Citation
An analysis of the perceptions of the leadership behavior of male and female University of Florida administrators

Material Information

Title:
An analysis of the perceptions of the leadership behavior of male and female University of Florida administrators
Creator:
Keener, Barbara Jean
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 118 leaves : ; 28cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Administrator education ( jstor )
Educational administration ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Employment discrimination ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Sex linked differences ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
University administration ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Womens studies ( jstor )
College administrators -- Florida -- Gainesville ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Leadership ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 107-117.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Barbara Jean Keener.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
025272319 ( ALEPH )
02756747 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATORS










by

Barbara Jean Keener


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


1976













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation to the many persons who assisted in making this study a reality.

Members of the Supervisory Committee, Dr. James L.

Wattenbarger and Dr. Arthur Sandeen, Co-Chairmen, Dr. Dorothy Neville and Dr. Harold Riker, should be recognized for their constant scholarly criticism and support. Dr. John Nickens is thanked for his assistance with the statistical computation. A very special appreciation goes to Dr. Wattenbarger for his continual inspiration and guidance throughout the doctoral program.

Thanks is also extended to the administrators and their associates who so willingly participated in the research.

Encouragement and advice came from many others, too numerous to list here. The writer is indebted to each individual who played a role in her completion of the doctoral degree.














TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................. ii

ABSTRACT ......... ........................ v

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ......... .................. 1
Statement of the Problem ...... ........... 2
Delimitations ......... .................. 6
Justification for the Study ..... ........... 7
Definition of Terms ........ .............. 8
Prodcedures .......... ................... 8
Summary ....... ..................... . 17

II SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... ... 19
Leadership Behavior ..... ............... .. 19
Females in Elementary and Secondary
Education Administration ... .......... . 25
Females in Higher Education Administration . . . 29 Summary ....... ..................... . 37

III A DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE SAMPLE POPULATION ... ............. ... 39
The University of Florida ... ............ . 39
Administrators' Professional
Career Interviews ..... ............... . 41
Summary ....... ..................... . 43

IV FINDINGS ....... ................... ...44
Summary of the L.B.D.Q.--XII Findings ........ .. 45

V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........ ................ 75
Discussion ...... ................... . 75
Conclusions ...... ................... . 85
Recommendations ..... ................. . 87


iii










TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


Page


APPENDICES

A AN INTRODUCTION: THE LEADER BEHAVIOR
DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE--FORM XlI ....... ..88

B ADMINISTRATOR'S PROFESSIONAL CAREER
INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... ................ 98

C LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION .... ............. .100


REFERENCES .......... ........................ .101

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....... ................... .112














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 THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP
BEHAVIOR OF MALE AND FEMALE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATORS by

Barbara Jean Keener

March, 1976


Chairperson: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger Co-Chairperson: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen Major Department: Educational Administration


The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences existed in reported perceptions of leadership behavior between University of Florida male and female administrators. The sample population participating was: male and female administrators, their immediate superordinates, and a sample of their subordinates. The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII and a Professional Career Interview Guide were used as research tools.

Twelve constructs were developed in accordance with the dimensions of the L.B.D.Q.--XII. The constructs were tested at the .05 level of significance. Each construct was tested in four areas; subordinate responses, superordinate responses,









administrator responses, and comparisons between groups. Interview information was examined in three areas: career orientation, career development and career aspirations. Comparisons of male and female responses were made.

The study found, through the examination of each constru-t, that there was little difference in the leadership behavior of male and female administrators at the University of Florida. Based on this research, there appears little justification to conclude that female administrators behave differently as leaders than males.

The professional career interviews did reveal some

differences between male and female administrators in the areas of career orientation, career development and career aspirations.













CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


A number of people have pointed out that there are few

women in higher education leadership positions. For example, Oltman (1970) wrote, "The actual participation of women in administrative policy-making in higher education is conspicuously lacking." The Carnegie Commission (1973) reported, "If women are thinly represented on faculties, especially in traditionally male fields, they are so rarely represented in top academic administrative positions as to be practically nonexistent in the upper echelons."

There are many reasons for such a dearth; but an investigation of all these reasons was not the pursuit of this endeavor. Instead, the major concern in this study was to examine the leadership performance of men and women university administrators. At the heart of the matter is the question of sex qualification. In other words, are men more qualified to fill these leadership positions than women? Are there restrictions which are placed on women that denigrate their leadership potential? Research on women's administrative behavior (as compared to men's administrative behavior) is limited and this study assumes that more should be carried out.










Such an investigation will not reveal however, all the

explanations as to why there are so few women in policy-making positions. This study came to grips, on the other hand, with the issue of women's performance as university administrators. The concern herein was to isolate the sex of the administrator as a factor in leadership qualities.

Since societal stereotypes and expectations rarely "assign" women to decision-making or leadership roles, there appears to be a need to know more about the women who are in these positions. There is a need to discover how they got there and how well they perform. There is a need to determine whether or not there is any perceived difference based solely on sex.


Statement of the Problem

This study was designed to compare the leadership behavior of male and female university administrators in order to determine to what extent, if any, they behave differently as leaders. The study revolved around the following question:

In what ways do male and female administrators perform their leadership functions differently?

Precisely, the purpose was to examine the relationship between the leader behavior of men and of women as perceived by the following role categories:

1. The leader behavior descriptions of male and of female university administrators as perceived by their respective, immediate superordinates.

2. The leader behavior descriptions of male and of female university administrators as perceived by their respective subordinates.








3

3. The leader behavior descriptions of male and of

female university administrators as perceived by themselves.

From these data, the investigation sought answers to the following questions:

1. Is there a difference in the way superordinates

perceive male and female university administrator's leadership behavior?

2. Is there a difference in the way subordinates

perceive male and female university administrator's leadership behavior?

3. Is there a difference in the way male and female university administrators perceive their own behavior?

The following questions were answered according to the

rating received by the male and female administrators on twelve leadership behavior constructs. These constructs are based on the twelve leadership behavior dimensions of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire--XII. Construct 1: Representation

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

which male and female university administrators speak and act as the representative of the group as reported by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

which male and female university administrators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system as reported










by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?

Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset as reported by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 4: Persuasiveness

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

which male and female university administrators use persuasion and argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions as reported by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?

Construct 5: Initiation of Structure

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

which male and female university administrators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 7: Role Assumption

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to







5

which male and female university administrators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others as reported by the group, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 8: Consideration

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of followers as reported by the group, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?

Construct 9: Production Emphasis

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

which male and female university administrators apply pressure for productive output as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

which male and female university administrators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?

Construct 11: Integration

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember conflict as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?









Construct 12: Superior Orientation

Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?

Each construct was examined using Fisher's exact test and chi square at the .05 level of significance. In addition to the data collected for examining differences between male and female administrators for each of the stated constructs, a professional career interview was conducted with each administrator. The interviews were conducted in order to provide greater depth regarding individual perceptions and careers.


Delimitations

The following restrictions were observed in conducting the study:

1. The study of leadership qualities was limited to

individuals who were currently employed at the University of Florida in 1975.

2. The data collection was limited to responses to the leadership questionnaire and the responses to the personal interviews.

3. The scope of the study was confined to measurable leadership qualities as defined in the L.B.D.Q.--XII and personal observations concerning professional career patterns.

4. The sex of the superordinates and subordinates was not considered as a factor in this study.









5. The researcher conducting the personal interviews with the male and female administrators was female.

6. The researcher conducting the personal interviews also distributed and analyzed the survey instrument.


Justification for the Study

There appears to be a paucity of information providing a basis for comparison of female and male university administrators. Little has been done to seek out and define the leadership performance in terms of a female-male contrast. The recent emphasis on involving more women in administrationoccasioned by legislature, both state and national, as well as societal influences requires that more information aboutperceptions of administrative performance of men and women be collected and analyzed.

These responses, coupled with knowledge of current

female administrators' backgrounds and career patterns, should reveal fundamental information about female administrators in higher education.

This type of survey should be able to provide guidelines to those persons counseling future administrators.

The career patterns and performances which are discerned could be of benefit to those involved in the hiring and/or promotion of females in administration. For those women seeking higher management positions, a knowledge of other females' performances could be beneficial.

In general, this study should assist in the clarification










and understanding of women's administrative leader behavior as compared to men's in a university setting.


Definition of Terms

University Administrator: An employee of the University of Florida who has faculty rank (courtesy or appointed) and has reported fifty percent or more time devoted to administrative duty. The employee should have rank of departmental chairperson or above. This includes institute directors, deans, associate deans and assistant deans.

Leader: An individual who, on the basis of his office or official status in an organization, is placed in the position of being able to influence the activities of that organization as it attempts to achieve its goals. In this study, the leader is identified as a university administrator.

Leadership: The overt actions in which a leader engages in influencing organizational activities.

Superordinate: A person with rank above the identified administrator. The person to whom the identified administrator reports organizationally.

Subordinate: A person with rank below the identified administrator; is directly responsible to the identified administrator.

Procedures

The procedures section is divided into three parts. The first part includes the study's design and the selection of the sample. The second area is an explanation of the development of the instruments and the data collection process. The










last part deals with the treatment of the data after collection.

Design and Sample

Female administrators. Female administrators were located by computer survey of the University of Florida faculty. The computer program located all female faculty members (courtesy or appointed), with rank of department chairperson or above and time records of fifty percent or more devoted to administrative duty. Nineteen female administrators were located by this method. One of the administrators served on the dissertation committee for this work and therefore was not used in the survey. Consequently, the actual number of female administrators participating in this study was 18.

In accordance with the "administrator" definition, these

administrators were in mid-management positions or above. They included institute directors, assistant institute directors, co-ordinators, deans, assistant deans, associate deans, and department chairpersons.

Male administrators. Male administrators were located

using the same basic computer survey as that for female administrators. After the male administrators were identified, they were matched to the 18 female administrators on the basis of compatible degree, title, and faculty rank. All male administrators with job descriptions similar to the 18 female administrators were numbered and selected by a simple random method. Kendall's (1960) Table of Random Numbers was used.









Due to the nature of the "administrator" definition,

these administrators were in mid-management positions or above. They included institute directors, co-ordinators, deans, assistant deans, associate deans and department chairpersons.

Superordinates. The administrators were requested to identify the person who was their direct superior or superordinate. One superordinate was identified for each administrator. The study identified the highest ranking female administrators at the University of Florida in order to observe them as administrators. All participating superordinates were male.

Subordinates. The administrators were requested to

identify a person directly responsible to them. This person was designated the subordinate. One subordinate was identified for each administrator. The sex of the subordinate was not considered as a factor in this study. However, it can be noted that a majority of the female administrators' participating subordinates were female and a majority of the male administrators' participating subordinates were male.

The selection of only one subordinate for each administrator in the study could bias the results since the selection was done by the administrator being rated. However, the same bias would apply equally to all the subordinate respondents. It should also be noted that about one-third of the administrators studied actually had only one subordinate. A majority of the administrators with only one subordinate were female.









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 12 dimensions' frequency of occurrence. A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix A.

In addition to the basic instrument, a professional career interview was conducted (by this researcher) with each administrator. These interviews were employed to obtain information on the administrators' career development, orientation and aspirations. A copy of the interview guide is included in Appendix B.

The interview guide was constructed on the basis of

questions asked by Arter (1972) in her survey of female university administrators at state universities and land-grant colleges. The questions were adjusted to the personal interview setting.

Data Treatment

L.B.D.Q.--XII consists of 100 items describing leader

behavior. Each item is answered with a forced choice format, with one of five possible responses: always, often, occasionally, seldom and 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

L.B.D.Q.--XII were differently 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 L.B.D.Q.--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 conflicting demands and reduces disorder to the system.

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 lets followers 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 Assumption. 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.

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.

A letter authorizing the use of the L.B.D.Q.--XII in the study is included in Appendix C. Validity

In Stogdill's (1970) Review of Research on the

L.B.D.Q.--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
(1969) 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 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.--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 the leader's associates to describe a given leader.

The L.B.D.Q.--XII (Appendix A) was administered to each identified administrator, the administrator's superordinate, and a subordinate of the administrator. The administrator was interviewed using the professional career interview guide (Appendix B).

Method of Securing Data

Initial contact with the administrators was made by

telephone (by this researcher) when interview appointments were scheduled. Following the interviews, administrators were







15

requested to complete the L.B.D.Q.--XII. Copies of the survey were left with the administrators. Administrators were also requested to identify one of their superordinates and one of their subordinates. Identified superordinates and subordinates were contacted in person, in their offices, and requested to participate in the study. A copy of the L.B.D.Q.--XII was left with each superordinate and subordinate.

Instructions for completing the survey were placed on the first page of the instrument (Appendix A). The instrument required 30 minutes to complete.

Confidentiality was promoted with each subject asked to return his/her survey directly to the researcher.

A series of follow-up contacts were made with those administrators, superordinates, and subordinates who were slow in returning their surveys.

Method of Statistical Analysis

The data received from the L.B.D.Q.--XII were analyzed,

using several techniques and processes. Responses were treated in six categories:

1. Female administrator's self-evaluation.

2. Female administrator's superordinate's evaluation.

3. Female administrator's subordinate's evaluation.

4. Male administrator's self-evaluation.

S. Male administrator's superordinate's evaluation.

6. Male administrator's subordinate's evaluation.










The University of Florida Computer Center services were employed to analyze the data for each group: superordinates, subordinates and administrators. The computer test was run after the results for each participant were scored. Hollerith cards were key punched for each participant. Each card was punched with the score for each test item, sex, and group of the respondent.

The cards were coded and classified in order to assess the following:

Superordinates--superordinates' perceptions of male administrators, and superordinates' perceptions of female administrators;

Administrators--males' perceptions of their own leader behavior, and females' perceptions of their own behavior;

Subordinates--subordinates' perceptions of male administrators, and subordinates' perceptions of female administrators.

This procedure was done in order to determine if the three groups perceived the leader behavior of male and female administrators differently. If differences existed, methods were used to determine in which dimensions of the L.B.D.Q.--XII such differences occurred.

Testable Questions

In order to answer the questions of how the male and female administrators were perceived, a Fisher's exact test and chi square were run at the .05 level of significance using data from the L.B.D.Q.--XII for each construct. Each question was asked in regard to the respondents' groups--subordinates,










superordinates and administrators.

Two computer programs were run, using the Statistical Package for the Social Services--Version 6.00. The first computer analysis was used to identify the mean scores of all the administrators on each of the twelve constructs. Administrators were assigned to category 1 or category 2 as follows: Category 1 contained all scores equal to the mean or higher. Category 2 contained all scores below the mean. Male and female administrators were compared by group and tests of statistical significance for differences were performed by use of chi square and Fisher's exact test in the second computer analysis. The comparison was based on a 2 x 2 test using male administratorsfemale administrators and category 1 - category 2.

A personal interview was held with each male and female administrator in the sample. The professional career interview guide (Appendix B) was used as a basic format for each interview. Descriptive information from each interview was compiled and reviewed. Patterns and trends were recognized in relation to the administrators' sex.


Summary
This study's sample population was composed of 18 female administrators and an equal sample of male administrators at the University of Florida. The total population included the identified administrators, their superordinates, and their specified subordinates.








18

The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII, developed by Ralph Stogdill was the instrument used to assess perception of leader behavior. For this research study, leader behavior was measured in terms of perceptions by the administrators, superordinates, and subordinates. The validity and reliability of this instrument was established by Ralph Stogdill through the Ohio State Leadership Study group.

A professional career interview guide was developed to direct questions to the male and female administrators. The administrators participated in open ended interviews concerning their careers. Information gained was used to compare the administrators on the basis of sex.

The data for each of the 12 constructs of the L.B.D.Q.-XII were separated by sex of the administrator and group-administrators, superordinates and subordinates. They were then subjected to chi square and Fisher's exact test to determine if there were any differences between sex and group categories at the .05 level of significance.














CHAPTER II

SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


The purpose of this chapter is to review research

literature relevant to the study of male and female university administrators. This study focuses on leadership behavior of university administrators. However, a review of females involved in all levels of education administration is pertinent to the major theme of the study. The review will include a synopsis of literature dealing with females in all levels of educational administration. The chapter contains three sections entitled: Leadership Behavior, Females in Elementary and Secondary Education Administration, and Females in Higher Education Administration.


Leadership Behavior

Recent leadership theories are reviewed in light of

the leadership theme in this study. There appear to be six categories of leadership theories. This specific research effort is aligned with the "interaction-expectation" theories. Literature covering the other five types of leadership will only be briefly discussed in this chapter. Environmental Theories

Murphy (1941) contended that leadership qualities are not a factor of the individual, but a function of the occasion.









The leader evaluates a situation and is the instrumental factor through which a solution is achieved.

The cultural setting is the controlling factor according to Schneider (1937). He found that great 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 in his study of social psychology. He maintained that leadership can be explained in terms of traits of personality and character. Thus, trait theories could be used to explain leadership. Personal-Situational Theories

A combination of the two theories previously mentioned provides another method for describing and studying leadership. 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 (change or problem) confronting the group.

Gibb (1954) maintained that when group formation and
interaction takes place leadership is a natural interactional phenomenon.
Bennis (1966) dealt with five considerations when

developing leadership theory: (1) impersonal bureaucracy and rationality of measures, (2) informal organization and









interpersonal relations, (3) benevolent autocracy that gets results because it structures the relationship between superiors and subordinates, (4) job enlargement and employeecentered supervision that permits individual self-actualization, and (5) 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 and needs of the followers. It functions to help the group decide upon a goal and to help the group find the means to a goal.

Humanistic Theories

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

Argyris (1964) saw 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. It is a tendency of organizations to structure member roles and to control performance in the interest of achieving specified objectives. An organization which can balance the followers' creative contributions as a natural outgrowth of their needs for growth and self-expression will be the most effective.

McGregor (1966) perceived leadership on the basis of two

organizational types--Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X attempts to direct and motivate people on 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 attempts to arrange organization conditions in order to make possible fulfillment of their needs while directing their efforts to achieve organizational objectives.

Likert (1967) observed that leadership is based on interaction. The leader builds group cohesiveness and motivation for productivity by providing freedom for responsible decision making and exercise of initiative. Exchange Theories

Jacobs (1971) 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 contributions 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) theory of the leadership role is based on three variables: action, interaction and sentiments. Leadership is defined in terms of the 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 interactions.

When group tasks are dependently related to one another and to a solution of a common problem, leadership arises according to Hemphill (1955).

This type of theory was the basis for the development of Stogdill's (1959) expectancy-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 appears to be applicable to the study of university administrators. Stogdill's research has yielded several leadership surveys. One form, 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 administration.

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.

Brown (1966) focused on the leader behavior of 170

principals in Alberta, Canada. Using the L.B.D.Q.--XII, the findings indicated that: (1) teachers' estimates of the school's performance was not sensitive to the perception of leadership in the school, (2) teacher satisfaction was sensitive to the perception of the school leadership, and (3) conficence in the principal was related to the school leadership.

Jacobs (1965) compared "high" and "low" innovating

principals using the L.B.D.Q.--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.

Additional literature addressing leadership theories

which are relevant to this study will be briefly discussed before the remaining sections of this chapter.

Kimbrough (1968) wrote that leadership must involve more than the personal characteristics of the leader. He suggested that the leadership role is either enhanced or suffers depending on how it is valued by members of the system. This perception is seen as an important facet in the value differentiation of leader behavior.

Halpin (1966) contended 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.









According to Owens (1970), the study of leadership should examine and measure the performance of the leader rather than human traits or other phenomena. The focus should be on observed behavior. In other words, researchers should give attention to what has happened or appears to be happening rather than on finding the cause of observed behavior.

Females in Elementary and Secondary

Education Administration

As previously mentioned, there is a paucity of research dealing with females as education administrators. Numerous pages could be filled with publications on education administration and higher education which fail to mention the particular role and scope of female participation. At the same time, there is current literature pertaining to women in higher education which says little, if anything, about the administrative realm.

A recent Change publication, Women on Campus (1974),

offers sixteen articles, none of which discuss the female as an administrator nor a potential administrator.

