UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of administrative stress and coping in British Columbia elementary and secondary public… Allison, Donald Grant 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0317.pdf [ 8.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0064581.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0064581-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0064581-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0064581-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0064581-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0064581-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0064581-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0064581-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0064581.ris

Full Text

A N INVESTIGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE STRESS AND COPING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS by DONALD GRANT ALLISON B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1989 B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1991 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Educational Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1995 © Donald Grant Allison, 1995 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree, that permission for extensive copying of this thesis "for scholarly purposes may be ^gTanXed by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is ' understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of tJiM^jcdbJXxciJL S\^AjJLj_J The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date £ J A A J I ^ 1H, DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate administrative stress and coping in British Columbia elementary and secondary public school principals. Three research questions were posed: (1) How does administrative stress affect British Columbia public school principals? (2) What coping strategies do British Columbia school principals use to moderate the effects of stress? and (3) How do personal and environmental variables interact with stress and coping? A three-part questionnaire was mailed to the population of 1455 public school-based principals in B.C.. The questionnaire consisted of the Administrative Stress Index (ASI), the Coping Preference Scale (CPS), and the Demographic and Biographic Inventory. The response rate to the questionnaire was 44.2% (n = 643). The findings show that the typical principal perceives that approximately 80% of his total life stress is job related. Approximately 50% of the respondents have seriously considered leaving school administration. The overall stress level reported by school principals on the ASI is moderate. The greatest sources of stress are found to relate to heavy workload and lack of time, parent/school conflicts, and administering the negotiated contract. When items on the ASI are ranked according to their item means, nine of the top ten stressors identified are the same as those reported in other studies reviewed in the literature. The only exception is that, "administering the negotiated contract," is ranked among the top ten by B.C. principals. There is an inverse relationship between administrative stress and reported use of coping techniques. Principals reporting low stress scores have a significantly greater repertoire of coping techniques than do principals with high stress scores. When items in the CPS are classified according to the seven coping factors, the most popular coping techniques were found to be: keeping a realistic perspective, maintaining a positive attitude, following a good physical health program, and engaging in activities that support intellectual, social, and spiritual growth. Less ii popular coping strategies include: activities that require increased effort, time management and organization, and withdrawal and recharging techniques. A multiple regression analysis reveals that five of the personal and environmental variables can be combined to predict the total ASI score. Principals who perceive that administrative isolation is a problem for them, who report greater percentages of stress due to their jobs, who have seriously considered leaving school administration, who feel that they are under greater stress than other members of their community, and who report they have other relatives dependent upon them, are more likely to have higher stress scores. The following conclusions were stated: (1) The majority of B.C. school principals are able to deal satisfactorily with their job-related stress. (2) Principals need increased emotional and social support from their colleagues. (3) Managing and working within the constraints of negotiated collective agreements is a major source of stress for B.C. public school principals. (4) If school principals responsibilities are increased while their administrative time and support are not increased proportionately, greater stress for school principals is an inevitable result. (5) Principals who have more extensive coping repertoires are more likely to be in better health and experience lower levels of stress. (6) Person-Environment Fit Theory provides a useful model for investigating administrative stress and coping. iii T A B L E OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i Table of Contents iv List of Tables viii List of Figures xi Acknowledgment. xii Chapter I B A C K G R O U N D A N D PURPOSE OF T H E STUDY. . . 1 Background to the Study 2 Purpose of the Study 4 Importance of the Study 6 Overview of the Study 7 n STRESS, COPING A N D T H E SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR.. . . . 8 The Concept of Stress 8 Three Models of Stress 9 Stress as a Stimulus.... 9 Stress as a Reaction 9 Stress as a Transactional Process ; 11 Effects of Stress :. 12 Occupational Stress 15 Concept of Stress: Summary 19 Research on Stress and the School Administrator 19 Stress and School Administrators: The Causes 20 Research Reports 20 The Administrative Stress Index 20 Research Studies Using the Administrative Stress Index 20 Research Studies Using Instruments Other Than the ASI 30 iv Page Demographic and Biographic Variables 35 Administrative level < 35 Geographic location . 35 Number of teachers supervised 35 Number of vice-principals 35 Size of school 36 Size of school district 36 Socio-economic status 36 Administrative experience.. 36 Age 36 Gender... 37 Graduate degrees 37 Health status.. .: 37 Hours worked per week 37 Marital status 37 Years in present position 38 Stress and School Administrators: The Effects 38 Stress and School Administrators: Summary and Discussion 40 Coping with Stress 41 Stressor Management 43 Stress Management 44 Research on Coping 46 Coping with Stress: Summary and Discussion 51 Chapter Summary and Discussion 52 m C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K A N D R E S E A R C H DESIGN 54 Assumptions and Conceptual Framework 54 Assumptions 54 Conceptual Framework 55 Research Questions 57 Definition of Terms Used in this Study 58 Survey Research Design 60 Population 60 Instruments Used 60 The Administrative Stress Index (ASI) 60 The Coping Preference Scale (CPS) 62 Demographic and Biographic Inventory (DBF) 63 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 65 Data Collection 65 Analysis of the Data 66 v Page IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS. BIOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC D A T A 68 Biographic Information 70 Personal and Family Characteristics... 70 Educational Training, Experience, Personal Styles and Perceptions..., 72 Demographic Information.. 74 The Principal's Administrative Position 74 The Principal's School 74 Elementary schools 74 Secondary schools 77 Comparison of elementary and secondary schools 77 District Information, Relationships and Support , 78 Summary and Discussion 80 V PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 81 Principals' Experience of Stress 83 Concern About Occupational Stress 83 Commonly Identified Stressors... 85 Categories of Stressors 88 Differences in Perception of Stressors 89 Coping With Stress , 91 Commonly Used Coping Techniques 92 Categories of Coping Techniques 92 Differences in Preferred Coping Techniques 95 Interrelationship Between Coping Techniques and Stress 98 Stress and Coping and Personal and Environmental Variables 102 Stress and Personal and Environmental Variables 102 Coping and Personal and Environmental Variables 108 Chapter Summary 113 vi Page VI SUMMARY, DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 114 Summary.. . 114 Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations........ 118 REFERENCES '.. 123 APPENDIX A 133 APPENDIX B 143 APPENDIX C 145 APPENDIX D 153 APPENDIX E 166 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Warning Signs of the Effects of Stress 13 2.2 Effects of Stress ; 14 2.3 Signs of Stress 15 2.4 Classification of Stressors 16 2.5 The Administrative Stress Index 21 2.6 Top 10 Stressors Listed From the Adrninistrative Stress Index as Reported by Oregon School Administrators 22 2.7 Top 10 Stressors Listed From the Adrninistrative Stress Index as Reported by Washington State School Administrators 23 2.8 Rank Order of the Top 10 Stressors on the ASI Reported in a Number of Studies 31 2.9 Synthesis of the Top 10 Ranked ASI Items from Studies Cited in Table 2.8 32 3.1 Coping Preference Scale Grouped by Factors 64 4.1 Percentage Responses by Geographic Area 69 4.2 Summary of Principal's Responses to Questions About Personal and Family Characteristics 71 4.3 Summary of Principal's Responses to Questions About Educational Training, Experience and Personal Styles and Perceptions 73 4.4 Summary of Principal's Responses to Questions About The Work Environment: The Principal's Administrative Position.. 75 4.5 Summary of Principal's Responses to Questions About The Work Environment: The Principal's School.. 76 4.6 Summary of Principal's Responses to Questions About the Work Environment: The District and Relationships and Support Within the District 79 5.1 B.C. Principals' Concerns About Occupational Stress 84 5.2 Top 10 Stressors on the ASI Identified by B.C. School Principals 86 5.3 Categorization of Greatest Work-Related and Personal Stressors Identified by Principals 87 5.4 Rank Order of ASI Stressor Categories 88 5.5 A Comparison of Top 10 ASI Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as having High and Low Total Stress Scores 90 5.6 A Comparison of ASI Category Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores 91 5.7 Top 10 Coping Strategies Utilized by B.C. School Principals 93 5.8 Rank Order of the Weighted Means of CPS Factors 94 viii Table Page 5.9 Categorization of Additional Open-ended Coping Techniques Reported by Respondents 95 5.10 Typical Open-ended Coping Responses 96 5.11 A Comparison of the Top 10 CPS Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores 97 5.12 A Comparison of CPS Factor Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores 99 5.13 Eight CPS Items Showing a Significant Relationship with ASI in a Stepwise Multiple Regression 100 5.14 Stepwise Multiple Regression of Biographic and Demographic Variables on total ASI Scores 103 5.15 Rank Order and Means of Top 10 ASI Stressors by Administrative Level and Gender 104 5.16 Rank Order and Means of Top 10 ASI Stressors by Age and University Degrees 106 5.17 Rank Order and Means of Top 8 CPS Strategies Used by Administrative Level and Gender 109 5.18 Rank Order and Means of Top 8 Coping Strategies by Age and University Degrees I l l C l British Columbia School Trustees' Association Geographic Grouping of School Districts 147 C2 Supplementary Information about British Columbia School Districts: Centralization, District Enrollment, Strikes/Lockouts and Grievances 150 D1 Administrative Level by Gender 154 D2 Age of Principals 154 D3 Marital Status of Principals 154 D4 Number of Dependent Children.... 155 D5 Number of Dependent Parents or Other Relatives 155 D6 Respondents Classified by Hours Devoted to Exercise in a Typical Week 155 D7 Respondents Classified by Number of Days Absent Due to Illness in Current School Year 156 D8 Respondents' Rating of Current Health. 156 D9 Respondents Reporting Highest University Degree Earned 156 D10 Respondents Classified by Years at Present School 157 D11 Respondents Classified by Years as School Principal 157 D12 Respondents Classified by Years as School Vice-Principal 157 D13 Respondents Classified by Hours Worked Per Week 158 D14 Do Administrators Perceive They Receive Adequate Financial Compensation? 158 ix Table Page D15 Respondents' Answer to the Question, Are You Replacing a Principal Who is Away Due to Illness 158 D16 Respondents Classified by Percentage of Time Assigned to Administration 159 D17 Respondents'Prediction of Probable Changes in Official Time Assigned to Administration 159 D18 Respondents' Prediction of Probable Changes in School Enrollments 159 D19 Number of Vice-Principals Reported by Respondents 160 D20 Number of Schools for which Respondent is Responsible 160 D21 Number of Teachers Formally Evaluated by Respondents 160 D22 Number of Teachers Supervised by Respondents 161 D23 Respondents Report of the Percentage of Teachers with fewer than Five Years Experience 161 D24 Respondents' Prediction of the Percentage of Teachers Transferring Out of Their Schools.. . 162 D25 Respondents' Answer to the Question, Is Coping With Limited Resources a Problem? 162 D26 Respondents' Indication of Community Support for the School 162 D27 Number of Respondents with Appointments in Districts Classified by Enrollment 1.63 D28 Number of Respondents in Centralized and Decentralized Districts 163 D29 Number of Respondents whose Districts Lost School Days due to Strikes or Lockouts, 1989-1994 163 D30 Number of Respondents in Districts Experiencing Grievances, 1989-1994...... 164 D31 Respondents' Indication of Support From Senior Administration 164 D3 2 Respondents' Report of District Coping Programs 164 D3 3 Number of Administrators Respondents Usually Interacted With in a Typical Week 165 D34 Respondents' Report of Administrative Isolation 165 E l The Coping Preference Scale: Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis 167 E2 Administrative Stress Index: Rank Orders, Means and Standard Deviations 168 E3 A Comparison of ASI Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High (top 30%) and Low (bottom 30%) Total Stress Scores 171 E4 Coping Preference Scale: Rank Orders, Means and Standard Deviations 172 E5 A Comparison of CPS Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High (top 30%) and Low (bottom 30%) Total Stress Scores 174 E6 Relationship Between CPS Items and Total ASI 175 E7 Variable Labels and Descriptions 177 E8 Correlation Matrix of Biographic and Demographic Variables and Total Score on the Administrative Stress Index 178 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 The Fit between the Person and the Environment and Stress and Coping 5 2.1 The Stress Cycle 10 2.2 A Model of Stress at Work 18 2.3 An Interactional Framework for Controlling Stress 43 5.1 Histogram of the "most frequently used" Responses to the CPS for the High and Low ASI Score Groups 101 C1 British Columbia School Districts 146 xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge and express appreciation to the many people who helped make this study possible. First, I wish to thank my research committee for their guidance and support through the many months of this project. My sincere appreciation to Dr. Graham Kelsey, committee chair, for his time, guidance, perceptive criticisms and encouragement throughout the entire project. I also wish to thank committee members, Dr. Patricia Crehan and Dr. Daniel Brown, for their meticulous review, constructive comments and advice. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Dante Lupini for agreeing to act as the external examiner. I should like to acknowledge the support of Mr. Randy LaBonte, Director of Professional Development, BCPVPA, and the financial assistance provided by the British Columbia Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association in printing and distributing the Survey Questionnaire. Without the BCPVPA's support this study would not have been possible. My gratitude is expressed to the elementary and secondary public school principals throughout the province of British Columbia who participated in this study. I would also like to acknowledge the enthusiastic support of the Richmond School District vice-principals who were involved in piloting the Coping Preference Scale. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of Mr. Max Carroll, principal of Mitchell Elementary School in Richmond, B.C.. xii CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Good or bad, stress is here to stay; brought to new heights by the twentieth century psyche. Every historic era can be traced by its characteristic ailments: the Middle Ages was dominated by the Great Plague and leprosy; the Renaissance was characterized by syphilis; the Baroque era was marked by deficiency diseases such as scurvy and luxury diseases such as gout; the Romantic Period was linked with tuberculosis and similar ailments; and the nineteenth century—with its rapid industrialization and the development of cities—brought about general nervousness and neuroses. And now we have the twentieth century, where tension headaches, high blood pressure, and peptic ulcers keep pace with the Dow-Jones average, and where the oscillation of the economy can be traced by the ebb and flow of tranquilizer prescriptions (Gmelch, 1978, p. 5). Probably the most agreed upon aspect of stress is its ubiquity. It affects all of us from childhood to old age. We are affected in our everyday lives as well as in our work. Stress is part of our world. Some individuals seem to thrive on tension and stress. They seem to enjoy the challenge and the excitement while others seem to languish and become ill. Selye (1976) defines the unpleasant or the harmful variety of stress as distress and he defines eustress as good or pleasant stress. Stress which creates a desire to achieve an obtainable challenge is viewed as healthy or eustress. But even for those individuals who flourish in stressful environments, there is a law of diminishing returns. Too many challenges and too much euphoria cause our systems to malfunction (Thomson, 1988). It is important to be aware of this principle and the omnipresent nature of stress because it affects our physical and mental well-being. l 2 The opening chapter presents the background to the study, a statement of the study's purpose and its importance, and finally, an overview of the thesis. Background to the Study The term stress usually has a negative connotation. If stress is used to describe something in our environment, it usually describes something to be avoided. If it describes a subjective feeling, the term evokes feelings of tension, dread, and anxiety. When we say someone is under stress, we mean excessive stress or distress (Selye, 1974). We live in an era of rapid change, a time in which increasingly large numbers of people are being asked to function beyond a healthy operative range. As a result, all aspects of our society are experiencing stress (Ogden, 1992). In the past few years there is increasing evidence that stress may be on its way to becoming the number one cause of managerial malfunction, a disabler and sometimes a killer (Lutton, 1988). The work environment has the potential for stress as well as for satisfaction. Certain careers seem to generate more stress-causing conditions than others. Among the group of stress producing careers is that of middle management. Albrecht (1979) reports that the middle manager's position is the most frustrating in the organizational system. Gmelch (1977) suggests that school principals are the persons most likely to experience stress and job burnout in the field of educational administration. The economic, political, and social challenge facing middle managers in education, he says, subjects these individuals to a greater proportion of stress-producing circumstances. The school-based principal is viewed as the classic middle manager caught between subordinates and superiors, each with their conflicting demands and expectations. Duke (1988, p.310) reported that "the principalship is the kind of job where you're expected to be all things to all people". These administrators encounter stressors of a type which Gmelch and Swent (1981) categorize as occupational or work-related. 3 School principals all face stress at one time or another in their jobs. Their ability, or failure, to cope with stress may reverberate throughout an entire school system, affecting teachers as well as students (Williamson & Campbell, 1987). Dr. Peter Frye (personal communication, January 17, 1995), a Vancouver cardiologist, concerned with wellness and school administration has stated that the monetary cost of occupational stress to British Columbia taxpayers who pay for educational services is considerable and that the onus is on the Ministries of Health and Education, and the provincial school districts to adopt a proactive stance towards stress reduction, coping and wellness. The demands placed on school principals have increased in recent years. School principals face very busy and highly unpredictable work days with many individuals and groups competing for their time. As a result, the school principalship is an acknowledged stressful position (Leary, 1987). Fallon (1981, p. 28) writes, "No area of education imposes more stress than that of the public school principalship. Confrontation, conflict, and compromise are constants which principals face on a daily basis". In addition to the daily demands of students, teachers, and parents, the principal is also expected to follow the dictates of the central district administration and various bureaucratic regulations. According to Steckman (1982), a large percentage of the principal's life stress is job-related. Currently, no statistics are available to indicate the number of principals in British Columbia who may be suffering from excessive administrative stress. However, newspaper articles, radio and television reports have cited the increased pressures on B.C.'s school administrators. A Vancouver inner-city school principal recently stated in an interview with a Vancouver Sun reporter (Balcom, February 24, 1993) that principals are "overburdened" and that "the principalship is a tough demanding job that is getting tougher all the time and the tensions are spreading." In another article, Hume (March 7, 1994) reported that administrators are "severely stressed". A report from the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association (Bognar and Associates, 1990) pointed out that administrators are constantly facing new worries and challenges brought on by rapid changes in a more urban and demanding society. 4 In Surrey, the province's second largest and fastest growing school district, it was reported that in 1990 four school principals had suffered heart attacks and three of the men had died (Gray-Grant, February 7, 1992). More recently, Dr. Donna Van Sant, Research Associate of the Surrey Administrator's Wellness and Evaluation Program, reported that wellness of their school administrators is a very great concern. (Personal communication, March 21, 1994). She said that, in recent months, a substantial number of Surrey school administrators have had to take medical leave due to stress-related illnesses. The Vancouver Sun (Balcom, March 19, 1994) reported that Surrey has "well over a dozen administrators off sick with serious medical conditions" (this is approximately 10% of Surrey's school principals). In Richmond, another fast growing urban school district in the Greater Vancouver area, it has been reported that there have been three or four school principals away on long term medical leave. However, while it has not been directly established that their illnesses are stress related, an administrative wellness committee was formed in 1993 to address the health concerns of Richmond school administrators (Betty Eades, president of the Richmond School Administrators' Association, personal communication, February 27, 1995). Purpose of the Study Stress adversely affects the performance, productivity and job satisfaction of professionals in people-related occupations such as that of the school principalship. In view of the importance of the leadership role of the principal and the adverse effect that stress can have on the principal's well-being and effectiveness, this study was designed to identify the specific work-related stressors which contribute to job stress, the coping strategies most often used by public school principals to offset the negative effects of stress, and the biographic and demographic variables associated with them. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived sources of stress and to identify the stress-coping strategies used by public school principals in British Columbia. This 5 study will contribute to knowledge about stress and coping in the school principalship and from strategies, principals may be able to lead healthier, more stress-free lives and perform their roles more effectively. principals, three general research questions were identified. These questions were concerned with the relationship between stressors, stress and coping as they interact with the fit between the person and the environment. Figure 1.1 shows that where there is a perfect fit between the person and the environment no stress is produced, but where there is a mismatch between the person and the environment, the resultant is stress. Various coping strategies may be adopted to ameliorate the effects of stress. These strategies may be designed to moderate the effects of stress on the person (stress management) or they may be designed to modify those aspects of the environment most likely to cause stress (stressor management). The conceptual model for this study is presented in greater detail in Chapters TJ and HI. its findings it will be possible to make recommendations about policy on stress and coping for British Columbia principals. With a greater awareness and understanding of stressors and coping In order to focus this study on the sources of stress and coping strategies used by Stress Person .< (personal variables) ^ (mismatch) ^ _ (match) ^ Environment Cop ing^ (coping strategies) Figure 1.1 The Fit between the Person and the Environment and Stress and Coping 6 The general research questions are listed below. 1. How does administrative stress affect British Columbia public school principals? 2. What coping strategies do British Columbia school principals use to moderate the effects of stress? 3. How do personal and environmental variables interact with stress and coping? Importance of the Study The necessity for this study stems from a lack of research on stress and coping among British Columbia public school principals. Most stress research in education, to date, has focused on stress experienced by teachers. This study was designed to deepen our understanding of the relationship between administrative stress and coping strategies used by school administrators as they relate to the person and the environment. There is a need to obtain data on stress-producing factors which can impair both the professional performance, and the physical and mental health of principals. Stress has been identified as a serious disabling phenomenon which adversely affects the health and the lifestyle of individuals (Bergin & Solman, 1988; Gmelch, 1983; Cooper, Sieverding & Muth, 1988), and in some cases, as reported in Surrey, can eventually lead to death. Hence, school administrator "wellness" programs and forums are being developed by individuals, school districts, and the British Columbia Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association to address the problem of administrative stress and to identify effective strategies and techniques for coping with it. Foster (1986, p. 10) asserts that "it is only through the identification of the scope and severity of a problem that solutions to it may be developed." It is important to identify the stressors or causes of stress. Moreover, since stress cannot be avoided, identification of effective coping strategies may provide school principals with the 7 tools which can be used to reduce the amount of stress from the environment and to moderate the effect of stress on the individual. As Dr. D.E. Allison put it (personal communication, January 25, 1995), "stress is like the rain." He said, "If we can't stop the rain from falling, we should all learn to carry umbrellas." The umbrellas, of course, are the coping techniques people should use to abate the negative effects of stress. This study should result in educators having a greater understanding of stress and coping among public school principals. From the findings, recommendations will be made to principals' associations and school districts on ways to ameliorate the effects of stress on the health and well-being of public school administrators. Overview of the Study Chapter I has been an introduction to the study and has included background information, a statement of the purpose of the study, general research questions, and the importance of the study. A review of the literature on how elementary and secondary school principals perceive stress and its sources, how they have coped with stress, and the relationship between stress and coping with biographic (personal) and demographic (environmental) variables is presented in Chapter II. Chapter UJ presents the conceptual framework and research design. It includes basic assumptions, specific research questions, delimitations and limitations, and a description of the procedures used for the collection and analysis of data. Chapter IV presents the findings with respect to the biographic and demographic information and Chapter V presents the findings with respect to the research questions stated. A summary of the study, together with discussion, conclusions and recommendations for further research and practice are presented in Chapter VI. CHAPTER II STRESS, COPING AND THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR In a recent computer search (January 1995) of ERIC citations, more than 4000 articles written since 1982 were found with stress and education as key word identifiers. Interest by the popular press, education journals and serious researchers on the topic of stress has been widespread—despite a lack of general agreement on the meaning of the term and despite a lack of focus on a theoretical basis for interpreting quantitative results. In spite of the large number of stress and education citations, only about two percent of these were devoted to stress and the school administrator. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the literature on how elementary and secondary school principals have perceived stress and its sources, and the techniques they have used to cope. A review of the relationship between stress and selected demographic variables is presented. This chapter is organized into four sections: (1) the concept of stress, (2) stress and the school administrator: causes and effects, (3) coping with stress, and (4) a summary of the chapter. The Concept of Stress The concept of stress can be traced historically. In the seventeenth century, it referred to hardships, while in the eighteenth century it related to strain on an individual. In the early 1900s, it was recognized as contributing to ill health (Lutton, 1988). In 1946, Hans Selye developed an explanation of stress and its relationship to illness in a theory which postulated the existence of a General Adaptation Syndrome (Selye, 1976). His work was to make him the foremost authority on stress and stress-related research. 8 9 Three Models of Stress Stress is difficult to define. Despite widespread use of the word, stress is not a clinical term; rather, it is used interchangeably with such terms as anxiety, conflict, threat, strain, and ambiguity. It is a complex and multi-dimensional construct. There seem to be almost as many interpretations of stress as there are researchers investigating it. Rather than attempt to detail every interpretation, this section will examine the three models into which the definitions can be categorized: stress as a stimulus, stress as a response or reaction, and stress as a transaction between the person and the environment. Stress as a Stimulus. Stress has been described in terms of a stimulus. This can be anything out of the ordinary from an external force or strain to an environmental demand (i.e., a stressor) which interrupts the body's physiological or biological rhythms (Duncan, 1980). Leach (1984) asserts that stress creates anxiety or exerts chronic pressure on the individual. Rutter (1981) says that stress causes the person to make changes or adaptations while it produces a physical or psychological reaction in the individual which may be pleasant or unpleasant. Stress as a Reaction. Although Selye had earlier viewed stress as a stimulus, he later came to define it as a non-specific response of the body (e.g., faster heart rate, increased blood pressure, release of adrenocorticotrophic hormones into the blood stream, etc.) to any demand made upon it (1974). He conceptualized the stress response as a three-stage process called the General Adaptation Syndrome. According to him, when the body is subjected to stress of any kind, three things occur: 10 1. There is a general call-to-arms of all the body's systems. This is The Alarm Reaction. When a stressor is recognized, the brain sends forth a biochemical message to the pituitary gland which secretes ACTH (adrenocorticotrophic hormone), which causes the adrenal glands to secrete corticoids such as adrenalin. 2. The Resistance Stage involves the total effort of the organism to resist the "attack" of the stressor. At this stage the total forces of the body are marshaled to ward off the damaging impact of whatever it is that threatens to put the organism in a non-homeostatic stage. It is during this stage that "adaptation" is attempted. 3. The Exhaustion Stage occurs because the organism can absorb only so much stress for a particular period of time. If the stressor is unremitting or if its impact is too severe, it will produce wear and tear that will result in damage or death (Selye, 1976, p. 27). I II III IV STRESSORS PERCEPTIONS RESPONSES CONSEQUENCES expectations lack of time salary work load Job/personal^lr Ai progress jj^ Interruptions SOCIAL PHYSICAL INTELLECTUAL ENTERTAINMENT PERSONAL \ ^ MANAGERIAL MENTAL & PHYSICAL ILLNESS ATTITUDINAL meetings Figure 2.1 The Stress Cycle (Gmelch, 1988a, p. 135) 11 Subsequent to Selye's model of the general stress reaction, Gmelch (1988a) developed a model that related specifically to occupational or administrative stress. In this model (see Figure 2.1), he discussed a four-stage stress cycle that he believed offered a broad perspective and a clear understanding of stress. The first stage of the cycle begins by identifying a set of demands or stressors such as a written report, a telephone call, or an irate parent. Any of these situations produce stress, but the degree depends on the individual's perception—stage two. If the individual does not feel he or she has the time or resources to meet the demand, then the demand is perceived as a stressor. Therefore, it is possible for the same demand to be perceived as a stressor by one individual but not by another. The stress created by this problem results in a stress response and the coping process begins—stage three. Individuals go through physiological changes that prepare them either to ignore, flee, combat, or alleviate the stressor. Although the immediate psychological choice to ignore, flee, combat, or alleviate is very much a personal matter, it largely depends on the resources available and what has worked in the past. The fourth and final stage differs from the others because it refers to the long-range effects of stress. The individual who has not been able to cope effectively with stress may experience various consequences such as mental or physical illness. Stress as a Transactional Process. Stress can also be viewed as a transactional process between the individual and the environment (Beehr & Franz, 1987; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980) with stress being the generic term used to describe the imbalance between the demands of the environment and the ability of the individual to adapt (Ketz deVries, 1979). The transactional model provides a useful framework for the study of work-related stress and selected environmental stressors. The Person-Environment Fit theory, developed by French (1974), is a transactional model which provides for an exploration of the goodness-of-fit between the work environment and the person. The theory involves two kinds of fit between the individual and the environment. The first kind of fit is the extent to which the individual's skills and abilities 12 match the demands and requirements of the job. The second type of fit is the extent to which the job environment serves to meet the needs of the individual. Either form of misfit will cause occupational stress which may cause job dissatisfaction, depression, physiological strain, and poor mental health (Heibert, 1987). Effects of Stress Regardless of the cause of stress, whether pleasant or unpleasant, Selye (1976) discussed certain medical symptoms and self-observable signs common to any kind of stress. He pointed out that, although a certain amount of stress is needed to give purpose to life, medical symptoms and signs will serve as warnings that an individual's endurance has reached its limit. Medical symptoms consist of the blood level of adrenalin, corticoids, ACTH, and a drop in blood eosinophils; electrical activity of the brain; the level of blood pressure; and the electrical conductivity of the skin. Selye (1976) listed thirty-one signs of stress an individual may recognize. These signs are evident in activities in which individuals under stress may engage. Any individual's activity may show destructive warning signs resulting from a malfunctioning of a vulnerable part of the body. When such signs appear, it is time for the individual to stop or change the activity. The warning signs are listed in Table 2.1. Unlike Selye who did not classify the warning signs, Cox (1978) and Hibler (1981) each subsequently categorized the signs or observable symptoms of stress. Cox (1978) categorized five potential effects of stress. His categories and their effects are shown in Table 2.2. Hibler (1981) also characterized early warning signs of stress but under three main classifications: emotional signs, behavioral signs, and physical signs. They are summarized in Table 2.3. 