 1
0.154
Previous experience:
secondary
8
38.92
Previous experience:
other
4
40.85
Construct 11: Integration
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators maintain a closely knit organization and resolve
intermember conflict. Table 11.1 reports the results of the
responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are
grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results
indicate that the difference between males and females was not
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 1 1 1--INTEGRAT1 ON
Variable
To t a 1 n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Male
9
43.13
.67
0.432
Female
6
41 .53
Table 11.2 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the .05
level .

65
TABLE
11.2--!NT E G RAT ION
F
F
Variable
Total
n X
Ratio
P ro b .
Age: 21-30
3
43.00
09
0.904
Age: 3 1 40
6
42.76
Age: 4 1 -ove r
6
41.96
Table 11.3 reports the
results of
the responses
for the
el even t h
construct when the coordinators are grouped by
years ex-
perience as a community education
coo rdina to r .
The res u
Its in-
dicate that the difference between
the three groups was
not
significant at the .05
level .
TABLE
1 1 3-- NTEGRATION
F
F
Variable
Total
n X
Ratio
P r o b .
Experience: 'ess
than 3 yea rs
3
41.00
1 .9
0.181
Experience: 36 years
6
44 09
Experience: over 6 years 6
39.80
Table 11.4 reports the
results of
the responses
for the
eleventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped by
type of com-
munity education training. The results indicate that the dif-
ference between the three groups was not significant at
the .05
level.
TABLE
11.4--! NTEGRAT1 ON
F
F
Variable
Total
n X
Ratio
P ro b .
Training: academic
3
44.60
1 1
0.336
Training: in-service
6
40.86
Training: on-the-job
6
43-06

66
Table 11.5 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The results indi
cate that tiie difference between the three experience groups
was not sign:ficant at the .05 level.
TABLE 1 1 .5-- INTEGRATI ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
42 80
1 0
0.385
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
41.35
Previous experience:
other
4
44.55
Construct 12: Superior Orientation
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have in
fluence over them, and are striving for higher status when the
coordinators are grouped by sex, age, training, and previous ex
perience. However, a significant difference was found when the
coordinators were grouped according to years experience as a
community education coordinator. Table 12.1 reports the re
sults of the responses for the twelfth construct when the coor
dinators are grouped according to the personal data variable of
sex. The results indicate tnat the difference between the males
and females was not significant at the .05 level.

67
TABLE
12.1
--SUPERIOR ORIENTAT1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Male
9
39.53
.26
0.618
Fema 1 e
6
40.30
Table 12.2 reports
the
results of the
responses
for the
twe 1f t h
construct when the
coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age.
The results indicate that
the difference
between the three
age
groups was not s
ig nifica n t
at the
LTV
O
1 eve 1 .
TABLE
12.2
--SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Age: 21-30
3
39-73
. 06
0.928
Age: 31"4 0
6
40.16
Age: 40-over
6
39-56
Table 12.3 reports
the
results of the
twelfth construct
when
the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community
education coordinator. The results indicate that those com
munity education coordinators with more than six years ex
perience are perceived to be less concerned with maintaining
cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them,
and striving for higher status than coordinators with less than
three years experience and those coordinators with three to
six years experience. In addition, those coordinators with
three to six years experience are perceived to be more concerned
with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having in
fluence over them, and striving for higher status than those

60
coordinators with less than three years experience and those
coordinators with more than six years experience.
TABLE 12.3--SUPERI OR ORIENTATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Experience:
than 3
less
years
3
VwO
CO
CO
o
4.5
0.034
Experience:
3-6 yea rs
6
41 .32*
Experience:
over 6 years 6
36.50*
*Each group
differs si
gnificantly from the other
Table 12.4
reports the
results of the
twe 1f t h
cons t ruct
when
the coordinators are grouped by type
of community education
training.
The resu1ts
indicate that
the difference between the
three groups was not s
ignif ¡cant at the .05 level.
TABLE 12.4
--SUPER 1 OR ORIENTATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Training:
a c ad em i c
3
41.46
1 .7
0.218
Training:
in-service
6
38.36
Training:
on-the-job
6
40 50
Table 12.5
reports the
results of the
twe1f t h
construct
when
the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous
experience they have had. The results indicate that the dif
ference between the three experience categories was not signifi
cant at the .05 level.
A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was computed to de
term i r e if a relationship existed between the variables under
study. For the purpose of this comparison, the level of

69
TABLE 12.5 SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
Variable.
Total n
X
Ratio
F
P r 0 b .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
42.33
1 .7
0.208
Previous exper
seconda ry
ience:
8
39.02
Previous exper
other
ience:
4
39.60
significance was .01
The
mean score on
each of
the 12
behavior
constructs was
used
for t h i
is procedure.
Table 13
.0 reports the
results of the
correlation
matrix. The
results i
ndic a t e
a s i g -
nificant relat
i 0 n s h i
p between two of the
persona 1
data variables
as well as eight of the 12 behavior constructs.
Summa ry
Data from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--
XI I were, analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to
answer each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in
leader behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05
level of significance was used for each of the constructs.
Findings from this procedure indicated that of the 12 constructs
only Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, and Superior
Orientation were affected by the personal data variables.
Persuasiveness was found to be significantly different
when the coordinators were grouped by the number of years ex
perience. Those with over six years experience were signifi
cantly less persuasive than those with less than three years
and those with three to six years.

TABLE 13.Q--CORRELATI ON MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES
Sex
Age
Years
Training
Previous Exp.
Representat¡or
Reconc¡1iat¡or
Uncertainty
Persuasion
Structure
Freedom
Role Ret.
Consideration
Product ion
Accuracy
Integration
Super
Orientation
Sex 1.0 -.40
1
vjn
CC
*
-.21
-.28
-34
-.43
-.12
.12
-.23
.15
.10
13
03
19
-.22
.44
Age 1.0
.49
.52
.23
19
.17
-.33 -
-.21
-.10
-.23
.04
.00
.18
.18
.00
-.04
Years
1 .0
.08
-.12
.01
.19
-.30 -
-.38
-.02
-.19
-.05
.06
. 1 1
-.18
.06
-.05
Training
1.0
.23
.31
.34
-.14
.15
.14
-.34
30
.09
-.34
32
-.07
-.03
Previous Experience
1.0
.24
3^
-.08
.15
.01
-.29
30
.19
-.26
-.08
.20
-31
Representa tion
1.0
.75 .46
.65 -
; .74
*.19
.66 *
.84 *
-.01
35
73 *
50
Reconci1iat ion
1.0
.65 '
*.50
72
*.19
.72 *
.69 *
-.34
.17
.64 *
17
Uncertainty
1.0
.42
7**
*.68 *
39
.64 *
-.12
.22
.61 *
.40
Persuasion
1.0
.78
*.33
.67 *
.65 *
-.02
34
50
57 *
Structure
1 .0
.47
.62 *
.83 *
05
.41
.72 *
.58 *
Freedom
1 .0
.13
.42
.12
.24
.22
47
Role Retention
1 .0
.77 *
-.17
.24
.58
36
Cons¡deration
1.0
.15
38
.84 *
.60 *
Production
1.0
-.06
.16
34
Accuracy
1 .0
.41
.50
1ntegration
1.0
.61 *
Superior Orientation
1.0
-'Significant at the .01 level
o

71
Initiation of Structure was found to be significantly
different when coordinators were grouped according to ex
perience and training. Those coordinators with three to six
years experience exhibited behavior indicative of Initiation of
Structure more frequently than those with less than three years
and those with over six years. When the coordinators were
grouped by training, a significant difference was also found
between the groups. However, the more conservative Tukey pro
cedure revealed that none were more significant than the others.
Superior Orientation was found to be significantly dif
ferent when coordinators were grouped according to experience.
Those coordinators with more than six years experience were
less concerned with Initiation of Structure than those coor
dinators with three to six years experience. In addition, those
with three to six years experience were more concerned with
Initiation of Structure than those coordinators with less than
three years and those coordinators with more than six years.
In brief, the personal data variable of experience effected
significant differences in three categories while the personal
data variable of training effected only one category. The
additional personal data variable produced no significant
difference across any of the 12 leader behavior subscales.
The findings of the survey of national authorities and
the data from the L B DQ-- X I I will be presented in chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE
The findings presented in this chapter address the second
part of a two-part research problem. The data contained here
in report the results of the survey of national authorities
as well as an analysis of variance between the ideal behavior
as perceived by national authorities and the actual behavior
of community education coordinators as perceived by community
advisory council members. Data for analysis were drawn from
administration of the Leader Behavior Description Question
naire- X I I and the Leader Behavior Profile. The L B DQ-- X I I
was administered to members of each participating coordinator's
advisory council. The Leader Behavior Profile was adminis
tered to the Directors of Centers for Community Education in
universities throughout the nation.
A one-way analysis of variance using a simple linear
regression procedure was used to answer the question concern
ing the differences in "ideal" behavior as suggested by the
national authorities and the "actual" behavior of coordinators
as perceived by the community advisory council members. The
significance level for this analysis was set at .01.
Three computer programs were run using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences--Version H, Release 7.0.
7?-

73
Effect coding was used on the raw data to compensate for the
unequal number between the two groups. Raw scores for the
two groups were converted to z-scores. This conversion allowed
two sets of data to be standardized thus(conforming to the
assumptions of homogeneity of variance and standardized mean
scores necessary for analysis of variance.
Three computer programs were run. The first two runs
were used to compute the mean score and standard deviation
for both the center directors and coordinators on each of the
12 categories. On the third run, center directors and coordina
tors were compared using a one-way analysis of variance with a
simple linear regression orocedure to test for significant
differences in each of the 12 behavior categories.
Summary Of Leader Behavior Profile Results
Of the 59 questionnaires distributed, 45 were returned,
yielding a total return rate of 76%. Table 14.1 reports the
results of the responses on the Leader Behavior Profile. The
results indicate that the center directors consider Tolerance
of Freedom--the degree to which the coordinators allow followers
scope for initiative, decision, and action, as ideally being
the most important category of behavior. In addition, the re
sults indicate that the center directors consider Role Retention--
the degree to which the coordinators actively exercise the
leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others,
as ideally being the least important category of behavior.

74
TABLE 14.1--LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL)
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Representation
10.00
50.00
23.11
13.78
Demand Reconciliation
10.00
50.00
21.77
10.28
Tolerance of Uncertainty
10.00
50.00
31.56
11.66
Persuasiveness
10.00
50.00
23.77
12.48
Initiation of Structure
10.00
o
o
o
LA
30.22
11.77
Tolerance of Freedom
10.00
50.00
36.00*
13.38
Role Retention
10.00
50.00
14.44+
9.89
Consideration
10.00
50.00
34.22
7.53
Production Emphasis
10.00
50.00
17-55
10.25
Predictive Accuracy
10.00
40.00
24.66
9.19
Integration
10.00
50.00
28.22
10.06
Superior Orientation
10.00
40.00
23-55
10.25
LA
-^r
i
c
* = most important
category of
" i dea 1 "
behavior
+ = least important
ca teqory of
"ideal"
behavior
Table 14.2 reports the results of the responses on the
L B DQ-- X I I as previously reported in chapter III. The results
indicate that the most frequent actual behavior exhibited by
the community education coordinators was in the category of
cons ideration--the perceived degree to which the coordinator
regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of
followers. In addition, the results indicate that the least
frequent actual behavior exhibited by the community education
coordinators was in the category of Production Emphasis--the

75
perceived degree to which the coordinator applies pressure
for productive output.
TABLE 14.2--LBDQ--XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL)
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
Ca tego ry Score Score Score Deviation
Representation
32,
. 00
47.
. 00
44.
. 1 5
4,
. 24
Demand Reconciliation
37
. 00
48.
. 00
43 .
. 00
3,
. 1 4
Tolerance of Uncertainty
35.
,00
44 ,
. 60
39.
.68
2 ,
63
Persuasiveness
33
.80
45 ,
. 00
40.
, 53
3
.28
Initiation of Structure
34.
, 60
44.
, 60
A0.
, 80
2 .
.70
Tolerance of Freedom
36.
, 00
45
.40
4 1 .
,45
2 ,
. 60
Role Retention
32.
. 00
47.
,80
4 1 .
.92
4.
.70
Consideration
CO
,40
46.
, 80
44.
.72*
2 .
.20
Production Emphasis
31 .
, 20
39.
.00
34.
, 57 +
2 .
. 24
Predictive Accuracy
36.
,40
45.
, 20
40 .
,01
2 ,
.42
Integration
36.
, 00
48.
. 00
42 .
. 49
3
. 66
Superior Orientation
35.
,00
43.
,80
39.
. 84
2 ,
.74
n = 15
* = most frequent category of "actual" behavior
+ = least frequent category of "actual" behavior
Table 15-1 reports the responses of the center directors
on the Leader Behavior Profile after the conversion to z-scores.
Table 15.2 reports the responses for the community education
coordinators on the L B D Q-- X I I after the conversion to z-scores.
This conversion was necessary to provide for homogeneity of
variance and standardized mean scores.

76
TABLE I 5. 1--Z-SCORE CONVER$ I 0NS--CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL)
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Representat ion
-2.00
1 00
- .82
. 134
Demand Reconciliation
-2.00
2 00
- 82
.029
Tolerance of Uncertainty
-3.00
1 .00
- .84
1.16
Persuasiveness
-2.00
2.00
- 62
1 .24
Initiation of Structure
-3.00
1 .00
- .97
1.17
Tolerance of Freedom
-3.00
1 .00
- .40
1 .33
Role Retention
-2.00
2.00
-1.55
.990
Consideration
-2.00
1 00
- .57
. 753
Production Emphasis
-3.00
1 00
-2.24
1 .02
Predictive Accuracy
-2.00
2 00
- -35
1 24
Integration
-5.00
1 00
-2.06
1 58
Superior Orientation
-2.00
2.00
- .46
1 34
n = 45
Table 16.0 reports a
summary of
the results of the
analysis of variance between the center directors' ideal" and
the coordinators' actual
behavior.
Of the 1
2 ca tego r
i es ,
10 were found to be signi
f i c a n t 1 y d i
fferen t at
the .01
level.
Only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were
not significantly different between center directors and
coordinators.

77
TABLE 15.2--Z-SC0RE CONVERS I 0NS--C00RDINAT0RS (ACTUAL)
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Represen tat ion
. 00
1 00
73
A 58
Demand Reconciliation
1 00
2.00
1.26
.458
Tolerance of Uncertainty
. 00
1 00
1 3
.352
Persuasiveness
. 00
1 00
.73
.458
Initiation of Structure
. 00
1 00
. 20
.414
Tolerance of Freedom
-1.00
. 00
- .13
352
Role Retention
. 00
1 00
.73
.458
Consideration
. 00
1 00
.86
.352
Production Emphasis
-1.00
.00
- .86
.352
Predictive Accuracy
1 00
2.00
1 60
. 507
1ntegration
-1.00
1 00
.40
737
Superior Orientation
1 00
2.00
1 .53
.516
n = I 5
Category 1: Representation
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Representation and the degree to which coordinators
actually speak and act as the representative of the group.
Table 16.1 reports the results of the analysis for the category
of Representation. The results indicate that the difference
between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This
indicates that coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be
more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal
behavior.

78
TABLE 16.O ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" "ACTUAL"
Category
F S i
gn i fi canee
Representation
--5A
2A 63
Demand Reconciliation
-.71
61.27
.U
Tolerance of Uncertainty
- .32
7.07
n s .
Persuasiveness
- .55
26.13
*
Initiation of Structure
- A 1
11.77
.1,
Tolerance of Freedom
- .20
2 A 7
n s .
Role Retention
- .80
106.60
.u
Consideration
- 57
28.02
JU
Production Emphasis
- 6 A
A0. A3
JU
Predictive Accuracy
- 6 A
A0 A2
*
Integration
- 57
28.60
*
Superior Orientation
- .62
36.58
JU
o
vO
II
c
TABLE 1 6 1--
REPRESENTATION
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation D.
F
F. Prob.
Center Director (ideal)
- .82
1 3 A
1 ,
58 2 A.6 3
Coordinator (actual)
.73
. A 58
Category 2: Demand Reconc
i 1 i a t i on
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Demand Reconciliation and the degree to which the
coordinators actually reconc i Ie conf1 ict ing demands and reduce
disorder to the system. Table 16.2 reports the results of the

79
analysis for
the category
of Demand Reconciliation. The
results indi
cate that the
dif fe rence
between the
two groups
was significant at the .01
level. Th
is indicates
that
the
coordinators
' actual behavior was perceived to be
more
frequent
than the center directors'
rating of
their ideal
behav i
i o r .
TABLE 16.2--
DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
P rob .
Center Directors (ideal)
- 82
.029
1 58
61.27
Coo rdinators
(actual )
1 .26
.b 58
Category 3:
Tolerance of
Uncertainty
There was no significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Tolerance of Uncertainty and the actual degree to
which the coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and
postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 16.3 reports
the results of the analysis for the category of Tolerance of
Uncertainty.
TABLE 16.3--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F.
F
P ro b
Center Directors (ideal)
- 8b
1.16
1,58
7.07
Coordinators (actual)
. 1 3
.352
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was not significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was consistent with the center
directors' rating of the ideal behavior.

80
Category 4: Persuasiveness
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Persuasiveness and the degree to which the coor
dinators actually used persuasion and argument effectively and
exhibited strong convictions. Table 16.4 reports the results
of the analysis for the category of Persuasiveness.
TABLE 1 6.4--PERSUASIVENESS
Mean Standard F
Group Score Deviation D F P r o b .
Center Directors (ideal) -.62 1.24 1,58 26.13
Coordinators (actual) .73 .458
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 5: Initiation of Structure
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Initiation of Structure and the degree to which the
coordinators actually clearly define their own role and allow
followers to know what is expected of them. Table 16.5 reports
the results of the analysis for the category of Initiation of
Structure. The results indicate that the difference between
the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates
that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more
frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.

81
TABLE 16.5--
INITIATION
OF STRUCTURE
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
P rob.
Center Director (ideal)
-.97
1.17
1 ,58
11.77
Coordinator
(actual)
.20
.414
Category 6:
Tolerance of
F reedom
There was no significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Tolerance of Freedom and the actual degree to which
the coordinators allow followers scope for initiation, decision,
and action. Table 16.6 reports the results of the analysis for
the category of Tolerance of Freedom. The results indicate
that the difference between the two groups was not significant
at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual
behavior was consistent with the center directors' rating of the
ideal behavior.
TABLE 16.6--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D. F.
F
P rob
Center Directors (ideal)
- 40
1 .33
1 58
2 .47
Coordinators (actual)
-.13
.352
Category 7: Role Retention
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Role Retention and the degree to which the coordina
tors actually actively exercise the leadership role rather than
surrendering leadership to others. Table 16.7 reports the re
sults of the analysis for the category of Role Retention.

82
TABLE 16.7--
ROLE
RETENT ION
Group
Mean Standard
Score Deviation
D F .
F
P rob .
Center Directors (ideal)
-1.55 .990
1 ,58
106.60
Coo rdina to rs
(actual )
.73 .458
The results i
indicate that
the
difference between
the two groups
was significant at the .01
level. This indicates
that
the
coordinators'
1 actual behavior
was perceived to be
more
frequent
than the center directors'
rat
ing of ideal behavi
o r .
Category 8:
Considerat ion
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Consideration and the degree to which the coordina
tors actually regard the comfort, well-being, status, and con
tribution of followers. Table 16.8 reports the results of the
analysis for the category of Consideration.
TABLE 16.8 --C 0 N SI DERATION
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
P ro b
Center Directors (ideal)
- 57
753
CO
LA
28.02
Coordinators (actual)
. 86
352
The results indicate that
the difference between
the two
groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category S: Production Emphasis
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the

83
category of Production Emphasis and the degree to which the
coordinators actually apply pressure for productive output.
Table 16.9 reports the results of the analysis for the category
of Production Emphasis.
TABLE 16.9--PR0DUCTI ON EMPHASIS
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
Prob
Center Directors (ideal)
-2.2k
1 02
1 ,58
kO.kl
Coordinators (actual)
- .86
352
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coor
dinators' actual behavior was more frequent than the center
directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 10: Predictive Accuracy
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Predictive Accuracy and the degree to which the
coordinators actually exhibit foresight and ability to predict
outcomes accurately. Table 16.10 reports the results of the
analysis for the category of Predictive Accuracy.
TABLE 16.10--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
Prob
Center Directors (ideal)
-.35
1 2k
CO
LA
k0.k2
Coordinators (actual)
1 60
. 507
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the

8*4
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 11: Integration
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Integration and the degree to which the coordinators
maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember
conflict. Table 16.11 reports the results of the analysis for
the category of Integration.
TABLE 16. 1 1--INTEGRATI ON
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D. F.
F
Prob
Center Directors (ideal)
-2.06
1.58
1 58
28 60
Coordinators (actual)
AO
.737
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 12: Superior Orientation
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Superior Orientation and the degree to which the
coordinators actually maintain cordial relations with superiors,
have influence over them,and are striving for higher status.
Table 16.12 reports the results of the analysis for the category
of Superior Orientation. The results indicate that the differ
ence between the two groups was significant at the .01 level.

85
This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was
perceived to be more frequent than the center directors'
rating of the ideal behavior.
S ummary
Data from the Leader Behavior Profile and the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnai re--X I I were analyzed using a
one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression
procedure. The 12 behavior categories were analyzed to ascertain
the difference between the "ideal" frequency of leader behavior
suggested by the national authorities and the "actual" frequency
of leader behavior exhibited by selected community education
coordinators. The .Cl level of significance was used for each
of the 12 categories. Findings from this procedure indicate
that of the 12 categories, only Tolerance of Uncertainty and
Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different. There
was consistency between the "ideal" frequency and the "actual"
frequency in both of these categories.
The additional 10 categories were found to be significantly
different at the .01 level. The actual behavior of coordina
tors proved to always be more frequent than the ideal rating
indicated by the center directors.
Thus, findings from the analysis of data in chapter III
indicate that personal data variables of experience produced
significant differences in three categories; while the per
sonal data variable of training produced a significant dif
ference in only one category. Findings in chapter IV indicate

86
a significant difference between ideal behavior and
behavior in 10 of the 12 categories.
In Chapter V, the discussion, conclusions, and
ations concerning the findings reported in chapters
will be set forth.
actual
recommend-
III and IV

// / z' ^ ^
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
This study was designed to address two questions con
cerning leader behavior of community education coordinators
based on the 12 constructs of Stogdill's taxonomy of leader
behavior (Stogdill, ] 31k) Specifically, the following ques
tions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between the "actual"
frequency of leader behaviors exhibited by selected
community education coordinators and the "ideal"
frequency of leader behavior suggested by the
national authorities?
2. Is there a relationship between selected per
sonal data variables and the behavior exhibited
by selected coordinators based on the 12 dimen
sions of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire--XII?
A sample of 15 community school coordinators within the
State of Florida participated in the study. Each coordinator
identified five schoo1 -community advisory council representa
tives to provide the L B DQ-- X I I rating input. Each representa
tive rated the coordinators on the 12 subscales of the L B DQ-- X I I .
87

88
Scores for each coordinator were combined and averaged to
provide a mean score for each of the 12 subscales.
The coordinators were then grouped according to these
personal data variables: sex, age, years experience as a
coordinator, training in community education, previous pro
fessional experience, and professional aspirations.
A one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedure
were used to analyze the 12 constructs for significant differ
ences based on the personal data variables. For the purpose of
this analysis, a .05 level of significance was used.
To address the question concerning the "ideal" versus the
"actual" leader behavior, a survey of national authorities was
conducted. An abridgement of the LB DQ-- X I I was used to de
termine the ideal frequency of leader behavior as perceived by
the directors of the Centers for Community Education in 45
colleges and universities in the United States. These data were
used to compare the "ideal" behavior with "actual" behavior as
measured by the L B DQ-- X I I A one-way analysis of variance with
a simple linear regression was used to test for significant
differences in each of the 12 subscale categories. For the
purpose of this analysis, a .01 level of significance was used.
Samp 1 ing
The process of selecting a sample of coordinators for this
study revealed that many (50% of those identified by the
sampling process) do not have or relate to any school-community
advisory council. The fact that this type of situation exists

89
suggests two problems. First, there may be a lack of under
standing or commitment to the concept of community involvement
in the processes of education at the school or district level.
Second, there may exist a perception that community education
programs are not part of the "regular" education program and
therefore should not be addressed by schoo1 -community advisory
councils. Consequently, the leader behavior of participants in
this study may not accurately reflect the behaviors of all coor
dinators in Florida.
The five coordinators who did choose to participate, but
failed to return the data, did so for various reasons. Pro
longed illness, inability to collect circulated instruments,
cancelled council meetings, and disbanded councils all led to
the reduced return. In retrospect, the data collection pro
cedure would have been enhanced by the researcher attending
advisory council meetings and collecting data in person.
LBDQ--XI I Findings
Responses to the 100 items of the LBDQ--XII provided no
significant differences at the .05 level between coordinators
when grouped by the variables of sex, age, previous professiona
experience, and professional aspirations across all 12 sub
scales. The variable of years experience as a coordinator and
training in community education were not significant at the .05
level across nine categories and 11 categories respectively.
Reasons for these similarities should be discussed.

90
First, leader skills and behaviors may be very similar
between all community education coordinators. It is suggested
that the position of community school coordinator is perceived
as an entry level administrative position; thus, a certain
level of leader behavior must be observable before an individual
becomes a community education coordinator. It may also be con
tended that once the individual performs in the role, he or
she acquires character i stics which are common to all who function
in this role. This is not to suggest that all community educa
tion coordinators are alike, however, the findings of the
L B DQ-- X I I indicate that there are few distinguishable differences
in leader behavior among the community education coordinators.
Secondly, this study used the perception of school-
community advisory council members as the basis for evaluating
leader behavior. Since the council group structure affords
certain status and function to the role of community education
coordinator, there may be expectations on the part of council
members for the coordinator to exercise prominent leadership.
Both status and function are ascribed to the position and not
the individual; hence, the ratings of 1eaderbehavior may be
based on expectations for the position and not the actual be
havior of the individual in that position.
However, the study did reveal some significant difference
at the .05 level. When the coordinators were grouped by years
experience as a community education coordinator, the coordina
tors were perceived to exhibit differing degrees of leader

91
behavior in three categories: Persuasiveness, Initiation of
Structure and Superior Orientation.
In the category of Persuasiveness, the coordinators with
over six years experience were perceived to use persuasion and
argument effectively less often than those coordinators with
less than three years experience and those coordinators with
three to six years experience. The ability to exhibit strong
convictions and use persuasion and argument effectively can be
directly related to enthusiasm for one's work. Those coordina
tors with over six years experience all had professional aspira
tions of becoming school principals, yet had failed to progress
from their present position. Lack of enthusiasm and conviction
can decrease as the ability to advance professionally is
thwa r ted .
Initiation of Structure was also significantly different
when the coordinators were grouped by years experience. Those
coordinators with three to six years experience in community
education were perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly
defined their role and allowed followers to know what is ex
pected of them than those coordinators with less than three
years experience and those with more than six years experience.
Knowledge of a role and the expectant behavior associated with
that role develops as a result of expectancy and reinforcement.
Those coordinators with less than three years may still be
developing clarity of role definition and have not yet become
facile in communicating to others their expectations. Con
versely, those coordinators with more than six years experience

92
may develop role conflicts as a result of changing values and/or
changing demands placed upon them as they exercise leadership.
The difference in perception of role by the coordinator and
others can lead to conflicts and, thus, an inability to success
fully communicate with followers.
Likewise, Superior Orientation was significantly different
when the coordinators were grouped by years experience. Each
group differed significantly from the others. Those coordina
tors with over six years experience were perceived to be less
concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors,
having influence over them, and striving for higher status than
those coordinators with less than three years experience and
those with three to six years experience. However, those
coordinators with three to six years experience were perceived
to be the most concerned with maintaining cordial relations
with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for
higher status. This measurable difference between the three
groups can be related to the professional aspirations of the
coordinators. Coordinators new to the position (less than three
years) could be still attempting to orient themselves to their
role while trying to strive for advancement. Thus, they could
exhibit less superior orientation than the three to six year
group. Those coordinators in the three to six year group would
have had sufficient time to develop security in the position and
would be much more inclined to exhibit behaviors indicative of
superior orientation in an effort to secure professional ad
vancement. However, those coordinators with over six years

93
experience could perceive themselves as professional peers
of other administrators and would not be as concerned with
trying to influence them or strive for higher status.
In addition to these described differences, the variable
of training produced a significant difference in the category
of Initiation of Structure. Those coordinators with in-service
training scored somewhat lower on the Initiation of Structure
subscale than those coordinators with academic training and
those coordinators with on-the-job training. However, when the
more conservative Tukey's procedure was performed, none of the
three groups were significantly different from the others.
These results would tend to indicate that training and work ex
perience cannot be isolated as variables in this situation.
In-service, academic and on-the-job training do not discriminate
clearly for this particular subscale.
The correlation matrix for all variables provides addi
tional information to evaluate these findings. As shown by
other studies done by Stogdill, Goode, and Day (1963, 1964, and
1965) the subscales of the L B DQ-- X I I are not independent of one
another. Generally, the results suggest that certain categories
are influenced strongly by a single subscale while some cate
gories are influenced by more than one. For example, those
coordinators scoring high in the category of Consideration, also
score high in Integration (r = .8^) and Superior Orientation
(r = .60) while those scoring high in the category Representation,
also score high in Consideration (r = .8 A) Reconciliation

(r = .75), Structure (r = .7^), Integration (r = .73), Role
Retention (r = .66), and Persuasion (r = .65). The findings
obtained from this analysis of subscale correlation suggest
that followers are able to describe the coordinators in terms
of several factors.
Leader Behavior Profile Findings
Responses to the Leader Behavior Profile indicate sig
nificant differences at the .01 level between the ideal fre
quency of leader behavior determined by the national authori
ties and the actual frequency of leader behavior as measured
by the L B D Q X I I on 10 of 12 subscales. Two of the subscales,
Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not
significantly different between center directors and coordina
tors. Reasons for these measurable differences should be re
counted .
Initially, there seems to be a significant distortion
between theory and practice. The professional literature in
community education ascribes to the role of coordinator
characteristics of a process facilitator. That is, the role
of indirect or low profile leadership which is to assist a group
in learning useful ways for accomplishing tasks and working as
a unit. The major factor being to assist group members in mak
ing decisions. On the other hand, practice, as measured by the
L B D Q X I I shows that coordinators are exercising a much more
prominent leadership role and taking a direct active part in the
decision making process. This is best exemplified by the

95
difference the category of Role Retention. Coordinators are
actually actively exercising the leadership role rather than
surrendering leadership to others much more often than the
ideal situation would demand.
Secondly, there seems to be a discrepancy between com
munity education philosophy and community member preference.
One of the key components of community education philosophy is
the systematic involvement of community members in the educa
tional process. This involvement in decision making lies at
the cornerstone of the movement. On the other hand, the most
recent Gallup Educational Poll (1977) reports that the majority
of the people want the educational decision making to remain
with elected officials. This attitude could increase the ex
pectancy-reinforcement factor which would ascribe status to the
position of coordinator as a representative of the administra
tion and school board. Thus, the citizens expect the coordina
tor to exercise prominent leadership and the coordinator
responds by doing so.
Finally, these mea surab1e differences might be a result of
the lack of professional training. Of the coordinators partici
pating in this study, only three have had full-time academic
training. If there is to be consistency between theory and
practice, coordinators should have more in-depth training. Those
human, technical and conceptual skills upon which community ed
ucation functions are unique and may not be easily acquired on
the job. Individuals who are to exercise low profile leader
ship must possess specialized process skills which are not

96
usually taught In traditional education curricula. Lack
of these process leadership skills could create a reliance by
the coordinators on traditional and more prominent leadership
roles.
Conclusions
The leader behavior of selected community education
coordinators were measured by means of a survey of the per
ceptions of members of the coordinators' schoo1 -community
advisory council. The survey covered the 12 dimensions of
leader behavior measured by the Leader Behavior Description
Ques tionnaire XII. Evidence from this survey instrument would
tend to support the conclusion that there is no significant
difference in the perceived leader behavior of community educa
tion coordinators based on selected personal data variables.
Answers to the questions posed at the outset of the study
can be provided on the basis of these data:
1. The variable of sex produced no significant difference
in the perceived leader behavior of the selected com
munity education coordinators in any of the 12 behavior
cons t ructs.
2. The variable of age produced no significant difference
in the perceived leader behavior of community education
coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs.
3. The variable of years experience did produce a significant
difference in the perceived behavior of community educa
tion coordinators in the construct of Persuasiveness,

97
Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation.
There was no significant difference as measured in
terms of the other nine constructs.
4. The variable of training in community education pro
duced no significant difference in the perceived be
havior of community education coordinators in any of
the 12 behavior constructs.
5. The variable of previous professional experience pro
duced no significant difference in the perceived be
havior of community education coordinators in any of
the 12 behavior constructs.
In addition, a survey of national authorities was con
ducted to determine the ideal leader behavior of community
education coordinators and to ascertain whether the actual
behaviors of coordinators as measured by the L B DQ-- X I I were
consistent with the opinions of the national authorities.
Evidence from this comparison would tend to support the con
clusion that there are significant differences between the ideal
leader behavior suggested by the national authorities and the
actual leader behavior exhibited by the community education
coordinators. Only two constructs, Tolerance of Uncertainty
and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different.
Impl ications
¡he findings resulting from this study lend support to
the following implications. First, leader behavior and per
formance of community education coordinators are not related

98
to the six identified personal variables and thus, those
variables are not good predictors of behavior or performance.
The use of these variables as selection criteria of individuals
to fill community education leadership positions is marginal
at best. In addition, these variables should have little
significance as criteria for selecting individuals to be
trained in community education.
Secondly, there is a significant difference in community
education leadership theory and community education leader
ship practice. This fact has implications not only for the
training institutions, but also for the State Department of
Education which has responsibility to establish guidelines for
the implementation of the Community School Act. The difference
in theory and practice may directly reflect a lack of adequate
training on the part of those individuals who hold these posi
tions, as well as a lack of sensitivity to the need for
specialized training to function in a facilitative manner.
Recommendations For Future Study
The following recommendations are offered in an effort
to foster the development and growth of community education
in Florida as well as to promote the furtherance of knowledge.
1. Studies of community education leadership should
be conducted to provide additional data for a
more conclusive leadership profile.
2. Additional factors which influence leader behavior
should be researched. These might include

99
personality characteristics, values, and
attitudes, as well as specific human, con
ceptual, and technical skill competencies.
3. The role of the community member in community
education leadership should be researched.
4. The role of the schoo1 -community advisory
council in planning and evaluating community
education programs should be researched.
5. Research should be conducted to determine if
minimal training requirements are necessary
for community education coordinators to be
effective in their role.
6. Current educational programs providing training
for community education coordinators should be
studied. Specific attention should be paid to
the substantive nature of course content, scope
and sequence of skill development, and the
practical applicability of skills.
7. Studies should be conducted to establish a
basic curriculum necessary for community edu
cation coordinators. These studies should
review the necessity for an interdisciplinary
competency-based approach related to the
specific human, conceptual, and technical
skills essential for functioning in the role
of community education coordinator.