The Carnegie Commission: Opportunities for Women in

Higher Education (1973) appears to be a thorough investigation. Yet a discussion of female administrators is limited to one page dealing with the decline in the number of women holding administrative positions in coeducational institutions. The Commission suggests that women are so rarely represented in top administrative positions as to be practically nonexistent.







26

Data provided reinforce this analysis. Females were found to be a low percentage of academic administrators in 454 institutions surveyed.

This type of information partially explains why such a

dearth of research exists--there are few female administrators in higher education. However- studies of females in elementary and secondary education are also few in number. Studies from that area seem particularly pertinent here.

Taylor's (1971) survey found women constitute 67% of the total elementary and secondary teaching force, while 97% of secondary principals and more than 99% of the superintendents are men. The percentage of women elementary principals (21%) is actually lower today than it was in past decades.

Taylor also showed that all other things being equal, superintendents (male) were not likely to hire women as administrators. She concluded that the only factor which appeared to have any significance on the hiring process was that of sex. The other variables--age, type of position, length of experience, size of school district--did not have any valid correlation with the hiring process.

Hemphill, Griffiths, and Frederiksen (1962) found that

male principals were preferred by boards of education, although they did not demonstrate superior performance. The study concluded that women tend to score higher than men in ability to work with teachers and outsiders, were more concerned with objectives, possessed greater knowledge of teaching techniques,







27

and were able to gain positive reactions from teachers and superiors.

A University of Florida-Kellogg leadership study team (Grobman and Hines, 1966) attempted to identify and clarify good and poor principal behavior. The team concluded that women were more democratic than men and outscored them in using effective administrative practices.

Morsink (1966) studied leader behavior of men and women secondary principals. She discovered that men had more tolerance for freedom. Women scored better in being persuasive in argument, emphasizing production, speaking and acting as a representative of the group, maintaining cordial relations with superiors in exerting influence and striving for higher status.

Gross and Trask (1964) conducted part of a National

Principalship Study on the difference between men and women elementary principals. They found that women principals gave greater importance to the differences between individual students, placed more emphasis on the detection and assisting of delinquency-prone pupils in their schools and generally were more concerned for the students in their schools. No differences between the sexes were found to exist in the importance they attributed to the academic performance of pupils or in the emphasis placed on the discipline of pupils. Women principals were more likely to require teachers to conform to their standards. No difference was found between the sexes in the amount









of support given to a teacher in a conflict with a pupil or in the extent to which parents were involved in school activities. The sex of the principal was not related to the morale of the teachers in the school.

Hoyle (1967) in a Texas study found that women principals were more often aware of the problems facing their teachers than were male principals. No difference was found between the sexes in terms of involving teachers in decision making or encouraging teacher initiative.

A study of New York State administrators (Mann, 1971)

categorized principals as delegates, trustees, or politicos. A delegate was considered a principal who was guided by citizen preferences even at the expense of his/her own j-udgment. A trustee was a principal whose decisions were usually based on his own values even if they conflicted with the community sentiment. A politico principal was one who borrowed from both trustee and delegate as aictated by the situation, but who had some internally consistent reason for doing so. Women were most likely to be delegates. Proportionately fewer women were trustees and no women were politicos.

Longstreth (1973) analyzed the perceptions of leadership behavior of male and female principals in Florida. In a test of twelve leadership dimensions, differences between the sexes were found as follows:

1. Female principals perceived themselves as regarding the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of their







29

staffs to a significantly higher degree than did the male principals.

2. Male staff perceived male and female principals

as applying a higher degree of pressure for production output than did female staff.

3. Male and female staff perceived female principals as speaking and acting as the representative of the staff to a significantly higher degree than male principals.

4. Males perceived female principals as either "subordinate centered" or "boss centered" and male principals as "boss centered." Females perceived female principals as "subordinate centered" and male principals as "boss centered." (Longstreth, 1973, page 96)

In measures of significant difference, however, Longstreth concluded that a principal's sex is not a significant factor in overall leader behavior.

A position paper prepared by the Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute (1974) summarized the status of women in public educational administrative positions. It cited the exclusion of women from administrative positions and urged that continued research and discussion be done in an effort to identify areas for innovation and change.


Females in Higher Education Administration

The majority of research in this area has been done in

the form of doctoral dissertations. These studies, along with additional research directly related to female administrators









in higher education, are reported on in this section of the literature review.

In 1961, Kaufman conducted a study to determine the

status of women in higher education in selected institutions in the United States. The purpose of the study was to identify and analyze employment practices in appointing women to administrative positions. Kaufman hypothesized that sex would be the determining factor in making administrative appointments when all other variables were equal.

Among the findings of the investigation, Kaufman discovered that: (1) there was an incongruence between theory and practice in regard to sex when making administrative appointments, (2) in the institutions surveyed, the proportion of women administrators was small, (3) women were appointed to positions considered typically female positions, (4) previous experience and education were of prime importance in preparing women administrators, (5) there was a lack of qualified women available to appoint to administrative positions, and (6) when equally qualified, the men generally advanced more readily.

Gardner (1966) conducted a survey to determine career

patterns of women administrators in Illinois. The study was an attempt to provide useful information to women interested in administrative careers in higher education. Gardner's subjects were classified in four administrative areas: head librarians, deans of women, registrars, and other deans (a miscellaneous category).









For all respondents in general, Gardner found that:

(1) prior to holding their present administrative position, 48% of the women had been assistants to the chief administrators in their respective areas; (2) one half of the respondents indicated that they had begun their administrative careers within the range of ages 26 through 35; and (3) over one half had not been assisted in obtaining their positions.

Gardner found that women administrators tended to be promoted to such positions from office staff and teaching positions. Since the majority of the respondents indicated that few courses were of particular help to them in their careers, Gardner deduced that the respondents had not been trained for administrative positions. She recommended further studies to be made to determine helpful courses of study for women administrators.

Simpson (1970) conducted a study of six colleges in

Pennsylvania to determine whether those persons responsible for employing faculty and administrators would express a preference for male candidates. Additionally, he sought to determine whether those responsible for making academic appointments who repeatedly excluded female candidates would relegate women to lesser positions.

Simpson's research instrument utilized brief descriptive resumes of fourteen individuals paired as candidates for theoretical administrative positions. The results of the survey indicated that those responsible for employing faculty and









administrators did show discrimination against female candidates when considering equally qualified male and female candidates.

Harris' research (1970) evolved from testimony before the Special House Subcommittee on Education in 1970. She found women faculty tended to be excluded from positions in prestigious universities. Women were generally in the lower professional ranks, finding it difficult to rise to the rank of full professor.

The study also showed that women administrators were

scarce in number and generally held appointments in areas traditionally considered female. At the same time a number of women with qualifications equal to many directors were appointed as assistant directors doing the same work and for less financial renumeration.

Although inequities do exist, Harris concluded it is most difficult to determine between de facto and de jure sexual discrimination.

An attempt to define the attitudes of women in administrative positions as reflected by their involvement on campus and to create an awareness of discrimination where it might exist was the purpose of an American Association of University Women survey to which 454 member institutions responded (Oltman, 1970).

The major findings of the study indicated that (1) although their promotional policies were the same for men and women, 34 educational institutions had no women department heads and the









mean number of women department heads in all institutions was less than three, (2) although 92% indicated their institutions included women in upper level administrative positions, women were seldom employed in positions which involved critical decision making, nor were women actively recruited to upper level positions, (3) women were generally found in positions which . involved minor policy making decisions at the middle management level or were in positions typically considered female, and (4) greater opportunities for women were found in the administration of women's colleges.
In an article about women in higher education administration, Carroll (1972) expressed concern for the lack of women in upper level administrative positions in coeducational colleges and universities. No longer can women claim the position of dean of women. In many institutions this position has been eliminated with the creation of the dean of students' position to which a man has generally been appointed.

Carroll hypothesized that there were three reasons for

the scarcity of women administrators in higher education: (1) women tended not to seek administrative positions, (2) when administrators vacated positions they do not recommend women for their positions, and (3) women are not sought for administrative positions by those individuals responsible for selecting administrators.

Noll (1973) investigated the opinions of policy making

officials towards the hiring of women administrators, in public, two-year educational institutions. The study found no










relationship between female policy makers and the number of female top-level administrators. Both male and female candidates were expected to possess the same personal characteristics of primary importance--ability and professional experience. Emotional stability was considered the third most important characteristic for females, whereas organizational ability rated number three for the males. The majority of policy-making officials in the two-year institutions surveyed would be willing to recommend a female for a top-level administrative position in their own district/institution.

Fecher (1972) studied the career patterns of the 650'--,women administrators in positions not typically held by women in public coeducational institutions listed in the Education Directory 1970-71: Higher Education, other than deans of women, deans of schools of nursing, deans of schools of home economics and librarians.

Among the major findings were the following: (1) a

large percentage of the females reported that they served on policy making committees but that they had little influence on policy decisions; (2) women administrators in higher education in positions not traditionally held by women suffered the same restrictions on sex and employment that are apparent throughout society; (3) the field of student personnel services appeared to have offered greater employment opportunities for women administrators in higher education than other areas in the administration of higher education; (4) women administrators felt that









being married was neither a disadvantage nor an advantage as an administrator; (5) most females in administration accepted new positions within the same institution rather than seeking new positions elsewhere.

The Pfiffner (1972) study attempted to determine some characteristics that women in the highest three levels of administration in the California public community colleges had in common. This research effort concluded that most women administrators did not feel they were discriminated against because of being a woman administrator. The five personal characteristics which women felt were most important for a toplevel administrative career were: (1) the ability to work with others, (2) a strong personal value system, (3) fairness and objectivity, (4) sensitivity toward people and (5) a sense of humor and humility.

It is reported in the study that few women became academic administrators for two main reasons. First, the sex-role women learned to play did not include this occupation as an option. Second, the discriminatory attitude exhibited by both men and women toward women becoming administrators precluded their doing so. In order to develop a larger number of women leaders, Pfiffner urged that some attitude changes by society toward the development of each human being's potential be made. She also suggested that pressure from various sources, especially legal and economic pressures related to the provisions under government contracts, would enable more women to become involved in administration.









Arter (1972) surveyed the role of women in the administration of state universities and land-grant colleges. In the investigation it was found that over one half of the state universities and land-grant colleges did not have women in toplevel administrative positions. Over half of the institutions queried did not appoint women to administrative posts in the last five-years prior to the study. Over one third of the institutions did not consider women for administrative posts during the last five year period. Ninety-three percent of the institutions surveyed stated that they would consider qualified women for top-level administrative posts.

A profile of the women administrators surveyed showed them to have prime responsibility for personnel and academic programs; confidence and authority to make decisions; responsible to administrators other than the governing board, chancellor, president, or vice-president; personally responsible for carrying out policy, delegating authoriy, overseeing implementation, and transmitting decisions.

The women administrators studied planned to remain in administration. Service, dedication, and challenge ranked highest as their reasons for working.

LaPuma (1972) examined the literature of higher education in order to determine the attitudes toward the employment of women in higher education. The study was concerned with selected books that dealt with personnel policies and practices relative to higher education, published or reprinted between 1960 and 1970.










Research revealed that discriminatory attitudes towards women faculty members and administrators declined during the decade of the sixties. However, respondents stated that women were less qualified and less committed to an academic career. At the same time, the literature suggested that colleges and universities do not provide women with the same opportunities they grant men. The research seemed to illustrate that sex is a determinate in the academic marketplace.


Summary

Very little research is available concerning females in education administration. Comparisons of male and female administrators are particularly scarce. Studies, of any nature, of female administrators in higher education are also few.

Fundamental to this lack of research is a dearth of

female administrators. According to recent surveys, there is a low percentage of female administrators at every level of education. Higher education seems to display the lowest number of female administrators.

Research to date has indicated certain differences between male and female elementary-secondary school administrators. Yet, overwhelming differences in leadership effectiveness were difficult to demonstrate. While some variations in the leadership function could be correlated with sex, overall performance of males and females was similar.










Females in higher education administration are found clustered in the mid-management levels or below. Recent researchers have found that it remains difficult for women to be employed as administrators. Those who are administrators are expected to possess the same leadership and personal qualities as their male counterparts. Yet few are in decision making positions.

With affirmative action programs in progress, discrimination should be declining. It appears that an understanding of females in higher education administration is vital. The literature reviewed here reveals that further study is necessary to this aspect of higher education administration.

Recent legislation and current studies that have been

completed emphasize the urgency to place women in leadership positions. This acknowledgement clearly applies to higher education as well as to other realms. Such declarations make it imperative that research be expanded.













CHAPTER III

A DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE SAMPLE POPULATION


This chapter provides background relative to the University of Florida and a report of the responses to the professional career interviews.


The University of Florida

This study was carried out at the University of Florida, one of nine universities in the Florida State University System. The University is under direct supervision of the Board of Regents, a group of nine citizens appointed by the governor for terms of one to nine years. The Board of Regents nominates the president of the University of Florida, as the university's chief executive officer. He is appointed by the State Board of Education. The president has veto power over all actions of committees, college faculties, councils and the University Senate.

The University is located in the northern center of Florida at Gainesville. Historically, it is a combined State University and land-grant college. In 1905, the Florida legislature established the University of Florida for men and placed it under the direction of the Board of Control. In 1947 the University was made coeducational.










Currently, the University is composed of 16 colleges and two schools. It is unique as all these programs are located on a single campus. The campus also includes more than 40 centers, bureaus and institutes. Academic units are: the Colleges of Agriculture, Architecture and Fine Arts, Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Health Related Professions, Journalism and Communications, Law, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Physical Education, Health and Recreation, and Veterinary Medicine, along with the University College, School of Forest Resources and Conservation and the Graduate School.

As of 1975, the University employed 2,693 faculty members, 5,217 in career service and 289 in administrative and professional positions. Nine percent of the academic staff were classified in the administration, student services, libraries category. An analysis of the University faculty showed 2,242 male faculty members and 280 female faculty members.

More than 90 percent of the students attending the

University came from within the state. Enrollment figures at the University for 1974-75 were 28,332 total students (17,749 men and 10,503 women), including 4,353 graduate students.

The University has conferred more than 98,000 degrees

since its founding. In 1973-74 it awarded: 4,445 Bachelors, 393 D.D.'s, 71 M.D.'s, 1,177 Masters, 227 Ph.D.'s, 49 Ed.D.'s, 5 Engineering Specialists, and 71 Education Specialists for a total of 6,435 degrees.










Graduate study has had a phenomenal growth since its beginning at the University. In 1930, 33 degrees were awarded in twelve fields. In 1940, 66 degrees were awarded in 16 fields. In 1971-72 the total number of graduate degrees awarded was 1,636 in more than 90 fields. The proportion of doctoral degrees has also increased. In 1950, 18 Ph.D.'s and 5 Ed.D.'s were awarded. In 1973-74 the total was 224 Ph.D.'s and 49 Ed.D's.

The University conducts research in nearly all fields of knowledge. Through its competition for sponsored research and training funds the University acquired over 34 million dollars in grants and contracts in fiscal 1973.

The University of Florida is the largest state supported

institution of higher learning in Florida. In relation to this study, it should be pointed out that although it is the state's oldest institution, it did not admit women students until 1947. Thus much of its history is based on its background as a public men's university. This information on the University provides a background for the conduct of this study.

Administrators' Professional Career Interviews

A portion of the information received from the professional career interviews will be included in later chapters. The results reported in this section are predominantly discussed later in relation to their impact on the study's conclusions.

The administrators interviewed ranged in age from 32 years to 64 years. A majority of the males and females were in the age range 40-50 years. All of the males interviewed were married.










The females were evenly divided between married, single, and divorced. All of the married females had children, as did all the males.

A majority of the males were 35-40 years when they first became an administrator. The females tended to be older whenthey acquired their first administrative position, a majority were 40-45 years.

There was a contrast between the sexes in their total years of administrative experience. A majority of the females had had one to three years in administration. A majority of the males had had four to six years in administration.

The females interviewed tended to be relatively new to

their present position. A majority had held their current post for less than three years. A majority of the males had a slightly higher average. A majority of the male administrators had held their present position for two to four years.

The administrators reported heavy work loads. A majority of both the males and females averaged 50-60 hours of work per week. One male and one female explained that their total work effort was over 70 hours per week. Five females and five males stated they worked an average of 65 hours per week.

A large majority of the administrators hold doctorate degrees. Almost half of both the males and females hold a degree in education. A majority of the remaining administrators hold Ph.D.'s in various disciplines. More females than males interviewed hold Ed.D.'s. More males than females interviewed hold Ph.D.'s in education.










Both male and female administrators tended to belong to a number of professional associations. Each administrator reported membership in six to ten organizations.

Male administrators tended to publish more frequently

than female administrators. A majority of the males reported three to four publications per year.- A majority of the females cited one to two publications per year.

Additional answers and discussion from the administratorst interviews will be discussed in Chapters IV and V.

Summary

The University of Florida was the location for this research. All administrators and associates surveyed are employed at this University which is the largest state supported institution of higher learning in Florida. It was originally established as a university for men and became coeducational in 1947. Its 1975 enrollment exceeded 28,000 students.

A review of the professional career interviews included

comparisons of male and female administrators. Responses were similar in categories of age, work loads, degrees, and organizational membership. Male administrators reported more years in administration and more years in their present position than the female administrators. Males also cited more publications per year than the females. Further conclusions and discussion of the interviews are included in Chapter IV and V.














CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS


The analysis of the data in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter I is reported in this chapter. Data for analysis were drawn from the administration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII. The chapter also relates the findings of the personal interviews held with the male and female administrators. The L.B.D.Q.--Form XII was administered to all participants in the study; administrators, superordinates, and subordinates.

Fisher's exact test and chi square were used to answer the twelve questions concerning the differences between male and female administrators' leadership behavior. The significance level was set at .05. Each question was answered on the basis of the ratings of male and female administrators by three groups-subordinates, superordinates and the administrators.

Two computer programs were run, using the Statistical

Package for the Social Services--Version 6.00. The first computer analysis was used to identify the mean scores of all the administrators on each of the twelve constructs. Administrators were assigned to category 1 or category 2 as follows: Category

1 contained all scores equal to the mean or higher. Category










2 contained all scores below the mean. Male and female administrators were compared by group and tests of statistical significance for differences were performed by use of chi square and Fisher's exact test in the second computer analysis. The comparison was based on a 2 x 2 test using male administrators-female administrators and category 1 - category 2.


Summary of the L.B.D.Q.--XII Findings

Of 108 questionnaires distributed, fifty-eight were

returned, yielding a 55% total rate of return. There were 35 respondents (64%) to the female administrator evaluation and 23 respondents (42%) to the male administrator evaluation. There were 20 subordinate respondents, 18 superordinate respondents, and 20 administrator respondents. The total respondents by category were as follows:

Respondents to Male Administrator Evaluation:

Subordinates 7 Superordinates 8 Administrators 8

Respondents to Female Administrator Evaluation:

Subordinates 13 Superordinates 10 Administrators 12

Statistical analysis of the L.B.D.Q.--XII results were

applied to each of the twelve constructs and interpreted using chi square and Fisher's exact test. Tests were run for comparisons on the basis of the administrators' sex and for comparisons by level of the respondent. The results are reviewed by each of the twelve constructs.










Construct 1: Representation

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 1.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the first construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the first construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.3 reports the administrator responses for the first construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

1.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators speak and act as representative of the group.










Table 1.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 1: Representation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 5 2 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 11 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.27245


Table 1.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 1: Representation (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 10 4 6 Total 18 9 9 Fisher's Exact Test =0.31859


Table 1.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 1: Representation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 12 8 4 Total 20 13 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.74923










Table 1.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 1: Representation (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 11 9 Superordinate 18 9 9 Administrator 20 13 7 Total 58 53 25 Chi Square = 0.91394
Significance = 0.6332

Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates, and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system. Table 2.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the second construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 2.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the second construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 2.3 reports the administrator responses for the second construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table










2.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system.