13 Table 2.1 Warning Signs of the Effects of Stress 1. General irritability, hyper excitation, or depression 2. Pounding of the heart, an indicator of high blood pressure 3. Dryness of the throat and mouth 4. Impulsive behavior, emotional instability 5. The overpowering urge to cry or run and hide 6. Inability to concentrate, flight of thoughts and general disorientation 7. Feelings of unreality, weakness, or dizziness 8. Predilection to become fatigued, and loss of the "joie de vivre" 9. "Floating anxiety" - being afraid, but not knowing exactly what of 10. Emotional tension and alertness, feeling of being "keyed up" 11. Trembling, nervous ticks 12. Tendency to be easily startled by small sounds 13. High-pitched, nervous laughter 14. Stuttering and other speech difficulties 15. Bruxism, or grinding of the teeth 16. Insomnia 17. Hyper motility 18. Sweating 19. The frequent need to urinate 20. Diarrhea, indigestion, queasiness in the stomach, and sometimes even vomiting 21. Migraine headaches 22. Premenstrual tension or missed menstrual cycles 23. Pains in the neck and lower back 24. Loss of or excessive appetite 25. Increased smoking 26. Increased use of legally prescribed drugs such as tranquilizers or amphetamines 27. Alcohol and drug addiction 28. Nightmares 29. Neurotic behavior 30. Psychoses 31. Accident proneness (Selye, 1976, p. 171) 14 Table 2.2 Effects of Stress Subjective Effects Anxiety, aggression, apathy, boredom, depression, fatigue, frustration, loss of temper, low self-esteem, nervousness, feeling alone. Behavioral Effects Accident proneness, drug abuse, emotional outbursts, excessive eating and drinking, smoking, impulsive behavior, nervous laughter. Cognitive Effects Inability to make sound decisions, poor concentration, short attention span, hypersensitivity to criticism, and mental blocks. Physiological Effects Increased blood glucose levels, increased heart rates and blood pressure, dryness of the mouth, sweating, dilation of pupils, hot and cold flashes. Organizational Effects Absenteeism, lower productivity, alienation with co-workers, job dissatisfaction, reduced organizational commitment and loyalty (Cox, 1978, p. 92) 15 Table 2.3 Signs of Stress Emotional Signs Apathy, anxiety, irritability, mental fatigue, and overcompensation or denial-grandiosity Behavioral Signs Avoiding things, doing things to extremes, administrative problems, and legal problems Physical Signs Excessive worrying, illness, physical exhaustion, reliance on self-medication, ailments such as headaches, insomnia, appetite changes, weight gain or loss. (Hibler, 1981, pp. 19-20) Occupational Stress Newman and Beehr defined occupational stress as "a situation wherein job-related factors interact with the worker to change (disrupt or enhance) his or her psychological and/or physiological condition such that the person (i.e., mind-body) is forced to deviate from the normal functioning" (1979, p. 20). Work takes up a major portion of an individual's life in terms of both time and importance. Botts (1986) states that since work is often stressful, it is not surprising that occupational stress is an important contemporary issue. Thompson (1985) points out that people whose jobs have no time limits are inclined to experience more stress than persons whose jobs are structured with well defined tasks to perform within certain periods of time. He remarks that "building principals fall into the high risk category of persons who are likely to be quite stressed" (p. 9). Lutton (1988, p. 41) asserts that "middle management is perhaps subjected to a disproportionate share of stress producing circumstances". He reports that changes in the role of the principal have acted to 16 increase this stress. Lutton cites new federal and state laws, the formal teachers' contract, erosion of public commitment to education, changing social values, and loss of job autonomy as contributing factors which have acted to increase administrators' stress. Since there is a growing body of evidence that occupational stress affects both the health and performance of managers (Gmelch, 1982), there has been a determined effort to consider the sources of occupational stress more systematically. According to Gmelch (1977), there are four major types of stressors that originate from different but overlapping interacting sources. These are: environmental stressors, organizational stressors, interpersonal stressors; and personal stressors. In terms of the transactional, person-environment model, these stressors can be grouped in two categories: the environment, which includes environmental or organizational stressors; and the person, which includes interpersonal and personal stressors. Examples of stressors in each category are shown in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 Classification of Stressors Stressors related to the Environment Environmental stressors arise from factors within the environment such weather changes, temperature, lighting, noise, space, crowding and the layout or design of the environment. Organizational stressors originate from elements within an organization such as the structure of the organization itself, work overload or under load, time constraints, role conflict or role ambiguity, career development opportunities, and the availability of reward and recognition. Stressors related to the Person Interpersonal stressors stem from situations that arise between individuals concerning such factors as trust or mistrust, the presence or absence of competition, the effectiveness of communication, and the availability or adequate support systems. Personal stressors originate from factors specific to the individual such as the person's lifestyle, personality type, level of commitment or dedication, genetic disposition or susceptibility to stress (Gmelch, 1977). 17 Matteson and Ivancevich concluded that, due to a substantial amount of time spent at work or on career related activities, "Negative health consequences of stress are probably experienced more frequently in the work world than anywhere else" (1982, p. 30). These researchers cited several examples of typical research findings on the relationship among stress, disease, and work, and reported that: 1. Forty-five percent of a sample of coronary patients put in more than 60 hours a week on their jobs 2. Reported job stress was associated with high cholesterol level, increased heart rate, and increased smoking 3. Having "responsibility for people" on the job is more likely to lead to heart disease than "having responsibility for things" 4. Executives who were poor delegators had eight times as many ulcers as good delegators, and 5. Members of high stress occupations have suicide rates two to six times higher than that of the general population (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1982, p. 36) Greenberg and Valletutti (1980) reported that individuals employed in the human service or the helping professions are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of stress. They listed certain characteristics of human service professionals which raises their vulnerability to the dysfunctional effects of stress. Such people: 1. Become deeply involved in the lives and well-being of others 2. Have some degree of control in directing the activities of others 3. Are regularly exposed to human grief, deprivation, struggle, and failure, as well as to the inability of others to cope adequately with their daily functions—mental, physical or emotional 4. spend long, unusually irregular hours accomplishing specific job tasks 5. Are expected to perform a variety of activities, many of which may not be directly related to his or her specific function 6. Are expected to be familiar with and able to make referrals to a variety of resource agencies (Greenberg and Valletutti, 1980, pp. 5-6). Cooper and Marshall (1976) developed a framework for analyzing major categories of stressors. Their conceptual model (Figure 2.2) clarifies the sources of occupational stress and the symptoms of occupational ill health that lead to coronary heart disease and poor mental health. 18 SOURCES OF STRESS AT U3RK Intrinsic to job Poor physical working conditions Work overload Tine pressure Physical danger Role in organization Role aibiguity Role conflict Responsibility for people Conflicts re organizational boundaries (internal and external) Career Development Overpronotion Underproootlon Lack of Job security Thwarted aabitloo Relationship at work Poor relations Kith boss, subordinates or colleagues Difficulties is delegating responsibility Organizational structure and climate Little or oo participation in declsioa-aaking Restrictions oo behavior (budgets, etc.) Office politics Lack of effective consultation INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS The individual Level of anxiety Level of neuroticisn Tolerance for aabiguity Type A behavioral pattern SYKPTOHS OF OCCUPATIONAL ILL HEALTH DISEASE Extra -organizational sources o f stress Fas i l y problems Life crises Financial difficulties Dias t o l i c blood presse Cholesterol l eve l Heart rate Smoking Depression Drinking Job d i s sa t i s f a c t i on Reduced asp i ra t i ons Coronary heart disease Kental i l l health Figure 2.2 A Model of Stress at Work (Cooper and Marshall, 1976, p. 12) The five categories of work stress are: (1) factors that are intrinsic to the job, (2) the individual's role in the organization, (3) opportunities for career development, (4) relationships within the organization, and (5) organizational structure and climate. Frequently each of the five categories interact and are not mutually exclusive. When the occupational stressors combine with extra-organizational sources of stress (family problems, life crisis, financial difficulties) and certain characteristics of the individual (level of anxiety, level of neuroticism, tolerance for ambiguity, Type A behavioral patterns), occupational ill health could lead to coronary heart disease and mental illness (Cooper and Marshall, 1976). 19 Concept of Stress: Summary In this section, stress was viewed from three perspectives: as a stimulus, as a reaction, and as a transactional process. When stress has been viewed as a stimulus, it has been described as an external force or demand which causes a person to make adaptations. Much of the literature on stress views stress as a reaction. Selye described this process in his General Adaptation Syndrome and Gmelch developed a reaction model with his four stage stress cycle. The interaction between the environment and the person provided for a transactional model of stress. The conceptual framework for the present study adopts this transactional model, where stress results from a misfit between the demands of the environment and the ability and needs of the individual. In the literature on stress, attention has been focused on the consequences and the effects of stress on the individual. While Cox and Hibler each listed and categorized the visible warning signs of stress, Selye listed 31 recognizable symptoms. An identifiable source of stress is the work environment. Gmelch pointed out that there are four major types of stress: environmental, organizational, interpersonal and personal. The negative health consequences of occupational stress were presented by Matteson and Ivancevich, while Greenberg and Valletutti listed the characteristics of individuals most vulnerable to stress. A framework for analyzing major categories of stress was developed by Cooper and Marshall. Research on Stress and the School Administrator Research on stress with school administrators has taken two directions. The first has been concerned with the causes of stress and has used self-report techniques to identify situations or stressors which administrators perceived to be stress-producing. The second direction that the research on stress and school administrators has taken is concerned with the physical symptoms (effects) of stress and has used physiological instruments and self report measures. 20 Stress and School Administrators: The Causes The causes of stress (perceived stressors) have been investigated mostly through the use of self-report instruments. The instruments used to determine the causes of stress and the researched based studies focusing on the sources of stress are discussed in this section. Research Reports. A majority of studies focused on stress with school administrators have used the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) developed by Swent and Gmelch (Swent & Gmelch, 1977; Gmelch, Koch, Swent & Tung, 1982). This self-report scale is the most frequently cited instrument in the literature on school administrative stress. The Administrative Stress Index. The ASI is an instrument designed to obtain the perceptions of educational administrators in 35 typical job-related situations. These 35 individual stressors were grouped into five categories: (1) administrative constraints (stressors related to inadequate time, meetings, and workload); (2) administrative responsibilities (typical administrative tasks such as supervision, evaluation and negotiation); (3) interpersonal relations (resolving conflicts among and between students, staff members and supervisors); (4) intrapersonal conflict (conflicts between performance and internal beliefs and expectations); and (5) role expectations (differences in own expectations and the expectations of groups served). The development, validation, and psychometric characteristics of the Administrative Stress Index is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three. The ASI items grouped in the original five categories are listed in Table 2.5. Research Studies Using the Administrative Stress Index. Seventeen studies using the Adrninistrative Stress Index were summarized for this review. The original study with the ASI (Swent & Gmelch, 1977) was based on returns by 1156 Oregon school administrators (elementary and secondary principals and vice-principals, supervisors, superintendents and assistant superintendents). Nearly half of the respondents reported that 71 to 90 percent of the stress in their lives came from their jobs. Table 2.6 shows the ten highest ranked stressors reported by school administrators. 21 Table 2.5 The Administrative Stress Index Items in the Administrative Stress Index clustered in the original five categories (Gmelch & Swent, 1977). Administrative Constraints. Stressors related to time, meetings, work load and compliance with federal, state, and organizational policies. 1. Being interrupted frequendy by telephone calls 9. Having my work frequently interrupted by staff members who want to talk 12. Writing memos, letters and other communications 26. Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal work day 27. Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies 31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time 32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time Administrative Responsibility. Tasks characteristic of nearly all administrative positions including supervision, evaluation, negotiations and gaining public support for programs. 2. Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people 14. Speaking in front of groups 21. Preparing and allocating budget resources 24. Being involved in the collective bargaining process 25. Evaluating staff members' performance 29. Administering the negotiated contract (grievances, interpretations, etc.) 35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs Interpersonal Relations. Resolving differences between parents and school, between staff members, and handling student discipline 3. Feeling staff members don't understand my goals and expectations 7. Trying to resolve differences between/among students 13. Trying to resolve differences with my superiors 20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 23. Handling student discipline problems 33. Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members 34. Trying to influence my immediate supervisor's actions and decision that affect me Intrapersonal Conflicts. Conflicts between performance and one's internal beliefs and expectations. 4. Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job 5. Knowing I can't get information needed to cany out my job properly 10. Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 15. Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, friends, etc. ) 17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) 22. Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me 28. Feeling that the progress on my job is not what is should or could be Role Expectations. Stressors associated with differences in the expectations of self and the various groups with which administrators must deal. 6. Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me 8. Feeling not enough is expected of me by my superiors 11. Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what I think is reasonable 16. Not knowing what my supervisor thinks of me, or how s/he evaluates my performance 18. Feeling I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 19. Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by my superior 30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are 22 Table 2.6 Top 10 Stressors from the Administrative Stress Index Listed in Rank Order as Reported by Oregon School Administrators (Swent & Gmelch, 1977) ASI# Situational Stressor 27. Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies 31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time 32. Trying to complete reports and paper work on time 35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs 20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 25 Evaluating staff members' performance 17 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) 26 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during normal working day 10 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 1 Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls Spradling (1984), using the ASI, investigated the relationship among the characteristics of 187 elementary school principals in the state of Missouri, with job stress factors and perceived effectiveness of stress-coping techniques. He determined that there were no statistically significant relationships with perceived job stress for any of the variables of school location, school size, age, gender, years of experience, and number of people supervised. 23 Table 2.7 Top 10 Stressors from the Administrative Stress Index Listed in Rank Order as Reported by Washington School Administrators (Gmelch & Torrelli, 1993) Elementary Principals. ASI # Situational Stressor 26 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that cannot possibly finish during the normal working day 31 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 32 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 5 Knowing I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly 18 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 28 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be 10 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 20 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 17 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) 35 Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs Middle School/Junior High Principals. ASI # Situational Stressor 31 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 10 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 26 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal work day 15 Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, friends, etc.) 28 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be 32 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 20 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 6 Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me 18 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 35 Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs 24 Table 2.7 (Continued) High School Principals. ASI# Situational Stressor 18 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 31 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 5 Knowing I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly 10 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 26 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal work day 28 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be 32 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 20 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 6 Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me 15 Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, friends, etc.) Yackel (1984) examined the nature of the relationship between leadership style and administrative stress in the rural, K-12, principalship in Saskatchewan. He surveyed 122 principals using the ASI and found no relationship between leadership style and administrative stress. A secondary finding was that no relationship was discovered between coping strategies employed and the source or intensity of stress experienced. Yackel states that cognitive appraisal, prior experiences (successful or unsuccessful), personality, and motivational structure of each subject, would affect his or her perception of each stressor. 25 Thompson (1985) analyzed responses from 304 public school principals, representing three geographic areas in North Carolina, to the ASI, the Maslach Burnout Inventory and a coping scale. The results of this survey indicated that the highest sources of stress centered around task-based roles associated with the day-to-day operation of the school. Male principals, high school principals and principals of large schools experienced more burnout than did female principals, middle school or elementary principals and principals in small schools. The ASI was used by Foster (1986) in a survey of Kentucky's public secondary school principals. An analysis of the 169 usable returns indicated that three of the 35 ASI stressors had significantly higher means than the other 32. They were "Feeling I have to participate in school activities outside of normal working hours "Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies", and "Feeling I have too heavy a workload Those stressors classified as Administrative Constraints, when taken as a composite, produced the most stress. He found that the majority of the principals viewed their jobs as stressful, with 63.9% indicating that over 70% of their total life stress came from their jobs, 13% indicating over 90% and 2% reported that over 99% of their life stress was job-related. Iuzzolino (1986) surveyed 78 Pennsylvania High School Principals. His questionnaire package included a demographic/biographic information section, the ASI, and a 20 item survey of coping strategies. The principals he surveyed reported that a substantial portion (79.2%) of their total life stress came from job related experiences. More than 75% of the principals reported that a least 71% of their total life stress came from their jobs. Iuzzolino also discovered that over half (52%) of the principals perceived their administrative job to be "very stressful". Iuzzolino cited a number of other studies and reported that his findings were congruent with those of Barber (1982) who noted that 61% of the administrators perceived their jobs as ranging from "high to very high stress". In contrast, Iuzzolino cites Farkas (1983) and Gorton (1982) who found that principals, in general, perceived their jobs as "low to moderately stressful". Iuzzolino found the most important sources of stress to be related to time, deadlines and excessive work demands. 26 This was similar to what Parker and Decotiis (1983) found in an earlier study. Iuzzolino found that as age and years in a position increased, stress decreased. He found that urban principals exhibited more stress, related to the intrapersonal conflicts category, than did non-urban principals. The administrative constraints category was also found to be the most stressful. The total score for this category was almost three points higher than the next, interpersonal relations. In 1987 Williamson and Campbell administered the ASI to 243 school principals in the United States. They found four major factors contributed to stress among high school principals. The factors included: management of time, relations with supervisors, relations with subordinates, and matters of finance. In a study involving 236 Connecticut public elementary school principals, Leary (1987) investigated the relationship between stress, and time management and selected demographic characteristics. The ASI was used to measure perceived stress and the Executive Time Management Instrument (ETMI) was employed to determine perceived time management efficiency. He found that there was a significant relationship (p < .05) between stress and time management (r = -.37) and between stress and principal's age (r = -.20). Student population, community type and per pupil expenditure were not found to be significantly related to stress or time management efficiency. Wright (1987) surveyed 112 elementary and middle school principals and vice-principals in Prince George County, Maryland with the ASI. Over all, the principals and vice-principals reported that their number one source of stress was the completion of reports and paper work on time. There were also some significant differences among administrators at different administrative levels in response to the top seven stressors. Completing reports and paper work on time, heavy work load, meetings, imposing high expectations and telephone interruptions were most stressful for elementary principals. Middle school principals were most stressed by public approval and financial support. Middle school vice principals were most stressed by the collective bargaining process. There were also statistically significant differences among three demographic variables; years in administration, size of school, and sex; with the top seven stressors. 27 Administrators with one to two years in administration perceived completing reports, workload and telephone interruptions as creating the greatest amount of stress. Administrators with 20 or more years experience perceived the least amount of stress for all categories. For schools over 599 students, administrators reported that the greatest stress was created by need to gain public approval. The differences between district-level administrators' and school-based administrators' perceptions of occupational stress factors in a large Florida urban school district were investigated by Bishop (1986). Data were collected from 214 administrators. The four occupational stress factors; role-based, task-based, conflict-mediating, and boundary-spanning stress were examined in relationship to the type of employment, position held, age, sex, race, marital status and number of years of administrative experience. She found that school-based administrators were more likely to report stress associated with conflict-mediating items of the ASI and the boundary-spanning items that related to budgeting and collective bargaining issues. District level administrators were more likely to report stress on two role-based items, "trying to resolve differences with my supervisors" and "being unclear on what the scope and responsibility of my job is". Buzzelli-White (1988) used the ASI to analyze the sources and levels of stress of 30 principals in two Colorado school districts. She also examined how these administrators coped with stress and whether a district stress management class helped administrators in one district alleviate the amount of stress they experienced. She reported that principals perceived that they experienced moderate levels of stress and were handling their stress adequately but were not satisfied with the results of their efforts. They estimated that 71% of their total life stress was related to their administrative position, and that the administrative constraints category contained the most bothersome stressors. The availability and participation in a district stress management class did not have any significant effect on the level of perceived stress. She also found that senior high school principals who work more hours per week (above 56) had significantly higher stress scores than those administrators working fewer hours at the elementary or junior high school 28 level. She also noted that principals with fewer years in a school and less administrative experience had significantly higher stress scores (p < .05). Lutton (1988) polled 240 elementary school principals, K-6, in the state of California using the ASI and an 18 item Potential Methods of Coping with Stress Survey. He analyzed the sources of stress in terms of ASI factors and demographic/biographic characteristics of the respondents. He found that male and female elementary principals experienced similar amounts of role-based, task-based, boundary-spanning, and conflict-mediating stressors on their jobs. The findings of this study indicated that the top four stressors were all in the task-based factor (meetings take up too much time, too heavy a workload, reports and paper work, and imposing excessive expectations on self). Respondents felt that "not being able to get needed information to carry out their jobs properly" was the top role-based stressor. For boundary-spanning stress, "the number of rules and regulations" was the top stressor, and the top conflict-mediating concern respondents felt was, "trying to resolve parent/school conflicts". Contrary to other literature on stress, Lutton found that elementary principals who are 55 years of age and older are experiencing the most on-job stress in all ASI factors. He also detected that administrators who have 11 to 15 years of administrative experience reported the highest task-based and boundary-spanning job stress, while principals with over 20 years of experience reported the most role-based and conflict-mediating work stress. A further finding was that principals, who are responsible for more than 900 students in their schools, experienced the highest on-the-job stress on all four ASI factors. Thomson (1988) surveyed 342 Kansas Secondary School Administrators using the ASI, a Social Support Indices, a Mental Health Questionnaire and a Personal Data Questionnaire. She analyzed stress levels with respect to the amount, type and source of social support. She found that secondary school principals experienced a high degree of stress and that a social support group of supervisors and other people at work had a direct effect in alleviating stress. She also found that support (in terms of a person who makes life easier, who is easy to talk to, who can be relied upon, and who is willing to listen) from a spouse, friends or relatives did not reduce work 29 related stress. Thomson noted that social support is implicitly a perceptual term and that it is not effective until it is experienced and perceived as such. She cites three authors (Morrison, 1977; Blau, 1981; and Swent, 1983), who suggest that educators ought to recognize the value of social support. All three emphasize the importance of building supportive structures and recommend using colleagues as resources for solving problems. Thomson's findings indicate that men have higher stress levels than women in relation to role-based and boundary-spanning stress. She did not find any significant relationships between stress levels and age or years of administrative experience. Harrison (1991) surveyed 254 elementary school principals in Texas using the ASI and the Roesch Coping Preference Scale. She found that while Texas principals were only moderately stressed in their jobs, the administrative constraints category, which included such items as a heavy workload, completing reports, complying with rules, and attending meetings was identified as being associated with the most stress. In this study, significant relationships were found between stress and principal's age, ethnicity, size of campus and number of assistant principals. Goeller (1992) surveyed 287 female elementary and secondary school principals in Indiana using the ASI, modified by adding 10 items concerned with job-related gender barriers, and the Personal Resources Questionnaire, a gender-related coping scale. She found that task-based and conflict-mediating sources of stress had the two highest mean values respectively. "Having family and home responsibilities" and encountering attitudes that "females are less effective than men" ranked first and second among the ten gender-related items. She also found a significant relationship between the perceptions of stress among female principals and age, with older principals slightly less affected by gender-related stressors. Female elementary and high school principals reported more sources of stress than middle/junior high school principals. In a study involving 1179 public elementary, middle, secondary and special education administrators in the state of Georgia, Ogden (1992) investigated sources, clusters, and levels of administrative stress. She found that seven of the top 10 stressors reported by elementary, middle and secondary school principals were the same, although these were in a slightly different order 30 within each administrative level. The top seven stressors included: completing reports and paperwork, complying with rules and policies, telephone interruptions, too heavy a workload, meetings that take up too much time, imposing excessively high expectations on self, and trying to resolve parent/school conflicts. The top five stressors identified by all administrators were all clustered within the administrative constraints category. Ogden found no statistically significant differences among groups of elementary, middle, or secondary principals in the major sources of perceived on-the-job stress or total stress levels as measured by the ASI. Administrators reported, on average, that 64.5% of their total life stress was accounted for by their jobs. She reported that statistical significance did occur among the various demographic variables and total perceived stress, but that the majority of these correlations were of negligible magnitude and of little practical significance. She found that the demographic variables that appear to be most related to stress were age, gender, educational level, years in education, and total student enrollment. The ten greatest perceived stressors on the Adrninistrative Stress Index from the studies in which the data were available are presented in Table 2.8. This table shows for each of the 19 research reports which items were ranked among the top ten. These data are synthesized in Table 2.9. Of the top 10 sources of stress identified, five were from the Administrative Constraints category and three were from the Interpersonal Conflicts category. Research Studies Using Instruments Other Than the ASI. A number of studies have investigated administrative stress using instruments other than the ASI. Most of these were designed specifically for the studies reported and often were adapted from the Administrative Stress Index. Five recent studies on stress and the school administrator are presented. Coincidentally, four of these studies were based on Canadian samples. 31 Table 2.8 Rank Order of the Top 10 Stressors on the Administrative Stress Index Reported in a Number of Studies * Swent** Cook Brim Thompson Foster Iuzzolino Leary Wright 1977 1980 1981 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1156 n/r 609 304 169 78 236 112 Rank Adm. Adm. Adm. Adm. Sec. Sec. Elem. Elem. Middle V.P. 1 27 27 27 25 18 10 32 26 32 1 2 31 31 17 32 27 26 31 32 31 31 3 32 32 20 1 26 18 26 31 10 32 4 35 17 25 31 1 31 1 10 34 10 5 20 25 1 10 10 32 10 1 33 11 6 25 1 32 20 32 1 27 20 26 22 7 17 20 35 17 17 17 20 11 11 35 8 26 10 18 35 25 20 18 28 1 28 9 10 18 28 28 20 27 12 27 35 7 10 1 28 26 33 2 2 17 18 6 3 Lutton Thomson Harrison Goeller Ogden Tanner Gmelch & Torrelli 1988 1988 1991 1992 1992 1992 1993 240 342 254 287 1179 580 741 Rank Elem. Adm. Elem. Female Adm. Sec. Elem. Jr. Sr. 1 31 20 26 26 32 31 26 31 18 2 26 18 32 10 27 18 31 10 31 3 32 1 . 27 32 1 26 32 26 5 4 10 10 31 31 26 32 5 15 10 5 1 31 20 18 31 27 18 28 26 6 5 27 25 1 10 35 28 32 28 7 27 2 28 27 20 33 10 20 32 8 20 26 17 20 17 17 20 6 20 9 23 32 1 15 23 1 17 18 6 10 35 28 23 17 18 25 35 35 15 The numbers in each column refer to ASI item numbers. ** In each case the study identification shows the author's name, year of publication, sample size, and administrative level or gender of subjects. 