8.
Research should be conducted to determine if
1 00
community education has application as an
operational philosophy for community colleges
and universities, as well as public schools.
9.A study should be conducted to determine if
moving the responsibility for community
education from the Department of Education
Adult Education Division to the Commissioner's
Cabinet level would foster community educational
programming at the four division levels and
increase cooperation and coordination among
the divisions.
10. Studies should be conducted to determine the
feasibility of developing community education
in-service training modules for use by local
school districts in their on-going staff de
velopment programs. The three Centers for
Community Education in Florida could provide
the necessary resources for the development
of these modules. The modules could then be
utilized by both instructional and administra
tive employees at the local district level.
11. Research should be conducted to determine the
most effective method of gaining community
input for community needs assessment, program
development and evaluation.

101
12. Studies should be conducted to determine if
coordinators who exhibit leader behavior
which is indicative of the ideal, as suggested
by the national authorities, are more effective
i n
performing their role.

APPENDIX A
Dear
I am presently undertaking a study dealing with the
leader behaviors of community education coordinators. The
study would necessitate five members of your community ad
visory council completing a survey. The administrators of
the survey should take no longer than thirty minutes. In
addition, a personal data sheet concerning information such
as experience, training, and professional aspirations would
be completed by you.
If you are willing to participate in this study,
complete the enclosed form and return it to me. Upon
of the form, I will contact participants by telephone
cuss the research in depth.
please
receip t
to dis -
Thank you
for your careful consideration of
this matter.
Cordially,
A. L. Stefurak
AL/cr
enclosure

103
Participation Consent Form
Name :
Mailing Address:
Office Telephone Number:
(area code)
When can you most often be reached by telephone?
m o r n i n g a fternoon e v e n i n g
Name of community advisory council chairperson?
How many council members usually participate in the meeting?
When does your council usually meet?
I choose not to participate

Dear
] O*
Enclosed are the community council questionnaires to
be distributed at your next meeting. Please be sure that
the chairperson distributes and collects the questionnaires
in order that they may be returned to me. Also, please be
sure that the personal data sheet is enclosed with the
questionnaires.
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to assist
me in the collection of this data. If you have any ques
tions or problems, please feel free to contact me.
Cordially,
A. L. Stefurak
AL/c r
enclosures

105
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUEST IONNAIRE--FORM XII
Originated by staff members of
The Ohio State Leadership Studies
and revised by the
Bureau of Business Research
Purpose of the Questionnaire
On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the
behavior of the coordinator. Each item describes a specific kind of be
havior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable
or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express
differences that are important in the description of leadership. Each
item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test
of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make
it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior
of the selected coordinator.
Note: The term "coordinator" as employed in the following items, refers
to the individual who has full-time responsibility for community education
at the school center. The term "group," as employed in the following items,
refers to a unit of organization that is supervised by the person being
described. In some cases the "group" may represent only one or two in
di vidua1s.
The term "members," refers to all the people in the group that is super
vised by the person being described.
Please attempt to answer a 11 the questions.
Pub 1ished by
Bureau of Business Research
College of Commerce and Administration
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Copyright 1962

DIRECTIONS:
1 06
a. READ each item carefully-
b. THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior
described by the item.
c. DECIDE whether he/she (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally,
(D) seldom or (E) never, acts as described by the item.
d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A B C D E) following
the item to show the answer you have selected.
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasiona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
e. MARK your answers as shown in the examples below.
Example: The coordinator often acts as described A B C D E
Example: The coordinator never acts as described A B C D E
Example: The coordinator occasionally acts
as described A B C D E
1. The coordinator acts as the spokesman of the group A B C D E
2. The coordinator waits patiently for the results
of a decision A B C D E
3. The coordinator makes pep talks to stimulate the group A B C D E
k. The coordinator lets group members know what
is expected of them A B C D E
5. The coordinator allows the members complete
freedom in their work A B C D E
6. The coordinator is hesitant about taking initiative
in the group A B C D E
7. The coordinator is friendly and approachable A B C D E

107
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasionally
D = Seldom
E = Never
8. The coordinator encourages overtime work A B C D E
9. The coordinator makes accurate decisions A B C D E
10. The coordinator gets along well with the people
above him/her A B C D E
11. The coordinator publicizes the activities
of the group A B C D E
12. The coordinator becomes anxious when he/she
cannot find out what is coming next A B C D E
13. The coordinator's arguments are convincing A B C D E
14. The coordinator encourages the use of
uniform procedures A B C D E
15. The coordinator permits the members to use their
own judgment in solving problems A B C D E
16. The coordinator fails to take necessary action A B C D E
17. The coordinator does little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of the group A B C D E
18. The coordinator stresses being ahead of competing
groups A B C D E
19. The coordinator keeps the group working
together as a team A B C D E
20. The coordinator keeps the group in good
standing with higher authority A B C D E
21. The coordinator speaks as the representative of
the group A B C D E
22. The coordinator accepts defeat in stride A B C D E
23. The coordinator argues persuasively for his/her
point of view A B C D E

1 08
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occas ¡onaI 1y
D = Seldom
E = Never
24. The coordinator tries out his/her ideas in the group A B C D E
25. The coordinator encourages initiative in the
group members A B C D E
26. The coordinator lets other persons take away
his/her leadership in the group A B C D E
27. The coordinator puts suggestions made by the
group into operation A B C D E
28. The coordinator needles members for greater effort A B C D E
29. The coordinator seems able to predict what is
coming next A B C D E
30. The coordinator is working hard for a promotion A B C D E
31. The coordinator speaks for the group when
visitors are present A B C D E
32. The coordinator accepts delays without becoming upset A B C D E
33. The coordinator is a very persuasive talkei A B C D E
34. The coordinator makes his/her attitudes
clear to the group A B C D E
35- The coordinator lets the members do their
work the way they think best A B C D E
36. The coordinator lets some members take
advantage of him/hei A B C D E
37- The coordinator treats all group members
as his/her equal A B C D E
38. The coordinator keeps the work moving at a rapid pace A B C D E
39. The coordinator settles conflicts when they occur
in the group A B C D E
40. The coordinator's superiors act favorable on
most of his/her suggestions A B C D E

) 09
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasiona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
41. The coordinator represents the group at
outside meetings A B C D E
42. The coordinator becomes anxious when waiting
for new developments A B C D E
1)3. The coordinator is very skillful in an argument A B C D E
1)1). The coordinator decides what shall be done
and how it shall be done A B C D E
1)5- The coordinator assigns a task, then lets
the members handle it A B C D E
1)6. The coordinator is the leader of the
group in name only A B C D E
1)7. The coordinator gives advance notice of changes A B C D E
1)8. The coordinator pushes for increased production A B C D E
1)9. Things usually turn out as he/she predicts A B C D E
50. The coordinator enjoys the privileges of his/her
position A B C D E
51. The coordinator handles complex problems efficiently A B C D E
52. The coordinator is able to tolerate postponement
and uncertainty A B C D E
53. The coordinator is not a very convincing talker A B C D E
5l). The coordinator assigns group members to
particular tasks A B C D E
55. The coordinator turns the members loose on a
job, and lets them go to it A B C D E
56. The coordinator backs down when he/she ought
to stand f i A B C D E
57. The coordinator keeps to himself/herself A B C D E

1 10
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasiona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
58. The coordinator asks the members to work hardei A B C D E
59. The coordinator is accurate in predicting the
trend of events A B C D E
60. The coordinator gets his/her superiors to act
for the welfare of the group members A B C D E
61. The coordinator gets swamped by details A B C D E
62. The coordinator can wait just so long, then blows up A B C D E
63. The coordinator speaks from a strong inner conviction A B C D E
6A. The coordinator makes sure that his/her part in the
group is understood by the group members A B C D E
65. The coordinator is reluctant to allow the members
any freedom of action A B C D E
66. The coordinator lets some members have authority
that he/she should keep A B C D E
67. The coordinator looks out for the personal
welfare of the group members A B C D E
68. The coordinator permits the members to take it
easy in their work A B C D E
69. The coordinator sees to it that the work of the
group is coordinated A B C D E
70. The coordinator's work carries weight with
his/her superiors A B C D E
71. The coordinator gets things all tangled up A B C D E
72. The coordinator remains calm when uncertain
about coming events A B C D E
73. The coordinator is an inspiring talkei A B C D E

111
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occas¡ona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
74. The coordinator schedules the work to be done A B C D E
75. The coordinator allows the group a high
degree of initiative A B C D E
76. The coordinator takes full charge when
emergencies arise A B C D E
77- The coordinator is willing to make changes A B C D E
78. The coordinator drives hard when there is
a job to be done A B C D E
79. The coordinator helps group members settle
their differences A B C D E
80. The coordinator gets what he/she asks for from
his/her superiors A B C D E
81. The coordinator can reduce a madhouse to
system and order A B C D E
82. The coordinator is able to delay action until
the proper time occurs A B C D E
83. The coordinator persuades others that his/her
ideas are to their advantage A B C D E
84. The coordinator maintains definite standards
of performance A B C D E
85. The coordinator trusts the members to exercise
good judgment A B C D E
86. The coordinator overcomes attempts made to
challenge his/her leadership A B C D E
87. The coordinator refuses to explain his/her actions A B C D E
88. The coordinator urges the group to beat
its previous record A B C D E

1 1 2
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occas¡ona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
89. The coordinator anticipates problems and
plans for them A B C D E
90. The coordinator is working his/her way to the top A B C D E
91. The coordinator gets confused when too many
demands are made of him/her A B C D E
92. The coordinator worries about the outcome
of any new procedure A B C D E
93. The coordinator can inspire enthusiasm for
a project A B C D E
94. The coordinator asks that group members follow
standard rules and regulations A B C D E
95- The coordinator permits the group to set its own pace ~-A B C D E
96. The coordinator is easily recognized as
the leader of the group A B C D E
97. The coordinator acts without consulting the group A B C D E
98. The coordinator keeps the group working up to capacity A B C D E
99- The coordinator maintains a closely knit group A B C D E
100. The coordinator maintains cordial relations
with superiors A B C D E

APPENDIX B
Personal Data
1.
1 am
ma 1
e f ema1e
2.
1 ami
n the
age group:
21-30; 31-40;
41 and
over.
3.
1 have
been
in community
education: less
than 3
years,
3 to 6 years, over 6 years.
4. I received my community education training through:
participation in an academic community
education training program
participation in a two-week workshop
participation in in-service workshops
participation in a full year internship
supervised field experience
on the job training with little academic training
o the r__
5. Prior to entering community education work, my experience
was in:
elementary schools
secondary schools
o ther (please list)
6. The next professional position to which I aspire is:

APPENDIX C
I am presently conducting a study dealing with the
nature of leadership behaviors of community education
coordinators. The initial phase of the study requires
base data for a behavior profile. Each Center Director
is being asked to provide input for the development of
the p ro fi 1e .
I would appreciate your taking just five minutes
from your busy schedule to complete the short survey
enclosed. Please return in the self-addressed envelope
at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you for your immediate attention and coopera
tion.
Sincerely,
A. L. Stefurak
Center Associate
ALS/cr
e n c
o s u r e s

Leader Behavior Description Profile
The following list of items describes possible leader
behaviors of community education coordinators. Each item is
a descriptive category of various behaviors and should be
rated according to importance in relation to maximum
effectiveness. Read each category carefully and think about
how relatively important the behaviors indicated by the
description would be for a coordinator to be effective in
community education leadership.
DIRECTIONS:
Column A -- of the twelve categories, check the nine
you consider most important
Column B -- of the nine categories identified in column A,
check the six you consider to be most important
Column C -- of the six categories identified in column B,
check the three you consider most important
Column D -- of the three categories identified in column C,
check the one you consider most important.

Behavior Category
A
B
C
D
1. Representati ve--speaks and acts
as a representative of the group
2.
Demands reconci1iation--reconc¡les
conflicting organizational demands
and reduces disorder to the system
3.
Tolerance of uncertainty--is able
to tolerate uncertainty and post
ponement without anxiety or upset
k.
Persuasiveness--uses persuasion arid
argument effectively; exhibits
strong convictions
5.
Initiation of structure--c1ear1y
defines own role, and lets
followers know what is expected
6.
Tolerance of freedom--a 11ows
followers scope for initiative,
decision, and action
7.
Role retenti on--acti ve 1y ex
ercises leadership role rather
than surrendering leadership
to others
8.
Consideration--regards the
comfort, well-being, status,
and contributions of
foil owe rs
9.
Production emphasis--app1 ies
pressure for productive output
1 0 .
Predictive accuracy--exhibits
foresight and ability to predict
outcomes accurately
1 1 .
1 ntegrat i on--maintains a closely
knit organization; resolves inter
member conflict
12.
Influence with superi ors--maintains
cordial relations with superiors,
has influence with them; strives
for higher status

REFERENCES
Anderson, V., £ Davies, D. R. Patterns of educational leader
ship, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1956.
Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization.
New YorlTi W i ley, 1 96A .
Barnard, C. I. The functions of the executive. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1938.
Barnard, H. Report on the condition and improvement of the
public schools of Rhode Island. In J. S. Brubacher (Ed.),
Henry Barnard on education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931.
Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior.
New YorlTi Harper and Brothers I960.
Bennis, W. G. Changing organization. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1 966.
Bernard, L, L. An introduction to social psychology. New York:
Holt, 1926.
Berridge, R. I. Its evolvement. In H. W. Hickey, C. VanVoorhees
£ Associates (Eds.), The role of the school in community
education. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co.,
1 9 W.
Berridge, R. I. The community education handbook. Midland,
Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1973.
Bird, C. Social psychology. New York: App1eton-Century, 19^0.
Brown, A. F. Reactions to leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 1967, 3, 62-73.
Campbell, C. M. Community schools: Their administration. In
H. W, Hickey, C. VanVoorhees £ Associates (Eds.), The
role of the school in community education. Midland,
Michigan: Pende 1 1 Pu b1 i s h i ng Co. 1969.
Cartwright, D., £ Zander, A. Group dynamics: Research and
theory. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson £ Co., 1953-
Case, C. M. Leadership and conjuncture. Sociology and Social
Research, 1933, 17, 510-513.-

Cattel, R. B. New concepts for measuring leadership in terms
of group syntality. Human Relations, 1951, 161-18*4.
Clancy, P. L. Testimony presented before the Labor and Education
Committee of the United States House of Representatives,
January 26, 1965, and the Subcommittee on Education of the
United States Senate Committee on Public Labor and Welfare,
January 29, 1965-
Clapp, E. R. Community schools in action. New York; Viking
Press, 1939-
Clark, P. A., & Olsen, E. G. Life-centering education. Midland,
Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1977-
Clark
P. A., S Stefurak, A. L. Leadership for change.
Education Journal, No vembe r D ec embe r 1975, 5_ (6),
Commu nit y
18-21.
Cook, L. A. Schools and community. In W. S. Monroe (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of educational research. New York: The
Ma cm i 1 lan Co. 19^1-
Cunningham, L.
issues.
L. Governing schools: New approaches to old
Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1971
Deshler, B., 5 Erlich,
the revolution.
J. L. Citizen involvement: Evaluation in
Phi Delta Kappan November 1972, 5_, 175-
Dewey, J., S Dewey, E. Schools of tomorrow. New York:
Dutton, 1962.
E P.
Dowd, J. Control in human societies. New York: App1eton-Century,
1936.
Everett, S. The community school. New York: D. Appleton-
Cen t ury Co. Inc. 1938.
Flint Community Schools. Flint community schools: G u i d e1 in e s
for schoo1-community advisory councils. Flint, Michigan:
The Community Schools, 1973-
Gallup, G. H. Ninth annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes
toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, September 1977,
59 (1), 33-^8.
Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addition-Wesley, 1 9 5 ^
Gregg, G. A. An examination of the leader behavior of community
education directors in the advisory council (Doctoral
dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975)-
(University Microfilms No. 7 5 2 7 778 ).

Hal pin, A. W. The leadership of behavior of school superin
tendents Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956.
Halpin, A. W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of air
craft commanders. In R. M. Stodgill & A. E. Coons (Eds.),
Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957.
Halpin, A. W.
Chicago:
Chicago,
The leadership behavior of school superintendents
Midwest Administration Center University of
1959.
Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration. New York:
Macm i 1 1 an 1966.
Ha 1 p
n, A. W., & Winer, B. J. A factorial
behavior description questionnaire.
A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior:
measurement. Columbus: Ohio State
study of the leader
In R. M. Stodgill &
Its description and
University, 1957
Hart, J. K. The discovery of intelligence. New York: The
Cen t u ry Co. 192 4.
Hemphill, J. K. Leader behavior description. Columbus: Ohio
State University, Personnel Research Board, 1950.
Hemphill, J. K. Leadership behavior associated with the admin
istrative reputation of college departments. The Journal
of Educational Psychology, November 1955 4_6 ( 7 ) 3 8 5 4 0 1
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. Development of the leader be
havior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill &
A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and
measu rement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research, 1957.
Hencley, S. P. Situational behavioral approach to leadership.
In L. L. Cunningham 6 W. J. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership,
the science and the art today. 12th Annual Phi Delta
Kappa Symposium on Educational Research. Itasca, Illinois
Peacock Publishers, 1973.
Homans, G. C. The human g roup New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1950
Jacob, J. W. Leader behavior of the secondary school principal.
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
The Bulletin, 1965, 49, 13-17.
Jenkins, W. 0. A review of leadership studies with particular
reference to military problems. Psychology Bulletin,
1947, 44, 54-79.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967.

120
Kliminski, G. C. A study of the skills of successful directors
of community education in Michigan (Doctoral dissertation,
Western Michigan University, 1974). (University Microfilms
No. 74-24, 648).
Laws of Florida. Chapter 7 3 ~ 3 3 8 Section 230.32, sub-section b.
State of Florida, Department of Education, Tallahassee, 1973-
Likert, R. The hyman organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-
Mann, G. C. The development of public school adult education.
Public School Adult Education. Washington, D. C.: National
Association of Public School Adult Education, 1956.
McGregor, D. Leadership and motivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1966.
Melby, E. D. Approaches to role change in community education.
Phi Delta Kappan, November 1972, jj_4_ (3), 171172.
M i nzey, Jack D. ,
to proces s.
& LeTarte, C. Community education: From program
Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1972.
Mitchell, B. M. Analysis of the perception of the role of the
subordinate and superordinate with respect to authority,
responsibility and delegation in the community schools of
Flint at the attendance center level (Doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1973)- (University Microfilms
No. 73-29, 750).
Moore, H. E. Organizational and administrative problems and
practices. Phi Delta Kappan November 1972, 5j4 (3), 1 6 8 1 7 0 .
Mott, H. C. S. The Flint community school concept as I see it.
Journal of Educational Sociology, 1958, 4_, 141-161.
Murphy, A. J. A study of the leadership process. American
Sociology Review, 1941, 6_, 674- 687.
Nance, E. E. The community education coordinator. Community
Education Jou rna 1 November 1972, 1_ (5), 5 2-55-
Olsen, E. G. School and community. New York: Prentice-Ha 1 1 ,
Inc., 1945.
Owens, R. G. Organizational behavior in schools. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Ha 1 1 1970.
&xe, Richard W. School community interaction. Berkley: McCutchan
Publishing Corp., 1975-

121
Schneider, J. The cultural situation as a condition for the
achievement of fame. American Sociology Review, 1937,
2, 480-491.
Seay, M. F. The community school emphasis in post war education.
In N. B. Henry (Ed.), American education in the post war
period, curriculum reconstruction. Forty-fourth Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I.
Chicago: The Universi ty o~f Chicago Press 1945.
Seay, M. F., £ Associates. Community education: A developing
concept. Michigan: Pende 1 1 P u b1 is hing Co. 1974.
Sharpe, R. T. Differences between perceived administrative be
havior and role norms as factors in leadership evaluation
and group morale. Dissertation Abstracts 1956, J_6, 57.
Stogdi 1 1 R. M. Personal factors associated with leadership:
A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948,
25, 35-71.
Stogdi11, Ralph M. Individual behavior and group achievement.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.
Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the leader behavior description
questionnaire--form XII, an experimental revision.
Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, College of
Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, 1963.
Stogdill, R. M. A review of research on leader behavior des
cription questi onna ire--form XII Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University, College of Administrative Science, 1970.
Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory
and research!New York: The Free Press, 1974.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior
of United States senators. Journal of Psychology, 1963,
56, 3-8.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior
of presidents of labor unions. Personnel Psychology, 1964,
21, 49-57.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior
of university presidents. Columbus: Ohio State University,
Bureau of Business Research, Unpublished report, 1965.
Totten, W. F., £ Manley, F. J. The community school basic con
cepts, functions, and organization. Ga lien, Michigan:
Allied Ed u c a t ion Counci 1 1969.

122
Walker, J. E. The relationship between the
characteristics, personal factors, and
community school directors (Doctoral d
State University, 1971). (University
^780).
Weaver, D. Strategies for training communi
Community Education Journal, May-June
29, 32.
pe rsona1 ity
effectiveness of
issertation, Utah
Microfilms No. 72-
ty education teachers.
1975, 5 (3), 25-27;

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Albert Linwood (Lin) Stefurak, son of Albert and Bernice
Stefurak, was born in Cocoa Beach, Florida, January 22, 19^5.
He graduated from Cocoa High School in 1963-
He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major
in elementary education in December of 1968. He continued
his graduate studies at the University of South Florida and
received a Master of Arts degree in early childhood education
in December of 1969. During his graduate work, he was awarded
a graduate ass i stantship for gifted education as administrator
of the gifred child enrichment program. He also served as
president of Kappa Delta Pi honor society and participated in
numerous educational seminars and committees.
In September 1970, he began his teaching career in the
Hillsborough County public school system. After two successful
years of classroom teaching, he was promoted to an administrator
in the community education-adult education program, serving as
an assistant principal.
He maintained that position until June of 197^. During
that time, he was president of the Florida Association for the
Gifted and a member of Phi Delta Kappa.
He moved to Gainesville, Florida, in August of 197^ to
begin his doctoral studies in educational administration and

1 2 4
supervision at the University of Florida. He maintained a
graduate assistantship in the Center for Community Education.
After his internship experience with the president of the
National Council for Resource Development of the American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges, he served as the
center's grant consultant, and in that capacity, he wrote five
funded grants totaling over two hundred thousand dollars.
Commencing in 1977, he was promoted to the position of Center
Associate.
He has held professional positions as president-elect of
Phi Delta Kappa, consultant for resource development, member
of the Education and Training Committee of the Voluntary Action
Council, member of the National Council for Resource Develop
ment, and a member of the Florida Association of Community
Ed uca tion.
Lin is married to the former Mary Lamont (Monty) Martin
of Tampa, Florida. She is a reading specialist and a teacher
trainer in the public school system.
Currently, he is Assistant Officer for District Resource
Development at Footh i 1 1 -DeAnza Community College District in
Los Altos Hills, California.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Phillip/A. Clark^ Chairman
Associate Professor of
Educational Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
fames L. Wattenbar^
'Professor of Educational
Administration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy .
L UWl
Ar thur J. Lewis
Professor of 'Education
Director, Curriculum and
Instruction Division

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the Department of Educational Administration and Super
vision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council,
and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Decembe r 197 7
Dean, Graduate School

1 2 4
supervision at the University of Florida. He maintained a
graduate assistantship in the Center for Community Education.
After his internship experience with the president of the
National Council for Resource Development of the American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges, he served as the
center's grant consultant, and in that capacity, he wrote five
funded grants totaling over two hundred thousand dollars.
Commencing in 1977, he was promoted to the position of Center
Associate.
He has held professional positions as president-elect of
Phi Delta Kappa, consultant for resource development, member
of the Education and Training Committee of the Voluntary Action
Council, member of the National Council for Resource Develop
ment, and a member of the Florida Association of Community
Ed uca tion.
Lin is married to the former Mary Lamont (Monty) Martin
of Tampa, Florida. She is a reading specialist and a teacher
trainer in the public school system.
Currently, he is Assistant Officer for District Resource
Development at Footh i 1 1 -DeAnza Community College District in
Los Altos Hills, California.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Phillip/A. Clark^ Chairman
Associate Professor of
Educational Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
fames L. Wattenbar^
'Professor of Educational
Administration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy .
L UWl
Ar thur J. Lewis
Professor of 'Education
Director, Curriculum and
Instruction Division

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the Department of Educational Administration and Super
vision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council,
and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Decembe r 197 7
Dean, Graduate School



Leader Behavior Description Profile
The following list of items describes possible leader
behaviors of community education coordinators. Each item is
a descriptive category of various behaviors and should be
rated according to importance in relation to maximum
effectiveness. Read each category carefully and think about
how relatively important the behaviors indicated by the
description would be for a coordinator to be effective in
community education leadership.
DIRECTIONS:
Column A -- of the twelve categories, check the nine
you consider most important
Column B -- of the nine categories identified in column A,
check the six you consider to be most important
Column C -- of the six categories identified in column B,
check the three you consider most important
Column D -- of the three categories identified in column C,
check the one you consider most important.


69
TABLE 12.5 SUPERIOR ORIENTATION
Variable.
Total n
X
Ratio
F
P r 0 b .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
42.33
1 .7
0.208
Previous exper
seconda ry
ience:
8
39.02
Previous exper
other
ience:
4
39.60
significance was .01
The
mean score on
each of
the 12
behavior
constructs was
used
for t h i
is procedure.
Table 13
.0 reports the
results of the
correlation
matrix. The
results i
ndic a t e
a s i g -
nificant relat
i 0 n s h i
p between two of the
persona 1
data variables
as well as eight of the 12 behavior constructs.
Summa ry
Data from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--
XI I were, analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to
answer each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in
leader behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05
level of significance was used for each of the constructs.
Findings from this procedure indicated that of the 12 constructs
only Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, and Superior
Orientation were affected by the personal data variables.
Persuasiveness was found to be significantly different
when the coordinators were grouped by the number of years ex
perience. Those with over six years experience were signifi
cantly less persuasive than those with less than three years
and those with three to six years.


Dear
] O*
Enclosed are the community council questionnaires to
be distributed at your next meeting. Please be sure that
the chairperson distributes and collects the questionnaires
in order that they may be returned to me. Also, please be
sure that the personal data sheet is enclosed with the
questionnaires.
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to assist
me in the collection of this data. If you have any ques
tions or problems, please feel free to contact me.
Cordially,
A. L. Stefurak
AL/c r
enclosures


27
For example, Halpin (1956) studied 50 Ohio school superin
tendents to determine the relationship between the superintendent's
own perception of how he or she behaved on the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire as compared with the school board and
staff perceptions. Sharpe (1956) studied the leadership of prin
cipa 1 s -- d e s c r i bed by teachers, staff members, and self. The three
groups held similar ideals of leader behavior.
Brown (1966) focused on the leader behavior of 170 prin
cipals in Alberta, Canada. Using the LBDQ--XI I the findings in
dicated that (1) teachers' estimates of the school's performance
were not sensitive to the perception of leadership in the school,
(2) teacher satisfaction was sensitive to the perception of the
school leadership, and (3) confidence in principal was related to
school leadership.
Jacob (1965) compared "high" and "low" innovating principals
using the L B D Q-- X I I He found that the high innovating principals
received higher ratings on six dimensions of leader behavior:
Initiating Structure, Predictive Accuracy, Representation, Inte
gration, Persuasion, and. Consideration.
In a study of the perceptions of principals and community
school coordinators with respect to the variables authority,
responsibility, and de1egat i on, Mitche1 1 (1973 ) found no signifi
cant difference between the principal's perception and the coor
dinator's perception of the coordinator's behavior in Initiating
Structure or Consideration. Likewise, Gregg (1975), in a recent
study of community education coordinators, determined that,
within an advisory council setting, coordinators and council


as a community education coordinator.
52
Those coordinators
with three to six years experience in community education were
perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly defined their
role and let followers know what is expected of them than
those coordinators with less than three years experience and
those coordinators with more than six years experience.
TABLE 5.3~-1NITI AT I ON OF STRUCTURE
_ F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P rob .
Experience: less
than 3 years 5 39.28 1 7 .4 0.000
Experience: 3'^ years 8 2 7 8
Experience: over 6 years 2 36.70
*Group 2 differs significantly from groups 1 and 3
Table 5.4 reports the results of the responses for the fifth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community
education training. The results indicate that the difference
between the groups was significant at the .05 level. However,
when the Tukey-HSD procedure was applied, none of the three
groups were found to differ significantly from each other.
TABLE 5.4-
-INITIATION OF
STRUCTURE
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Training:
a ca d emic
3
42.27*
5.05
0.025
Training:
in-service
6
38.62*
Training:
on-the-job
6
42.23*
* N o group differs significantly from the other based on
Tukey procedure.