Table 2.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 5 2 Female Adm. 13 7 6 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.39164


Table 2.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 10 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.47984










Table 2.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=20)

SEX TOTAL CATEGORY


1-Within Mean
or Above


2-Below Mean


Male Adm. 8 7 1 Female Adm. 12 8 4 Total 20 15 5 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.30650


Table 2.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 12 8 Superordinate 18 10 8 Administrator 20 15 5 Total 58 37 21 Chi Square = 1.74091
Significance = 0.4188


Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 3.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the third construct.










It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 3.2 reports the results of, the superordinate responses for the third construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 3.3 reports the results for the administrator responses for the third construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

3.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset.


Table 3.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=20)


SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 4 3 Female Adm. 13 4 9 Total 20 8 12


Fisher's Exact Test = 0.25077










Table 3.2
Number of Superordinate REsponses by Category and Sex on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 3 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 8 10 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.47984 Table 3.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 12 6 6 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.25961


Table 3.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 8 12 Superordinate 18 8 10 Administrator 20 12 8 Total 58 28 30 Chi Square = 1.75534
Significance = 0.4157









Construct 4: Persuasiveness

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates, and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators use persuasion and argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions. Table 4.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the fourth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 4.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the fourth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table

4.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the fourth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses for the

three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

4.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators use persuasion and argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions.










Table 4.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 2 5 Female Adm. 13 5 8 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test 0.52574


Table 4.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 6 4 Total 18 10 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52016


Table 4.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 12 7 5 Total 20 13 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.39164










Table 4.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 7 13 Superordinate 18 10 8 Administrator 20 13 7 Total 58 30 28 Chi Square = 3.75772
Significance = 0.1528


Construct 5: Initiation of Structure

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them as reported by the superordinates and the administrators.

However, there was a significant difference of .04427 reported by the subordinates' responses. The subordinate responses to female administrators rated the female administrators significantly higher than the subordinate respondents to the male administrators rated the male administrators.

Table 5.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the fifth construct. It shows that there was a significant difference at the .05 level between the subordinate responses. Table 5.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses










for the fifth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was hot significant at the .05 level. Table 5.3 reports the administrator responses for the fifth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

5.4 reports this result. According to these responses, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them. There was a significant difference perceived by the subordinates' responses.


Table 5.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 0 7 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 6 14


Fisher's Exact Test = 0.04427*
* R = .05










Table 5.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=18)

SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 6 4 Total 18 10 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52016


Table 5.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 5 7 Total 20 8 12 Fisher's Exact Text = 0.61189


Table 5.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 6 14 Superordinate 18 10 8 Administrator 20 8 12 Total 58 24 34 Chi Square = 2.57462
Significance = 0.2760










Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates, and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action. Table 6.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the sixth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate res-onses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 6.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the sixth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 6.3 reports the results for the administrator responses for the sixth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

There was a significant difference of .0258 reported in the categories of responses made by the three group levels. The administrators ranked themselves lower in ratings than did the subordinate and superordinate respondents. Table 6.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates and superordinates similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action. As a group, the administrators perceived themselves lower on this construct.










Table 6.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 4 3 Female Adm. 13 8 5 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.74923


Table 6.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 10 7 3 Total 18 13 5 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.61765


Table 6.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 3 9 Total 20 6 14 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.86275











Table 6.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=58)

GROUP TOTAL


Subordinate 20 Superordinate 18 Administrator 20 Total 58 Chi Square = 7.31448 Significance = 0.0259*

*� = .05


1-Within Mean or Above 12 13 6 31


CATEGORY
2-Below Mean


Construct 7: Role Assumption

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates, and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others. Table 7.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the seventh construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 7.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the seventh construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 7.3 reports the administrator responses for the seventh construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.











The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

7.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others. Table 7.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY


1-Within Mean or Above


2-Below Mean


Male Adm. 7 2 5 Female Adm. 13 5 8 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52574


Table 7.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 4 6 Total 18 8 10 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.81578










Table 7.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=20)

SEX TOTAL CATEGORY


1-Within Mean or Above


2-Below Mean


Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 12 6 6 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.63003


Table 7.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 7 13 Superordinate 18 8 10 Administrator 20 12 8 Total 58 27 31 Chi Square = 2.55853
Significance = 0.2782


Construct 8: Consideration

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of followers. Table 8.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the eighth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses










was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the eighth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the eighth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of followers.

Table 8.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 8: Consideration (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 3 4 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 9 11 Fisher's Exact Test 0.63003










Table 8.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 8: Consideration (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 10 4 6 Total 18 7 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.64781


Table 8.3
Number of Administrator Respons-s by Category and Sex on Construct 8: Consideration (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 2 6 Female Adm. 12 5 7 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.39164


Table 8.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 8: Consideration (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 9 11 Superordinate 18 7 11 Administrator 20 7 13 Total 58 23 35 Chi Square = 0.42429 Significance = 0.8088










Construct 9: Production Emphasis

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators apply pressure for productive output. Table 9.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the ninth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .0S level. Table 9.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the ninth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 9.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the ninth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

9.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators apply pressure for productive output.











Table 9.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 5 2 Female Adm. 13 8 5 Total 20 13 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52574


Table 9.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 9 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.68141


Table 9.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 - 6 6 Total 20 9 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.46499










Table 9.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 13 7 Superordinate 18 9 9 Administrator 20 9 11 Total 58 31 27 Chi Square = 1.73238
Significance = 0.4206


Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 10.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the tenth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 10.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 10.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the tenth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table










10.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately.


Table 10.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex in Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 1 6 Female Adm. 13 2 11 Total 20 3 17 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.72982



Table 10.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above
Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 9 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.68141











Table 10.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 4 8 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.74923


Table 10.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 3 17 Superordinate 18 9 9 Administrator 20 7 13 Total 58 19 39 Chi Square = 5.33819
Significance = 0.0693


Construct 11: Integration

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates, and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember conflict. Table 11.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the eleventh construct.










It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 11.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the eleventh construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 11.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the eleventh construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 11.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve inter-member conflict.


Table 11.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 11: Integration (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 5 2 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 11 9 Fisher's Exact Text = .027245











Table 11.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 11: Integration (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 10 7 3 Total 18 12 6 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.79864 Table 11.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 11: Integration (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 12 8 4 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.38881 Table 11.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 11: Integration (N=58) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 11 9 Superordinate 18 12 6 Administrator 20 12 8 Total 58 35 23 Chi Square = 0.54037 Significance - 0.7632









Construct 12: Superior Orientation

There was no significant difference at the .05 level in

the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status. Table 12.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the twelfth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 12.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the twelfth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 12.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the twelfth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 12.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status.










Table 12.1
Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 7 3 4 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 9 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.63003


Table 12.2
Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 11 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.27828


Table 12.3
Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 12 5 7 Total 20 10 10 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.32496










Table 12.4
Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above

Subordinate 20 9 11 Superordinate 18 11 7 Administrator 20 10 10 Total 58 30 28 Chi Square = 1.02114
Significance = 0.6002

Summary of the Administrators'

Professional Career Interviews

Information and insights gained from the interview portion of research are discussed in this part of the chapter. A copy of the interview guide is included as Appendix B. Three career subtopics emerged from the interviews: career development, career orientation, and career aspirations. Each of these is reviewed separately, with particular emphasis on a comparison of male and female responses. The major purpose of the interview process was to have the administrators assess their administrative involvement, which includes leadership functions.

Answers acquired through the interview process are usually not of a quantitative nature. Therefore, discussion of the interviews revolves around overviews and general observations. The emphasis is on contrasting males and females as administrators.











Career Development

Female and male patterns of career development emerged

quite differently. Educational background tended to yield the same result. The degrees held by males and females were similar. However, the acquisition of these degrees proved to be different in nature. It appeared that the key contrast between males and females was marriage and family status. Males continued their education without interruption, through their highest degree. Females took longer to complete their highest degree, with time off for child rearing and family responsibilities. Exceptions to the female pattern were the unmarried female administrators. Divorced female administrators also had a discernable pattern. They returned for advanced degrees and sought administrative positions after being divorced. Marriage status seemed to have no bearing on the career development of male administrators. A majority of the males were married, with families.

Males and females were in similar age brackets. Most clustered around the mid-forty to mid-fifty range.

Experience in administration was varied. Noteworthy was the fact that the males tended to climb the administrative ladder in a distinguishable manner. They had prior administrative experience, at least mid-management in status. A majority of the females were found to be in their first administrative role. Most had been teaching faculty, appointed "out of the ranks" to the administrative position.










Career Orientation

Males and females tended to give different reasons for

assuming their current administrative position. This difference could be attributed in part to prior career background. Both male and female administrators saw their positions as advancements, providing opportunities for new experiences. The males defined the administrative role as an opportunity to become a change agent, to have an impact on decision-making. Females perceived the administrative position as one with lots of interaction. Females were eager to use their position to work with people; to be responsive to staff and students' needs. Both males and females pinpointed problem-solving as a positive aspect of the administrative assignments.

Job duties as described by both males and females seemed

to demand responsibilities for all of the roles mentioned above. The duties which were listed were numerous and varied. The important observation to make is that job responsibilities did not seem to differ between male and female administrators. A "typical day" was impossible for any of the administrators to describe. Females felt they were overburdened with university committee assignments as the "token female." However, males were found also to have heavy committee involvements.

The administrators estimated their "average" work week to be 50-60 hours. The females often pointed out that 10-20 of these hours were sometimes spent with paper work taken home. Females with families stressed their tendency to work at home








77

during evenings. Males stated that they worked straight through a day until a late dinner, or returned to the office during evening or weekend hours. Single females seemed to utilize a variety of work settings. Based on these responses, it could be suggested that male and female administrators work similar total hours.

When questioned about job completion males and females responded almost identically. Both categories felt that requirements for paper shuffling were burdensome. Most also mentioned "red tape" as a thwarting factor. Both sexes cited budget cuts and the dollar crunch as limitations on their planning and programming. Female administrators did not note disrespect or disregard due to their sex. Males did not mention being hampered by affirmative action demands.

Self-satisfaction and job-satisfaction were high for both sexes. The male and female administrators represented themselves as individuals who had matched their personal fulfillment needs with an appropriate employment environment. Both sexes seemed equally involved in their careers and equally pleased with their current job expectations.

A majority of the administrators felt that their positions provided prestige, recognition, and visibility. Expectations for these factors may vary according to sex, but differences were not apparent in the interviews. Prestige did not appear to be deemed as vital as was a means to get things done. As long as superordinates and subordinates were aware of the adminis-








78

trators' needs and methods, the administrator voiced positive feelings concerning competency and reputation. Males tended to emphasize superordinate interaction, females discussed both superordinate and subordinate, equally. Career Aspirations

A majority of the female administrators interviewed were in their first administrative position. Few of them had been specifically seeking administrative careers. While they declared a satisfaction and challenge with their current role, they did not appear ambitious to assume a higher level administrative position. Additional power of top level administration did not appear to be alluring to most of the females. The males interviewed were more likely to picture themselves as upwardmobile, in their careers. Their long-range career objectives included a commitment to professional advancement. In fact, many of the male administrators claimed to have assumed their present position as a stepping stone to higher level administration. They described their current job as a testing ground for their administrative growth and development.

Most of the administrators stated that they regretted

their lack of classroom involvement. A majority of the females stressed that teaching was their primary reason for entering a higher education career. About one-half of the females said that they would eventually like to return to fulltime teaching. The males noted teaching, but were less interested in teaching fulltime.










Both tenured and nontenured administrators felt some

obligation to publish and maintain professional organization memberships. Males seemed to put a greater emphasis on their publication efforts. However, females aspiring to administrative advancements felt publishing was a definite requirement for promotion.

Current salary levels appeared acceptable to both sexes. A majority of the administrators felt university pay scales were somewhat below effort extended. Yet, neither males nor females felt that the current salaries were discriminatory on the basis of sex.

The female administrators interviewed appeared eager to

see additional females in university administration. The males interviewed did not voice opposition to the idea. Some of the males gave it avid support.


Summary

Data from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-XII were analyzed. Each of the twelve constructs were examined with the significant difference level set at .05. Subordinate, superordinate, and administrator responses were reviewed. Cross comparisons were also tabulated for the three groups. Findings from this procedure indicated that sex was not a significant factor in the leader behavior of University of Florida administrators for eleven of the twelve constructs. There was a significant difference reported by the subordinate responses to Contrust 5: Initiation of Structure.








80

Information from the personal interviews with

University of Florida administrators was examined in three areas: career development, career orientation, and career aspirations. Responses to the interview questions tended to show some contrasts in male and female patterns in these three areas.














CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS Discussion

Response Rate to the L.B.D.Q.--XII

Twelve questions were addressed in this study, focusing on the twelve constructs of the L.B.D.Q.--XII. There were more respondents to female administrators than there were respondents to male administrators. Several factors should be considered in accounting for this difference. The female respondents were contacted earlier in the academic quarter. Therefore, these respondents had a greater amount of time to return the questionnaire.

There was little difference in total number of returns of respondents, by group level, to male administrators. The largest number of respondents by group level were the subordinate respondents to the female administrators. About onethird of the female administrators reported that they had only one subordinate. They may have been in very close contact with the one individual. It could also be suggested that the subordinates might have had more time to devote to the study, while superordinates gave it a lower priority. The respondents averaged 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The difference in response rate was not large when compared within








82
male and female respondent divisions. The greater distinction was between male and female respondents, as discussed earlier.

The L.B.D.Q.--XII Findings

Answers to the 100 items of the L.B.D.Q.--XII provided no

significant difference at the .05 level between the way male and female administrators' leader behavior was perceived on ten constructs. Reasons for this similarity should be discussed.

First, the survey may not have been able to discriminate between male and female university administrators. The leader skills and behavior may be extremely similar between all university administrators. It should be suggested that a certain level of leader behavior must be observable before an individual becomes a university administrator. It could be further contended that once an individual performs as an administrator within the university setting, he or she acquires characteristics which are alike in a majority of. administrative actions. This is not to suggest that all university administrators are identical, but it is to interpret the L.B.D.Q.--XII findings as an indication that there are few distinguishable differences in the leader behavior of male and female administrators at the University of Florida.

Second, this study used sex of the administrator as the basis for comparing the administrators' leader behavior. Characteristics other than sex provide a wider range of responses on the L.B.D.Q.--XII. Previous experience, educational background, and career aspirations might all be used as categories









for comparison. However, it should be noted here that differences in these categories could often be correlated with the sex of the administrator.

Third, similarly it might be suggested that administrators are perceived as administrators, not as male administrators nor female administrators. Thus subordinates see their "superiors" as university administrators, not expecting nor interpretating their behavior on the basis of the administrators' sex. Superordinates perceive the administrators as their subordinates and respond to their leader behavior without regard to a "male" subordinate or a "female" subordinate category. Also the administrators observe themselves as university administrators, without the identity of "male" administrator nor "female" administrator.

An overview explanation of the fact that there were few significant differences reported by this study could be the inability of this particular instrument to identify distinguishable contrasts between the leader behavior of male and female university administrators.

On construct five, the subordinate respondents to female

administrators were significantly different than the subordinate respondents to the male administrators. The subordinate respondents perceived female administrators as having a higher degree to which they clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them. (A significant difference was not perceived by the superordinates nor the administrators for the same question, however.)










This measurable difference can be related to the personal interviews with the administrators. The female administrators emphasized their interest in their subordinates more often than did the male administrators. Although this emphasis was not apparent in the administrators' responses to this construct of the L.B.D.Q.--XII, apparently it was noticed by the subordinates.

Perhaps since the female administrators were more likely to be relatively new to their position as well as to the administrative role, the subordinates noted that they were more concise about that role in communication with the subordinate. It is possible that the females were more recently in roles similar to their subordinate than were the male administrators, thus they functioned more definitively by the subordinates' standards.

On construct six, a significant difference was found in

the perceived degree to which the three groups rated the administrators' tendency to allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action. There was no significant difference in the ratings of male administrators compared to female administrators, by each group. The subordinate and superordinate respondents rated the administrators significantly higher than the administrators rated themselves.

This observable difference could be explained by the

difficulty of self-evaluation in respect to action towards others. Although all the constructs dealt with interaction, this one










pinpointed the administrators perceiving themselves as more "confining" to their followers than did the followers. The superordinates' perception of the interaction agreed with the subordinates'. Perhaps, the administrators saw themselves as less tolerant of freedom because they wished to stress their administrative role for action as more vital than the subordinates'. On the other hand, the subordinates may have interpreted the concept as a positive one. They may have rated the administrators high for granting them a level of independent thinking and doing. The superordinates may have interpreted the behavior in the same manner. Administrators' Professional Career Interviews

The administrators' professional career interviews focused on the descriptive data that was collected. The administrators answered questions concerning their career development, orientation, and aspirations. The male and female administrators interviewed appeared to be similar in many respects. Observations of the interview discussions are general because of the nature of the interviews. Exceptions to each generality can be assumed. Patterns attributable to the administrators' sex did emerge. These patterns appeared to revolve around the contrasting career development of males and females. As of 1975, females appeared to have taken a different route to attain administrative positions. While the role and scope of female and made administrators seemed to be similar, sometimes the personal purposes and pursuits appeared to vary according to sex.








86

It is important to note that both sexes claimed to perceive the administrative responsibilities to include leadership functions. Neither sex felt that sex was correlated to their leadership performance. While this information provided certain insights, it is difficult to relate and compare it with the L.B.D.Q.--XII. The conclusion is similar to the administrators' evaluations of themselves in the L.B.D.Q.--XII. However, contrasts between the results of the L.B.D.Q.--XII and the professional career interviews should be made before further conclusions can be drawn.

The L.B.D.Q.--XII survey found that there are no significant differences between the leader behavior of male and female university administrators, on the basis of ten leadership behavior dimensions, as reported by superordinates, subordinates, and the administrators. Conclusions from the interviews were based solely on the administrators' observations of themselves. At the same time, portions of the personal interviews pertained to background and performance of the administrators not directly correlated to leader behavior.

Responses to construct 5 seemed to partially support the observation that L.B.D.Q.--XII responses and individual interviews were somewhat different. While superordinates and administrators found no significant difference between the way male and female administrators relate to followers, the subordinate respondents fall into the significant difference category. As the interviews had shown, subordinates reported that female







87

administrators rate higher in terms of clearly defining their own roles and letting followers know what is expected of them.

However, constructs 6 and 8 also dealt with questions of administrators' relation to followers and no significant difference between male and female administrators was found in these two constructs.

On the other hand, although male administrators vocalized greater attention to superordinates and more anxiety over achieving a higher level administrative position, the L.B.D.Q.--XII found no significant difference between the sexes in this area. Construct 12 addressed itself to this particular dimension of leader behavior.

The specific dimensions measured by the L.B.D.Q.--XII

appear similar to the topics discussed in the interviews with the administrators. Two of the dimensions previously discussed yielded results which contrast to a limited extent with the administrators' verbally reported perceptions. Nonetheless, it is difficult to generalize concerning the personal interview responses. Variations should be noted and thus, comparison of both research techniques should be considered.

Conclusions of the studies reported in the literature review chapter should be contrasted with the findings of this research. Fecher (1972) observed that females have little influence on policy making decisions at colleges and universities. Yet, when interviewed, University of Florida female administrators claimed a "fair share" of participation in decision making.








88

Fecher also found that marriage was neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to the female administrator. However, University of Florida female administrators emphasized that marriage had altered their career development. They reported that they have postponed their education, or interrupted it, for family purposes. Once the females became administrators, marriage status did not appear to affect the job performance.

One of Pfiffner's (1972) major conclusions was that female administrators display a high interest in working with others. Similar findings appeared in the interview portion of this study. Female administrators, more often than male administrators, pointed out their interest and devotion to interaction with others as part of the administrative role.