32 Table 2.9 Synthesis of the Top 10 Ranked ASI Items from the Studies Cited in Table 2.8 Rank Number of Studies Item No. ASI Situational Stressor 1 19/19 32 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 2 18/19 31 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 3 16/19 1 Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls 3 16/19 10 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 3 16/19 20 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 3 16/19 26 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal work day 7 13/19 18 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 7 13/19 27 Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies 9 12/19 17 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) 10 10/19 28 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be 33 Tanner, Schnittjer and Atkins (1991) analyzed the effects of the use of management strategies on stress levels of 580 high school principals in the United States. In order to measure stress, they used an instrument, the Stress Rating Scale, a 10 item scale adapted from the ASI, along with a 47 item time management rating scale. They found that the aspects of the adrninistrator's job that involved the management activities of decision making, communicating, directing and controlling, all to be statistically significant and correlated with stress, even though the magnitude of the correlation was small (r = -.107 to -.144, p < .01). In a qualitative investigation, Richmond and Campsall (1992) examined school-based administrators' perceptions of the sources of administrative stress in the Cariboo Chilcotin School District in British Columbia using a questionnaire and interview format. Their study employed a mixture of 12 closed and open-ended questions. The authors reported that, in recent years, the job of the principal as the middle manager has become much more stressful. They found that administrators were concerned and stressed by the introduction of a vast number of new policies and directions, the integration of special needs students, the limited amount of time to complete complex tasks, changes in family support, management/union tensions, contract issues and a deterioration of school culture caused in part by Bill 20 which divided principals and teachers. The authors found that task or time-based stressors were dominant concerns. The issues of lunch time supervision, the plethora of paper work required, extra-curricular responsibilities, an increase in expectations and demands on time, and the rapid change in technology were clear stressors for principals. External or boundary-spanning stressors were also reported to be of grave concern. Similar to the findings of Bergin and Solman (1988) cited by Richmond and Campsall, they found that changing external expectations on the school system, by society, were perceived to be excessive and unrealistic. Role conflict in both professional and personal lives was a concern. One hundred twenty-eight school principals in another large Western Canadian school district (Prince George, B.C.) also reported several work situations that they perceived as stressful for school administrators (Sarros and Friesen, 1987). Of the 128 principals who responded to a 26 item job satisfaction scale, 104 identified that interpersonal relationships were a 34 major concern—caused in many cases by differences in ideologies and values between administrators and their staffs. Sixty-nine principals perceived pressures from higher (central office) authorities as sources of stress, followed by 64 principals mentioning work load, 56 identifying the negative attitudes of parents and various publics, and 49 administrators citing insufficient time as a source of occupational stress. Ratsoy, Sarros, and Aidoo-Taylor (1986) examined the effects of administrative stress on 217 school based administrators in a large Western Canadian urban school district. They used a 50 item scale focused on the frequency and intensity of work-related stress designed especially for their study. They discovered that work load, program constraints and interpersonal relationships were the major sources of stress for school principals. The researchers reported that the immediate effects of the work-related stress included: frustration, anger, and disappointment; fatigue and health problems; job dissatisfaction; inefficient work habits; and little peer interaction. The long term consequences included failure to achieve organizational and personal goals, and the loss of collegiality. In yet another Canadian study on stress and the school principalship, McMurray (1984) examined the interactive nature of stress in 438 Canadian elementary school principals. Using a self-developed, 25 item, job-related stress questionnaire, he found that only two events, too many meetings and insufficient time for planning and preparation were high stress producers. Other areas of considerable concern for principals were the increase of one-parent families, mainstreaming special needs students, and the changing directions generated by the provincial Ministries of Education. Principals reported that 55% (median score) of the total stress in their lives could be attributed directly to their administrative job. 35 Demographic and Biographic Variables Demographic and biographical information was obtained about many of the principals surveyed in these research studies cited above. The relationship between the demographic variables and administrative stress is synthesized below. Administrative level. While Finaldi (1983) found no relationship between the type or level of school and administrative stress, Cusack (1982), Kadlecek (1982), Warner (1980), and Schwab and Iwanicki (1982) found that secondary school principals reported more stress than elementary school principals. In contrast, Lutton (1988), Savery and Detiuk (1986) and Schuetz (1980) found that elementary principals were the most stressed. Buzzelli-White (1988) and Goeller (1992) found senior secondary principals experienced more stress than junior secondary principals while Cross (1985) found that elementary and senior secondary principals were more stressed than middle school or junior secondary principals. Geographic location. No relationship was discovered between perceived stress reported by principals and the geographical location of their school in studies by Foster (1986), Heinze (1987), Leary (1987), Mandeville (1984), Schuetz (1980) and Spradling (1984). Only one study (Iuzzolino, 1986) found that principals in urban settings reported more stress than those in rural or suburban locations. Number of teachers supervised. A positive relationship between the number of teachers supervised and principals' stress was reported by Koff (1980), Marshall (1980), and Maslach and Pines (1977). No relationship between the number of teachers evaluated or supervised was found by Foster (1986). Number of vice-principals. Principals without vice-principals were reported by Harrison (1991) and Iuzzolino (1986) to experience more stress than principals who were assisted by a vice-principal. However, Mandeville (1984) and Schuetz (1980) found no difference between those who had administrative assistance and those who did not. 36 Size of school. No significant relationship between the size of the school and stress was reported by Leary (1987), Mandeville (1984), Murphy (1982), Roesch (1979) and Spradling (1984). Principals of larger schools were found by Moore (1980), Thompson (1985), and Williamson and Campbell (1987) to experience more stress. Only one study (Harrison, 1991), reported more stress for principals of small schools. Size of school district. Gray (1983) and Wright (1987) found that principals in larger school districts experienced more stress than those in smaller districts. Socio-economic status. No significant relationship between the socio-economic status of the school district community and administrators' stress was found in two studies (Leary, 1987 and Murphy 1982) The relationship between the biographic variables and stress is synthesized below. Administrative experience. While Bucuvalas (1987), Heinze (1987), Schuetz (1980), Spradling (1984) and Thomson (1988) found no significant relationship between years of experience in administration and the amount of perceived stress, Buzzeili-White (1988), Cusack (1982), Kadlecek (1982), Koch, Tung, Gmelch and Swent (1982), Mandeville (1984), Ogden (1992), Roesch (1979) and Wright (1987) found a significant negative relationship. Administrators with more years of experience reported lower levels of stress. Only one study, Bishop (1986) found a significant positive relationship between years of experience and some aspects of stress. Age. A number of studies investigated the relationship of administrator's age to perceived stress. While no relationship was found by Bucuvalas (1987), Moore (1987), Spradling (1984) and Thompson (1988); a negative correlation, indicating that older administrators were less affected by stress than younger administrators, was reported by Harrison (1991), Heinze (1987), Iuzzolino (1986), Koch, Tung, Gmelch and Swent (1982), Lam (1988) Leary (1987), Lutton (1988), Ogden (1992), Roesch (1979) and Rosen (1981). Negative correlations with age were also reported by Cusack (1982) related to measures of interpersonal relations, by Mandeville 37 (1984) associated with legal action or making decisions about people a principal knows, and by Olsen (1984) connected to depersonalization. By contrast, positive correlations, indicating that older administrators were more prone to stress than younger administrators, were reported by Botts (1986) with reference to superintendents, and by Lutton (1985) for principals over 55 years of age. Gender. Almost all of the investigations of stress and school administrators have addressed the relationship between administrators' sex and the level of perceived stress. While Heinze (1987), Murphy (1982), Schuetz (1980), Spradling (1984) and Torrelli (1990) found no significant relationship, Farkas (1983;1984), Mills (1981), Olsen (1984), Roesch (1979), Thompson (1985), Tung (1979) and Wright (1987) found that male administrators perceived higher levels of stress than female administrators. Campbell and Williamson (1986) found that male principals perceived more stress in their relationships with subordinates than their female counterparts. Only two studies (Bishop, 1986 and Wiggins, 1983) reported more perceived stress for female administrators than for males. Graduate degrees. Two studies were concerned with the relationship between level of university training and preparation with perceived stress. While Schuetz (1980) found no relationship between level of education and stress, Presley and Ewing (1988) found that principals with master's degrees experienced more stress than those with doctorates. Health status. Two studies by Gmelch (1984) and Lam (1988) reported an inverse relationship between stress and self-report health status. That is, those who report good health are less likely to have high stress scores. Hours worked per week. Buzzelli-White (1988), Gray (1983), Moore (1980), Roberson (1986) and Vander Zanden (1982) found a positive relationship between hours worked per week and administrators' stress levels. Marital status. Two studies focused on the relationship between marital status and stress. Gmelch and Wilke (1986) reported that married women and single men were found to demonstrate higher levels of stress than single women and married men. Lam (1988) found that 38 divorced and widowed administrators experienced more stress associated with functional or role ambiguity and were less satisfied with their jobs. Years in present position. While Foster (1986) found no relationship between administrative stress and years in present position, Buzzelli-White (1988) and Iuzzolino (1986) reported that principals with more years in their present school or administrative position experienced less stress than those with fewer years. Stress and School Administrators: The Effects In reviewing the literature on the physiological effects of stress, an ERIC search identified only three research reports specifically concerned with school administrators. The paucity of studies using the physiological measures reflects the difficulty involved in arranging situations in the educational setting where physiological measures can be applied. Two of studies summarized below used physiological instruments to measure the effects of stress and the third used a self-report questionnaire. An investigation of the physiological aspects of stress was undertaken by Cooper, Sieverding, and Muth (1988). With a sample of 12 male principals (five of whom were in their first or second year in administration and seven of whom had 4 to 12 years experience), data were obtained using portable heart rate monitors over three working days and from a self-report activities diary. These principals also completed a personal inventory about their health, age, height and weight, marital status, years of education, years of experience, number of hours worked per week, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, history of heart disease, hypertension and medication. The researchers reported that these principals were working under extreme stress for long hours and that certain managerial activities (spokesperson, disturbance handler, student supervisor, student discipliner, and resource allocator), were more physiologically stressful than other activities. 39 The stress levels of 10 elementary school principals in New South Wales were investigated by Whan (1988). He used a stress monitor, the Stephen's Tissue Perfusion Monitor, which was connected to a radio transmitter so that data could be received and recorded by the investigator. The principals were followed for a five day period. Whan reported that changes of staff, conflicting values, attitudes and behaviors of teachers and administrative staff, staff meetings and poor performance of support staff were common stressors. He also reported that recalcitrant pupils, dissatisfied parents, dealings with other officials, curriculum and policy changes, problems with school building and equipment (including break-and-enters), work load and time pressures were also significant stressors. Overall, Whan found that the principals' days seemed to be characterized by a large number of "hassles" and "uplifts", with intervening periods of either heavy and severe stress or periods of relative calm. A different approach was taken by Thomson (1988) in the ASI study reviewed above. In addition to having the 342 secondary school principals complete the Administrative Stress Index and a personal data questionnaire, she administered a 10 item health questionnaire. In the health questionnaire, respondents were asked, "Have you experienced any of the following during the past year" and were asked to circle one of: (1) Never, (2) Once or twice, or (3) Three or more times. The items were: 1. Your hands trembled enough to bother you 2. You were bothered by shortness of breath when you were not working hard or exercising 3. You were bothered by your heart beating hard 4. Your hands sweated so that you felt damp and clammy 5. You had spells of dizziness 6. You were bothered by having an upset stomach or stomach ache 7. You were bothered by your heart beating faster than usual 8. You were in ill health which affected your work 9. You had a loss of appetite 10. You had trouble sleeping at night. Thompson reported that the data from the health questionnaire produced a lack of symptom variance. That is, there was very little relationship between the stress reported by 40 principals and clinical symptoms of stress. She reported that only one item, "trouble sleeping," was significantly related to the Administrative Stress Index. Stress and the School Administrator: Summary and Discussion In this section, research based studies on the causes of administrative stress have been reviewed and analyzed. While the majority of the studies used the Administrative Stress Index to identify school principals' perceptions of job-related stressors, a few studies used stress scales developed specifically for that study. The results of these studies showed remarkable consistency. When 19 research results with the ASI were summarized, the highest ranked items in a majority of the studies were found to be from the Administrative Constraints and Interpersonal-Conflicts categories and represented the Role-Based and Conflict-Mediating stress factors. Very few studies have been concerned with the physiological effects of stress on school administrators. In order to identify those situations that were the most stressful, two studies related the physical measures of stress to aspects of the administrator's daily routine. While these studies were concerned with the effects of stress, they also focused on the causes of the stress reactions observed. The investigators reported that much of the principal's day was made up of periods of relatively high stress. It appears that no single stressor or situation emerges predominantly as the single cause of job-related stress. Rather, it seems to be the overall nature of the school administrator's job - the cumulative effect of internal (personal) and external (environmental) demands that causes stress. While there has been consistency in identifying the causes of stress, the research has not been greatly concerned with describing the particular work environments and identifying those aspects of the environment which have been perceived to be the most stressful. Some stressors may be more important in one work environment than in another. In the research on stress and the school administrator, the relationship between 15 demographic and biographic variables with 41 administrative stress was investigated. The findings did not suggest any single variable as being clearly and unequivocally associated with high amounts of stress. The majority of studies were concerned with age, years of experience, or years in the present administrative position, and were reported to have a negative correlation with stress. There was also some indication that male principals perceived more stress than female administrators. A positive relationship with stress was revealed between the size of the school, number of teachers supervised and total hours worked. In order to describe the work environment adequately, other aspects of the environment should also be considered. Some of these are: (1) the labor relations climate, as reflected by the number of grievances and number of days lost to strikes and lockouts; (2) administrative responsibility, including coordination of schools and their programs, as well as supervision and formal evaluation of school staff; (3) workload, represented by the proportion of school time assigned for administration; (4) perceived support, that is support from the district's senior administration, the community, junior administrators, as well as support in the form of collegiality (lack of administrative isolation) within the district; and (5) other characteristics, including trends in school enrollment and time officially assigned to administration, adequacy of resources, experience and mobility of teachers, and the availability of district wellness programs. These aspects of the environment are dynamically interactive and have not been analyzed in previous school administrative stress studies. The present study will attempt to address these aspects of the work environment which may contribute to the amount of stress experienced by British Columbia school principals. Coping with Stress In the preceding sections of this chapter a substantial number of research reports focused on school administrators' perceptions of the causes and the effects of stress. The demographic and biographic correlates of perceived stress have also been reviewed. However, Gmelch and Swent 42 (1981) suggested that it may be more important to investigate preventative or coping techniques used to deal with stress than it is to investigate the causes of stress, and stated that "if principals are better equipped to deal with the pressures of the job, both their own health and that of their staff members and students will benefit" (p. 19). While there is a large volume of literature on coping, the exact coping process is elusive. Researchers from the disciplines of medicine, psychiatry, psychology and the behavioral sciences including education, have investigated the phenomenon of stress, its consequences, and coping responses (Gmelch, 1988). However, Selye (1976) pointed out that in spite of all that has been said about stress and coping, there is no ready-made formula that will suit everyone. According to Swent (1983), the individual is the most important variable and no one coping technique will be successful for any one person in all situations; therefore, it is important for an individual to experiment with alternate coping techniques. Since no one coping technique is appropriate for everyone, it is necessary to develop a conceptual framework which will allow for the development of some general coping strategies. Since the important unit of analysis is the individual, Person-Environment fit theory has great potential for understanding stress and coping (Feitler and Tokar, 1986). Heibert (1987) proposed an interactional, Person-Environment model for conceptualizing coping skills. He suggested that it is sensible to approach stress control from two directions. One approach is usually referred to as stressor management and focuses on situational factors and methods of reducing the demands of the situation (the work environment) on the individual. The other approach, the stress management approach, focuses on the behavioral, cognitive, or physiological components of an individual's response (the person) in an effort to permit calmer responses to demanding situations. A schematic presentation of this framework is displayed in Figure 2.3. 43 Stress Control (Do I want to feel less stressed?) (Focus on Situation) (Focus on Person) Stressor Management Stress Management Change Increase Behaviour Cognition Physiology the Coping Situation Skills Figure 2.3 An Interactional Framework for Controlling Stress (Heibert, 1987) Stressor management Stressor management involves procedures designed to reduce the imbalance between the demands of the work and the person's resources for coping with those demands. According to Heibert (1983) there are two major ways of accomplishing this: (a) changing the situation by reducing demand to the point where the person has the resources to cope, or (b) increasing the individuals' resources (coping skills) for meeting those demands satisfactorily. In the case with stressor management, the concern is with the way the individual interacts with the work environment. 44 In education there is a tendency to assume an unchangeable environment since principals, as middle managers, have minimal input about the structure of their work environments, including their own job descriptions, physical plant, union contracts, number and quality of support and teaching staff. However, within the constraints of the organization, by doingthings such as rearranging work space to reduce noise and interruptions, improving lighting and telephone arrangements, clearly defining the job responsibilities and performance expectations of subordinates, some degree of control over the stress-producing environment may be achieved. Stressor management in many cases must focus on adding to the person's repertoire of coping skills to reduce the stress. Learning specific skills may help an administrator manage or defuse situations more effectively. Better developed coping skills in areas such as: problem solving, decision making, time management, assertiveness, communication and perhaps parenting or financial planning may reduce stress that is inherent in various situations. The assumption is that acquiring these skills will help to reduce the pressure in the situation. Stress management The right side of Figure 2.3 presents three categories of coping techniques designed to alleviate the effects of stress on the individual. In this case, the concern is with the way the individual reacts to the work environment. The behavioral component is usually addressed with behavior management programs that attempt to replace Type A behavior (hard driving, competitive, time compulsive, polyphasic thinking and decision making—the "hurry-up syndrome") with Type B behavior patterns (slower, more relaxed pace, being less time-bound, utilizing sequential thinking and decision making—generally being in less of a hurry) (Heibert, 1987). Robert Eliot, a University of Nebraska cardiologist was quoted in Time magazine (Wallis, 1983) as saying that there are two rules for coping with stress (stress management). The first rule 45 is, "don't sweat the small stuff' and the second is, "it's all small stuff'. He also said, "if you can't fight and you can't flee, flow"(p.49). The cognitive component may include such active responses as: (a) planning ways of dealing with stressful situations, getting advice from a friend or supervisor, rehearsing coping behaviors or consciously thinking about alternative responses; or (b) defensive activities such as thinking about how things could be worse, finding someone to blame, making jokes about the situation, praying or looking ahead to when the stressful situation will be over (Feitler and Tokar, 1986). The physiological component is often approached directly via some form of relaxation training that is aimed at high arousal responses or indirectly by activities designed to promote relaxation and alleviate the effects of stress. Gmelch (1988) classifies seven kinds of coping strategies directed at reducing the effects of stress, five of which are related to stress management. The first category, listing 16 coping techniques, centered around special support activities; having lunch with family or friends, playing with children, playing cards or games and talking with friends or family. The second category consisted of 28 activities related to physical activities such as outdoor recreation, fitness training, athletics and jogging. The third category included intellectually stimulating activities such as attending cultural events, professional conferences and lectures. The fourth group consisted of entertainment activities such as watching television, going to a movie or play, attending athletic events, dinning out, taking vacations, and reading. The fifth category consisted of personal interest techniques such as playing a musical instrument, training animals, collecting things or working on hobbies and crafts. The sixth category consisted of 32 attitudinal techniques such as laughing, crying, being optimistic, and knowing one's limitations. Gmelch's seventh category, management activities, contain coping strategies such as delegating, saying no, training staff, setting goals, and prioritizing tasks, aimed at stressor management rather than stress reduction. 46 Research on Coping While there are a great number of studies focused on stress and stressors with school administrators, only a few have addressed the coping strategies which administrators perceive as efficacious. Howard, Rechnitzer, and Cunningham (1975) concluded, after a three year study on middle management stress, that the five most effective techniques for coping with occupational stress were: 1. Build resistance by developing good healthful life-styles; 2. Compartmentalize work and non work life; 3. Engage in regular physical exercise; 4. Talk through the situation with peers on the job; and 5. Withdraw physically from the situation. In a study conducted by Kiev and Kohn (1979), 60 percent or more of the middle managers rated the following coping techniques effective in relieving work-related stress (in order of importance): 1. Delegate responsibility; 2. Recognize stress-producing situations and decide what is and isn't worth worrying about; 3. Establish daily objectives and priorities; 4. Develop sensitivity to physical and emotional responses and become aware; of individual stress-producing situations; 5. Talk with colleagues or others on the job; 6. Talk with spouse or friends; 7. Engage in physical exercise; and 8. Separate work from home life. Mills (1981) reported in a study of stress and coping techniques among elementary school principals within the Los Angeles area that most principals coped with stress by confronting the problem head on rather than delegating the tasks or sharing the overload with others. The study also found that humor was used daily to reduce or alleviate stress. Washington (1982) investigated what coping techniques 60 Canadian urban school principals perceived to be beneficial and helped them alleviate stress in their lives. He found that, 47 at one time or another, 71% of the administrators coped by getting involved in another activity, 57% said they set the problem aside temporarily, 29% tried to solve the problem immediately, and 14% took time to talk about a problem with a close friend or colleague. Spradling (1984) reported four stress coping strategies that 187 male and female Missouri principals believed to be most effective. They were: (1) time for non-professional activities, (2) humor, (3) improving perception of self-worth, and (4) daily time off from work. Other coping techniques principals also reported that they believed to be effective and beneficial were: setting priorities and staying with them, maintaining a healthy exercise program, having control over your social environment, receiving professional support and feedback, setting realistic limits and time periods of what can and can not be done in a job, and maintaining good nutritional habits. Thompson (1985) asked 304 school principals in North Carolina to rate themselves on 18 ways they tended to cope with stress. He found that these principals usually coped by responding to stressful situations in six ways. They were: (1) trying to find out more about the situation, (2) believing in a supernatural power that cares, (3) seeing humorous aspects of the situation, (4) taking some definite action on the basis of present understanding of the problem, (5) drawing on past experiences, and (6) making alternate plans for handling the situation. Botts (1986) asked Iowa superintendents to list coping strategies they utilized to cope with job-related stress. He found that the coping techniques reported fell into three major categories. He discovered that 66.5% of the respondents used cognitive and psychological activities, while 28.7% used physiological activities, and only 5.8% responded using interpersonal and organizational management activities. The three most frequently reported coping techniques used were: (1) participating in exercise and athletic events, (2) being involved in hobbies, and (3) leaving town to get totally away from the employment environment. Foster (1986) reported that 169 Kentucky secondary school principals most frequently used certain coping techniques to combat stress. The coping categories reported in order of importance were: time out activities, hobbies, consultative techniques, exercise activities, passive reaction, cognitive activities, and eat/sleep activities. He found that only three percent of the 48 respondents reported using stressor control coping techniques related to time management-^ concern, he pointed out, because three of the top four stressors from the ASI reported by these principals were associated with the management of time. With responses of 78 Pennsylvania high school principals, Iuzzolino (1986) found the most commonly employed methods for reducing stress were: to maintain a sense of humor, to get regular sleep, to practice good health habits, and to engage in a non-work or play activity. He reported that time management techniques, leaving the stressful situation, relaxation techniques, and taking mini vacations were coping strategies only occasionally practiced. In her study, Wright (1987) asked 112 Maryland school administrators to identify the coping techniques they used to reduce their work-related stress. She classified the responses into physiological activities, cognitive activities, and interpersonal and organizational skills. She reported that most principals utilized physical exercise, hobbies and other quiet activities after the normal work day, but had developed limited skills for coping with stress during peak pressure periods. Buzzelli-White (1988) analyzed coping skills in six major categories: (1) physical exercise, (2) regular sleep and good nutrition, (3) avocations, (4) social support, (5) management skills, and (6) relaxation methods. She found that principals perceived the use of social support and avocations to be the most beneficial coping techniques. Lutton (1988) analyzed 240 California elementary school principals' mean coping scores with respect to five stress coping themes: physical exercise, non-work activities, changing the situation, management skills and mental attitude activities. He analyzed each theme with respect to four independent variables: sex, age, years of administrative experience, and school enrollment. He found that male and female principals appeared to be using similar stress coping techniques to deal with administrative stress. On the basis of age, years as an elementary principal, and size of school enrollment, he found that the respondents were using somewhat equal amounts of each coping technique. Lutton also found that elementary principals who did not perceive higher levels of burnout, as identified on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, had higher mean scores for coping 49 strategies than those principals who perceived higher levels of burnout. He noted that regardless of which of the two groups the principals were in, the coping strategies were ranked the same. Cooper (1988) analyzed the causes of stress and the stress coping strategies of 212 high school principals through out the United States. The top three coping techniques these principals used were: discussing concerns with colleagues in education (consultative coping category), delegating tasks or assignments to others (active coping category), and taking work home (workaholic coping category). Roberson and Matthews (1988), using Feitler and Tokar's (1986) classification of coping strategies (physical, mental, destructive, direct, and psychological), found in a study of stress with Georgia public secondary school principals that 30% reported that they used physical coping strategies more often than other types. The most often reported activities included jogging, exercising, sports, and brisk walks. Twenty-three percent said they used mental strategies most often and about 16% of the principals reported using psychological strategies. Only 13% of the respondents reported the use of direct (stressor specific) or destructive (physically unhealthy) coping techniques. Besides looking at frequency of use, these researchers analyzed what coping techniques principals believed to be effective in reducing the level of stress. They found that 43% of the principals named mental activities as the most effective. Another 21% named direct coping strategies, 18% described physical activities, 17% reported that psychological strategies were most effective and 0.6% indicated destructive coping strategies were most effective. Patterson (1990) reported six stress management techniques that, he says, have proven to be effective in reducing stress. First, a person must be sincerely willing to attempt to reduce stress. Using time management techniques, having a good sense of humor and maintaining a positive attitude are also reported to be vitally important. He also stated that people need to keep their priorities in order and to maintain and live balanced lives. He suggests people rate their well-being in eight areas on a self-dimension grid. It includes: community support, mental, social, spiritual, professional, family, financial and physical features. Through careful analysis of the grid and the setting of specific, attainable goals, a less stressful and balanced life can be maintained. 50 Harrison (1991), using a scale developed by Roesch (1979), investigated the relationship between perceived job-related stress and coping preferences of elementary principals. She found that, on the average, the 254 principals in Texas preferred extra-work activities, consulting techniques, and time-out activities. The four coping techniques most frequently employed were: (1) take work home, (2) discuss concerns with colleagues, (3) discuss concerns with principals in a different school, and (4) work on weekends. She furthermore found that younger, less experienced principals reported more stress and preferred a variety of coping techniques such as recreational/inactive activities, consulting techniques, extra-work activities, proactive techniques and change of normal routine. Older, more experienced principals reported lower stress levels and utilization of fewer coping techniques (preference for recreational/inactive activities). Huff (1991), in a descriptive study of perceived stress in elementary school principals in Delaware, suggested five stress management strategies, namely: (1) development of a good physical exercise and nutrition program, (2) stress inoculation training, (3) role clarification and analysis, (4) development of a supportive organizational climate, and (5) time management techniques Goeller (1992) classified coping resources into four factors, including: recreational activities, self-care behavior, social support systems, and cognitive skills. She found that 287 female principals in Indiana reported social support systems as the most helpful and beneficial stress-management coping technique, followed by cognitive skills, self-care behavior and recreational activities. In a study that produced atypical findings, Zwick (1992) found that Ohio high school principals and superintendents used very similar stress reduction practices. He found the most common stress management practices administrators utilized to attempt to reduce stress were: meditation, blaming others, drinking and drugs, and rehearsing behaviors. He reported that they rarely used mild non-physical activities, making jokes about the situation, and getting advice from friends or supervisors. 