103
Participation Consent Form
Name :
Mailing Address:
Office Telephone Number:
(area code)
When can you most often be reached by telephone?
m o r n i n g a fternoon e v e n i n g
Name of community advisory council chairperson?
How many council members usually participate in the meeting?
When does your council usually meet?
I choose not to participate


1 2
study. The selection of only five advisory council members
for each coordinator in the study could bias the results
since the selection was done by the coordinator being rated.
However, the same bias effect would apply equally to all
respondents.
Directors of university centers for community education.
A total of 56 Center Directors was sampled to determine the
"ideal" leader behavior. This constitutes the total popula
tion of individuals responsible for directing academic com
munity education leadership training programs in the United
States during fiscal year 1977. The names and addresses of
these individuals were provided by the University of Florida
Center for Community Education.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Inst rument. The instrument used in this study was the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII developed
by Ralph Stogdill (1963). The questionnaire was designed to
obtain descriptions of leaders, through 12 dimensions of
leader behavior. The leader behavior is perceived objectively
in terms of the frequency of occurrence within the 12 dimensions.
A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix A. In addition
to the basic instrument, a personal data sheet was developed.
This questionnaire was for personal data such as age and sex,
as well as specific information concerning years experience as
a community education coordinator, training in community educa
tion, previous professional experience and professional aspira
tions. A copy of the personal data questionnaire is included
in Appendix B.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Albert Linwood (Lin) Stefurak, son of Albert and Bernice
Stefurak, was born in Cocoa Beach, Florida, January 22, 19^5.
He graduated from Cocoa High School in 1963-
He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major
in elementary education in December of 1968. He continued
his graduate studies at the University of South Florida and
received a Master of Arts degree in early childhood education
in December of 1969. During his graduate work, he was awarded
a graduate ass i stantship for gifted education as administrator
of the gifred child enrichment program. He also served as
president of Kappa Delta Pi honor society and participated in
numerous educational seminars and committees.
In September 1970, he began his teaching career in the
Hillsborough County public school system. After two successful
years of classroom teaching, he was promoted to an administrator
in the community education-adult education program, serving as
an assistant principal.
He maintained that position until June of 197^. During
that time, he was president of the Florida Association for the
Gifted and a member of Phi Delta Kappa.
He moved to Gainesville, Florida, in August of 197^ to
begin his doctoral studies in educational administration and


8
made which allow parents, students, and community members
opportunities to express their feelings about the schools with
school leaders. "information flow has been primarily one way.
Legitimate out'ets have not been provided for protest or dis
content" (Cunningham, 1971, p. 176).
Community educators bear an unusual burden for a strong
program of communication and public relations. Establishing
the rapport necessary for such communication requires the
community educator to possess specialized human, technical,
and conceptual skills (Weaver, 1975). These skills thus form
the foundation upon which leader behavior is developed. Clark
and Stefurak (1975) considered the community education leader
most facile in human, technical and conceptual skills when his
leader behavior is "other-centered."
This approach vests leadership in
others, rather than in status leaders.
Leaders using this approach make it
possible for others to emerge, assume
responsibility, and participate in de
cision making. They help people become
as involved in task development and com
pletion as they wish to be involved, and
encourage them to apply their skills and
creativity to mutually determined goals
(p. 19).
Such an approach to the organization and administration of
community education requires an open flexible type of admin
istration able to deal with direct community input.
There have been many attempts at so-called citizen par
ticipation in education over the years. However, as an attempt
to increase public involvement, the state of Florida, in 1973,
mandated that each school system must have a school advisory


21
military leaders in England emerged in proportion to the num
ber, of conflicts.
Great Man Theories
Dowd (1936) concluded that individuals possess different
degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force; therefore,
a superior few will inevitably emerge as leaders.
Bernard (1926) advanced similar conclusions from his
study in social psychology. He maintained that leadership can
be explained in terms of traits of personality and character.
Therefore, trait theories could be used to explain leadership.
Persona1 -Situationa1 Theories
By combining the two previously mentioned theories, another
method for describing and studying leadership was established.
Case (1933) suggested that leadership is produced by three
factors: (l) the personality traits of the leader, (2) the
nature of the group and of its members, and (3) the event
confronting the group.
Gibb (1954) maintained that when group formation and
interaction take place, leadership is a natural interaction
phenomenon.
Bennis (1966) established five considerations when de
veloping leadership theory: (l) impersonal bureaucracy and
rationality of measures, (2) informal organization and inter
personal relations, (3) benevolent autocracy which gets results
because it structures the relationship between superior and
subordinates, (4) job enlargement and employee-centered super
vision that permits individual self actualization, and (5)


CHAPTER I I I
FINDINGS OF THE L B D Q. X I I
The analysis of data as set forth in chapter 1 is reported
in this chapter. Data for analysis were drawn from adminis
tration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form
XII. The L B D Q X I I was administered to five members of each
participating coordinator's advisory council. Each coordinator
completed the personal data form.
A one-way analysis of variance was used to answer the
12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior
based on the personal data variables. A follow-up test was
done on those variables found to be significant using Tukey's
HSD procedure. The significance level was set at .05. Each
question was answered on the basis of the ratings of the par
ticipant coordinators provided by the advisory council members.
Two computer programs were run using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences--Versi on H, Release 6.02. The
first analysis was used to identify the mean scores and standard
deviation of all the coordinators on each of the 12 constructs.
Coordinators were assigned to categories based on their responses
to the personal data variables. The coordinators were then com
pared by groups and a test for statistical significance dif
ferences among groups was performed in the second computer run.
39


35
practice leadership skills and further develop their own leader
ship potential. (pp. 52- 55)
Likewise, Clark and Stefurak (1975) identified character
istics used by Wittmer and Myrick to describe facilitative
teachers, as keys to facilitative leadership for community
educators. The interpersonal qualities were identified as
fo 1 lows:
(1) effective listening; focusing on the
personal meaning that accompanies the
spoken word, (2) genuineness; being your
self at all times, not playing roles,
(3) understanding; being attuned to the
perceptions of other people, (A) respect;
accepting each person as a human being
without passing judgment on him, (5) in
telligence; knowing how to lead and how
to help others to lead, (6) skills in
interpersonal communications; being
aware of the impact of your words and
actions on others. (p. 19)
Berridge (1973) describes a community education coordinator
as an "encourager or an initiator" (p. 66). These terms were
fitting, in fact his job requires the coordinator to encourage
individuals, groups, agencies, and
institutions to become ac
tively involved in the educational
process. The coordinator is
also the initiator in that he functions as the agent to facili
tate planning and implementing projects. His major task is to
broaden the base of involvement within the community. To per
form with success, the coordinator must exhibit behavior which
is indicative of consideration and empathy for others in order
to work in harmony with the public. Berridge (1973) stated
that:


29
According to Owens (1970), the study of leadership
should be an observed behavior. Thus, research should give
attention to what happened or appears to be happening rather
than on finding the cause of observed behavior.
Community Education History and Philosophy
Although Clark and Olsen (1977) trace the historical roots
of community education to the thirteenth century, history is
not clear as to when the concept was really first applied.
Totten and Manley (1969) speculated that some community school
principles were used when people first began to live together
in any form of community and began to transmit the process of
learning from elders to youth (p. 15). Berridge (1969) traced
the use of public school facilities for community activities to
the Colonial Period in American history. Schools were used for
adult evening classes as early as 1810 in Providence, Rhode
Island, and approximately 30 years later in Cincinnati, Cleveland,
and Chicago (Mann, 1956, p. 11).
Ba rna rd (1938), writing in the middle and later nineteenth
century, advocated the school as a vehicle for improving
social, moral and economic conditions through citizen involve
ment.
Dewey & Dewey (1962) advocated community use of public
school facilities in 1915:
In using the school plant for any
activities . the people of the
community feel that they are using
for their own ends public facilities
which have been paid for by their
taxes. They want to see real, tangible,
results in the way of more prosperous
and efficient families and better civic


48
TABLE 3 5--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
Total n
I
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
40. 5
. 2 1
0.807
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
39-3
Previous experience:
other
4
39.8
Construct 4: Persuasiveness
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings, as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor-
dinators use persuasion
and argument
effecti
v e 1 y
when
the
coordinators were grouped by sex, age
, train
i ng ,
and previous
experience. However,
a
significant d
ifference was found when
the coordinators were
grouped accord i
ng to years
experience
as a community educat
i o n
coordinator.
Table
4. 1
reports the
results of responses
t o
the fourth construct
when the
coordin-
ators are grouped by
the
personal data variable
of sex
The
results indicate that
the difference
between
ma 1
e s and
f ema1e s
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 4
. 1 -
-PERSUAS1VENESS
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Ma 1 e
9
40.20
. 22
0.650
Female
6
41.03


hi
TABLE 3 3--T01ERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r 0 b .
Experience
: less
than
3 years
5 .
38.76
2.8
0.097
Exper i ence
: 3_6 years
8
40.93
Experience
: over 6 years 2
37.00
Table 34
reports the
results of the
responses
for the
third
construct
when the coordinators are
grouped by
type of
com-
munity education train
ing. The results Indicate that the
difference
between the
th ree g roups
was not significant
at the
.05 level.
TABLE 3-4-
-TOLERANCE OF
UNCERTA1NTY
F
F
Variable
Total n
X
Ratio
P r 0 b .
Training:
Aca d emic
3
hi. 07
3.4
0.064
Training:
In-service
6
38.00
Training:
On-the-job
6
40.16
Table 3-5
reports the
results of the
responses
for the
third
construct
when the coordinators are
grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The
r e s u 1 t s
i n -
d ¡ cate that the difference between the three experience
categories was not significant at the .05 level.


36
In effect, he is constantly putting
others ahead of himself and is build
ing their self-concepts. In effect,
the coordinator is constantly trying
to work himself out of a job. (p. 67)
Totten (1969) succinctly stated the role of a
education leader.
Most communities are denied the benefits
of community education because of a
scarcity of dedicated leaders. The de
velopment of leaderhship ability on the
part of people of all ages is one of the
major goals of community education. (p.
Working with the community as equal partners i
making is essential to success of community educati
developing such a relationship is no simple task.
A point often overlooked in discussions
of community-school development is the
key importance of the administrator him
self: (a) his philosophical orientation
toward the relation of education and the
community, (b) the kind of administrative
behavior he displays, (c) his personal
characteristics, and (d) the nature and
extent of his professional preparation.
(Anderson and Davies, 1956, p. 78)
Weaver (1975) suggested that community educati
should address skill development in the conceptual,
technical areas. Specifically he stated that train
enable the individual to:
(1) Develop ability to analyze the
elements in the leadership situa
tions and select appropriate leader
ship styles
(2) Develop and apply required styles of
leadership
(3) Develop personal requisites to com
munity education leadership
community
19)
n decision-
on However,
on training
human, and
ing must


) 09
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasiona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
41. The coordinator represents the group at
outside meetings A B C D E
42. The coordinator becomes anxious when waiting
for new developments A B C D E
1)3. The coordinator is very skillful in an argument A B C D E
1)1). The coordinator decides what shall be done
and how it shall be done A B C D E
1)5- The coordinator assigns a task, then lets
the members handle it A B C D E
1)6. The coordinator is the leader of the
group in name only A B C D E
1)7. The coordinator gives advance notice of changes A B C D E
1)8. The coordinator pushes for increased production A B C D E
1)9. Things usually turn out as he/she predicts A B C D E
50. The coordinator enjoys the privileges of his/her
position A B C D E
51. The coordinator handles complex problems efficiently A B C D E
52. The coordinator is able to tolerate postponement
and uncertainty A B C D E
53. The coordinator is not a very convincing talker A B C D E
5l). The coordinator assigns group members to
particular tasks A B C D E
55. The coordinator turns the members loose on a
job, and lets them go to it A B C D E
56. The coordinator backs down when he/she ought
to stand f i A B C D E
57. The coordinator keeps to himself/herself A B C D E


88
Scores for each coordinator were combined and averaged to
provide a mean score for each of the 12 subscales.
The coordinators were then grouped according to these
personal data variables: sex, age, years experience as a
coordinator, training in community education, previous pro
fessional experience, and professional aspirations.
A one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedure
were used to analyze the 12 constructs for significant differ
ences based on the personal data variables. For the purpose of
this analysis, a .05 level of significance was used.
To address the question concerning the "ideal" versus the
"actual" leader behavior, a survey of national authorities was
conducted. An abridgement of the LB DQ-- X I I was used to de
termine the ideal frequency of leader behavior as perceived by
the directors of the Centers for Community Education in 45
colleges and universities in the United States. These data were
used to compare the "ideal" behavior with "actual" behavior as
measured by the L B DQ-- X I I A one-way analysis of variance with
a simple linear regression was used to test for significant
differences in each of the 12 subscale categories. For the
purpose of this analysis, a .01 level of significance was used.
Samp 1 ing
The process of selecting a sample of coordinators for this
study revealed that many (50% of those identified by the
sampling process) do not have or relate to any school-community
advisory council. The fact that this type of situation exists


96
usually taught In traditional education curricula. Lack
of these process leadership skills could create a reliance by
the coordinators on traditional and more prominent leadership
roles.
Conclusions
The leader behavior of selected community education
coordinators were measured by means of a survey of the per
ceptions of members of the coordinators' schoo1 -community
advisory council. The survey covered the 12 dimensions of
leader behavior measured by the Leader Behavior Description
Ques tionnaire XII. Evidence from this survey instrument would
tend to support the conclusion that there is no significant
difference in the perceived leader behavior of community educa
tion coordinators based on selected personal data variables.
Answers to the questions posed at the outset of the study
can be provided on the basis of these data:
1. The variable of sex produced no significant difference
in the perceived leader behavior of the selected com
munity education coordinators in any of the 12 behavior
cons t ructs.
2. The variable of age produced no significant difference
in the perceived leader behavior of community education
coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs.
3. The variable of years experience did produce a significant
difference in the perceived behavior of community educa
tion coordinators in the construct of Persuasiveness,


79
analysis for
the category
of Demand Reconciliation. The
results indi
cate that the
dif fe rence
between the
two groups
was significant at the .01
level. Th
is indicates
that
the
coordinators
' actual behavior was perceived to be
more
frequent
than the center directors'
rating of
their ideal
behav i
i o r .
TABLE 16.2--
DEMAND RECONCILIATION
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
P rob .
Center Directors (ideal)
- 82
.029
1 58
61.27
Coo rdinators
(actual )
1 .26
.b 58
Category 3:
Tolerance of
Uncertainty
There was no significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Tolerance of Uncertainty and the actual degree to
which the coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and
postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 16.3 reports
the results of the analysis for the category of Tolerance of
Uncertainty.
TABLE 16.3--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F.
F
P ro b
Center Directors (ideal)
- 8b
1.16
1,58
7.07
Coordinators (actual)
. 1 3
.352
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was not significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was consistent with the center
directors' rating of the ideal behavior.


99
personality characteristics, values, and
attitudes, as well as specific human, con
ceptual, and technical skill competencies.
3. The role of the community member in community
education leadership should be researched.
4. The role of the schoo1 -community advisory
council in planning and evaluating community
education programs should be researched.
5. Research should be conducted to determine if
minimal training requirements are necessary
for community education coordinators to be
effective in their role.
6. Current educational programs providing training
for community education coordinators should be
studied. Specific attention should be paid to
the substantive nature of course content, scope
and sequence of skill development, and the
practical applicability of skills.
7. Studies should be conducted to establish a
basic curriculum necessary for community edu
cation coordinators. These studies should
review the necessity for an interdisciplinary
competency-based approach related to the
specific human, conceptual, and technical
skills essential for functioning in the role
of community education coordinator.


AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS
IN FLORIDA
by
Albert Linwood Stefurak
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE CO
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNC I L OF
FOR THE
UN I VERS ITY OF FLOR I DA
1977


50
Table 4.4 reports the results of the fourth construct when
the coordinators are grouped by type of community education
training. The results indicate that the difference between the
three groups was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE A.4--PERSUASIVENESS
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Training:
Academic
3
41.40
1 6
0.241
Training:
In-service
6
38.77
Training:
On-the-job
6
41 .86
Table 4.5
reports the results of the
responses
for the
fourth
construct
when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience
they have
had The
resu1ts
indicate
that the
difference between
the expe r
ience categories was not
significant at the .05 level

TABLE 4.5--PERSUAS1VENESS
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Previous experience:
e1 ementa ry
3
. 41.07
94
0.417
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
39.50
Previous experience:
other
4
42 20
Construct
5: Initiation of
Structure
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the
ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the
perceived degree to which the community education coordinators


2 4
and Stogdil] (19-48)
than satisfactory in
Since the trait
ndicated that the trait approach was less
explaining leadership.
approach had proved unsuccessful, a new
approach was suggested,
behaviors rather than the
describe an individual's
a group or organization"
Realizing leadership
(1959) provided a concise
to the study of leaders:
"Attempts were made to study
the
t r a i t s
of 1 eaders--in other
wo rd s ,
to
behavior
wh i
le he acted as a
leader
o f
(S togd i 1
1 1
974, p. 128).
is toa
deg
ree situational,
Ha 1p i n
explana
t i o n
of the behaviora
1 approach
First of all, it focuses upon observed
behavior rather than upon a posited
capacity inferred from this behavior.
No presuppositions a-e made about a
one-to-one relationship between leader
behavior and an underlying capacity or
potentiality presumably determinative
of this behavior. By the same token,
no apriori assumptions are made that the
leader behavior which the leader exhibits
in one group situation will be manifested
in other group situations. . nor does
the term . suggest that this behavior
is determined either innately or situation-
ally. Either determinant is possible, as
is any combination of the two, but the
concept of leader behavior does not itself
predispose us to accept one in opportion
to the other. (p. 12)
Although differences in terminology emerged, theorists
and researchers alike reached rather remarkable agreement on at
least two major dimensions or variables associated with leader
behavior. Barnard (1938) delineated the difference between
organizational efficiency and organizational effectiveness.
Likewise, Cartwright and Zander (1953) identified leader behaviors
oriented toward maintenance of efficiency and effectiveness which


85
This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was
perceived to be more frequent than the center directors'
rating of the ideal behavior.
S ummary
Data from the Leader Behavior Profile and the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnai re--X I I were analyzed using a
one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression
procedure. The 12 behavior categories were analyzed to ascertain
the difference between the "ideal" frequency of leader behavior
suggested by the national authorities and the "actual" frequency
of leader behavior exhibited by selected community education
coordinators. The .Cl level of significance was used for each
of the 12 categories. Findings from this procedure indicate
that of the 12 categories, only Tolerance of Uncertainty and
Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different. There
was consistency between the "ideal" frequency and the "actual"
frequency in both of these categories.
The additional 10 categories were found to be significantly
different at the .01 level. The actual behavior of coordina
tors proved to always be more frequent than the ideal rating
indicated by the center directors.
Thus, findings from the analysis of data in chapter III
indicate that personal data variables of experience produced
significant differences in three categories; while the per
sonal data variable of training produced a significant dif
ference in only one category. Findings in chapter IV indicate


1 2 4
supervision at the University of Florida. He maintained a
graduate assistantship in the Center for Community Education.
After his internship experience with the president of the
National Council for Resource Development of the American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges, he served as the
center's grant consultant, and in that capacity, he wrote five
funded grants totaling over two hundred thousand dollars.
Commencing in 1977, he was promoted to the position of Center
Associate.
He has held professional positions as president-elect of
Phi Delta Kappa, consultant for resource development, member
of the Education and Training Committee of the Voluntary Action
Council, member of the National Council for Resource Develop
ment, and a member of the Florida Association of Community
Ed uca tion.
Lin is married to the former Mary Lamont (Monty) Martin
of Tampa, Florida. She is a reading specialist and a teacher
trainer in the public school system.
Currently, he is Assistant Officer for District Resource
Development at Footh i 1 1 -DeAnza Community College District in
Los Altos Hills, California.


42
TABLE 1.2--REPRESENTATION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Age: 21-30
3
-p-
o
o
o
0 2
0.799
Age: 3 1 4 0
6
40.83
Age: 41-ov e r
6
42.03
TABLE 1
3*
-REPRESENTATION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
T
P rob .
Experience
three
: less than
years
5
39-72
1 .7
0.217
Experience
: 3*6 years
8
42 88
Experience
: over 6 yea rs
2
37.80
commu nit y
education coord
inator. The results
indicate that the
difference
between the
three
groups
was not s
ig nifica n t
at the
.05 level.
Table 1.4
reports
the results of
the responses for
the first
construct when
the
coordinators are
grouped by
type of
commu nity
education train
i ng .
The
results indicate that
the
d i fference
between the
three
groups
was not s
i g nifica n t
at the
.05 level.
TABLE 1
.4-
-REPRESENTATION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Training:
a ca d em i c
3
41.20
2 4
0.127
Training:
in-service
6
vO
co
COi
Training:
on-the-job
6
41.20
Table 1.5 reports the results of the responses for the first
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the


59
TABLE 8.3--C0NSI DERAT I ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Experience:
'ess
than 3
years
3
44 00
3.A
0.067
Experience:
3-6 years
6
A5.80
Experience:
over 6 years
6
42 20
Table 8.A reports the results of the responses for the eighth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of com
munity education training. The results indicate that the
difference between the three groups was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 8.4--CONSIDERATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Training: academic
3
45-33
1 0
0.397
Training: in-service
6
43-73
Training: on-the-job
6
45.40
Table 8.5 reports the
results of the
responses
for the el
i g h t h
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to
the
type of previous exper
i ence
they have
had. The
results i
indicate
that the difference between
the three
experience categories was
not significant at the
.05
level .
TABLE
8.5-
-CONS 1 DERAT 1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Previous experience:
e1 eme n ta ry
3
44.67
. 60
0.565
Previous experience:
second ary
8
44.22
Previous experience:
other
4
45.75


Behavior Category
A
B
C
D
1. Representati ve--speaks and acts
as a representative of the group
2.
Demands reconci1iation--reconc¡les
conflicting organizational demands
and reduces disorder to the system
3.
Tolerance of uncertainty--is able
to tolerate uncertainty and post
ponement without anxiety or upset
k.
Persuasiveness--uses persuasion arid
argument effectively; exhibits
strong convictions
5.
Initiation of structure--c1ear1y
defines own role, and lets
followers know what is expected
6.
Tolerance of freedom--a 11ows
followers scope for initiative,
decision, and action
7.
Role retenti on--acti ve 1y ex
ercises leadership role rather
than surrendering leadership
to others
8.
Consideration--regards the
comfort, well-being, status,
and contributions of
foil owe rs
9.
Production emphasis--app1 ies
pressure for productive output
1 0 .
Predictive accuracy--exhibits
foresight and ability to predict
outcomes accurately
1 1 .
1 ntegrat i on--maintains a closely
knit organization; resolves inter
member conflict
12.
Influence with superi ors--maintains
cordial relations with superiors,
has influence with them; strives
for higher status


73
Effect coding was used on the raw data to compensate for the
unequal number between the two groups. Raw scores for the
two groups were converted to z-scores. This conversion allowed
two sets of data to be standardized thus(conforming to the
assumptions of homogeneity of variance and standardized mean
scores necessary for analysis of variance.
Three computer programs were run. The first two runs
were used to compute the mean score and standard deviation
for both the center directors and coordinators on each of the
12 categories. On the third run, center directors and coordina
tors were compared using a one-way analysis of variance with a
simple linear regression orocedure to test for significant
differences in each of the 12 behavior categories.
Summary Of Leader Behavior Profile Results
Of the 59 questionnaires distributed, 45 were returned,
yielding a total return rate of 76%. Table 14.1 reports the
results of the responses on the Leader Behavior Profile. The
results indicate that the center directors consider Tolerance
of Freedom--the degree to which the coordinators allow followers
scope for initiative, decision, and action, as ideally being
the most important category of behavior. In addition, the re
sults indicate that the center directors consider Role Retention--
the degree to which the coordinators actively exercise the
leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others,
as ideally being the least important category of behavior.


51
clearly define his/her role and lets followers know what is
expected of them when the coordinators were grouped by sex,
age, and previous experience. However, a significant difference
was found when the coordinators were grouped according to train
ing and years experience as a community education coordinator.
Table 5-1 reports the results of the responses for the fifth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference
between the males and females was not significant at the .05
level.
TABLE
5. 1
--INITIATION OF
STRUCTURE
Variable
Total n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Ma 1 e
o
A 1 3 1
79 0.3 9 A
Female
6
AO 03
Table 5.2 reports
the
results of the
responses
for the fifth
construct when the
coord ina to rs are
grouped by
the persona 1
data variable of age.
The results i
ndicate that the difference
between the three
age
categories was
not signi
f¡cant at the
.05 level.
TABLE
5.2
--IN1T1 AT 1 ON OF
STRUCTURE
Variable
Total n
X
F F
Ratio Prob.
Age: 21-30
3
Al 00
.11 0.887
Age: 31-AO
6
A0.37
Age: 41-over
6
A 1 1 3
Table 5-3 reports
the
results of the
responses
for the fifth
construct when the
coo rdinators are
grouped by
years experience


8*4
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 11: Integration
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Integration and the degree to which the coordinators
maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember
conflict. Table 16.11 reports the results of the analysis for
the category of Integration.
TABLE 16. 1 1--INTEGRATI ON
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D. F.
F
Prob
Center Directors (ideal)
-2.06
1.58
1 58
28 60
Coordinators (actual)
AO
.737
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 12: Superior Orientation
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Superior Orientation and the degree to which the
coordinators actually maintain cordial relations with superiors,
have influence over them,and are striving for higher status.
Table 16.12 reports the results of the analysis for the category
of Superior Orientation. The results indicate that the differ
ence between the two groups was significant at the .01 level.


1 08
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occas ¡onaI 1y
D = Seldom
E = Never
24. The coordinator tries out his/her ideas in the group A B C D E
25. The coordinator encourages initiative in the
group members A B C D E
26. The coordinator lets other persons take away
his/her leadership in the group A B C D E
27. The coordinator puts suggestions made by the
group into operation A B C D E
28. The coordinator needles members for greater effort A B C D E
29. The coordinator seems able to predict what is
coming next A B C D E
30. The coordinator is working hard for a promotion A B C D E
31. The coordinator speaks for the group when
visitors are present A B C D E
32. The coordinator accepts delays without becoming upset A B C D E
33. The coordinator is a very persuasive talkei A B C D E
34. The coordinator makes his/her attitudes
clear to the group A B C D E
35- The coordinator lets the members do their
work the way they think best A B C D E
36. The coordinator lets some members take
advantage of him/hei A B C D E
37- The coordinator treats all group members
as his/her equal A B C D E
38. The coordinator keeps the work moving at a rapid pace A B C D E
39. The coordinator settles conflicts when they occur
in the group A B C D E
40. The coordinator's superiors act favorable on
most of his/her suggestions A B C D E


Cattel, R. B. New concepts for measuring leadership in terms
of group syntality. Human Relations, 1951, 161-18*4.
Clancy, P. L. Testimony presented before the Labor and Education
Committee of the United States House of Representatives,
January 26, 1965, and the Subcommittee on Education of the
United States Senate Committee on Public Labor and Welfare,
January 29, 1965-
Clapp, E. R. Community schools in action. New York; Viking
Press, 1939-
Clark, P. A., & Olsen, E. G. Life-centering education. Midland,
Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1977-
Clark
P. A., S Stefurak, A. L. Leadership for change.
Education Journal, No vembe r D ec embe r 1975, 5_ (6),
Commu nit y
18-21.
Cook, L. A. Schools and community. In W. S. Monroe (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of educational research. New York: The
Ma cm i 1 lan Co. 19^1-
Cunningham, L.
issues.
L. Governing schools: New approaches to old
Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1971
Deshler, B., 5 Erlich,
the revolution.
J. L. Citizen involvement: Evaluation in
Phi Delta Kappan November 1972, 5_, 175-
Dewey, J., S Dewey, E. Schools of tomorrow. New York:
Dutton, 1962.
E P.
Dowd, J. Control in human societies. New York: App1eton-Century,
1936.
Everett, S. The community school. New York: D. Appleton-
Cen t ury Co. Inc. 1938.
Flint Community Schools. Flint community schools: G u i d e1 in e s
for schoo1-community advisory councils. Flint, Michigan:
The Community Schools, 1973-
Gallup, G. H. Ninth annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes
toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, September 1977,
59 (1), 33-^8.
Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addition-Wesley, 1 9 5 ^
Gregg, G. A. An examination of the leader behavior of community
education directors in the advisory council (Doctoral
dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975)-
(University Microfilms No. 7 5 2 7 778 ).


97
Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation.
There was no significant difference as measured in
terms of the other nine constructs.
4. The variable of training in community education pro
duced no significant difference in the perceived be
havior of community education coordinators in any of
the 12 behavior constructs.
5. The variable of previous professional experience pro
duced no significant difference in the perceived be
havior of community education coordinators in any of
the 12 behavior constructs.
In addition, a survey of national authorities was con
ducted to determine the ideal leader behavior of community
education coordinators and to ascertain whether the actual
behaviors of coordinators as measured by the L B DQ-- X I I were
consistent with the opinions of the national authorities.
Evidence from this comparison would tend to support the con
clusion that there are significant differences between the ideal
leader behavior suggested by the national authorities and the
actual leader behavior exhibited by the community education
coordinators. Only two constructs, Tolerance of Uncertainty
and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different.
Impl ications
¡he findings resulting from this study lend support to
the following implications. First, leader behavior and per
formance of community education coordinators are not related


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Phillip/A. Clark^ Chairman
Associate Professor of
Educational Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
fames L. Wattenbar^
'Professor of Educational
Administration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy .
L UWl
Ar thur J. Lewis
Professor of 'Education
Director, Curriculum and
Instruction Division


121
Schneider, J. The cultural situation as a condition for the
achievement of fame. American Sociology Review, 1937,
2, 480-491.
Seay, M. F. The community school emphasis in post war education.
In N. B. Henry (Ed.), American education in the post war
period, curriculum reconstruction. Forty-fourth Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I.
Chicago: The Universi ty o~f Chicago Press 1945.
Seay, M. F., £ Associates. Community education: A developing
concept. Michigan: Pende 1 1 P u b1 is hing Co. 1974.
Sharpe, R. T. Differences between perceived administrative be
havior and role norms as factors in leadership evaluation
and group morale. Dissertation Abstracts 1956, J_6, 57.
Stogdi 1 1 R. M. Personal factors associated with leadership:
A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948,
25, 35-71.
Stogdi11, Ralph M. Individual behavior and group achievement.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.
Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the leader behavior description
questionnaire--form XII, an experimental revision.
Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, College of
Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, 1963.
Stogdill, R. M. A review of research on leader behavior des
cription questi onna ire--form XII Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University, College of Administrative Science, 1970.
Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory
and research!New York: The Free Press, 1974.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior
of United States senators. Journal of Psychology, 1963,
56, 3-8.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior
of presidents of labor unions. Personnel Psychology, 1964,
21, 49-57.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior
of university presidents. Columbus: Ohio State University,
Bureau of Business Research, Unpublished report, 1965.
Totten, W. F., £ Manley, F. J. The community school basic con
cepts, functions, and organization. Ga lien, Michigan:
Allied Ed u c a t ion Counci 1 1969.


30
conditions, coming from the increased
plant in the district school. Because
the schools are public institutions in
fact as well as name, people know whether
the schools are really meeting their needs
and they are willing to work to see they
do. (p. 1 6 A)
Totten and Manley (1969) gleaned from the writings of
Dewey a list of concepts from which the philosophy of community
education was conceived. They are as follows:
1.There must be a two way interaction
between the community and the school.
2.The school itself must be organized
as a community. The school has a cor
porate life of its own and is itself
a genuine social institution, a com-
mun i ty.
3.Learning must be planned in consider
ation of the total environment of
the individual.
k. The school should be organized around
the social activities in which child
ren will engage after leaving school.
5. Society has a definite effect upon
discipline in the school.
6. Social environment supplies the in
tangible attitudes and determination
to improve the society.
7.Education should be consciously used
by society as an instrument for its
own imp rovemen t.
8.
The future adult society should be an
improvement over that in which its
members lived as children.
9. Education may be consciously used to
eliminate obvious social evils through
starting the young on paths that will
not produce these ills.


Procedures
The procedures section is divided into three parts.
The first part includes the design of the study and selection
of the sample. The second section is an explanation of the
development of the instruments and the data collection process.
The final section deals with the treatment of the collected
data.
Design and Sample
Community education coordinators. The community education
coordinators were identified with assistance from the Florida
Department of Education, Adult and Community Education Section.
The Department of Education provided a list of 263 community
education coordinators for the school year 197576. The list
of coordinators was divided by male and female and each list
was numbered. Using a random numbers table, 10 male and 10
female coordinators were chosen. The chosen coordinators were
contacted by mail and asked to participate in the study. Two
additional groups of five males and five females were randomly
selected to provide alternate samples to complete the 20 coor
dinators. Those individuals who chose not to participate did
so because they either did no^ have a schoo1 -community advisory
council, did not relate to an existing schoo1 community advisory
council, or no longer functioned in the role of community edu
cation coordinator.
$ chop 1 -community advisory council members. The coordina
tors were requested to identify the chairperson of their ad
visory council as well as four members to participate in the


81
TABLE 16.5--
INITIATION
OF STRUCTURE
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
P rob.
Center Director (ideal)
-.97
1.17
1 ,58
11.77
Coordinator
(actual)
.20
.414
Category 6:
Tolerance of
F reedom
There was no significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Tolerance of Freedom and the actual degree to which
the coordinators allow followers scope for initiation, decision,
and action. Table 16.6 reports the results of the analysis for
the category of Tolerance of Freedom. The results indicate
that the difference between the two groups was not significant
at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual
behavior was consistent with the center directors' rating of the
ideal behavior.
TABLE 16.6--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D. F.
F
P rob
Center Directors (ideal)
- 40
1 .33
1 58
2 .47
Coordinators (actual)
-.13
.352
Category 7: Role Retention
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Role Retention and the degree to which the coordina
tors actually actively exercise the leadership role rather than
surrendering leadership to others. Table 16.7 reports the re
sults of the analysis for the category of Role Retention.


77
TABLE 15.2--Z-SC0RE CONVERS I 0NS--C00RDINAT0RS (ACTUAL)
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Represen tat ion
. 00
1 00
73
A 58
Demand Reconciliation
1 00
2.00
1.26
.458
Tolerance of Uncertainty
. 00
1 00
1 3
.352
Persuasiveness
. 00
1 00
.73
.458
Initiation of Structure
. 00
1 00
. 20
.414
Tolerance of Freedom
-1.00
. 00
- .13
352
Role Retention
. 00
1 00
.73
.458
Consideration
. 00
1 00
.86
.352
Production Emphasis
-1.00
.00
- .86
.352
Predictive Accuracy
1 00
2.00
1 60
. 507
1ntegration
-1.00
1 00
.40
737
Superior Orientation
1 00
2.00
1 .53
.516
n = I 5
Category 1: Representation
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Representation and the degree to which coordinators
actually speak and act as the representative of the group.
Table 16.1 reports the results of the analysis for the category
of Representation. The results indicate that the difference
between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This
indicates that coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be
more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal
behavior.


LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 .0 LBDQ XI I RESULTS 4l
TABLE 1 ^-REPRESENTATION 41
TABLE ^--REPRESENTATION 4 2
TABLE 1 ^REPRESENTATION 42
TABLE 1 .^--REPRESENTATION 42
TABLE I ^""REPRESENTATION 43
TABLE 2. 1- -DEMAND RECONCILIATION 44
TABLE 2 2--DEMAMD R E f. O N C I L I A T i 0 N 44
TABLE 2 3--DEMAND R E ( r'N C I L I AT ON 44
TABLE 2.4--DEMAND RECONCILIARON 45
TABLE 2.5" DEMAND RECONC I L I A T 0 N 45
TABLE 3 1 --TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 46
TABLE 3. 2--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 46
TABLE 3 3--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 47
TABLE 3 4--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 47
TABLE 3 5--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 48
TABLE 4. T-PERSUASIVENESS 48
TABLE A.2--PERSUASIVENESS 49
TABLE 4 3--PERSUAS I VENESS 49
TABLE ,!.4--PEpSUAS I V E N E S p 50
TABLE 4 5--PERSUAS I VENES? 50


44
indicate that the difference between the males and females
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 2.1--DEMAND
RECONC1L1 AT 1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Male
9
44.08
3 1
0.098
Fema1e
6
41.36
Table 2.2 reports the results
of the
responses
for the
second
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
the personal
data variable of age. The results i
nd i cate that the di
fference
between the three age categories was
not sign!
f i ca n t at
the .05
level.
TABLE 2.2--DEMAND
RECONC1 L1 AT 1 ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Age: 21-30
3
43.53
1 2
0.327
Age: 31-40
6
41.50
Age: 40-over
6
44.23
Table 2.3 reports the results
of the
responses
for the
second
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
years experi-
ence as a community education
coordi
nator. The results
indicate
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 2.3--DEMAND
RECONCILIATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Experience: less
than three years
5
4 1.32
1 8
0.197
Experience: 3-6 years
8
41 .70
Experience: over 6 years
2
44.38


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
AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS
I N FLOR I DA
by
Albert Linwood Stefurak
December 1977
Chairman; Dr. Phillip A. Clark
Major Department: Educational Administration
This study was conducted to determine the ideal nature of
leader behavior of community education coordinators based on
the opinion of national community education authorities as well
as to assess the actual nature of leader behavior of selected
community education coordinators in Florida according to
Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader behaviors. Specifically, the
following questions were addressed:
1. Is there a relationship between the actual behavior
exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the
ideal leader behavior suggested by the national authorities?
2. Is there a relationship between the personal variables
of sex. age, years of experience as a community education coor
dinator, previous professional experience, and the 12 leader be
havior categories:


89
suggests two problems. First, there may be a lack of under
standing or commitment to the concept of community involvement
in the processes of education at the school or district level.
Second, there may exist a perception that community education
programs are not part of the "regular" education program and
therefore should not be addressed by schoo1 -community advisory
councils. Consequently, the leader behavior of participants in
this study may not accurately reflect the behaviors of all coor
dinators in Florida.
The five coordinators who did choose to participate, but
failed to return the data, did so for various reasons. Pro
longed illness, inability to collect circulated instruments,
cancelled council meetings, and disbanded councils all led to
the reduced return. In retrospect, the data collection pro
cedure would have been enhanced by the researcher attending
advisory council meetings and collecting data in person.
LBDQ--XI I Findings
Responses to the 100 items of the LBDQ--XII provided no
significant differences at the .05 level between coordinators
when grouped by the variables of sex, age, previous professiona
experience, and professional aspirations across all 12 sub
scales. The variable of years experience as a coordinator and
training in community education were not significant at the .05
level across nine categories and 11 categories respectively.
Reasons for these similarities should be discussed.