Arter's (1972) national survey of female administrators indicated that a majority of the women plan to remain in administration. The University of Florida female administrators did not seem to fit this pattern. A majority of them voiced an interest to "return" to teaching or half-time administrative responsibilities. In addition, Morsink (1969) reported that women in administration are striving for higher status. Yet, a majority of University of Florida female administrators pointed out that they preferred to remain in their present position or become fulltime teachers. A minority expressed an interest in acquiring higher level administrative positions.










Contrary to Harris' (1970) research which concluded that females were in traditionally female roles in universities, University of Florida female administrators were in positions of responsibility. However, University of Florida female administrators are a low percentage of total administrators at the University. They are also a low percentage of total female faculty and staff. These figures may be the type Harris used to support her study.

Carroll (1972) suggested that females do not seek administrative posts. Interview information from the Florida female administrators did not thoroughly explain this phenomenon, but it did appear to agree with the observation. A majority of the female administrators noted that they had not actively sought their present position.

General observations from the personal interviews are summarized as follows:

1. Males and females follow different routes to becoming administrators. The male administrators tended to complete their education without interruption and immediately pursue administrative positions. They appeared to move up a "management occupational ladder." Female administrators' patterns were much less discernible. The female's educational background and trends were diverse. Few females had completed their entire education without interruption. A majority of the females seemed to have become administrators without pursuing that role in preparatory education. Management positions seemed much more likely










to be "unplanned promotions" for the female administrators. Thus, while the males seemed to be following a line design of administrative advancements, the females became administrators without a master plan for starting and continuing up the administrative ladder.

2. Both male and female administrators pointed out that their positions were time-demanding, but extremely rewarding. Males tended to emphasize the opportunity to act as a change agent. Females more often mentioned the inter-action with personnel and students and the ability to respond to the individual's needs. Both sexes felt their position had an impact on the functioning of the university. It could be suggested that this difference in role orientation is due to the experience prior to the present position. Males were more likely to have had administrative training and experience. Females were more likely to have had teaching training and experience.

3. Long range career goals differed between the males

and females. Males were more likely to aspire to higher management levels. Females were more likely to be satisfied with their current position or expressed a desire to return to fulltime teaching. A need to aspire to top-level administrative positions appears to be lower in the females surveyed than in the males. This difference might be attributed to the fact that a minority of the females had originally selected administration as a career goal, while a majority of the males had chosen administration as their life's vocation.









Conclusions

Male and female university administrators, their superordinates, and their subordinates were surveyed on 12 dimensions of leader behavior, measured by the L.B.D.Q.--XII. Evidence from the survey instrument would tend to reinforce the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the perceived leadership behavior of University of Florida male and female administrators to the extent that the 12 constructs of the L.B.D.Q.--XII report leadership behavior.

Answers to the questions posed at the outset of the study can be provided on the basis of the data:

1. There was a significant difference in the way subordinates perceived male and female university administrators in regard to one construct; the degree to which an individual clearly defines his or her own role and lets followers know what is expected of them. There was no significant difference as measured in terms of the other eleven constructs in the way subordinates perceived male and female university administrators' leadership behavior.

2. There was no significant difference in the way

superordinates perceived male and female university administrators' leadership behavior.

3. There was no significant difference in the way male and female university administrators perceived their own behavior.










It was pointed out in the individual personal interviews with the male and female administrators that there were differences in career development between the sexes, however, the central attitudes and approaches to the administrative role were similar. Males indicated in the interviews that they were more eager to obtain top level administrative positions than did females.

Most of the contrasts between the male and female interview responses would appear to be the result of traditional female-male educational and career patterns. It should be noted that the females presently in university administrative positions are a small minority, but their background is mainly rooted in the pre-woman's liberation era. Consequently, it could be assumed that female and male administrators could each be aligned with certain traditional career patterns based on sex.

Perhaps more important to the readers of this study is

the way in which females perform as university administrators. The results of the instrument utilized in this research report sex is not a significant factor in overall leader behavior of University of Florida administrators.

The findings of this study would lend support to the following implications:

1. Sex of the applicants should not be a factor in

evaluating them as leaders for the university administrative setting.










2. Leadership behavior and performance (as measured by the L.B.D.Q.--XII) of a university administrator was not found to be significantly related to the administrator's sex.


Recommendations for Future Study

1. Studies of male and female administrative leadership

behavior should be conducted at other universities and colleges. Community college and university based studies should be compared.

2. Additional aspects of male and female administrators' backgrounds and behaviors should be researched. These might include decision making experience, career planning, and other categories of leader behavior.

3. Current educational programs preparing individuals for administrative roles should be reviewed.

4. Comprehensive studies regarding employment and

promotion of individuals in higher education should be studied.













APPENDIX A


AN INTRODUCTION: THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE-FORM XII

This Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--XII

(L.B.D.Q.--XII) is being used as part of a study whose purpose is to compare the leadership behavior of female university administrators and male university administrators. This instrument has been designed to provide information relative to this study. It is not a test and in no way a measure of the administrator's ability as an administrator. Your cooperation in filling out this survey is appreciated.

The L.B.D.Q.--XII will be used to study the perception of the administrator's leader behavior as seen by the administrator's immediate superior (superordinate), randomly selected members of the administrator's staff (subordinates), and the administrator's own perception of leader behavior.

The data will be reported mainly in the form of statistical summaries. In all cases, the answers will be held in strict confidence. Therefore, you are urged to respond in a sincere and open manner.

Thank you for your cooperation and participation.

Barbara Keener, Doctoral Student Institute of Higher Education
University of Florida




Full Text

PAGE 1

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATORS by Barbara Jean Keener 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 1976

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation to the many persons who assisted in making this study a reality. Members of the Supervisory Committee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger and Dr. Arthur Sandeen, Co-Chairmen , Dr. Dorothy Neville and Dr. Harold Riker, should be recognized for their constant scholarly criticism and support. Dr. John Nickens is thanked for his assistance with the statistical computation. A very special appreciation goes to Dr. Wattenbarger for his continual inspiration and guidance throughout the doctoral program. Thanks is also extended to the administrators and their associates who so willingly participated in the research. Encouragement and advice came from many others, too numerous to list here. The writer is indebted to each individual who played a role in her completion of the doctoral degree. ii 1

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Delimitations 6 Justification for the Study 7 Definition of Terms 8 Prodcedures 8 Summary 17 II SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 19 Leadership Behavior 19 Females in Elementary and Secondary Education Administration 25 Females in Higher Education Administration ... 29 Summary 37 III A DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE SAMPLE POPULATION 39 The University of Florida 39 Administrators' Professional Career Interviews 41 Summary. . 43 IV FINDINGS 44 Summary of the L . B . D . Q . -XI I Findings 45 V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75 Discussion 75 Conclusions 85 Recommendations 87 iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page APPENDICES A AN INTRODUCTION: THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE — FORM XII 88 B ADMINISTRATOR'S PROFESSIONAL CAREER INTERVIEW GUIDE 98 C LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION 100 REFERENCES 101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 112 iv

PAGE 5

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 THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATORS by Barbara Jean Keener March, 1976 Chairperson: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger Co-Chairperson: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen Major Department: Educational Administration The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences existed in reported perceptions of leadership behavior between University of Florida male and female administrators. The sample population participating was: male and female administrators, their immediate superordinates , and a sample of their subordinates. The Leadership Behavior Descrip tion Questionnaire-Form XII and a Professional Career Interview Guide were used as research tools. Twelve constructs were developed in accordance with the dimensions of the L.B.D.Q. --XII . The constructs were tested at the .05 level of significance. Each construct v\:as tested in four areas: subordinate responses, superordinate responses, V

PAGE 6

administrator responses, and comparisons between groups. Interview information was examined in three areas: career orientation, career development and career aspirations. Comparisons of male and female responses were made. The study found, through the examination of each constrt that there was little difference in the leadership behavior o male and female administrators at the University of Florida. Based on this research, there appears little justification to conclude that female administrators behave differently as leaders than males. The professional career interviews did reveal some differences between male and female administrators in the areas of career orientation, career development and career aspirations . vi

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A niomber of people have pointed out that there are few women in higher education leadership positions. For example, Oltman (1970) wrote, "The actual participation of women in administrative policy-making in higher education is conspicuously lacking." The Carnegie Commission (1973) reported, "If women are thinly represented on faculties, especially in traditionally male fields, they are so rarely represented in top academic administrative positions as to be practically nonexistent in the upper echelons." There are many reasons for such a dearth; but an investigation of all these reasons was not the pursuit of this endeavor. Instead, the major concern in this study was to examine the leadership performance of men and women university administrators. At the heart of the matter is the question of sex qualification. In other words, are men more qualified to fill these leadership positions than women? Are there restrictions which are placed on women that denigrate their leadership potential? Research on women's administrative behavior (as compared to men's administrative behavior) is limited and this study assumes that more should be carried out. 1

PAGE 8

2 Such an investigation will not reveal however, all the explanations as to why there are so few women in policy-making positions. This study came to grips, on the other hand, with the issue of women's performance as university administrators. The concern herein was to isolate the sex of the administrator as a factor in leadership qualities. Since societal stereotypes and expectations rarely "assign" women to decision-making or leadership roles, there appears to be a need to know more about the women who are in these positions. There is a ne^d to discover how they got there and how well they perform. There is a need to determine whether or not there is any perceived difference based solely on sex. Statement of the Problem This study was designed to compare the leadership behavior of male and female university administrators in order to determine to what extent, if any, they behave differently as leaders. The study revolved around the following question: In what ways do male and female administrators perform their leadership functions differently? Precisely, the purpose was to examine the relationship between the leader behavior of men and of women as perceived by the following role categories: 1. The leader behavior descriptions of male and of female university administrators as perceived by their respective, immediate superordinates . 2. The leader behavior descriptions of male and of female university administrators as perceived by their respective subordinates.

PAGE 9

3. The leader behavior descriptions of male and o£ female university administrators as perceived by themselves. From these data, the investigation sought answers to the following questions: 1. Is there a difference in the way superordinates perceive male and female university administrator's leadership behavior? 2. Is there a difference in the way subordinates perceive male and female university administrator's leadership behavior? 3. Is there a difference in the way male and female university administrators perceive their own behavior? The following questions were answered according to the rating received by the male and female administrators on twelve leadership behavior constructs. These constructs are based on the twelve leadership behavior dimensions of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire-XII . Construct 1 : Representation Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators speak and act as the representative of the group as reported by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 2 : Demand Reconciliation Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system as reported

PAGE 10

4 by the various groups, i.e., superordinates , administrators, and subordinates? Construct 5 : Tolerance for Uncertainty Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset as reported by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 4 : Persuasiveness Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators use persuasion and argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions as reported by the various groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 5 : Initiation of Structure Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 6 : Tolerance of Freedom Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 7 : Role Assumption Is there a difference between the perceived degree to

PAGE 11

which male and female university administrators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others as reported by the group, i.e., superordinates , administrators, and subordinates? Construct 8 : Consideration Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of followers as reported by the group, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 9 : Production Emphasis Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators apply pressure for productive output as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 10 : Predictive Accuracy Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates? Construct 11 : Integration Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember conflict as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates, administrators, and subordinates?

PAGE 12

6 Construct 12 : Superior Orientation Is there a difference between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status as reported by the groups, i.e., superordinates , administrators, and subordinates? Each construct was examined using Fisher's exact test and chi square at the .05 level of significance. In addition to the data collected for examining differences between male and female administrators for each of the stated constructs, a professional career interview was conducted with each administrator. The interviews were conducted in order to provide greater depth regarding individual perceptions and careers. Delimitations The following restrictions were observed in conducting the study: 1. The study of leadership qualities was limited to individuals who were currently employed at the University of Florida in 1975. 2. The data collection was limited to responses to the leadership questionnaire and the responses to the personal interviews. 3. The scope of the study was confined to measurable leadership qualities as defined in the L.B.D.Q. --XII and personal observations concerning professional career patterns. 4. The sex of the superordinates and subordinates was not considered as a factor in this study.

PAGE 13

5. The researcher conducting the personal interviews with the male and female administrators was female. 6. The researcher conducting the personal interviews also distributed and analyzed the survey instrument. Justification for the Study There appears to be a paucity of information providing a basis for comparison of female and male university administrators. Little has been done to seek out and define the leadership performance in terms of a female-male contrast. The recent emphasis on involving more women in administration occasioned by legislature, both state and national, as well as societal influences requires that more information about perceptions of administrative performance of men and women be collected and analyzed. These responses, coupled with knowledge of current female administrators' backgrounds and career patterns, should reveal fundamental information about female administrators in higher education. This type of survey should be able to provide guidelines to those persons counseling future administrators. The career patterns and performances which are discerned could be of benefit to those involved in the hiring and/or promotion of females in administration. For those women seeking higher management positions, a knowledge of other females' performances could be beneficial. In general, this study should assist in the clarification

PAGE 14

8 and understanding of women's administrative leader behavior as compared to men's in a university setting. Definition of Terms University Administrator : An employee of the University of Florida who has faculty rank (courtesy or appointed) and has reported fifty percent or more time devoted to administrative duty. The employee should have rank of departmental chairperson or above. This includes institute directors, deans, associate deans and assistant deans. Leader : An individual who, on the basis of his office or official status in an organization, is placed in the position of being able to influence the activities of that organization as it attempts to achieve its goals. In this study, the leader is identified as a university administrator. Leadership : The overt actions in which a leader engages in influencing organizational activities. Superordinate : A person with rank above the identified administrator. The person to whom the identified administrator reports organizationally. Subordinate : A person with rank below the identified administrator; is directly responsible to the identified administrator. Procedures The procedures section is divided into three parts. The first part includes the study's design and the selection of the sample. The second area is an explanation of the development of the instruments and the data collection process. The

PAGE 15

last part deals with the treatment of the data after collection. Design and Sample Female administrators . Female administrators were located by computer survey of the University of Florida faculty. The computer program located all female faculty members (courtesy or appointed) , with rank of department chairperson or above and time records of fifty percent or more devoted to administrative duty. Nineteen female administrators were located by this method. One of the administrators served on the dissertation committee for this work and therefore was not used in the survey. Consequently, the actual number of female administrators participating in this study was 18. In accordance with the "administrator" definition, these administrators were in mid-management positions or above. They included institute directors, assistant institute directors, co-ordinators , deans, assistant deans, associate deans, and department chairpersons. Male administrators . Male administrators were located using the same basic computer survey as that for female adminis trators. After the male administrators were identified, they were matched to the 18 female administrators on the basis of compatible degree, title, and faculty rank. All male administrators with job descriptions similar to the 18 female administrators were numbered and selected by a simple random method. Kendall's (1960) Table of Random Numbers was used.

PAGE 16

10 Due to the nature o£ the "administrator" definition, these administrators were in mid-management positions or above They included institute directors, co -ordinators , deans, assistant deans, associate deans and department chairpersons. Superordinates . The administrators were requested to identify the person who was their direct superior or superordinate. One superordinate was identified for each administrator. The study identified the highest ranking female administrators at the University of Florida in order to observe them as administrators . All participating superordinates were male. Subordinates . The administrators were requested to identify a person directly responsible to them. This person was designated the subordinate. One subordinate was identifie for each administrator. The sex of the subordinate was not considered as a factor in this study. However, it can be note that a majority of the female administrators' participating subordinates were female and a majority of the male administrators' participating subordinates were male. The selection of only one subordinate for each administrator in the study could bias the results since the selection was done by the administrator being rated. However, the same bias would apply equally to all the subordinate respondents. It should also be noted that about one-third of the administrators studied actually had only one subordinate. A majority of the administrators with only one subordinate were female.

PAGE 17

11 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 o£ leaders, through 12 dimensions o£ leader behavior. The leader behavior is perceived objectively in terms o£ the 12 dimensions' frequency of occurrence. A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix A. In addition to the basic instrument, a professional career interview was conducted (by this researcher) with each administrator. These interviews were employed to obtain information on the administrators' career development, orientation and aspirations. A copy of the interview guide is included in Appendix B. The interview guide was constructed on the basis of questions asked by Arter (1972) in her survey of female university administrators at state universities and land-grant colleges. The questions were adjusted to the personal interview setting. Data Treatment L.B.D.Q. --XII consists of 100 items describing leader behavior. Each item is answered with a forced choice format, with one of five possible responses: always, often, occasionally, seldom and 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.

PAGE 18

12 Stogdill (1970) concluded that subscales of the L.B.D.Q. --XII were differently 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 L.B.D.Q. --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 conflicting demands and reduces disorder to the system. 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 lets followers 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 Assumption. The perceived degree to which an individual actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others.

PAGE 19

f 13 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. 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. A letter authorizing the use of the L.B.D.Q. --XII in the study is included in Appendix C. Validity In Stogdill's (1970) Review of Research on the L.B.D.Q. --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 (1969) 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. --XI I to describe the behavior of the supervisor. No significant difference was found between two

PAGE 20

14 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 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. --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 the leader's associates to describe a given leader. The L.B.D.Q. --XII (Appendix A) was administered to each identified administrator, the administrator's superordinate , and a subordinate of the administrator. The administrator was interviewed using the professional career interview guide (Appendix B) . Method of Securing Data Initial contact with the administrators was made by telephone (by this researcher) when interview appointments were scheduled. Following the interviews, administrators were

PAGE 21

15 requested to complete the L . B . D . Q . -XI I . Copies o£ the surveywere left with the administrators. Administrators were also requested to identify one of their superordinates and one of their subordinates. Identified superordinates and subordinates were contacted in person, in their offices, and requested to participate in the study. A copy of the L.B.D.Q. --XII was left with each superordinate and subordinate. ' Instructions for completing the survey were placed on the first page of the instrument (Appendix A). The instrument required 30 minutes to complete. Confidentiality was promoted with each subject asked to return his/her survey directly to the researcher. A series of follow-up contacts were made with those administrators, superordinates, and subordinates who were slow in returning their surveys. Method of Statistical Analysis The data received from the L.B.D.Q. --XII were analyzed, using several techniques and processes. Responses were treated in six categories: 1. Female administrator's self -evaluation. 2. Female administrator's superordinate ' s evaluation. 3. Female administrator's subordinate's evaluation. 4. Male administrator's self -evaluation. 5. Male administrator's superordinate ' s evaluation. 6. Male administrator's subordinate's evaluation.

PAGE 22

16 The University of Florida Computer Center services were employed to analyze the data for each group: superordinates , subordinates and administrators. The computer test was run after the results for each participant were scored. Hollerith cards were key punched for each participant. Each card was punched with the score for each test item, sex, and group of the respondent. The cards were coded and classified in order to assess the following: Superordinates-superordinates ' perceptions of male administrators, and superordinates' perceptions of female administrators; Administrators -males ' perceptions of their own leader behavior, and females' perceptions of their own behavior; Subordinates-subordinates ' perceptions of male administrators, and subordinates' perceptions of female administrators. This procedure was done in order to determine if the three groups perceived the leader behavior of male and female administrators differently. If differences existed, methods were used to determine in which dimensions of the L.B.D.Q. --XII such differences occurred. Testable Questions In order to answer the questions of how the male and female administrators were perceived, a Fisher's exact test and chi square were run at the .05 level of significance using data from the L.B.D.Q. --XII for each construct. Each question was asked in regard to the respondents' groups -subordinates ,

PAGE 23

17 superordinates and administrators. Two computer programs were run, using the Statistical Package for the Social Services -Version 6.00. The first computer analysis was used to identify the mean scores of all the administrators on each of the twelve constructs. Administrators were assigned to category 1 or category 2 as follows: Category 1 contained all scores equal to the mean or higher. Category 2 contained all scores below the mean. Male and female administrators were compared by group and tests of statistical significance for differences were performed by use of chi square and Fisher's exact test in the second computer analysis. The comparison was based on a 2 x 2 test using male administrators female administrators and category 1 category 2. A personal interview was held with each male and female administrator in the sample. The professional career interview guide (Appendix B) was used as a basic format for each interview. Descriptive information from each interview was compiled and reviewed. Patterns and trends were ret'ognized in relation to the administrators' sex. Summary This study's sample population was composed of 18 female administrators and an equal sample of male administrators at the University of Florida. The total population included the identified administrators, their superordinates, and their specified subordinates.