51 Coping with Stress: Summary and Discussion From the research on coping, the most prominent and commonly used techniques were identified. Five techniques most frequently cited were those used to ameliorate the individual's reaction to the stressors. These included: (1) regular physical exercise, (2) consultation with peers, (3) use of humor, (4) maintenance of a healthy life style, and (5) development of personal interest activities and avocations. Two other commonly used coping activities identified in the research were referred to as stressor management techniques. These included: (1) setting realistic goals and priorities, and (2) developing effective management skills. Of the studies reviewed, none has been concerned to any great extent with the characteristics of the person. Swent (1983) pointed out that the individual is the most important variable and suggested no single coping strategy would be successful in all situations. Since coping techniques vary from one individual to another, it would be useful to identify those biographic, demographic, and personal variables associated with coping choices. For this reason in the present study on Stress, Coping and the School Administrator, the variables to be investigated are: (1) biographic variables, including hours worked per week, days absent due to illness, health status, and hours devoted to physical exercise; (2) demographic variables, such as age, marital status, and other dependent family members; and (3) personal variables, which include the individual's attitudes towards stress and coping and the school administrators' role. According to Gmelch (1988, p. 223), "no technique exists which controls, manages, or reduces stress for all people in all situations. The solution rests in holistic interventions to assault problems on many levels, i.e., to develop a comprehensive set of coping strategies." One of the purposes of the present study is to identify how British Columbia school principals cope with the stress of the job. 52 Chapter Summary and Discussion The purpose of this chapter was to review the literature on how elementary and secondary school principals perceive stress and its sources, how they have coped with stress, and to present the relationship between stress and selected biographic and demographic variables. Stress was defined as a stimulus, a response or reaction, or as an interaction (transactional process) between the person and the environment. The effects of stress as described by Selye (1978) were listed and the signs of stress were characterized under three headings: emotional, behavioral, and physical (Hibler, 1981). Occupational stress was reported to affect both the health and performance of administrators. Gmelch (1977) identified four major categories of stressors: environmental, organizational, interpersonal and personal. Cooper and Marshall's (1976) framework for analyzing the major stressors categories was presented diagramatically. Research on stress and school administrators was found to take two directions; the first was focused on the identification of stressors, the causes of stress and the second was directed toward the effect of stress or stress symptoms. A number of research studies were reviewed which were illustrative of both approaches. Many studies used the Administrative Stress Index to identify administrators' perceptions of job-related stressors. When nineteen research results with the ASI were summarized, the highest ranked items in a majority of the studies were found to be from the Administrative Constraints and Interpersonal-Conflicts categories and represented the Role-Based and Conflict-Mediating stress factors. Research designed to measure the effects of stress identified incidents in administrators' daily routines which were related to the onset of the physiological symptoms of stress. Research studies have focused on a number of demographic and biographic variables in an effort to see if these situational and personal variables were related to perceived stress or choice of coping strategies used among educational administrators. Discussion of these research studies on both stress and coping has pointed out the importance of the demographic and biographic 53 variables and the need to expand the scope of investigation with these variables. The focus of this study on stress, coping and the school administrator is related to this discussion. The majority of studies reviewed in this chapter are correlational research and use a questionnaire survey to gather data. An aspect of the research which causes some concern was sampling. In many cases, convenience samples were used and it was extremely difficult to assess whether the sample was representative of the population. In no case was there any discussion of the limitations of the sampling procedure, such as sampling biases or volunteer versus non-volunteer subjects. In most cases the researchers have utilized descriptive statistics and the absence of multi-variate statistics was notable. While statistical significance is often mentioned, their was little recognition of the necessity to make a judgment as to the practical significance of the differences or relationships noted. Stress is a multi-dimensional construct demanding a multi-variate analysis of the findings. At the very least the interactions between the variables should be examined. The research design for the present study, which is presented in chapter three, reflects a multi-variate approach to the relationship amongst stress, coping, and selected biographic and demographic variables. CHAPTER UI CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH DESIGN This study was designed to describe the job-related stressors most often identified and stress-coping strategies most frequently used by public elementary and secondary school principals in British Columbia. This chapter is organized into five sections. The first section presents the assumptions and conceptual framework. The second section states the general and specific research questions to be answered by the study. The terms used in this report are presented in the third section. The fourth section contains the survey research design. The final section consists of a summary of the chapter contents. Assumptions and Conceptual Framework Assumptions After reviewing the literature on stress and coping, a number of assumptions have been made in formulating the research questions and procedures. They are: 1. Stress is a universal human experience. In the long-run constant stress will have negative consequences; 2. The work environment contains many situations that may cause stress. This is especially true in people-related professions such as that of school administration; 3. Administrators who experience stress will adopt coping strategies to manage stress or to moderate its effects; 4. Responses to a questionnaire, the Administrative Stress Index, can be used to identify and quantify the importance of job-related stressors; 54 55 5. Responses to a questionnaire, the Coping Preference Scale, can be used to identify and quantify the use of various coping strategies designed to alleviate job-related stress; and 6. It is possible to identify biographic and demographic variables that relate to stress, stressors and coping strategies. Conceptual Framework Some work environments are inherently more stressful and stress-inducing than others and some individuals have a greater ability to cope with stress. Most writers concerned with stressor and stress management agree that stress results from the interaction between personal factors (genetic predisposition, idiosyncratic perceptions, repertoire of coping skills) and environmental factors (task difficulty, amount of aversiveness, degree of uncertainty). The environmental factors are usually referred to as stressors or pressures, while the term stress is usually reserved to describe the person's reaction (Albrecht, 1979; Hiebert, 1983). When the stressful environment is work-related, the stress produced is referred to as job-related, or as in this study, adrninistrative stress. A useful model for conceptualizing administrative stress is derived from person-environment fit theory (French, 1974). This theory hypothesizes two types of fit between the individual and the environment. The first fit is the extent to which the individual's skills and abilities match the demands and requirements of the job. The second fit is the extent to which the job environment satisfies the needs of the individual. Job-related stress occurs when there is a discrepancy between the person and the occupational environment (Botts, 1986). When the needs and abilities of the person match the rewards and demands of the job, person-environment fit is good; there is little occupational stress and the individual is able to experience a high degree of job satisfaction. However, when the needs and the abilities of the person do not match the rewards and demands of the job, the result is a poor person-environment fit, a situation that 56 produces occupational stress that could eventually lead to physical or mental illness if left unchecked (Feitler & Tokar, 1986). Moreover, the greater the mismatch between a person's needs and abilities with the rewards and demands of the job, the poorer will be the person-environment fit and the greater the occupational stress. A distinction can be made between stressor management skills that are intended to alter the environment to reduce the amount of pressure, and stress management skills that are intended to alter the way individuals react to stressful situations. However, the techniques used by some individuals to manage stressors may be the same techniques that others use to reduce their reactions to stress. For this reason it is often difficult to classify stress coping strategies as being of one type or the other. As a strategy for coping with stress, school administrators may attempt to alter the person-environment fit. For example, if job demands outstrip administrators' abilities, principals may attempt to reduce the demands by delegating work to others or they may attempt to increase their abilities to deal with problems (e.g., developing time management skills), or they may develop strategies for reducing the effects of stress (e.g., adoption of healthy life styles). Either approach, modifying the effects on the person or altering the work environment may bring about a better person-environment fit and in turn may lessen the amount of job-related stress. For the most part, coping techniques do not eliminate stressors; rather, they reduce the influence of stress on the individual. If an administrator functions with a large discrepancy in person-environment fit for a lengthy period and does not develop effective coping techniques to dissipate stress, stress-related illness will likely result. Several propositions can be stated based upon a review of studies on coping: (1) the individual is the most important variable—no one coping technique is equally effective for all individuals in all situations; (2) prescription of coping techniques must be sensitive to cultural, social, psychological and organizational differences; and (3) individuals who cope best display a repertoire of techniques to counteract different stressors in different situations (Gmelch, 1988a). 57 Research Questions Three general research questions were stated in the first chapter. In order to facilitate the analysis of the data the general research questions are listed below with their associated subsidiary questions. (1) How does administrative stress affect British Columbia public school principals? • Is occupational stress a serious concern for British Columbia public school principals? • What are the most common stressors identified by British Columbia school principals? • Which ASI stressor category is most often identified as a leading source of administrative stress? • Are there differences in the stressors identified by principals who have high scores on the ASI as opposed to those with low scores? (2) What coping strategies do British Columbia school principals use to moderate the effects of stress? • What are the most common coping techniques utilized by British Columbia school principals to ameliorate the effects of stress? • Can the coping techniques utilized by principals be clustered into interpretable and meaningful coping categories? If so, how are the categories classified and which coping categories contain techniques most frequently employed by British Columbia school administrators? • Are there differences in the coping techniques utilized by principals who have high scores on the ASI as opposed to those with low scores? • What is the relationship between item scores on the CPS with total scores on the ASI? (3) How do personal and environmental variables interact with stress and coping? • What is the relationship between administrative stress and personal and environmental variables? • What is the relationship between the coping techniques and personal and environmental variables? 58 Definition Of Terms Used In This Study For the purpose of the analysis and discussion of the data, in relation to the ten specific research questions, the terms listed below were given operational definitions. Administrative Isolation: Refers to the lack of opportunity for school principals to interact with colleagues. Administrative Stress: In the context of this study administrative stress is synonymous with occupational stress. As the environmental demands on principals increases and/or the response capabilities of principals decrease, stress is produced. Administrative Stress Index (ASI): An instrument development by Swent and Gmelch (1977) used to measure job demands that are perceived as stressful by school administrators. Administrator: Refers to chief administrator or principal of a school. Coping Preference Scale (CPS): An instrument developed for this study to assess the extent to which certain coping strategies are employed by school administrators. Destructive Coping Strategies or Techniques: Refers to actions taken in response to stressors that are harmful to physical health. Elementary School: A school with possible student groupings that range from Kindergarten through grade nine. Labor Climate: Refers to the degree to which the collective bargaining process has been carried out in a spirit of cooperation or confrontation. The absence or presence of grievances, strikes, lockouts or other job action is taken as an indicator of a good or a bad labor climate. 59 Levels of Stress: Principals were identified as having high or low levels of stress based upon scores on the ASI. Scores above the sample median are considered to be indicators of high stress and those below the median are considered to be indicators of low levels of stress. Occupational or Job-Related Stress: Stress produced within the work environment. It consists of reactions to job or career performance demands. Principal: The chief administrator of a school. Resource(s): A term used to refer to items with monetary values such as: discretionary funds, professional and support staff, materials, equipment and space (classrooms, lunchrooms, meeting rooms, gymnasiums, playgrounds, etc.). Secondary School: A school that includes at least tenth grade students. Social Support: The extent to which the people associated with the administrator provide support. Stress: An adaptive response mediated by individual characteristics and/or psychological process that is a result of any external and/or internal situation(s) that place special physical and/or psychological demands upon a person. Stressors: Physical, psychological, environmental and/or social factor(s) perceived by an individual that may be responsible for producing stress. These are situations in which an individual feels inadequate to respond satisfactorily to a demand and anticipates negative consequences as a result. Stress-coping strategies or techniques: Refers to actions taken in response to stress or stressors in an effort to reduce their effects. 60 Survey Research Design Population This study was designed as a survey of the entire population of public "elementary and secondary school principals in the province of British Columbia. The principals' names and school addresses were obtained from the Public and Independent Schools' Book (Ministry of Education, 1993). After multiple listings for principals responsible for more than one school were eliminated, there remained 1455 school-based public school principals to be surveyed. Instruments Used The survey questionnaire consists of three sections; the Administrative Stress Index, the Coping Preference Scale, and the Demographic and Biographic Inventory. According to Gray and Guppy (1994) respondents will quickly assess the desirability of completing a survey instrument and will make a decision early on to continue or discontinue with the questionnaire. For this reason, the Demographic and Biographic Inventory was placed after the Administrative Stress Index and the Coping Preference Scale. An Inventory of this type is very intrusive and least satisfying to complete. By placing the Demographic and Biographic Inventory at the end of the survey instrument, after respondents have become interested in the subject matter, have developed a degree of trust with the researcher and have already invested some time and effort, the probability that they will persist to completion is increased. The survey questionnaire is appended to this report (Appendix A). The Administrative Stress Index (ASF). The Administrative Stress Index (Swent & Gmelch, 1977; Gmelch, Koch, Swent & Tung, 1982) was developed specifically to identify sources of occupational stress among school administrators. Some examples of the job-related stressors on the instrument are "supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people," 61 "imposing excessively high expectations on myself," "feeling that meetings take up too much time," and "trying to complete reports and other paper work on time". The internal validity of the ASI is high since it was created specifically for use with a homogeneous population—school administrators. This instrument evolved through a series of iterations designed to insure that all relevant facets of perceived job-related stress were explored. Forty administrators participated in Swent and Gmelch's initial phase of item development. On a daily basis they reported: (a) the most stressful single incident occurring that day, and (b) the most stressful series of related incidents (e.g., recurring telephone interruptions, pending grievances, and parent-teacher conflicts). At the end of the week, they were asked to identify other sources of stress that might not have occurred during the week in which the stress logs were kept. In addition, current professional journals and other literature focused on public school administration were reviewed to identify additional situations that presented problems to administrators. These situations were identified as job-related stressors (Swent & Gmelch, 1977). The authors of the pilot instrument field tested it for content validity and clarity with a group of 25 practicing administrators. After revision, a second pilot test with a group of 20 administrators was carried out. The data from the two studies indicated that the instrument was readable, clear in purpose and free of ambiguity. The final form of the ASI consisted of 35 items. Responses were recorded on a five point Likert-like scale (1 = rarely or never bothers me, 3 = occasionally bothers me, and 5 = frequently bothers me). The N/A (not applicable) option was used to eliminate forced choice and was scored as zero. The 35 stressors identified in the ASI were categorized into five clusters of seven items each. The five categories were: (1) administrative constraints (stressors related to inadequate time, meetings, work load); (2) administrative responsibilities (typical administrative tasks such as supervision, evaluation, and negotiation); (3) interpersonal relations (resolving differences among and between clients, staff members, and supervisors); (4) intrapersonal conflict (conflicts between performance and internal beliefs and expectations); and (5) role expectations (differences between one's own expectations and the expectations of the various groups served) (Gmelch, Koch, Swent & Tung, 1982). 62 In the Oregon School Study, the ASI was mailed to 1,855 school administrators. The reliability of the instrument was determined by randomly dividing the 1,156 administrators who returned the questionnaire into two groups of 578. Alpha coefficients were calculated within each of the groups to determine the internal consistency of each category. The reliability coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.83 (Swent and Gmelch, 1977). For the present study with British Columbia administrators, item number twenty-seven of the ASI, "Complying with state, federal, organizational rules and policies," was modified to read, "Complying with Provincial and District rules and policies". Permission to modify and use the Administrative Stress Index in this study was granted by Dr. W. H. Gmelch (Appendix B). The Coping Preference Scale (CPS). A number of studies have used coping strategy inventory scales. These scales were based upon reviews of the literature on various potential methods for dealing with job-related stress. Three of these scales were selected as models when constructing The Coping Preference Scale (CPS) for the present study: a 20 item Survey Coping Techniques Scale (Iuzzolino, 1986), an 18 item Potential Methods of Coping with Stress Survey (Lutton, 1988) and the 23 item Roesch Coping Scale (1979). The CPS questionnaire was developed by selecting the most frequently chosen coping strategies on each of these scales. After adjusting for overlap and combining some items, 19 items remained for inclusion in the coping scale. During the first week of May, 1994, this first version of the scale was piloted with a group of 52 Richmond vice-principals. They were asked to complete the questionnaire, to identify other coping mechanisms that they perceived as important, and to comment on the clarity and wording of the items. Responses were received from 35 administrators. After an analysis of these responses, one item was removed, two items were modified and a number of items were added to bring the total number of items to 26. Subsequently, the 26 item scale was administered to a 20 student graduate research class in education at the University of B.C.. Their comments and responses led to a small number of minor editorial changes designed to improve clarity, simplicity and readability. 63 Originally items in the coping scale were organized according to the seven categories suggested by Gmelch (1988b). His coping categories were: social, physical, intellectual, entertainment, personal, managerial, and attitudinal. From a preliminary analysis of the data for the CPS obtained from the present study, a Principal Components Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis was completed. For the most part, the factor groupings obtained are congruent with the original classifications. However, with the information from the factor analysis, some items were shifted from one classification to another and new titles and descriptions for the categories were developed, (see Table 3.1) The factor loadings for each of these seven factors are presented in Appendix E, Table E l . Although empirical information from the factor analysis was used in revising the classifications, in the end, all groupings were based on logical decisions. A coefficient alpha reliability of 0.805 was calculated for the Coping Preference Scale during this preliminary analysis. In its final form, the Coping Preference Scale was a six-point (0 = never, 1 = almost never, 3 = sometimes and 5 = almost always) 26 item Likert-like scale measuring the extent to which administrators use each of the coping strategies identified. Following the example of Swent (1983), two open-ended item spaces were included to allow for the inclusion of other coping strategies. Demographic and Biographic Inventory. The third part of the survey questionnaire, the Demographic and Biographic Inventory, was designed to obtain information about a number of variables related to school administrators and their work environment. The variables selected were chosen on the basis of the literature review in Chapter n. They are: administrative isolation, administrative level, age, community support, dependent family members, district support for administrators in coping with stress, financial compensation, gender, health status, days absent due to illness, highest university degree earned, hours devoted to physical exercise, interaction with other administrators, marital status, perception of total life stress due to the job, perception of administrative stress versus others in the community, perception in changes in administrative 64 Table 3.1 Coping Preference Scale Grouped by Factors Factor 1: Good Physical Health Program Engage in active non-work or play activities Maintain good health habits Maintain regular sleep habits Regular physical exercise Factor 2: Withdrawal and Recharging Withdrawal physically from the situation Break from daily routine or temporarily change to a less stressful task Use relaxation and stress management techniques Compartmentalize work and non-work life Take mini-vacations Seek solitude, slow down work pace, take time to reflect Socializing Factor 3: Intellectual. Social and Spiritual Support Engage in activities that support spiritual growth Talk with family members or close friends Engage in less active non-work or play activities Talk to district administrators or other school principals Factor 4: Positive Attitude Practice good human relation skills with staff, students and parents Approach problems optimistically and objectively Create more positive and self-supportive mental sets Use inservice opportunities to increase repertoire of management and communication skills Factor 5: Realistic Perspective Set realistic goals Delegate responsibility Maintain a sense of humor Factor 6: Time Management and Organization Prioritize and use time management techniques Establish office procedures so that visitors are screened and unplanned interruptions are kept to a minimum Factor 7: Increased Involvement Work harder Community involvement 65 stress during the last ten years, planning to leave school administration, school district, school size and predicted changes, schools responsible for, support from senior administration, teaching experience of staff, teachers formally evaluated, teachers supervised, teachers transferring schools, time assigned for administration, type of administrative appointment (regular/replacement), vice-principals, years in administration, and years at present school. Delimitations and Limitations of the Study This study was delimited to all currently employed school-based principals in the public schools of the province of British Columbia. It was limited to principals who volunteered to respond to the questionnaire. Willingness to participate may very well be related in some way to the degree of stress experienced by the individual. The results of this study reflect the respondent's perception of the importance of the individual stressors and the selection of different coping strategies at a single moment in time. They may be influenced by recent experiences that may be a source of stress. Other limitations lie in the nature of descriptive and correlational research that does not identify cause and effect relationships. Data Collection The cooperation of the British Columbia Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association (BCPVPA) was sought for this study. After reviewing the research proposal, Mr. Randy LaBonte, Director of Professional Development, BCPVPA, agreed that the Association would support the study. The BCPVPA agreed to underwrite the cost of mailing and questionnaire preparation. Mr. LaBonte also provided a letter of support that was included with the survey packet encouraging elementary and secondary school principals to participate. 66 During the last week of June, 1994, the survey packet was mailed to 1455 British Columbia public school principals. The packet (Appendix A) consisted of: (1) a cover letter explaining the purpose of this study and requesting voluntary completion of the questionnaire; (2) a letter of support from the BCPVPA; (3) the three part survey-questionnaire; and (4) a business-reply, self-addressed return envelope. Arrangements were made to have the survey packet mailed to the 1455 B.C. public school principals during the first week of June. Unfortunately, due to technical problems with the mail-handling firm used by the B.C. Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association, the actual mailing did not commence until June 20, 1994. When returns began to come in, it became evident that approximately 140 to 150 packets were sent out without return envelopes. Because of this late mailing, the return cut off date was extended until the second week of September. At that time 643 returns were received, approximately 44% of the population surveyed. Since complete anonymity was strictly observed and a complete second mailing was not feasible, no follow-up effort was made. Analysis of the Data Questionnaires were assigned an identification number based on the order in which they were received. The open-ended responses to the ASI and CPS were coded into categories. All items on the three scales of the survey questionnaire were entered into a data file for analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+, 1990). A list of variables, variable labels, value labels, and codes for missing values were assembled into a data definition file to facilitate data entry and subsequent analysis. To complete the analysis, additional data were obtained from the B.C. Teachers' Federation (BCTF) and the B.C. School Trustees' Association (BCSTA). The BCTF provided information on: the labor relations history of the school districts (strikes, lockouts, and grievances filed); and school district size (number of teachers employed and pupils enrolled). The BCSTA provided their geographic classification of school districts. 67 In order to answer the research questions, frequency distributions of the data and relationships between the variables were determined and presented in a number of tables. These data were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics, calculation of rank orders, and correlation coefficients. Because of the intercorrelations between the various demographic "and biographic variables, multivariate regression techniques were used to determine the relationship between these variables and stress and coping. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS: BIOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC D A T A The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived sources of job-related stress, the coping strategies most often used by British Columbia school principals to offset the negative effects of stress, and the biographic (personal) and demographic (environmental) variables associated with stress and coping. This chapter presents the results related to the biographic and demographic information collected from the respondents. This information is essential when examining administrative stress and coping within the framework of the person-environment fit theory (French, 1974), which posits that stress is the result of a mismatch between the person and the environment. During the last week of June 1994, 1455 survey questionnaires were mailed to the population of 1155 elementary school principals and 300 secondary school administrators identified as subjects for this study. By the end of the second week in September, the cut-off date for data entry, 643 usable questionnaire responses had been received. The response rates were 41.6%, 480 of 1155, for elementary principals, 54.3%, 163 of 300, for secondary principals, and 44.2%, 643 of 1455, for elementary and secondary principals combined. The percentage of responses grouped according to the British Columbia School Trustees' Association geographic areas (Appendix C, Table Cl ) is presented in Table 4.1. 68 69 Table 4.1 Percentage Response by Geographic Area Geographic Area Number Surveyed Number Responded Percent Responded East Kootenay 53 24 45.3 Fraser Valley 162 72 44.4 Mainline Cariboo 115 52 45.2 Metropolitan 436 191 43.8 North Coast 57 22 38.6 South Coast 34 18 52.9 North Interior 154 58 37.7 Okanagan 133 50 37.6 Vancouver Island 264 118 44.7 West Kootenay 47 20 42.6 District not indicated* 18 Population 1455 643 44.2 * Treated as missing data in subsequent analyses dependent upon identification of respondents' school district number. This chapter is divided into three major sections dealing with biographic data of the respondents, demographic data, and the chapter summary and discussion. The first section contains information describing personal and family variables as well as information on training, experience, personal styles and preferences. The second section contains information describing the work environment, including the principal's position, school and district. 70 Biographic Information Personal and Family Characteristics Table 4.2 summarizes information about respondents' personal and family characteristics. This information was obtained using the Demographic and Biographic Inventory. When broken down by gender and administrative level, the data show that 73.7% of principals are male and 26.3% are female, and that 74.7% of all principals are responsible for elementary schools and 25.3% for secondary schools. The typical principal is approximately 50 years of age (ages range between 30 - 65), married, has between one and two dependent children, is rarely responsible for other family dependents, exercises for approximately four hours per week, and was absent from work approximately two days due to illness. Elementary principals perceive their health to be above average and secondary principals give themselves an average rating. Complete data for these characteristics are presented in Appendix D, Tables D l to D8. Except for details related to marital status, no substantial difference is observed between male and female principals. Based upon a review of the literature on administrative stress, none of the personal and family characteristics summarized in Table 4.2 indicate that these principals would experience more than moderate levels of stress. The larger number of divorced and separated female principals (especially female secondary school principals) suggests that they may be slightly more stressed than their male counterparts. 71 Table 4.2 Summary of Principals' Responses to Questions About Personal and Family Characteristics * Elementary (n = 475) Secondary (n = 161) Characteristic Male (n=327) Female(n=146) Male (n=139) Female(n=21) Mean age 50.6 49.9 50.9 52.2 Marital status Single: Married: Divorced/Separated: Widowed: 3.4% 90.1% 6.2% 0.3% 11.8% 71.5% 14.6% 2.1% 0.0% 95.0% 4.3% 0.7% 14.3% 61.9% 23.8% 0.0% Mean number of dependent children (range) 1.6 (0 - 7). 0.8 (0-4) 1.7 (0-4) 0.9 (0-3) Mean number of dependent parents or other relatives (range) 0.3 (0-4) 0.8 (0-5) 0.3 (0 - 4) 0.1 (0-1) Mean number of hours devoted to exercise per week (range) 4.5 (0 - 20) 3.3 (0 - 14) 4.0 (0 - 10) 2.6 (0-7) Mean number of days/year absent due to illness (range) 2.1 (0 - 20) 3.7 (0 - 90) 1.6 (0 - 40) 1.6 (0 - 10) Rating of current health Above average Above average Average Average Because of missing data the total number of responses varies for each characteristic. 72 Educational Training. Experience. Personal Styles and Perceptions Complete information about educational training, experience, personal styles and perceptions is presented in Appendix D, Tables D9 to D14, and is summarized in Table 4.3. In response to a question about the highest university degree earned, the data show that 83.3% of principals hold a master's degree, 14.9% have a bachelor's degree, and 1.7% have earned a doctorate. There is a tendency for both male and female secondary school principals to be better qualified in terms of university training and degrees earned than elementary school principals. On average, principals work 54 hours per week and 61.1% feel they receive adequate financial compensation. Secondary principals also report they work longer hours, have fewer years in the principalship, and in the case of male secondary school principals, are the least satisfied with their financial compensation. The literature reviewed in Chapter Two indicates that principals who are more qualified in training and experience perceive less stress than those with fewer qualifications and less experience. A positive relationship between hours worked per week and administrative stress levels has also been reported. Although no research findings have been found to link satisfaction with salary to stress, logically one might expect that as satisfaction increases, stress decreases. If this is so, male secondary principals may be more stressed than other principals. The findings for administrative experience, hours worked per week, and satisfaction with remuneration suggest that secondary school principals may experience more stress than elementary school principals, both male and female, even though they have more formal university training. 73 Table 4.3 Summary of Principals' Responses to Questions About Educational Training, Experience and Personal Styles and Perceptions * Elementary (n = 475) Secondary (n = 161) Characteristic Male(n=327) Female(n=146) Male (n=139) Female(n=21) Highest university degree held: Bachelor's 19.9% 13.7% 6.5% 4.8% Master's 78.2% 84.9% 92.1% 90.5% Doctorate 1.8% 1.4% 1.4% 4.8% Length of experience: Mean number of years at 4.2 3.3 5.4 3.1 present school (range) (1-28) (1-16) (1 - 26) (1 - 10) Mean number of years as 12.5 10.3 6.5 5.5 school principal (range) (0 - 34) (0-20) (0 - 32) (1 - 14) Mean number of years as 3.9 3.2 5.2 4.3 school vice-principal (range) (0 - 30) (0-11) (0-20) (0 - 14) Mean number of hours 51.9 54.7 56.8 61.2 worked per week (range) (30 - 75) (40 - 80) (35 - 80) (50 - 90) Perception of adequate remuneration: Satisfactory 63.5% 61.8% 55.8% 61.9% Not satisfactory 36.5% 38.2% 44.2% 38.1% Because of missing data the total number of responses varies for each characteristic. 