6 3
Table 10.3 reports the results of the responses for the tenth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by years ex
perience as a community education coordinator. The results
indicate that the difference between the three groups was not
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 10.3 PRfIDI CTIVE ACCURACY
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Experience
than
: less
3 years
3
39.64
2.8
0.093
Experience
: 3"6 yea rs
6
41.00
Expe rience
: over 6 years 6
37.00
Table 10.A
reports the
results of the
responses
for the
tenth
construct
when the coordinators are grouped by type of
com-
munity education traini
ng. The results indicate
that the
d i fference
between the
three groups was not sign
i fica n t
a t
the .05 level.
TABLE 10. If--
PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Training:
academic
3
39.06
.79
0.479
Training:
in-service
6
39.53
Training:
on-the-job
6
40. 60
Table 10.5
repor ts the
results of the
res pons es
for the
tenth
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The results in-
dica^e that the difference between the three experience
categories was not significant at the .05 level.


55
TABLE 6.4--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
X
F
Rat
i o
F
P r o b .
Training: academic
3
43.93
1 .9
o
CO
Training: in-service
6
40.60
Training: on-the-job
Table 6.5 reports the results of the s
ixth construct
when
the
coordinators are grouped
according to
the type
of previous
experience they have had.
The results
indicate
that
the
d i f -
ference between the experience categor
¡es was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 6.5-
-TOLERANCE OF
FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
K
F
Rati
o
F
P rob .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
42.53
. 59
0.573
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
41.60
Previous experience:
other
4
40.35
Construct 7: Role Retent
i o n
There was no significant difference at the
.05 1
eve 1
i n
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than
surrendering leadership to others. Table 7-1 reports the results
of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators
are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results
indicate that the difference between males and females was not


60
coordinators with less than three years experience and those
coordinators with more than six years experience.
TABLE 12.3--SUPERI OR ORIENTATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Experience:
than 3
less
years
3
VwO
CO
CO
o
4.5
0.034
Experience:
3-6 yea rs
6
41 .32*
Experience:
over 6 years 6
36.50*
*Each group
differs si
gnificantly from the other
Table 12.4
reports the
results of the
twe 1f t h
cons t ruct
when
the coordinators are grouped by type
of community education
training.
The resu1ts
indicate that
the difference between the
three groups was not s
ignif ¡cant at the .05 level.
TABLE 12.4
--SUPER 1 OR ORIENTATION
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Training:
a c ad em i c
3
41.46
1 .7
0.218
Training:
in-service
6
38.36
Training:
on-the-job
6
40 50
Table 12.5
reports the
results of the
twe1f t h
construct
when
the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous
experience they have had. The results indicate that the dif
ference between the three experience categories was not signifi
cant at the .05 level.
A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was computed to de
term i r e if a relationship existed between the variables under
study. For the purpose of this comparison, the level of


62
TABLE 95--PRODUCT I ON EMPHASIS
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
e1emen ta ry
3
34.60
1 2
0.322
Previous experience:
seconda ry
8
35 27
Previous experience:
other
A
33.15
coordinators exhibit fo
resight and
ability to
predict ou tcomes
accurately. Table 10.1
reports the
results of the responses
for the tenth construct
when the coordinators
are grouped
by
the personal data variable of sex.
The res u1
ts indicate
that
the difference between males and females was not significant
at the .05 level.
TABLE 10.1
--PREDICTIVE
ACCURACY
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Ma 1 e
9
39.64
50
0.496
Female
6
40.56
Table 10.2 reports the
results of
the responses
for the
tenth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by
the persona 1
data variable of age.
The results
indicate that the di
ffe rence
between the three age
categories was not signif
i can t at
the
.05 level.
TABLE 10.2-
-PREDICTIVE
ACCURACY
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Age: 21-30
3
38.20
1 4
0 266
Age: 31-40
6
41.03
Age: 4l-over
6
39.90


The operational setting of a community educator is the
community. According to Melby (1972), a well developed com
munity education program multiplies the number of human con
tacts and draws heavily from the inputs of the public.
Because of the emphasis on interpersonal interaction with
a variety of publics, the community educator must possess a
high degree of competency in dealing with others. The develop
ment of community education requires an underlying ability to
provide leadership for community members as they work toward
community educational goals.
Minzey and LeTarfe (1972) stated it thusly:
The organizational structure may be
developed in several ways, but must
provide for maximum opportunity for
every community member to be aware
of what is happening and to express
his concerns in a way that they will
have impact on the proper people.
(P 3*0
To accomplish such a goal, it has been suggested (Nance,
1972) that community education coordinators possess the
usually preferred personality characteristics such as honesty,
resourcefulness, etc. But above all, he should be trustworthy.
He must be able to establish a relationship with all elements
of the community built upon the highest level of trust. Much
of the effectiveness of a community education coordinator de
pends upon the degree to which he can build good human relations.
He must maintain a friendly atmosphere, encourage participation,
and help people feel that they are a vital part of the community
school. He must devise procedures that will enable people to


53
Table 5-5 reports the results of the responses for the fifth
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
previous experience they have had. The results indicate that
the difference between the experience categories was not
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 5.5--INITI AT I ON OF STRUCTURE
Variable
Total
lx
c
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
41.27
. 1 6
0.846
Previous experience:
seconds ry
8
-tr-
O
-C-
o
Previous experience:
other
A
41.25
Construct 6: Tolerance of
Freedom
There was no significant difference at the .05 level
i n
the ratings as reported by
the a d vi
sory counc
il members be-
tween the perceived degree
to which
the community education
coordinators allow followers scope
for initiative, decision,
and action. Table 6.1 reports the
results of
the responses for
the sixth construct when the coordinators are
g rouped by
the
personal data variable of
sex. The
results i
ndica te that
the
difference between the mal
es and females was
not significant at
the .05 level.
TABLE 6.1--TOLERANCE
OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Male
9
41.13
32
0.585
Female
6
41.93


The perceived
15
12. Superior Orientation. The perceived degree to which
an individual maintains cordial relations with superiors; has
influence over them, and is striving for higher status.
The Leader Behavior Profile consists of the 12 behavior
constructs measured by the L 3 D Q-- X I I The respondent was
requested to rank in order of importance the 12 categories of
leader behavior. A forced-choice method was used for ranking
the 12 categories. Values were assigned based on the follow
ing scale: Most Important, Very Important, Moderate Impor
tance, Slight Importance, Little or No Importance. Each
category received a score from five to one. This parallel
scale enabled a comparison between the L B DQ-- X I I subscales and
the Leader Behavior Profile categories.
Validity
In Stogdill's (1970) Review of Research on the L B DQ-- X I I ,
he explained the test of validity given.
In order to test the validity of the
subscales of the L.B.D.Q. XI I Stogdill
(1963) with the assistance of a playwright,
wrote a scenario for each of the subscales.
The items in a subscale were used as a basis
for writing the scenario for that pattern
of behavior. Experienced actors played the
role of supervisor and workers. Each role
was played by two different actors. Mot:on
pictures were made of the role performance.
Observers used L.B.D.Q..--X1 I to describe
the behavior of the supervisor. No signifi
cant difference was found between two dif
ferent actors playing the same role. How
ever, the actors claying a given role were
described significant1y higher in that role
than in other roles. Since each role was
designed to portray the behaviors represented
by the items in its respective subscale, and
since the same items were used by the observers
to describe the playing of the role, it can be


22
participation management and joint consultation that allow
integration of individual and organizational goals.
Cattell (1951) suggested that leadership represents a
dynamic interaction between the goals of the leader and the
goals of the followers. It functions to help the group decide
upon a goal and to help the group find the means to the goal.
Humanistic Theories
The development of effective and cohesive organizations was
a major concern of Argyris and McGregor.
Argyris ( 1 9 6 ) identified a basic conflict between the
organization and the individual. He stated that it is the in
dividual's character to be se 1f-directive and to seek fulfill
ment through exercising initiative and responsibility. On the
other hand, it is the tendency of organizations to structure
member roles and to control performance in the interest of
achieving specified objectives.
McGregor (1966) perceived leadership on the basis of two
organizational types--Theory X and Theory Y. A Theory X leader
attempts to direct and motivate people from the assumption that
people are passive and resistant to organizational needs. Theory
Y presumes that people already possess motivation and desire
for responsibility and therefore, the leader attempts to struc
ture conditions in order to make possible fulfillment of their
needs while directing their efforts to achieve the organiza
tional objectives.
Likert (1967) observed that leadership is based on inter
action. The leader builds group cohesiveness and motivation



PAGE 1

AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS IN FLORIDA by Albert Linwood Stefurak 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 UNI VERS ITY OF F LOR I DA 1977

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 wish to thank all those individuals who have contributed to my successful doctoral program. My three year tenure at the University of Florida brought me in contact with many truly outstanding people who added a great deal to my professional growth and development, A very special thanks goes to my wife, Monty, for the strength and support she p r o v ' d e d . In addition, I w^uld like to congratulate her fc her p<* serverance and endurance as we passed this wa v

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i LIST Of TABLES iv ABSTRACT v i i i CHAPTER I I NTRODUCT ION1 Statement Of The Problem 2 Del'mitat'ons And Limitations 5 Justification For The Study 6 Def'nition Of Tern: 10 Procedures 1 1 Summa ry 1 8 I SELECTED RFVIEW 0" RELATED LITERATURE 20 Leadership Theory 20 Community Education History and Philosophy 29 Summa ry 37 III FINDINGS ft r THE LBT,-X I I 39 Summary Of The L B '10 X I I Results kO Summary 69 IV FINDINGS 0 F THE LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE 72 Sur.',o r y Of Leader BehavioProfil" Results 73 Slirrn'T ry 35 v DISCUSSION, C0NCL ' IONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND R E C r '; M E N D A T ' 0 N S 87 Discussion 87 Corel us ions 96 Recommendations F c Future Study 98 APPEND IX A 102 APPEND IX B 113 APPENDIX C ll/l REFEPF>.' r ES 117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 123

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 . 0--LBDQ--X I I RESULTS 4 ) TABLE 1 . 1 --REPRESENTAT | ON 4] TABLE i . 2--REPRESENTAT ION i 4 2 TABLE 1 . 3--REPRESENTAT I ON kl TABLE I .^--REPRESENTATION /, 2 TABLE 1 . 5--REPRESENTAT I ON 43 TABLE 2. 1 -DEMAND RECONCILIATION 44 TABLE 2 2-DEM AMD R E f. 0 N C I L I A T : 0 N 44 TABLE 2. 3" -DEMAND R E f. ^N C I L I .AT ' Z N 44 TABLE 2. ^--DEMAND RECONCILIATION 4 5 TABLE 2. 5-DEM AND RECONCI LIAT'ON 45 TABLE 3 . 1 --TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 46 T ABLE 3 • 2 TO L E RAM C E OF UNCERTAINTY 46 TABLE 3 • 3--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 47 TABLE 3 ^--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 47 TABLE 3 . 5--TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 48 TABLE 4 . 1 -PERSUASIVENESS 48 TABLE it . 2--PERSUAS I VE^FSS 49 TABLE 4 . 3--PERSUAS I VENESS 49 TABLE >> . 4--PE&SUAS I VENESS 50 TABLE U . 5--PERSUAS I VENESS 50 i v

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES (cont i nued ) Page TABLE 5 • 1 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 51 TABLE 5-2 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 51 TABLE 5-3 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 51 TABLE 5-A — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 52 TABLE 5 5 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 53 TABLE 6.1 -TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 53 TABLE 6. 2 -TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 5A TABLE 6 . 3--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 54 TABLE 6. ^--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 55 TABLE 6 . 5--TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM 55 TABLE 7.1--RO..E RETENTION 56 TABLE 7-2--ROLE RETENTION 56 TABLE 7-3--ROLE RETENTION 56 TABLE 7.A--ROLE RETENTION 57 TABLE 7-5--ROLE RETENTION 57 TABLE 8. I -CONS I DERATION 58 TABLE 8. 0 -CONSIDERATION 58 TABLE 8 . 3--CONS I DERAT I ON 59 TABLE 8 . k-CONS I DERAT I ON 59 TABLE 8 . 5--CONS I DERAT I ON 59 TABLE 9 '--PRODUCTION EMPHASIS 60 TABLE 92--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS 60 TABLE 9. 3 PRODUCTION EMPHASIS 61 TABLE 9 ^"PRODUCTION EMPHASIS 61 TABLE 5"PRODUCT I ON FMPHASIS 62 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES (cont i nued) Page TABLE 10. 1 — PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 62 TABLE 10. 2 — PRED1 CTIVE ACCURACY 62 TABLE 10.3 — PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 63 TABLE 10.^ — PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 63 TABLE 10.5--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 64 TABLE 1 1 . 1 I N T E G RAT ION 64 TABLE 1 1 .2 — INTEGRATION 65 TABLE 11.3--! NTEGRAT ION 65 TABLE 1 1 .4 — INTEGRATION 65 TABLE 1 1 . 5-I NTEGRAT I ON 66 TABLE 12.1 — SUPERIOR OR I E N T A T I ON 67 TABLE 1 2 . 2--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 67 TABLE 1 2 . 3--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 68 TABLE 17.4 — SUPERIOR ORIENTATION 68 TABLE 1 2 . 5--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 69 TABLE 1 3 0--COR RELATION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES 70 TABLE 14. 1 --LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL) 74 TABLE 14.2--LBD0.--XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL) 75 TABLE 15-1 — Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL) 76 TABLE 1 5 . 2--Z-SC0RE C 0 N V E R S I 0 N 3 C 0 0 R D I NATO R S (ACTUAL) 77 TABLE i 6 . 0--ANALYS I S OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" "ACTUAL" 78 TABLE 1 6. 1 --REPRESENTATI ON 78 TABLE 1 6 . 2 DEMAND RECONCILIATION 79 TABLE If . 3 ~ ~ T 0 ' r RANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 79 v ;

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES (cont i nued) Page TABLE 1 6 . 4--PERSUAS I VENESS 80 TABLE 16.5 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE 81 TABLE 1 f> . 6--TOLERANC E OF FREEDOM 8l TABLE U.7--R0LE RETENTION 82 TABLE 1 6. 8 — CONS I DERATION 82 TABLE 1 6. 9 — PRCDUCTI ON EMPHASIS 83 TABLE '6.10--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 83 TABLE 1 6 . 1 1 I NTEG RAT I ON Qk

PAGE 8

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 AN ANALYSIS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR OF SELECTEC COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATORS I N FLOR I DA by Albert Linwood Stefurak December 1977 Chairman: Dr. Phillip A. Clark Major Department: Educational Administration This study was conducted to determine the ideal nature of leader behavior of community °' ucat ion coordinators based on the opinion of national community education authorities as well as to assess the actual nature of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida according to Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader behaviors. Specifically, the following questions were addressed: 1. Is there a relationship between the actual behavior exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the ideal leader behavior suggested by the national authorities? 2 . Is there a relationship between the personal variables of sex, age, years of experience as a community education coordinator, previous professional experience, and the 12 leader behavior categories: v ;

PAGE 9

Representation Demand Reconciliation Tolerance of Uncertainty Persuas i veness initiation of Structure Tolerance of Freedom Role Retention Consideration Product ion Emphas i s Predictive Accuracy I ntegrat ior Influence with Superiors? Using an abridgement of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Xll , the Directors of the Centers for Community Education in k$ colleges and universities were surveyed to determine the ideal leader behavior of 15 selected coordinators as measured by five members of each coordinator's school community advisory council using the LB DQ-XII . In addition, the results of the LBDQ--X I I were analyzed on the basis of five personal variables. The following conclusions are based on the results of this study. Evidence from the comparison of ideal and actual leader behavior supports the conclusion that there are significant differences between the ideal leadership behavior suggested by nations' authorities and the ctual leader behavior exhibited by i x

PAGE 10

community education coordinators on 10 of the 12 constructs of the L B DQX I 1 . Only two of the constructs, Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom, were not significantly different. Concerning the five personal variables, the following conclusions were reached: 1. The variable of sex produced no significant differences in the perceived leac'er behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs. 2. The variable of age produced no significant differences in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any c f the 12 behavior constructs. 3The variable of years experience as a coordinator produced the significant difference in the perceived behavior of the coordinators in the constructs of Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation. There was no significant difference in the other nine constructs. k . The variable of training in community education produced no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 constructs. 5The variable of previous professional experience produced no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of the coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs . x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER I I NTRODUCT ION Many writers have indicated the changing role of education in society. Havighurst (Saxe, 1975) points out that various changes in situations and events have cumulated to make the school system more important today than it was 50 years ago. Educators are being confronted with many innovations and constantly changing values. Consequently, the educational system is also becoming more vulnerable to outside forces that impinge upon it. "Two of these situations are the rise of the community school movement and the rise of community control of the schools mo v erne n t ( p . v i i i ) . An orientation to community education is based upon an assumption that the individuals to be served by the educational establishment have a basic right to active participation in all aspects of the process. However, according to Saxe (1975), "school -commun i ty relations are adversely affected by an organizational phenomenon -b u r e a u r a cy -a nd by psychological factors of educators—attitudes, opinions, and interests" (p. 1). When the organizational structure has been constructed in an attempt to address these situations, the individual charged with carrying out the community education function should be equipped to deal with the challenge. Community educators must provide the 1

PAGE 12

appropriate leadership to allow community members to become involved in the educational d ec i s i on -ma k i n g process. The major concern of this study was to examine leadership performance of community education coordinators in the development of community involvement in the community education process. Specifically, the focus of the investigation is on the behavior of individuals as they perform the function of leadership. Statement Of The Problem This study was designed to determine the "ideal" nature of leader behavior based on the opinion of national community education authorities as well as to assess the actual nature of leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida according to Stogdill's taxonomic list of leader behav ior (Stogd ill, 1 S7h) . Specifically, the following questions were addressed: 1Is there a relationship between the "actual" frequency of leader behaviors exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the "ideal" frequency of leader behavior suggested by the national authorities? 2 Is there a relationship between the following six variables: i . sex ! ' . age iii. years experience as a community education coordinator iv. training in community education

PAGE 13

v. previous professional experience vi. professional aspirations and the 12 leadership behavior categories based on the dimensions of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire -XII ? The preceding questions were answered according to the ratings received by the selected community education coordinators on the 12 leadership behavior constructs. Construct 1 : Representation Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators speak and act as the representative of the group based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 2 : Demand Reconciliation Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 3 : Tolerance for Uncertainty Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, ace, years experience, etc.? Construct A : Persuasiveness Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators use persuasion and

PAGE 14

argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions based on personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc . ? Cons t ruct 5 : Initiation of Structure Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators clearly define their own role and allow followers to know what is expected of them, based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 6 : Tolerance of Freedom Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action, based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 7 Rol e R e tent ion Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators actively exercise the leader ship role rather than surrender leadership to others based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience etc.? Construct 8 : Consideration Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators regard the comfort, wellbeing, status and contribution of followers based upon the personal data variable, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc

PAGE 15

5 Construct 9 : Production Emphasis is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinato-s apply pressure for productive output based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Cons t ruct 10 : Predictive Accuracy Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Construct 11 : I n teg ra t i on Is there ? difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain a closely-knit organization ard resolve intermember conflict based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc . ? Construct 12 : Superior Orientation Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status based upon the personal data variable., i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.? Delimitations And Limitations The following restrictions were observed in conducting the study:

PAGE 16

1. The study of leadership behavior was based on data from 75 people located in various school districts in the state of Florida. 2. The persons chosen to participate were selected by community education coordinators and may not have been representative of the community at large. 3. The leader behaviors measured were restricted to those dimensions measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--XI I . The following limitations were recognized in this investigation: 1. The resulting data are the perceptions of community members and not necessarily the actual behavior exhibited by the coo rd i na to r . 2. Responses may have been influenced by the respondent 1 desire to provide a positive image of leader behavior for the individual coordinator. 3. Data were gathered from the state of Florida only; therefore, the generalizations drawn from the data are limited. Justification For The Study " T he general function of organization and administration for community education is similar to that of any other organized educational endeavor: the character of the function is, however, influenced by the values that determine the philosophy' (Moore. 1972, p. 168). In addition, Moore stated that some basic assumptions should be n?de concerning the characteristics

PAGE 17

7 and goals of an effective community education organization. Specifically, these assumptions should include: -Reliance on democratically established goals, and a viable philosophy should be substituted, in the main, for the a u t ho r i t y -o r i en t ed approach. -The administrative staff should be an "open" one, not fearing change or cha 1 1 enge . -The administrative climate should reflect the philosophy of community education, using a problem solving approach. -A flat and flexible administrative organization, in contrast to a vertical one, offers the best promise. -The individual school and community must be seen as an educational unit, with freedom to adapt to the need of the local area and delegated authority commensurate with assigned responsibility. -Administration should recognize that not all wisdom is found in the administrative staff but is liberally possessed by laymen and the teaching staff. -Increasingly, decisions should be made by those possessing the competence to do so, not merely the rank or position. -Leadership should bring people, ideas, and resources together to produce an optimum opportunity for all learners, (p. 159) One of the problems faced by administrators in establishing community education is that of resistance to change on the part of the public. Preparation programs of which most administrators are products, urge that the people be told about the schools. Parents must be brought into the school, and the school's programs sold to the people. Very few efforts have been

PAGE 18

8 made which allow parents, students, and community members opportunities to express their feelings about the schools with school leaders. "information flow has been primarily one way. Legitimate out'ets have not been provided for protest or discontent" (Cunningham, 1971, p. 176). Community educators bear an unusual burden for a strong program of communication and public relations. Establishing the rapport necessary for such communication requires the community educator to possess specialized human, technical, and conceptual skills (Weaver, 1975). These skills thus form the foundation upon which leader behavior is developed. Clark and Stefurak (1975) considered the community education leader most facile in human, technical and conceptual skills when his leader behavior is "other-centered ." This approach vests leadership in others, rather than in status leaders. Leaders using this approach make it possible for others to emerge, assume responsibility, and participate in decision making. They help people become as involved in task development and completion as they wish to be involved, and encourage them to apply their skills and creativity to mutually determined goals (p. 19). Such an approach to the organization and administration of community education requires an open flexible type of administration able to deal with direct community input. There have been many attempts at so-called citizen participation in education over the years. However, as an attempt to increase public involvement, the state of Florida, in 1973, xandated that each school system must have a school advisory

PAGE 19

9 council. Furthermore, within this mandate is the additional requirement that such councils are to be "broadly representative of the community served by the school" (Chapter 7 3 3 3 8 ; Laws of Florida). The school -commun i ty advisory council should provide the linkage between the community, its problems, and potential solutions. However, Deshler and Erlich (1972), speaking of the community advisory council movement in general, stated that "participation can very easily be phoney. Real lasting pervasive power must reside in effective collaboration between the community (including the students) and the school in all decision making" (p. 175). According to Moore (1972), "the essence of the community education philosophy is that the program must serve and be responsive to the entire community. . . . The insecure administrator who depends upon status authority and a 'tight ship' operation will be very uncomfortable with this approach" (pp . 1 691 70) . Thus, the leadership provided by the community education coordinator plays a vital role in the development of the community education process. Considering the frequency of interpersonal interactions with a variety of publics, specific patterns of facilitative leadership behaviors should be involved in the role of community educator. In general, this study should assist in the clarification and understanding of the leader behavior of community education coordinators as well as what variables might influence those behaviors.

PAGE 20

1 0 Definition Of Terms Cc mmun i ty educat ion . An operational philosophy of education, when actualized serves the entire community by providing for all the educational needs of the community members. It provides the educational establishment a systematic methodology for bringing total community resources to bear on community problems in an effort to enhance community development. Community education coordinator . That individual charged with the responsibility of developing and administering community education within the school center. Leader . An individual who, based on his office or official status in a group o organization, is placed in the position of being able to influence the activities of that group or organization as it attempts to achieve its goals. In this study, the leader is identified as the community education coo r d i na to r . Leader behavior . Those behaviors exhibited by an individual while he engages in influencing group or organizational activities. Schoo 1 -commun i ty advisory council . "A representative group of s choo 1 commun i ty members who hold common the common goal of community development through the identification of problems and the application of solutions" (Flint Community Schools, 1973, p. 1). An active council works to address community needs as determined by joint effort of the council and the community education coordinator.

PAGE 21

1 1 Procedures The procedures section is divided into three parts. The first part includes the design of the study and selection of the sample. The second section is an explanation of the development of the instruments and the data collection process. The final section deals with the treatment of the collected data. Design and Sample Community education coordinators . The community education coordinators were identified with assistance from the Florida Department of Education, Adult and Community Education Section. The Department of Education provided a list of 263 community education coordinators for the school year 1 9 7 5 ~ 7 6 . The list of coordinators was divided by male and female and each list was numbered. Using a random numbers table, 10male and 10 female coordinators were chosen. The chosen coordinators were contacted by mail and asked to participate in the study. Two additional groups of five males and five females were randomly selected to provide alternate samples to complete the 20 coordinators. Those individuals who chose not to participate did so because they either did no*" have a s ch oo 1 commu n i t y advisory council, did not relate to an existing s choo 1 comm u n i t y advisory council, or no longer functioned in the role of community education coordinator. S c hoo 1 commu n i t y advisory council members . The coordinators wore requested to identify the chairperson of their advisor/ council as well as four members to participate in the

PAGE 22

] 2 study. The selection of only five advisory council members for each coordinator in the study could bias the results since the selection was done by the coordinator being rated. However, the same bias effect would apply equally to all respondents . Directors of university centers for community education . A total of 56 Center Directors was sampled to determine the "ideal" leader behavior. This constitutes the total population of individuals responsible for directing academic community education leadership training programs in the United States during fiscal year 1977. The names and addresses of these individuals were provided by the University of Florida Center for Community Education. Instrumentation and Data Collection Instrument . The instrument used in this study was the Leader Behavior Description Quest ionna i re--Form XII developed by Ralph Stogdill (1963)The questionnaire was designed to obtain descriptions of leaders, through 12 dimensions of leader behavior. The leader behavior is perceived objectively in terms of the frequency of occurrence within the 12 dimensions A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix A. In addition to the basic instrument, a personal data sheet was developed. This questionnaire was for personal data such as age and sex, as well as specific information concerning years experience as a community educatior coordinator, training in community education, previous professional experience and professional aspirations. A copy of the personal data questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

PAGE 23

1 3 The third instrument, the Leader Behavior Profile was developed by the researcher for the purpose of identifying the "ideal" importance or priorities for the 12 dimensions of leader behavior measured bv the L B DQX I I . The profile is an abridgement of the L B D Q — X I I and consists of the 12 categories which the L B D Q — X I I measures. This instrument was used to assess the opinion of Community Education Center Directors concerning the priorities for specific leader behaviors. A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix C. Data Treatment LB DQX I I consists cf 100 items describing leader behavior. Each item is answered using a structured answer format with one of five possible responses: always, often, occasionally, seldom, never. Each item receives a score from five to one. Each subscale score consists of the sum of the scores from the items of the subscale. Stogdill (1970) concluded that subscales of the LBDQ--X I I were differentially related to different dimensions of leader personality, member satisfaction, and group performance. His theoretical work was based on the factors of identifiable behavior patterns. The following 12 dimensions of leader behavior were defined in the LBDQ--X I I . 1. Representation. The perceived degree to which an individual speaks and acts as the representative of the group. 2. Demand Reconciliation. The perceived degree to which an individual reconciles conflicting demands and reduced disorder to the svs tern.

PAGE 24

3. Tolerance for Uncertainty. The perceived degree to which an individual is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. k . Persuasiveness. The perceived degree to which an individual uses persuasion and argument effectively and exhibits strong convictions. 5Initiation of Structure. The perceived degree to which an individual clearly defines his own role and allows followers to know what is expected of them. 6. Tolerance of Freedom. The perceived degree to whic an individual allows followers scope for initiative, decision and action. 7 . Role Retention. The perceived degree to which an individual actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others. 8. Consideration. The perceived degree to which an individual regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of followers. 9Production Emphasis. The perceived degree to which an individual applies pressure for productive output. 10. Predictive Accuracy. The perceived degree to which an individual exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accu ra tel y . 11. Integration. The perceived degree to which an individual maintains a closely knit organization and resolves intermember conflict.

PAGE 25

] 5 12. Superior Orientation. The perceived degree to whic an individual maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence over them, and is striving for higher status. The Leader Behavior Profile consists of the 12 behavior constructs measured by the L B DQX I I . The respondent was requested to rank in order of importance the 12 categories of leader behavior. A f o r c ed ch o i c e method was used for ranking the 12 categories. Values were assigned based on the following scale: Most Important, Very Important, Moderate Importance, Slight Importance, Little or No Importance. Each category received a score from five to one. This parallel scale enabled a comparison between the L B DQX I I subscales an the Leader Behavior Profile categories. Va 1 i d i ty In S tog d i 1 1 1 s (1970) Rev i ew of Resea rch on the LBDQ--X I I he explained the test of validity given. In order to test the validity of the subscales of the L.B.D.Q.--XI I , Stogdill (1963) with the assistance of a playwright, wrote a scenario for each of the subscales. The items in a subscale were used as a basis for writing the scenario for that pattern of behavior. Experienced actors played the role of supervisor and workers. Each role was played by two different actors. Mot ; on pictures were made of the role performance. Observers used L.B.D.Q.. — XI I to describe the behavior of the supervisor. No significant difference was found between two different actors playing the same role. However, the actors claying a given role were described significantly higher in that role than in other roles. Since each role was designed to portray the behaviors represented by the items in its respective subscale, and since the same items were used by the observers to describe the paying of the role, it can be

PAGE 26

16 concluded that the scales measure what they are purported to measure (p. 5). Reliability A modified Ku d e r R i c h a r d s o n formula was used to determine the reliability of the LBDQ--X I I . Each item was correlated with the remainder of the items in the subscale. The resulting reliability coefficients ranged from .54 to .87 for nine different groups of leaders, indicative of sufficient reliability for use in this study (StogdPl, 1 963 ) . Administration The Leader Behavior Description Quest ionna i re--Form XII can be used by a leader to describe his own behavior, or by associates of the leader to describe a given leader. The LBDQ-XII (Appendix A) was administered to five school community advisory council members. The community education coordinator completed the personal data sheet (Appendix B). The Leader Behavior Profile was completed by Center Directors from the Centers for Community Education. Method of Securing Dat a Initial contact with the 20 community education coordinators was made by mail. Each coordinator was asked to participate in the study and to provide information concerning the school-community advisory, counci 1 , Following this initial contact, the researcher contacted each coordinator by phone to discuss the study and obtain a date for gathering the data. Copies of the LBDQX I I and the personal data sheet were mailed to the coordinator. Instructions were given for the

PAGE 27

17 questionnaire to be distributed by the chairperson of the advisory council. Upon completion of the questionnaire, the chairpersons were to return the questionnaires and the coordinators' personal data sheet directly to the researcher. Instruction for completing the survey were placed on the first page of the instrument (Appendix A). The instrument required approximately 30 minutes to complete. A series of follow-up contacts were made with those individuals who were slow in returning the questionnaires. The Leader Behavior Profile was mailed with a cover letter to each of the directors of University Centers for Community Education. Directions for completing the survey were placed on the first page of the instrument. The instrument required approximately 15 minutes to complete. A follow-up contact was made with the Directors who were negligent in returning the survey. Method of Statistical Analysis Data for analysis were drawn from the administration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII and the Leader Behavior Profile . The data received from the L B D Q — X I I were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to answer each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05 level o significance was used for each of the constructs. A follow-up test was performed on those variables found to be significant using Tukey's HSD procedure. The data for each question was

PAGE 28

1 8 based upon the ratings of the participant coordinators made by the. advisory council members The data received from the Leader Behavior Profile were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure. Effect coding was used on the raw data to compensate for the unequal number in each group. Raw scores from the L B DQX I i and the Leader Behavior Profile were changed to z-scores to conform to the assumptions of homo geneity of variance and to standardize the mean scores for the two sets of data. A simple linear regression procedure was used in computing the F-test and thus provided for orthogonal comparisons between the "ideal" behavior as determined by the Center Directors and the "actual" behavior as reported by the advisory council members. The. .01 level of significance was used. The services of the University of Florida Computer Center were employed to analyze the data. Computer analysis were run using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. S umma r y The sample population for this study was composed of 20 community school coordinators from Florida who were randomly selected. Each of the coordinators identified five schoolcommunity advisory council members to participate in the study In addition, all the directors of university Centers for Community Education were surveyed.