PAGE 24

18 The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII , developed by Ralph Stogdill was the instrument used to assess perception of leader behavior. For this research study, leader behavior was measured in terms of perceptions by the administrators, superordinates , and subordinates. The validity and reliability of this instrument was established by Ralph Stogdill through the Ohio State Leadership Study group. A professional career interview guide was developed to direct questions to the male and female administrators. The administrators participated in open ended interviews concerning their careers. Information gained was used to compare the administrators on the basis of sex. The data for each of the 12 constructs of the L.B .D.Q . XII were separated by sex of the administrator and groupadministrators, superordinates and subordinates. They were then subjected to chi square and Fisher's exact test to determine if there were any differences between sex and group categories at the .05 level of significance.

PAGE 25

CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review research literature relevant to the study of male and female universityadministrators. This study focuses on leadership behavior of university administrators. However, a review of females involved in all levels of education administration is pertinent to the major theme of the study. The review will include a synopsis of literature dealing with females in all levels of educational administration. The chapter contains three sections entitled: Leadership Behavior, Females in Elementary and Secondary Education Administration, and Females in Higher Education Administration. Leadership Behavior Recent leadership theories are reviewed in light of the leadership theme in this study. There appear to be six categories of leadership theories. This specific research effort is aligned with the "interaction-expectation" theories. Literature covering the other five types of leadership will only be briefly discussed in this chapter. Environmental Theories Murphy (1941) contended that leadership qualities are not a factor of the individual, but a function of the occasion. 19

PAGE 26

20 The leader evaluates a situation and is the instrumental factor through which a solution is achieved. The cultural setting is the controlling factor according to Schneider (1937) . He found that great 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 in his study of social psychology. He maintained that leadership can be explained in terms of traits of personality and character. Thus, trait theories could be used to explain leadership. Personal-Situational Theories A combination of the two theories previously mentioned provides another method for describing and studying leadership. 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 (change or problem) confronting the group. Gibb (1954) maintained that when group formation and interaction takes place leadership is a natural interactional phenomenon. Bennis (1966) dealt with five considerations when developing leadership theory: (1) impersonal bureaucracy and rationality of measures, (2) informal organization and

PAGE 27

21 interpersonal relations, (3) benevolent autocracy that gets results because it structures the relationship between superiors and subordinates, (4) job enlargement and employeecentered supervision that permits individual self-actualization, and (5) 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 and needs of the followers. It functions to help the group decide upon a goal and to help the group find the means to a goal. Humanistic Theories The development of effective and cohesive organizations was a major concern of Argyris and McGregor. Argyris (1964) saw 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. It is a tendency of organizations to structure member roles and to control performance in the interest of achieving specified objectives. An organization which can balance the followers' creative contributions as a natural outgrowth of their needs for growth and self-expression will be the most effective. McGregor (1966) perceived leadership on the basis of two organizational types-Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X attempts to direct and motivate people on the assumption that people are

PAGE 28

22 passive and resistant to organizational needs. Theory Y presumes that people already possess motivation and desire for responsibility and therefore attempts to arrange organization conditions in order to make possible fulfillment of their needs while directing their efforts to achieve organizational objectives. Likert (1967) observed that leadership is based on interaction. The leader builds group cohesiveness and motivation for productivity by providing freedom for responsible decision making and exercise of initiative. Exchange Theories Jacobs (1971) 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 contributions 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) theory of the leadership role is based on three variables: action, interaction and sentiments. Leadership is defined in terms of the 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,

PAGE 29

23 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 interactions. When group tasks are dependently related to one another and to a solution of a common problem, leadership arises according to Hemphill (1955) . This type of theory was the basis for the development of Stogdill's (1959) expectancy-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 appears to be applicable to the study of university administrators. Stogdill's research has yielded several leadership surveys. One form, 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 administration. 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

PAGE 30

24 Behavior Description Questionnaire as compared with the school board and staff perceptions. Brown (1966) focused on the leader behavior of 170 principals in Alberta, Canada. Using the L.B.D.Q. --XII , the findings indicated that: (1) teachers' estimates of the school's performance was not sensitive to the perception of leadership in the school, (2) teacher satisfaction was sensitive to the perception of the school leadership, and (3) conficence in the principal was related to the school leadership. Jacobs (1965) compared "high" and "low" innovating principals using the L.B.D.Q. --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. Additional literature addressing leadership theories which are relevant to this study will be briefly discussed before the remaining sections of this chapter. Kimbrough (1968) wrote that leadership must involve more than the personal characteristics of the leader. He suggested that the leadership role is either enhanced or suffers depending on how it is valued by members of the system. This perception is seen as an important facet in the value differentiation of leader behavior. Halpin (1966) contended 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 31

25 According to Owens (1970) , the study of leadership should examine and measure the performance of the leader rather than human traits or other phenomena. The focus should be on observed behavior. In other words, researchers should give attention to what has happened or appears to be happening rather than on finding the cause of observed behavior. Females in Elementary and Secondary Education Administration As previously mentioned, there is a paucity of research dealing with females as education administrators. Numerous pages could be filled with publications on education administration and higher education which fail to mention the particu lar role and scope of female participation. At the same time, there is current literature pertaining to women in higher education which says little, if anything, about the administra tive realm. A recent Change publication, Women on Campus (1974) , offers sixteen articles, none of which discuss the female as an administrator nor a potential administrator. The Carnegie Commission: Opportunities for Women in Higher Education (1973) appears to be a thorough investigation Yet a discussion of female administrators is limited to one page dealing with the decline in the number of women holding administrative positions in coeducational institutions. The Commission suggests that women are so rarely represented in top administrative positions as to be practically nonexistent.

PAGE 32

26 Data provided reinforce this analysis. Females were found to be a low percentage of academic administrators in 454 institutions surveyed. This type of information partially explains why such a dearth of research exists -there are few female administrators in higher education. Howeverstudies of females in elementary and secondary education are also few in number. Studies from that area seem particularly pertinent here. Taylor's (1971) survey found women constitute 67% of the total elementary and secondary teaching force, while 971 of secondary principals and more than 99% of the superintendents are men. The percentage of women elementary principals (211) is actually lower today than it was in past decades. Taylor also showed that all other things being equal, superintendents (male) were not likely to hire women as administrators. She concluded that the only factor which appeared to have any significance on the hiring process was that of sex. The other variables -age , type of position, length of experience, size of school district-did not have any valid correlation with the hiring process. Hemphill, Griffiths, and Frederiksen (1962) found that male principals were preferred by boards of education, although they did not demonstrate superior performance. The study concluded that women tend to score higher than men in ability to work with teachers and outsiders, were more concerned with objectives, possessed greater knowledge of teaching techniques.

PAGE 33

27 and were able to gain positive reactions from teachers and superiors . A University of Florida-Kellogg leadership study team (Grobman and Hines, 1966) attempted to identify and clarify good and poor principal behavior. The team concluded that women were more democratic than men and outscored them in using effective administrative practices. Morsink (1966) studied leader behavior of men and women secondary principals. She discovered that men had more tolerance for freedom. Women scored better in being persuasive in argument, emphasizing production, speaking and acting as a representative of the group, maintaining cordial relations with superiors in exerting influence and striving for higher status. Gross and Trask (1964) conducted part of a National Principalship Study on the difference between men and women elementary principals. They found that women principals gave greater importance to the differences between individual students, placed more emphasis on the detection and assisting of delinquency-prone pupils in their schools and generally were more concerned for the students in their schools. No differences between the sexes were found to exist in the importance they attributed to the academic performance of pupils or in the emphasis placed on the discipline of pupils. Women principals were more likely to require teachers to conform to their standards. No difference was found between the sexes in the amount

PAGE 34

28 of support given to a teacher in a conflict with a pupil or in the extent to which parents were involved in school activities. The sex of the principal was not related to the morale of the teachers in the school. Hoyle (1967) in a Texas study found that women principals were more often aware of the problems facing their teachers than were male principals. No difference was found between the sexes in terms of involving teachers in decision making or encouraging teacher initiative. A study of New York State administrators (Mann, 1971) categorized principals as delegates, trustees, or politicos. A delegate was considered a principal who was guided by citizen preferences even at the expense of his/her own judgment. A trustee was a principal whose decisions were usually based on his own values even if they conflicted with the community sentiment. A politico principal was one who borrowe from both trustee and delegate as aictated by the situation, ' but who had some internally consistent reason for doing so. Women were most likely to be delegates. Proportionately fewer women were trustees and no women were politicos. Longstreth (1973) analyzed the perceptions of leadership behavior of male and female principals in Florida. In a test of twelve leadership dimensions, differences between the sexes were found as follows: — 1. Female principals perceived themselves as regarding the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of their

PAGE 35

29 staffs to a significantly higher degree than did the male principals . 2. Male staff perceived male and female principals as applying a higher degree of pressure for production output than did female staff. 3. Male and female staff perceived female principals as speaking and acting as the representative of the staff to a significantly higher degree than male principals. 4. Males perceived female principals as either "subordinate centered" or "boss centered" and male principals as "boss centered." Females perceived female principals as "subordinate centered" and male principals as "boss centered." (Longstreth, 1973, page 96) In measures of significant difference, however, Longstreth concluded that a principal's sex is not a significant factor in overall leader behavior. A position paper prepared by the Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute (1974) summarized the status of women in public educational administrative positions. It cited the exclusion of women from administrative positions and urged that continued research and discussion be done in an effort to identify areas for innovation and change. F emales in Higher Education Administration The majority of research in this area has been done in the form of doctoral dissertations. These studies, along with additional research directly related to female administrators

PAGE 36

30 in higher education, are reported on in this section of the literature review. In 1961, Kaufman conducted a study to determine the status of women in higher education in selected institutions in the United States. The purpose of the study was to identify and analyze employment practices in appointing women to administrative positions. Kaufman hypothesized that sex would be the determining factor in making administrative appointments when all other variables were equal. Among the findings of the investigation, Kaufman discovered that: (1) there was an incongruence between theory and practice in regard to sex when making administrative appointments, (2) in the institutions surveyed, the proportion of women administrators was small, (3) women were appointed to positions considered typically female positions, (4) previous experience and education were of prime importance in preparing women administrators, (5) there was a lack of qualified women available to appoint to administrative positions, and (6) when equally qualified, the men generally advanced more readily. Gardner (1966) conducted a survey to determine career patterns of women administrators in Illinois. The study was an attempt to provide useful information to women interested in administrative careers in higher education. Gardner's subjects were classified in four administrative areas: head librarians, deans of women, registrars, and other deans (a miscellaneous category) .

PAGE 37

31 For all respondents in general, Gardner found that: (1) prior to holding their present administrative position, 48% o£ the women had been assistants to the chief administrators in their respective areas; (2) one half of the respondents indicated that they had begun their administrative careers within the range of ages 26 through 35; and (3) over one half had not been assisted in obtaining their positions. Gardner found that women administrators tended to be promoted to such positions from office staff and teaching positions. Since the majority of the respondents indicated that few courses were of particular help to them in their careers, Gardner deduced that the respondents had not been trained for administrative positions. She recommended further studies to be made to determine helpful courses of study for women administrators. Simpson C1970) conducted a study of six colleges in Pennsylvania to determine whether those persons responsible for employing faculty and administrators would express a preference for male candidates. Additionally, he sought to determine whether those responsible for making academic appointments who repeatedly excluded female candidates would relegate women to lesser positions. Simpson's research instrument utilized brief descriptive resumes of fourteen individuals paired as candidates for theoretical administrative positions. The results of the survey indicated that those responsible for employing faculty and

PAGE 38

32 administrators did show discrimination against female candidates when considering equally qualified male and female candidates. Harris' research (1970) evolved from testimony before the Special House Subcommittee on Education in 1970. She found women faculty tended to be excluded from positions in prestigious universities. Women were generally in the lower professional ranks, finding it difficult to rise to the rank of full professor. The study also showed that women administrators were scarce in number and generally held appointments in areas traditionally considered female. At the same time a number of women with qualifications equal to many directors were appointed as assistant directors doing the same work and for less financial renumeration. Although inequities do exist, Harris concluded it is most difficult to determine between de facto and de jure sexual discrimination. An attempt to define the attitudes of women in administrative positions as reflected by their involvement on campus and to create an awareness of discrimination where it might exist was the purpose of an American Association of University Women survey to which 454 member institutions responded (Oltman, 1970) . The major findings of the study indicated that (1) although their promotional policies were the same for men and women, 34 educational institutions had no women department heads and the

PAGE 39

33 mean number of women department heads in all institutions was less than three, (2) although 92% indicated their institutions included women in upper level administrative positions, women were seldom employed in positions which involved critical decision making, nor were women actively recruited to upper level positions, (3) women were generally found in positions which . involved minor policy making decisions at the middle management level or were in positions typically considered female, and (4) greater opportunities for women were found in the administration of women's colleges. In an article about women in higher education administration, Carroll (1972) expressed concern for the lack of women in upper level administrative positions in coeducational colleges and universities. No longer can women claim the position of dean of women. In many institutions this position has been eliminated with the creation of the dean of students' position to which a man has generally been appointed. Carroll hypothesized that there were three reasons for the scarcity of women administrators in higher education: (1) women tended not to seek administrative positions, (2) when administrators vacated positions they do not recommend women for their positions, and (3) women are not sought for administrative positions by those individuals responsible for selecting administrators . Noll (1973) investigated the opinions of policy making officials towards the hiring of women administrators, in public, two-year educational institutions. The study found no

PAGE 40

34 relationship between female policy makers and the number of female top-level administrators. Both male and female candidates were expected to possess the same personal characteristics of primary importance-ability and professional experience. Emotional stability was considered the third most important characteristic for females, whereas organizational ability rated number three for the males. The majority of policy-making officials in the two-year institutions surveyed would be willing to recommend a female for a top-level administrative position in their own district/ institution. Fecher (1972) studied the career patterns of the 650 women administrators in positions not typically held by women in public coeducational institutions listed in the Education Directory 1970-71 : Higher Education , other than deans of women, deans of schools of nursing, deans of schools of home economics and librarians. Among the major findings were the following: (1) a large percentage of the females reported that they served on policy making committees but that they had little influence on policy decisions; (2) women administrators in higher education in positions not traditionally held by women suffered the same restrictions on sex and employment that are apparent throughout society; (3) the field of student personnel services appeared to have offered greater employment opportunities for women administrators in higher education than other areas in the administration of higher education; (4) women administrators felt that

PAGE 41

35 being married was neither a disadvantage nor an advantage as an administrator; (5) most females in administration accepted new positions within the same institution rather than seeking new positions elsewhere. The Pfiffner (197 2) study attempted to determine some characteristics that women in the highest three levels of administration in the California public community colleges had in common. This research effort concluded that most women administrators did not feel they were discriminated against because of being a woman administrator. The five personal characteristics which women felt were most important for a toplevel administrative career were: (1) the ability to work with others, (2) a strong personal value system, (3) fairness and objectivity, (4) sensitivity toward people and (5) a sense of humor and humility. It is reported in the study that few women became academic administrators for two main reasons. First, the sex-role women learned to play did not include this occupation as an option. Second, the discriminatory attitude exhibited by both men and women toward women becoming administrators precluded their doing so. In order to develop a larger number of women leaders, Pfiffner urged that some attitude changes by society toward the development of each human being's potential be made. She also suggested that pressure from various sources, especially legal and economic pressures related to the provisions under government contracts, would enable more women to become involved in administration.

PAGE 42

36 Arter (1972) surveyed the role of women in the administration of state universities and land-grant colleges. In the investigation it was found that over one half of the state universities and land-grant colleges did not have women in toplevel administrative positions. Over half of the institutions queried did not appoint women to administrative posts in the last five-years prior to the study. Over one third of the institutions did not consider women for administrative posts during the last five year period. Ninety-three percent of the institutions surveyed stated that they would consider qualified women for top-level administrative posts. A profile of the women administrators surveyed showed them to have prime responsibility for personnel and academic programs; confidence and authority to make decisions; responsible to administrators other than the governing board, chancellor, president, or vice-president; personally responsible for carrying out policy, delegating authority, overseeing implementation, and transmitting decisions. The women administrators studied planned to remain in administration. Service, dedication, and challenge ranked highest as their reasons for working. LaPuma (1972) examined the literature of higher education in order to determine the attitudes toward the employment of women in higher education. The study was concerned with selected books that dealt with personnel policies and practices relative to higher education, published or reprinted between 1960 and 1970.

PAGE 43

37 Research revealed that discriminatory attitudes towards women faculty members and administrators declined during the decade of the sixties. However, respondents stated that women were less qualified and less committed to an academic career. At the same time, the literature suggested that colleges and universities do not provide women with the same opportunities they grant men. The research seemed to illustrate that sex is a determinate in the academic marketplace. Summary Very little research is available concerning females in education administration. Comparisons of male and female administrators are particularly scarce. Studies, of any nature, of female administrators in higher education are also few. Fundamental to this lack of research is a dearth of female administrators. According to recent surveys, there is a low percentage of female administrators at every level of education. Higher education seems to display the lowest number of female administrators. Research to date has indicated certain differences between male and female elementary-secondary school administrators. Yet, overwhelming differences in leadership effectiveness were difficult to demonstrate. While some variations in the leadership function could be correlated with sex, overall performance of males and females was similar.

PAGE 44

38 Females in higher education administration are found clustered in the mid-management levels or below. Recent researchers have found that it remains difficult for women to be employed as administrators. Those who are administrators are expected to possess the same leadership and personal qualities as their male counterparts. Yet few are in decision making positions. With affirmative action programs in progress, discrimination should be declining. It appears that an understanding of females in higher education administration is vital. The literature reviewed here reveals that further study is necessary to this aspect of higher education administration. Recent legislation and current studies that have been completed emphasize the urgency to place women in leadership positions. This acknowledgement clearly applies to higher education as well as to other realms. Such declarations make it imperative that research be expanded.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER III A DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE SAMPLE POPULATION This chapter provides background relative to the University of Florida and a report of the responses to the professional career interviews. The University of Florida This study was carried out at the University of Florida, one of nine universities in the Florida State University System. The University is under direct supervision of the Board of Regents, a group of nine citizens appointed by the governor for terms of one to nine years. The Board of Regents nominates the president of the University of Florida, as the university's chief executive officer. He is appointed by the State Board of Education. The president has veto power over all actions of committees, college faculties, councils and the University Senate. The University is located in the northern center of Florida at Gainesville. Historically, it is a combined State University and land-grant college. In 1905, the Florida legislature established the University of Florida for men and placed it under the direction of the Board of Control. In 1947 the University was made coeducational. 39

PAGE 46

40 Currently, the University is composed of 16 colleges and two schools. It is unique as all these programs are located on a single campus. The campus also includes more than 40 centers, bureaus and institutes. Academic units are: the Colleges of Agriculture, Architecture and Fine Arts, Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Health Related Professions, Journalism and Communications, Law, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Physical Education, Health and Recreation, and Veterinary Medicine, along with the University College, School of Forest Resources and Conservation and the Graduate School. As of 1975, the University employed 2,693 faculty members, 5,217 in career service and 289 in administrative and professional positions. Nine percent of the academic staff were classified in the administration, student services, libraries category. An analysis of the University faculty showed 2,242 male faculty members and 280 female faculty members. More than 90 percent of the students attending the University came from within the state. Enrollment figures at the University for 1974-75 were 28,332 total students (17,749 men and 10,503 women), including 4,353 graduate students. The University has conferred more than 98,000 degrees since its founding. In 1973-74 it awarded: 4,445 Bachelors, 393 D.D.'s, 71 M.D.'s, 1,177 Masters, 227 Ph.D.'s, 49 Ed.D.'s, 5 Engineering Specialists, and 71 Education Specialists for a total of 6,435 degrees.