74 Demographic Information The Principal's Administrative Position Table 4.4 summarizes the principals' administrative position in the work environment. Complete data are presented in Appendix D, Tables D15 to D17. Overall, 3% of principals hold a position as the temporary replacement for a regularly appointed principal. On the average, principals have over 80% of their official school time assigned for adrninistrative duties. It is noteworthy that 27% of principals expect a decrease in their official time assigned to administration. While a decrease in time assigned to principals for adrninistration has not been investigated in relation to administrative stress in other studies, it seems likely that, unless responsibilities are also reduced, that this would be a factor in work related stress. The Principal's School Elementary schools. Table 4.5 summarizes the characteristics of the principal's school. Complete data are presented in Appendix D, Tables D18 to D26. The school environment is different for elementary and secondary school principals. The majority of elementary principals expect their school enrollments to remain stable. One in two of these principals is assisted by a vice-principal. Typically, the principal is responsible for administering the educational program of a single school and on average evaluates three teachers and supervises 18 per year. These respondents report that 13% of their teachers have fewer than five years' teaching experience. They also expect approximately 9% of their teachers to transfer to another school. Limited resources are a serious problem for 59% of elementary respondents and their perception of cornmunity support for their school is that it is "more than adequate". 75 Table 4.4 Summary of Principals' Responses to Questions About The Work Environment: The Principal's Administrative Position Elementary (n = 475) Secondary (n = 161) Characteristic Male (n=327) Female(n=146) Male (n=139) Female(n=21) Administrative assignment: Regular principal Temporary replacement 98.8% 1.2% 95.9% 4.1% 95.0% 5.0% 100% 0% Mean percentage of time assigned to principal for administration (range) 82.2% (0 - 100) 74.4% (0 - 100) 89.3% (0 - 100) 90.8% (50 - 100) Expected changes in time assigned to principal for administration: Increase Decrease Remain the same 5.2% 28.5% 66.3% 8.2% 22.6% 69.2% 5.8% 26.1% 68.1% 19.0% 33.3% 47.6% * Because of missing data the total number of responses varies for each characteristic. 76 Table 4.5 Summary of Principals' Responses to Questions About The Work Environment: The Principal's School Elementary (n = 475) Secondary (n = 161) Characteristic Male (n=327) Female (n=146) Male (n=139) Female (n=21) Expected trend in school enrollment: Increase Decrease Remain the same 41.7% 16.6% 41.7% 8.2% 22.6% 69.2% 58.0% 6.5% 35.5% 19.0% 33.3% 47.6% Mean number of vice-principals to assist (range) 0.5 (0-2) 0.5 (0-2) 1.4 (0-4) 1.3 (0-3) Mean number of schools to manage (range) 1.1 (1-3) 1.1 (1-3) 1.3 (1-5) 1.4 (1-6) Mean number of teachers to evaluate in school year (range) 3.1 (0-16) 2.7 (0-12) 5.6 (0-44) 5.8 (0-25) Mean number of teachers to supervise (range) 18.4 (3-65) 17.7 (0 - 62) 42.5 (3 - 98) 44.0 (6-98) Mean percentage of teachers with less than 5 years teaching experience (range) 11.7% (0 - 98) 14.9% (0 - 98) 14.2% (0 - 98) 16.0% (0 - 66) Mean percentage of teachers expected to transfer out of school (range) 9.0% (0-75) 10.0% (0 - 60) 6.7% (0-50) 13.5% (0-50) Limited resources: A serious problem Not a serious problem 59.1% 40.98% 59.3% 40.7% 67.4% 32.6% 81.0% 19.0% Respondents' perception of Community support for school Better than adequate Better than adequate Adequate Adequate * Because of missing data the total number of responses varies for each characteristic. 77 Secondary schools. The majority of secondary school principals expect their school enrollments to increase. They, on average, are assisted by between one or two vice-principals. The majority of these principals are responsible for one school, for supervising 43 teachers and formally evaluating between five and six teachers per year. Slightly more than 14% of secondary school teachers have fewer than five years' teaching experience and nearly 8% are expected to transfer schools. Limited resources are a serious problem for 69% of secondary respondents and their perception of community support for their school is that it is "only adequate". Comparison of elementary and secondary schools. It is interesting to note that while 54% of the secondary school principals and 31% of the elementary school principals expect their school enrollment to increase, only 7.5% of secondary principals and 6% of elementary principals expect increases in the time assigned to administration (Table 4.4). Secondary school principals have slightly more schools to administer and a greater number of teachers to supervise and formally evaluate. But secondary principals also have more vice-principals to assist them. Limited resources also appear to be a more serious problem for secondary principals who also perceive slightly lower community support for their school than do elementary principals. While none of these characteristics has been dealt with in the literature, logically they all suggest that secondary school principals may experience more stress than their elementary colleagues. 78 District Information. Relationships and Support Complete information about respondents' school districts and their relationships and support within those districts is reported in Appendix D, Tables D26 to D33, and" is summarized in Table 4.6. The majority of respondents work in centralized school districts where the student enrollment ranges from 4000 to 13000. The majority of principals perceive that they have satisfactory senior district administration support. However, only one principal in four works in a district that has a coping or wellness program available to administrators. Administrative isolation and the number of other school administrators with whom a principal interacts in a typical week were also investigated. It was found that the number of these interactions in a typical week is greater for secondary principals than for elementary principals (5.8 versus 4.4). Male secondary principals also perceive administrative isolation (loneliness of command) to be a lesser problem than do their elementary counterparts. Fifty-eight percent of female elementary principals feel that administrative isolation is a serious problem for them. The literature on administrative stress in education has not addressed the question of labor climate. However, since labor climate affects the principal's work environment, it would be reasonable to expect that strikes, lockouts and grievances would be related to stress. In this study, as an estimate of labor climate of each school district, information about two variables was obtained from the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. The first of these variables was the number of school days lost due to strikes and lockout between 1989 and 1994. The number of days lost ranged from 0 to 37. The data are presented in Appendix D, Table D29. The distribution of days lost was bimodal with the largest group of responding principals (n = 333) not losing any time, and the second largest group (n = 118) losing between 9 and 13 instructional days. The second variable used in the estimation of the labor climate was the number of formal grievances filed. The number of grievances per 1000 teachers during the same 1989-1994 period is shown in Appendix D, Table D30. While the mean number of grievances was 41 per 1000, 50% of the districts reported fewer than 19 grievances per 1000 teachers. The relationship between labor climate and administrative stress for school administrators is examined in the next chapter. 79 Table 4.6 Summary of Principals' Responses to Questions About the Work Environment: The District and Relationships and Support Within the District * Elementary (n = 475) Secondary (n= 161) Characteristic Male (n=327) Female(n=146) Male (n=139) Female(n=21) Mean district enrollments 17,300 21,500 16,100 20,300 District administration: Centralized Formally decentralized Informally decentralized 84.5% 5.0% 10.5% 80.1% 4.1% 15.8% 86.5% 6.0% 7.5% 90.0% 0.0% 10.0% District labor climate: Mean number of days lost due to strikes or lockouts (1989-94) Mean number of grievances per 1000 teachers (1989-94) 12.1 41.1 15.7 40.5 11.2 42.9 14.4 38.4 Perception of support from senior district administration: Satisfactory Not satisfactory 67.6% 33.4% 64.8% 35.2% 65.2% 34.8% 57.1% 42.9% District coping program for school administrators available: Yes No 26.8% 73.2% 25.2% 74.8% 17.6% 82.4% 19.0% 81.0% Mean number of other administrators a principal interacts with in a typical week (range) 4.5 (0 - 30) 4.2 (0 - 20) 5.8 (0 - 30) 5.8 (2 - 20) Is perception of administrative isolation identified as a problem: Yes No 46.2% 53.8% 57.9% 42.1% 38.1% 61.9% 47.6% 52.4% Because of missing data the total number of responses varies for each characteristic. 80 Summary and Discussion The biographic and demographic data collected through this study indicate that the typical public school principal in British Columbia is a male elementary administrator, between 50 and 59 years old, married, with one or two dependent children. He has earned a master's degree, has approximately 80% of his school tims officially assigned to administration, has been a principal for nine years, a vice-principal for three and one-half years, and has been at his present school assignment for three years. This typical school principal works on average 54 hours per week, interacts with fewer than five other principals in a normal week, exercises four hours per week, has been absent from school due to illness for a total of one or two days per year, and considers himself to be in above average health. The school he administers has on average 18 teachers and is in a centralized district where the district student enrollment ranges from 4000 to 13000. This presentation of the findings related to the biographical and demographic characteristics of the respondents has been organized to show the interrelationships among two of the most obvious characteristics, administrative level and gender, with all of the others. However, the use of simple cross tabulated descriptive statistics in research on administrative stress and coping has been criticized (Saffer, 1984). In this chapter, 37 variables have been considered leading to 666 possible comparisons. Appendix E, Table E7 presents a correlation matrix of these variables along with total scores on the Administrative Stress Index and the Coping Preference Scale. An examination of this matrix shows that many of the correlation coefficients are significant dtp < .01, but most of them must be considered trivial (less than .30). These correlation procedures do not take into account the degree of multicollinearity among these variables. To compensate for these intercorrelations, multiple regression techniques are employed (Hair, Anderson, and Tatham, 1987) in the next chapter to identify which of these biographic and demographic variables are associated with administrative stress and the use of various coping techniques. CHAPTER V PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS This chapter presents the findings on administrative stress and coping. Data were collected from 643 British Columbia public school principals by use of the Survey Questionnaire. This questionnaire contained three instruments: the Administrative Stress Index (ASI), the Coping Preference Scale (CPS) and the Demographic and Biographic Inventory (DBF). The ASI was developed by Swent and Gmelch (1977) specifically to identify sources of occupational stress among school administrators in 35 typical job situations. These 35 individual stressors were grouped by the authors into five categories of seven items each: (1) administrative constraints (stressors related to inadequate time, meetings, and workload); (2) administrative responsibilities (typical administrative tasks such as supervision, evaluation and negotiation); (3) interpersonal relations (resolving conflicts among and between students, staff members and supervisors); (4) intrapersonal conflict (conflicts between performance and internal beliefs and expectations; and (5) role expectations (differences in one's own expectations and the expectations of groups served). The internal consistency of the ASI is high (coefficient alpha = .908). Total scores on the ASI are used as an indication of the overall extent to which stress "bothers" school principals. Scores from each of the five ASI categories are used to identify the amount of stress attributable to each grouping of stressors. In addition, individual ASI item scores are used to identify specific sources of stress. Two "write-in" spaces were included with the ASI, the first asked for the greatest source of work related stress and the second asked for the greatest source of personal stress. 81 82 The CPS was developed specifically for this study. It consists of a 26 item Likert scale intended to measure the extent to which administrators use various coping strategies. In developing this scale, items were organized according to the seven categories suggested by Gmelch (1988b). His categories of coping items were: social, physical, intellectual, entertainment, personal, managerial, and attitudinal. After a preliminary analysis of the CPS data, several Principal Components Varimax Rotated Factor Analyses were computed. A seven factor grouping proved to be the most satisfactory and reinforced the original classifications. However, with the information from the factor analysis, some items were shifted from one classification to another. Based upon the items identified for each factor, new titles and descriptions were developed, (see Chapter m, Table 3.1) The factors are (1) good physical health program, (2) withdrawal and recharging activities, (3) intellectual, social and spiritual support, (4) positive attitude, (5) realistic perspective, (6) time management and organization, and (7) increased involvement. The factor loading for each of these seven factors is presented in Appendix E, Table E l . An internal consistency coefficient (alpha = 805) was calculated for the Coping Preference Scale. CPS factor scores are used to determine the relative importance of the coping factors with respect to high and low levels of administrative stress. In addition, individual CPS item scores are used to identify the degree to which specific coping techniques are employed. Two "write-in" spaces were included with the CPS to allow respondents to list any additional coping techniques used. The Demographic and Biographic Inventory was designed to obtain information about a number of variables related to school administrators and their work environment. The demographic variables reported by respondents identified characteristics of the work environment, the principal's position, school and district. The biographic variables identified characteristics related to the person, including personal and family variables, educational training, experience, personal styles and perceptions. 83 This chapter's presentation is organized around three major research questions related to (1) principals' experience of stress, (2) principals' ability to cope with stress, and (3) stress and coping and personal and environmental variables. Principals'Experiences of Stress The first general research question was, "How does administrative stress affect British Columbia public school principals?" Within this general question were four subsidiary questions. The results are presented under four separate headings. Concern About Occupational Stress In the literature, occupational stress has been identified as a serious concern for school administrators. For this reason, the first subsidiary question was, "Is occupational stress a serious concern for British Columbia public school principals?" The data related to this question from four items on the Demographic and Biographic Inventory are displayed in Table 5.1 and indicate that: (a) half of the principals consider 80% or more of the stress in their lives to be a product of their administrative work, (b) approximately 87% of the principals consider their job to be more stressful than those of others in their community, (e) ninety-four percent of principals with more than 10 years experience consider their job to be more stressful today than it was 10 years ago, and (d) nearly half of the principals have seriously considered leaving school administration at some time during the current school year. These findings indicate that British Columbia principals see administrative stress as a serious concern. However, the overall stress level perceived and reported by public school principals in British Columbia is considered moderate as indicated by the mean total score on the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) of 90.60 (obtained range = 37 to 140). The overall item mean 84 Table 5.1 B.C. Principals' Concerns About Occupational Stress "In your opinion, what percentage of the total stress in your life results from your job?" Percentage 0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100 Frequency 16 27 79 172 289 36 Valid % * 2.6 4.4 12.8 27.8 46.7 5.8 Mean = 73.0 Standard Deviation = 21.11 Median = 80.0 Total n = 629 Missing Data = 24 "Do you feel that principals are under greater stress than other members of your community?" Response Yes No Frequency 532 83 Valid % * 86.5 13.5 Total n = 615 Missing Cases = 28 "If you have been a school administrator for 10 years, do you perceive that now principals experience more or less stress than 10 years ago?" 1 2 3 4 5 Response Substantially Less Substantially More Frequency 2 1 22 100 322 Valid % * 0.4 0.2 4.9 22.4 72.0 Mean = 3.3 Standard Deviation = 2.18 Median = 5.0 Total n = 631 Missing Cases = 12 Non Applicable = 184 "During the past year, have your seriously considered leaving school administration?" Response Yes No Frequency 298 337 Valid % * 46.9 53.1 Total n = 635 Missing Cases = 8 * Valid % refers to percentage of cases with complete data. 85 score is 2.59, slightly below "occasionally bothers me" on the five point Likert scale. This finding is consistent with the findings reported elsewhere by Saffer (1984) who concluded that "overall, school administrators experience low to moderate levels of stress". However, while the majority of principals responding to the ASI report only moderate amounts of stress, there are many indications that high levels of stress are a serious problem for some principals, and that this stress may be responsible for serious illness (Balcom, 1994, March 19; Gmelch, 1988a; Gray-Grant, 1992, February 7). Milstein and Farkas (1988) believe that the majority of principals are resistant to stress because "self-selection is a major factor; i.e., as a group, those who chose to become principals and persist in the job perceive the situations they encounter as challenges rather than stressors" (p.246). Another explanation of the discrepancy between the findings reported in (a) through (d) above and the moderate stress scores obtained with the ASI is that, by focusing on the individual sources of stress, the ASI may not reflect the respondents' overall sense of stress. That is, the total score on the ASI may not be the only indicator of stress experienced by administrators. Total ASI scores should be used in combination with other measures of job-related stress in assessing the overall stress experienced by school administrators. Commonly Identified Stressors Answers to the question, "What are the most common stressors identified by British Columbia school principals?" were sought through the use of the ASI. The ASI items were ranked according to their mean item score values and are presented in Appendix E, Table E2. This table shows that only seven ASI items have mean scores higher than three on the five point Likert scale (1 = rarely or never bothers me, 3 = occasionally bothers me, and 5 = frequently bothers me). Since the top ten stressors are usually listed in reporting research with the ASI, the top ten stressors identified by B.C. school principals along with their individual item mean scores are displayed in Table 5.2. Nine of the top ten stressors identified in this study are the same as those reported in the literature on the ASI. The only exception is that, "administering the 86 Table 5.2 Top 10 Stressors on the ASI Identified by B.C. School Principals Rank ASI Stressor Item Mean 1 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I can not possibly finish during the normal working day 3.41 2 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 3.34 3 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 3.25 4 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 3.18 5 Administering the negotiated contract 3.15 6 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 3.08 7 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 3.04 8 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know 2.95 9 Being interrupted frequently by phone calls 2.88 10 Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members 2.80 Item responses were 1 = rarely or never bothers me, 3 = occasionally bothers me, 5 = frequently bothers me 8 7 negotiated contract," appears among the top ten stressors in the present study. It seems that this source of stress is unique in its importance to British Columbia school principals. These findings from the ASI are congruent with the data from the open-ended question on greatest work-related sources of stress (Table 5.3). These categories of stressors relate to (1) heavy work load and lack of time, (2) parent/school conflicts, and (3) administering the negotiated contract. Responses to the question, "What is your greatest personal (non work-related) source of stress?" are also presented in Table 5.3. These responses indicate that the greatest sources of personal stress can be categorized as arising from (1) family relationships, (2) lack of time for self, family, and friends, and (3) difficulties with personal finances. Table 5.3 Categorization of Greatest Work-Related and Personal Stressors Identified by Principals Rank Greatest Work-Related Stressor Category Frequency . Valid % 1 Heavy work load and lack of time available to carry out the job properly 97 18.9 2 Resolving conflicts between parents and the school 84 16.3 3 Administering the negotiated contract 72 14.0 Rank Greatest Personal Stressor Category Frequency Valid % 1 Stress arising from family relationships 90 21.2 2 Lack of time for self 89 20.9 3 Lack of time for family and friends 66 15.5 4 Problems with personal finances 52 12.2 88 Categories of Stressors In answer to the question, "Which ASI stressor category is most often identified as a leading source of administrative stress?" the data show (Table 5.4) that the Administrative Constraints category had the greatest ASI category mean score while the Role Expectations category had the lowest ASI category mean score. This is consistent with the research findings reported in the literature with the ASI. All of the studies reviewed ranked the Administrative Constraints category higher than the other four categories. In the present study, three of the four highest ranked ASI items fell within the Administrative Constraints category (stressors related to time, collective agreements, meetings and work load). However, none of the stressor category mean scores are higher than "occasionally bothers me" on the five point Likert scale. Table 5.4 Rank Order of ASI Stressor Categories Rank Administrative Stress Index Stressor Category Mean * Standard Deviation 1 Administrative Constraints. Includes stressors related to pressures of time, meetings, workload, and compliance with provincial and district policies. 2.92 0.723 2 Interpersonal Relations. Involves resolving differences between parents and the school, between and among staff members, and with handling student discipline. 2.62 0.678 3 Intrapersonal Conflict. Refers to conflicts between perception of performance and one's internal beliefs and expectations. 2.57 0.692 4 Administrative Responsibilities. Includes tasks characteristic of nearly all administrative positions, including supervision, evaluation, negotiating and gaining public support for programs 2.48 0.655 5 Role Expectations. Refers to stressors associated with differences in the expectations of self and the expectations of the various groups to which administrators must respond. 2.33 0.708 Item responses were 1 = rarely or never bothers me, 3 = occasionally bothers me, 5 = frequently bothers me 89 Differences in Perception of Stressors. The differences in perception of stressors was addressed with the question, "Are there differences in the stressors identified by principals who have high scores on the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) as opposed to those with low scores?" In order to answer this question, respondents were classified into high and low stress groups based on their total ASI scores. For statistical reasons, in order to maximize the differences between these groups, this classification was made by ranking the total ASI scores and dividing them at the 30th and 70th percentiles approximately (Popham, 1988). A comparison of the ranks and means of the top ten ASI items for each of the high and low stress groups is presented in Table 5.5. While the order and mean scores vary between the groups, seven of the top ten ranked stressors for each of the groups are identical. Stressors related to heavy workload, lack of time, parent/school conflicts, and administering the negotiated contract still constitute the major sources of stress for both groups. While the greatest stressors for the low stress group are all below "occasionally bothers me", one item for the high stress group, "Feeling that I have too heavy a workload ..." had a mean score of 4.23 that indicates a stressor that approaches "frequently bothers me" for these respondents. The other nine of the top ten items for this high stress group are all well above the "occasionally bothers me" response. A complete table comparing the mean scores for all 35 ASI items when respondents are classified as reporting high or low stress is included in Appendix E as Table E3. A comparison of the ranking of the five ASI stressor categories for the high and low ASI stress groups is presented in Table 5.6. The data show that the rank orders for these categories, as shown previously in Table 5.4, remain the same for the low ASI stress group. However, for the high stress group, the Intrapersonal Conflict category has a greater mean score than the Interpersonal Relations category, thus reversing their rank order. This suggests that the high stress group of principals is more concerned with their own performance and expectations for themselves. 90 Table 5.5 A Comparison of Top 10 ASI Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores * Rank High ASI Scores (Top 30%) Item Mean Low ASI Scores (Bottom 30%) Item Mean l Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I can not possibly finish during the normal working day 4.23 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 2.76 2 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 3.83 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 2.64 3 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 3.82 Administering the negotiated contract 2.56 4 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 3.81 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I can not possibly finish during the normal working day 2.55 5 Administering the negotiated contract 3.78 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 2.54 6 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 3.75 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 2.43 7 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 3.72 Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls 2.42 8 Complying with provincial and organizational rules and policies 3.54 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know 2.35 9 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be 3.51 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 2.32 10 Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what I think is reasonable 3.48 Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members 2.27 * Item responses were 1 = rarely or never bothers me, 3 = occasionally bothers me, 5 = frequently bothers me 91 Table 5.6 A Comparison of ASI Category Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores * Overall Rank Order ASI Stressor Category High Stress Group (Top 30%) ASI Category Means Low Stress Group (Bottom 30%) ASI Category Means 1 Administrative Constraints 3.53 2.28 2 Interpersonal Relations 3.12 2.06 3 Intrapersonal Conflict 3.22 1.93 4 Administrative Responsibilities 3.06 1.91 5 Role Expectations 2.94 1.67 Item responses were 1 = rarely or never bothers me 3 = occasionally bothers me 5 = frequently bothers me Coping With Stress The second general research question was, "What coping strategies do British Columbia school principals use to moderate the effects of stress?" Within this general question were four subsidiary questions. The results are presented under four separate headings. 92 Commonly Used Coping Techniques. Answers to the question, "What are the most common coping techniques utilized by British Columbia school principals to ameliorate the effects of stress?" were sought through the use of the 26 item Coping Preference Scale (CPS). The CPS items were ranked according to their mean item score values and are presented in Appendix E, Table E4. This table shows that three CPS items have mean scores greater than 4.0 and an additional five items have mean CPS item scores greater than 3.5 on the five point Likert Scale (1 = almost never use, 3 = sometimes use, and 5 - almost always use). The overall item mean is 3.13, slightly above the coping response "sometimes used". An examination of this table shows that the coping strategies chosen by B.C. school principals are for the most part stress management techniques, strategies intended to moderate the effects of stress on the person, as opposed to stressor management techniques, strategies intended to reduce the sources of stress in the environment. The ten coping techniques most frequently utilized by B.C. principals are presented in Table 5.7. There were 615 written responses to the request for additional coping strategies. When these were tabulated the responses fell into eight categories^ These "write-in" responses are discussed in the next subsection where they are analyzed with respect to the coping factors. Categories of Coping Techniques. Another question was, "Can the coping techniques utilized by principals be clustered into interpretable and meaningful coping categories? If so, what are the categories and which coping categories contain techniques most frequently employed by British Columbia school administrators?" 93 Table 5.7 Top 10 Coping Strategies Utilized by B.C. School Principals Rank CPS Strategy Item Mean * 1 Practice good human relation skills with staff, students and parents 4.32 2 Maintain a sense of humor 4.25 3 Approach problems optimistically and objectively 4.03 4 Maintain regular sleep habits 3.79 5 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations) 3.69 6 Delegate responsibility 3.64 7 Talk with family members or close friends 3.56 8 Engage in active non-work or play activities (e.g., boating, camping, fishing, gardening, golfing, painting, playing a musical instrument, etc.) 3.52 9 Engage in less active non-work or play activities (e.g., dine out, attend cultural or sporting events, movies, crafts, listen to music, read or watch TV, etc.) 3.44 10 Work Harder (including evenings and weekends) 3.37 * Item responses were 1 = almost never use 3 = sometimes use 5 = almost always use. Table 5.8 displays the Coping Preference Scale factors ranked according to their means. Factors: I Good Physical Health Program, HI Intellectual, Social and Spiritual Support, IV Positive Attitude, and V Realistic Perspective, have means greater than three, the mid-point between almost never used and almost always used. From the responses, it appears that the coping techniques that involve Time Management and Organization (Factor TV) and Withdrawal and Recharging (Factor II) are the least popular with administrators. 94 Table 5.8 Rank Order of the Weighted Means of CPS Factors Rank Factor Coping Preference Scale Factors No. of Items Weighted Mean Standard Deviation 1 V Realistic Perspective 3 3.86 0.62 2 IV Positive Attitude 4 3.64 0.60 3 I Good Physical Health Program 4 3.45 0.87 4 III Intellectual, Social and Spiritual Support 4 3.24 0.73 5 VII Increased Involvement 2 2.91 0.86 6 VI Time Management and Organization 2 2.53 0.81 7 n Withdrawal and Recharging 7 2.51 0.64 Item responses were 1 = almost never use 3 = sometimes use 5 = almost always use. The additional coping techniques reported by the respondents were organized by means of content analysis into eight categories that matched those generated by the factor analysis. These responses are presented in Table 5.9. In contrast to the responses to the CPS factors (Table 5.8), the highest ranked category shown for "write-in" responses, Withdrawal and Recharging, is the lowest ranked of the CPS factors. An additional open-ended category was created that included responses not found in the CPS. These responses are generally considered to be destructive coping mechanisms. For the most part these involved snacking and self-medication with alcohol and drugs. Some examples of typical responses to the open-ended coping question are presented in Table 5.10. 95 Table 5.9 Categorization of Additional Open-ended Coping Techniques Reported by Respondents Rank Order Coping Categories Frequency Valid % 1 Withdrawal and Recharging 124 20.2 2 Intellectual, Social and Spiritual Support 118 19.2 3 Realistic Perspective 93 15.1 4 Positive Attitude 85 13.8 5 Good Physical Health Program 68 11.1 6 Time Management and Organization 49 8.0 7 Increased Involvement 44 7.2 8 Destructive 30 4.9 Differences in Preferred Coping Techniques The differences in identification of coping strategies was addressed with the question, "Are there differences in the coping techniques utilized by principals who have high scores on the Administrative Stress Index as opposed to those with low scores?" As before, respondents were classified into high and low stress groups based on their total ASI scores, divided at the 30th and 70th percentiles approximately. A comparison of the ranks of the top ten CPS items for each of the high and low stress groups is presented in Table 5.11. This table shows that eight Of the top ten ranked coping strategies are identical for both the high and low ASI stress groups. For the most part, the high stress group is observed to have lower CPS mean item scores and principals with lower stress scores are observed to have higher CPS item scores. It is interesting to note that among the top ten CPS items, that for two items peculiar to the high stress group, working harder and talking to other school administrators, the mean CPS item scores (shown in Table 5.11) are greater for the high stress group and lower for the low stress group. It seems that these two additional coping techniques are associated with greater stress scores. In addition to this 96 Table 5.10 Typical Open-ended Coping Responses Withdrawal and Recharging • Leave situation for awhile — give myself time to think or consult - come back to work when it is quiet. • Take tea breaks at two-ish, take no phone calls for twenty minutes so that I can energize myself for the three to five o'clock time when parents and staff need me and I need more energy and calmness. • Go out on the school grounds for fresh air and to supervise. • Go to the beach, throw pebbles into the water, and watch the ripples. Intellectual. Social and Spiritual Support • I go to one or two conferences each year with close colleagues that combine relaxation, socialization, and professional development • I have an active social life, am extensively involved in Rotary, attend concerts and symphonies, often dine out once or twice a month, and read in many disciplines. • Reading literature about leadership from different walks of life. • We have developed a support group of other principals (coincidentally all female). Realistic Perspective • Accept that Rome was not built in a day — lower expectations. • Put things in perspective by saying, "What is the worst thing that could happen if this doesn't get done today". • I have an old wooden box which holds my work problems. I open it, look inside it, think about my problems for a few minutes, then close the box. When my mind wanders to my school problems I remember that they are "in the box". • Don't take system attacks personally. Positive Attitude • Be optimistic about the school year. • Try to focus on positive aspects of the job and let go of the negatives. • Place objects in the office that remind you of past successes. • Focus on the good we do for students, parents, and others. Good Physical Health Program • Regular attendance at fitness clubs. • Running helps me reduce stress. • Being involved in sports and other physical activities. • Paying attention to good nutrition and other health habits. Time Management and Organizational Techniques e Break down overwhelming tasks into manageable components. • Focus on problem solving. • Structure activities in the school to provide me more free time during stressful times (e.g., Christmas concert and sports day times, etc.). • Use a collaborative approach which allows parents, staff, and students to share the responsibilities. Increased Involvement • Get an early start — use early mornings to get a lot of paper work out of the way. • Spend quiet working time in my office before and after all others have left. • Get politically involved with District Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association to offer ideas for change • Work longer hours to be prepared. 