PAGE 29

1 9 The Leader Behavior Description Quest ionna i re--Form XII , developed by Ralph Stogdill was the instrument used to assess community council members perceptions of the coordinators' leader behavior. A personal data sheet was developed to obtain from the selected coordinators the information used for analysis The Leader Behavior Profile , an abridgement of the L B DQ — X I I , was used to collect data from the Center Directors concerning "ideal" leader behavior. These data were used to compare the "ideal" behaviors with the "actual" behaviors of the coord i nators . The data for each of the 12 constructs for the L B DQ — XI I were grouped by personal data variables and analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedures using the .05 level of significance. Data for comparison of the Center Directors' "ideal" with the coordinators' "actual" were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure. The .01 level of significance was used for this analysis. Chapter II contains a review of related literature and relative studies pertaining to the leadership in community educa t ion.

PAGE 30

CHAPTER I I SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review literature and research relevant to the study of community education coordinators. The focus of this study is on the leadership behavior of community education coordinators. This chapter contains two sections entitled: Leadership Theory and Community Education History and Philosophy. Leadership Theory Leadership theories are reviewed in light of the leadership theme of this study. There are basically six categories of leadership theories. In this specific research effort, the "interaction-expectation" theories were chosen for the basis of the study. Literature pertaining to the other five types of leadership theories will only be briefly discussed. Environmental Theories Murphy ( 1 9 ^ 1 ) contended that leadership qualities were not part of the individual, but a function of the situation. The leader evaluates the situation and is the instrumental factor through which the solution is achieved. The cultural setting, according to Schneider (1937) is the controlling factor in leadership. He found that great 2

PAGE 31

2! military leaders in England emerged in proportion to the number, of conflicts. Great Man Theories Dowd (1936) concluded that individuals possess different degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force; therefore, a superior few will inevitably emerge as leaders. Bernard (1926) advanced similar conclusions from his study in social psychology. He maintained that leadership can be explained in terms of traits of personality and character. Therefore, trait theories could be used to explain leadership. Pe r s ona 1 S i t ua t i ona 1 Theories By combining the two previously mentioned theories, anothe method for describing and studying leadership was established. Case (1933) suggested that leadership is produced by three factors: (1) the personality traits of the leader, (2) the nature of the group and of its members, and (3) the event confronting the group. Gibb (195*0 maintained that when group formation and interaction take place, leadership is a natural interaction phenomenon . Bennis (1966) established five considerations when developing leadership theory: (1) impersonal bureaucracy and rationality of measures, (2) informal organization and interpersonal relations, (3) benevolent autocracy which gets results because it structures the relationship between superior and subordinates, {k) job enlargement and employee-centered supervision that permits individual self actualization, and (5)

PAGE 32

22 participation management and joint consultation that allow integration of individual and organizational goals. Cattell (1951) suggested that leadership represents a dynamic interaction between the goals of the leader and the goals of the followers. It functions to help the group decide upon a goal and to help the group find the means to the goal. Humanistic Theories The development of effective and cohesive organizations was a major concern of Argyris and McGregor. Argyris ( 1 9 6 ^4 ) identified a basic conflict between the organization and the individual. He stated that it is the individual's character to be s e 1 f d i r e c t i v e and to seek fulfillment through exercising initiative and responsibility. On the other hand, it is the tendency of organizations to structure member roles and to control performance in the interest of achieving specified objectives. McGregor ( 1 966) perceived leadership on the basis of two organizational t y pe s T h eo r y X and Theory Y. A Theory X leader attempts to direct and motivate people from the assumption that people are passive and resistant to organizational needs. Theory Y presumes that people already possess motivation and desire for responsibility and therefore, the leader attempts to structure conditions in order to make possible fulfillment of their needs while directing their efforts to achieve the organizational objectives. Likert (1967) observed that leadership is based on interaction. The leader builds group cohesiveness and motivation

PAGE 33

23 by providing freedom for responsible decision making and exercise of initiative. Exchange Theories Jacobs (1965) conceptualized leadership in terms of a social exchange theory. It is based on the assumption that the group provides status and esteem satisfaction to the leader in exchange for his contribution to goal attainment. Leadership implies an equitable exchange relationship between leader and followers. Acknowledgement of role obligations allows each party to satisfy the expectations of others on an equitable basis. I n t e rac t i onExpec ta t i on Theories Homans (1950) based his theory of leadership on three variables: action, interaction, and sentiment. Leadership is defined in terms of organization of interaction. The greater the frequency of interaction and participation between members, the greater the mutual liking and clarity of group norms. The higher the rank of a person within the group, the wider the interaction, the more likely his activities conform to group norms, and the greater the number of group members for whom he originates interaction. The Ohio State Leadership Studies (Stogdill, 1 9 7 A ) were organized in an attempt to develop a more definitive theory of leadership. According to Stogdill (197*0, much of the research which had taken place earlier focused upon an attempt to differentiate the traits of leaders. Bird (\3k0), Jenkins (1947),

PAGE 34

2k and Stogdil] (19^8) indicated that the trait approach was less than satisfactory in explaining leadership. Since the trait approach had proved unsuccessful, a new approach was suggested. "Attempts were made to study the behaviors rather than the traits of leaders-in other words, to describe an individual's behavior while he acted as a leader of a group or organization" (Stogdill, 197*1, p. 128). Realizing leadership is to a degree situational, Halpin (1959) provided a concise explanation of the behavioral approach to the study of leaders: First of all, it focuses upon observed behavior rather than upon a posited capacity inferred from this behavior. No presuppositions a--e made about a one-to-one relationship between leader behavior and an underlying capacity or potentiality presumably determinative of this behavior. By the same token, no apriori assumptions are made that the leader behavior which the leader exhibits in one group situation will be manifested in other group situations. . . . nor does the term . . . suggest that this behavior is determined either innately or situationally. Either determinant is possible, as is any combination of the two, but the concept of leader behavior does not itself predispose us to accept one in opportion to the other . (p . 12) Although differences in terminology emerged, theorists and researchers alike reached rather remarkable agreement on at least two major dimensions or variables associated with leader behavior. Barnard (1938) delineated the difference between organizational efficiency and organizational effectiveness. Likewise, Cartwright and Zander (1953) identified leader behaviors oriented toward maintenance of efficiency and effectiveness which

PAGE 35

25 they categorized as goal attainment activities and work-group maintenance activities. These behaviors strongly paralleled those found in the writings of Barnard. Similarly, Kahn and Katz (Cartwright and Zander, 1953) delineated two major behaviorial styles among supervisors. They noted that some supervisors were production-oriented and tended to stress efficiency, production, and goal attainment; while others were employee-oriented and stressed motivation, morale, and employee satisfaction. Initially, two major dimensions of leader behavior were identified by researchers at Ohio State University. Hemphill (1950) and his associates at Ohio State developed a list of approximately 1800 items describing different aspects of leader behavior. Through a process of sorting into sub-scales, 150 items were found to be consensus assignments. These were used to develop the list form of the Leader Behavior Description Ques t ionna i re (LBDQ ) . Halpin and Winer (1957) delineated two basic dimensions to leader beha v i o r i n i t i a t i n g structure and con s i d e r a t i o n -fo 1 1 owing the work of Hemphill (1950). There is nothing unique about these two dimensions of leader behavior. The ideas embodied in the concepts of initiating structure and consideration may have been used by effective leaders for a long time in guiding their behavior with group members, "while the concepts themselves, with different labels perhaps, have been invoked frequently by philosophers and social scientists to explain the leadership phenomena" (Halpin, 1966, p. 87).

PAGE 36

26 Many other individuals have hypothesized similar dimensions. In an attempt to summarize evidence to substantiate these dimensions, Bass ( 1 9 6 0 ) cited more than 20 studies which had been conducted in organizational environments (pp. 101-105). Halpin and Croft (Stogdill, 197*0 were not satisfied that leader behavior could be adequately described with two factors. They developed a four factor scale: Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration (p. 1^2). Agreeing with Halpin and Croft (1962) that two factors were not sufficient to describe the complexities of leader behavior, Stogdill (1959) developed a new theoretical framework known as the ex d e c t a n c v r e i n f o r c erne n t theory of role attainment. According to Stogdill, as group members interact, their roles are defined by mutually confirmed expectations relative to the performances and interactions. As each individual interacts, he is judged by the contributions he makes to the group. The initiation and maintenance of structure defines the level of interaction and expectation. In the predistinguished leadership positions, the leader is expected to play a role that differs from the roles of other group members. This expectancy reinforcement model is applicable to the study of community education coordinators. Stogd ill's research has yielded several leadership surveys. One form, the Leader Behavior Description Quest ionna i re--Form XII , will be used in this study. The leader behavior approach has been used previously in a variety of manners for the study of school administrators and community education coordinators.

PAGE 37

27 For example, Halpin (1956) studied 50 Ohio school superintendents to determine the relationship between the superintendent's own perception of how he or she behaved on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire as compared with the school board and staff perceptions. Sharpe (1956) studied the leadership of principal s -d e s c r i bed by teachers, staff members, and self. The three groups held similar ideals of leader behavior. Brown (1966) focused on the leader behavior of 170 principals in Alberta, Canada. Using the LBDQ--X I I , the findings indicated that (1) teachers' estimates of the school's performance were not sensitive to the perception of leadership in the school, (2) teacher satisfaction was sensitive to the perception of the school leadership, and (3) confidence in principal was related to school leadership. Jacob (1965) compared "high" and "low" innovating principals using the LBDQ--X I I . He found that the high innovating principals received higher ratings on six dimensions of leader behavior: Initiating Structure, Predictive Accuracy, Representation, Integration, P e r s ua s i o n, a nd. Consideration. In a study of the perceptions of principals and community school coordinators with respect to the variables authority, responsibility, and d e 1 e g a t i o n, M i t c h e 1 1 (1973) found no significant difference between the principal's perception and the coordinator's perception of the coordinator's behavior in Initiating Structure or Consideration. Likewise, Gregg (1975), in a recent study of community education coordinators, determined that, within an advisory council setting, coordinators and council

PAGE 38

28 members would prefer the director use more behavior indicative of both Initiating Structure and Consideration than those they presently used. However, there was an even greater preference for leader behavior indicative of Consideration than that of Initiating Structure. Walker (1971), using the LBDQ , found that in comparing effectiveness and personal factors of community education coordinators, the effectiveness was independent of age, experience as a coordinator, and grade level of teaching experience. Directors with seven or more years of public school experience were more effective in Initiating Structure than those with less than seven years experience. However, he found no difference in Consideration. Community education coordinators with master's degrees were more effective in Initiating Structure and Considera tion than those with bachelor's degrees. According to Hencley (1973), studies based on a behavioral approach support some basic generalizations about leaderships: 1. Educational leaders are perceived to possess unique leader behavior orientations. 2. Preferences and expectations for leader behavior vary widely among reference groups. 3. The leader's perceptions of his own behavior differ from others' perceptions, (pp. 1^8-149) Halpin ( 1 9 66) contends that what the leader does and how he does it as perceived by others who work with the leader is the nucleus of leader behavior. Evaluation of leader behavior can be made in terms of the individual, the group, or both.

PAGE 39

29 According to Owens (1970), the study of leadership should be an observed behavior. Thus, research should give attention to what happened or appears to be happening rather than on finding the cause of observed behavior. Community Education History and Philosophy Although Clark and Olsen (1977) trace the historical roots of community education to the thirteenth century, history is not clear as to when the concept was really first applied. Totten and Manley (1969) speculated that some community school principles were used when people first began to live together in any form of community and began to transmit the process of learning from elders to youth (p. 15). Berridge (1969) traced the use of public school facilities for community activities to the Colonial Period in American history. Schools were used for adult evening classes as early as 1810 in Providence, Rhode Island, and approximately 30 years later in Cincinnati, Cleveland and Chicago (Mann, 1956, p. 11). Barnard (1938), writing in the middle and later nineteenth century, advocated the school as a vehicle for improving social, moral and economic conditions through citizen involvement. Dewey & Dewey (1962) advocated community use of public schoo 1 facilities in 1915: In using the school plant for any activities . . . the people of the community feel that they are using for their own ends public facilities which have been paid for by their taxes. They want to see real, tangible, results in the way of more prosperous and efficient families and better civic

PAGE 40

30 conditions, coming from the increased plant in the district school. Because the schools are public institutions in fact as well as name, people know whether the schools are really meeting their needs and they are willing to work to see they do. (p. 16*0 Totten and Manley ( 1 96 9) gleaned from the writings of Dewey a list of concepts from which the philosophy of community education was conceived. They are as follows: 1. There must be a two way interaction between the community and the school. 2. The school itself must be organized as a community. The school has a corporate life of its own and is itself a genuine social institution, a community. 3. Learning must be planned in consideration of the total environment of the individual. h. The school should be organized around the social activities in which children will engage after leaving school. 5. Society has a definite effect upon discipline in the school. 6. Social environment supplies the intangible attitudes and determination to improve the society. 7. Education should by society as an own imp r oveme n t . 8. The future adult improvement over membe rs lived as be consciously used instrument for its society should be an that in which its ch i 1 d ren . 9. Education may be consciously used to eliminate obvious social evils through starting the young on paths that will not produce these ills.

PAGE 41

3 1 10. Activity and learning go hand in hand. People learn by doing. Hence, the program of learning for children and adults alike is related to life as it goes on outside the classroom, (pp. 16-17) Hart (192^), a contemporary of Dewey, also stressed the idea that education could not be produced by school alone. It had to be a joint effort of the schools and the community. Everett (1938), Clapp (1939), Cook (19^1), and Olsen (19^5) were significant contributors to the community school movement. Their writings promoted the concept of the essential nature of linking education with the community. Seay ( H e n r y , 1 9 k 5 ) , writing for the National Society for the Study of Education, described the community school thusly: 'Community school 1 is the term currently applied to a school that has two dist ; nctive p h a s e s s e r v i c e to the entire community . . . and discovery, development and use of resources of the community as part of the educational facilities of the school. The concern of the community school with local community is intended not to restrict the school's attention to local matters, but to provide a focus from which to relate study and action in the larger commun i ty-the state, the region, the nation and the world. (p. 209) Many educational leaders during the 1930's and 1 9 4 0 1 s felt keenly the need to redesign the public education program to meet the needs of local communities. However, despite the abundance of writing, few districts chose to adopt the community school concept. In 1935, the Flint, Michigan schools initiated a community school program. With financial support from the Charles Stewart

PAGE 42

32 Mott Foundation, the Flint Board of Education developed and conducted educational programs of an enrichment and competency na t u r e=p rog r ams beyond those normally undertaken by a public school system. Assuming that a child is molded and developed by his total environment, the Foundation supported a series of programs designed to uplift the entire population. Programs in health services for children, adult education, adult recreation, civic affairs, socialization, and curriculum enric ment have been offered through the public schools. Within this concept, the school became much more than a six-hours-aday institution for youth. It became a community education center with programs in health, adult education, recreation, compensatory education, and enrichment for all the residents o the community (Clancy, 1965) . Mott (1959) explained the community education philosophy in Flint as foil ows : After 25 years of experimentation, the Mott Foundation considers the public school the ideal instrument to achieve the end of community education, for the public school has played the traditional role of common denominator in our society, and today is an institution truly representative of all classes, creeds, and colors . . . the physical plant of the schools, representing a huge community investment, are perfectly suited for community recreation and education and the use of these facilities eliminates the need for costly duplication . . . the schools are geographically suited to serve as neighborhood centers of recreation, education and democratic action and by their nature are readily accessible to every man, woman and child . . . and if experimental programs can be proved feasible with a school system, the transition from private support to public support is relatively easy (pp. Hi 161 ) .

PAGE 43

33 Sparked by the impetus given by the Mott Foundation, community education has emerged into a comprehensive and dynamic concept. Clark and Olsen (1977) stated that: Today's thinking about community education culminates the contributions of hundreds of writers and practitioners . . . community education, simply stated, is an operational philosophy of education and a system for community development. It is comprehensive in scope and of high potential, equally applicable to any organization, association, or agency that provides learning opportunities for community members. It is a philosophy that subscribes to the systematic involvement of community members of all ages in the educational process. It further suggests the maximum utilization of all human, physical and financial resources of the community. It is a philosophy that stresses i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a 1 and agency coordination and cooperation. It recognizes that learning is lifelong and that we provide various types of learning experience for community members, regardless of their ages. It is a philosophy that advocates democratic involvement of community members in p r ob 1 ems o 1 v i ng and stresses that educational curriculum, programs, and services should be community centered (pp . 81-90). Campbell (1969) saw the community education coordinator as the connecting link between theory and practice. He is the one person, perhaps more : . . . • than any Other,. who interprets educational programs to the people, and then in reverse makes known to the central office the desire of the people in the neighborhoods. . . . He and the principal get citizens into the educational act as comm ; ttee members assisting with the evolvement, execution, and evaluation of the educational programs (pp. 48-^9).

PAGE 44

34 The operational setting of a community educator is the community. According to Melby (1972), a well developed community education program multiplies the number of human contacts and draws heavily from the inputs of the public. Because of the emphasis on interpersonal interaction with a variety of publics, the community educator must possess a high degree of competency in dealing with others. The development of community education requires an underlying ability to provide leadership for community members as they work toward community educational goals. Minzey and LeTarte (1972) stated it thusly: The organizational structure may be developed in several ways, but must provide for maximum opportunity for every community member to be aware of what is happening and to express his concerns in a way that they will have impact on the proper people, (p. 3M To accomplish such a goal, it has been suggested (Nance, 1972) that community education coordinators possess the usually preferred personality characteristics such as honesty, resourcefulness, etc. But above all, he should be trustworthy. He must be able to establish a relationship with all elements of the community built upon the highest level of trust. Much of the effectiveness of a community education coordinator depends upon the degree to which he can build good human relations He must maintain a friendly atmosphere, encourage participation, and help people feel that they are a vital part of the community school. He must devise procedures that will enable people to

PAGE 45

35 practice leadership skills and further develop their own leadership potential. (pp. 52-55) Likewise, Clark and Stefurak (1975) identified characteristics used by Wittmer and Myrick to describe facilitative teachers, as keys to facilitative leadership for community educators. The interpersonal qualities were identified as f o 1 lows: (l) effective listening; focusing on the personal meaning that accompanies the spoken word, (2) genuineness; being yourself at all times, not playing roles, (3) understanding; being attuned to the perceptions of other people, (A) respect; accepting each person as a human being without passing judgment on him, (5) intelligence; knowing how to lead and how to help others to lead, (6) skills in interpersonal communications; being aware of the impact of your words and actions on others. (p. 19) Berridge (1973) describes a community education coordinator as an "encourager or an initiator" (p. 66). These terms were fitting, in fact his job requires the coordinator to encourage individuals, groups, agencies, and institutions to become actively involved in the educational process. The coordinator is also the initiator in that he functions as the agent to facilitate planning and implementing projects. His major task is to broaden the base of involvement within the community. To perform with success, the coordinator must exhibit behavior which is indicative of consideration and empathy for others in order to work in harmony with the public. Berridge (1973) stated that:

PAGE 46

36 In effect, he is constantly putting others ahead of himself and is building their s e 1 f con c e p t s . In effect, the coordinator is constantly trying to work himself out of a job. (p. 67) Totten (I969) succinctly stated the role of a community education leader. Most communities are denied the benefits of community education because of a scarcity of dedicated leaders. The development of leaderhship ability on the part of people of all ages is one of the major goals of community education. (p. 19) Working with the community as equal partners in decisionmaking is essential to success of community education. Howeve developing such a relationship is no simple task. A point often overlooked in discussions of community-school development is the key importance of the administrator himself: (a) his philosophical orientation toward the relation of education and the community, (b) the kind of administrative behavior he displays, (c) his personal characteristics, and (d) the nature and extent of his professional preparation. (Anderson and Davies, 1956, p. 78) Weaver (1975) suggested that community education training should address skill development in the conceptual, human, and technical areas. Specifically he stated that training must enable the individual to: (1) Develop ability to analyze the elements in the leadership situations and select appropriate leadership styles (2) Develop and apply required styles of leadership (3) Develop personal requisites to community education leadership

PAGE 47

37 (M Develop technical skills appropriate to community education leadership (5) Develop human skills appropriate to community education leadership (6) Minzey and LeTarte (1972) established similar criteria for community education training. They indicated that the training needs fall under four general headings: (a) understanding community education philosophy; (b) technical skills for implementing community education; (c) humanitarian concerns; and (d) general administrative skills (pp. I76-I78). Kliminski (l97 / 0 used a superordinate rating for evaluating the technical, conceptual, and human skills of AO selected community education coordinators. In this study it was found that coordinators chosen as successful had a significantly larger number of semester hours of course work in community education, had worked with community education a significantly longer period of time, and had significantly more intensified training in community education than had other coordinators. S umma r y The review of selected related literature indicated that leadership can be interpreted through the measurement of leader behavior. Little research has been done concerning the leader behavior of community education coordinators. Community education is a growing movement in the field of education. The underlying basis to its philosophy is the

PAGE 48

38 democratic involvement of community members in the decisionmaking process. Many of the writings in the field stress the need for facilitative leadership as a basis for effective performance. The training institutions which produce community education leaders are providing technical, human, and conceptua skills which should enable the community education leaders to exhibit behaviors indicative of facilitative leadership. Facilitative leader behaviors are essential to the development of leadership ability in community members. Active leadership by community members is necessary for effective community education development. The focus of this research effort was to analyze the leader behavior of selected community education coordinators in Florida. The ability to predict lead, behavior by identifying specific personal data would enable administrators to select those individuals best prepared to deal with the requirements of the community education role.

PAGE 49

CHAPTER I I I FINDINGS OF THE LBDQ--X I I The analysis of data as set forth in chapter 1 is reported in this chapter. Data for analysis were drawn from administration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form X I I . The L B D Q — X I I was administered to five members of each participating coordinator's advisory council. Each coordinator completed the personal data form. A one-way analysis of variance was used to answer the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior based on the personal data variables. A follow-up test was done on those variables found to be significant using Tukey's HSD procedure. The significance level was set at .05. Each question was answered on the basis of the ratings of the participant coordinators provided by the advisory council members. Two computer programs were run using the Statistical Package for the Social S c i e n c e s Ve r s i o n H, Release 6.02. The first analysis was used to identify the mean scores and standard deviation of all the coordinators on each of the 12 constructs. Coordinators were assigned to categories based on their responses to the personal data variables. The coordinators were then compared by groups and a test for statistical significance differences among groups was performed in the second computer run. 39

PAGE 50

ho Summary Of The LBDQ--XII Results Of the 100 questionnaires distributed, 75 were returned, yielding a total return rate of 75%. Fifteen of the 20 coordinators chosen actually participated. Table 1.0 indicates the results of the responses on the LBDQ--X I I by behavior construct. Statistical analysis of the LBDQ--X I I results were applied to each of the 12 behavior constructs and interpreted using a one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-HSD procedure. Tests were run for comparisons on the basis of the personal data variables. For the purposes of these analyses, the responses on the personal data variable of training were grouped. The responses to academic community education training and a full year internship were grouped as academic training The responses to two-week workshops and in-service workshops were grouped as in-service workshops. The category of supervised field experience had no responses. The category of onthe-job training was used intact. The results of the analysis are reviewed by each of the 12 leader behavior constructs. Construct 1: Representation There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 1.1 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinates are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicated that the difference between the males and females^was not significant at the .05 level. Table

PAGE 51

4 1 1.2 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped by the pe rsona 1 data variable of age. TABLE 1 . 0-LBDQ-XII RESULTS Category Minimum Score Max i mum Sco re Mean Score Standard Deviation Representat ion 32 . 00 hi. 00 44 • 1 5 4 2h Demand Reconciliation 37 . 00 48. 00 43 . 00 3 1 4 Tolerance of Uncertainty 35 .00 hh . 60 39 .68 2.63 Pe r s ua s i venes s 33 .80 45. 00 40 .53 3 2 8 Initiation of Structure 34 . 60 44. 60 40 .80 2 70 Tolerance of Freedom 36 . 00 45. h0 4 1 .45 2.60 Role Retention 32 .00 47. 80 41 • 92 4 . 70 Consideration 38 .40 46. 80 44 .72 2 .20 Production Emphasis 31 .20 39. 00 34 .57 2 .24 Predictive Accuracy 36 . 40 45. 20 40 . 0 1 2 .42 Integration 36, , 00 48. 00 42. .49 3.66 Superior Orientation n — i p 35. 00 43. 80 39. 84 2.74 TABLE 1 . 1 -•REPRESENTAT ION Variable Tota 1 n X F Ratio F Prob . Ma 1 e 9 42.29 1 • 7 0.211 Fema 1 e 6 39.43 The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.3 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a

PAGE 52

42 TABLE 1.2-REPRESENTATION Variable Total n X F Ratio F P rob . Age : 2 1-30 3 40 . 00 0 . 2 0 799 Age: 31-40 6 40.83 Age: 4 1 o v e r 6 42.03 TABLE 1.3-REPRESENTAT 1 ON Variable To t a 1 n x" F Ratio F v P rob . Exper i ence : less than three years 5 39.72 1 .7 0.217 Experience: 3~6 years 8 42 . 88 Experience: over 6 years 2 37.80 community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.4 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 .^--REPRESENTATION Variable To t a 1 n F F Ratio P rob . Training: academ i c Training: in-service Training: on-the-job 3 6 6 41.20 38.67 41.20 2 . 4 0.127 Tab 1 e 1.5 construct reports the results of the responses for the first when the coordinators are grouped according to the

PAGE 53

A3 type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 . 5--REPRESENTATI ON Variable Total n F F Ratio P rob . Previous experience: elementary Previous experience: secondary Previous experience: other 3 AO . 20 8 AO. 57 A A300 0. A 0. 628 The sixth variable of professional aspiration was not analyzed for any of the constructs. Thirteen of the coordinators had professional aspirations of becoming public school principals. Three of the coordinators each listed three different professional aspirations: a certified public account ant; a college professor; a trainer of community education coordinators. Because of the break down of the grouping, a statistical comparison was not considered. Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to to the system. Table 2.1 reports the results of the responses for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the personal data variable sex. The results

PAGE 54

indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 2.1--DEMAND RECONCILIATION Variable Total n X F Ratio F P rob . Ma 1 e 9 H.08 3.1 0 . 098 Female 6 *»1 .36 Table 2.2 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the di fference between the three age categories was not signi f i ca n t at the .05 level . TABLE 2.2-DEMAND RECONCILIATION Variable Total n X~ F Ra t i o F Prob . Age: 21-30 3 ^3-53 1 . 2 0. 327 Age: 3 1-^0 6 *H . 50 Age : 40-over 6 hk . 23 Table 2.3 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the . 05 1 evel . TABLE 2.3--DEMAND RECONCILIATION F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less than three years 5 ^1.32 1.8 0.197 Experience: 3-6 years 8 1 .70 Experience: over 6 years 2 ^.38

PAGE 55

45 Table 2.4 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the dif ference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 2.4--DEMAND RECONCILIATION Variable To t a 1 n F Ratio F Prob Training: academic Training: in-service Training: on-the-job 3 6 6 42 . 66 if 1 . kO 44.76 1 .3 0. 177 Table 2.5 reports the results of the responses for the second construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 2.5--DEMAND RECONCILIATION Variable Total n F F Ratio Prob. Previous experience: elementary Previous experience: seconda ry Previous experience: other 41.73 0.9 42.60 0.427 43.00 Construct 3: Tolerance of Uncertainty There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education

PAGE 56

46 coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 3.1 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 3 • 1 --TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY Variable Total n X F Ratio F Prob. Ma 1 e 9 39.93 • 19 0 . 666 Fema 1 e 6 39.30 Table 3.2 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the . 05 1 evel . TABLE 3 . 2--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY F F Var 'able Total n X Ratio Prob. Age: 21-30 3 41.87 1.3 0.292 Age: 31-40 6 39.10 Age : 4 1 -ove r 6 39.17 Table 3-3 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not signific.irt at the .05 1 evel .

PAGE 57

47 TABLE 3 • 3--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY Variable Experience: less than 3 years Experience: 3 " 6 years Experience: over 6 years F F Total n X Ratio P rob . 5 38.76 2.8 0 . 097 8 40.93 2 37.00 Table 3-4 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 1 eve 1 . TABLE 3 • 4-TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY _ F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: Academic Training: In-service Training: On-the-job 3 42.07 3-4 0.064 6 38.00 6 40.16 Table 3-5 reports the results of the responses for the third construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 58

48 TABLE 3 • 5--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY Variable To ta 1 n J F Ratio F P rob . Previous experience: e 1 emen ta ry 3 40 . 5 .21 0 .807 Previous experience: seconda ry 8 39-3 Previous experience: other 4 39.8 Construct 4 : Persuasiveness There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings, as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators use persuasion and argument effectively when the coordinators were grouped by sex, age, training, and previous experience. However, a significant difference was found when the coordinators were grouped according to years experience as a community education coordinator. Table 4.1 reports the results of responses to the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 4 . 1 --PERSUAS I VENESS Variable To t a 1 n X F Ratio F Prob . Ma 1 e 9 40.20 . 22 0.650 Female 6 41.03

PAGE 59

k3 Table 4.2 reports the results of the responses to the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level . TABLE 4 . 2--PERSUAS I VENESS F F Var i ab 1 e Total n X Ra t i o P rob . Age: 21-30 3 41.53 .31 0.7^2 Age : 3 1 -^0 6 40.83 Age: M. and over 6 39.73 Table 4.3 reports the results of the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. Those coordinators with over six years experience were perceived to use persuasion and argument significantly less, than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience. Using the Tukey-HSD procedure, those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience did not differ significantly. TABLE 4 . 3--PERSUAS I VENESS F F Var i abl e Total n X Ratio Prob. Experience: less than 3 years 5 40.40 11.7 0.002 Experience: 3-6 years 8 42.18 Experience: over 6 years 2 34.30-•Group 3 differed significantly from groups 1 and 2

PAGE 60

50 Table h.k reports the results of the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 4 . 4--PERSUAS I VENESS Variable Total n F F Ratio P rob . Training: Academic Training: In-service Training: On-the-job 3 6 6 41.40 38.77 41 . 86 1 . 6 0.241 Table 4.5 reports the results of the responses for the fourth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 4. 5--PERSUAS I VENESS Variable To ta 1 n F F Ra t i o P rob Previous experience: el ementary Previous experience: seconda ry Previous experience: other 3 41.07 .94 0.417 8 39.50 4 42.20 Construct 5: Initiation of Structure There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which the community education coordinators

PAGE 61

51 clearly define his/her role and lets followers know what is expected of them when the coordinators were grouped by sex, age, and previous experience. However, a significant difference was found when the coordinators were grouped according to training and years experience as a community education coordinator. Table 5.1 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level . TABLE 5. 1 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE Variable To t a 1 n x" F Ratio F Prob. Ma 1 e Q j 41.31 .79 0.394 Fema 1 e 6 AO . 03 Table 5.2 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are g rou ped by the persona 1 data variable of age. The results i nd i ca te that the d i fference between the three age categories was not s i g n i f i ca n t at the .05 level. TABLE 5.2-INITIATION OF STRUCTURE Variable Total n x" F Ratio F Prob . Age: 21-30 3 4 1 . 00 . 1 1 0.887 Age: 31-40 6 40.37 Age : 41 -over 6 41.13 Tabl e 5.3 construct reports the results of the responses when the coordinators are grouped by for the fifth yea rs exper i ence

PAGE 62

52 as a community education coordinator. Those coordinators with three to six years experience in community education were perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly defined their role and let followers know what is expected of them than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with more :han six years experience. TABLE 5.3 — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob Experience: less than 3 years 5 39.28 17-4 0.000 Experience: 3 6 years 8 4 2.78* Experience: over 6 years 2 36.70 "Group 2 differs significantly from groups 1 and 3 Table 5.4 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the groups was significant at the .05 level. However, when the Tukey-HSD procedure was applied, none of the three groups were found to differ significantly from each other. TABLE 5-^ — INITIATION OF STRUCTURE F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 42.27* 5.05 0.025 Training: in-service 6 38 . 62-Training: on-the-job 6 4 2 . 2 3 "No group differs significantly from the other based on Tukey procedure.

PAGE 63

53 Table 5.5 reports the results of the responses for the fifth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 5. 5-I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE _ F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience: e 1 emen ta r y Previous experience: seconda ry Previous experience: other 3 41 .27 .16 0.8*46 8 40.40 4 41.25 Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members between the perceived degree to which the community education coordinators allow followers scope for initiative, decision. and action. Table 6.1 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 6. 1 --TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM Variable F F Total n X Rat io Prob. Ma 1 e 9 41.13 .32 0. 585 Female 6 4 1.93

PAGE 64

5^ Table 6.2 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 6. 2--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM Variable Total n F Ratio F P rob . Age: 21-30 Age: 31-i»0 Age : h 1 -over 3 6 6 i»3 • 06 40.93 i»l . 16 • 70 0.519 Table 6.3 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 6 . 3--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM Variable Total n F F Ra t i o P rob Experience: less than 3 years Experience: 3 6 years Experience: over 6 years 3 41.24 6 V2.32 6 38.50 1 .9 0. 177 Table 6.4 reports the results of the responses for the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 1 eve 1 .