PAGE 47

41 Graduate study has had a phenomenal growth since its beginning at the University. In 1930, 33 degrees were awarded in twelve fields. In 1940, 66 degrees were awarded in 16 fields. In 1971-72 the total number of graduate degrees awarded was 1,636 in more than 90 fields. The proportion of doctoral degrees has also increased. In 1950, 18 Ph.D.'s and 5 Ed.D.'s were awarded. In 1973-74 the total was 224 Ph.D.'s and 49 Ed.D's. The University conducts research in nearly all fields of knowledge. Through its competition for sponsored research and training funds the University acquired over 34 million dollars in grants and contracts in fiscal 1973. The University of Florida is the largest state supported institution of higher learning in Florida. In relation to this study, it should be pointed out that although it is the state's oldest institution, it did not admit women students until 1947. Thus much of its history is based on its background as a public men's university. This information on the University provides a background for the conduct of this study. Administrators' Professional Career Interviews A portion of the information received from the professional career interviews will be included in later chapters. The results reported in this section are predominantly discussed later in relation to their impact on the study's conclusions. The administrators interviewed ranged in age from 32 years to 64 years. A majority of the males and females were in the age range 40-50 years. All of the males interviewed were married.

PAGE 48

42 The females were evenly divided between married, single, and divorced. All o£ the married females had children, as did all the males. A majority of the males were 35-40 years when they first became an administrator. The females tended to be older when; they acquired their first administrative position, a majority were 40-45 years. There was a contrast between the sexes in their total years of administrative experience. A majority of the females had had one to three years in administration. A majority of the males had had four to six years in administration. The females interviewed tended to be relatively new to their present position. A majority had held their current post for less than three years. A majority of the males had a slightly higher average. A majority of the male administrators had held their present position for two to four years. The administrators reported heavy work loads. A majority of both the males and females averaged 50-60 hours of work per week. One male and one female explained that their total work effort was over 70 hours per week. Five females and five males stated they worked an average of 65 hours per week. A large majority of the administrators hold doctorate degrees. Almost half of both the males and females hold a degree in education. A majority of the remaining administrators hold Ph.D.'s in various disciplines. More females than males interviewed hold Ed.D.'s. More males than females interviewed hold Ph.D.'s in education.

PAGE 49

43 Both male and female administrators tended to belong to a number of professional associations. Each administrator reported membership in six to ten organizations. Male administrators tended to publish more frequently than female administrators. A majority of the males reported three to four publications per year.A majority of the females cited one to two publications per year. Additional answers and discussion from the administrators' interviews will be discussed in Chapters IV and V. Summary The University of Florida was the location for this research. All administrators and associates surveyed are employed at this University which is the largest state supported institution of higher learning in Florida. It was originally established as a university for men and became coeducational in 1947. Its 1975 enrollment exceeded 28,000 students . A review of the professional career interviews included comparisons of male and female administrators. Responses were similar in categories of age, work loads, degrees, and organizational membership. Male administrators reported more years in administration and more years in their present position than the female administrators. Males also cited more publications per year than the females. Further conclusions and discussion of the interviews are included in Chapter IV and V.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The analysis of the data in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter I is reported in this chapter. Data for analysis were drawn from the administration of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII . The chapter also relates the findings of the personal interviews held with the male and female administrators. The L . B . D .Q . -Form XII was administered to all participants in the study; administrators, superordinates , and subordinates. Fisher's exact test and chi square were used to answer the twelve questions concerning the differences between male and female administrators' leadership behavior. The significance level was set at .05. Each question was answered on the basis of the ratings of male and female administrators by three groups-subordinates , superordinates and the administrators. Two computer programs were run, using the Statistical Package for the Social Services -Version 6.00. The first computer analysis was used to identify the mean scores of all the administrators on each of the twelve constructs. Administrators were assigned to category 1 or category 2 as follows: Category 1 contained all scores equal to the mean or higher. Category 44

PAGE 51

45 2 contained all scores below the mean. Male and female administrators were compared by group and tests of statistical significance for differences were performed by use of chi square and Fisher's exact test in the second computer analysis. The comparison was based on a 2 x 2 test using male administrators-female administrators and category 1 category 2. Summary of the L.B.D.Q.--XII Findings Of 108 questionnaires distributed, fifty-eight were returned, yielding a 551 total rate of return. There were 35 respondents (64%) to the female administrator evaluation and 23 respondents (42%) to the male administrator evaluation. There were 20 subordinate respondents, 18 superordinate respondents, and 20 administrator respondents. The total respondents by category were as follows: Respondents to Male Administrator Evaluation: Subordinates 7 Superordinates 8 Administrators 8 Respondents to Female Administrator Evaluation: Subordinates 13 Superordinates 10 Administrators 12 Statistical analysis of the L.B.D.Q. -XII results were applied to each of the twelve constructs and interpreted using chi square and Fisher's exact test. Tests were run for comparisons on the basis of the administrators' sex and for comparisons by level of the respondent. The results are reviewed by each of the twelve constructs.

PAGE 52

46 Construct 1: Representation There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators speak and act as the representative of the group. Table 1.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the first construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the first construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.3 reports the administrator responses for the first construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 1.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators speak and act as representative of the group.

PAGE 53

47 Table 1.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 1: Representation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 7 5 2 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 11 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.27245 Table 1.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 1: Representation (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 10 4 6 Total 18 9 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.31859 Table 1.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 1: Representation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 12 8 4 Total 20 13 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.74923

PAGE 54

48 Table 1.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 1: Representation (N=58) GROUP , TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Subordinate 20 11 9 Superordinate 18 9 9 Administrator 20 13 7 Total 58 53 25 Chi Square = 0.91394 Significance = 0.6352 Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates , and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system. Table 2.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the second construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 2.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the second construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 2.3 reports the administrator responses for the second construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

PAGE 55

49 2.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university adminis trators reconcile conflicting demands and reduce disorder to the system. Table 2.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2 -Be low Mean Male Adm. Female Adm. Total 7 13 20 5 7 12 2 6 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.39164 Table 2.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY Male Adm. Female Adm, Total 10 18 1-Within Mean or Above 5 5 10 2-Below Mean 3 5 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.47984

PAGE 56

50 Table 2.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2 -Below Mean Male Adm. 8 7 1 Female Adm. 12 8 4 Total 20 15 5 Fisher's Exact Test = 0 . 30650 Table 2.4 Number o£ Responses by Category and Group on Construct 2: Demand Reconciliation (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2-Below Mean Subordinate 20 12 8 Superordinate 18 10 8 Administrator 20 15 5 Total 58 37 21 Chi Square = Significance = 1. 74091 0.4188 Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 3.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the third construct.

PAGE 57

51 It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 3.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the third construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 3.3 reports the results for the administrator responses for the third construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 3.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates , and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators are able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety and upset. Table 3.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY ~~ ~~ 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 7 4 3 Female Adm. 13 4 9 Total 20 8 12 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.25077

PAGE 58

52 Table 3.2 Number o£ Superordinate REsponses by Category and Sex on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2or Above Below Mean Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 8 10 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.47984 Table 3.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 3: Tolerance for Uncertainty (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 12 6 6 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.25961 Table 3.4 Number of Responses by Construct 3: Tolerance Category and Group on for Uncertainty (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below or Above Mean Subordinate 20 8 12 Superordinate 18 8 10 Administrator 20 12 8 Total 58 28 30 Chi Square Significance = = 1.75534 = 0.4157

PAGE 59

53 Construct 4: Persuasiveness There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates , and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators use persuasion and argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions. Table 4.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the fourth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 4.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the fourth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 4.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the fourth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses for the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 4.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators use persuasion and argument effectively and exhibit strong convictions.

PAGE 60

54 Table 4.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=20) SEX . TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean T^^eTow'Tiean or Above Male Adm. 7 2 5 Female Adm. 13 5 8 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52574 Table 4.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 6 4 Total 18 10 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52016 Table 4.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 12 7 5 Total 20 13 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.39164

PAGE 61

55 Table 4.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 4: Persuasiveness (N=58) GROUP TOTAL ^ CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Subordinate 20 7 13 Superordinate 18 10 8 Administrator 20 13 7 Total 58 30 28 Chi Square = 3.75772 Significance = 0.1528 Construct 5: Initiation of Structure There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them as reported by the superordinates and the administrators. However, there was a significant difference of .04427 reported by the subordinates' responses. The subordinate responses to female administrators rated the female administrators significantly higher than the subordinate respondents to the male administrators rated the male administrators. Table 5.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the fifth construct. It shows that there was a significant difference at the .05 level between the subordinate responses. Table 5.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses

PAGE 62

56 for the fifth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 5.3 reports the administrator responses for the fifth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 5.4 reports this result. According to these responses, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them. There was a significant difference perceived by the subordinates' responses . Table 5.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 7 0 7 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 6 14 Fisher's Exact Test 0.04427* .05

PAGE 63

57 Table 5.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2 Below Mean Male Adm, 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 6 4 Total 18 10 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52016 Table 5.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 5: Initiation of Structure (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2 -Below Mean Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 5 7 Total 20 8 12 Fisher's Exact Text = 0. 61189 Table 5.4 Number of Responses by Catej Construct 5: Initiation of jory and Group on Structure (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2 -Below Mean Subordinate 20 6 14 Superordinate 18 10 8 Administrator 20 8 12 Total 58 24 34 Chi Square = 2.57462 Significance --^ 0.2760

PAGE 64

58 Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates , and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action. Table 6.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the sixth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate res-onses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 6.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the sixth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 6.3 reports the results for the administrator responses for the sixth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. There was a significant difference of .0258 reported in the categories of responses made by the three group levels. The administrators ranked themselves lower in ratings than did the subordinate and superordinate respondents. Table 6.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates and superordinates similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action. As a group, the administrators perceived themselves lower on this construct.

PAGE 65

59 Table 6.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 74 3 Female Adm. 13 8 5 Total 20 12 ' 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.74923 Table 6.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 10 7 3 Total 18 13 5 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.61765 Table 6.3 Number of Construct Administrator 6: Tolerance Responses by Category and Sex on of Freedom (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 3 9 Total 20 6 14 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.86275

PAGE 66

60 Table 6.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 6: Tolerance of Freedom (N=58) HROTIP TOTA T vj r\ 1 \j kj i\ 1 1 -Within Mean or Above 2-Below Mean Subordinate 20 12 8 SuDerordinate 18 13 5 Administrator 20 6 14 Total 58 31 17 Chi Square = Significance = 7.31448 0. 0258* •* *£ = .05. Construct 7: Role Assumption There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates , superordinates , and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others. Table 7.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the seventh construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 7.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the seventh construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 7.3 reports the administrator responses for the seventh construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 67

61 The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the ,05 level. Table 7.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators actively exercise the leadership role rather than surrender leadership to others. Table 7.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Ab ove Male Adm. 7 2 Female Adm. 13 5 Total 20 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52574 Table 7.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=18) and Sex on SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 4 6 Total 18 8 10 5 8 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.81578

PAGE 68

62 Table 7.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=20) *J Lj J\. TOTAT CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 12 6 6 Total .20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test 0.63003 Table 7.4 Number o£ Responses by Category and Group on Construct 7: Role Assumption (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Subordinate 20 7 13 Superordinate 18 8 10 Administrator 20 12 8 Total 58 27 31 Chi Square = Significance = 2.55853 0. 2782 Construct 8: Consideration There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of followers. Table 8.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the eighth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses

PAGE 69

63 was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the eighth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the eighth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators regard the comfort, well-being, status and contribution of followers. Table 8.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 8: Consideration (N= 20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 7 3 4 Female Adm. 13 6 7 Total 20 9 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.63003

PAGE 70

64 Table 8.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on P f"i"n Q T r1 p T ?1 1* 1 n n r\I= 18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 10 4 6 Total 18 7 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.64781 Table 8.3 Number of Administrator Respons-s by Category and Sex on Construct 8: Consideration (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 2 6 Female Adm. 12 5 7 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.39164 Table 8.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 8: Consideration (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above Subordinate 20 9 11 Superordinate 18 7 11 Administrator 20 7 13 Total 58 23 35 Chi Square Significance = 0.42429 0 .8088

PAGE 71

65 Construct 9: Production Emphasis There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators apply pressure for productive output. Table 9.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the ninth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 9.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the ninth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 9.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the ninth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 9.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators apply pressure for productive output.

PAGE 72

66 Table 9.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=20) SEX TOTA T CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 7 5 2 . Female Adm. 13 8 5 Total 20 13 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52574 Table 9.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 9 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.68141 Table 9.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 9: Production Emphasis CN=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY Male Adm. Female Adm. Total 1-Within Mean or Above 2 -Below Mean 8 12 20 3 6 9 5 6 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.46499

PAGE 73

67 Table 9.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 9: Production Emphasis (N=58) GR OUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Subordinate 20 13 7 Superordinate 18 9 9 Administrator 20 9 11 Total 58 31 27 Chi Square = 1.73238 Significance == 0.4206 Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 10.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the tenth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 10.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 10.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the tenth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table

PAGE 74

68 10.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates , and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university adminiS' trators exhibit foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. Table 10.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex in Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 7 1 6 Female Adm. 13 2 11 Total 20 3 17 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.72982 Table 10.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 9 9 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.68141

PAGE 75

69 Table 10.3 Number o£ Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N^20) SFX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2-Below Mean Male Adm. 8 3 5 Female Adm. 12 4 8 Total 20 7 13 Fisher's Exact Test = 0 . 74923 Table 10.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 10: Predictive Accuracy (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2-Below Mean Subordinate 20 3 17 Superordinate 18 9 9 Administrator 20 7 13 Total 58 19 39 Chi Square = 5.33819 Significance = 0.0693 Construct 11: Integration There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates , and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve intermember conflict. Table 11.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the eleventh construct.

PAGE 76

70 It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 11.2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the eleventh construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 11.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the eleventh construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level. The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 11.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates , and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators maintain a closely-knit organization and resolve inter-member conflict . Table 11.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 11: Integration (N=^20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2-Below Mean or Above • 5 2 6 7 11 9 Fisher's Exact Text = .027245 Male Adm. 7 Female Adm. 13 Total 20

PAGE 77

71 Table 11.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 11: Integration (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 5 3 Female Adm. 10 7 3 Total 18 12 6 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.79864 Table 11.3 Number of Administrator Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 11: Integration (N=20) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1-Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm. 8 4 4 Female Adm. 12 8 4 Total 20 12 8 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.38881 Table 11.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 11: Integration (N=58) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Subordinate 20 11 9 Superordinate 18 12 6 Administrator 20 12 8 Total 58 35 . 23 Chi Square = 0.54037 Significance 0.7632

PAGE 78

72 Construct 12: Superior Orientation There was no significant difference at the .05 level in the ratings as reported by the subordinates, superordinates and administrators between the perceived degree to which male and female university administrators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status. Table 12.1 reports the results of the subordinate responses for the twelfth construct. It shows that the difference between the subordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 12,2 reports the results of the superordinate responses for the twelfth construct. It indicates that the difference between the superordinate responses was not significant at the .05 level. Table 12.3 reports the results of the administrator responses for the twelfth construct. It shows that the difference between the administrator responses was not significant at the .05 level . The difference in the categories of responses made by the three group levels was not significant at the .05 level. Table 12.4 reports this result. According to these responses, subordinates, superordinates, and administrators similarly perceived the degree to which male and female university administrators maintain cordial relations with superiors, have influence over them, and are striving for higher status.

PAGE 79

1 73 Table 12.1 Number of Subordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=20) SEX ^ TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above 3 4 6 7 9 11 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.63003 Male Adm. 7 Female Adm. 13 Total 20 Table 12.2 Number of Superordinate Responses by Category and Sex on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=18) SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Male Adm. 8 6 2 Female Adm. 10 5 5 Total 18 11 7 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.27828 Table 12.3 Number of Administrator Construct 12: Superior Responses by Category and Orientation (N=20) Sex on SEX TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean or Above 2Below Mean Male Adm, 8 5 3 Female Adm. 12 5 7 Total 20 10 10 Fisher's Exact Test = 0.52496

PAGE 80

74 Table 12.4 Number of Responses by Category and Group on Construct 12: Superior Orientation (N=58) GROUP TOTAL CATEGORY 1 -Within Mean 2 -Below Mean or Above Subordinate 20 9 11 Superordinate 18 11 7 Administrator 20 10 10 Total 58 _30 28 Chi Square = 1.02114 Significance = 0.6002 Summary of the Administrators' Professional Career Interviews Information and insights gained from the interview portion of research are discussed in this part of the chapter. A copy of the interview guide is included as Appendix B. Three career subtopics emerged from the interviews: career development, career orientation, and career aspirations. Each of these is reviewed separately, with particular emphasis on a comparison of male and female responses. The major purpose of the interview process was to have the administrators assess their administrative involvement, which includes leadership functions. Answers acquired through the interview process are usually not of a quantitative nature. Therefore, discussion of the interviews revolves around overviews and general observations. The emphasis is on contrasting males and females as administrators.

PAGE 81

75 Career Development Female and male patterns o£ career development emerged quite differently. Educational background tended to yield the same result. The degrees held by males and females were similar. However, the acquisition of these degrees proved to be different in nature. It appeared that the key contrast between males and females was marriage and family status. Males continued their education without interruption, through their highest degree. Females took longer to complete their highest degree, with time off for child rearing and family responsibilities. Exceptions to the female pattern were the unmarried female administrators. Divorced female administrators also had a discernable pattern. They returned for advanced degrees and sought administrative positions after being divorced. Marriage status seemed to have no bearing on the career development of male administrators. A majority of the males were married, with families. Males and females were in similar age brackets. Most clustered around the mid-forty to mid-fifty range. Experience in administration was varied. Noteworthy was the fact that the males tended to climb the administrative ladder in a distinguishable manner. They had prior administrative experience, at least mid-management in status. A majority of the females were found to be in their first administrative role. Most had been teaching faculty, appointed "out of the ranks" to the administrative position.

PAGE 82

76 Career Orientation Males and females tended to give different reasons for assuming their current administrative position. This difference could be attributed in part to prior career background. Both male and female administrators saw their positions as advancements, providing opportunities for new experiences. The males defined the administrative role as an opportunity to become a change agent, to have an impact on decision-making. Females perceived the administrative position as one with lots of interaction. Females were eager to use their position to work with people; to be responsive to staff and students' needs. Both males and females pinpointed problem-solving as a positive aspect of the administrative assignments. Job duties as described by both males and females seemed to demand responsibilities for all of the roles mentioned above. The duties which were listed were numerous and varied. The important observation to make is that job responsibilities did not seem to differ between male and female administrators. A "typical day" was impossible for any of the administrators to describe. Females felt they were overburdened with university committee assignments as the "token female." However, males were found also to have heavy committee involvements. The administrators estimated their "average" work week to be 50-60 hours. The females often pointed out that 10-20 of these hours were sometimes spent with paper work taken home. Females with families stressed their tendency to work at home

PAGE 83

77 during evenings. Males stated that they worked straight through a day until a late dinner, or returned to the office during evening or weekend hours. Single females seemed to utilize a variety of work settings. Based on these responses, it could be suggested that male and female administrators work similar total hours. When questioned about job completion males and females responded almost identically. Both categories felt that requirements for paper shuffling were burdensome. Most also mentioned "red tape" as a thwarting factor. Both sexes cited budget cuts and the dollar crunch as limitations on their planning and programming. Female administrators did not note disrespect or disregard due to their sex. Males did not mention being hampered by affirmative action demands. Self-satisfaction and job-satisfaction were high for both sexes. The male and female administrators represented themselves as individuals who had matched their personal fulfillment needs with an appropriate employment environment. Both sexes seemed equally involved in their careers and equally pleased with their current job expectations. A majority of the administrators felt that their positions provided prestige, recognition, and visibility. Expectations for these factors may vary according to sex, but differences were not apparent in the interviews. Prestige did not appear to be deemed as vital as was a means to get things done. As long as superordinates and subordinates were aware of the adminis-

PAGE 84

78 trators' needs and methods, the administrator voiced positive feelings concerning competency and reputation. Males tended to emphasize superordinate interaction, females discussed both superordinate and subordinate, equally. Career Aspirations A majority of the female administrators interviewed were in their first administrative position. Few of them had been specifically seeking administrative careers. While they declared a satisfaction and challenge with their current role, they did not appear ambitious to assume a higher level administrative position. Additional power of top level administration did not appear to be alluring to most of the females. The males interviewed were more likely to picture themselves as upwardmobile, in their careers. Their long-range career objectives included a commitment to professional advancement. In fact, many of the male administrators claimed to have assumed their present position as a stepping stone to higher level administration. They described their current job as a testing ground for their administrative growth and development. Most of the administrators stated that they regretted their lack of classroom involvement. A majority of the females stressed that teaching was their primary reason for entering a higher education career. About one-half of the females said that they would eventually like to return to fulltirae teaching. The males noted teaching, but were less interested in teaching fulltime.