97 Table 5.11 A Comparison of the Top 10 CPS Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores Rank High ASI Scores (Top 30%) Item Mean Low ASI Scores (Bottom 30%) Item Mean 1 Practice good human relation skills with staff, students and parents 4.24 Practice good human relation skills with staff, students and parents 4.49 2 Maintain a sense of humor 4.06 Maintain a sense of humor 4.38 3 Approach problems optimistically and objectively 3.82 Approach problems optimistically and objectively 4.25 4 Work harder (including evenings and weekends) 3.69 Maintain regular sleep habits 4.02 5 Maintain regular sleep habits 3.63 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations 3.96 6 Talk with family members or close friends 3.57 Engage in active non-work or play activities 3.81 7 Delegate responsibility 3.48 Delegate responsibility 3.77 8 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations 3.41 Talk with family members or close friends 3.59 9 Engage in less active non-work or play activities 3.29 Engage in less active non-work or play activities 3.51 10 Talk to district administrators or other school principals 3.28 Regular physical exercise 3.44 * Item responses were 1 = almost never use 3 = sometimes use 5 = almost always use 98 anomaly, the high stress group of principals was found to choose two coping strategies related to their job, while the low stress group of principals chose two techniques related to their own health and well-being. This is further supported with the analysis of the coping factors presented in Table 5.12. When ranks of the seven CPS factors for the high and the low ASI stress groups are compared, the data show that the rank orders for the coping factors for the high and the low stress groups are the same as those reported previously in Table 5.8. However, while for six of the seven factors, the high stress group has lower coping factor scores than the low stress group; for one category, Increased Involvement, the direction is reversed. The high stress group has a greater factor score than the low stress group. Interrelationship Between Coping Techniques and Stress In order to answer the question, "What is the relationship between item scores on the CPS and total scores on the ASI?" correlations were computed between each of the 26 CPS items and the total score on the ASI. The results are included in Appendix E as Table E5. Table E5 indicates that there are 18 significant correlations (p < .01) between CPS items and total ASI score. These correlations, however, do not take into account the degree of multicollirtearity among these variables in relation to the total ASI score. To compensate for these intercorrelations, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987) taking the 26 CPS items as the independent variables and the total ASI score as the dependent variable. The multiple regression analysis is presented in Table 5.13 and shows that eight CPS items are associated with the dependent variable, total ASI score (p < .05). This table reveals that principals who set realistic goals, approach problems optimistically and objectively, engage in activities that supported spiritual growth, take mini-vacations, and are actively involved in their communities, are found to have significantly lower stress scores as shown by the ASI. Conversely, principals who report that they attempt to cope with the pressures of their job by working harder, talking to other school administrators and withdrawing from situations are found to have greater ASI stress scores. 99 Table 5.12 A Comparison of CPS Factor Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High and Low Total Stress Scores * Rank Orders CPS Factors High ASI Group (Top 30%) CPS Factor Means Low ASI Group (Bottom 30%) CPS Factor Means 1 Realistic Perspective 3.65 4.04 2 Positive Attitude 3.49 3.81 3 Good Physical Health Program 3.23 3.66 4 Intellectual, Social and Spiritual Support 3.13 3.32 5 Increased Involvement 2.99 2.86 6 Time Management and Organization 2.46 2.61 7 Withdrawal and Recharging 2.40 2.61 * Item responses were 1 = almost never use 3 = sometimes use 5 = almost always use In order to discover if there are any differences in the number of coping techniques used by principals with high and low ASI scores, two histograms of the most "frequently used" coping techniques (CPS responses 4 and 5) were constructed and are shown in Figure 5.1. This figure shows that overall, the low stress group of principals (with a mean score of 12.08) has a statistically significant greater repertoire of coping techniques than does the high stress group of principals (with a mean score of 9.64) (For 380 degrees of freedom, / = 6.01, p < .001). The data indicate that not only do principals with higher stress scores have a more limited repertoire of coping techniques, they also make less frequent use of coping techniques overall. 100 Table 5.13 Eight CPS Items Showing a Significant Relationship with ASI in a Stepwise Multiple Regression Item No. CPS Item Description b * Beta* Standard Error of Beta F Significance p<.05 1 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations -4.508 -.201 .897 25.269 .000 17 Approach problems optimistically and objectively -4.971 -.190 1.023 23.627 .000 7 Work harder (including evenings and weekends) 2.630 .153 .672 15.314 .001 8 Engage in activities that support spiritual growth (inspirational music, art, reading, or religion) -1.309 -.090 .575 5.191 .023 15 Talk to district adrninistrators or other school principals 2.542 .128 .762 11.114 .001 23 Take mini-vacations (e.g., weekends away, etc.) -2,132 -.130 .668 10.194 .002 16 Community involvement (e.g., coaching, service club membership, volunteering, etc.) -1.489 -.093 .612 5.922 .015 4 Withdraw physically from the situation (leave the office or the school for a time) 1.643 .090 .709 5.365 .021 Multiple R = .45383. R 2 = .20596 Standard Error = 17.63148 df = 8, 568 101 Frequency 36-38 33-35 30-32 X X X 27-29 X X X X . 24-26 X X X X 21-23 X X X X X 18-20 X X X X X 15-17 X X X X X 12-14 X X X X X X X 9-11 X X X X X X X 6-8 X X X X X X X X 35 X X X X X X X X X X X 0-2 X X X X X X X X X X X X 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 Number of coping techniques reported to be frequenuy used (responses 4 and 5) Low ASI Score Group (Bottom. 30%) Mean number of 4 & 5 responses = 12.08 Standard deviation = 4.44 Median number of 4 & 5 responses = 12 Frequency 42-44 X X 39-41 X X X 36-38 X X X 33-35 X X X 30-32 X X X X 27-29 X X X X 24-26 X X X X 21-23 X X X X 18-20 X X X X 15-17 X X X X X 12-14 X X X X X 9-11 X X X X X X X 6-8 X X X X X X X X 3 5 X X X X X X X X 0-2 X X X X X X X X X X X 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 Number of coping techniques reported to be frequently used (responses 4 and 5) High ASI S core Group (Top 31 Wo) Mean number of 4 & 5 responses = 9.64 Standard deviation = 3.59 Median number of 4 & 5 responses = 10 Figure 5.1 Histogram of the "most frequently used" Responses to the CPS for the High and Low ASI Score Groups 102 Stress and Coping and Personal and Environmental Variables The third general research question was, "How do personal and environmental variables interact with stress and coping?" Within that question were included two subsidiary questions. The results are presented in two sections. Stress and Personal and Environmental Variables According the person-environment fit theory, stress is the result of a mismatch between the person and the environment. In order to investigate the sources of this mismatch, the following question was posed, "What is the relationship between administrative stress and personal and environmental variables?" In answer to this question, a matrix of the intercorrelations between the 36 personal and environmental variables plus the total score on the ASI was constructed. The 666 correlation coefficients obtained are presented in Appendix E as Table E7. Although the correlations in Table E7 shed some light on the relationships among these personal and environmental variables with total scores on the ASI, the correlation procedure does not take into account the degree of intercorrelation between these variables in predicting administrative stress scores. To compensate for this multicollinearity, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987) taking the 36 personal and environmental measures as the independent variables and the total ASI score as the dependent variable. The multiple regression analysis is presented in Table 5.1.4. This table shows that five of the personal and environmental variables can be combined in a multiple regression equation to predict the dependent variable, ASI total stress score. Overall, the five independent variables with an R.2 of .213 explain slightly over 20% of the variance in the total ASI score. Principals who perceive that administrative isolation is a problem for them, who report greater percentages of stress due to the job, who have seriously considered leaving school administration, who feel that principals are under greater stress than other 103 Table 5.14 Stepwise Multiple Regression of Biographic and Demographic Variables on Total ASI Scores Variable b * Beta * Standard Error of Beta F Significance p<.05 Administrative Isolation 10.977 -.287 1.624 45.720 .000 Stress due to Job .164 .178 0.040 16.875 .000 Considered Quitting Job 5.181 -.135 1.629 10.118 .002 Greater Stress than Others 6.474 -.113 2.400 7.280 .007 Dependent Relatives 2.250 .084 1.103 4.164 .042 Multiple R = .46150 Standard Error = 17.08133 R2 df = .21298 = 5, 469 members of their community, and who respond that they are responsible for other dependent relatives, have greater total ASI stress scores. The multivariate regression analysis does not identify most of the variables cited in the literature review and some of the other variables that seemed promising, e.g., labor climate — strikes and lockouts, as being independently and significantly related to the total score on the ASI. However, when ASI items scores were considered in terms of selected personal and environmental variables, some interesting findings are noted. The variables were selected from those most often identified in the literature on stress and coping. These variables are: administrative level, gender, highest university degree earned and age. The relationship between these selected personal and environmental variables and the top ten ranked ASI stressors is shown in Tables 5.15 and 5.16. The data show that secondary school principals are concerned more with heavy workload than elementary school principals who are more bothered with having to resolve parent/school conflicts. Female principals are more likely to report that they impose excessively high expectations upon themselves and that they are more bothered by trying to gain public approval and financial support for their school programs than 00 13 O hrj 2 C n |-t rh cn ca Si. 2 SI 5* 5 CD oo §«-»• ft, a * *^ a S** I ^ a CD Ha I B a. 3. 2. I?. d a I-I ^ ca ca CD ^ I 5. s §• o 00 ^ 0 w ro ON i 0 CO I' 1 CD ca ca 3" ft f I CP a &. 0 3 ca O 13 1 ca ON O 00 vo ro vo fe s 00 CD I 00 o R CD C L o 0 1 w 00 tO KJ w to w vo CO to 0? o o ft CO o ca § a. 0 If a 1 o a 3 CD w ro w o CO KJ W K3 to U ) w to to o CD ca O 5" CD CD ca O g* o_ o o ft ca tO Ki to w to w tO VO _ to to CD CD O ca CD ft eg' ca i-t-to 7T a O o CD to t/l Kj to to ON CD CD g o f NJ to w to If th "-" 3. f 3 * < „ CD g. o era 5* C* 3 O « » o o a. & E C L 3 00 o C L CD ^ 5^ M to to to to to 00 CD >> O H H 3 o 3 3 * 9 CD 3 C/3 W I S -W CD hrj 3 § i l CD CD 8 g B-cf CD _ 3 C L P e cr CD* y to ft _ _>• a B' i CO o Q I ft. o 13 CO g CA <P o 5" a* CO to oo vo t O to e Co me H <3 PL .3 3 »* plyin bers OQ r + O OP >-t C ? C L rt CO o s. Er t disci Distri e diffe pline ct rules £ renc pline ct rules £ es bi a. •a o rt CO V O 0 0 w 0 0 o oo VO o oo 3 j g ^ to ^2 0 0 w vo 0 0 5' ffi C u P g-Oo e. o H 3 o EL f t rt S. rt- CO ~ 5" o * P rt' ft cr n 5f' n CO o >-+5 ON o o.oo o oo w -0 <-5 to rt J> I: o 3 * 9 rt > 3 ^ w 5* _ 3 £ rt 0 3 3 P-* 3 - rt P ST rt i rt 8 g C u | / 1/3 rt ^ 3 rt C u P 3 C u rt 5 CO O n> H o •a i — • o > C/J H §: «" cn ;_. rt CO CO O |-i CO cr <-< fe O 0 1 rt C u 3. <' rt rt I C u rt SOI 901 8? to NO 00 CD 3 rt p o 3* o •a « oo o 3 co CO C? a « . . . ! CO co CO ca O* rt. O i o ft 52. 3 00 cf. - a O OQ & CA Ui 9*. CO c l co o g CO O Q a B. I co •a &. o a CO a 2.0o ^ o C 00 S B. ^ o O P o "2 o o < fS. VO OO to o o •I "St a* O I. a CO co I C u T 3 O rt CO Ui Ui 2 to 00 Ui td rt co rt C u et» rt n 3 a* 1 3 a* o 3 rt o EL 0 0 oo w Ui 3 g 5* W 3 p» i4>0Q 3 *3. p Cu W C rt e. cu rt O 1 3 rt O h—• CO *—» » — ° z B 5 cv 2 a co 00 00 W VO =8= CO ~> C " CA 8. ~ <-<• CO UJ . . o > ' no Ui <g vo vo ™ 5* I O i -« C u CO >-» p 3 C u rt co O *-*> H o T3 >—* O > OO I—I &Q rr co CO CO O *-> CO co H I: co* y» ON o 0 1 rt C u /—N tO o vo * ' -o. 0 0 NO W 00 VO o to 0 0 ON 0 0 NO to vo to ON © w to VO NO W ON ON I—I trt rt NO ION O 0 o 1 + » d rt p §•' CO. o C u i rt CO a.* d • f l rt rt CO o 0 0 to  0 0 NO w to Leo £ I co a 0 0 o NO NO NO NO log11 a I co § rt p 108 their male colleagues. Also female secondary principals are unique in reporting that they are moderately stressed by having to attempt to meet social expectations. The data for the top ten identified stressors also show that principals with master's degrees report slightly less stress than those with bachelor's and doctorates. Principals with doctoral degrees are substantially more stressed by imposing excessively high expectations upon themselves and administering the negotiated contract. They also report being moderately stressed by having to attempt to meet social expectations. Younger principals, age 30 to 39, were bothered more by having to participate in school activities outside the normal working hours and are less concerned with administering the negotiated contract. Coping and Personal and Environmental Variables The question, "What is the relationship between coping techniques and personal and environmental variables?" was investigated by analyzing the association between the ten top ranked CPS coping strategies and selected personal and environmental variables. The analysis is presented in Tables 5.17 and 5.18. The four personal and environmental variables selected were those most often identified in the literature on stress and coping reviewed in Chapter n, administrative level, gender, highest degree earned and age. The data show that female elementary school principals tend to cope more by talking with family members or close friends, while both male and female secondary school principals reported they tend to cope more by working harder than their elementary colleagues. Male elementary school principals are more likely to cope by engaging in active non-work or play activities. Overall, principals with doctoral degrees report more frequent use of coping techniques than do principals with master's degrees, who in turn report greater use of coping strategies than principals with bachelor's degrees. While principals with doctoral degrees are more likely to report that they cope by working harder, they also are more likely to report that they maintain good health habits. Younger principals (age 30 to 39) are more likely to report working harder as a method of coping than are older principals. 109 uo to «8 H CO z •a 3 eg co CO co I C/3 173 OO CM O H lw O CO C OS CO 1 CO T 3 l-c 0 1 1 1 C/3 C/3 J2 £ S g CO c co "3 0 S c/3 s c/3 * 22 ^ cn CN UO -^T CN CN rr w w CO CN CO 5^ uo CO. ON CO CO 00 CO NO NO co' w NO UO CO w NO NO CO CO NO f-T co' w 5» CO ^ -v r - uo CO .a 1 i 1 CO I •8 'I CO •g (90 0 1 ti-c/3 uo NO ^ C-- UO • "— ' CO CN uo NO r -co' UO 00 • -—' CO o ^ NO t> • —' CO I O CL 60 u Q CN NO rr CO ^ rr oo co' w CO 1 B CO o *o t-1 o CO a c l •B ii •a I s _) •1 5 >> x> TS <U co 13 CO •5b <u 1 C/3 s? CL, O o 00 CL, O H o co tO •3 -a o 5. U E H s § c2 8 C/3 11 S 8 c/3 6 s W -a «3 1 S H S .2 c/3 o 1? ^ in _ oo 22 ^ co oo co CN ^ 00 vo CO CN Ov rr ^ CO —^ CO w cn fk cu Q 4) I U •5b v . is cZ) 00 .s OH O u 00 OH O H o ca CD •a Ut If 8 2 Q ca s fey PQ o + ^< NO Sp"? < o in op T < o to OO o o u a O * CN CO .-c 00 t -«N ON CN rt fN ro NO r* >0 . . NO _ NO NO tN. _ (N CS. ro _ <N CN rt W oo _ <N CN 2© cN »/-> , , NO ^ © ro rt w ro o ^ ©. co rt W ro _ rt W O ro rt W io CO ON _ 3 ^ rt CO oo 3; CO rt ^ NO P r- ir> CO in in co ~ ' NO r~-co 1 ' <N ON r- _ NO Jo CO IO ro NO NO ro IT) NO ro o o NO NO • w ro tN rt ro , , •> NO ro' w NO ro ro w f •O 2 1 00 u Q CN NO ON VO ro r- _ io fv ro w rt oo ro ' ' IO OO ro oo _ ro rfr r-~ ro 1 ca O s e s co « CO Q 1 1 co J D CO CO •a ts is OH o o 0 0 CL, O H O ca C cd -a U i eo O cd M 8. .8 IN c3 Q CQ o + %><=> „, O v < o „- Ov C J op T o 2; < <=> ro g u co u OH g CN _ >o bo ro w yj vo ro '—' oo tr\ co w vo _ VO P CO W oo ^ CO 00 co w Ov Ov vo ro' w CO W o _ CO vo So 8 Ov 113 Chapter Summary This chapter was designed to provide answers to three general research questions. In answer to the first general question on administrators' experience of stress, the findings indicate that stress is a concern for principals but that the amount of stress they experience is moderate. The greatest source of work-related stress is associated with heavy work load, lack of time, parent/school conflicts, and administering the negotiated contract. Few differences were found between the greatest stressors identified by principals with high stress scores as opposed to those principals with low stress scores. Principals reported that they attempt to moderate the effects of stress by adopting and applying various coping strategies. Principals with higher stress scores tend to cope by using more work related coping techniques and principals who reported lesser amounts of stress are more likely to cope by using techniques that relate to their own personal health and well-being. The data indicate that principals with higher stress scores have a more limited repertoire of coping techniques and they make less frequent use of coping techniques overall. The most popular coping techniques used by school administrators involve keeping a realistic perspective, maintaining a positive attitude, following a good physical health program, and engaging in activities that support intellectual, social, and spiritual growth. As well, principals report that they infrequently use techniques that involve time management and organization or increased involvement. The third question referred to the interaction between personal and environmental variables with stress and coping. The findings show that among these variables, the perception of administrative isolation has the strongest relationship to stress. The three most popular coping techniques, those with the highest item scores, practicing good human relations skills, maintaining a sense of humor and approaching problems optimistically and objectively are the same for principals classified according to administrative level, gender, highest university degree earned and age. Chapter VI SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final chapter of this research report is divided into two sections. The first section summarizes the purpose of the study, the research design, data collection procedures and the findings. A discussion, conclusions and recommendations for additional research and practice is presented in the second section. Summary The purpose of this study was to identify the perceived sources of stress and the coping strategies used by elementary and secondary public school principals in British Columbia, and to relate the findings to selected biographic and demographic variables in the light of person-environment (P-E) fit theory. According to this theory, occupational stress occurs when there is a discrepancy between the person and the work environment. Administrators may adopt coping strategies which are designed to modify the interaction between the person and the environment in an attempt to ameliorate the effect of adrninistrative stress resulting from any mismatch. In order to accomplish the purpose of this study, three general research questions were stated. They were: (1) How does administrative stress affect British Columbia public school principals? (2) What coping strategies do British Columbia school principals use to moderate the effects of stress? and (3) How do personal and environmental variables interact with stress and coping? 114 115 Data were collected by means of a postal survey. The analysis of the findings is primarily descriptive and correlational in nature. A three-part questionnaire was mailed to the population of 1455 public school principals in the province of British Columbia. The first section included the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) which was developed by Swent and Gmelch (1977) to specifically identify sources of occupational stress among school administrators. In the ASI, principals are asked to rate on a five point Likert scale the degree of stress perceived in each of 35 identified stressors which have been grouped into five categories of seven items each. The second section contained the Coping Preference Scale (CPS) which was created specifically for this study. It is a 26 item, five point, Likert scale questionnaire measuring the extent to which administrators use coping strategies. A factor analysis of the data obtained for this study indicates that the coping techniques identified in the CPS can be classified into seven coping factors. In both the ASI and CPS, two open-ended item spaces were included to allow for the inclusion of other "write-in" responses. The third section was the Demographic and Biographic Inventory which was designed to obtain information about a number of personal and environmental variables. The response rate was 44.2% (n = 643). The biographic and demographic data collected through this study indicate that the typical public school principal in British Columbia is a male elementary administrator, between 50 and 59 years old, married, with one or two dependent children. He has earned a master's degree, has approximately 80% of his school time officially assigned to administration, has been a principal for nine years, a vice-principal for three and one-half years, and has been at his present school assignment for three years. This typical school principal works on average 54 hours per week, interacts with fewer than five other principals in a normal week, exercises four hours per week, has been absent from school due to illness for a total of one or two days per year, and considers himself to be in above average health. He perceives that approximately 80% of his total life stress comes from his job and that his job is much more stressful than the jobs of other members of his community. The school he administers has on average 18 teachers and is in a centralized district where the district student enrollment ranges from 4000 to 13000. 116 The analysis of the data has produced the following findings. Although in a number of instances job-related stress has been reported to have had a negative impact upon the health of school administrators, the overall level of perceived stress reported by public school principals in British Columbia is moderate as indicated by a mean total score on the ASI of 90.60 (operative range 37 to 140). The overall item mean is a score of 2.59, slightly below "occasionally bothers me" on the five point Likert scale. This indicates that the majority of principals are able to deal reasonably well with the stress produced by their interaction with the demands of their jobs. All principals experience some stress and a majority have reported that administrative stress is an important consideration in their lives. The greatest sources of stress are found to relate to heavy workload and lack of time, parent/school conflicts, and administering the negotiated contract. When items on the ASI are ranked according to their item means, nine of the top ten stressors identified are the same as those reported in other studies reviewed in the literature. The only exception is that, "administering the negotiated contract," is ranked among the top ten in the present study. It appears that this source of stress is unique to British Columbia school principals. This is consistent with the findings of Kelsey, Lupini, and Clinton (1995) who report an increase in the time devoted to labor relations by school superintendents. Undoubtedly, there is a "trickle down effect" from this to the principal's administrative responsibilities. Although it is possible to rank the reported sources of stress to create a list of the top stressors, no single stressor has a mean rating much greater than "occasionally bothers me." It is not possible to identify any one or two stressors as the principal cause of administrative stress. Rather, it seems to be the cumulative effect of a number of sources of moderate stress that add up to cause an overall perception of stress. While the administrative constraints category contains the greatest sources of stress for all principals, those principals who report greater amounts of stress also more frequently report that intrapersonal stressors (e.g., Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be) are more bothersome to them while principals who report lesser amounts of stress are more concerned with interpersonal stressors (e.g., Trying to 117 resolve differences between/among staff members) and stressors arising from simple administrative annoyances (e.g., Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls). The data indicate that there is an inverse relationship between administrative stress and use of coping techniques. Low stress principals have a significantly greater repertoire of coping techniques (i.e., a greater number of "most frequently used" coping techniques) than do the high stress group of principals. Not only do principals with higher stress scores have a more limited repertoire of coping strategies, they also report less frequent use of coping techniques overall. When items in the Coping Preference Scale are classified according to the seven CPS factors, the most popular coping techniques used by school administrators are identified as: keeping a realistic perspective, maintaining a positive attitude, following a good physical health program, and engaging in activities that support intellectual, social, and spiritual growth. Less popular or infrequently chosen coping strategies include strategies identified as increased effort, time management and organization, and withdrawal and recharging techniques. Principals with higher stress scores tend to cope by using more work related techniques and principals who report lesser amounts of stress are more likely to cope by using techniques that relate to their own personal health and well-being. The coping strategies chosen by British Columbia school principals are for the most part stress management techniques; that is, they are intended to moderate the effects of stress on the individual rather than to reduce or eliminate the sources of stress. In analyzing the interaction between personal and environmental variables and administrative stress, it was discovered that five of these personal and environmental variables could be combined to predict the total ASI score. When these variables were ranked in order of importance, it is apparent that the principals who perceive that administrative isolation is a problem for them, who report greater percentages of stress due to their jobs, who have seriously considered leaving school administration, who feel that they are under greater stress than other members of their community, and who on top of their regular job demands, report they have other relatives dependent upon them, are more likely to have higher scores on the ASI. 118 Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations This study was intended to investigate the stressors and coping strategies used by school-based principals in the public school system in British Columbia. The study was limited to principals who volunteered to complete the questionnaire at the end of the school year. Their willingness to participate in this study may very well be related to the amount of stress they experience and their ability to cope with that stress. Research has indicated that adaptability to stress is an individual trait. According to Thompson (1985), success in the principalship is dependent upon how well the principal adjusts to environmental demands, both external and internal. The principal's job is often filled with unpredictable events and ambiguities. Frequently situations are posed which cannot be readily managed by straight forward application of standard operating procedures and uniform policies. The principal who is resourceful is therefore bound to be more successful than one who cannot cope with the demands and pressures of the job. The data obtained from this study have been analyzed with respect to three general research questions. From the findings a number of conclusions have been drawn. These conclusions are presented in this section along with recommendations for practice and research. While principals seem to feel that stress is an important factor in their lives and ascribe a major portion of this stress to their jobs, the findings indicate that British Columbia principals report moderate levels of stress. In relation to the emotional, behavioral and physical signs of stress cited in the literature, this study found that principals report only a few of the known stress symptoms and that they perceive their health, in general, to be better than average. These principals also rarely report being absent from work due to illness or using destructive coping techniques. From this, it may be concluded that the majority of B.C. school principals are able to deal satisfactorily with their job-related stress. This conclusion is consistent with that of Milstein and Farkas (1988) who state that educators are "hardier as a group than we tend to believe. The conditions under which they work today are replete with stressors and it is becoming 119 believe. The conditions under which they work today are replete with stressors and it is becoming increasingly clear that educators are quite resilient" (p.246). However, some important questions remain unanswered. It is recommended that further research be undertaken to determine why principals consider such a large percentage of the stress in their lives to be job-related, why principals consider their jobs to be more stressful than others in their community, why experienced principals consider their jobs to be more stressful now than 10 years ago, and why nearly half of the principals responding have seriously considered leaving their jobs. Finally, since there is a discrepancy between principals' overall perception of stress and their scores on the ASI, there is a question whether the ASI, which focuses on individual stressors, gives an accurate reflection of school administrators' overall sense of stress. Gmelch (1988a) raises an important question, "What level of stress is significant to warrant attention? Whether the figures are 50 percent, 30 percent or one in five experiencing high stress, the fact remains that some administrators are at risk and their profession is 'hazardous to their health'" (p. 139). Two stress symptoms cited in the literature were identified by a substantial number of the principals surveyed. Approximately half of the respondents reported feeling alone (administrative isolation) and feeling dissatisfied with their job (seriously considering leaving school administration). These findings suggest that principals need increased emotional and social support from their colleagues. This conclusion is consistent with Thomson's (1988) report that social support groups have a direct effect in alleviating stress for school administrators. She found that the greatest support came from supervisors and other people at work, while support from spouses, friends and relatives was not as an important influence in alleviating administrative stress. Swent (1983) points out that administrators often rely on colleagues as a resource to cope with stress. According to Blase (1984) social support is an important method for coping with stressful feelings and that the major thrust is its role in legitimizing the feelings of the individual under stress. It is recommended that principals develop a network of support and that senior district administrators and principals' associations assist in the development of a supportive educational climate where free discussion of ideas, concerns and effective practices is possible. 120 The organizational structure and climate of schools and school districts might also be investigated in relation to principals' perceptions of isolation and job dissatisfaction. Further, Robinson and Wallin (1989) state that the legal separation of the teachers and administrators is viewed negatively by many school principals and that "The thought of principals and vice-principals no longer being members of teacher organizations has left many school-based administrators with a feeling of great unease ..." (p. 8). Research should be undertaken to explore the possibility that exclusion of principals from the teachers' association has contributed to the isolation of administrators. In contrast with principals in other educational jurisdictions, British Columbia public school principals are unique in responding that they are more than occasionally stressed by having to administer collective agreements. According to Richmond and Campsall (1992) British Columbia's education labor climate is in a state of flux. They state, "Many administrators feel that the recent 'union versus management' scenario is not a positive situation" (p.56). They report administrators feel their powers have been eroded by collective agreements and that "teachers have become more legalistic in their approach to confrontations and discussions with administrators" (p.57). It must be recognized that managing and working within the constraints of negotiated collective agreements is a major source of stress for B.C. public school principals. Therefore, it is recommended that in-service training in labor relations be provided for all principals. In addition to administering the negotiated contract, the findings show that time, workload and parent/school conflicts are all major sources of stress in the principalship. In light of the findings that indicate that the demands on the principalship have substantially increased over the last ten years, it can be concluded that if school principals' responsibilities are increased while their administrative time and support are not increased proportionately, greater stress for school principals is an inevitable result. It is recommended that administrators be given the needed time, resources and training to deal with these increased demands. According to Gmelch and Swent (1984) "since time is finite, emphasis must be placed on its more effective 121 use. Through time management training, not only can individual and organizational time be increased, but greater success may reduce the stress produced by time pressures" (p.203). Administrators would benefit from workshops and district programs that include task and time management information. This training might also include learning how to screen or handle phone calls, conduct effective meetings, obtain community support, utilize techniques for managing paper work, develop strategies for dealing with student discipline, and applying proven methods for resolving conflicts among students, parents and the school. While a cause and effect relationship can not be inferred from the data obtained comparing the number of coping techniques "frequently used" by high versus low stressed principals, it can be concluded that principals who have more extensive coping repertoires are more likely to be in better health and experience lower levels of stress and it can also be concluded that if principals coping repertoires are increased, the effect of work-related stress for school administrators is also likely to decline. According to Gmelch (1988b) "coping with stress is a holistic and polytechnic proposition" (p.231). He states that effective coping consists of building a repertoire of techniques equally distributed among all of the coping categories. It is recommended that all principals, through regular annual professional development activities, become knowledgeable and skillful in applying various proven coping strategies. Persons concerned with the health and "wellness" of school administrators should support these principals by helping facilitate in-service opportunities where these principals can develop a broad spectrum of coping techniques. The conceptual framework for this investigation was based upon Person-Environment Fit Theory (French, 1974). According to this theory there are two types of fit between the person and the environment. The first is the extent to which the individual's skills and abilities match the demands and requirements of his job. The second is the extent to which the job environment satisfies the needs of the person. According to this theory, job-related stress occurs when there is a misfit between the person and the work environment (Botts, 1986; Feitler & Tokar, 1986). The findings from this study with regards to the relationship between personal and environmental 122 variables and administrative stress are consistent with this theory and support the conclusion that "Person-Environment fit theory" provides a useful model for investigating administrative stress and coping. It is recommended that senior district administrators consider both the characteristics of individual principals and the nature of specific work environments when selecting and placing principals in particular school assignments. Research should be undertaken to investigate personality characteristics of school principals in conjunction with measures of administrative stress to determine if there are differences among the sources and levels of stress experienced and coping techniques used by different personality types. This may have implications for principal selection and placement. REFERENCES Albrech, K. (1979). Stress and the manager. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Balcom, S. (1993, February 24). Stressed-out principals battle heart attacks, ulcers. The Vancouver Sun, pp. A l . A16. Balcom, S. (1994, March 19). Pay review for school chiefs welcomed. The Vancouver Sun. p. A3. Beehr, T., & Franz, T. (1987). The current debate about the meaning of job stress. Journal of Organizational and Behavioral Management. 8(2), 5-18. Bergin, M., & Solman, R. (1988). Perceptions of role related stress in senior educational executives and its relationship to their health. Journal of Educational Administration. 26 (2). 159-183. Bishop, B. M. (1986). Administrative stress: An investigation of the differences between district-level administrators' and school-based administrators' perceptions of occupational stress factors in a large urban school district (Doctoral Dissertation, Auburn University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47/07T 2383. Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 27. 279-302. Blase, J. J. (1984). A data based model of how teachers cope with work stress. Journal of Educational Administration. 22 (2). 173-191. Bognar, C , & Associates (1990). The role of the elementary school principal and the vice-principal in the Vancouver school system. Vancouve Elementary School Administrators' Association. Botts, J. S. (1986). Self-perceptions of Iowa public school superintendents toward occupational stress (Doctoral dissertation, Drake University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47/05. 1541. 123 124 Bucuvalas, M. P. (1987) The perception of stress levels by secondary school principals in relation to age, experience in position, educational preparation and size of school student population (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47/12. 4245. Buzzelh-White, M. L. (1988). A study of Colorado principals' Coping skills to manage job-related stress and their school districts' efforts to assist the principals in stress management (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International. 50/02. 312. Campbell, L., & Williamson, J. (1986). Stresss and the elementary school principal. Principal. 65(4), 39-41. Cooper, L. W. (1988). Stress coping preferences of principals. NASSP Bulletin. 72, 85-87. Cooper, C , & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 49, 11-28. Cooper, B. S., Sieverding, J. W., & Muth, R. (1988). Principals' management behavior, personality types and physiological stress. Journal of Educational Administration. 26 (2), 197-221. Cox, T. (1978). Stress. Baltimore: university Park Press. Cross, B.J.W. (1985). Perceived stressors, self-reported health status, and coping techniques of public school administrators in Georgia. Dissertation Abstracts International. 46. 1787A-1788A. (University Microfilms No. 85-19, 596). Cusack, J. L. F. (1983). Stress and the pricipalship: A comparative study of elementary and secondary principals in Virginia public schools (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International. 43/01. 3164. Duke, D. L. (1980). Why principals consider quitting. Phi Delta Kappan. 70 (4), 308-312. Duncan, CW. (1980). Coping with stress. Day Care and Early Education. 7(3), 18-21. Fallon, B. (1981). The third world: escape from stress and burnout. NASSP Bulletin. 65 (449), 28-30. Farkas, J. P. (1983). Occupational stress as affected by locus of control and situational powerlessness. Montreal, Quebec: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 047). 125 Farkas, J. P. (1984). Stess and the school principal: Old myths and new findings. Administrator's Notebook. 30, 1-4. Feitler, F. C , & Tokar, E. B. (1986). School administrators and organizational stress: Matching theory, hunches and data. Journal of Educational Administration. 24 (2), 254-271. Finaldi, A E . (1983). The relationship between measured levels of stress, coping preferences, and selected demographic variables exhibited by public elementary and middle school principals of Connecticut (Doctoral dissertation, University of Bridgeport, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 46/04. 854. Foster, F. L. (1986). Stress perception among Kentucky secondary school principals (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Kentucky, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48/02. 265. French, J. R. P. Jr. (1974). Person role fit. In Allan McLean (Ed), Occupational Stress. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Gmelch, W. H. (1977). Beyond stress to effective management. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 140 440). Gmelch, W. H. (1978). The principals next challenge: The twentieth century art of managing stress. NASSP Bulletin. 62 (415), 5-12. Gmelch, W. (1982). Management team stressors and their impact on administrators' health. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. March. Gmelch, W. H. (1983). Stress, health, and coping strategies of public school administrators. Phi Delta Kappan, 64. 512-514. Gmelch, W. H. (1988a). Research perspectives on administrative stress: causes, reactions, responses and consequences. Journal of Educational Administration. 26 (2), 134-140. Gmelch, W. H. (1988b). Educators' response to stress: Towards a coping taxonomy. Journal of Educational Administration. 26 (2), 222-231. Gmelch, W., & Swent, B. (1981). Stress and the principalship: strategies for self-improvement and growth. Naasp bulletin. 65(449), 14-18. Gmelch, W. H., Koch, J. L., Swent, B., & Tung, R. (1982). What stresses school administrators and how they cope. New York, NY. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 218 760). Gmelch, W.H., & Swent, B. (1981). Stress and the principalship: Strategies for self-improvement and growth. NASSP Bulletin. 65. 16-19. 126 Gmelch, W. H., Swent, B., Koch, J. L., & Tung, R. (1982). Job stress among school administrators: Factorial dimensions and differential effects. Journal of Applied Pschology. 67, 493-499. Gmelch, W. H., & Torrelli, J. A. (1993). The association of role conflict and ambiguity with administrator stress and burnout. Atlanta, GA. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 359631). Gmelch, W.H., & Wilke, P.K. (1986). Dimensions of stress among university faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. Research in Higher Education. 24(3). 266-286. Goeller, K. A. (1992). Indiana female principals' perceptions of occupational stress and effective coping resources (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International. 54/05. 1610. Gorton, D. (1982) Administrator stress: Some suprising research findings. Planning and Changing. 12, 195-199. Gray, K. F. (1983). Administrative stress: An application of the person environment (P-E) fit theory (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International. 43/12. 3767. Gray, G. & Guppy, N. (1994). Successful surveys: Research methods and practice. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company, Canada. Gray-Grant, J. (1992, February 7). Surrey investigates job stress illuminated by deaths of school officials. The Vancouver Sun. Greenberg, S., & Valletutti, P. (1980). Stress and the helping professions. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Harrison, J. B. (1991). The relationship between perceived sources of stress, coping preferences, and selected demographic variables exhibited by public elementary school principals of Texas (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1992). Dissertations Abstracts International. 52/11.3782. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Heinze, K.L. (1987). The dimensionalities of stress and their relationships to administrative characteristics. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48/10. 2499. 127 Heibert, B. (1983). A framework for planning stress control interventions. Canadian Counsellor. IZ 51-61. Heibert, B. (1987). Refining understandings about stressors, stress, and coping. Canadian School Executive. 6 (10). 12-17. Hibler, N. (1981, April) Early warning signs of stress. In K. Cutler. Making the best of stress. Airman Magazine. Howard, J., Rechnitzer, P., & Cunningham, D. (1975). Coping with job tensions - effective and ineffective methods. Public Personnel Management. 4, 317-326. Huff, E. F. (1991). A descriptive study of perceived stress in elementary school principals in Delaware (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International 52/11. 3784. Hume. S. (1994, March 7). We just keep adding more to the education equation. The Vancouver Sun, p. A l l , Iuzzolino, R. D. (1986). Perceived job-related stressors and coping strategies among high school principals in Pennsylvania (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47/07. 2396. Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, U: Scott Foresman and Company. Kadlecek, D.J. (1982). An analysis of the relationship between stress and the public school principalship (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1983) Dissertation Abstracts International. 44/01. 31. Kelsey, G., Lupini, D., & Clinton, A. (1995). The effects of legislative change on the work of British Columbia school superintendents. Richmond, B.C. Report presented to the annual meeting of the British Columbia School Superintendents' Association. Kets de Vries, M. (1979). Organizational stress: A call for management action. Sloan Management Review. 21(1). 3-14. Kiev, A., & Kohn, V. (1979). Executive Stress. New York: AMACOM. Koch, J. L., Tung, R., Gmelch, W., & Swent, B. (1982). Job stress among school administrators: Factorial dimensions and differential effects. Journal of Applied Psychology. 67 (4), 493-499. Koff, R., Laffey, J., Oson, G., & Cichon, D. (1980). Stress and the school administrators. Administrator's Notebook. 28. 1-4. 128 Lam, Y. L. J. (1988). External environmental constrains and job-related stress on school administrators. Journal of Educational Administration. 26 (2), 250-265. Leach, D. J. (1984). A model of teacher stress and its implications for management. Journal of Educational Administration. 22 (2). 157-171. Leary, J. F. (1987); Stress, time management, and selected demographic factors of elementary school principals in Connecticut (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48/12. 3022. Lutton, T. A. (1988). A study of burnout, stress, and coping strategies among elementary principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International. 50/03. 586. Mandeville, B. (1984). Sources of job-related stress as perceived by public school principals in South Carolina (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1984) Dissertation Abstracts International. 45/01. 2716. Marshall. G. L. (1981). A survey study of the perceptions of Kansas school adminstrators on occupational sources of stress (Doctoral dissertation. Kansas State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41/01. 2861-2862. Maslach, C. & Pines, A. (1977). The burnout syndrome in the day care setting. Child Care Quarterly. 6. 110-113. Matteson, M., & Ivancevich, J. (1982). Managing job stress and health. New York: The Free Press. McMurray, J. G. (1984). Self report data on the interactive nature of stress in Canadian elementary school principals. Guelph, Ontario. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Educational Psychology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272 809). Mills, R.J. (1981). Psychological stress and coping techniques among selected elementary school principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles). Dissertaion Abstracts International. 42, 08A. Milstein, M., & Farkas, J. (1988). The over-stated case of educator stress. Journal of Educational Administration. 26, 232-249. Moore, E.M. (1987). A study of the relationships between elemenatary and secondary school administrators' perceptions regarding stressful activities and responsibilities in the public schools of Washington, D.C. (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48/06. 1370. 129 Morrison, D.E. (1977). Stress and the public administrator. Public Administration Review. 3 (4), 407-414. Murphy, M. (1982). The relationship of selected variables to stress and job satisfaction of elementary school principals (Doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts Internations. Newman, J., & Beehr, T. (1979,). Personal and organizational strategies for handling job stress: A review of research and opinion. Personnel Psychology. 32. 1-43. Ogden, D. L. (1992). Administrative stress and burnout among public school administrators in Georgia (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University—College of Education, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. 53/05. 1349. Olsen, C. F. (1984). The relationship of selected variables and perceived burnout among principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International. 45/01. 11. Patterson, J. (1990). Stress management techniques for the 1990's. Unpublished paper. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 330 132). Parker, D., & DeCotiis, T. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 32, 160-177. Popham, W.J. (1988). Educational Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Presley, P. H. & Ewing, N. J. (1988). Job-related stress factors and special education adminisrative positions. Case in Point. 2 (2), 5-8. Public and Independent Schools Book. (1993). Victoria, British Columbia. Ministry of Education. Data Systems Management. Ratsoy, E.W., Sarros, J .C, & Aidoo-Taylor, N. (1986). Organizational stress coping: A model and empirical check. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32 (4), 270-285. Richmond, P.D. & Campsall, A.A. (1992). Stress experienced by school-based administrators in a British Columbia central interior school district: An exploratory study and qualitative analysis. Unpublished major paper, University of Victoria. Robertson, F.R., & Matthews, K.M. (1988). How principals can cope with stress. NASSP Bulletin. 72 (5091 79-85. Robinson, N., & Wallin, J. H. A. (1989). The quiet crisis in educational administration. The Canadian School Executive. 9, 8-10. 130 Roesch, M. B. (1979). A study of the relationship between degree of stress and coping preferences among elementary school principals (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41/02. 488. Rosen, A. H. (1981). Occupational stress and productivity: strategies for physical and fiscal health. Journal of the Florida Medical Association. 68, 274-280. Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and development: Some issues and some questions. Jounal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 22, 323-356. Saffer, S. (1984). Stress and the educational administrator: A synthesis of dissertation research. New Orleans, LA. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 269 568). Sarros, J.C. & Friesen, D. (1987). The etiology of administrator bunrout. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 33 (3), 163-179. Savery, L. K., & Detiuk, M. (1986). The perceived stress levels of primary and secondary principals. Journal of Educational Administration. 24 (2), 272-281. Schuetz, K. (1980). Sources of perceived stress: Experienced by Illinois principals (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41/01. 1884. Schwab, R., & Iwanicki, E. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity and teacher burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60-74. Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia: Lipincott. Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life (rev. ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Spradling, C. W. (1984). The relationship among elementary principal characteristics and job stress factors and perceived effectiveness and frequency of use of stress coping techniques (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International. 45/03. 717. SPSS/PC+: Version 4.0.1 [Computer program]. (1990). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.. Steckman, M. (1982). Perceptions of educational administration in Alaska toward stressful conditions related to their jobs (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International. 43/01. 619-620. Swent, B. (1983). How administrators cope with stress. Theory Into Practice. 22 (1), 70-74. 131 Swent, B., & Gmelch, W. H. (1977). Stress at the desk and how to creatively cope. Eugene, OR. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 21 (4). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 658). Tanner, C. K., Schnittjer, C. J., & Atkins, T. T. (1991). Effects of the use of management strategies on stress levels of high school principals in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration Quarterly. 27 (2), 203-224. Thompson, J. W. (1985). Stress and burnout: A comparison of principals in North Carolina school districts (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47/04. 1148. Thomson, N. L. (1988). Social support, stress and the secondary public school administrator (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International. 49/11.3232. Torrelli, J. A. (1990). Sex roles and perceived job stress of Washington elementary principals. Boston, MA. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E D 324 765). Torrelli, J. A., & Gmelch, W. H. (1992). Occupational stress and burnout in educational administration. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 698). Tung, R.L. (1979). Occupational stress profiles of nale versus female administrators. New York: NY: Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 190 936). Vander Zanden, J. P. (1982). Causes of job stress, methods of coping, and level of job satisfaction among school district administrators and high school principals in Wisconsin (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International 43/07. 2195. Wallis, C. (1983, June 6). Stress, can we cope? Time. 121. 48-54. Warner, W.R. (1980). School administrator stress: prevalence, sources, symptoms, and coping approacher. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41/09. 3831. Washington, K. R. (1982). Stress: Is it a major problem for urban school principals? The Clearing House. 55. 389-391. Whan, L. (1988). "It's Friday and I know it!" Observational of a principal at work. Journal of Educational Administration, 26 (2), 141-158. 132 Wiggins, T. (1983). Occupational stressors and administrative role in educational organizations. Montreal, Quebec: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 874). Williamson, J., & Campbell, L. (1987). Stress in the principalship: What causes it? NASSP Bulletin. 71 (5031109-112. Wright, D. C. (1987). Stress and the middle manager: A study of elementary and middle school administrators in the Prince George's county public schools (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48/04. 804. Yackel, I. (1984). An analysis of leadership styles and stress in the rural principalship. Regina. Saskatchewan School Trustees Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 260 511). Zwick, B. P. (1992). Administrative burnout: A comparative study of the levels and perceptions of burnout of high school principals and superintendents (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International. 53/07. 2202. APPENDIX A 133 134 Wjl B . C . Principals' & Vice-Principals' Association Quality Leadership in Education May 27, 1994 Dear Colleague, The attached survey is part of a province-wide study being conducted by Don Allison, a graduate student in the Department of Educational Administration at the University of British Columbia, in cooperation with our association. The purpose of the survey is to determine the sources of occupational stress and preferred coping strategies employed by public elementary and-secondary school principals. Stress has been identified as a major concern for school administrators. Our association has been active in developing workshops focusing on "wellness" in response to expressed needs. Don's research has the potential for creating an excellent data-base enabling ourselves and others to grapple with the multitude of stressors impacting the building principal. It is critical to the study that we receive your response. We have provided a return-posted envelope for your convenience. The results will be published in the BCPVPA journal Adminfo and will be useful in the development of future BCPVPA wellness workshop modules as well as Don's research. Thank you for taking the time to assist in this very important project. Randy LaBonte, Director Professional Development & Communications ARLaB #2550 - 1185 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4E6 (604) 689-3399 / 1-800-663-0432 Fax: 689-3880 135 T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T1Z4 June, 1994 Dear Principal: It is apparent that school principals today have a very challenging job in which they are required to respond to a variety of stressful situations. Very little data has been gathered to date from those who administer educational programs across the province. However, it is acknowledged that the principal's job grows more complex and challenging each year. The purpose of this study (Stress and Stress Coping Preferences of Elementary and Secondary School Principals) is to determine which work situations you perceive as the most stressful and the techniques you use to cope with job stress. This survey is addressed to all the public elementary and secondary school principals in the province of British Columbia. Please take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Your participation in this study will add to the literature in this area and perhaps highlight specific common needs where support services could be requested and provided in the future. Participation is strictly voluntary and individuals may refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without prejudice. By completing the questionnaire you will indicate your willingness to participate in this study. Your participation is critical in collecting sufficient information. Your anonymity is assured in that names are not requested on the questionnaire. Please return your completed questionnaire in the self-addressed, business reply envelope at your earliest convenience (no later than July 7, 1994). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at either Quilchena Elementary School, 668-6224 or Mitchell Elementary School, 668-6225 or at home, 731-7681. Thank you in advance for your participation in this study. Sincerely, Don Allison Graduate Student Educational Administration 136 T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A Faculty of Education Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education 212S Main Mall Vancouver, B . C V6T1Z4 Survey Questionnaire This questionnaire is part of a study on Stress and Stress Coping Preferences of Elementary and Secondary School Principals. This purpose of this study is to determine which work situations principals find to be the most stressful and which techniques are most often used by principals to cope with job-related stress. Investigators: Don Allison, M.A. student in Educational Administration Dr. Graham Kelsey, research supervisor, Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education, U.B.C. Address: 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4 Phone: 822-6381 (U.B.C.) or 668-6224 (Quilchena Elementary School) or 668-6225 (Mitchell Elementary School) Note The questionnaire should take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Participation in the study is strictly voluntary-and individuals may refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without prejudice. Since respondents are not asked to provide names, the questionnaire will be processed anonymously and no individual responses can be identified. If a questionnaire is completed and returned, it will be assumed that the respondent has voluntarily agreed to take part in the study. To reduce bulk, please remove this page before mailing. 137 ADMINISTRATIVE STRESS INDEX School administrators have identified the following work-related situations as sources of concern. It's possible that some of these situations bother you more than others. How much are Y O U bothered by each of the situations listed below? Please circle the appropriate response. Rarely or Not never Occasionally Frequently Applicable bothers me bother me bothers me • l l Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls N/A 1 2 3 4 5 2 Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people N/A 1 2 3 4 5 3 Feeling staff members don't understand my goals and expectations N/A 1 2 3 4 5 4 Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job N/A 1 2 3 4 5 5 Knowing I can't get information needed to cany out my job properly N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me N/A 1 2 3 4 5 7 Trying to resolve differences between/among students N/A 1 2 3 4 5 8 Feeling not enough is expected of me by my superiors N/A 1 2 3 4 5 9 Having my work frequently interrupted by staff members who want to talk N/A 1 2 3 4 5 10 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself N/A 1 2 3 4 5 11 Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what I think is reasonable N/A 1 2 3 4 5 138 Rarely or Not never Occasionally Frequently Applicable bothers me bother me bothers me 12 Writing memos, letters and other communications N/A 1 2 3 4 5 13 Trying to resolve differences with my superiors N/A 1 2 3 4 5 14 Speaking in front of groups N/A 1 2 3 4 5 15 Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, Mends, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 16 Not knowing what my supervisor thinks of me, or how he/she evaluates my performance N/A 1 2 3 4 5 17 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 18 Feeling I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time N/A 1 2 3 4 5 19 Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by my superior N/A 1 2 3 4 5 20 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts N/A 1 2 3 4 5 21 Preparing and allocating budget resources N/A 1 2 3 4 5 22 Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me N/A 1 2 3 4 5 23 Handling student discipline problems N/A 1 2 3 4 5 139 Rarely or Not never Occasionally Frequently Applicable bothers me bother me bothers me 24 Being involved in the collective bargaining process N/A 1 2 3 4 5 25 Evaluating staff members' performance N/A 1 2 3 4 5 26 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal work day N/A 1 2 3 4 5 27 Complying with provincial and organizational rules and policies N/A 1 2 3 4 5 28 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be N/A 1 2 3 4 5 29 A<lministering the negotiated contract (grievances, interpretations, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 30 Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are N/A 1 2 3 4 5 31 Feeling that meetings take up too much time N/A 1 2 3 4 5 32 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time N/A 1 2 3 4 5 33 Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members N/A 1 2 3 4 5 34 Trying to influence my immediate supervisor's actions and decisions that affect me N/A 1 2 3 4 5 35 Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs N/A 1 2 3 4 5 What is your greatest work-related source of stress? What is your greatest personal (not work-related) source of stress? 140 C O P I N G P R E F E R E N C E S C A L E Here are some of the ways that people deal with job pressures. Please indicate the extent to which you use any or all of these identified coping strategies. Not Almost Almost Applicable never Sometimes always 1 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 2 Delegate responsibility N/A 1 2 3 4 5 3 Maintain a sense of humor N/A 1 2 3 4 5 4 Withdraw physically from the situation (Leave the office or the school for a time) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 5 Eneaee in active non-work or play activities (ce~ boating, camping, fishing, gardening, golfing, painting, playing a musical instrument, etc) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 Practice good human relation skills with staff", students and parents N/A 1 2 3 4 5 7 Work harder (including evenings and weekends) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 8 Engage in activities that support spiritual growth (inspirational music, art, reading or religion) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 9 Maintain good health habits (e.g^ watch weight, eat balanced meals, reduce intake of caffeine and refined sugar, keep proper concentrations of vitamins, etc) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 10 Prioritize and use time management techniques (Le^ management by objectives, set up blocks of time for specific activities, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 11 Talk with family members or close friends N/A 1 2 3 4 5 12 Eneaee in less active non-work or play activities (e.e.. dine out, attend cultural or sporting events, movies, crafts, listen to music, read or watch TV, etc) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 13 Maintain regular sleep habits N/A 1 2 3 4 5 14 Break from daily routine or temporarily change to a less stressful task N/A 1 2 3 4 5 141 Not Almost Almost Applicable never Sometimes always 15 Talk to district administrators or other school principals N/A 1 2 3 4 5 16 Community Involvement (eg., coaching, service dub membership, volunteering, etc) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 17 Approach problems optimistically and objectively N/A 1 2 3 4 5 18 Regular physical exercise (eg., aerobics, athletics, bicycling, fitness dub, jogging, hiking, skiing, swimming, tennis, walking, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 19 Use relaxation and stress management techniques (eg-, auto-hypnosis, biofeedback, meditation, yoga, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 20 Compartmentalize work and non-work life N/A 1 2 3 4 5 21 Establish office procedures so that visitors are screened (limit "open door policy") and unplanned interruptions are kept to a minimum N/A 1 2 3 4 5 22 Create more positive and self-supportive mental sets (eg , use positive self-talk, recognize pros as well as cons, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 4 23 Take mini-vacations (eg, weekends away, etc.) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 24 Seek solitude slow down work pace take time to reflect N/A 1 2 3 4 5 25 S n r i a l i r i n g (r £ Itiru-h w i t h n t h / r c , p l a y i n g card* rtr ) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 26 Utilize inservice opportunities to increase repertoire of management and communication skills. N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Recognizing that yours is a demanding profession, list one or two additional coping techniques that you personally have used in handling the tensions and pressures of your job. OTHER: 28 OTHER: 142 D E M O G R A P H I C A N D B IOGRAPHIC I N F O R M A T I O N Instructions: Please take time to complete this form as completely and accurately as possible. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. School District Number Type of School: Elementary Middle School _ Age: under 30 30 to 39 Gender: Male Female Marital status: Singie Married Number of family members who depend on you: # Jr. Secondary 40 to 49 Sr. Secondary Jr7Sr. Secondary 50 to 59 60 + Bachelor's (including present year) Principalship Divorced/Separated Children # Parents or other relatives Doctorate Master's Vice-Principalship increase, Highest degree obtained: Years at present school: Years in administration: What percentage of your time is officially assigned to administration this year ? Is the time officially assigned to administration in your school next year likely to: or remain the same? Considering the immediate past and future student enrollment projections, is the size of your school increasing decreasing or remaining stable? Approximately how many hours do you work per week: hours How many vice-principals do you have to assist you? decrease For how many schools, including annexes, are you responsible? How many teachers will you formally evaluate this year? Approximately how many teachers do you supervise? Approximately what percentage of your staff has less than five years teaching experience? % Approximately what percentage of your teachers will transfer out of your school at the end of this year? Approximately how many different school administrators do you interact with in a typical week? Is the "loneliness of command" (administrative isolation) a source of stress for you? Yes Does your district have an established program to support administrators in coping with stress? In your opinion, what percentage of the total stress in your life results from your job? % Do you feel that principals are under greater stress than others members of your community? Yes If you have been a school administrator for 10 or more years, do you perceive that principals now experience (substantially less stress) N/A 1 2 3 4 5 (substantially more stress) than 10 years ago? No Yes No No 26. Do you feel that you are receiving adequate financial compensation for your work? 27. Is coping with limited resources a serious problem for you in your school? Yes — 28. Do you feel you get adequate support from the senior district administration? Yes 29. To what extent does the community support the educational program of your school? (less than satisfactory support) 1 J. 3 4 5 _ (strong support) Yes No No No 30. Approximately how many days have you been absent due to illness this school year? 31. How would you rate your current health: (Poor) 1 2 3 4 5 (Excellent) days 32. Approximately how many hours per week do you devote to physical exercise? 33. During the past year, have you seriously considered leaving school administration? 34. Currently, are you replacing a principal who is away due to illness? Yes hours Yes No No APPENDIX B 143 144 3528 W. 23rd Ave. Vancouver, B.C. V6S 1K5 February 27, 1994 Dr. Walter H. Gmelch Chairman Department of Educational Administration & Supervision Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-2136 Dear Dr. Gmelch, I am a graduate student in the Department of Educational Administration at the University of British Columbia. For my M.A. thesis I am planning to do a study on adrninistrative stress with elementary school principals in British Columbia. One purpose of the proposed study is to examine the effect that the new collective bargaining structure has on administrative stress. In the past few years, strikes and lockouts have occurred in many B.C. school districts. One objective of this study will be to find out if there is a difference in the stress levels perceived by school administrators in districts whose school boards settled their collective agreements amicably and those districts where the climate was strained due to strikes and lockouts. I am writing to ask your permission to use the Administrative Stress Index (ASI), which has proven itself to be a very useful instrument in a large number of studies. Iplan to modify item #27 to fit the Canadian education system by changing "state" to "provincial". I will be happy to report my findings to you when the study is completed. Yours truly, Don Allison APPENDIX C 145 146 1 F«TM 40 NnrWHOinMr 2 Cnrbrxx 41 Sumaty 3Kanb«tey 42 Uaplt RUQ> P K U M O M <3 OxMCam 9 Casatgtr 44 No* V f c X O M r 4SWMVkncouwr n u i 4« Sun*** Cot* 12 Gaud forts 47 PwriFfctr 48 How Sound M Saxhm Okm*^n 49 O r a l Coal IS PMiCkNI SO OUMR Oartodi 16 KtrttTMOC 52 PHnc* Hupot T7 Ptmokxi S4BuH<y\Mrr flGddm SSSutmUta SHnaMaki S S N K M O 57 Mum Q W B J SptfiuractMtii S3 KMC* PJMT South t O P M O i R M r N o r t ) 61 G m V k U l l 62 Soa* 26 Nortfi Thompson aSunJdi 27 brfcoaCNeotin 64 Gu( Hindi 28 0uami 65 CoMdvn 29Lloc« 66 Uta Cowchm XSouthCatoo 60 Nnino 31 Uwria 68 Omfctn SHopt 70 Mora XJCtiftnc* 71 CourMy 34 AMotttarf 72 Cnpbol RMT SSUighy 7S kfinion 38 Sumy 76 tqtwizHinkon 37 M U 77 Sunrartand 3S FSctvnond 80Ktn« \ 3 9 \Ancouwf 81 Fort Htkton MVkraaMrHMWal S3 TunEouwr nna n a n n 96 Cra*m«Hfe g&fchi '*!