PAGE 65

55 TABLE 6 , 4 TO L E RANC E OF FREEDOM Variable Total n F Ratio F Prob Training: academic Training: in-service Training: on-the-job 3 6 43.93 40 . 60 1.9 0.178 Table 6.5 reports the results of the sixth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the experience categories was not significant at the .05 1 eve 1 . TABLE 6 . 5--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM Variable Total n F F Ratio Prob Previous experience: e 1 emen ta ry Previous experience: seconda ry Previous experience: other 42.53 41 .60 40.35 59 0.573 Construct 7Role Retention There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. Table 7-1 reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not

PAGE 66

56 significant at the .05 level. TABLE 7.1--R0LE RETENTION F F Variable Total n X Ratio P r o b . Ma 1 e 9 41.53 .14 0.710 Female 6 42.50 Ta b 1 e 7.2 reports the results of the seventh construct when the coord inators are grouped by the personal data variable of age . The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not significant at the .05 1 eve 1 . TABLE 7-2--R0LE RETENTION F F Variable Total n X Ratio P rob . Age: 2130 3 42.80 .30 0.746 Age: 3140 6 40.70 Age : 41over 6 42.70 Tab 1 e 7-3 reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 7-3--R0LE RETENTION _ F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob . Experience: less than 3 years 3 40.80 1.4 0.227 Experience: 3 6 years 6 43.59 Experience: over 6 years 6 38.00

PAGE 67

57 Table 7 . b reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 7-^--R0LE RETENTION _ F F Variabl e Total n X Ratio P rob . Training: academic 3 39.80 .62 0.555 Training: in-service 6 41.^3 Training: on-the-job 6 k3.k6 Table 7.5 reports the results of the responses for the seventh construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between t h e three categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 7-5--R0LE RETENTION F F Va r iab 1 e T ota l n X Ratio Prob. Previous experience: elementary 3 k2.k0 2.8 0.097 Previous experience: secondary 8 39-77 Previous experience: other b, i»5.85 Construct 8: Consideratio n There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community educaion coordinators regard the comfort, well-beinrj, status and contribution of

PAGE 68

58 followers. Table 8.) reports the results of the responses f or the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the personal data variable of sex. The resu 1 ts indicate that the difference between the males and females was not siqnificant at the .05 level. TABLE 8 . 1 -CONS 1 DERAT ION Variable To tain X F F Ratio P ro b . Male 9 44.95 .24 0.634 Fema 1 e 6 44 . 36 Table 8.2 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categories was not s ignificant at the .05 1 eve 1 . TABLE 8 . 2--C0NS 1 DERAT 1 ON Variable Total n X F F Ratio P rob . Age: 21-30 3 44.80 .00 0.982 Age: 31-40 6 44.63 Age : 4 1 -ove r 6 44.76 Table 8.3 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level

PAGE 69

59 TABLE 8 . 3--C0NS I DERAT I ON Variable Total n F F Ratio P rob Experience: less than 3 years Experience: 3 6 years Experience: over 6 years 3 kk.00 6 ^5-80 6 kl . 20 0 . 067 Table 8.k reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 1 eve 1 . TABLE 8 . ^ — CONS I DERATION Variable Total n F F Rat io Prob. Training: academic Training: in-service Training: on-the-job 3 6 6 ^5-33 ^3.73 hS . AO 1 . 0 0. 397 Table 8.5 reports the results of the responses for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 8 . 5--C0NS I DERAT I ON Variable Total n F F Ratio P rob Previous experience elementary Previous experience second a r y Previous experience other U.67 H .22 45-75 . 60 0.565

PAGE 70

60 Construct 9: Production Emphasis There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators apply pressure for productive output. Table 9.1 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 9.1 --PRODUCT 1 ON EMPHASIS Variable T o t a 1 n _ F X Ratio F Prob . Ma 1 e 9 34.51 .01 0.864 Fema 1 e 6 lh. 66 Tabl e 3.2 reports the resu Its of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results i ndicate that the di f f erence between the three age g roups was not significant at the .05 level . TABLE 9. 2--PR0DUCT 1 ON EMPHAS 1 S Variable To ta 1 n _ F X Ratio F Prob . Age: 21-30 3 33-06 l.o 0.387 Age.-31-^O 6 35.33 Age: 4l-over 6 3^.56 Table 9-3 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experien as a community educat'on coordinator. The results indicate

PAGE 71

61 that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 ' eve ! . TABLE 3 . 3~ PR OD UCT I ON EMPHASIS _ F F Variable Total n X Ratio Prob . Experience: less than 3 years 3 3^.20 .09 0.901 Experience: 3~6 years 6 3^-72 Experience: over 6 years 6 3^-90 Table 9 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 9^--PRODUCTI ON EMPHASIS _ F F Variable T otal n X Ratio Prob. Training: academic 3 35-66 .81 0.^70 Training: in-service 6 3^-86 Training: on-the-job 6 33-73 Table 9-5 reports the results of the responses for the ninth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had, The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree t. r which community education

PAGE 72

62 TABLE 9 . 5--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS Variable To t a 1 n F F Ratio P rob Previous experience: e 1 emen ta ry Previous experience: secondary Previous experience: other 3 3 4.60 8 35.27 4 33.15 1 . 2 0.322 coordinators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 10.1 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 10. 1 — PREDICTIVE ACCURACY variable Total n X F Ratio F P rob . Ma 1 e 9 39.64 • 50 0 .496 Fema 1 e 6 40.56 Tabl e 10.2 reports t he results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are g rouped by the persona 1 data variable of age. The results i ndicate that the di f f erence between the th ree age categories was not significant at the .05 1 evel . TABLE 1 0.2-PRED 1 CT 1 VE ACCURACY Variable To ta 1 n X F Ratio F Prob. Age : 2 1-30 3 38.20 1 .4 0 . 266 Age: 31-40 6 41 . 03 Age : 41 -over 6 39. 90

PAGE 73

Table 10.3 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 0 . 3 — PRED 1 CTIVE ACCURACY Variable F F To tain X Ratio Prob. Experience: than 3 less years 3 39.64 2.8 0.093 Exper ience: 3-6 yea rs 6 41.00 Experience: over 6 years 6 37.00 Tab 1 e 10.4 reports the result s of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. T he results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 10.4--PREDIC TIVE ACCURACY Variable F F Tota 1 n X Ra t i o P rob . Training: academic 3 39.06 .79 0.479 Training: in-service 6 39.53 Training: on-the-job 6 40.60 Table 10.5 reports the results of the responses for the tenth construct when the coordinate rs are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference be; we en the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 74

64 TABLE 10.5 — PREDICTIVE ACCURACY Variable Total n F F Ratio P rob . Previous experience: e 1 emen ta ry Previous experience: secondary Previous experience: other 41.80 38.92 AO. 85 2 . 1 0.154 Construct 11: Integration There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain a closely knit organization and resolve intermember conflict. Table 11.1 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate that the difference between males and females was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 1 . 1 -I NT E G RAT I ON Variable Total n F Ratio F P rob Ma 1 e Fema 1 e 9 A313 6 41.53 .67 0 .432 Table 11.2 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinates are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference between the three age categor i es was not significant at the .05 level .

PAGE 75

65 TABLE 11.2--! NTEGRAT I ON Va r i a b 1 e Total n F Ratio F Prob Age: 21-30 Age: 31-40 Age : 4 1 -ove r 3 6 6 43.00 42.76 41.96 • 09 0 . 904 Table 11.3 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 1 . 3-I NTEGRAT I ON Variable To ta 1 n Ratio F Prob. Experience: ' ess than 3 years Experience: 3"6 years Experience: over 6 years 3 6 6 41.00 44 . 09 39. 80 1 .9 0.181 Table 11.4 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level . TABLE 1 1 .4-! NTEGRAT I ON Variable Total n F Ratio F Prob . Training: academic Training: in-service Train i'-g: on-the-job 44 . 60 40.86 43.06 1 . 1 0.336

PAGE 76

66 Table 11.5 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience groups was not sign ; ficant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 1 . 51 NTEGRAT 1 ON Variable To tain X F F Rat io Prob . Previous experience: e 1 emen ta r y 3 42. 80 l.o 0.385 Previous experience: secondary 8 k] . 35 Previous experience: other k 55 Construct 12: Superior Orientation There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, between the perceived degree to which community education coordinators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status when the coordinators are grouped by sex, age, training, and previous experience. However, a significant difference was found when the coordinators were grouped according to years experience as a community education coordinator. Table 12.1 reports the results of the responses for the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the personal data variable of sex. The results indicate tnat the difference between the males and females was not significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 77

TABLE 12.1 --SUPERIOR ORIENTATION \/ a r* i a h 1 a vol i a u I c F lotain a Ratio F P r o b . Ma 1 p Male 9 39.53 .26 0.618 Fema 1 e 6 40.30 Tabl e 12.2 repor ts the results of the responses for the twe 1 f t h construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data variable of age. The results indicate that the di f f erence between the three age groups was not significant at the .05 level . TABLE 12.2 --SUPERIOR OR 1 ENTAT 1 ON Variable F To t a 1 n X Ratio F Prob . Age: 21-30 3 39.73 .06 0 . 928 Age: 31-40 6 40. 1 6 Age: 40-over 6 39.56 Tab 1 e 12.3 repor ts the results of the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator. The results indicate that those community education coordinators with more than six years experience are perceived to be less concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for higher status than coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience. In addition, those coordinators with three to six years experience are perceived to be more concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for higher status than those

PAGE 78

6G coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with more than six years experience. TABLE 12.3 — SUPERIOR ORIENTATION F F Variable Total n X Ratio P rob . Experience: less than 3 years 3 38.80* 4.5 0.034 Experience: 3~6 years 6 4 1 . 3 2 * Experience: over 6 years 6 3 6 . 5 0 * E a c h group differs significantly from the other Table 12.4 reports the results of the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped by type of community education training. The results indicate that the difference between the three groups was not significant at the .05 level. TABLE 1 2.^4 — SUPER I OR ORIENTATION F F Variable Total n X Ratio P rob . Training: academic 3 41.46 1.7 0.218 Training: in-service 6 38.36 Training: on-the-job 6 40.50 Table 12.5 reports the results of the twelfth construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the type of previous experience they have had. The results indicate that the difference between the three experience categories was not significant at the .05 level. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was computed to deter m i r e if a relationship existed between the variables under study. For the purpose of this comparison, the level of

PAGE 79

69 TABLE 1 2 . 5--SUPER ! OR ORIENTATION Variable To ta 1 n X Ratio F P rob . Previous experience: elementary 3 42.33 1 • 7 0. 208 Previous experience: seconda ry 8 39.02 Previous experience: other 39 • 60 significance was .01. The mean score on each of the 12 behavior constructs was used for this procedure. Table 13-0 reports the results of the correlation matrix. The results indicate a significant relationship between two of the personal data variables as well as eight of the 12 behavior constructs. Data from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire -X I I were, analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance to answer each of the 12 questions concerning the differences in leader behavior based on the personal data variables. The .05 level of significance was used for each of the constructs. Findings from this procedure Indicated that of the 12 constructs only Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation were affected by the personal data variables. Persuasiveness was found to be significantly different when the coordinators were grouped by the number of years experience. Those with over six years experience were significantly less persuasive than those with less than three years and those with three to six years. S u mma r y

PAGE 80

70 UO j } E? } U3 I JO J9dn$ uo; aej6gj;u | Aoejnoo\/ uoi lonpojd uoi^ejapisuoQ ujopaaj j uoj sensjsd Aiui erjjaoun jo 1 5 e 1 [ 1 ouoosy joj je^uasajday dxg snoiAajd 6u 1 u 1 bjj. -j -t ia m or^~o -300 o ra La — .3r— . 00 o — in LA -3" M vO OA LT\ vD CMOvJDr^Ora-3 — O N N OO -I ^ — O cNooO(Nr--»vOv£>Lr\p~.cMLrioO' — -3" cnoooocMoOLnr^cs-3— -3--3"covOO — — — raOra~-CMra-3"CMCMraO ra 00 O — -3" vO — ra CM O -3" CM CM CI — O La cm La o — — — oaovo oa — CX3vDvDvOCO-^l^~ 0-3-LaOOvjDcMCT\r-^cMrao — ooraravOr^ravjDvo. — un ra cn -3cn 1 1 1 1 m n m j-t La o •— — ra ra r-~ — cm 00 o cm ua o 00 cn o La -3o 0) o c 0) c o 03 ai < i_ C c C c CD O 0 O c a) a 0 X 4J >M C L. LU ra 03 «j c C c O O 4-1 c 0 a) O ra O cn l/l c t_ 4-1 i_ l_ 1= 3 0) ra i/i 11 E 03 v «j U ra O O cn O t-l 03 fj O QC T3 u ra L_ l/l C U c: l_ 0 XI 3 L, Ol 1_ L. > L. O 0) l/l D 03 0) on T3 cu 03 ra TO u a 0 L, S_ 0) c O O Cl i) L. L. 03 0) c 0) «-l 1_ O O L. O C 3 >hG_ a: or' 3 a. in Li_ CC 1 J Q_ < 00 03 > 03 O 03 C ra u c 01

PAGE 81

71 Initiation of Structure was found to be significantly different when coordinators w^re grouped according to experience and training. Those coordinators with three to six years experience exhibited behavior indicative of Initiation of Structure more frequently than those with less than three years and those with over six years. When the coordinators were grouped by training, a significant difference was also found between the groups. However, the more conservative Tukey procedure revealed that none were more significant than the others. Superior Orientation was found to be significantly different when coordinators were grouped according to experience. Those coordinators with more than six years experience were less concerned with Initiation of Structure than those coordinators with three to six years experience. In addition, those with three to six years experience were more concerned with Initiation of Structure than those coordinators with less than three years and those coordinators with more than six years. In brief, the personal data variable of experience effected significant differences in three categories while the personal data variable of training effected only one category. The additional personal data variable produced no significant difference across any of the 12 leader behavior subscales. The findings of the survey of national authorities and the data from the L B DQX I I will be presented in chapter IV.

PAGE 82

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE The findings presented in this chapter address the second part of a two-part research problem. The data contained herein report the results of the survey of national authorities as well as an analysis of variance between the ideal behavior as perceived by national authorities and the actual behavior of community education coordinators as perceived by community advisory council members. Data for analysis were drawn from administration of the Leader Behavior Description Question na i re--X I I and the Leader Behavior Profile . The LBDQ--X I I was administered to members of each participating coordinator's advisory council. The Leader Behavior Profile was administered to the Directors of Centers for Community Education in universities throughout the nation. A one-way analysis of variance using a simple linear regression procedure was used to answer the question concerning the differences in "ideal" behavior as suggested by the national authorities and the "actual" behavior of coordinators as perceived by the community advisory council members. The significance level for this analysis was set at .01. Three computer programs were run using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences — Version H , Release 7.0. 7?

PAGE 83

73 Effect coding was used on the raw data to compensate for the unequal number between the two groups. Raw scores for the two groups were converted to z-scores. This conversion allowed two sets of data to be standardized t h u s ( co n f o r m i n g to the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and standardized mean scores necessary for analysis of variance. Three computer programs were run. The first two runs were used to compute the mean score and standard deviation for both the center directors and coordinators on each of the 12 categories. On the third run, center directors and coordinators were compared using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure to test for significant differences in each of the 12 behavior categories. Summary Of Leader Behav i or Profile Results Of the 59 questionnaires distributed, hS were returned, yielding a total return rate of 76%. Table 14.1 reports the results of the responses on the Leader Behavior Profile . The results indicate that the center directors consider Tolerance of Freedom--the degree to which the coordinators allow followers scope for initiative, decision, and action, as ideally being the most important category of behavior. In addition, the results indicate that the center directors consider Role Retention the degree to which the coordinators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others, as ideally being the least important category of behavior.

PAGE 84

"T* A D 1 r lit 1 i r~ a r\ r n 1 A B L E. 14. I--LEADER BEHAV 1 OR PROFILE RESULTS (1 DEAL) Category Minimum Score Maximum Score Mean Score Standard Deviation Representation 1 0 . 00 50 . 00 23.11 13.78 Demand Reconciliation 1 0 .00 50 . 00 21 .77 10.28 Tolerance of Uncertainty 1 0 . 00 50 .00 31.56 1 1 . 66 Persuas iveness 1 0 . 00 50, ,00 23-77 1 2.48 Initiation of Structure 1 0 . 00 50, , 00 30 . 22 1 1 .77 Tolerance of Freedom I 0 . 00 50. , 00 36.00* 13.38 Role Retention 1 0 . 00 50. 00 \k.kk+ 9.89 Consideration 1 0 .00 50. 00 34.22 7.53 Production Emphasis 1 0 .00 50. 00 17-55 10.25 Predictive Accuracy 1 0 . 00 ko. 00 24. 66 9.19 Integration 1 0 . 00 50. 00 28.22 1 0. 06 Superior Orientation 1 0 , , 00 40. 00 23 • 55 10.25 n 45 * = most important category of "ideal" behavior + = least important category of "ideal" behavior Table 14.2 reports the results of the responses on the LBDQ--X I I as previously reported in chapter III. The results indicate that the most frequent actual behavior exhibited by the community education coordinators was in the category of cons i dera t i onthe perceived degree to which the coordinator regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of followers. In addition, the results indicate that the least frequent actual behavior exhibited by the community education coordinators was in the category of Production Emp h a s i s t h e

PAGE 85

75 perceived degree to which the coordinator applies pressure for productive output. TAB L E 14.2 — LBDQ — XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL) Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Category Score Score Score Deviation Representat ion 32 . 00 47 .00 44. 1 5 4 . 24 Demand Reconciliation 37 . 00 48 . 00 43. 00 3 1 4 Tolerance of Uncertainty 35 .00 44 .60 39. 68 2 . 63 Persuasiveness 33 .80 45 . 00 40. 53 3 28 Initiation of Structure 34 . 60 44 . 60 40. 80 2 . 70 Tolerance of Freedom 36 . 00 45 .40 4 1 . 45 2 . 60 Role Retention 32 . 00 47 .80 41 . 92 4 . 70 Consideration 38 .40 46 .80 44. 72* 2 . 20 Production Emphasis 3 1 . 20 39 .00 34. 57 + 2 . 24 Predictive Accuracy 36 .40 45 .20 40. 0 1 2 . 42 Integration 36 . 00 48 . 00 42. 49 3 . 66 Superior Orientation 35 .00 43 . 80 3984 2 . 74 n = 15 * = most frequent category of " actual" behavior + = least frequent category of "actual " behavior Table 15-1 reports the responses of the center d i rectors on the Leader Behavior Profi 1 e after the convers ion to z-scores . Table 15.2 reports the responses for the commun i ty educa t i on coordinators on the LBDQ — X 1 1 after the convers ion to z-scores . This conversion was necessary to provide for homogene i t y of variance and standardized mean scores.

PAGE 86

76 TABLE 1 5. I --Z-SCORE CONVERS IONS--CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL) Category Minimum Score Maximum Score Mean Score Standard D e v i a t ion Representat ion 2 . 00 1 . 00 .82 Demand Reconciliation 1~ . 00 2.00 . 82 02 9 Tolerance of Uncertainty -3 . 00 1.00 .8k 1.16 Persuasiveness 2 . 00 2 .00 . 62 1.24 Initiation of Structure -3 . 00 1.00 97 1 1 7 i.i/ Tolerance of Freedom -3 . 00 1.00 . 4o 1 3 3 Role Retention -2, . 00 2 . 00 -1.55 990 UUIId 1 u c 1 a t ion 2 , , 00 1.00 • 57 . 753 Production Emphasis -3. 00 1 . 00 -2.2k 1 .02 Predictive Accuracy -2 . 00 2 . 00 .35 1 . 24 Integration -5. 00 1 . 00 -2.06 1 .58 Superior Orientation -2 . 00 2 . 00 .46 1 .34 n = 45 Table 16.0 reports a summary of the results of the analysis of variance between the center directors' "ideal" and the coordinators' "actual" behavior. Of the 12 categories, 10 were found to be significantly different at the .01 level. Only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different between center directors and coordinators.

PAGE 87

77 TABLE 1 5 • 2--Z-SC0RE CONVERS IONS — COORDI NATORS (ACTUAL) Category Minimum Score Max i mum Score Mean Score Standard Deviation Representat ion . 00 1.00 • 73 . 458 Demand Reconciliation 1.00 2.00 1.26 . 458 Tolerance of Uncertainty . 00 1.00 • 1 3 .352 Persuasiveness .00 1 . 00 • 73 . 458 Initiation of Structure . 00 1 . 00 . 20 . k] k Tolerance of Freedom 1 .00 . 00 .13 • 352 Role Retention . 00 1 . 00 • 73 .458 Consideration . 00 1 . 00 .86 .352 Production Emphasis -1.00 .00 .86 .352 Predictive Accuracy 1 . 00 2 .00 1 . 60 . 507 Integration -1.00 1 . 00 AO .737 Superior Orientation 1 . 00 2 . 00 1 .53 .516 n = 15 Category 1: Representation There was a significant difference at the .01 level in degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Representation and the degree to which coordinators actually speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 16.1 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Representation. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.

PAGE 88

78 TABLE 16.0--ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE " 1 DEAL" "ACTUAL 1 1 Category F S i g n i f i c a n ce Representat ion 2h. 63 Demand Reconciliation -.71 61 . 27 A Tolerance of Uncertainty . 32 7. 07 n . s Persuas iveness . 55 26. 13 Initiation of Structure .h\ 1 1 . 77 A Tolerance of Freedom . 20 2 . hi n . s Role Retention .80 1 06 . 60 a Cons iderat ion • 57 28. 02 JL Production Emphasis . Gh ho. h3 J. Predictive Accuracy . (>k 1»0. h2 JL 1 nteg ra t i on . 57 28. 60 Superior Orientation .62 36. 58 * n = 60 TABLE 1 6. 1 --REPRESENTATI ON Group Mean Score Standard Deviation D . F . F P rob Center Director (ideal) .82 1 ,58 2h.6 Coordinator (actual) .73 A 58 Category 2: Demand Reconcil i a t ion There was a significant difference at the . 0 1 1 eve 1 in the degree of importance the center directors i d e n t i f i ed with the category of Demand Reconciliation and the deg ree to which the coordinators actually reconc i 1 e c on f 1 icting demands and reduce disorder to the system. Table 16.2 reports the results of the

PAGE 89

79 analysis for the category of Demand Reconciliation. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more f requent than the center directors' rating of their ideal behavior. TABLE 16.2--DEMAND RECONCILIATION Mean S tanda rd Group Score Deviation D . F . F P rob . Center Directors (ideal) -.82 .029 1 , 58 61.27 Coordinators (actual) 1.26 .^58 Category 3Tolerance of Uncertainty There was no significant difference at the . 0 1 1 eve 1 i n the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Tolerance of Uncertainty and the actual degree to which the coordinators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 16.3 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Tolerance of Uncertainty. TABLE 1 6. 3--T0LERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY Group Mean Score Standard F Deviation D.F. Prob Center Directors (ideal) . 8A 1.16 1,58 7.07 Coordinators (actual) . 1 3 • 352 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was not significant at the . 0 1 level This indicates that the coordinators' actual behav i o r was consistent with the center directors' rating of the i deal behav i o r .

PAGE 90

80 Category h : Persuasiveness There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Persuasiveness and the degree to which the coordinators actually used persuasion and argument effectively and exhibited strong convictions. Table 16.4 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Persuasiveness. TABLE 1 6 . 4--PERSUAS I VENESS Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D . F . P r o b . Center Directors (ideal) -.62 1.24 1,58 26.13 Coordinators (actual) .73 .458 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 5: Initiation of Structure There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Initiation of Structure and the degree to which the coordinators actually clearly define their own role and allow followers to know what is expected of them. Table 16.5 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Initiation of Structure. The. results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.

PAGE 91

81 TABLE 1 6. 5-I N I T I AT I ON OF STRUCTURE Mean Standard Group Score Deviation D . F . F P rob . Center Director (ideal) -.97 1-17 1 ,58 11.77 Coordinator (actual) .20 .k]k Category 6: Tolerance of Freedom There was no significant difference at the .01 1 eve 1 i n the degree of importance the center directors ident i f i ed with the category of Tolerance of Freedom and the actual degree to which the coordinators allow followers scope for initiation, dec i s i on , and action. Table 16.6 reports the results of the analysi s for the category of Tolerance of Freedom. The resu Its indicate that the difference between the two groups was not significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was consistent with the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. TABLE 1 6. 6--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM Mean Standard Group Score Deviation D . F . F P rob . Center Directors (ideal) -.k0 1.33 1 , 58 2A7 Coordinators (actual) -.13 -352 Category 7: Role Retention There was a significant difference at the .01 level i n the degree of importance the center directors ident i f i ed with the category of Role Retention and the degree to wh ich the coord i nators actually actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. Table 16.7 reports the resuits of the analysis for the category of Role Retention.

PAGE 92

82 TABLE 16.7--ROLE RETENTION Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D . F . P rob . Center Directors (ideal) -1.55 .990 1,58 106.60 Coordinators (actual) .73 .458 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of ideal behavior. Category 8: Consideration There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Consideration and the degree to which the coordinators actually regard the comfort, well-being, status, and contribution of followers. Table 16.8 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Consideration. TABLE 16.8 — C0NSI DERATION Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D . F . P rob Center Directors (ideal) 57 • 753 1 , 58 28. 02 Coordinators (actual) . 86 . 352 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. Th is indicates that the coordinators' actual behav i o r was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 9 • Production Emphasis There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the

PAGE 93

83 category of Production Emphasis and the degree to which the coordinators actually apply pressure for productive output. Table 16.9 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Production Emphasis. TABLE 1 6. 9--PR0DUCT I ON EMPHASIS Mean Standard F Group Score Deviation D . F . Prob Center Directors (ideal) -2.24 1 .02 1 ,58 40.43 Coordinators (actual) .86 • 352 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 10: Predictive Accuracy There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Predictive Accuracy and the degree to which the coordinators actually exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 16.10 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Predictive Accuracy. TABLE 16. 10 — PREDICTIVE ACCURACY Group Mean Score Standard Deviation F D. F. Prob Center Directors (ideal) -.35 1 . 24 1,58 40.42 Coordinators (actual) 1 . 60 . 507 The results indicate that the differe nee between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. Th is indicates that the

PAGE 94

84 coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 11: Integration There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Integration and the degree to which the coordinators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember conflict. Table 16.11 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Integration. TABLE 1 6. 1 1 -I NTEGRAT! ON Mean Standard F Group Score De v i a t i on D . F . Prob Center Directors (ideal) -2.06 1 .58 1 , 58 28. 60 Coordinators (actual) .40 .737 The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. Category 12: Superior Orientation There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the degree of importance the center directors identified with the category of Superior Orientation and the degree to which the coordinators actually maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them,and are striving for higher status. Table 16.12 reports the results of the analysis for the category of Superior Orientation. The results indicate that the difference between the two groups was significant at the .01 level.

PAGE 95

85 This indicates that the coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior. S umma r y Data from the Leader Behavior Profile and the Leader Behavior Description Ques t i onna i reX I I were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression procedure. The 12 behavior categories were analyzed to ascertain the difference between the "ideal" frequency of leader behavior suggested by the national authorities and the "actual" frequency of leader behavior exhibited by selected community education coordinators. The .CI level of significance was used for each of the 12 categories. Findings from this procedure indicate that of the 12 categories, only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different. There was consistency between the "ideal" frequency and the "actual" frequency in both of these categories. The additional 10 categories were found to be significantly different at the .01 level. The actual behavior of coordinators proved to always be more frequent than the ideal rating indicated by the center directors. Thus, findings from the analysis of data in chapter III indicate that personal data variables of experience produced significant differences in three categories; while the personal data variable of training produced a significant difference in only one category. Findings in chapter IV indicate

PAGE 96

86 a significant difference between ideal behavior and actual behavior in 10 of the 12 categories. In Chapter V, the discussion, conclusions, and recommend ations concerning the findings reported in chapters III and I will be set forth.

PAGE 97

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discuss ion This study was designed to address two questions concerning leader behavior of community education coordinators based on the 12 constructs of Stogdill's taxonomy of leader behavior (Stogdill, 1 97 1 *) • Specifically, the following questions were addressed: 1. Is there a relationship between the "actual" frequency of leader behaviors exhibited by selected community education coordinators and the "ideal" frequency of leader behavior suggested by the national authorities? 2. Is there a relationship between selected personal data variables and the behavior exhibited by selected coordinators based on the 12 dimensions of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--XI I ? A sample of 15 community school coordinators within the State of Florida participated in the study. Each coordinator identified five s c hoo 1 commu n i t y advisory council representatives to provide the L B DQX I I rating input. Each representative rated the coordinators on the 12 subscales of the L B DQX I 87

PAGE 98

88 Scores for each coordinator were combined and averaged to provide a mean score for each of the 12 subscales. The coordinators were then grouped according to these personal data variables: sex, age, years experience as a coordinator, training in community education, previous professional experience, and professional aspirations. A one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedure were used to analyze the 12 constructs for significant differences based on the personal data variables. For the purpose of this analysis, a .05 level of significance was used. To address the question concerning the "ideal" versus the "actual" leader behavior, a survey of national authorities was conducted. An abridgement of the L B D Q — X I I was used to determine the ideal frequency of leader behavior as perceived by the directors of the Centers for Community Education in h5 colleges and universities in the United States. These data were used to compare the "ideal" behavior with "actual" behavior as measured by the L B DQ — X I I . A one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear regression was used to test for significant differences in each of the 12 subscale categories. For the purpose of this analysis, a .01 level of significance was used. Samp 1 i ng The process of selecting a sample of coordinators for this study revealed that many (50% of those identified by the sampling process) do not have or relate to any s choo 1 commu n i t y advisory council. The fact that this type of situation exists

PAGE 99

89 suggests two problems. First, there may be a lack of understanding or commitment to the concept of community involvement in the processes of education at the school or district level. Second, there may exist a perception that community education programs are not part of the "regular" education program and therefore should not be addressed by s choo 1 commu n i ty advisory councils. Consequently, the leader behavior of participants in this study may not accurately reflect the behaviors of all coor dinators in Florida. The five coordinators who did choose to participate, but failed to return the data, did so for various reasons. Prolonged illness, inability to collect circulated instruments, cancelled council meetings, and disbanded councils all led to the reduced return. In retrospect, the data collection procedure would have been enhanced by the researcher attending advisory council meetings and collecting data in person. LBDQ--X I I Findings Responses to the 100 items of the L B D Q, — XI 1 provided no significant differences at the .05 level between coordinators when grouped by the variables of sex, age, previous professiona experience, and professional aspirations across all 12 subscales. The variable of years experience as a coordinator and training in community education were not significant at the .05 level across nine categories and 11 categories respectively. Reasons for these similarities should be discussed.