PAGE 85

79 Both tenured and nontenured administrators felt some obligation to publish and maintain professional organization memberships. Males seemed to put a greater emphasis on their publication efforts. However, females aspiring to administrative advancements felt publishing was a definite requirement for promotion. Current salary levels appeared acceptable to both sexes. A majority of the administrators felt university pay scales were somewhat below effort extended. Yet, neither males nor females felt that the current salaries were discriminatory on the basis of sex. The female administrators interviewed appeared eager to see additional females in university administration. The males interviewed did not voice opposition to the idea. Some of the males gave it avid support. Summary Data from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire XII were analyzed. Each of the twelve constructs were examined with the significant difference level set at .05. Subordinate, superordinate , and administrator responses were reviewed. Cross comparisons were also tabulated for the three groups. Findings from this procedure indicated that sex was not a significant factor in the leader behavior of University of Florida administrators for eleven of the twelve constructs. There was a significant difference reported by the subordinate responses to Contrust 5: Initiation of Structure.

PAGE 86

80 Information from the personal interviews with University of Florida administrators was examined in three areas: career development, career orientation, and career aspirations. Responses to the interview questions tended to show some contrasts in male and female patterns in these three areas .

PAGE 87

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion Response Rate to the L.B.D.Q. --XII Twelve questions were addressed in this study, focusing on the twelve constructs of the L.B.D.Q. --XII . There were more respondents to female administrators than there were respondents to male administrators. Several factors should be considered in accounting for this difference. The female respondents were contacted earlier in the academic quarter. Therefore, these respondents had a greater amount of time to return the questionnaire. There was little difference in total number of returns of respondents, by group level, to male administrators. The largest number of respondents by group level were the subordinate respondents to the female administrators. About onethird of the female administrators reported that they had only one subordinate. They may have been in very close contact with the one individual. It could also be suggested that the subordinates might have had more time to devote to the study, while superordinates gave it a lower priority. The respondents averaged 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The difference in response rate was not large when compared within 81

PAGE 88

82 male and female respondent divisions. The greater distinction was between male and female respondents, as discussed earlier . The L.B.D.Q.--XII Findings Answers to the 100 items of the L.B.D.Q. --XII provided no significant difference at the .05 level between the way male and female administrators' leader behavior was perceived on ten constructs. Reasons for this similarity should be discussed. First, the survey may not have been able to discriminate between male and female university administrators. The leader skills and behavior may be extremely similar between all university administrators. It should be suggested that a certain level of leader behavior must be observable before an individual becomes a university administrator. It could be further contended that once an individual performs as an administrator within the university setting, he or she acquires characteristics which are alike in a majority of. administrative actions. This is not to suggest that all university administrators are identical, but it is to interpret the L.B.D.Q. --XII findings as an indication that there are few distinguishable differences in the leader behavior of male and female administrators at the University of Florida. Second, this study used sex of the administrator as the basis for comparing the administrators' leader behavior. Characteristics other than sex provide a wider range of responses on the L.B.D.Q. --XI I . Previous experience, educational background, and career aspirations might all be used as categories

PAGE 89

83 for comparison. However, it should be noted here that differences in these categories could often be correlated with the sex of the administrator. Third, similarly it might be suggested that administrators are perceived as administrators, not as male administrators nor female administrators. Thus subordinates see their "superiors" as university administrators, not expecting nor interpretating their behavior on the basis of the administrators' sex. Superordinates perceive the administrators as their subordinates and respond to their leader behavior without regard to a "male" subordinate or a "female" subordinate category. Also the administrators observe themselves as university administrators, without the identity of "male" administrator nor "female" administrator. An overview explanation of the fact that there were few significant differences reported by this study could be the inability of this particular instrument to identify distinguishable contrasts between the leader behavior of male and female university administrators. On construct five, the subordinate respondents to female administrators were significantly different than the subordinate respondents to the male administrators. The subordinate respondents perceived female administrators as having a higher degree to which they clearly define their own role and let followers know what is expected of them. (A significant difference was not perceived by the superordinates nor the administrators for the same question, however.)

PAGE 90

84 This measurable difference can be related to the personal interviews with the administrators. The female administrators emphasized their interest in their subordinates more often than did the male administrators. Although this emphasis was not apparent in the administrators' responses to this construct of the L.B.D.Q. --XII , apparently it was noticed by the subordinates . Perhaps since the female administrators were more likely to be relatively new to their position as well as to the administrative role, the subordinates noted that they were more concise about that role in communication with the subordinate. It is possible that the females were more recently in roles similar to their subordinate than were the male administrators, thus they functioned more definitively by the subordinates' standards . On construct six, a significant difference was found in the perceived degree to which the three groups rated the administrators' tendency to allow followers scope for initiative, decision and action. There was no significant difference in the ratings of male administrators compared to female administrators, by each group. The subordinate and superordinate respondents rated the administrators significantly higher than the administrators rated themselves. This observable difference could be explained by the difficulty of self -evaluation in respect to action towards others. Although all the constructs dealt with interaction, this one

PAGE 91

85 pinpointed the administrators perceiving themselves as more "confining" to their followers than did the followers. The superordinates' perception of the interaction agreed with the subordinates'. Perhaps, the administrators saw themselves as less tolerant of freedom because they wished to stress their administrative role for action as more vital than the subordinates'. On the other hand, the subordinates may have interpreted the concept as a positive one. They may have rated the administrators high for granting them a level of independent thinking and doing. The superordinates may have interpreted the behavior in the same manner. Administrators' Professional Career Interviews The administrators' professional career interviews focused on the descriptive data that was collected. The administrators answered questions concerning their career development, orientation, and aspirations. The male and female administrators inter viewed appeared to be similar in many respects. Observations of the interview discussions are general because of the nature of the interviews. Exceptions to each generality can be assumed Patterns attributable to the administrators' sex did emerge. These patterns appeared to revolve around the contrasting career development of males and females. As of 1975, females appeared to have taken a different route to attain administrative positions. While the role and scope of female and made administrators seemed to be similar, sometimes the personal purposes and pursuits appeared to vary according to sex.

PAGE 92

86 It is important to note that both sexes claimed to perceive the administrative responsibilities to include leadership functions. Neither sex felt that sex was correlated to their leadership performance. While this information provided certain insights, it is difficult to relate and compare it with the L.B.D.Q. --XII . The conclusion is similar to the administrators' evaluations of themselves in the L.B.D.Q.-XI I . However, contrasts between the results of the L.B.D.Q. --XI I and the professional career interviews should be made before further conclusions can be drawn. The L.B.D.Q. --XII survey found that there are no significant differences between the leader behavior of male and female university administrators, on the basis of ten leadership behavior dimensions, as reported by superordinates , subordinates, and the administrators. Conclusions from the interviews were based solely on the administrators' observations of themselves. At the same time, portions of the personal interviews pertained to background and performance of the administrators not directly correlated to leader behavior. Responses to construct 5 seemed to partially support the observation that L.B.D.Q. --XI I responses and individual interviews were somewhat different. While superordinates and administrators found no significant difference between the way male and female administrators relate to followers, the subordinate respondents fall into the significant difference category. As the interviews had shown, subordinates reported that female

PAGE 93

87 administrators rate higher in terms o£ clearly defining their own roles and letting followers know what is expected of them. However, constructs 6 and 8 also dealt with questions of administrators' relation to followers and no significant difference between male and female administrators was found in these two constructs. On the other hand, although male administrators vocalized greater attention to superordinates and more anxiety over achieving a higher level administrative position, the L.B.D.Q. --XII found no significant difference between the sexes in this area. Construct 12 addressed itself to this particular dimension of leader behavior. The specific dimensions measured by the L.B.D.Q. -XI I appear similar to the topics discussed in the interviews with the administrators. Two of the dimensions previously discussed yielded results which contrast to a limited extent with the administrators' verbally reported perceptions. Nonetheless, it is difficult to generalize concerning the personal interview responses. Variations should be noted and thus, comparison of both research techniques should be considered. Conclusions of the studies reported in the literature review chapter should be contrasted with the findings of this research. Fecher (1972) observed that females have little influence on policy making decisions at colleges and universities. Yet, when interviewed. University of Florida female administrators claimed a "fair share" of participation in decision making.

PAGE 94

88 Fecher also found that marriage was neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to the female administrator. However, University of Florida female administrators emphasized that marriage had altered their career development. They reported that they have postponed their education, or interrupted it, for family purposes. Once the females became administrators, marriage status did not appear to affect the job performance. One of Pfiffner's (1972) major conclusions was that female administrators display a high interest in working with others. Similar findings appeared in the interview portion of this study. Female administrators, more often than male administrators, pointed out their interest and devotion to interaction with others as part of the administrative role. Arter's (1972) national survey of female administrators indicated that a majority of the women plan to remain in administration. The University of Florida female administrators did not seem to fit this pattern. A majority of them voiced an interest to "return" to teaching or half-time administrative responsibilities. In addition, Morsink (1969) reported that women in administration are striving for higher status. Yet, a majority of University of Florida female administrators pointed out that they preferred to remain in their present position or become fulltime teachers, A minority expressed an interest in acquiring higher level administrative positions.

PAGE 95

89 Contrary to Harris' (1970) research which concluded that females were in traditionally female roles in universities, University of Florida female administrators were in positions of responsibility. However, University of Florida female administrators are a lovi? percentage of total administrators at the University. They are also a low percentage of total female faculty and staff. These figures may be the type Harris used to support her study. Carroll (1972) suggested that females do not seek administrative posts. Interview information from the Florida female administrators did not thoroughly explain this phenomenon, but it did appear to agree with the observation. A majority of the female administrators noted that they had not actively sought their present position. General observations from the personal interviews are summarized as follows: 1. Males and females follow different routes to becoming administrators. The male administrators tended to complete their education without interruption and immediately pursue administrative positions. They appeared to move up a "management occupational ladder." Female administrators' patterns were much less discernible. The female's educational background and trends were diverse. Few females had completed their entire education without interruption. A majority of the females seemed to have become administrators without pursuing that role in preparatory education. Management positions seemed much more likely

PAGE 96

90 to be "unplanned promotions" for the female administrators. Thus, while the males seemed to be following a line design of administrative advancements, the females became administrators without a master plan for starting and continuing up the administrative ladder. 2. Both male and female administrators pointed out that their positions were time demanding , but extremely rewarding. Males tended to emphasize the opportunity to act as a change agent. Females more often mentioned the inter-action with personnel and students and the ability to respond to the individual's needs. Both sexes felt their position had an impact on the functioning of the university. It could be suggested that this difference in role orientation is due to the experience prior to the present position. Males were more likely to have had administrative training and experience. Females were more likely to have had teaching training and experience. 3. Long range career goals differed between the males and females. Males were more likely to aspire to higher management levels. Females were more likely to be satisfied with their current position or expressed a desire to return to fulltime teaching. A need to aspire to top-level administrative positions appears to be lower in the females surveyed than in the males. This difference might be attributed to the fact that a minority of the females had originally selected administration as a career goal, while a majority of the males had chosen administration as their life's vocation.

PAGE 97

91 Conclusions Male and female university administrators, their superordinates , and their subordinates were surveyed on 12 dimensions of leader behavior, measured by the L . B . D .Q . -XI I . Evidence from the survey instrument would tend to reinforce the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the perceived leadership behavior of University of Florida male and female administrators to the extent that the 12 constructs of the L.B.D.Q. --XII report leadership behavior. Answers to the questions posed at the outset of the study can be provided on the basis of the data: 1. There was a significant difference in the way subordinates perceived male and female university administrators in regard to one construct; the degree to which an individual clearly defines his or her own role and lets followers know what is expected of them. There was no significant difference as measured in terms of the other eleven constructs in the way subordinates perceived male and female university administrators' leadership behavior. 2. There was no significant difference in the way superordinates perceived male and female university administrators' leadership behavior. 3. There was no significant difference in the way male and female university administrators perceived their own behavior.

PAGE 98

92 It was pointed out in the individual personal interviews with the male and female administrators that there were differences in career development between the sexes, however, the central attitudes and approaches to the administrative role were similar. Males indicated in the interviews that they were more eager to obtain top level administrative positions than did females . Most of the contrasts between the male and female interview responses would appear to be the result of traditional female-male educational and career patterns. It should be noted that the females presently in university administrative positions are a small minority, but their background is mainly rooted in the pre-woman's liberation era. Consequently, it could be assumed that female and male administrators could each be aligned with certain traditional career patterns based on sex. Perhaps more important to the readers of this study is the way in which females perform as university administrators. The results of the instrument utilized in this research report sex is not a significant factor in overall leader behavior of University of Florida administrators. The findings of this study would lend support to the following implications: 1. Sex of the applicants should not be a factor in evaluating them as leaders for the university administrative setting.

PAGE 99

93 2. Leadership behavior and performance (as measured by the L.B.D.Q. --XII ) of a university administrator was not found to be significantly related to the administrator's sex. Recommendations for Future Study 1. Studies of male and female administrative leadership behavior should be conducted at other universities and colleges. Community college and university based studies should be compared. 2. Additional aspects of male and female administrators' backgrounds and behaviors should be researched. These might include decision making experience, career planning, and other categories of leader behavior, 3. Current educational programs preparing individuals for administrative roles should be reviewed. 4. Comprehensive studies regarding employment and promotion of individuals in higher education should be studied.

PAGE 100

APPENDIX A AN INTRODUCTION: THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIREFORiM XII This Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-XI I (L.B.D.Q. --XII) is being used as part of a study whose purpose is to compare the leadership behavior of female university administrators and male university administrators. This instrument has been designed to provide information relative to this study. It is not a test and in no way a measure of the administrator's ability as an administrator. Your cooperation in filling out this survey is appreciated. The L.B.D.Q. --XII will be used to study the perception of the administrator's leader behavior as seen by the administrator's immediate superior (superordinate) , randomly selected members of the administrator's staff (subordinates), and the administrator's own perception of leader behavior. The data will be reported mainly in the form of statistical summaries. In all cases, the answers will be held in strict confidence. Therefore, you are urged to respond in a sincere and open manner. Thank you for your cooperation and participation. Barbara Keener, Doctoral Student Institute of Higher Education University of Florida 94

PAGE 101

95 LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE-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 administrator. 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 administrator. NOTE: The term, "group," as employed in the following items, refers to a department, division, or other unit or organization that is supervised by the person being described. In some cases the "group" may represent only one or two subordinates . The term "members," refers to all the people in the unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. Please attempt to answer all the questions. Bureau of Business Research College of Commerce and Administration The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright 1962

PAGE 102

96. DIRECTIONS: 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 » Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never e. MARK your answers as shoivn in the examples below. • Example: The administrator often acts as described . . A B C D E Example: The administrator never acts as described . . A B C D E Example: The administrator occasionally acts as described ABCDE 1. The administrator acts as the spokesman of the group. ABCDE 2. The administrator waits patiently for the results of a decision ABCDE 3. The administrator makes pep talks to stimulate the group ABCDE 4» The administrator lets group members know what is expected of them ABCDE S.. The adnjin i
PAGE 103

97.. A » Always B Often C » Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never 7. The administrator is friendly and approachable ... A B C D E 8. The administrator encourages overtime work A B C D E 9. The administrator makes accurate decision A B C D E 10. The administrator gets along well with the people above him/her ABCDE 11. The administrator publicizes the activities of the group ABCDE 12. The administrator becomes anxious when he/she cannot find out what is coming next ABCDE 13. The administrator's arguments are convincing .... ABCDE 14. The administrator encourages the use of uniform procedures ABCDE 15. The administrator permits the members to use their own judgment in solving problems ABCDE 16. The administrator fails to take necessary action . . ABCDE 17. The administrator does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group ABCDE 18. The administrator stresses being ahead of competing groups ABCDE 19. The administrator keeps the group working together as a team ABCDE 20. The administrator keeps the group in good standing with higher authority ABCDE 21. The administrator speaks as the representative of the group ABCDE 22. The administrator accepts defeat in stride ABCDE

PAGE 104

93 A * Always B = Often C = Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never 23. The administrator argues persuasively his/her point of view ABCDE 24. The administrator tries out his/her ideas in the group ABCDE 25. The administrator encourages initiative in the group members ABCDE 26. The administrator lets other persons take away his/her leadership in the group ABCDE 27. The administrator puts suggestions made by the group into operation ABCDE 28. The administrator needles members for greater effort ABCDE 29. The administrator seems able to predict what is coming next ABCDE 30. The administrator is working hard for a promosion . .ABCDE 31. The administrator speaks for the group when visitors are present ABCDE 32. The administrator accepts delays without becoming upset ABCDE 33. The administrator is a very persuasive talker . . . .ABCDE 34. The administrator makes his/her attitudes clear to the group ABCDE 35. The administrator lets the members do their work the way they think best ABCDE 36. The administrator lets some members take advantage of him/her. .' ABCDE

PAGE 105

99 A = Always B « Often C " Occasionally D = Seldom E =• Never 37. The administrator treats all group members as his/her equals ABCDE 38. The administrator keeps the work moving at a rapid pace ABCDE 39. The administrator settles conflicts when they occur in the group ABCDE 40. The administrator's superiors act favorably on most of his/her suggestions ABCDE 41. The administrator represents the group at outside meetings ••• ABCDE 42. The administrator becomes anxious when waiting for new developments ABCDE 43. The administrator is very skillful in an argument . .ABCDE 44. The administrator decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. ABCDE 45. The administrator assigns a task, then lets the members handle it ABCDE 46. The administrator is the leader of the group in name only ABCDE 47. The administrator gives advance notice of changes . .ABCDE 48. The administrator pushes for increased production . .ABCDE 49. Things usually turn out as he/she predicts ABCDE 50. The administrator enjoys the privileges of his/her position ..ABCDE 51. The administrator handles complex problems efficiently ABCDE

PAGE 106

100 A = Always B = Often C = Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never 52. The administrator is able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty ABCDE 53. The administrator is not a very convincing talker ABCDE 54. The administrator assigns group members to particular tasks ABCDE 55. The administrator turns the members loose on a job, and lets them go to it ABCDE 56. The administrator backs down when he/she ought to stand firm ABCDE 57. The administrator keeps to himself /herself ABCDE 58. The administrator asks the members to work harder. . ABCDE 59. The administrator is accurate in preducting the trend of events ABCDE 60. The administrator gets his/her superiors to act for the welfare of the group members ABCDE 61. The administrator gets swamped by details ABCDE 62. The administrator can wait just so long, then blows up A B-C D E 63. The administrator speaks from a strong inner conviction ABCDE 64.. The administrator makes sure that his/her part in the group is understood by the group members. . . ABCDE 65. The administrator is reluctant to allow the members any freedom of action ABCDE 66. The administrator lets some members have authority that he/she should keep ABCDE 67. The administrator looks out for the personal welfare of the group members ABCDE

PAGE 107

101 A Always B » Often C = Occasionally D Seldom E » Never 68. The administrator permits the members to take it easy in their work A B C D E 69. The administrator sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated ABCDE 70. The administrator's work carries weight with his/her superiors ABCDE 71. The administrator gets things all tangled up ABCDE 72. The administrator remains calm when uncertain about coming events ABCDE 73. The administrator is an inspiring talker ABCDE 74. The administrator schedules the work to be done . . .ABCDE 75. The administrator allows the group a high degree of initiative ABCDE 76. The administrator takes full charge when emergencies arise ABCDE 77. The administrator is willing to make changes ABCDE 78. The administrator drives hard when there is a job to be done ABCDE 79. The administrator helps group members settle their differences ABCDE 80. The administrator gets what he/she asks for from his/her superiors ABCDE 81. The administrator can reduce a madhouse to system and order ABCDE 82. The administrator is able to delay action until the proper time occurs ABCDE 83. The administrator persuades others that his/her ideas are to their advantage ABCDE

PAGE 108

102A = Always B » Often C « Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never 84. The administrator maintains definite standards of performance ABODE 85. The administrator trusts the members to exercise good judgment ABODE 86. The administrator overcomes attempts made to challenge his/her leadership ABODE 87. The administrator refuses to explain his/ her actions ABODE 88. The administrator urges the group to beat its previous record ABODE 89. The administrator anticipates problems and plans for them ABODE 90. The administrator is working his/her way to the top ABODE 91. The administrator gets confused when too many demands are made of him/her ABODE 92., The administrator worries about the outcome of any new procedure ABODE 93The administrator can inspire enthusiasm for a project ABODE 94. The administrator asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations ABODE 95. The administrator permits the group to set its own pace ABODE 96. The administrator is easily recognized as the leader of the group. . ABODE 97. The administrator acts without consulting the group ABODE

PAGE 109

103. A * Always B = Often C = Occasionally D = Seldom E « Never 98. The administrator keeps the group working up to capacity ABCDE 99. The administrator maintains a closely knit group ABCDE 100. The administrator maintains cordial relations with superiors ABCDE

PAGE 110

APPENDIX B ADMINISTRATOR'S PROFESSIONAL CAREER INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. General Information. A. What is your age? B. What is your marital status? C. Do you have children? 2. What was your age when you took your first administrative position? 3. How many years of experience do you have in administration? 4. How long have you held your present position? 5. What prior administrative experiences have you had? 6. What were your reasons for assuming your present position? 7. What is your educational background? 8. What degrees do you hold? 9. What are your present job responsibilities? 10. What do you feel are your road blocks to job completion? 11. What degree of self satisfaction do you get through your job? 12. What degree of career satisfaction do you get through your job? • 104

PAGE 111

105 13. What type of prestige, recognition and/or visibility do you get through your job? 14. What is your average weekly work load, in hours? 15. What are your long range career objectives? 16. What were your major reasons for entering your field? 17. Do you feel your salary is equitable? 18. To what professional organizations do you belong? 19. Do you feel a need to publish? How often do you publish? What have you published? 20. Do you have any additional coiimients concerning your career as an administrator?

PAGE 112

APPENDIX C LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY October 16, 1974 Mrs. Barbara Keener 410 Victory Drive Apartment 115 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dear Mrs. Keener: You have our permission to use the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire in your research. Research using the L.B.D.Q. is reviewed in the Hand book of Leadership by Ralph M. Stogdill, published by the Free Press. The address of the publisher is enclosed. Sincerely , /s/ Ralph Stogdill Ralph M. Stogdill Professor of Management Sciences RMS: je Enclosure 106

PAGE 113

REFERENCES American Association for Higher Education. Campus sex bias found widespread by AAUIV. College and Universi ty Bulletin, December 15 , 1970. ' American Association of American Colleges. Sex discrimination provisions concerning students and employees as contained" in the Higher Education Act of 1972 . Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women, 1972. American Association of School Administrators. Equal leadership opportunities for women . Washington, D.C.: Educational Research Service, 1972. American Association of School Administrators. Women superin tendents of schools . Washington, D.C.: Educational Research Service, 1972. Argyris, C. Executive leadership: An appraisal of a manager in action . New York: Archon, 1967. Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization . New York: Wiley, 1964. Arter, M. H. The role of women in administration in state universities and land grant colleges . (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms , 1972, No. 72-13-006. Austin, H. S. The woman doctorate in America . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969. Barter, A. S. The status of women in school administration. Educational Horizons , 1959 , 37_, 7275. Bartky, J. A. Administration as educational leadership . Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 1956. Bartol, K. Closed loop--women as leaders. The Masters in Business Administration . December 2, 1972, 6-10. Bass, B. M. , Drusell, J., § Alexander, R. Male manager's attitude toward working women. American Behavioral Scientist , 1971, IS (2), 221-236^ 107

PAGE 114

108 Bell, D. Meritocracy and equality. The Public Interest , Fall, 1972 , 29^, 29-68. Bern, S. L. , ^ Bern, D. J. Training the woman to know her place : The power of a nonconscious ideology . Palo Alto, California : Stanford University Press, 1 9 71. Bern, S. L. , ^ Bern, D. J. Training the woman to know her place : The social antecedent of woman in the world of work . Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: State Department of Public Instruction, 1971. Bennet, W, Institutional barriers to the utilization of women in top management . (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1964, No. 64-25-225. Bennis, W. G. Changing organization . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Bennis, W. G. Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of authority. Administrative Science Quarterly , 1959, 4, 259-260. Bernard, J. S. Academic women . University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964. Bernard, L. L. An introduction to social psychology . New York: Holt, 1926. Brown, A. F. A perpetual taxonomy of the effective rated teacher. Journal of Experiential Education , 1966 , 35^, 1-10. Brown, A. F. Reactions to leadership. Educational Administra tors Quarterly , 1967, 3, 62-73. Bulwick, H. , 5 Elicks, S. Affirmative action for women: Myth and reality . Berkeley"! Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of California, 1972. Bureau of National Affairs. ASPA-BNA survey: Employment of women . Washington, D. CTl Bureau of National Affairs, 1970. Bureau of National Affairs. Personnel policies forum-survey No. 96 V'/omen and minorities in management and in personnel management . V/ashington, D. C: Bureau of National Affairs, 1971. Burke, W. W. Leadership behavior as a function of the leader, the follower and the situation. Journal of Pers onal ity, 1965, 33, 60-81. "

PAGE 115

109 Burns, D. Women in educational administration: A study of leadership in California public schools . (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1964, No. 64-12-150. Euros, 0. (Ed.) The seventh mental measurement yearbook . Highlands Park, New Jersey: Gryon Press, 1972, Vol. 1. Campbell, R. F., § Faber, C. F. Administrative behavior: Theory and research. Review of Educational Re search, 1961, 31_, 352-367. Campbell, R. , § Gregg, R. T. Administrative behavior in education . New York: Harper, 1957. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (Ed.) Opportunities for women in highe r education. New York: McGraw-Hill, T973: Carroll, M. A. Women in administration in higher education. Contemporary Education , 1972, 43, 214-218. Case, C. M. Leadership and conjuncture. Sociology and So cial Research, 1933, 17, 510-513. Cattail, R. B. New concepts for measuring leadership in terms of group syntality. Human Relations , 1951, 4, 161-184. Change Magazine (Ed.) Women on campus . New York: Change Magazine Press, 1975. Charters, W. W. , Jr. Teacher perceptions of administrator behavior . (Cooperative Research Project No. 929) Washington, D. C: Office of Education, 1964. Chase, F., § Cuba, E. Administrative roles and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 1955 , 2S_, 281-298 . Citizen's Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Women in 1970 . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, March, 1971. Citizen's Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Need for studies of sex discrimination in public schoo ls. Washington, D. C: Department of Labor, 1972 . Citizen's Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Women inl97iWashington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, January, 1972. Cohen, A. C. Women and higher education: Recommendation^: for change. Phi Delta Kappan , 1973, 50(3), 164-167.

PAGE 116

110 Cook, A. H. Sex discrimination at the university. A.A.U.P . Bulletin , 1972 , 58_(3) , 279-82. Cook, E. V. Leadership behavior of elementary school prin cipals and the organizational climate of the schools which they administer . (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965, No. 66-6769. Cribbin, J. J. Effective managerial leadership . New York: American Management Association, 1972. Croft, J. C. Dogmatism and perceptions of leader behavior. Educational Administrator Quarterly , 1965 , 60-71. Crowley, J. Facts and factions about working women explored. Institute for Social Research (University of Michigan) , 1972, 4-5. Day, D. R. Description of male and female behavior by male and female subordinates . Urbana: University of Illinois, Department of Industrial Administration, 1968. DeLamater, J., § Fidell, L. On the status of women. American Behavioral Scientists , 1971, 15_(2) , 163-171. Dowd, J. Control in human societies . New York: AppletonCentury, 1936. Ebel, R. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of educational research . (44th ed.) London: MacMillan Company, 1969. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Guidelines on dis crimination because of sex . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969 (Chapter 14, Part 160A, as amended) . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Toward job equality for women . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969. Erickson, D. A. The school administrator. Review of Educational Research , 1967 , 37_, 417-432. Ernst, R. J. An investigation of the relationship between selected characteristics of principals and organizational climates of elementary schools . (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965, No. 65-15-460. Eurich, N. , Tompkins, P., 5 Eddy, E. The education of women. Saturday Review , 1963, 18_, 61-70.

PAGE 117

Ill Fecher, A. R. Career patterns of women in college and university administration . (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1972, No. 72-21-800. Ferber, M. , 5 Loeb, J. Sex as predictive of salary and status on a university faculty. Journal of Educational Measure ment , 1971 , 8 (4) , 235-44 . Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Fiedler, F. E. Style or circumstance: The leadership enigma. In W. R. Lassey (Ed.), Leadership and Social Change . Iowa City: University Associates, 1971, 275-284. Firestone, S. The dialectic of sex, the case for feminist resolution . New'York: William Morrow, 1970. Gardner, H. R. Women administrators in higher education in Illinois : A study of current career patterns . (Doctoral dissertation , Indiana University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1966, No. 66-12-655. Gentry, H. W. Patterns of behavioral characteristics exhibited by school administrators . (Doctoral dissertation. The University of Tennessee) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1957, No. 22-667. Getzels, J. W. A psychological framework for the study of educational administration. Harvard Educational Review , 1952 , 235-246. Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey Handbook of Social Psychology . Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley , 1954. Gott, C. M. A study of perceptions and expectations of leader ship behavior of principals of Texas large senior high schools ^ (Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms,1966, No. 66-14-340. Griffith, D. E. The nature and meaning of theory in Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, The Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of" Education . (Part II) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, 95-118. Grobman, H. G., § Hines, V. A. What makes a good principal? The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals , 1966, 40(223), 5-6.

PAGE 118

112 Gross, N., 5 Harriott, R. Staff leadership in public schools : A sociological inquiry" New York; John Wiley and Sons, 1965. Gross, N.', § Trask, A. E. Men and women as elementary school principals (Cooperative Research Project No. 8 53) . Washington, D. C: U. S. Office of Education, 1964. Halpin, A. W. The leadership behavior of school superintendents . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956. Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration . Toronto, Canada: Collier MacMillan, 1966. Harris, A. S. The second sex in academia. A.A.U.P. Bullet in, 1970, 56, 283-295. Hedges, J. N. Women at work-women workers and manpower demands in the 1970's. Monthly Labor Review , 1970, 19-29. Hemphill, J. K. Leadership behavior associated with the administrative reputations of college departments. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1955 , 4_6, 385-401. Hemphill, J. K., Griffiths, D. E., ^ Frederiksen, N. Adminis trative performance and personality . New York: Bureau of Publications of Columbia University, 1962. Holden, L. W. Administrative roles in secondary education as identified by secondary principals and teachers . (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University) Ann Arbor, Michigan : University Microfilms, 1959, No. 59-1424. Homans , G. C. The human group . New York: Harcourt, Bruce, 1950. Horner, M. A bright woman is caught in a double bind: In achievement-oriented situations she worries not only about failure but also success. Psychology Today , 1971, 46, 36-38. Hoyle, J. A. Who shall be principal--a man or a woman? The National Elementary Principal , 1969, £8(3), 23-24. Hoyle, J. R. Problemattack behavior and its relationship to the sex, prior teaching experience, and college prepara tion of selected elementary school principals . (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A § M Lfniversity) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1967, No. 67-9789. Jacobs, J. W. Leader behavior of the secondary school principal. National Association of Secondary School Principals, The Bulletin , 1965, 49, 13-17.

PAGE 119

113 Jacobs, T. 0. Leadership and exchange in formal organizations . Alexandria, Va. : Human Resources Research Organization, 1971. Johnson, D. L. Ms. administrators, where are they: The Schoo l Administrator (American Association of Schools Administrators Newsletter), 1972, 19. Kaufman, H. The status of women in administration in selected institutions of higher education in the United States . (Doctoral dissertation. New York University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1961, No. 62-1443. Kaufman, S. Few women get positions of power in academe, survey discloses. The Chronicle of Higher Education , 1970, _5(10) , 14. Kendall, M. G. Table of random numbers . London: Cambridge University Press., 1960. Kimbrough, R. B. Administering elementary schools: Concepts and practices . New York: The MacMillan Company, 1968. Knezevich, S. J. Administration of public education . New York: Harper, 1969. Koontz, E. The best kept secret of the past 5,000 years: Women are ready for leadership in education . Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation , 197 2. Krohn, B. The puzzling case of the missing Ms. Nation's Schools and Colleges , 1974 , 58^, 32-38. LaPuma, B. D. A study of attitudes toward the employment of women in higher education as revealed in the literature of higher education . (Doctoral dissertation. New York University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1972, No. 72-20, 641. Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., § Stiles, G. L. Sex discrimination against the American working women. American Behavi oral Scientist , 1971, 1^(2), 237-254. Levitt, M. J. Political attitudes of American women: A study of the effects of work and education on their political role . (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1965, No. 66-933. Likert, R. The human organization . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

PAGE 120

114 Longstreth, C. A. An analysis of the perceptions of the leader ship behavior o"f male and female secondary school prin cipals in Florida . (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami) Coral Gables, Florida, 1973. Mann, D. Administrative-community-school relationships in New York State. Report for the New York State Commission on the Quality, Cost and Financing ot Elementary and Secondary Education, 1971 . McGregor, D. An analysis of leadership. In W. R. Lassey (Ed.), Leadership and Social Change . Iowa City: University Associates, 1971, 17-25. McGregor, D. Leadership and motivation . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966. Megargee, E. Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1969, 55(5) , 337-382. Mitchell, J. M. , § Starr, R. A regional approach for analyzing the recruitment of academic women. American Behavioral Scientist , 1971, 15(2), 183-203. Moore, L. L. The relationship of academic groups membership to the motive to avoid success in women . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1971. No. 72-7220. Mors ink, H. M. A comparative study of the leader behavior of men and women secondary school principals . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1966, No. 27-2793A. Morsink, H. M. Leader behavior of men and women principals. The Bulletin (National Association of Secondary School Principals), 1970, 5£(347) , 80-87. Murphy, A. J. A study of the leadership process. American Sociology Review , 1941, 6, 674-687. National Council of Administrative Women in Education of the National Education Association. Women, a significant national resource . Washington, D. C. : National Education Association, 1971. National Education Association Research Division. Professional women in public schools, 1970-71 . Washington, D. C: National Education Association, 1 9 71. National Organization for Women (New York Chapter) . Report on sex bias in the public schools (Rev. ed.) New York : National Organization for Woiiien, 19 72.

PAGE 121

115 Noll, N. L. Opinions of policy-making officials in two-year public educational institutions toward the employment of women administrators . (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1973, No. 73-20-447. Oltman, R. Campus 1970: Where do women stand? American Association of University Women Journal , 1970, 2^, 14-15. Owens, R. G. Organizational behavior in schools . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Pfiffner, V. T. Factors associated with women in major adminis trative positions in California community colleges . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1972, No. 72-19-716. Prather, J. Why can'twomen be more like men? American Be havioral Scientist , 1971, (2) , 172-182 . Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute. Women in administrative positions in public education . Washington, D. C. : U. S. Office of Education, 1974. Rossi, A. S. Discrimination and demography restrict opportunities for academic women. College and Univ ersity Business, 1970, 48(76), 72-78. Schneider, J. The cultural situation as a condition for the achievement of fame. American Sociology Review, 1937, 2, 480-491. Simpson, L. A. A myth is better than a miss: Men get the edge in academic employment. College and University Business , 1970, £8(76), 68-72. Stodt, M. M. Autonomy and complexity in women teachers in leadership positions . (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1972, No. 72-19-528. Stogdill, R. M. Individual behavior and group achievemen t. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959, Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the Leader Behavior Descriptio n 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 Description QuestionnaireForm XlT. Columbus, Ohio : Ohio State University, College of Administrative Science. 1970.

PAGE 122

116 Stogdill, R. M. , 5 Coons, A. E. Leader behavior: Its descrip tion and measurement . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, 1957. Stogdill,' R. M. , Scott, E. L., § Jaynes, W, E. Leadership and role expectations . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, 1965. Stogdill, R. M. , 5 Shartle, C. L. Methods in the study of administrative leadership . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University , Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, 1955. Stogdill, R. M. , di Shartle, C. L. Patterns of administrative performance . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, 1956. Suelzle, M. A questionnaire-sexism in American schools. Learning: The Magazine for Creative Teaching , 1972, 1(1) , 81-84. Tannenbaura, R. , Weschler, I. R. , 5 Massarik, F. Leadership and organizations: A behavioral science approach . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Taylor, S. S. The attitudes of superintendents and board of education members in Connecticut toward the employment and effectiveness of women as public school administrators . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms , 1971, No. 71-18-452. Tipple, M. E. Attitudes toward the hireability of women for professional administrative positions in public education . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan) Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univers ity Microfilms , 1973, No. 73-12-028. Toporoff, R. Generating role types concerning the occupational participation of women in the twentieth century . (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1972, No. 72-18-494. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Report of the women's action program , 1972. United States Department of Labor. The myth and reality: Male workers more equal than female workers ? Washington, D. C: Women's Bureau Department of Labor, 1972, 1-3.

PAGE 123

117 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Toward job equality for women . Washington, D, C; Equal Employment Commission, 1972. University of Florida. The office of academic affairs fact book . Gainesville: University of Florida, February, 1975. University of Florida. The university record of the University of Florida . Gainesville: University ot Florida, March, 1974, No . T'. University of Florida. The university graduate school record . Gainesville: University of Florida, 1973-74. VanMeier, E. J. Leadership behavior of male and female elementary principals . (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1971, No. 71-29, 823. Warwick, E. B. Attitudes towards women in administrative posi tions as related to curricular implementation and change . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1967, No. 67-9024. Weir, V. J. T. Leadership among administrative women in public education in Nebraska . (Doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1961, No. 62-142. Willower, D. J. Leadership styles and leaders perception of subordinates. Journal of Educational Sociology , 1960, 34 , 58-64. Zimmerman, J. N. The status of women in educational administra tion positions within the central office of public schools . (Doctoral dissertation. Temple University), Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1971, No. 71-26,538.

PAGE 124

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Barbara Jean Keener received her initial schooling in Springfield, Missouri, graduating from Parkview High School in 1963. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from The Colorado College in 1967. She received her Master of Arts degree in Speech Communication from the University of Wyoming in 1969, and a Master of Science degree in Student Personnel Counseling from Miami University (Ohio) in 1971. In 1971-72 she served as Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs at Rollins College. She began her Educational Administration doctoral studies at the University of Florida in the summer of 1972. During her doctoral studies, Ms. Keener held a Kellogg Fellowship for 1972-74 and served as an intern with the Florida State Legislature in 1974-75. As an undergraduate she was active in student government, intercollegiate debate, journalism, and Delta Gamma social sorority. She was a teaching fellow and assistant debate coach while earning her degree at the University of Wyoming, At Miami University she served as Freshman Adviser with the Office of Dean of Women. Ms. Keener holds memberships in various professional and honorary organizations, including Phi Delta Kappa, Kappa Delta Pi and Pi Lambda Theta education honoraries. 118

PAGE 125

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. es L. 'Watrenbarger rofessor of Educati dfial A Chairman Administration 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 Sandeen, Co-Chairman Associate Professor of Educational Administration 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. Dorothyj Nevill Assistant Professor of Psychology 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. Harold C. Riker Professor of Counselor Education

PAGE 126

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 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. March, 1976. Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School