*','-% \ 88 % m o i 89 Stamp •**«.' s^z, Figure C l . British Columbia School Districts 147 Table C l British Columbia School Trustees' Association Geographic Grouping of School Districts Geographic Area District No. School District East Kootenay Fraser Valley Mainline Cariboo Metropolitan 1 Fernie 2 Cranbrook 3 Kimberley 4 Windermere 18 Golden 86 Creston-Kaslo 32 Hope 33 Chilliwack 34 Abbotsford 35 Langley 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows 75 Mission 76 Agassiz-Harrison 24 Kamloops 26 North Thompson 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin 29 Lilooet 30 South Cariboo 31 Merritt 49 Central Coast 36 Surrey 37 Delta 38 Richmond 39 Vancouver 40 New Westminister 41 Burnaby 43 Coquitlam 44 North Vancouver 45 West Vancouver Table CI Continued Geographic Area District No. School District North Coast South Coast 50 Queen Charlotte 52 Prince Rupert 54 Bulkley Valley 80 Kitimat 88 Terrace 92 Nisga'a 46 Sunshine Coast 47 Powell River 48 Howe Sound North Interior 28 Quesnel 55 Burns Lake 56 Nechako 57 Prince George 59 Peace River South 60 Peace River North 81 Fort Nelson 87 Stikine Okanagan 13 Kettle Valley 14 South Okanagan 15 Penticton 16 Keremeos 17 Princeton 19 Revelstoke 21 Armstrong-Spallumcheen 22 Vernon 23 Central Okanagan 77 Summerland 89 Shuswap Table CI Continued Geographic Area District No. School District Vancouver Island 61 Greater Victoria 62 Sooke 63 Saariich 64 Gulflslands 65 Cowichan 66 Lake Cowichan 68 Nanaimo 69 Qualicum 70 Alberni 71 Courtnay 72 Campbell River 84 Vancouver Island West 85 Vancouver Island North West Kootenay 7 9 10 11 12 Nelson Castlegar Arrow Lakes Trail Grand Forks 150 Table C2 Supplementary Information about British Columbia School Districts: Centralization, District Enrollment, Strikes/Lockouts, and Grievances * Dist. No. District District Admin. Structure 2 District Enrollment Strikes/ Lockout/ Disputes ^ Category of Formal Grievance4 1 Fernie C 3212 32.5 D 2 Cranbook C 4263 2 D 3 Kimberley c 1525 0 A 4 Windermere c 1375 0 B 7 Nelson FD 3894 0 A 9 Castlegar C 2235 0 C 10 Arrow Lakes C 836 0 D 11 Trail C 3529 0 A 12 Grand Forks C 1506 0 D 13 Kettle Valley C 601 0 E 14 South Okanagan C 2417 21 E 15 Penticton C 5677 1 B 16 Keremeos C 645 0 E 17 Princeton C 798 0 D 18 Golden C 1519 0 E 19 Revelstoke C 1727 0 A 21 Armstrong C 1719 0 B 22 Vernon C 9480 0 C 23 Central Okanagan C 19512 0 B 24 Kamloops c 15957 0 D 26 North Thompson c 1092 0 A 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin c 8615 0 C 28 Quesnel c 5084 0 E 29 Lillooet c 1025 0 C 30 South Cariboo c 1296 9 A Table C2 Continued 151 Dist. No. District District Admin. Structure 2 District Enrollment Strikes/ Lockout/ Disputes ^ Category of Formal Grievance4 31 Merritt C 2077 0 B 32 Hope C 1531 0 E 33 Chilliwack c 9769 0 C 34 Abbotsford c 15733 0 B 35 Langley FD 17495 9 C 36 Surrey C 46220 0 B 37 Delta C 17012 1.5 A 38 Richmond C 21784 0 A 39 Vancouver ID 53426 31.5 B 40 New Westminister C 3900 0 E 41 Burnaby C 20575 0 A 42 Maple Ridge C 12008 7.5 C 43 Coquitlam C 26791 0 B 44 North Vancouver C 16157 1.5 D 45 West Vancouver C 5974 0 A 46 Sunshine Coast C 3805 0 E 47 Powell River C 3238 29 D 48 Howe Sound C 3856 0 B 49 Central Coast C 383 0 E 50 Queen Charlotte c 1060 0 C 52 Prince Rupert C 3780 0 C 54 Bulkley Valley C 2939 0 D 55 Burns Lake C 1580 0 B 56 Nechako C 3494 0 C 57 Prince George ID 18988 0 A 59 Peace River South C 5548 0 C 60 Peace River North C 5658 0 D 61 Greater Victoria C 22651 12.5 C 62 Sooke C 8505 1 B 63 Saanich C 7861 9 A 64 Gulf Islands C 1709 0 E 152 Table C2 Continued Dist. No. District District Admin. Structure 2 District Enrollment Strikes/ Lockout/ Disputes Category of Formal Grievance4 65 Cowichan C 7965 4 D 66 Lake Cowichan C 1038 0 C 68 Nanaimo c 15676 18.5 C 69 Qualicum c 4561 0 E 70 Alberni c 6126 5.5 D 71 Courtenay c 9097 0 B 72 Campbell River c 7055 0 A 75 Mission c 6421 10 E 76 Agassiz-Harrison c 869 0 E 77 Summerlahd c 1791 0 B 80 Kitimat c 2442 22.5 C 81 Fort Nelson FD 1108 0 A 84 Van. Island West C 874 18.5 E 85 Van. Island North C 2891 12.5 D 86 Creston C 2261 0 A 87 Stikine C 354 0 C 88 Terrace C 5321 5 A 89 Shuswap C 5051 0 B 92 Nishga'a C 508 0 D 1 Information was obtained from the following sources: Dr. D. Brown, Faculty of Education, U.B.C. — District administrative structure. British Columbia Teachers' Federation — District enrollment, strikes, lockouts and grievances. ^District administrative structure: C - Centralized district administration. FD - Formally decentralized district administration. ID - Informally decentralized district administration. -*Days lost due to strikes, lockout, and third party labor disputes. 4Formal grievances filed per 1000 teachers. A = 0 t o l 4 B = 15to31 C = 32to48 D = 49to98 E = 99to300 APPENDIX D 153 154 Table D l Respondents Classified by Administrative Level and Gender Gender Male Female Admin. Level Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary Frequency 327 139 146 21 Valid % 51.7 22.0 23.1 3.3 Total n = 633 Missing Cases =10 Table D2 Respondents Classified by Age Age 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-65 Frequency 48 237 299 52 Valid % * 7.5 37.3 47.0 8.2 Mean = 55.0 Standard Deviation = 7.50 Median = 51.0 Total n = 636 Missing Cases = 7 Table D3 Respondents Classified by Marital Status Marital Status Single Married Divorced/Separated Widowed Frequency 31 544 52 5 Valid % 4.9 86.1 8.2 0.8 Total n = 632 Missing Cases =11 155 Table D4 Number of Respondents Reporting Various Number of Dependent Children Number of Children 0 1 2 3 4 5 + Frequency Valid % 224 88 211 35.3 13.9 33.2 82 24 12.9 3.8 6 1.0 Mean = 1.4 Total n = 635 Standard Deviation = 1.27 Missing Cases = 8 Table D5 Median = 1.5 Number of Respondents Reporting Various Number of Dependent Parents or Other Relatives Relatives 0 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency Valid % 483 102 35 76.2 16.1 5.5 11 2 1.7 0.3 1 0.2 Mean = 0.3 Total n = 634 Standard Deviation = 0.71 Missing Cases = 9 Table D6 Median = 0.2 Respondents Classified by Hours Devoted to Exercise in a Typical Week Hours 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 Frequency 118 194 168 77 29 32 Valid % 18.6 30.6 26.5 12.2 4.6 5.1 Hours 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20 Frequency 5 6 1 2 1 Valid % 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.2 Mean = 4.1 Total n = 633 Standard Deviation = 3.10 Missing Cases =10 Median = 4.0 156 Table D7 Respondents Classified by Number of Days Absent Due to Illness in Current School Year Days 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 Frequency Valid % 550 51 86.8 8.0 21 3.3 6 0.9 2 0.3 Days 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45 + Frequency Valid % 0 2 0 0.3 0 0 1 0.2 1 0.2 Mean = 2.3 Total n = 634 Standard Deviation = Missing Cases = 9 5.06 Median = 1.0 Table D8 Respondents' Rating of Current Health Response 1 Poor 2 3 Average 4 5 Excellent Frequency 2 21 96 304 212 Valid % 0.3 3.3 15.5 47.9 33.4 Mean = 4.1 Standard Deviation = 0.80 Median = 4.0 Total n = 635 Missing Cases = 8 Table D9 Respondents Reporting Highest University Degree Earned Degree Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Frequency 95 530 11 Valid % 14.9 83.3 1.7 Total n = 636 Missing Cases = 7 157 Table D10 Respondents Classified by Years as at Present School Years 0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-26 27 + Frequency 335 224 47 15 7 4 1 Valid % 52.9 35.4 7.4 2.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 Mean = 4.2 Standard Deviation = 3.58 Median = 3.3 Total n = 633 Missing Cases = 10 Table D l l Respondents Classified by Years as School Principal Years 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 Frequency 167 161 124 93 53 23 12 Valid % 26.4 25.4 19.6 14.7 8.4 3.6 1.9 Mean = 10.4 Standard Deviation = 7.59 Median = 8.9 Total n = 633 Missing Cases = 10 Table D12 Respondents Classified by Years as School Vice-Principal Years 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25 + Frequency 392 184 49 5 2 1 Valid % 61.9 29.1 7.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 Mean = 4.0 Total n = 633 Standard Deviation = 3.74 Missing Cases =10 Median = 3.4 158 Table D13 Respondents Classified by Hours Worked Per Week Hours 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-90 Frequency 2 108 321 158 23 5 Valid % 0.4 17.5 51.0 25.6 3.8 0.8 Mean = 54.0 Standard Deviation = 7.51 Median = 54.4 Total n = 617 Missing Cases = 26 Table D14 Do Administrators Perceive They Receive Adequate Financial Compensation? Response Yes No Frequency 385 245 Valid % 61.1 38.9 Total n = 630 Missing Cases =13 Table D15 Respondents' Answer to the Question, Are You Replacing a Principal Who is Away Due to Illness? Response Yes No Frequency 18 619 Valid % 2.8 97.2 Total n = 637 Missing Cases = 6 159 Table D16 Respondents Classified by Percentage of Time Assigned to Administration % Time 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-69 60-69 Frequency 5 3 14 14 21 34 52 Valid % 0.8 0.5 2.2 2.2 3.3 5.4 8.3 % Time 70-79 80-89 90-100 Frequency 41 128 328 Valid % 6.5 20.3 51.8 Mean = 82.3 Standard Deviation = 22.84 Total n = 630 Median = 90.1 Missing Cases =13 Table D17 Respondents' Prediction of Probable Changes in Official Time Assigned to Administration Time Allotted Increasing Remain the Same Decreasing Frequency 41 423 171 Valid % 6.5 66.6 26.9 Total n = 635 Missing Cases = 8 Table Dl8 Respondents' Prediction of Probable Changes in School Enrollments Enrollment Increasing Remain the Same Decreasing Frequency 295 255 85 Valid % 46.5 40.2 13.4 Total n = 635 Missing Cases = 8 160 Table D19 Number of Vice-Principals Reported by Respondents Number of Vice-principals 0 1 2 3 4 Frequency 254 298 69 11 2 Valid % 40.1 47.0 10.9 1.7 0.3 Total n = 634 Missing Cases = 9 Table D20 Number of Schools for which the Respondent is Responsible Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 Frequency 543 72 9 0 1 1 Valid % 86.7 11.5 1.4 0 0.2 0.2 Mean = 1.2 Standard Deviation = 0.46 Median = 1.1 Total n = 626 Missing Cases =17 Table D21 Number of Teachers Formally Evaluated by Respondents Teachers 0-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28-35 35 + Frequency 539 69 5 2 1 1 Valid % 86.7 11.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 Mean = 3.7 Standard Deviation 3.74 Total n = 622 Missing Cases = 21 Median = 3.0 161 Table D22 Number of Teachers Supervised by Respondents Teachers 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Frequency Valid % 100 15.7 239 37.5 158 24.8 120 7.8 29 4.6 Teachers 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91+ Frequency Valid % 13 2.1 18 2.8 9 1.4 8 1.3 4 0.7 Mean = 24.3 Total n = 637 Standard Deviation = Missing Data = 6 17.45 Median = 16.3 Table D23 Respondents' Report of the Percentage of Teachers with Fewer than Five Years' Experience Percentage 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 Frequency Valid % 270 42.7 203 32.1 90 14.2 31 4.9 14 2.2 Percentage 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 Frequency Valid % 9 1.4 4 0.6 5 0.8 4 0.6 5 0.8 Mean =13.1% Standard Deviation = 15.11% Median = 9.9% Total n = 633 Missing Cases =10 162 Table D24 Respondents' Prediction of the Percentage of Teachers Transferring Out of Their Schools Percentage 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 Frequency 386 139 65 21 Valid % 61.3 22.1 10.3 3.4 Percentage 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 Frequency 5 12 Valid % 0.8 1.9 2 0.4 1 0.2 Mean = 8.9% Standard Deviation = 11.22% Total n = 631 Median = 5.1% Missing Cases =12 Table D25 Respondents' Answer to the Question, Is Coping With Limited Resources a Problem? Response Yes No Frequency 392 Valid % 61.9 241 38.1 Total n = 633 Missing Cases = 10 Table D26 Respondents' Indication of Community Support for the School 1 2 3 Support Unsatisfactory Adequate 4 5 Strong Support Frequency 6 41 107 Valid % 0.9 6.4 16.8 299 47.0 183 28.8 Mean = 4.0 Standard Deviation = 0.89 Median = 4.0 Total n = 636 Missing Cases = 7 163 Table D27 Number of Respondents with Appointments in Districts Classified by Enrollment District Oto 1000 to 4000 to 13000 to 20000 to Enrollment 999 3,999 12,999 19,999 26,999 27,000 + Number of 14 110 177 144 84 96 Respondents Valid % 2.2 VL6 28J 23J) ]3A 15.4 Mean =18,171 Median = 13,558 Total n = 625 Missing Cases = 18 Table D28 Number of Respondents in Centralized and Decentralized Districts Formally Informally Administration Centralized Decentralized Decentralized No. of Respondents 526 30 69 Valid % 84.2 4.8 11.0 Total n = 625 Missing Cases = 18 Table D29 Number of Respondents whose Districts Lost School Days due to Strikes or Lockouts Days Lost 0 1-3 4 -8 9-13 14-21 22-37 Frequency 303 47 55 118 80 22 Valid % 48.5 7.5 8.8 18.8 12.8 3.5 Mean =1.51 Median =1.56 Total n = 625 Missing Cases = 18 164 Table D30 Number of Respondents in Districts Experiencing Grievance, 1989-1994 Grievances/1000 Teachers 0-14 15-31 32 - 48 49-98 99 - 300 Frequencies 134 202 137 99 53 Valid % 21.4 32.3 21.9 15.8 8.5 Mean = 41.2 Median = 19 Total n = 625 Missing Cases = 18 Table D31 Respondents' Indication of Support From Senior Administration Adequate Support Yes No Frequency 418 214 Valid % 66.1 33.9 Total n = 632 Missing Cases = 11 Table D32 Respondents' Report of District Coping Programs Response Yes, there is a program No, there is not a program Frequency 152 477 Valid % 23.6 74.2 Total n = 629 Missing Cases =14 Table D33 Number of Administrators Respondents Usually Interacted With in a Typical Week Principals 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25 + Frequency 372 187 49 12 8 2 Valid % 59.0 29.7 7.8 1.9 1.3 0.3 Mean = 4.7 Standard Deviation = 3.75 Median = 4.0 Total n = 630 Missing Cases = 13 Table D34 Respondents' Report of Administrative Isolation Response Yes, it is a problem No, it is not a problem Frequency 299 337 Valid % 46.5 52.4 Total n = 636 Missing Cases = 7 APPENDIX E 166 167 Table E l The Coping Preference Scale: Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis Item No. Factor I Factor II Factor HI Factor rv" Factor V Factor VI Factor VTI 18 .82704 .11546 -.03349 -.00157 .06577 .08261 .13184 9 .75032 .02095 .12311 .16312 -.09452 .11254 -.80796 5 .72262 .20469 .11815 -.01224 .21475 -.05562 .14128 13 .39074 -.00211 .39627 .13661 .10157 -.11285 -.39908 20 .39562 .36719 -.04528 .22505 .14498 . .06918 -.19827 24 .04533 .75799 -.01703 .22588 .03890 .01521 -.06996 25 .07129 .55844 .31541 .06330 .03284 -.07733 .14934 4 .10670 .51951 -.02231 -.26176 .17346 .24396 .20372 23 .13608 .51508 .25234 .14267 .19430 .06078 -.00242 14 .14856 .44854 .30293 -.03622 .00485 .11878 -.05233 19 .22817 .35994 .03691 .33682 -.26027 .28038 .06672 11 .08686 .02373 .76386 .07820 -.00421 .18796 .03265 12 .05793 .21824 .63841 .14758 .05092 -.09251 -.13584 15 -.05390 .12727 .52938 -.05044 .23234 .10911 .15414 8 .31138 .21010 .33262 .27292 -.05433 .06920 .09697 17 .04336 .09027 -.06431 .67706 .32873 -.01296 .06366 6 .12395 -.10775 .14017 ,57941 .24482 -.01341 -.01769 22 -.00452 .38984 .10012 .54974 .00837 .18111 -.03631 26 .09818 .24391 .25745 .41347 -.05251 .07647 .20526 1 .19606 .06740 .10056 .14230 .67986 .18781 -.16836 2 -.00687 .20129 .04553 .09596 .64081 .21301 -.04587 3 .02021 -.01333 .12156 .26073 .59994 -.21909 .22739 21 -.02513 .16090 .14316 -.06819 .04895 .72267 .01356 10 .19855 -.01795 .04033 .29383 .18701 .61828 -.00536 16 .17498 .08371 .06612 .07772 .03801 -.04720 .72499 7 -.27090 -.33570 -.01418 .19835 -.28749 .20790 .42424 Factor I: Good Physical Health Program Factor V: Realistic Perspective Factor II: Withdrawal and Recharging Factor VI: Time Management & Organization Factor HI: Intellectual, Social & Spiritual Support Factor TV: Positive Attitude Factor VII: Increased Involvement 168 Table E2 Administrative Stress Index: Rank Orders, Means, & Standard Deviations Rank ASI Item Item No. Mean Standard Deviation 1 Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I can not possibly finish during the normal working day 26 3.41 1.26 2 Feeling that meetings take up too much time 31 3.34 1.11 3 Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts 20 3.25 1.10 4 Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time 32 3.18 1.33 5 Administering the negotiated contract (grievances, interpretations, etc.) 29 3.15 1.25 6 Imposing excessively high expectations on myself 10 3.08 1.16 7 Feeling that I have to participate in school activities outside of the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time 18 3.04 1.20 8 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) 17 2.95 1.04 9 Being interrupted frequently by phone calls 1 2.88 1.01 10 Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members 33 2.80 1.11 11 Complying with Provincial and District rules and policies 27 2.78 1.15 12 Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should 28 2.75 1.17 or could be 169 Table E2 Continued Rank ASI Item Item No. Mean Standard Deviation 13 Handling student discipline problems 23 2.72 1.15 14 Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs 35 2.71 1.16 15 Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what I think is reasonable 11 2.70 1.21 16 Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me 22 2.69 1.34 16 Trying to resolve differences between/among students 7 2.69 1.20 18 Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people 2 2.57 1.06 18 Feeling that staff members don't understand my goals and expectations 3 2.57 1.05 20 Evaluating staff members' performance 25 2.56 1.07 21 Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me 6 2.53 1.18 22 Writing memos, letters and other communications 12 2.49 1.00 23 Knowing I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly 5 2.41 1.12 23 Having my work frequently interrupted by staff members who want to talk 9 2.41 1.09 25 Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, friends, etc.) 15 2.39 1.20 26 Not knowing what my supervisor thinks of me, or how 16 2.38 1.20 he/she evaluates my performance 170 Table E2 Continued Rank ASI Item Item No. Mean Standard Deviation 27 Trying to influence my immediate supervisor's actions and decisions that affect me 34 2.28 1.14 28 Preparing and allocating budget resources 21 2.26 1.04 29 Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are 30 2.21 1.10 30 Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by my superior 19 2.16 1.09 31 Being involved in the collective bargaining process 24 2.09 1.51 32 Speaking in front of groups 14 2.06 1.07 33 Trying to resolve differences with my superiors 13 2.00 1.03 34 Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job 4 1.79 1.02 35 Feeling not enough is expected of me by my superiors 8 1.32 0.72 Mean = 90.60 Standard Deviation = 19.50 Item Mean = 2.59 Missing Data = 42 Coefficient Alpha Reliability =0.908 171 Table E3 A Comparison of ASI Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High (top 30%) and Low (bottom 30%) Total Stress Scores High ASI Scores Low ASI Scores Item No. Rank Mean Rank Mean 1 13 3.3495 7 2.4242 2 15 3.2913 19 1.9192 3 20 3.0777 15 1.9848 4 34 2.3447 34 1.2828 5 24 2.9660 '27 1.7222 6 17 3.2233 24 1.7778 7 18 3.2087 12 2.1263 8 35 1.4272 35 1.1111 9 26 2.9369 23 1.7828 10 7 3.7233 6 2.4343 11 10 3.4806 22 1.8434 12 23 3.0437 18 1.9293 13 33 2.4272 31 1.4949 14 32 2.5485 29 1.6465 15 22 3.0485 20 1.8636 16 25 2.9417 25 1.7626 17 11 3.4709 8 2.3535 18 6 3.7524 9 2.3232 19 28 2.8495 33 1.4343 20 3 3.8204 2 2.6364 21 29 2.8155 26 1.7576 22 12 3.4563 21 1.8586 23 19 3.1796 11 2.1869 24 31 2.6845 30 1.5000 25 21 3.0583 17 1.9444 26 1 4.2282 4 2.5505 27 8 3.5437 16 1.9646 28 9 3.5146 14 2.0051 29 5 3.7816 3 2.5556 30 27 2.9223 32 1.4495 31 2 3.8252 1 2.7626 32 4 3.8155 • 5 2.5404 33 14 3.3010 10 2.2727 34 30 2.7961 28 1.7020 35 16 3.2718 13 2.0404 172 Table E4 Coping Preference Scale: Rank Orders, Means, and Standard Deviations Rank CPS Item Item Standard No. Mean Deviation 1 Practice good human relation skills with staff, student, and parents 6 4.32 0.71 2 Maintain a sense of humor 3 4.25 0.83 3 Approach problems optimistically and objectively 17 4.03 0.75 4 Maintain regular sleep habits 13 3.79 1.02 5 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations) 1 3.69 0.88 6 Delegate responsibility 2 3.64 0.83 7 Talk with family members or close friends 11 3.56 1.10 8 Engage in active non-work or plav activities (e.g.. boating, camping fishing, gardening, golfing, painting, playing a musical instrument, etc.) 5 3.52 1.22 9 Engage in less active non-work or plav activities (e.g., dine out, attend cultural or sporting events, movies, crafts, listen to music, read or watch TV., etc.) 12 3.44 1.02 10 Work harder (including evenings and weekends) 7 3.37 1.15 11 Talk to district administrators or other school principals 15 3.27 0.98 12 Maintain good health habits (e.g., watch weight, eat balanced meals, reduce intake of caffeine and refined sugar, keep proper concentration of vitamins, etc.) 9 3.26 1.20 13 Regular physical exercise (e.g., aerobics, athletics, bicycling, fitness club, jogging, hiking, skiing, swimming, tennis, walking, etc.) 18 3.21 1.28 14 Prioritize and use time management techniques (i.e., 10 3.17 1.05 Management by Objectives, set up blocks of time for specific activities, etc.) 173 Table E4 Continued Item Standard Rank CPS Item No. Mean Deviation 15 Utilize Inservice opportunities to increase repertoire of management and communication skills 26 3.15 1.00 16 Compartmentalize work and non work life 20 3.07 1.182 17 Create more positive and self-supportive mental sets (e.g., use positive self-talk, recognize pros as well as cons, etc.) 22 3.05 1.15 18 Break from daily routine or temporarily change to a less stressful task 14 2.95 0.98 19 Seek solitude, slow down work pace, take time to reflects 24 2.86 1.06 20 Take mini vacations (e.g., weekends away, etc.) 23 2.73 1.20 21 Engage in activities that support spiritual growth (inspirational music, art, reading or religion) 8 2.69 1.35 22 Community involvement (e.g., coaching, service club membership, volunteering, etc.) 16 2.46 1.23 23 Socializing (e.g., lunch with others, playing cards, etc.) 25 2.39 1.07 24 Withdraw physically from the situation (leave the office or the school for a time) 4 2.03 1.08 25 Establish office procedures so that visitors are screened (limit "open door policy") and unplanned interruptions are kept to a minimum 21 1.89 1.04 26 Use relaxation and stress management techniques (e.g., auto 19 1.50 1.00 hypnosis, biofeedback, mediation, yoga, etc.) CPS Total Mean = 81.36 Standard Deviation = 11.40 Missing Data = 28 Coefficient Alpha Reliability 0.805 Item Mean = 3.13 174 Table E5 A Comparison of CPS Item Ranks and Means: Respondents Classified as Having High (top 30%) and Low (bottom 30%) Total Stress Scores High ASI Scores Low ASI Scores Item No. Rank Mean Rank Mean 1 8 3.4109 5 3.9592 2 7 3.4829 7 3.7665 3 2 4.0637 2 4.3827 4 24 2.0537 24 2.0203 5 11 3.2488 6 3.8071 6 1 4.2439 1 4.4949 7 4 3.6878 17 3.1269 8 21 2.3756 19 2.9746 9 12 3.0683 11 3.3756 10 13 3.0195 12 3.3249 11 6 3.5659 8 3.5888 12 9 3.2976 9 3.5076 13 5 3.6293 4 4.0203 14 16 2.9073 18 3.0051 15 10 3.2780 15 3.2132 16 23 2.2927 22 2.6091 17 3 3.8244 3 4.2538 18 15 2.9951 10 3.4365 19 26 1.4878 26 1.5279 20 18 2.8564 13 3.3077 21 25 1.9069 25 1.8832 22 17 2.8676 14 3.2602 23 20 2.5000 20 2.9492 24 19 2.6585 21 2.9137 25 22 2.3463 23 2.5431 26 14 3.0049 16 3.2081 175 Table E6 Relationship Between CPS Items and Total ASI Item Correlation Coefficient of No. CPS Item Coefficient Deterrnination P< r r^ j Practice good human relation skills with staff, student, 300 090 * * and parents 2 Maintain a sense of humor -.186 035 * * 3 Approach problems optimistically and objectively - 170 029 * * 4 Maintain regular sleep habits 006 000 5 Set realistic goals (recognize job limitations) -208 043 * * 6 Delegate responsibility -.164 027 * * 7 Talk with family members or close friends -212 045 * * Engage in active non-work or play activities (e.g., g beating, camping fishing, gardening, golfing, painting, -\12 029 * * playing a musical instrument, etc.) Engage in less active non-work or play activities (e.g., g dine out, attend cultural or sporting events, movies, Q , . , * crafts, listen to music, read or watch TV., etc.) 10 Work harder (including evenings and weekends) - 111 012 * U Talk to district administrators or other school principals -.017 .000 Maintain good health habits (e.g., watch weight, eat j2 balanced meals, reduce intake of caffeine and refined sugar, keep proper concentration of vitamins, etc.) Prioritize and use time management techniques (i.e., Management by Objectives, set up blocks of time for specific activities, etc.) .009 Regular physical exercise (e.g., aerobics, athletics, 1 3 bicycling, fitness club Jogging, hiking, skiing, _ 1 7 g Q 3 2 swimming, tennis, walking, etc.) .003 176 Table E6 Continued Item No. CPS Item Correlation Coefficient r Coefficient of Determination r2 P< 15 Utilize Inservice opportunities to increase repertoire of management and communication skills .049 .002 16 Compartmentalize work and non work life -.125 .016 * 17 Create more positive and self-supportive mental sets (e.g., use positive self-talk, recognize pros as well as cons, etc.) -.275 .076 ** 18 Break from daily routine or temporarily change to a less stressful task -.158 .025 ** 19 Seek solitude, slow down work pace, take time to reflects -.024 .001 20 Take mini vacations (e.g., weekends away, etc.) -.147 .022 ** 21 Engage in activities that support spiritual growth (inspirational music, art, reading or religion) .006 .000 22 Community involvement (e.g., coaching, service club membership, volunteering, etc.) -.176 .031 ** 23 Socializing (e.g., lunch with others, playing cards, etc.) -.208 .043 ** 24 Withdraw physically from the situation (leave the office or the school for a time) -.129 .017 ** 25 Establish office procedures so that visitors are screened (limit "open door policy") and unplanned interruptions are kept to a minimum -.062 .004 26 Use relaxation and stress management techniques (e.g., auto hypnosis, biofeedback, mediation, yoga, etc.) -.113 .013 * n = 577 1-tailed test of significance * = .01 ** = .001 177 Table E7 Variable Labels and Descriptions Variable Label Variable A G E Administrator's age GENDER Gender DEPEND 1 Dependent children DEPEND2 Dependent parents or other relatives , DEGREE Highest University degree earned YRPRSNT Years at present school YRSPRINC Years as school principal YRSVICE Years as a vice-principal PRCNTADM Percent of time assigned to administration HRSWORK Hours worked per week VICEPRTN Number of vice principals to assist NSCHOOLS Number of schools responsible for E V A L U A T E Number of teachers evaluated SUPRVISE Number of teachers supervised LESSEXPR Number of teachers with less than five years experience TRANSOUT Number of teachers expected to transfer out INTERACT Number of administrators interacted with in a typical week ISOLATE Is admin, isolation a problem COPPRGRM District coping program to support administrators PRCNTSTR Percent of total life stress due to the job GRSTRESS Greater stress than others in the community STRESSNOW Stress compared with 10 years ago PAY Adequate financial compensation RESOURCE Is coping with limited resources a problem ASUPPORT Adequate support from senior district admin. CSUPPORT Extent of community support for school SCKLEAVE Number of days absent due to illness H E A L T H How do you rate your current health EXERCISE Hours per week devoted to exercise CONSQUIT Seriously considered leaving administration REPLACE Replacing a principal who is away due to illness ENROLL Pupil enrollment in school district RSCHOOL School reclassified as elementary or secondary DECENT Decentralized school districts GRIEVE Grievance per 1000 teachers STRIKE Days lost due to strikes and lockouts ASITOTAL Total ASI score 178 T A B L E E8 Correlation Matrix of Biographic and Demographic Variables and Total Score on the Adminstrative Stress Index jrrelations: 1 AGE GENDER DEPEND1 DEPEND2 DEGREE YRSPRSNT AGE 1.0000 -.0333 -.2078** .0342 -.0988 .1974** GENDER -.0333 1.0000 -.2644** .0440 .0385 -.1608** DEPEND1 -.2078** -.2644** 1.0000 .1161* .1040* .0247 DEPEND2 .0342 .0440 .1161* 1 .0000 -.0061 .0207 DEGREE -.0988 .0385 .1040* -.0061 1.0000 -.0568 YRSPRSNT .1974** -.1608** .0247 .0207 -.0568 1.0000 YRSPRINC .4081** -.3168** -.0786 .0808 -.1518** .2895** YRSVICE .1031* -.1115* -.0319 -.0126 .0026 -.0189 PRCNTADM .1811** -.1514** -.0093 .0579 .1665** .0347 HRSWORK -.1182* .1165* -.0104 -.0193 .1300* -.1252* VICEPRIN .1324** -.1448** .0275 .0051 .1046* .0766 NSCHOOLS .0509 -.0613 -.0023 -.0217 .0682 .0463 EVALUATE .0564 -.0937 .0545 .0617 .0710 .0909 SUPRVISE .1495** -.1168* .0223 .0700 .1700** .0516 LESSEXPR -.0867 .0745 -.0824 -.0433 .0858 -.0730 TRANSOUT -.0349 .0823 -.0697 -.0561 .0385 -.0524 INTERACT .0540 -.0549 .0805 .0721 .1005 .0025 ISOLATE .1228* -.1141* .0421 -.0061 .0864 .0844 COPPRGRM .0147 -.0015 -.0174 -.0527 .0015 -.0008 PRCNTSTR .0025 -.0301 -.1155* -.0602 -.0559 .0657 GRSTRESS .0074 .0640 -.0337 .0272 .0362 .0200 STRESNOW .3745** -.2898** -.0198 .0796 -.0269 .1951** PAY -.0399 -.0070 .0813 .0342 -.0108 .0093 RESOURCE .0294 -.0037 -.0009 -.0292 .0055 .0592 ASUPPORT .0281 .0289 -.0191 .0244 -.0074 .0141 CSUPPORT .0645 -.0348 .0523 .0337 .0546 .0063 SCKLEAVE .0269 .1317** -.0916 -.0199 -.0648 -.0631 HEALTH .0806 .0215 -.0548 .0102 .1455** .0131 EXERCISE .0993 -.1567** -.0140 .0570 -.0216 .0427 CONSQUIT .0101 . 0380 .0720 .0138 .0508 -.0260 REPLACE .0133 -.0271 -.0066 .0025 .0153 .0792 ENROLL .1275* .2007** -.0809 .0875 .0879 -.2207** RSCHOOL .0414 -.1750** .0728 .0396 .1339** .1413** DECENT .0367 .0623 -.0272 .0612 .0405 -.1335** GRIEVE -.0704 -.0333 .0418 .0247 -.0611 .0794 STRIKE -.0182 .0589 .0192 .0115 -.0055 -.0422 ASITOTAL .0480 .0579 .0044 .0240 -.1102* .0123 179 TABLE E8 Continued Correlations: 1 YRSPRINC YRSVICE PRCNTADM HRSWORK VICEPRIN NSCHOOLS AGE .4081** .1031* .1811** -.1182* .1324** .0509 GENDER - .3168** -.1115* -.1514** .1165* -.1448** -.0613 DEPEND1 - .0786 -.0319 -.0093 -.0104 .0275 -.0023 DEPEND2 .0808 -.0126 .0579 -.0193 .0051 -.0217 DEGREE - .1518** .0026 .1665** .1300* .1046* .0682 YRSPRSNT .2895** -.0189 .0347 -.1252* .0766 .0463 YRSPRINC 1 . 0000 -.2345** .3038** -.1999** .1547** .0387 YRSVICE - .2345** 1.0000 .1150* .0478 .1595** .0519 PRCNTADM .3038** .1150* 1.0000 .0265 .4742** .1281* HRSWORK - .1999** .0478 .0265 1.0000 .2129** .0648 VICEPRIN .1547** .1595** .4742** .2129**. 1.0000 .2327** NSCHOOLS .0387 .0519 .1281* .0648 .2327** 1.0000 EVALUATE .1153* -.0004 .2738** .1490** .3772** .0627 SUPRVISE .0967 .2306** .4990** .2192** .7736** .2259** LESSEXPR - .1711** -.1175* -.1319** .1560** -.1376** -.0081 TRANSOUT - .1141* -.0204 -.1381** .0285 -.1660** .0545 INTERACT .0756 .1040* .2599** .1377** .3228** .0676 ISOLATE .1970** .0333 .0944 -.0762 .2273** -.0185 COPPRGRM - .0029 -.0564 -.1399** .0943 .0257 .0890 PRCNTSTR .0175 .0191 .1054* .1675** .0928 .0432 GRSTRESS - .0164 -.0094 -.0790 -.1198* -.0342 -.0493 STRESNOW .5804** .2388** .3632** °-.0818 .1865** .0896 PAY - .1271* .0320 -.0471 .1144* .0665 .0247 RESOURCE .0627 -.0838 -.0488 -.1149* -.0697 .0764 ASUPPORT - .0165 -.0087 .0302 .0511 .0527 .0100 CSUPPORT .0658 .0208 .0297 -.0821 .0353 -.0325 SCKLEAVE .0289 -.0792 -.0153 -.0373 -.0333 -.0558 HEALTH - .0027 -.0125 .0118 -.0704 -.0190 -.0115 EXERCISE .2329** -.0065 .0530 -.1247* .0286 .0264 CONSQUIT - .0088 .0125 .0269 -.0354 -.0012 -.0778 REPLACE .0820 -.0791 . .0624 -.0369 -.0292 .0084 ENROLL - .0816 .1872** .3061** .0024 .1047* -.0213 RSCHOOL - .0577 .1686** .1837** .2640** .5392** .2070** DECENT - .0701 .1152* .0638 -.0014 .0293 .0318 GRIEVE -.0297 -.0387 -.0943 -.0089 -.0313 .0243 STRIKE -.1092* .0951 .1142* -.0414 .0711 .0253 ASITOTAL .0152 .0161 -.0087 .1136* -.0524 .0698 180 TABLE E8 Continued jrrelations: 1 EVALUATE SUPRVISE LESSEXPR TRANSOUT INTERACT ISOLATE AGE .0564 .1495** -.0867 -.0349 .0540 .1228* GENDER -.0937 -.1168* .0745 .0823 -.0549 -.1141* DEPEND1 .0545 .0223 -.0824 -.0697 .0805 .0421 DEPEND2 .0617 .0700 -.0433 -.0561 .0721 -.0061 DEGREE .0710 .1700** .0858 .0385 .1005 .0864 YRSPRSNT .0909 .0516 -.0730 -.0524 .0025 .0844 YRSPRINC .1153* .0967 -.1711** -.1141* .0756 .1970** YRSVICE -.0004 .2306** -.1175* -.0204 .1040* .0333 PRCNTADM .2738** .4990** -.1319** -.1381** .2599** .0944 HRSWORK .1490** .2192** .1560** .0285 .1377** -.0762 VICEPRIN .3772** .7736** -.1376** -.1660** .3228** .2273** NSCHOOLS .0627 .2259** -.0081 .0545 .0676 -.0185 EVALUATE 1.0000 .3964** .0699 -.1589** .1552** .1677** SUPRVISE .3964** 1.0000 -.1153* -.1495** .3368** .1475** LESSEXPR .0699 -.1153* 1.0000 .2769** -.0529 -.0662 TRANSOUT -.1589** -.1495** .2769** 1.0000 -.0340 -.1501** INTERACT .1552** .3368** -.0529 -.0340 1.0000 .1265* ISOLATE .1677** .1475** -.0662 -.1501** .1265* 1.0000 COPPRGRM .0485 -.0533 .0024 -.0055 -.0948 -.0420 PRCNTSTR .0477 .0760 .0325 .0227 .0055 -.2347** GRSTRESS . 0072 -.0391 -.0672 -.0249 -.0219 .1443** STRESNOW . 0964 .2238** -.2151** -.0945 .1482** .0976 PAY . 0300 .0145 -.0008 .0258 .0356 -.1171* RESOURCE -.0535 -.1116* .0270 -.0360 -.1122* .1412** ASUPPORT .0986 .0705 -.0399 .0002 .0631 , -.1649** CSUPPORT .0357 .0166 -.1297* -.1316** .0039 .1280* SCKLEAVE -.0738 -.0851 -.0043 .0689 -.0330 -.0581 HEALTH -.0430 -.0279 -.0351 -.0619 -.0101 .1885** EXERCISE -.0102 .0114 -.1345** -.0375 .0625 .1634** CONSQUIT -.0362 -.0258 -.0439 -.0422 -.0252 .2275** REPLACE -.0196 -.0630 .0412 .0267 -.0088 .0102 ENROLL -.0462 .2671** .0058 .0541 .2213** -.0168 RSCHOOL .3023** .6115** .0471 -.0689 .1653** .0929 DECENT -.0108 .0976 .0292 -.0548 .1468** -.0149 GRIEVE -.0889 -.1326** -.0107 .0541 -.1029 .0234 STRIKE -.0191 .0986 -.0356 .0435 .0637 .0515 ASITOTAL -.0197 -.0136 .0095 .0139 -.0071 -.3771** 181 TABLE E8 Continued Correlations: 1 COPPRGRM PRCNTSTR GRSTRESS STRESNOW PAY RESOURCE AGE .0147 .0025 .0074 .3745** -.0399 .0294 GENDER -.0015 -.0301 .0640 -.2898** -.0070- -.0037 DEPEND1 -.0174 -.1155* -.0337 -.0198 .0813 -.0009 DEPEND2 -.0527 -.0602 .0272 .0796 .0342 -.0292 DEGREE .0015 -.0559 .0362 -.0269 -.0108 .0055 YRSPRSNT -.0008 .0657 .0200 .1951** .0093 .0592 YRSPRINC -.0029 .0175 -.0164 .5804** -.1271* .0627 YRSVICE -.0564 .0191 -.0094 .2388** .0320 -.0838 PRCNTADM -.1399** .1054* -.0790 .3632** -.0471 -.0488 HRSWORK .0943 .1675** -.1198* -.0818 .1144* -.1149* VICEPRIN .0257 .0928 -.0342 .1865** .0665 -.0697 NSCHOOLS .0890 .0432 -.0493 .0896 .0247 .0764 EVALUATE .0485 .0477 .0072 .0964 .0300 -.0535 SUPRVISE -.0533 .0760 -.0391 .2238** .0145 -.1116* LESSEXPR .0024 .0325 -.0672 -.2151** -.0008 .0270 TRANSOUT -.0055 .0227 -.0249 -.0945 .0258 -.0360 INTERACT -.0948 .0055 -.0219 .1482** .0356 -.1122* ISOLATE -.0420 -.2347** .1443** .0976 "-.1171* .1412** COPPRGRM 1.0000 .0762 .0163 -.0489 .0652 .0541 PRCNTSTR .0762 1.0000 -.1710** .0796 .1174* -.1351** GRSTRESS .0163 -.1710** 1.0000 -.0757 -.1459** .1937** STRESNOW -.0489 .0796 -.0757 1.0000 -.0456 -.0180 PAY .0652 .1174* -.1459** -.0456 1.0000 -.2187** RESOURCE .0541 -.1351** .1937** -.0180 -.2187** 1.0000 ASUPPORT .0623 .1569** -.0820 .0125 .1784** -.1827** CSUPPORT -.0272 -.1499** .0847 .0738 -.0104 .1004 SCKLEAVE -.0028 .0196 .0004 .0376 .0270 -.0616 HEALTH -.0198 -.1628** .1423** -.0088 -.0655 .1234* EXERCISE .0475 - . 0 2 5 2 .1330** .1836** .0275 .0534 CONSQUIT -.0077 -.2869** .1023 -.0566 -.0597 .0813 REPLACE -.0025 .0477 -.1148* .0626 -.0586 -.0420 ENROLL -.2593** -.0139 -.0324 .0632 -.0974 -.0946 RSCHOOL .0858 .0767 -.0706 .0246 .0594 -.0900 DECENT -.0922 .0394 .0727 .0270 -.0311 -.0518 GRIEVE .1299* .0229 .0257 .0061 .0763 .0032 STRIKE -.0558 -.0380 .0143 .0010 -.0143 -.1002 ASITOTAL .0335 .2900** -.1849** .1084* .0949 -.1568** 182 TABLE E8 Continued Correlations: 1 ASUPPORT CSUPPORT SCKLEAVE HEALTH EXERCISE CONSQUIT AGE .0281 .0645 .0269 .0806 .0993 .0101 GENDER .0289 -.0348 .1317** .0215 -.1567** .0380 DEPEND1 -.0191 .0523 -.0916 -.0548 -.0140 .0720 DEPEND2 .0244 .0337 -.0199 .0102 .0570 .0138 DEGREE -.0074 .0546 -.0648 .1455** -.0216 .0508 YRSPRSNT .0141 .0063 -.0631 .0131 .0427 -.0260 YRSPRINC -.0165 .0658 .0289 -.0027 .2329** -.0088 YRSVICE -.0087 .0208 -.0792 -.0125 -.0065 .0125 PRCNTADM .0302 .0297 -.0153 .0118 .0530 .0269 HRSWORK .0511 -.0821 -.0373 -.0704 -.1247* -.0354 VICEPRIN .0527 .0353 -.0333 -.0190 .0286 -.0012 NSCHOOLS .0100 -.0325 -.0558 -.0115 .0264 -.0778 EVALUATE .0986 .0357 -.0738 -.0430 -.0102 -.0362 SUPRVISE .0705 .0166 -.0851 -.0279 .0114 -.0258 LESSEXPR -.0399 -.1297* -.0043 -.0351 -.1345** -.0439 TRANSOUT .0002 -.1316** .0689 -.0619 -.0375 -.0422 INTERACT .0631 .0039 -.0330 -.0101 .0625 -.0252 ISOLATE -.1649** .1280* -.0581 .1885** .1634** .2275** COPPRGRM .0623 -.0272 -.0028 -.0198 .0475 -.0077 PRCNTSTR .1569** -.1499** .0196 -.1628** -.0252 -.2869** GRSTRESS -.0820 .0847 .0004 .1423** .1330** .1023 STRESNOW .0125 .0738 .0376 -.0088 .1836** -.0566 PAY .1784** -.0104 .0270 -.0655 .0275 -.0597 RESOURCE -.1827** .1004 -.0616 .1234* .0534 .0813 ASUPPORT 1.0000 -.0357 .0053 -.0899 .0367 -.1753** CSUPPORT -.0357 1.0000 -.0140 .1852** .0710 .0909 SCKLEAVE .0053 -.0140 1.0000 -.1845** -.0738 -.0493 HEALTH -.0899 .1852** -.1845** 1.0000 .2885** .1521** EXERCISE .0367 .0710 -.0738 .2885** 1.0000 -.0046 CONSQUIT -.1753** .0909 -.0493 .1521** -.0046 1.0000 REPLACE -.0257 .0140 -.1171* .0111 -.0220 .0485 ENROLL .0733 .0536 .0618 .0330 -.0694 .0420 RSCHOOL .0211 -.0851 -.0851 -.0616 -.0463 -.0440 DECENT .0278 .0069 -.0436 .1057* -.0013 -.0070 GRIEVE .0050 -.0016 -.0220 .0110 .0287 .0067 STRIKE .0680 .0001 -.0117 .0376 -.0013 .0425 ASITOTAL .1961** -.1514** .0442 -.1682** -.1411** -.2587** 183 TABLE E8 Continued Correlations: 1 REPLACE ENROLL RSCHOOL DECENT GRIEVE STRIKE AGE .0133 .1275* .0414 .0367 -.0704 -.0182 GENDEIV -.0271 .2007** -.1750** .0623 -.0333 .0589 DEPEND1 -.0066 -.0809 .0728 -.0272 .0418 .0192 DEPEND2 .0025 .0875 -.0396 .0612 -.0247 .0115 DEGREE .0153 .0879 .1339** .0405 -.0611 -.0055 YRSPRSNT .0792 -.2207** .1413** -.1335** .0794 -.0422 YRSPRINC .0820 -.0816 -.0577 -.0701 -.0297 -.1092* YRSVICE -.0791 .1872** .1686** .1152* -.0387 .0951 PRCNTADM .0624 .3061** .1837** .0638 -.0943 .1142* HRSWORK -.0369 .0024 .2640** -.0014 -.0089 -.0414 VICEPRIN -.0292 .1047* .5392** .0293 -.0313 .0711 NSCHOOLS .0084 -.0213 .2070** .0318 .0243 .0253 EVALUATE -.0196 -.0462 .3023** -.0108 -.0889 -.0191 SUPRVISE -.0630 .2671** .6115** .0976 -.1326** .0986 LESSEXPR .0412 .0058 .0471 .0292 -.0107 -.0356 TRANSOUT . 0267 .0541 -.0689 -.0548 .0541 .0435 INTERACT -.0088 .2213** .1653** .1468** -.1029 .0637 ISOLATE .0102 -.0168 .0929 -.0149 .0234 .0515 COPPRGRM -.0025 -.2593** .0858 -.0922 .1299* -.0558 PRCNTSTR .0477 -.0139 .0767 .0394 .0229 -.0380 GRSTRESS -.1148* -.0324 -.0706 .0727 .0257 .0143 STRESNOW .0626 .0632 .0246 .0270 .0061 .0010 PAY -.0586 -.0974 .0594 -.0311 .0763 -.0143 RESOURCE -.0420 -.0946 -.0900 -.0518 .0032 -.1002 ASUPPORT -.0257 .0733 .0211 .0278 .0050 .0680 CSUPPORT .0140 .0536 -.0851 .0069 -.0016 .0001 SCKLEAVE -.1171* .0618 -.0851 -.0436 -.0220 -.0117 HEALTH .0111 .0330 -.0616 .1057* .0110 .0376 EXERCISE -.0220 -.0694 -.0463 -.0013 .0287 -.0013 CONSQUIT .0485 .0420 -.0440 -.0070 .0067 .0425 REPLACE 1.0000 -.0531 -.0605 .0631 .0714 .0781 ENROLL -.0531 1.0000 -.0879 .3728** -.3614** .2982** RSCHOOL -.0605 -.0879 1.0000 -.0544 .0338 -.0056 DECENT .0631 .3728** -.0544 1.0000 -.2686** .2523** GRIEVE .0714 -.3614** .0338 -.2686** 1.0000 .1957** STRIKE .0781 .2982** -.0056 .2523** .1957** 1.0000 ASITOTAL -.0165 .0543 .0274 .0274 -.0647 -.0571 TABLE E8 Continued Correlations: 1 ASITOTAL AGE .0480 GENDER .0579 DEPEND1 .0044 DEPEND2 .0240 DEGREE -.1102* YRSPRSNT .0123 YRSPRINC .0152 YRSVICE .0161 PRCNTADM -.0087 HRSWORK .1136* VICEPRIN -.0524 NSCHOOLS .0698 EVALUATE -.0197 SUPRVISE -.0136 LESSEXPR .0095 TRANSOUT .0139 INTERACT -.0071 ISOLATE -.3771** COPPRGRM .0335 PRCNTSTR .2900** GRSTRESS -.1849** STRESNOW .1084* PAY .0949 RESOURCE -.1568** ASUPPORT .1961** CSUPPORT -.1514** SCKLEAVE .0442 HEALTH -.1682** EXERCISE -.1411** CONSQUIT -.2587** REPLACE -.0165 ENROLL .0543 RSCHOOL .0274 DECENT .0274 GRIEVE -.0647 STRIKE -.0571 ASITOTAL 1.0000 1 Variable labels and descriptions are presented in Table E6 Minimum pairwise number of cases: = 574 2-tailed Significance: * p < .01 and ** p < .001 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0064581/manifest

Comment

Related Items