PAGE 100

90 First, leader skills and behaviors may be very similar between all community education coordinators. It is suggested that the position of community school coordinator is perceived as an entry level administrative position; thus, a certain level of leader behavior must be observable before an individual becomes a community education coordinator. It may also be contended that once the individual performs in the role, he or she acquires characteristics which are common to all who function in this role. This is not to suggest that all community education coordinators are alike, however, the findings of the L B DQX I I indicate that there are few distinguishable differences in leader behavior among the community education coordinators. Secondly, this study used the perception of schoolcommunity advisory council members as the basis for evaluating leader behavior. Since the council group structure affords certain status and function to the role of community education coordinator, there may be expectations on the part of council members for the coordinator to exercise prominent leadership. Both status and function are ascribed to the position and not the individual; hence, the ratings of leader* behavior may be based on expectations for the position and not the actual behavior of the individual in that position. However, the study did reveal some significant difference at the .05 level. When the coordinators were grouped by years experience as a community education coordinator, the coordinators were perceived to exhibit differing degrees of leader

PAGE 101

91 behavior in three categories: Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure and Superior Orientation. In the category of Persuasiveness, the coordinators with over six years experience were perceived to use persuasion and argument effectively less often than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those coordinators with three to six years experience. The ability to exhibit strong convictions and use persuasion and argument effectively can be directly related to enthusiasm for one's work. Those coordinators with over six years experience all had professional aspirations of becoming school principals, yet had failed to progress from their present position. Lack of enthusiasm and conviction can decrease as the ability to advance professionally is thwarted. Initiation of Structure was also significantly different when the coordinators were grouped by years experience. Those coordinators with three to six years experience in community education were perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly defined their role and allowed followers to know what is expected of them than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those with more than six years experience. Knowledge of a role and the expectant behavior associated with that role develops as a result of expectancy and reinforcement. Those coordinators with less than three years may still be developing clarity of role definition and have not yet become facile in commun i cat i pg to others their expectations. Conversely, those coordinators with more than six years experience

PAGE 102

92 may develop role conflicts as a result of changing values and/or changing demands placed upon them as they exercise leadership. The difference in perception of role by the coordinator and others can lead to conflicts and, thus, an inability to successfully communicate with followers. Likewise, Superior Orientation was significantly different when the coordinators were grouped by years experience. Each group differed significantly from the others. Those coordinators with over six years experience were perceived to be less concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for higher status than those coordinators with less than three years experience and those with three to six years experience. However, those coordinators with three to six years experience were perceived to be the most concerned with maintaining cordial relations with superiors, having influence over them, and striving for higher status. This measurable difference between the three groups can be related to the professional aspirations of the coordinators. Coordinators new to the position (less than three years) could be still attempting to orient themselves to their role while trying to strive for advancement. Thus, they could exhibit less superior orientation than the three to six year group. Those coordinators in the three to six year group would have had sufficient time to develop security in the position and would be much more inclined to exhibit behaviors indicative of superior orientation in an effort to secure professional advancement. However, those coordinators with over six years

PAGE 103

93 experience could perceive themselves as professional peers of other administrators and would not be as concerned with trying to influence them or strive for higher status. In addition to these described differences, the variable of training produced a significant difference in the category of Initiation of Structure. Those coordinators with in-service training scored somewhat lower on the Initiation of Structure subscale than those coordinators with academic training and those coordinators with on-the-job training. However, when the more conservative Tukey's procedure was performed, none of the three groups were significantly different from the others. These results would tend to indicate that training and work experience cannot be isolated as variables in this situation. In-service, academic, and on-the-job training do not discriminate clearly for this particular subscale. The correlation matrix for all variables provides additional information to evaluate these findings. As shown by other studies done by Stogdill, Goode, and Day ( 1 9 6 3 , 1964, and 1965) the subscales of the LBDQ--X I I are not independent of one another. Generally, the results suggest that certain categories are influenced strongly by a single subscale while some categories are influenced by more than one. For example, those coordinators scoring high in the category of Consideration, also score high in Integration (r = .84) and Superior Orientation (r = .60) while those scoring high in the category Representation also score high in Consideration (r = .84), Reconciliation

PAGE 104

(r = .75), Structure (r = .Ik), Integration (r = .73), Role Retention (r = .66), and Persuasion (r = .65). The findings obtained from this analysis of subscale correlation suggest that followers are able to describe the coordinators in terms of several factors. Leader Behavior Profile Findings Responses to the Leader Behavior Profile indicate significant differences at the .01 level between the ideal frequency of leader behavior determined by the national authorities and the actual frequency of leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ-X I I on 10 of 12 subscales. Two of the subscales, Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different between center directors and coordinators. Reasons for these measurable differences should be recounted . Initially, there seems to be a significant distortion between theory and practice. The professional literature in community education ascribes to the role of coordinator characteristics of a process facilitator. That is, the role of indirect or low profile leadership which is to assist a group in learning useful ways for accomplishing tasks and working as a unit. The major factor being to assist group members in making decisions. On the other hand, practice, as measured by the LBDQ — X I I , shows that coordinators are exercising a much more prominent leadership role and taking a direct active part in the decision making process. This is best exemplified by the

PAGE 105

95 difference the category of Role Retention. Coordinators are actually actively exercising the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others much more often than the ideal situation would demand. Secondly, there seems to be a discrepancy between community education philosophy and community member preference. One of the key components of community education philosophy is the systematic involvement of community members in the educational process. This involvement in decision making lies at the cornerstone of the movement. On the other hand, the most recent Gallup Educational Poll (1977) reports that the majority of the people want the educational decision making to remain with elected officials. This attitude could increase the expectancy-reinforcement factor which would ascribe status to the position of coordinator as a representative of the administration and school board. Thus, the citizens expect the coordinator to exercise prominent leadership and the coordinator responds by doing so. Finally, these measurable differences might be a result of the lack of professional training. Of the coordinators participating in this study, only three have had full-time academic training. If there is to be consistency between theory and practice, coordinators should have more in-depth training. Those human, technical and conceptual skills upon which community education functions are unique and may not be easily acquired on the job. Individuals who are to exercise low profile leadership must possess specialized process skills which are not

PAGE 106

96 usually taught in traditional education curricula. Lack of these process leadership skills could create a reliance by the coordinators on traditional and more prominent leadership roles. Cone 1 us i ons The leader behavior of selected community education coordinators were measured by means of a survey of the perceptions of members of the coordinators' s c hoo 1 commu n i ty advisory council. The survey covered the 12 dimensions of leader behavior measured by the Leader Behavior Description Ques t ionna ire XII . Evidence from this survey instrument would tend to support the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of community education coordinators based on selected personal data variables. Answers to the questions posed at the outset of the study can be provided on the basis of these data: 1. The variable of sex produced no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of the selected community education coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs . 2. The variable of age produced no significant difference in the perceived leader behavior of community education coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs. 3. The variable of years experience did produce a significant difference in the perceived behavior of community education coordinators in the construct of Persuasiveness,

PAGE 107

97 Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation. There was no significant difference as measured in terms of the other nine constructs. k. The variable of training in community education produced no significant difference in the perceived behavior of community education coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs. 5. The variable of previous professional experience produced no significant difference in the perceived behavior of community education coordinators in any of the 12 behavior constructs. In addition, a survey of national authorities was conducted to determine the ideal leader behavior of community education coordinators and to ascertain whether the actual behaviors of coordinators as measured by the L B D Q — X I I were consistent with the opinions of the national authorities. Evidence from this comparison would tend to support the conclusion that there are significant differences between the ideal leader behavior suggested by the national authorities and the actual leader behavior exhibited by the community education coordinators. Only two constructs, Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were not significantly different. Implications i tie findings resulting from this study lend support to the following implications. First, leader behavior and performance of community education coordinators are not related

PAGE 108

98 to the six identified personal variables and thus, those variables are not good predictors of behavior or performance. The use of these variables as selection criteria of individuals to fill community education leadership positions is marginal at best. In addition, these variables should have little significance as criteria for selecting individuals to be trained in community education. Secondly, there is a significant difference in community education leadership theory and community education leadership practice. This fact has implications not only for the training institutions, but also for the State Department of Education which has responsibility to establish guidelines for the implementation of the Community School Act. The difference in theory and practice may directly reflect a lack of adequate training on the part of those individuals who hold these positions, as well as a lack of sensitivity to the need for specialized training to function in a facilitative manner. Recommendations For Future Study The following recommendations are offered in an effort to foster the development and growth of community education in Florida as well as to promote the furtherance of knowledge. 1. Studies of community education leadership should be conducted to provide additional data for a more conclusive leadership profile. 2. Additional factors which influence leader behavior should be researched. These might include

PAGE 109

personality characteristics, values, and attitudes, as well as specific human, conceptual, and technical skill competencies. The role of the community member in community education leadership should be researched. The role of the school -commun i ty advisory council in planning and evaluating community education programs should be researched. Research should be conducted to determine if minimal training requirements are necessary for community education coordinators to be effective in their role. Current educational programs providing training for community education coordinators should be studied. Specific attention should be paid to the substantive nature of course content, scope and sequence of skill development, and the practical applicability of skills. Studies should be conducted to establish a basic curriculum necessary for community education coordinators. These studies should review the necessity for an interdisciplinary competencyba sed approach related to the specific human, conceptual, and technical skills essential for functioning in the role of community education coordinator.

PAGE 110

1 00 8. Research should be conducted to determine if community education has application as an operational philosophy for community colleges and universities, as well as public schools. 9. A study should be conducted to determine if moving the responsibility for community education from the Department of Education Adult Education Division to the Commissioner's Cabinet level would foster community educational programming at the four division levels and increase cooperation and coordination among the divisions. 10. Studies should be conducted to determine the feasibility of developing community education in-service training modules for use by local school districts in their on-going staff development programs. The three Centers for Community Education in Florida could provide the necessary resources for the development of these modules. The modules could then be utilized by both instructional and administrative employees at the local district level. 11. Research should be conducted to determine the most effective method of gaining community input for community needs assessment, program development and evaluation.

PAGE 111

Studies should be conducted to determine if coordinators who exhibit leader behavior which is indicative of the ideal, as suggested by the national authorities, are more effective in performing their role.

PAGE 112

APPENDIX A Dear I am presently undertaking a study dealing with the leader behaviors of community education coordinators. The study would necessitate five members of your community advisory council completing a survey. The administrators of the survey should take no longer than thirty minutes. In addition, a personal data sheet concerning information such as experience, training, and professional aspirations would be completed by you. If you are willing to participate in this study, please complete the enclosed form and return it to me. Upon receip of the form, I will contact participants by telephone to dis cuss the research in depth. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter Cordially, Stefurak AL/cr enclosure 1 02

PAGE 113

103 Participation Consent Form Name : Mailing Address: Office Telephone Number: (area code ) When can you most often be reached by telephone? morning afternoon evening Name of community advisory council chairperson? How many council members usually participate in the meeting? When does your council usually meet? I choose not to participate

PAGE 114

] Ok Dear Enclosed are the community council questionnaires to be distributed at your next meeting. Please be sure that the chairperson distributes and collects the questionnaires in order that they may be returned to me. Also, please be sure that the personal data sheet is enclosed with the questionnaires. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to assist me in the collection of this data. If you have any questions or problems, please feel free to contact me. Cordial 1 y , A. L. Stefurak AL/c r enclosures

PAGE 115

105 LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUEST I ONNAI RE--FORM XII Originated by staff members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies and revised by the Bureau of Business Research Purpose of the Questionnaire On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the behavior of the coordinator. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express differences that are important in the description of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior of the selected coordinator. Note: The term "coordinator" as employed in the following items, refers to the individual who has full-time responsibility for community education at the school center. The term "group," as employed in the following items, refers to a unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. In some cases the "group" may represent only one or two ind i vi dua Is. The term "members," refers to all the people in the group that is supervised by the person being described. Please attempt to answer a 1 1 the questions. Publ i shed by Bureau of Business Research College of Commerce and Administration The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright 1 SS2

PAGE 116

1 06 DIRECTIONS: a. READ each item careful lyb. THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior described by the item. c. DECIDE whether he/she (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally, (D) seldom or (E) never, acts as described by the item. d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A B C D E) following the item to show the answer you have selected. A = Always B = Often C = Occas i ona 1 1 y D = Seldom E = Never e. MARK your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: The coordinator often acts as described A B C D E Example: The coordinator never acts as described A B C D E Example: The coordinator occasionally acts as described A B C D E 1. The coordinator acts as the spokesman of the group A B C D E 2. The coordinator waits patiently for the results of a decision A B C D E 3. The coordinator makes pep talks to stimulate the group A B C D E The coordinator lets group members know what is expected of them A B C D E 5. The coordinator allows the members complete freedom in their work A B C D E 6. The coordinator is hesitant about taking initiative in the group A B C D E 7The coordinator is friendly and approachable A B C D E

PAGE 117

107 A = Always B = Often C = Occas iona 1 1 y D = Seldom E = Never 8. The coordinator encourages overtime work A B C D E 9. The coordinator makes accurate decisions A B C D E 10. The coordinator gets along well with the people above him/her A B C D E 11. The coordinator publicizes the activities of the group A B C D E 12. The coordinator becomes anxious when he/she cannot find out what is coming next A B C D E 13. The coordinator's arguments are convincing A B C D E \k. The coordinator encourages the use of uniform procedures A B C D E 15. The coordinator permits the members to use their own judgment in solving problems A B C D E 16. The coordinator fails to take necessary action A B C D E 17. The coordinator does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group A B C D E 18. The coordinator stresses being ahead of competing groups A B C D E 19The coordinator keeps the group working together as a team A B C D E 20. The coordinator keeps the group in good standing with higher authority A B C D E 21. The coordinator speaks as the representative of the group A B C D E 22. The coordinator accepts defeat in stride A B C D E 23. The coordinator argues persuasively for his/her point of view A B C D E

PAGE 118

1 08 A = Always B = Often C = Occas iona 1 1 y D = Seldom E = Never 2k. The coordinator tries out his/her ideas in the group A B C D E 25. The coordinator encourages initiative in the group members A B C D E 26. The coordinator lets other persons take away his/her leadership in the group A B C D E 27. The coordinator puts suggestions made by the group into operation A B C D E 28. The coordinator needles members for greater effort A B C D E 29. The coordinator seems able to predict what is coming next A B C D E 30. The coordinator is working hard for a promotion A B C D E 31. The coordinator speaks for the group when visitors are present A B C D E 32. The coordinator accepts delays without becoming upset A B C D E 33The coordinator is a very persuasive talkei A B C D E 34. The coordinator makes his/her attitudes clear to the group A B C D E 35. The coordinator lets the members do their work the way they think best A B C D E 36. The coordinator lets some members take advantage of him/hei A B C D E 37The coordinator treats all group members as his/her equal A B C D E 38. The coordinator keeps the work moving at a rapid pace A B C D E 39. The coordinator settles conflicts when they occur in the group A B C D E *t0. The coordinator's superiors act favorable on most of his/her suggestions A B C D E

PAGE 119

) 09 A = Always B = Often C = Occas iona 1 1 y D = Seldom E = Never h] . The coordinator represents the group at outside meetings A B C D E kl. The coordinator becomes anxious when waiting for new developments A B C D E 43. The coordinator is very skillful in an argument A B C D E kk. The coordinator decides what shall be done and how it shall be done A B C D E 45. The coordinator assigns a task, then lets the members handle it A B C D E kS. The coordinator is the leader of the group in name only A B C D E ^7. The coordinator gives advance notice of changes A B C D E ^8. The coordinator pushes for increased production A B C D E ^9Things usually turn out as he/she predicts A B C D E 50. The coordinator enjoys the privileges of his/her position A B C D E 51. The coordinator handles complex problems efficiently A B C D E 52. The coordinator is able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty A B C D E 53. The coordinator is not a very convincing talker A B C D E 5k. The coordinator assigns group members to particular tasks A B C D E 55. The coordinator turns the members loose on a job, and lets them go to it A B C D E 56. The coordinator backs down when he/she ought to stand f i rm A B C D E 57. The coordinator keeps to h imse 1 f /herse 1 f A B C D E

PAGE 120

1 10 A = Always B = Often C = Occas ional ly D = Seldom E = Never 58. The coordinator asks the members to work harder A B C D E 59. The coordinator is accurate in predicting the trend of events A B C D E 60. The coordinator gets his/her superiors to act for the welfare of the group members A B C D E 61. The coordinator gets swamped by details A B C D E 62. The coordinator can wait just so long, then blows up A B C D E 63. The coordinator speaks from a strong inner conviction A B C D E 6k. The coordinator makes sure that his/her part in the group is understood by the group members A B C D E 65. The coordinator is reluctant to allow the members any freedom of action A B C D E 66. The coordinator lets some members have authority that he/she should keep A B C D E 67. The coordinator looks out for the personal welfare of the group members A B C D E 68. The coordinator permits the members to take it easy in their work A B C D E 63. The coordinator sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated A B C D E 70. The coordinator's work carries weight with his/her superiors A B C D E 71. The coordinator gets things all tangled up A B C D E 72. The coordinator remains calm when uncertain about coming events A B C D E 73. The coordinator is an inspiring talker A B C D E

PAGE 121

1 1 1 A = Always B = Often C = Occas ional ly D = Seldom E = Never ~lh. The coordinator schedules the work to be done A B C D E 75The coordinator allows the group a high degree of initiative A B C D E 76. The coordinator takes full charge when emergencies arise A B C D E 77. The coordinator is willing to make changes A B C D E 78. The coordinator drives hard when there is a job to be done A B C D E 79. The coordinator helps group members settle their differences A B C D E 80. The coordinator gets what he/she asks for from his/her superiors A B C D E 81. The coordinator can reduce a madhouse to system and order A B C D E 82. The coordinator is able to delay action until the proper time occurs A B C D E 83. The coordinator persuades others that his/her ideas are to their advantage A B C D E 8h. The coordinator maintains definite standards of performance A B C D E 85. The coordinator trusts the members to exercise good judgment A B C D E 86. The coordinator overcomes attempts made to challenge his/her leadership A B C D E 87. The coordinator refuses to explain his/her actions A B C D E b8. The coordinator urges the group to beat its previous record A B C D E

PAGE 122

112 A = Always B = Often C = Occas ional ly D = Seldom E = Never 89. The coordinator anticipates problems and plans for them A B C D E 90. The coordinator is working his/her way to the top 1 A B C D E 91. The coordinator gets confused when too many demands are made of him/her ' A B C D E 92. The coordinator worries about the outcome of any new procedure A B C D E 93. The coordinator can inspire enthusiasm for a project A B C D E 9^. The coordinator asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations A B C D E 95. The coordinator permits the group to set its own pace --A B C D E 96. The coordinator is easily recognized as the leader of the group A B C D E 97. The coordinator acts without consulting the group A B C D E 98. The coordinator keeps the group working up to capacity A B C D E 99. The coordinator maintains a closely knit group A B C D E 100. The coordinator maintains cordial relations with superiors A B C D E

PAGE 123

APPENDIX B Personal Data 1. I am male female 2. I am in the age group: 21-30; 31-^0; k 1 and over. 3. I have been in community education: less than 3 years, 3 to 6 years, over 6 years. h . I received my community education training through: p articipation in an academic community education training program participation in a two-week workshop participation in in-service workshops participation in a full year internship supervised field experience o n the job training with little academic training other Prior to entering community education work, my experience was in: elementary schools secondary schools other (please list) The next professional position to which I aspire is: 113

PAGE 124

APPEND I X C I am presently conducting a study dealing with the nature of leadership behaviors of community education coordinators. The initial phase of the study requires base data for a behavior profile. Each Center Director is being asked to provide input for the development of the p ro f i 1 e . I would appreciate your taking just five minutes from your busy schedule to complete the short survey enclosed. Please return in the s e 1 f a d d r e s s ed envelope at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you for your immediate attention and coopera t i on . Sincerely, A. L. Stefurak C#n ter Associate ALS/cr enclosures i M

PAGE 125

1 15 Leader Behavior Description Profile The following list of items describes possible leader behaviors of community education coordinators. Each item is a descriptive category of various behaviors and should be rated according to importance in relation to maximum effectiveness. Read each category carefully and think about how relatively important the behaviors indicated by the description would be for a coordinator to be effective in community education leadership. DIRECT IONS: Column A -of the twelve categories, check the nine you consider most important Column B -of the nine categories identified in column A, check the six you consider to be most important Column C -of the six categories identified in column B, check the three you consider most important Column D -of the three categories identified in column C, check the one you consider most important.

PAGE 126

1 16 Benav ior Category A A n D r L U 1 . Rep resen ta t i ves pea ks and acts as a representative of the group 2. Demands reconci 1 iation--reconci les conflicting organizational demands and reduces disorder to the system 3. Tolerance of unce r ta i n tyi s able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset k. Pe r s ua s i venes s u ses persuasion arid argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions 5. Initiation of s tructure--c 1 ear 1 y defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected fa . Tolerance of freedom — allows followers scope for initiative, decision, and action 7. Role r e t en t i o n a c t i ve 1 y exercises leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others 8. Con s i de r a t i on r e ga rd s the comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of foil owe r s 9. Production emp ha s i s a p p 1 i e s pressure for productive output 0 . Predictive a c c u r a cy exh i b i t s foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately 1 . 1 n t eg r a t i o nma i n t a i n s a closely knit organization; resolves intermember conflict 2 . Influence with s u p e r i o r s -ma i n t a i n s cordial relations with superiors, has influence with them; strives for higher status

PAGE 127

REFERENCES Anderson, V., & Davies, D. R. Patterns of educational leader ship, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: P r en t i ceHa 1 1 , 1956. Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization . New York! Wi 1 ey , 1 96** . Barnard, C. I. The functions of the executive . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Barnard, H. Report on the condition and improvement of the public schools of Rhode Island. In J. S. Brubacher (Ed.), Henry Barnard on education . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931. Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior . New York! Harper and Brothers , I960. Bennis, W. G. Changing organization . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1 966. Bernard, L, L. An introduction to social psychology . New York: Holt, 1926. Berridge, R. I. Its evolvement. In H. W. Hickey, C. VanVoorhees & Associates (Eds.), The role of the school in community educat ion . Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1 9^9! Berridge, R. I. The community education handbook . Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1973. Bird, C. Social psychology . New York: Ap p 1 e ton Ce n t u ry , 19**0. Brown, A. F. Reactions to leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly , 1967, 3, 62-73. Campbell, C. M. Community schools: Their administration. In H. W, Hickey, C. VanVoorhees & Associates (Eds.), The role of the school in community education . Midland, Michigan: Pende 1 1 Publishing Co,, 1 969. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. Group dynamics: Research and theory . Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson S Co., 1953. Case, C. M. Leadership and conjuncture. Sociology and Social Research , 1933, 17, 510-513., 1 1 7

PAGE 128

1 18 Cattel, R. B. New concepts for measuring leadership in terms of group syntality. Human Relations , 1951, ^, 161-184. Clancy, P. L. Testimony presented before the Labor and Education Committee of the United States House of Representatives, January 26, 1965, and the Subcommittee on Education of the United States Senate Committee on Public Labor and Welfare, January 29, 1965. Clapp, E. R. Community schools in action . New York; Viking Press, 1939. Clark, P. A., & Olsen, E. G. Life-centering education . Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1977Clark, P. A., & Stefurak, A. L. Leadership for change. Commun i ty Educa t i on Journal , No vembe r D ec embe r 1975, 5_ (6), 18-21 . Cook, L. A. Schools and community. In W. S. Monroe (Ed.), The encyclopedia of educational research . New York: The Macm i 1 1 an Co . , 19^1. Cunningham, L. L. Governing schools: New approaches to old issues . Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1971. Deshler, B., & Erlich, J. L. Citizen involvement: Evaluation in the revolution. Phi Del ta Kappan , November 1972, 5s 175Dewey, J., S Dewey, E. Schools of tomorrow . New York: E. P. Dutton, 1962. Dowd , J. Control in human societies . New York: Ap p 1 e t on C en t u r y , 1936. Everett, S. The community school . New York: D. AppletonCentury Co., Inc. ,1938. Flint Community Schools. Flint community schools: Gu i d e 1 i ne s for s c hoo 1 commu n i t y advisory councils . Flint, Michigan: The Community Schools, 19 7 3Gallup, G. H. Ninth annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan , September 1977, 59 (1) , 33-^8. Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology . Cambridge, Mass.: AdditionWesley, 195^Gregg, G. A. An examination of the leader behavior of community education directors in the advisory council (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975). (University Microfilms No. 75-27, 778).

PAGE 129

119 Hal pin, A. W. The leadership of behavior of school superin tendents . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956. Halpin, A. W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of aircraft commanders. In R. M. Stodgill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement . Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957. Halpin, A. W. The leadership behavior of school superintendents Chicago: Midwest Administration Center University of Chicago, 1959. Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration . New York: Ma cm i 1 1 an~ 1 966 . Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. A factorial study of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stodgill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measu remen t . Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957. Hart, J. K. The discovery of intelligence . New York: The Century Co . , 1 32k . Hemphill, J. K. Leader behavior description . Columbus: Ohio State University, Personnel Research Board, 1950. Hemphill, J. K. Leadership behavior associated with the administrative reputation of college departments. The Journal of Educational Psychology , November 1955 , (TV, 38 5-^01 . Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measu rement . Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957. Hencley, S. P. Situational behavioral approach to leadership. In L. L. Cunningham & W. J. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership , the sci ence and the art today . 12th Annual Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Educational Research. Itasca, Illinois Peacock Publishers, 1973. Homans, G. C. The human group . New York: Ha r cou r t B r ace , 1950 Jacob, J. W. Leader behavior of the secondary school principal. National Association of Secondary School Principals, The Bulletin , 1965, f*S, 13-17. Jenkins, W. 0. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychology Bulletin , 19^7, hh, 5^-79. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, I 967 .

PAGE 130

120 Kliminski, G. C. A study of the skills of successful directors of community education in Michigan (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 197^). (University Microfilms No. 7^-2k, 648). Laws of Florida. Chapter 7 3 ~ 3 3 8 , Section 230.32, sub-section b. State of Florida, Department of Education, Tallahassee, 197 3Likert, R. The hyman organization . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967Mann, G. C. The development of public school adult education. Public School Adult Education . Washington, D. C.: National Association of Public School Adult Education, 1956. McGregor, D. Leadership and motivation . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966. Melby, E. D. Approaches to role change in community education. Phi Delta Kappan , November 1972, 5^ (3), 171-172. Minzey, Jack D., & LeTarte, C. Community education: From program to process . Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1972. Mitchell, B. M. Analysis of the perception of the role of the subordinate and s u pe ro rd i na te with respect to authority, responsibility and delegation in the community schools of Flint at the attendance center level (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973)(University Microfilms No. 73-29, 750). Moore, H. E. Organizational and administrative problems and practices. Phi Delta Kappan , November 1972, 5j4 (3 ), 168-170. Mott, H. C. S. The Flint community school concept as I see it. Journal of Educational Sociology , 1958, k_, 141-161. Murphy, A. J. A study of the leadership process. American Sociology Review , 19^1, 6_, 67^-687. Nance, E. E. The community education coordinator. C omm u n i t y Education Journal , November 1972, 2^ (5), 52-55. Olsen, E. G. School and community . New York: P ren t i ceHa 1 1 , Inc., 19^5. Owens, R. G. Organizational behavior in schools . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: P r e n t i c e Ha 1 1 , 1970. Saxe, Richard W. School community interaction . Publishing Corp., 1975. Berkley: McCutchan

PAGE 131

121 Schneider, J. The cultural situation as a condition for the achievement of fame. American Sociology Review , 1937, 2, k80-k$]. Seay, M. F. The community school emphasis in post war education. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), American education in the post war period, curriculum reconstruction . Forty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education , Part I. Chicago: The University o~f Ch i cago Press , 19^5. Seay, M. F., & Associates. Community education: A developing concept . Michigan: Pende 1 1 P u b 1 i s h i ng Co . , 19 7^. Sharpe, R. T. Differences between perceived administrative behavior and role norms as factors in leadership evaluation and group morale. Dissertation Abstracts , 1956, J_6_, 57Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology , 19^8, 25, 35-71. Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual behavior and group achievement . New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the leader behavior description qu e s t i o nna i r ef o rm XII, an experimental revision . Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, 1963. Stogdill, R. M. A review of research on leader behavior description questionnai re--form XII . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, College of Administrative Science, 1970 Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and resear ch! New York: The Free Press, 197^. Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior of United States senators. Journal of Psychology , 1963, 56, 3-8. Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., 6 Day, D. R. The leader behavior of presidents of labor unions. Personnel Psychology , 196A, 17, ^9-57. Stogdill, R. M., Goode, 0. S., £ Day, D. R. The leader behavior of university presidents. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Unpublished report, 1965. Totten, W. F., £ Manley, F. J. The community school basic con cepts, functions, and organization . Galien, Michigan: Allied Education Council, 1 969 .

PAGE 132

122 Walker, J. E. The relationship between the personality characteristics, personal factors, and effectiveness of community school directors (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1971). (University Microfilms No. 72it780) . Weaver, D. Strategies for training community education teacher Community Education Journal , May-June 1975, (3), 2 5 2 7 ; 29, 32.

PAGE 133

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Albert Linwood (Lin) Stefurak, son of Albert and Bernice Stefurak, was born in Cocoa Beach, Florida, January 22, 19^5. He graduated from Cocoa High School in 1963He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major in elementary education in December of 1968. He continued his graduate studies at the University of South Florida and received a Master of Arts degree in early childhood education in December of 1969During his graduate work, he was awarded a graduate a s s i s t a n t s h i p for gifted education as administrator of the gifred child enrichment program. He also served as president of Kappa Delta Pi honor society and participated in numerous educational seminars and committees. In September 1970, he began his teaching career in the Hillsborough County public school system. After two successful years of classroom teaching, he was promoted to an administrator in the community ed u c a t i o n a d u 1 t education program, serving as an assistant principal. He maintained that position until June of 197^. During that time, he was president of the Florida Association for the Gifted and a member of Phi Delta Kappa. He moved to Gainesville, Florida, in August of 197^ to begin his doctoral studies in educational administration and 1 23

PAGE 134

\2k supervision at the University of Florida. He maintained a graduate ass i s tan tsh i p in the Center for Community Education. After his internship experience with the president of the National Council for Resource Development of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, he served as the center's grant consultant, and in that capacity, he wrote five funded grants totaling over two hundred thousand dollars. Commencing in 1977, he was promoted to the position of Center Associate. He has held professional positions as president-elect of Phi Delta Kappa, consultant for resource development, member of the Education and Training Committee of the Voluntary Action Council, member of the National Council for Resource Development, and a member of the Florida Association of Community Ed uca t ion. Lin is married to the former Mary Lamont (Monty) Martin of Tampa, Florida. She is a reading specialist and a teacher trainer in the public school system. Currently, he is Assistant Officer for District Resource Development at Foo t h i 1 1 DeAn za Community College District in Los Altos Hills, California.

PAGE 135

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Phillip/A. Clark/ Chairman Associate Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. lames L. Wat tenbar^fer 'Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Arthur J~. Lewis Professor of Education Director, Curriculum and Instruction Division

PAGE 136

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Decembe r , 1977 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 137

\2k supervision at the University of Florida. He maintained a graduate ass i s tan tsh i p in the Center for Community Education. After his internship experience with the president of the National Council for Resource Development of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, he served as the center's grant consultant, and in that capacity, he wrote five funded grants totaling over two hundred thousand dollars. Commencing in 1977, he was promoted to the position of Center Associate. He has held professional positions as president-elect of Phi Delta Kappa, consultant for resource development, member of the Education and Training Committee of the Voluntary Action Council, member of the National Council for Resource Development, and a member of the Florida Association of Community Ed uca t ion. Lin is married to the former Mary Lamont (Monty) Martin of Tampa, Florida. She is a reading specialist and a teacher trainer in the public school system. Currently, he is Assistant Officer for District Resource Development at Foo t h i 1 1 DeAn za Community College District in Los Altos Hills, California.

PAGE 138

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Phillip/A. Clark/ Chairman Associate Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. lames L. Wat tenbar^fer 'Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Arthur J~. Lewis Professor of Education Director, Curriculum and Instruction Division

PAGE 139

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Decembe r , 1977 Dean, Graduate School


107
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasionally
D = Seldom
E = Never
8. The coordinator encourages overtime work A B C D E
9. The coordinator makes accurate decisions A B C D E
10. The coordinator gets along well with the people
above him/her A B C D E
11. The coordinator publicizes the activities
of the group A B C D E
12. The coordinator becomes anxious when he/she
cannot find out what is coming next A B C D E
13. The coordinator's arguments are convincing A B C D E
14. The coordinator encourages the use of
uniform procedures A B C D E
15. The coordinator permits the members to use their
own judgment in solving problems A B C D E
16. The coordinator fails to take necessary action A B C D E
17. The coordinator does little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of the group A B C D E
18. The coordinator stresses being ahead of competing
groups A B C D E
19. The coordinator keeps the group working
together as a team A B C D E
20. The coordinator keeps the group in good
standing with higher authority A B C D E
21. The coordinator speaks as the representative of
the group A B C D E
22. The coordinator accepts defeat in stride A B C D E
23. The coordinator argues persuasively for his/her
point of view A B C D E


58
followers. Table 8.1 reports the results of the responses
for the eighth construct when the coordinators are grouped
according to the personal data variable of sex. The results
indicate that the difference between the males and females
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 8. 1--CONS I DERAT ION
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Ma 1 e
9
44.95
. 24
0.634
Female
6
44.36
Table 8.2 reports
the
results of the responses
for the
eighth
construct when
the coordinators are
grouped by
the personal
data variable
o f
age .
The
r e s u 1 t s
indicate that the di
f f er-
ence between the
three
age
ce t eg o r i
es was not
significant at
the .05 level.
TABLE
8.2-
-CONS 1 DERAT 1 ON
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Age: 21-30
3
44.80
. 00
0.982
Age: 31-40
6
44.63
Age: 41-ove r
6
44.76
Table 8.3 reports
the
resu 1
ts of the responses
for the
eighth
construct when
the coordinators are
g rouped by
years ex
-
perience as a community education coordinator. The results
indicate that the difference between the three groups was not
significant at the .05 level


1.2 reports the results of the responses for the first con
struct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal data
variable of age.
TABLE 1 .0--LBDQ--XI I RESULTS
Category
Minimum
Score
Maximum
Score
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
Representation
32.00
47-00
44.15
4.24
Demand Reconciliation
37 00
48.00
43 00
3.14
Tolerance of Uncertainty
35-00
44.60
39.68
2 63
Persuasiveness
33.80
45.00
40.53
3.28
Initiation of Structure
34. 60
44 60
40.80
2 70
Tolerance of Freedom
36.00
45.40
41.45
2.60
Role Retention
32.00
47-80
4 1.92
4 70
Consideration
38.40
46.80
44.72
2.20
Production Emphasis
3 1.20
39.00
34 57
2.24
Predictive Accuracy
36.40
45.20
40.01
2 .42
Integration
36.00
48.00
42.49
3.66
Superior Orientation
35.00
43 80
39.84
2.74
n = 15
TABLE 1.1--
REPRESENTAT10M
Variable
Total
n X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Ma 1 e
9
42.29
1 7
0.211
F ema 1 e
6
39.43
The results indicate that the difference between the three age
categories was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.3
reports the results of the responses for the first construct
when the coordinators are grouped by years experience as a


3
v .
V i .
and the 12
d¡mens ions
previous professional experience
professional aspirations
leadership behavior categories based on the
of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--
XII?
The preceding questions were answered according to the
ratings received by the selected community education coor
dinators on the 12 leadership behavior constructs.
Construct 1: Representation
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators speak and act as the repre
sentative of the group based on the personal data variables,
i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators reconcile conflicting demands
and reduce disorder to the system based on the personal data
variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators are able to tolerate un
certainty and postponement without anxiety and upset based
on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years ex
perience, etc.?
Construct 4: Persuasiveness
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators use persuasion and


APPENDIX A
Dear
I am presently undertaking a study dealing with the
leader behaviors of community education coordinators. The
study would necessitate five members of your community ad
visory council completing a survey. The administrators of
the survey should take no longer than thirty minutes. In
addition, a personal data sheet concerning information such
as experience, training, and professional aspirations would
be completed by you.
If you are willing to participate in this study,
complete the enclosed form and return it to me. Upon
of the form, I will contact participants by telephone
cuss the research in depth.
please
receip t
to dis -
Thank you
for your careful consideration of
this matter.
Cordially,
A. L. Stefurak
AL/cr
enclosure


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the Department of Educational Administration and Super
vision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council,
and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Decembe r 197 7
Dean, Graduate School


82
TABLE 16.7--
ROLE
RETENT ION
Group
Mean Standard
Score Deviation
D F .
F
P rob .
Center Directors (ideal)
-1.55 .990
1 ,58
106.60
Coo rdina to rs
(actual )
.73 .458
The results i
indicate that
the
difference between
the two groups
was significant at the .01
level. This indicates
that
the
coordinators'
1 actual behavior
was perceived to be
more
frequent
than the center directors'
rat
ing of ideal behavi
o r .
Category 8:
Considerat ion
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Consideration and the degree to which the coordina
tors actually regard the comfort, well-being, status, and con
tribution of followers. Table 16.8 reports the results of the
analysis for the category of Consideration.
TABLE 16.8 --C 0 N SI DERATION
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
P ro b
Center Directors (ideal)
- 57
753
CO
LA
28.02
Coordinators (actual)
. 86
352
The results indicate that
the difference between
the two
groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the
coordinators' actual behavior was perceived to be more frequent
than the center directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category S: Production Emphasis
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the


71
Initiation of Structure was found to be significantly
different when coordinators were grouped according to ex
perience and training. Those coordinators with three to six
years experience exhibited behavior indicative of Initiation of
Structure more frequently than those with less than three years
and those with over six years. When the coordinators were
grouped by training, a significant difference was also found
between the groups. However, the more conservative Tukey pro
cedure revealed that none were more significant than the others.
Superior Orientation was found to be significantly dif
ferent when coordinators were grouped according to experience.
Those coordinators with more than six years experience were
less concerned with Initiation of Structure than those coor
dinators with three to six years experience. In addition, those
with three to six years experience were more concerned with
Initiation of Structure than those coordinators with less than
three years and those coordinators with more than six years.
In brief, the personal data variable of experience effected
significant differences in three categories while the personal
data variable of training effected only one category. The
additional personal data variable produced no significant
difference across any of the 12 leader behavior subscales.
The findings of the survey of national authorities and
the data from the L B DQ-- X I I will be presented in chapter IV.


105
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUEST IONNAIRE--FORM XII
Originated by staff members of
The Ohio State Leadership Studies
and revised by the
Bureau of Business Research
Purpose of the Questionnaire
On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the
behavior of the coordinator. Each item describes a specific kind of be
havior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable
or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express
differences that are important in the description of leadership. Each
item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test
of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make
it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior
of the selected coordinator.
Note: The term "coordinator" as employed in the following items, refers
to the individual who has full-time responsibility for community education
at the school center. The term "group," as employed in the following items,
refers to a unit of organization that is supervised by the person being
described. In some cases the "group" may represent only one or two in
di vidua1s.
The term "members," refers to all the people in the group that is super
vised by the person being described.
Please attempt to answer a 11 the questions.
Pub 1ished by
Bureau of Business Research
College of Commerce and Administration
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Copyright 1962


28
members would prefer the director use more behavior indicative
of both Initiating Structure and Consideration than those they
presently used. However, there was an even greater preference
for leader behavior indicative of Consideration than that of
Initiating Structure.
Walker (1971), using the LBDQ, found that in comparing
effectiveness and personal factors of community education coor
dinators, the effectiveness was independent of age, experience
as a coordinator, and grade level of teaching experience. Di
rectors with seven or more years of public school experience
were more effective in Initiating Structure than those with less
than seven years experience. However, he found no difference in
Consideration. Community education coordinators with master's
degrees were more effective in Initiating Structure and Considera
tion than those with bachelor's degrees.
According to Hencley (1973), studies based on a behavioral
approach support some basic generalizations about leaderships:
1. Educational leaders are perceived
to possess unique leader behavior
orientations.
2. Preferences and expectations for
leader behavior vary widely among
reference groups.
3. The leader's perceptions of his own
behavior differ from others' per
ceptions. (pp. 148-149)
Halpin (1966) contends that what the leader does and how
he does it as perceived by others who work with the leader is the
nucleus of leader behavior. Evaluation of leader behavior can
be made in terms of the individual, the group, or both.


CHAPTER I I
SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to review literature and
research relevant to the study of community education coor
dinators. The focus of this study is on the leadership be
havior of community education coordinators. This chapter con
tains two sections entitled: Leadership Theory and Community
Education History and Philosophy.
Leadership Theory
Leadership theories are reviewed in light of the leader
ship theme of this study. There are basically six categories
of leadership theories. In this specific research effort, the
"interaction-expectation" theories were chosen for the basis
of the study. Literature pertaining to the other five types
of leadership theories will only be briefly discussed.
Environmental Theories
Murphy (19^1) contended that leadership qualities were
not part of the individual, but a function of the situation.
The leader evaluates the situation and is the instrumental
factor through which the solution is achieved.
The cultural setting, according to Schneider (1937) is
the controlling factor in leadership. He found that great
2 0


9
council. Furthermore, within this mandate is the additional
requirement that such councils are to be "broadly representa
tive of the community served by the school" (Chapter 7 3 ~ 3 3 8 ;
Laws of Florida). The schoo1 -community advisory council should
provide the linkage between the community, its problems, and
potential solutions.
However, Deshler and Erlich (1972), speaking of the
community advisory council movement in general, stated that
"participation can very easily be phoney. Real lasting per
vasive power must reside in effective collaboration between
the community (including the students) and the school in all
decision making" (p. 175).
According to Moore (1972), "the essence of the community
education philosophy is that the program must serve and be
responsive to the entire community. . The insecure admin
istrator who depends upon status authority and a 'tight ship'
operation will be very uncomfortable with this approach"
( pp 169 170). Thus, the leadership provided by the community
education coordinator plays a vital role in the development of
the community education process. Considering the frequency of
interpersonal interactions with a variety of publics, specific
patterns of fcil ¡tat ¡ve leadership behaviors should be involved
in the role of community educator.
In general, this study should assist in the clarification
and understanding of the leader behavior of community education
coordinators as well as what variables might influence those be
haviors.


90
First, leader skills and behaviors may be very similar
between all community education coordinators. It is suggested
that the position of community school coordinator is perceived
as an entry level administrative position; thus, a certain
level of leader behavior must be observable before an individual
becomes a community education coordinator. It may also be con
tended that once the individual performs in the role, he or
she acquires character i stics which are common to all who function
in this role. This is not to suggest that all community educa
tion coordinators are alike, however, the findings of the
L B DQ-- X I I indicate that there are few distinguishable differences
in leader behavior among the community education coordinators.
Secondly, this study used the perception of school-
community advisory council members as the basis for evaluating
leader behavior. Since the council group structure affords
certain status and function to the role of community education
coordinator, there may be expectations on the part of council
members for the coordinator to exercise prominent leadership.
Both status and function are ascribed to the position and not
the individual; hence, the ratings of 1eaderbehavior may be
based on expectations for the position and not the actual be
havior of the individual in that position.
However, the study did reveal some significant difference
at the .05 level. When the coordinators were grouped by years
experience as a community education coordinator, the coordina
tors were perceived to exhibit differing degrees of leader


DIRECTIONS:
1 06
a. READ each item carefully-
b. THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior
described by the item.
c. DECIDE whether he/she (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally,
(D) seldom or (E) never, acts as described by the item.
d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A B C D E) following
the item to show the answer you have selected.
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasiona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
e. MARK your answers as shown in the examples below.
Example: The coordinator often acts as described A B C D E
Example: The coordinator never acts as described A B C D E
Example: The coordinator occasionally acts
as described A B C D E
1. The coordinator acts as the spokesman of the group A B C D E
2. The coordinator waits patiently for the results
of a decision A B C D E
3. The coordinator makes pep talks to stimulate the group A B C D E
k. The coordinator lets group members know what
is expected of them A B C D E
5. The coordinator allows the members complete
freedom in their work A B C D E
6. The coordinator is hesitant about taking initiative
in the group A B C D E
7. The coordinator is friendly and approachable A B C D E


111
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occas¡ona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
74. The coordinator schedules the work to be done A B C D E
75. The coordinator allows the group a high
degree of initiative A B C D E
76. The coordinator takes full charge when
emergencies arise A B C D E
77- The coordinator is willing to make changes A B C D E
78. The coordinator drives hard when there is
a job to be done A B C D E
79. The coordinator helps group members settle
their differences A B C D E
80. The coordinator gets what he/she asks for from
his/her superiors A B C D E
81. The coordinator can reduce a madhouse to
system and order A B C D E
82. The coordinator is able to delay action until
the proper time occurs A B C D E
83. The coordinator persuades others that his/her
ideas are to their advantage A B C D E
84. The coordinator maintains definite standards
of performance A B C D E
85. The coordinator trusts the members to exercise
good judgment A B C D E
86. The coordinator overcomes attempts made to
challenge his/her leadership A B C D E
87. The coordinator refuses to explain his/her actions A B C D E
88. The coordinator urges the group to beat
its previous record A B C D E


26
Many other individuals have hypothesized similar dimen
sions. In an attempt to summarize evidence to substantiate
these dimensions, Bass (I960) cited more than 20 studies which
had been conducted in organizational environments (pp. 101-105).
Halpin and Croft (Stogdill, 197*0 were not satisfied that
leader behavior could be adequately described with two factors.
They developed a four factor scale: Aloofness, Production
Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration (p. 142).
Agreeing with Halpin and Croft (1962) that two factors
were not sufficient to describe the complexities of leader be
havior, Stogdill (1959) developed a new theoretical framework
known as the expectancy-reinforcement theory of role attainment.
According to Stogdill, as group members interact, their roles are
defined by mutually confirmed expectations relative to the per
formances and interactions. As each individual interacts, he is
judged by the contributions he makes to the group. The initiation
and maintenance of structure defines the level of interaction
and expectation. In the predistinguished leadership positions,
the leader is expected to play a role that differs from the roles
of other group members.
This expectancy reinforcement model is applicable to the
study of community education coordinators. Stogdill 's research
has yielded several leadership surveys. One form, the Leader
Behavior Description Questi onna ire--Form XII will be used in
this study. The leader behavior approach has been used previously
in a variety of manners for the study of school administrators and
community education coordinators.


19
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII,
developed by Ralph Stogdill was the instrument used to assess
community council members perceptions of the coordinators'
leader behavior. A personal data sheet was developed to obtain
from the selected coordinators the information used for analysis.
The Leader Behavior Profile, an abridgement of the
L B D Q-- X I I was used to collect data from the Center Directors
concerning "ideal" leader behavior. These data were used to
compare the "ideal" behaviors with the "actual" behaviors of
the coord ina tors.
The data for each of the 12 constructs for the LB DQ-- X I I
were grouped by personal data variables and analyzed using a
one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD procedures using the
.05 level of significance. Data for comparison of the Center
Directors' "ideal" with the coordinators' "actual" were analyzed
using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple linear re
gression procedure. The .01 level of significance was used for
this analysis.
Chapter II contains a review of related literature and
relative studies pertaining to the leadership in community
education.


54
Table 6.2 reports the results of the responses for the sixth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the
.05 level.
TABLE 6.2--T0LERANCE OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r 0 b .
Age:
2 1-30
3
43 06
70
0.519
Age :
31-40
6
40.93
Ag e :
4 1 -over
6
41.16
Table
6.3 reports the results
of the
responses
for the s
i x t h
construct when the coordinators are
grouped by
years ex-
perience as
a community education coordinator.
The results
indicate that the difference
between
the three
groups was not
s i g n i
fica n t
at the .05 level.
TABLE 6.3--T0LERANCE
OF FREEDOM
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
E x p e r
ience:
than 3
less
years
3
41.24
1 .9
0.177
Expe r
i ence:
3-6 years
6
42.32
Expe r
ience:
over 6 years
6
38.50
Table
6.4 reports the results
of the
res ponses
for the s
i xth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the type of
community education training. The results indicate that the
difference between the three groups was not significant at the
.05 level.


61
that the difference between the three groups was not significant
at the .05 1 eve 1 .
TABLE 9
3-
-PRODUCT 1 ON
EMPHAS1S
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Experience
than
: less
3 years
3
34.20
.09
0.901
Experience
3-6 years
6
34.72
Experience
: over 6 years
6
34.90
Table 9-4
repor ts the
r e s u 1 t s
of the
responses
for the
ninth
construct
when the coordi
nators are
grouped by
type of
com-
munity education train
i ng
. The resu
Its indicate that the
difference
between the
three
groups
was not significant
a t
the .05 1 eve 1 .
TABLE 9
.4-
-PRODUCTION
EMPHAS1S
Variable
"r 0 t a 1 n
X
F
Ratio
F
Prob .
Training:
academic
3
35.66
.81
0 .470
Tra in i ng :
in-service
6
34.86
Training:
on-the-job
6
33.73
Table 9-5
reports the
resu1ts
of the
responses
for the
ninth
construct when the coordinators are grouped according to the
type of previous experience they have had. The results in
dicate that the difference between the three experience
categories was not significant at the .05 level.
Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree 1c which community education


86
a significant difference between ideal behavior and
behavior in 10 of the 12 categories.
In Chapter V, the discussion, conclusions, and
ations concerning the findings reported in chapters
will be set forth.
actual
recommend-
III and IV


4 9
Table 4.2 reports the results of the responses to the fourth
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the .05
level.
TABLE 4 2--PERSUASIVENE5S
F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P rob .
Age: 21-30 3 41.53 -31 0.742
Age: 31-40 6 40.83
Age: 41.and over 6 39-73
Table 4.3 reports the results of the fourth construct when the
coordinators are grouped by years experience as a community
education coordinator. Those coordinators with over six years
experience were perceived to use persuasion and argument sig
nificantly less, than those coordinators with less than three
years experience and those coordinators with three to six years
experience. Using the Tukey-HSD procedure, those coordinators
with less than three years experience and those coordinators with
three to six years experience did not differ significantly.
TABLE 4.3--PERSUAS1VENESS
_ F F
Variable Total n X Ratio P ro b .
Experience: less
than 3 years 5 40.40 11.7 0.002
Experience: 36 years 8 42.18
Experience: over 6 years 2 34.30*
* Group 3 differed significantly from groups 1 and 2


LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 1 0. 1--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 62
TABLE 10.2 PREDI CTIVE ACCURACY 62
TABLE 1 0 3--PRED I CT I VE ACCURACY 63
TABLE 10.4 PREDICTIVE ACCURACY 63
TABLE 10.5 PREDI CTIVE ACCURACY 64
TABLE 1 1 1 -- I N T E G RAT I ON 64
TABLE 1 1 2--I NTEGRAT I ON 65
TABLE 1 1 3--! NTEGRAT I ON 65
TABLE 1 1 4--I NTEGRAT I ON 65
TABLE 1 1 5--I NTEGRAT I ON 66
TABLE 1 2 1--SUPER I OR OR I E N T A T I ON 67
TABLE 1 2.2--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 67
TABLE 1 2 3--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 68
TABLE 1 2 4--SUPER I OR ORIENTATION 68
TABLE 1 2. 5 SUPERI OR ORIENTATION 69
TABLE 1 3 0--C0RRELAT ION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES 70
TABLE 14. 1 LEADER BEHAVIOR PROFILE RESULTS (IDEAL) 74
TABLE 14.2--LBD0.--XI I RESULTS (ACTUAL) 75
TABLE 151--Z-SCORE CONVERSIONS CENTER DIRECTORS (IDEAL) 76
TABLE 15.2--Z-SC0RE CONVERSI 0NS--C00RDINATORS (ACTUAL) 77
TABLE i6.0--ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "IDEAL" "ACTUAL" 78
TABLE 1 6. 1 --REPRESENTATI ON 78
TABLE 1 6. 2--DEMAND RECONCILIATION 79
TABLE I ( 3--T0' FRANCE OF UNCERTAINTY 79


10.
Activity and learning go hand in
hand. People learn by doing. Hence,
the program of learning for children
and adults alike Is related to life
as it goes on outside the classroom.
(pp. 16-17)
Hart (1924), a contemporary of Dewey, also stressed
the idea that education could not be produced by school alone.
It had to be a joint effort of the schools and the community.
Everett (1938), Clapp (1939), Cook (1941), and Olsen
(1945) were significant contributors to the community school
movement. Their writings promoted the concept of the essential
nature of linking education with the community.
Seay (Henry, 1945), writing for the National Society for the
Study of Education, described the community school thusly:
'Community school1 is the term currently
applied to a school that has two dis
tinctive phases--service to the entire
community . and discovery, develop
ment and use of resources of the com
munity as part of the educational
facilities of the school. The concern
of the community school with local
community is intended not to restrict
the school's attention to local matters,
but to provide a focus from which to
relate study and action in the larger
community--the state, the region, the
nation and the world. (p. 209)
Many educational leaders during the 1 9 3 0 s and 19 4 0 1 s
felt keenly the need to redesign the public education program
to meet the needs of local communities. However, despite the
abundance of writing, few districts chose to adopt the com
munity school concept.
In 1935, the Flint, Michigan schools initiated a community
school program. With financial support from the Charles Stewart


1 1 2
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occas¡ona11y
D = Seldom
E = Never
89. The coordinator anticipates problems and
plans for them A B C D E
90. The coordinator is working his/her way to the top A B C D E
91. The coordinator gets confused when too many
demands are made of him/her A B C D E
92. The coordinator worries about the outcome
of any new procedure A B C D E
93. The coordinator can inspire enthusiasm for
a project A B C D E
94. The coordinator asks that group members follow
standard rules and regulations A B C D E
95- The coordinator permits the group to set its own pace ~-A B C D E
96. The coordinator is easily recognized as
the leader of the group A B C D E
97. The coordinator acts without consulting the group A B C D E
98. The coordinator keeps the group working up to capacity A B C D E
99- The coordinator maintains a closely knit group A B C D E
100. The coordinator maintains cordial relations
with superiors A B C D E


37
(4) Develop technical skills appropriate
to community education leadership
(5) Develop human skills appropriate to
community education leadership
(6) Develop conceptual skills appropriate
to community education leadership.
(p 26)
Minzey and LeTarte (1972) established similar criteria
for community education training. They indicated that the
training needs fall under four general headings: (a) under
standing community education philosophy; (b) technical skills
for implementing community education; (c) humanitarian concerns;
and (d) general administrative skills (pp. 17 6 17 8) .
Kliminski (197^) used a superordinate rating for evalu
ating the technical, conceptual, and human skills of 40 selected
community education coordinators. In this study it was found
that coordinators chosen as successful had a significantly
V
larger number of semester hours of course work in community
education, had worked with community education a significantly
longer period of time, and had significantly more intensified
training in community education than had other coordinators.
Summary
The review of selected related literature indicated that
leadership can be interpreted through the measurement of leader
behavior. Little research has been done concerning the leader
behavior of community education coordinators.
Community education is a growing movement in the field
of education. The underlying basis to its philosophy is the


98
to the six identified personal variables and thus, those
variables are not good predictors of behavior or performance.
The use of these variables as selection criteria of individuals
to fill community education leadership positions is marginal
at best. In addition, these variables should have little
significance as criteria for selecting individuals to be
trained in community education.
Secondly, there is a significant difference in community
education leadership theory and community education leader
ship practice. This fact has implications not only for the
training institutions, but also for the State Department of
Education which has responsibility to establish guidelines for
the implementation of the Community School Act. The difference
in theory and practice may directly reflect a lack of adequate
training on the part of those individuals who hold these posi
tions, as well as a lack of sensitivity to the need for
specialized training to function in a facilitative manner.
Recommendations For Future Study
The following recommendations are offered in an effort
to foster the development and growth of community education
in Florida as well as to promote the furtherance of knowledge.
1. Studies of community education leadership should
be conducted to provide additional data for a
more conclusive leadership profile.
2. Additional factors which influence leader behavior
should be researched. These might include


25
they categorized as goal attainment activities and work-group
maintenance activities. These behaviors strongly paralleled
those found in the writings of Barnard.
Similarly, Kahn and Katz (Cartwright and Zander, 1953)
delineated two major behaviorial styles among supervisors.
They noted that some supervisors were production-oriented and
tended to stress efficiency, production, and goal attainment;
while others were employee-oriented and stressed motivation,
morale, and employee satisfaction.
Initially, two major dimensions of leader behavior were
identified by researchers at Ohio State University. Hemphill
( 1950) and his associates at Ohio State developed a list of
approximately 1800 items describing different aspects of leader
behavior. Through a process of sorting into sub-scales, 150
items were found to be consensus assignments. These were used
to develop the list form of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ).
Halpin and Winer (1957) delineated two basic dimensions to
leader behavi or--initi ating structure and considerati on--fo1 1 ow
ing the work of Hemphill (1950). There is nothing unique about
these two dimensions of leader behavior. The ideas embodied in
the concepts of initiating structure and consideration may have
been used by effective leaders for a long time in guiding their
behavior with group members, "while the concepts themselves, with
different labels perhaps, have been invoked frequently by philos
ophers and social scientists to explain the leadership phenomena"
(Halpin, 1966, p. 87).


Hal pin, A. W. The leadership of behavior of school superin
tendents Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956.
Halpin, A. W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of air
craft commanders. In R. M. Stodgill & A. E. Coons (Eds.),
Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957.
Halpin, A. W.
Chicago:
Chicago,
The leadership behavior of school superintendents
Midwest Administration Center University of
1959.
Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration. New York:
Macm i 1 1 an 1966.
Ha 1 p
n, A. W., & Winer, B. J. A factorial
behavior description questionnaire.
A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior:
measurement. Columbus: Ohio State
study of the leader
In R. M. Stodgill &
Its description and
University, 1957
Hart, J. K. The discovery of intelligence. New York: The
Cen t u ry Co. 192 4.
Hemphill, J. K. Leader behavior description. Columbus: Ohio
State University, Personnel Research Board, 1950.
Hemphill, J. K. Leadership behavior associated with the admin
istrative reputation of college departments. The Journal
of Educational Psychology, November 1955 4_6 ( 7 ) 3 8 5 4 0 1
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. Development of the leader be
havior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill &
A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and
measu rement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research, 1957.
Hencley, S. P. Situational behavioral approach to leadership.
In L. L. Cunningham 6 W. J. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership,
the science and the art today. 12th Annual Phi Delta
Kappa Symposium on Educational Research. Itasca, Illinois
Peacock Publishers, 1973.
Homans, G. C. The human g roup New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1950
Jacob, J. W. Leader behavior of the secondary school principal.
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
The Bulletin, 1965, 49, 13-17.
Jenkins, W. 0. A review of leadership studies with particular
reference to military problems. Psychology Bulletin,
1947, 44, 54-79.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967.


1 8
based upon the ratings of the participant coordinators made
by the. advisory council members
The data received from the Leader Behavior Profile were
analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with a simple
linear regression procedure. Effect coding was used on the
raw data to compensate for the unequal number in each group.
Raw scores from the L B DQ-- X I I and the Leader Behavior Profile
were changed to z-scores to conform to the assumptions of homo
geneity of variance and to standardize the mean scores for the
two sets of data. A simple linear regression procedure was
used in computing the F-test and thus provided for orthogonal
comparisons between the "ideal" behavior as determined by the
Center Directors and the "actual" behavior as reported by the
advisory council members. The .01 level of significance was
used.
The services of the University of Florida Computer Center
were employed to analyze the data. Computer analysis were run
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
S umma ry
The sample population for this study was composed of 20
community school coordinators from Florida who were randomly
selected. Each of the coordinators identified five school-
community advisory council members to participate in the study
In addition, all the directors of university Centers for Com
munity Education were surveyed.


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Phillip/A. Clark^ Chairman
Associate Professor of
Educational Administration
and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
fames L. Wattenbar^
'Professor of Educational
Administration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy .
L UWl
Ar thur J. Lewis
Professor of 'Education
Director, Curriculum and
Instruction Division


4 3
type of previous experience they have had. The results indi
cate that the difference between the three experience categories
was not significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 1 .5--REPRESENTATI ON
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P r o b .
Previous experience:
elementary
3
40.20
0.4
0.628
Previous experience:
secondary
8
40.57
Previous experience:
other
4
43.00
The sixth variable of professional aspiration was not
analyzed for any of the constructs. Thirteen of the coordin
ators had professional aspirations of becoming public school
principals. Three of the coordinators each listed three
different professional aspirations: a certified public account
ant; a college professor; a trainer of community education
coordinators. Because of the break down of the grouping, a
statistical comparison was not considered.
Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to
to the system. Table 2.1 reports the results of the responses
for the first construct when the coordinators are grouped
according to the personal data variable sex. The results


Definition Of Terms
Community education. An operational philosophy of
education, when actualized serves the entire community by
providing for all the educational needs of the community
members. It provides the educational establishment a systemati
methodology for bringing total community resources to bear on
community problems in an effort to enhance community develop
ment.
Community education coordinator. That individual charged
with the responsibility of developing and administering com
munity education within the school center.
Leader. An individual who, based on his office or
official status in a group o organization, ¡ s placed in the
position of being able to influence the activities of that
group or organization as it attempts to achieve its goals. In
this study, the leader is identified as the community education
coo rdina to r.
Leader behavior. Those behaviors exhibited by an indi
vidual while he engages in influencing group or organizational
activities.
Schoo1 -community advisory council. "A representative
group of schoo1 -community members who hold common the common
goal of community development through the identification of
problems and the application of solutions" (Flint Community
Schools, 1973, p. 1). An active council works to address com
munity needs as determined by joint effort of the council and
the community education coordinator.


1 2 4
supervision at the University of Florida. He maintained a
graduate assistantship in the Center for Community Education.
After his internship experience with the president of the
National Council for Resource Development of the American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges, he served as the
center's grant consultant, and in that capacity, he wrote five
funded grants totaling over two hundred thousand dollars.
Commencing in 1977, he was promoted to the position of Center
Associate.
He has held professional positions as president-elect of
Phi Delta Kappa, consultant for resource development, member
of the Education and Training Committee of the Voluntary Action
Council, member of the National Council for Resource Develop
ment, and a member of the Florida Association of Community
Ed uca tion.
Lin is married to the former Mary Lamont (Monty) Martin
of Tampa, Florida. She is a reading specialist and a teacher
trainer in the public school system.
Currently, he is Assistant Officer for District Resource
Development at Footh i 1 1 -DeAnza Community College District in
Los Altos Hills, California.


91
behavior in three categories: Persuasiveness, Initiation of
Structure and Superior Orientation.
In the category of Persuasiveness, the coordinators with
over six years experience were perceived to use persuasion and
argument effectively less often than those coordinators with
less than three years experience and those coordinators with
three to six years experience. The ability to exhibit strong
convictions and use persuasion and argument effectively can be
directly related to enthusiasm for one's work. Those coordina
tors with over six years experience all had professional aspira
tions of becoming school principals, yet had failed to progress
from their present position. Lack of enthusiasm and conviction
can decrease as the ability to advance professionally is
thwa r ted .
Initiation of Structure was also significantly different
when the coordinators were grouped by years experience. Those
coordinators with three to six years experience in community
education were perceived to exhibit behavior which more clearly
defined their role and allowed followers to know what is ex
pected of them than those coordinators with less than three
years experience and those with more than six years experience.
Knowledge of a role and the expectant behavior associated with
that role develops as a result of expectancy and reinforcement.
Those coordinators with less than three years may still be
developing clarity of role definition and have not yet become
facile in communicating to others their expectations. Con
versely, those coordinators with more than six years experience


5
Construct 9: Production Emphasis
is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators apply pressure for pro
ductive output based on the personal data variables, i.e.,
sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators exhibit foresight and ability
to predict outcomes accurately based on the personal data
variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 11: Integration
Is there ? difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators maintain a closely-knit
organization and resolve intermember conflict based on the
personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience,
etc.?
Construct 12: Superior Orientation
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators maintain cordial relations
with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving
for higher status based upon the personal data variable., i.e.,
sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Delimitations And Limitations
The following restrictions were observed in conducting
the study:


REFERENCES
Anderson, V., £ Davies, D. R. Patterns of educational leader
ship, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1956.
Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization.
New YorlTi W i ley, 1 96A .
Barnard, C. I. The functions of the executive. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1938.
Barnard, H. Report on the condition and improvement of the
public schools of Rhode Island. In J. S. Brubacher (Ed.),
Henry Barnard on education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931.
Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior.
New YorlTi Harper and Brothers I960.
Bennis, W. G. Changing organization. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1 966.
Bernard, L, L. An introduction to social psychology. New York:
Holt, 1926.
Berridge, R. I. Its evolvement. In H. W. Hickey, C. VanVoorhees
£ Associates (Eds.), The role of the school in community
education. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co.,
1 9 W.
Berridge, R. I. The community education handbook. Midland,
Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1973.
Bird, C. Social psychology. New York: App1eton-Century, 19^0.
Brown, A. F. Reactions to leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 1967, 3, 62-73.
Campbell, C. M. Community schools: Their administration. In
H. W, Hickey, C. VanVoorhees £ Associates (Eds.), The
role of the school in community education. Midland,
Michigan: Pende 1 1 Pu b1 i s h i ng Co. 1969.
Cartwright, D., £ Zander, A. Group dynamics: Research and
theory. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson £ Co., 1953-
Case, C. M. Leadership and conjuncture. Sociology and Social
Research, 1933, 17, 510-513.-


4
argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions based on
personal data variables, i.e.. sex, age, years experience,
etc.?
Construct 5: Initiation of Structure
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators clearly define their own
role and allow followers to know what is expected of them,
based on the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years
experience, etc.?
Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators allow followers scope for
initiative, decision and action, based on the personal data
variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc.?
Construct 7: Role Retention
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators actively exercise the leader
ship role rather than surrender leadership to others based on
the personal data variables, i.e., sex, age, years experience
etc.?
Construct 8: Consideration
Is there a difference in the perceived degree to which
community education coordinators regard the comfort, well
being, status and contribution of followers based upon the
personal data variable, i.e., sex, age, years experience, etc


TABLE 10.5 PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
64
Variable
Total n
X
F
Ratio
F
P rob .
Previous experience:
e1 ementa ry
3
O
CO
-3"
2 1
0.154
Previous experience:
secondary
8
38.92
Previous experience:
other
4
40.85
Construct 11: Integration
There was no significant difference at the .05 level in
the ratings as reported by the advisory council members, be
tween the perceived degree to which community education coor
dinators maintain a closely knit organization and resolve
intermember conflict. Table 11.1 reports the results of the
responses for the eleventh construct when the coordinators are
grouped by the personal data variable of sex. The results
indicate that the difference between males and females was not
significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 1 1 1--INTEGRAT1 ON
Variable
To t a 1 n
X
F
Ratio
F
P ro b .
Male
9
43.13
.67
0.432
Female
6
41 .53
Table 11.2 reports the results of the responses for the eleventh
construct when the coordinators are grouped by the personal
data variable of age. The results indicate that the difference
between the three age categories was not significant at the .05
level .


83
category of Production Emphasis and the degree to which the
coordinators actually apply pressure for productive output.
Table 16.9 reports the results of the analysis for the category
of Production Emphasis.
TABLE 16.9--PR0DUCTI ON EMPHASIS
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
Prob
Center Directors (ideal)
-2.2k
1 02
1 ,58
kO.kl
Coordinators (actual)
- .86
352
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the coor
dinators' actual behavior was more frequent than the center
directors' rating of the ideal behavior.
Category 10: Predictive Accuracy
There was a significant difference at the .01 level in the
degree of importance the center directors identified with the
category of Predictive Accuracy and the degree to which the
coordinators actually exhibit foresight and ability to predict
outcomes accurately. Table 16.10 reports the results of the
analysis for the category of Predictive Accuracy.
TABLE 16.10--PREDICTIVE ACCURACY
Group
Mean
Score
Standard
Deviation
D F .
F
Prob
Center Directors (ideal)
-.35
1 2k
CO
LA
k0.k2
Coordinators (actual)
1 60
. 507
The results indicate that the difference between the two groups
was significant at the .01 level. This indicates that the


101
12. Studies should be conducted to determine if
coordinators who exhibit leader behavior
which is indicative of the ideal, as suggested
by the national authorities, are more effective
i n
performing their role.


95
difference the category of Role Retention. Coordinators are
actually actively exercising the leadership role rather than
surrendering leadership to others much more often than the
ideal situation would demand.
Secondly, there seems to be a discrepancy between com
munity education philosophy and community member preference.
One of the key components of community education philosophy is
the systematic involvement of community members in the educa
tional process. This involvement in decision making lies at
the cornerstone of the movement. On the other hand, the most
recent Gallup Educational Poll (1977) reports that the majority
of the people want the educational decision making to remain
with elected officials. This attitude could increase the ex
pectancy-reinforcement factor which would ascribe status to the
position of coordinator as a representative of the administra
tion and school board. Thus, the citizens expect the coordina
tor to exercise prominent leadership and the coordinator
responds by doing so.
Finally, these mea surab1e differences might be a result of
the lack of professional training. Of the coordinators partici
pating in this study, only three have had full-time academic
training. If there is to be consistency between theory and
practice, coordinators should have more in-depth training. Those
human, technical and conceptual skills upon which community ed
ucation functions are unique and may not be easily acquired on
the job. Individuals who are to exercise low profile leader
ship must possess specialized process skills which are not


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ¡ ¡
LIST Or TABLES ¡ v
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION
Statement Of The Problem
Del 'mitations And Limitations
Justification For The Study
Defrnition Of Tern
Procedures
Summa ry
I SELFCTED PFVIEW 0^ RELATED LITERATURE
Leadership Theory
Community Education History and Philosophy
Summa ry
III FINDINGS n<- THE L B D ~ X I I
Summary Of The L B DO-- X I I Results
Summary
IV FINDINGS 0F THE LF./'DER BEHAVIOR PROFILE
Summary Of Leader Behavior Profile Results
S UfT"' T ry
v DISCUSSION, CONCL "-IONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDAT!ONS
Discussion
Co^cl usions
Recrmmenda V ions F Future Study
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
v i i i
1
2
5
6
1 0
1 1
18
20
20
29
37
39
AO
69
72
73
85
87
87
96
98
1 02
1 1 3
1 1 A
1 1 7
1 23
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


APPENDIX B
Personal Data
1.
1 am
ma 1
e f ema1e
2.
1 ami
n the
age group:
21-30; 31-40;
41 and
over.
3.
1 have
been
in community
education: less
than 3
years,
3 to 6 years, over 6 years.
4. I received my community education training through:
participation in an academic community
education training program
participation in a two-week workshop
participation in in-service workshops
participation in a full year internship
supervised field experience
on the job training with little academic training
o the r__
5. Prior to entering community education work, my experience
was in:
elementary schools
secondary schools
o ther (please list)
6. The next professional position to which I aspire is: