Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The organizational climate and socioeconomic background of selected elementary schools in the Lower Mainland… Mackenzie, Donald Millar 1966

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A8 M25.pdf [ 6.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093620.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093620-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093620-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093620-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093620-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093620-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093620-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093620-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093620.ris

Full Text

THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THE LOWER MA IN LAND AREA OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by DONALD MILIAR MACKENZIE B.A., University of British Columbia, 1962 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September I966 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia,, I agree that the Library shall, make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study, I further agree that permission.for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives, I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed •without my w r i t t e n permission. Donald M, Mackenzie Department of Education Administration The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT This study was based on Halpin and Croft's Organizational Climate studies. It was designed to evaluate the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, and to investigate possible relationships between the Organizational Climate of a school and the socioeconomic status of i t s patrons. It attempted to do this by administering the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire to 219 teachers i n twenty elementary schools selected on the basis of the socioeconomic status of their patrons. Results would seem to indicate that the subtests of the OCDQ are valid, but that the theoretical basis of the open-closed climate categorization i s faulty. The theory behind the questionnaire, and the concept of Organizational Climate are obviously of great value to education. It seems l i k e l y that with the proper adaptation the question-naire could be used to identify and describe three major climate factors. Two patterns of subtest profiles were observed in the twenty schools measured. Both indicate a high degree of attempted control by the principal, and a high degree of independence in the teachers. Both seem to be combinations of different Halpin and Croft climates. Halpin and Croft's climates did not describe the schools measured accurately enough. Because of the breakdown of Halpin and Croft's climates, i t was not possible to come to any conclusion about the socioeconomic factor. There seemed to be some relationship between the two observed subtest profiles and the socioeconomic factor, but i t proved very d i f f i c u l t to analyze and account for. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 I. Survey of Literature 3 A. Definitions 3 1. Organizational Climate 3 2. Word D i f f i c u l t i e s 4 3. Social Background 4 B. Theory 5 C. Review of Research 14 D. Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire 24 E. Further Organizational Climate Research 49 F. Metropolitan Vancouver; An Overview for Social 53 Planners II. Methodology 56 A. The Problem 56 B. Hypotheses 56 C. Criteria for the Rejection of Null Hypotheses 57 D. Delimitations 59 E. Procedures 60 III. Results 63 A. Items 63 B. Subtests 66 C. Climates 68 D. Relationships between Climate and Social Background 77 V Table of Contents, Continued Page IV. Conclusions 78 V. Limitations 80 VI. Theory and Implications 81 VII. Possibilities for Further Research 86 Bibliography 89 Appendices A. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire 94 (as administered in present study) B. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire 99 (items arranged by subtests) C. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Used in Present Study 101 D. "R" Technique Three-Factor Rotational Solution 104 for Subtest Scores, by School E. Correlations between School Subtest Profiles and Climate Profiles 108 v i TABLES Page Table 1: Prototypic Profiles for Six Organizational 3& Climates Ranked in Respect to Openness vs. Closedness 2: Coefficients of Correlation between Odd and 67 Even Respondents, Paired According to School, on the Eight Subtests of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire 3: Subtest Scores of Twenty Schools on Organizational 69 Climate Description Questionnaire 4: Climate Similarity Scores for Twenty Schools on 70 the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire 5: Prototypic Profiles for Two Climates (A and B) 71 Perceived in Schools Measured 6: Relationships Between Climates A and B and the 75 Socioeconomic Background of the Schools Measured 7: Relationships Between Climates A and B and the 75 School Dis t r i c t of the Schools Measured 8: Relationships Between Subtest Scores and 76 Socioeconomic Background FIGURES Getzels and Thelen: The School as a Social System Eight Dimensions of the OCDQ, Form III (80 items) 1 INTRODUCTION This study is designed to evaluate Halpin and Croft's Organiza-tional Climate Description Questionnaire"'' in the British Columbia school system, and to investigate possible relationships between the Organizational Climate and Socioeconomic Background of elementary schools. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire describes 2 the Organizational Climate, or "personality," of elementary schools. It does so on the basis of teacher response, therefore a l l measurements are based on teachers' perceptions. It consists of eight subtests, four measuring teacher behavior, and four measuring principal behavior. On the basis of results obtained by administering their questionnaire to 1151 teachers in 71 schools in six states, Halpin and Croft have tentatively identified six clusters of subtest'profiles, which they have called climates. "Socioeconomic Background" refers to the "socioeconomic status of 3 the school's patrons.""^ It will be assessed on the basis of L. I. Bell's See A. W. Halpin and D. B. Croft, The Organizational Climate of  Schools, (Chicago, Midwest Administration Centre, 1963), ^Halpin and Croft, p. 1. 'Halpin and Croft, p. 7. 2 4 s u r v e y , M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver; An Overview f o r S o c i a l P l a n n e r s . T h i s survey d i v i d e s t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver a r e a i n t o f i v e s o c i o -5 economic l e v e l s on the b a s i s of income, o c c u p a t i o n and e d u c a t i o n . The scope of t h i s s t u d y i s l i m i t e d . I t i s b a s i c a l l y a s tudy i n methods, and any s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s , i n terms o f c l i m a t e s and r e l a t i o n -s h i p s between c l i m a t e and Socioeconomic Background may not be v a l i d beyond the s c h o o l s measured. The two main purposes o f t h i s s tudy a r e the e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e D e s c r i p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a method f o r s t u d y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e and Socioeconomic Background. * L . I . B e l l , M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver; An Overview f o r S o c i a l P l a n n e r s , (Vancouver, Community Chest and C o u n c i l s o f t h e G r e a t e r Vancouver A r e a , 1 9 6 5 ) . 5 L . I . B e l l , p . 5 4 . 3 CHAPTER I SURVEY OF LITERATURE A. Definitions 1. Organizational Climate Halpin and Croft define Organizational Climate as follows: The Organizational Climate can be construed as the organizational "personality" of a school; figuratively, "personality" is to the individual what "climate" is to the organization.5 Personality, in turn, can be defined as "the totality of an individual's characteristics ... an integrated group of emotional trends, behaviour tendencies, etc."^ Halpin and Croft also refer to Argyris,''' who defines the climate of an organization as the pattern of organizational behavior. Argyris concep-tualizes this pattern as consisting of three factors: ... the formal policies, procedures, and positions of the organization; personality factors, including individual needs, values, and abilities; and the complicated pattern of variables associated with the individual's efforts to accommodate his own ends with those of the organization. 8 These definitions combine to give a picture of climate as the over-a l l pattern of behaviors and relationships which characterizes an organi-zation. Climate consists not of the behaviors and relationships A^ndrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, The Organizational Climate of Schools, (Chicago, Midwest Administration Centre, 1963) p. 1. ^Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. (Toronto, Thomas Allen Ltd., 1956) p. 628. ^Halpin and Croft, footnote p. 1. ^Chris Argyris,.."Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank," Administrative Science Quarterly. II (March 1958), Introductory paragraph, p. 501. 4 themselves, but of the o v e r a l l pattern which they form. Climate i s formed by a vast number of fac t o r s , and i t i s the pattern which determines observed behaviors within an organization. 2. Word D i f f i c u l t i e s There i s a semantic d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s study. Halpin and Croft use the term Organizational Climate to refe r s o l e l y to the s o c i a l interactions 9 which t h e i r questionnaire measures. This i s a very l i m i t e d and incomplete d e f i n i t i o n . For the purposes of t h i s report, the term Organizational Climate w i l l be used as follows: i n the present chapter (Chapter I ) , i t w i l l be used i n the general sense, as defined above under ( l ) j i n a l l other places i t w i l l be used i n Halpin and Croft's more li m i t e d sense, to refe r to the factors measured by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, unless otherwise stated. 3. Socioeconomic Background Socioeconomic Background refers to the factor of school climate described by Halpin and Croft as "the socioeconomic status of the school's patrons.""^ For the purposes of t h i s essay, socioeconomic background i s defined operationally as the socioeconomic status of the area served by the school, as indicated by L. I . B e l l ' s study, Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview f o r S o c i a l P l a n n e r s . ^ 'Halpin and Croft, p. 7. h a l p i n and Croft, p. 7. •^L. I . B e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview f o r S o c i a l Planners, (Vancouver, Community Chest and Councils of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1965). 5 B. Theory • -It should be obvious that teacher and principal relationships comprise only one part of the overall climate of a school. Halpin and Croft l i s t several other factors which would be expected to influence climate: ... the socio-economic status of the school's patrons; the biographical and personality characteristics of the principal and the teachers; the "quality" of the students; the attitudes of the parents towards the school; the school's physical plant; the teachers' salary schedule; the educational and administrative policies of the school d i s t r i c t ; the l o c a t i o n ^ 0 f the school; and, of prime importance for the present phase of the study, the social interactions that occur between the teachers and the principal.13 Experimental studies could determine the effects of each of these factors on climate, and other studies could determine the practical effects of climate on organizational behavior. But before such results could be understood and made useful, they would have to be f i t t e d into some conceptual framework. It i s necessary for experimentation and theory to complement each other: for experimentation to provide the facts, and theory to organize them; for theory to provide the patterns and experimentation to validate them. Several theories of organizational behavior exist, and i t i s essential to consider the OCDQ i n relation to them. •^Halpin and Croft, p. 7, footnote. "At least three kinds of location demand recognition: the location of the school within the school system; the location i n respect to urban, rural or suburban d i s t r i c t s ; and the geographical or regional location within the United States." To th i s , i t would be possible to add the national location. Halpin and Croft, p. 7 The OCDQ studies are a f i r s t step i n i d e n t i f y i n g and describing aciministrative relationships experimentally. Theoreticians have con-ceptualized several possible patterns of administrative relationships. Studies l i k e the OCDQ studies can determine whether hypothesized r e l a t i o n -ships e x i s t , can study them i f they do e x i s t , and can determine t h e i r effects on the organization. For the present study, theory can give a pattern within which to evaluate r e s u l t s , and the r e s u l t s themselves can be used to evaluate the e f f i c a c y of theory. The areas of theory which seem t o hold the greatest promise as a means of conceptualizing the position of Organizational Climate within the o v e r a l l organization are those which view the organization as a small s o c i a l system, and t r y to map a pattern of relationships within t h i s s o c i a l system. The most i n t e r e s t i n g theories of the s o c i a l structure of organi-zations are those of Getzels, and, l a t e r , of Getzels and Thelen.-^ They are based on the concept that any organization consists of two dimensions: the idiographic or personal dimension, which consists of the individuals within the organization, t h e i r personalities and t h e i r needs-dispositions; and the nomothetic or i n s t i t u t i o n a l dimension, which consists of the i n s t i t u t i o n , the roles which i t consists of, and the expectations which i t holds f o r the people who occupy these r o l e s . This corresponds quite cl o s e l y to Argyris's three factors of organizational climatej formal organizational variables, personal variables, and variables r e s u l t i n g from interaction between the other two. 1^ Getzels describes i n great d e t a i l the 14s ee diagram on page 7. l 6 A r g y r i s , p. 501. F i g u r e 1 G e t z e l s And T h e l e n t The S c h o o l A s A S o c i a l S y s t em ' E t h o s The S c h o o l As A S o c i a l S y s t e m Mores R o l e I V a l u e s • E x p e c t a t i o n s •^S^j-, C l i m a t e - I n t e n t i o n s Individual-Organ i sm 1 I 5*2^^. GOAL P e r s o n a l i t y Needs - D i s p o s i t i o n s ^ I I C o n s t i t u t i o n P o t e n t i a l i t i e s J a c o b W. G e t z e l s and H e r b e r t A . T h e l e n , " The C l a s s r o o m As A U n i q u e S o c i a l S y s t e m , " C h a p t e r I V i n N e l s o n B. H e n r y ( E d . ) The Dynamics o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l G r o u p s . The F i f t y - n i n t h Y e a r b o o k o f t h e N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e S t u d y o f E d u c a t i o n , P a r t I I , ( U . o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , I960) p p . 53 -80 . ' " G e t z e l s and T h e l e n u s e t h e m o d e l t o d e s c r i b e t h e c l a s s , b u t i t i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e on t h e l e v e l of t h e s c h o o l . ^ G e t z e l s ' o r i g i n a l t w o d i m e n s i o n s a r e u n d e r l i n e d . 8 nature of the interaction between his two dimensions. Very l i t t l e organizational behavior can be described as purely idiographic or purely nomothetic. Most behavior is the result of interaction between the two dimensions. The purpose of the OCDQ studies is to study experimentally the nature of this interaction in a school situation. Getzels conceptualizes the idiographic and nomothetic dimensions as interacting at three levels: the institution interacts with the individuals i t comprisesj the roles interact with the personalities of the role incumbents; and role expectations interact with the needs-dispositions of the role-incumbents. These interactions can be in the nature of co-operation or conflict, and are influenced by various factors connected with the external environment, as well as by the internal factors here described. The extent to which these two dimensions can be integrated will have a direct effect on whether, or how well, the goals of the organization and the needs of the individuals within i t will be met. ^ But these are not the only factors causing organizational behavior. There are several factors which influence them. Getzels and Thelen later added to Getzels' model, to take some of these other factors into account. Influencing the nomothetic dimension is an anthropological dimension, consisting of the cultural ethos, mores and values of the larger social system within which the school operates. Influencing the idiographic dimension is a biological dimension, consisting of the organism, its constitution and its potentialities. Interaction between the anthropological and nomothetic dimensions leads to institutional behavior, Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process," in A. W. Halpin (ed.), Administrative Theory in Education (Chicago, Midwest Administration Centre, 1958), pp. 150-65. 9 and i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e i d i o g r a p h i c and b i o l o g i c a l dimensions d e t e r -mines i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r . The observed behav io r o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between a l l f o u r d imens ions . F i n a l l y , G e t z e l s and The l en add a g e n e r a l d imens ion , r e l a t i n g t o the i n t e r a c t i o n s between the nomothet ic and i d i o g r a p h i c d imens ions . T h i s corresponds t o most a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s , as b e h a v i o r which i s p u r e l y nomo-t h e t i c o r p u r e l y i d i o g r a p h i c i s r a r e . The group i s the r e s u l t o f i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n s t i t u t i o n and the i n d i v i d u a l , and has c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i t s own, d i s t i n c t from but dependent on b o t h . C l i m a t e i s t h e r e s u l t of i n t e r a c t i o n between r o l e and pe r son -a l i t y . And r o l e expec t a t i ons and t h e n e e d s - d i s p o s i t i o n s of r o l e incum-bents i n t e r a c t t o produce the i n t e n t i o n s o f the r o l e incumbents . These i n t u r n l e a d t o observed g o a l b e h a v i o r . T h i s d e s c r i b e s a g e n e r a l d imens ion , c o n s i s t i n g o f the group , i t s c l i m a t e , and t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f i t s members. T h i s use o f t h e t e rm c l i m a t e i s remarkably s i m i l a r t o the d e f i n i t i o n a l r e a d y accepted i n the present s t udy . C l i m a t e i s the group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 18 cor responding t o t he i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , as H a l p i n d e s c r i b e s i t ; and i t c o n s i s t s of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d imens ion , a p e r s o n a l d imens ion , and 19 a d imension o f i n t e r a c t i o n , as A r g y r i s de f ines i t . The c l i m a t e c o n s i s t s not of t h e i s o l a t e d dimensions themselves , but o f the p a t t e r n o f i n t e r -a c t i o n between them. The p o s i t i o n o f the present s tudy i n r e l a t i o n t o these t h e o r i e s i s q u i t e s i m p l e . I t i s des igned to measure the na tu re o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n . As the r e l a t i o n s h i p s measured a re r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n c i p a l s , who would be expected t o r e l a t e t o the nomothet ic H a l p i n and C r o f t , p . 1 • ^ A r g y r i s , p . 501. 10 dimension, and teachers, who w i l l be influenced by the idiographic dimension, the relationships would be expected to follow Getzels' pattern quite closely* It w i l l obviously be important to assess teacher-principal relationships i n terms of task accomplishment (nomothetic), and needs satisfaction (idiographic). It should also be possible to use a question-naire based on these concepts to measure the effects of nomothetic or idiographic behavior on the organization i t s e l f . In practice, the OCDQ does take into account and measure social needs and task accomplishment-based behavior, and finds experimentally that the social needs of individuals and the demands of the organization are important determinants of climate. The OCDQ i s also being used to determine the effects of various patterns of behavior on the organization, i n an effort to determine "good" patterns of behavior. In thi s respect, the questionnaire i s being used to determine the effects of different 20 climate on goal behavior. Etzioni has discussed goal behavior i n a manner which corresponds closely to the factors measured by the OCDQ. In terms of Etzioni's goal structure, the nomothetic dimension, influenced as i t i s by the anthropological dimension, i s oriented towards cultural or pure goals. The idiographic dimension i s oriented towards personal needs, which may displace organizational (cultural) goals, but which are an integral part of the organization, and must be taken into account i n any description or evaluation of goal behavior. The Getzels and Thelen model i s then a systems model, as opposed to a goal model dealing with organizational goals alone, and enables us to study the organization 21 as a social system much more r e a l i s t i c a l l y . 2 0D. E. Mil l a r , "Organizational Climate and Achievement," The CSA Journal. Vol. IV, No. 5 (July 1965) pp. 36-39. 21 Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations. (Englewoods C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1964). The present study deals only with part of the school society, and only with part of the school climate. It deals with the group consisting of the teachers and their principal, from the point of view of their inter-actions, both personal and professional. As such, Getzels and Thelen's model i s highly applicable. The teacher-principal group i t s e l f i s a social system within the school system, and we can use the sociological model to study relationships within this social system. The empirical study i s designed to create from observed behaviors a picture of a segment of school climate. The model gives us a conceptual framework within which to discuss empirical results. Thus the behavior of teachers and principals can be discussed i n terms of i t s relationship to nomothetic or id i o -graphic tendencies, or to the interactions between the two dimensions. It would also seem l i k e l y that the integrating forces which Getzels and Thelen depict as acting to unite the two dimensions in pursuit of common goals could be expected to be important factors i n effective organizational structure. Getzels and Thelen depict rationality directing the nomo-thetic dimension towards common group goals, identification directing the individual towards these goals, and belongingness acting as a blanket 22 force to draw the dimensions together. The importance of a study of teacher and principal relationships should be obvious. Group or leader behavior i s not the result only of isolated actions by individuals. It i s the result of interactions between individuals, and between individuals and their environment. "Leadership i s a term that applies not to an individual alone, but to a relationship 23 between an individual i n a group and the other members of the group." 22 See page 7, diagram. 2^C. G. Browne and T. S. Cohn, The Study of Leadership. (Danville, I l l i n o i s , The Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc., 1958).Introduction. 12 Thus i t i s p r o f i t a b l e to study leader behavior and group behavior from the point of view of personal interactions. This w i l l not give the whole picture, but i t w i l l give a very s i g n i f i c a n t part of i t . I t i s important to r e a l i z e , however, that i n measuring relationships and interactions, one i s not judging i n d i v i d u a l s . I t i s per f e c t l y possible f o r two highly s a t i s -factory individuals to have t o t a l l y unsatisfactory interactions. Another t h e o r e t i c a l consideration, i n connection with i n t e r a c t i o n , i s that the present study i s designed to measure teachers* perceptions of teacher and p r i n c i p a l relationships, not the relationships themselves. " I t i s w e l l to begin by putting aside the at t i t u d e of naive realism, which 24 suggests that our perceptions simply r e g i s t e r accurately what i s 'out there'." Each teacher's responses w i l l be coloured by his feelings and opinions, and what w i l l be measured w i l l be his reaction to group or p r i n c i p a l behavior, not the "pure" behavior i t s e l f . This i s not a disadvantage, however, as t h i s i s a measure of i n t e r a c t i o n rather than merely of behaviors, and the interactions are the important factor. One of the factors measured i n the present study i s perceptual agreement. Parsons' model of organization divides each organization into three l e v e l s ; i n s t i t u t i o n a l , managerial and t e c h n i c a l . In the case of the school, the product i s a l i v e human being, with behaviors and reactions of 25 h i s own, so a fourth, productive l e v e l has to be added to Parsons' model. Between the levels there i s a q u a l i t a t i v e break, which can hinder communication. ^Sheldon S. Zalkind and Timothy W. Costello, "Perception: Some Recent Research and Implications f o r Administration," Administrative Science  Quarterly 7 (July 1962) pp. 218-235. 2^Walter J . Hartrick, "Communication and the School Organization," i n Walter J . Hartrick, (ed.) Addresses To the Fourth Conference and Workshop  of B r i t i s h Columbia School P r i n c i p a l s . (Vancouver. 1964) PP. 138-140. Since the p r i n c i p a l i s on the managerial l e v e l , and the teachers are on the technical l e v e l , there w i l l be a qu a l i t a t i v e break between them, 26 and a possible break i n communications. Each tends to view the organi-zation from h i s own perspective, and often they are not thinking on the same plane. Halpin has i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s break quite dramatically. He administered a Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) t o a i r crew leaders and educational leaders, and to t h e i r subordinates. He found that most leaders were unable to assess t h e i r subordinates' perceptions of 27 them. From t h i s , i t would seem that an instrument which could measure teacher perceptions objectively f o r p r i n c i p a l s would be very u s e f u l . This i s one of the things that the Organizational Climate Description Question-naire i s designed to measure. As w e l l as being designed to measure the aspects of climate measured by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, the present study i s designed to study one of the factors depicted by Halpin as defining Organizational Climate - "the socio-economic status of the school's 28 patrons" - s o c i a l background. I t would seem very l i k e l y that Socio-economic Background would influence school climate, and quite possible that i t could influence teacher and p r i n c i p a l relationships. The present study i s designed to investigate possible relationships between teacher and p r i n c i p a l r e l a t i o n -ships and Socio-economic Background. Any relationships observed would apply only to the schools tested. This rel a t i o n s h i p , i f i t existed, would depend on many fa c t o r s . In a large, s o c i a l l y heterogeneous d i s t r i c t , with 26 Talcott Parsons, "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organization," i n Andrew W. Halpin (ed.) Administrative Theory i n Education. (Chicago, Midwest Administration Centre, 1958), pp. 166-185. "" • " ^Andrew W. Halpin, "Leadership Behaviour," Harvard Educational Review 25, (1955), pp. 18-32. 2 % a l p i n and Croft, p. 7. 14 strict policies of equality between schools, and little movement of teachers between schools, there might be little relationship between Social Background and teacher-principal relationships. In a district like Chicago, on the other hand, with a tremendous range of Socio-economic Background, and a record of a high level of movement of teachers 29 between schools, one would expect quite a definite relationship between Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire results and Socio-economic Background. Most teachers would prefer to teach in "better class" districts, and those who preferred to teach in the slums would be different types of teachers than would be found in other districts. This would affect the school climate and the nature of the staff group so much that different patterns of teacher-principal relationships could logically be expected. Because of the variable nature of this relationship, any results observed in the present study could only be applied to the schools measured. The only generalization which could be drawn is the illustration of a method by which this relationship can be measured anywhere. C. Review of Research Only relatively recently have researchers in educational adminis-tration used such techniques as the behavior description questionnaire to study administrative relationships. Hemphill, Griffiths and Frederiksen say that i t was not until 1948 that: 7H. S. Becker, "Schools and Systems of Stratification," in A. N. Halsey, J. Floud and C. A. Anderson, Education. Economy and Society. (New York, Free Press of Glencoe, 1961). This aspect will be discussed more fully in Chapter two of the present study. research workers undertook studies that emphasized the experimental use of psychological t e s t s , the study of leadership, the use of the c r i t i c a l incident technique, and other methodo-l o g i c a l departures from educational administration's past. 1 Since 1948, however, several studies have been undertaken, both i n the area of behavior description, and i n related areas. Francis S. Chase has done some s i g n i f i c a n t research into adminis-t r a t i v e relationships, p a r t i c u l a r l y teacher expectations of p r i n c i p a l s and teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n as a function of p r i n c i p a l s ' behavior, using a checklist type of questionnaire based mainly on values and a t t i t u d e s . 2 This research, based as i t i s on atti t u d e s , forms an excellent complement to the descriptive nature of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, without i n any way duplicating i t . Studies by Getzels, Guba, Bidwell and others into the s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects of administration also provide valuable information without i n any way duplicating the work of Halpin and Croft. Guba and Bidwell under-3 took a very i n t e r e s t i n g study of Administrative Relationships, but i t was much more d i f f u s e than the present study, covering a much wider area much less c l o s e l y . I t attempted to measure relationships between pr i n c i p a l s ' expectations of teacher behavior, teachers' perception of pr i n c i p a l s ' expectations of teacher behavior, i d e a l p r i n c i p a l s ' expecta-tions according to teachers, teachers' behavior as reported by themselves, and teachers' behavior as seen and reported by p r i n c i p a l s . John K. Hemphill, Daniel E. G r i f f i t h s and Norman Frederiksen, Administrative Performance and Personality. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 3. ^D. Erickson, "Selecting School P r i n c i p a l s : Some Recent Developments, Administrator's Notebook. XII Nov. 1953. E. G. Guba, C. E. Bidwell, Administrative Relationships. (Chicago, Midwest Administration Centre, 1957). 16 Another method of studying administration which has received wide-spread attention i n recent years i s the "in-basket" method of simulating a school situation. Hemphill, Grif f i t h s and Frederiksen were f i r s t to use this technique on a widespread basis. It gives an excellent method of bringing administrators together, putting them i n the same simulated situation, and studying their reactions and behaviors. Hemphill, G r i f f i t h s and Frederiksen gave as their objectives: 1) To determine the dimensions of performance in the elementary school principalship, and thus develop a better understanding of the nature of the job of the school administrator. 2) To provide information helpful i n the solution of the problem of selecting school administrators. 3) To provide materials and instruments for the study and teaching of school administration.^ This method involves putting a group of administrators or prospective administrators i n the same situation, by giving each an "in-basket" - a collection of materials describing possible administrative situations. In this way, the situation i s controlled, leaving the behavior of the individual as the only variable. Thus i t i s theoretically possible to study the reactions of several people i n the same situation. Once again, this group of studies, while i n the area of leader be-havior, does not conflict with the Organizational Climate studies. It deals more with the leader's actions and the role of the principal as a decision maker i n a l l f i e l d s , and less with the sociological aspect of his interaction with his teachers and their perception of him. ^John K. Hemphill, Daniel E. Griffi t h s and Norman Frederiksen, Administrative Performance and Personality. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 7. 17 The second objective of-the in-basket method, helping i n the s e l e c t i o n of school administrators, may not be app l i c a b l e to the Organizational Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire. Erickson claims that the Halpin and 5 Croft questionnaire would be u s e f u l i n the s e l e c t i o n of administrators, but he overlooks an important p o i n t . This questionnaire i s p r i m a r i l y a self-measuring device, t o be used o b j e c t i v e l y within a school. I f i t were to be used by people outside a sehool t o "judge" a p r i n c i p a l , t h i s would almost c e r t a i n l y influence the responses of the teachers. Moreover, the Organizational Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire does not measure the p r i n c i p a l ' s behaviour - i t measures the teachers' perception of p r i n c i p a l behavior, an altogether d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r . The group of studies which i s most a p p l i c a b l e t o the present study, both i n terms of area o f concern and methods, i s the group of studies conducted at the Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , using behavior d e s c r i p t i o n questionnaires to measure group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and leader behavior. A monograph by S t o g d i l l and Shartle i n 1955, describes eight Methods i n the  Study of Administrative Leadership: interviews; organization charts and manuals; sociometric methods; r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a u thority and delegation scales; work an a l y s i s forms; leader behavior d e s c r i p t i o n s ; and effectiveness r a t i n g s . ^ Under the heading of "Leader Behavior Descriptions," S t o g d i l l and Shartle give a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of the Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n -b. Erickson, "Selecting School Administrators: Some Recent Developments, Administrator's Notebook XII (Nov. 1955). ^ a l p h M. S t o g d i l l and C a r r o l l M. Sh a r t l e , Methods i n the Study  of Administrative Leadership. (Columbus, Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1955). 18 Questionnaire '.(LBDQ). However a much more complete and up-to-date description of t h i s questionnaire and i t s uses i s given i n a l a t e r mono-7 graph edited by S t o g d i l l and Coons. This questionnaire was based on a d e f i n i t i o n of leadership as "the behavior of an i n d i v i d u a l when he i s 8 d i r e c t i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of a group toward a shared goal." By discussion, and with reference to other studies done by t h i s group, nine dimensions of leader behavior were t e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d . These were: Integration, Communication, Production Emphasis, Represen-t a t i o n , Fraternization, Organization, Evaluation, I n i t i a t i o n and Domina-t i o n . Items were collected from the personal experiences of the researchers, the l i t e r a t u r e on administration, and students i n advanced u n i v e r s i t y courses. The 1,790 items obtained by these methods were then c l a s s i f i e d according to the nine predetermined categories, and approxi-mately 200 items which seemed to describe and distinguish between the categories were selected. This number was l a t e r reduced to 150 items, and the nine categories were s l i g h t l y redefined to better match the factors which the questions i n them seemed to describe. The Communications dimension was s p l i t i n t o Communications Up and Communications Down, to make a t o t a l of ten dimensions. 9 This was the preliminary form of the questionnaire. Future work 'Ralph M. S t o g d i l l and A l v i n M. Coons (eds.) Leader Behavior: I t s  Description and Measurement. (Columbus, Ohio State University, 1957)• John K. Hemphill and A l v i n M. Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," i n S t o g d i l l and Coons, Leader  Behavior, p. 7. 9Hemphill and Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," i n S t o g d i l l and Coons, Leader Behavior. 19 resulted i n several changes i n i t s format, and several adaptations were made by researchers wishing to use the questionnaire f o r d i f f e r i n g purposes. Halpin and Winer describe the application of the questionnaire to 10 a i r crews. They eliminated from the questionnaire twenty items which they considered to be not applicable t o the A i r Force s i t u a t i o n . They factor-analyzed t h e i r r e s u l t s , and i d e n t i f i e d four major factors of leader behavior.; consideration, i n i t i a t i n g structure, production emphasis, and s e n s i t i v i t y ( s o c i a l awareness). Since the f i r s t two factors accounted f o r most of the common variance (83*2% between them), the other two were discarded, and only consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure remained. The next step was to construct a questionnaire s p e c i f i c a l l y designed t o measure these two facto r s . This was done by id e n t i f y i n g the t h i r t y items (15 each) which correlated most clos e l y with the two factors.'^' In extremely general terms, i n i t i a t i n g structure refers to behavior oriented to Getzels' nomothetic dimension, while consideration f a l l s largely within the idiographic dimension. There i s overlapping between them, however. Halpin found a correla t i o n of .38 between the scores on the two 12 dimensions f o r a sample of 249 a i r c r a f t commanders. Halpin gives the following items as examples of what the dimensions are measuring: I n i t i a t i n g Structure 1. He makes h i s attitudes clear to the crew. 2. He speaks i n a manner not t o be questioned. 3. He maintains d e f i n i t e standards of performance. •^Andrew W. Halpin and James Winer, "A F a c t o r i a l Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions," i n S t o g d i l l and.Coons, Leader Behavior. ^•Halpin and Winer i n S t o g d i l l and Coons, Leader Behavior. Andrew W. Halpin, "Leader Behavior" i n Harvard Educational Review 25, (1955), p. 19. Consideration 1. He i s easy to understand. 2. He does l i t t l e things to make i t pleasant t o be a member of the crew. 13 3. He gets crew approval on important matters before going ahead. The members of the crew are asked to rate t h e i r leader on the frequency with which the described behavior occurs. Halpin has used h i s form of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire i n many other m i l i t a r y and educational situat i o n s . He reports that both he and Hemphill have found evidence to indicate that "the most ' e f f e c t i v e 1 commanders are those who score high on both dimensions."'^'' Other studies have adapted the Leader Behavior Description Question-naire f o r use i n other areas of administration. Fleishman describes i t s 15 application t o industry (the Supervisory Behavior Questionnaire and the 16 Leadership Opinion Questionnaire ). He used a form of the questionnaire including questions designed to measure the two factors production emphasis and s e n s i t i v i t y as w e l l as consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure. However, he found, as did Halpin, that production emphasis and s e n s i t i v i t y added l i t t l e to explanation of variance. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire i t s e l f , either alone or i n conjunction with other measurements, has been used i n many studies ^ H a l p i n , "Leader Behavior," p. 20. " h a l p i n , "Leader Behavior," p. 21. "^Edwin A. Fleishman, "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry," i n S t o g d i l l and Coons, Leader Behavior. -'•^ Edwin A. Fleishman, "The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire," i n S t o g d i l l and Coons, Leader Behavior. under the auspices of the Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research and other organizations. Abstracts of studies i n t h i s area by the Ohio Bureau of Business Research and Bureau of Educational Research are 17 included i n most monographs by either group. At the same time that the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire was being constructed and tested, Hemphill constructed a p a r a l l e l Group Dimensions Description Questionnaire. His questionnaire consisted of 150 items of the same type as those i n the Leader Behavior questionnaire, designed to measure t h i r t e e n "group dimensions." From results obtained from t h i s questionnaire, he extracted by factor analysis three factors; Behavior Regulation appearing as S o c i a l Structure, E f f e c t i v e Synergy, and Primary Personal Interaction. Behavior Regulation refers to formal organization directed towards group goals, which i s very close to Getzels' nomothetic behavior. E f f e c t i v e Synergy refers t o ef f o r t s of the group per se directed towards group goals, or "the un i f i e d attitude which emerges as the dynamic intention of the group per se." This clo s e l y corresponds To Getzels' concept of belongingness and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n uniting the effo r t s and feelings of a l l individuals i n the pursuit of group goals. Primary Personal Interaction refers to dir e c t s o c i a l i nteraction between individuals - the idiographic dimension. These are remarkably close to Shartle's three factors; productivity, 18 integration, and morale. However, Hemphill found that these factors were not stable i n di f f e r e n t samples, and f i t i s concluded that no attempt 'For Example, see pages 63-66 of John K. Hemphill, Group Dimensions. (Columbus, Ohio State University, 1956). 18 Ralph M. S t o g d i l l , Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. (New York, Oxford University Press, 1959), Ch. VI. ~~ " should be made at t h i s time to reduce the number of group dimensions 19 included i n the questionnaire." So Hemphill merely noted the possible existence of his three factors, and l e f t his questionnaire in i t s original 20 thirteen dimension form. No previous research i n the area of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire has sought to correlate Socio-economic Back-ground and teacher-principal relationships. The only relevant research i s i n the area of sociological effects on education, and even i t i s surprisingly limited. Although several writers have commented on connec-tions between socio-economic status and educational opportunity, very l i t t l e research has been undertaken into teacher reaction to Socio-economic Background. Becker refers to "studies of the Chicago system done under the direction of Everett C. Hughes, reported i n a number of M.A. and Ph.D. theses at the University of Chicago," and to other articles by 21 himself. Becker also refers to "an unpublished study of Kansas City 22 by Warren Peterson." Some typical comments on the subject are: The record of these requests (teachers' requests for transfers within the Chicago school system) when mapped, shows a tremendous movement away from the slums toward the middle-class areas. The same pattern may be seen i n those informal rural-urban systems, l i k e that of Kansas City, i n which movement i s accomplished by acquiring experience and bargaining successfully for for more desired jobs. 23 "^John K. Hemphill, Group Dimensions, pp. 46-47* 2 0John K. Hemphill, Group Dimensions. (Columbus, Ohio State University, 1956) 21 H. S. Becker, "Schools and Systems of Stratification," i n A. N. Halsey, J . Floud and C. A. Anderson, Education. Economy and Society. (New York, Free Press of Glencoe, 1961). 2 2H. S. Becker, "Schools and Systems of Stratification," p. 103. 2 % . S. Becker, "Schools and Systems of Stratification," p. 100. 23 Schools i n the lower socio-economic areas are "transfer vacuums." Many teachers request to be transferred from such schools, but few request transfer to them. 24 These are s p e c i f i c examples, not generalizations. They refe r to s p e c i f i c school d i s t r i c t s , and indicate a pattern which may or may not exist i n other d i s t r i c t s . Where such a pattern d i d e x i s t , i t would seem l i k e l y that i t would affect the Organizational Climates of the schools involved, and that t h i s i n turn would affect the nature of the teacher-p r i n c i p a l group. Schools i n the less desirable areas would attr a c t fewer good teachers, fewer experienced teachers, and probably a di f f e r e n t type of teacher. They could expect t o have a higher rate of s t a f f turnover also. These factors would almost d e f i n i t e l y a f f e c t the nature of the s t a f f group and the interactions within i t . Other factors connected with extremes of Socio-economic Background could possibly affect school climate so strongly that teacher-principal relationships could be affected, but the teacher mobility f a c t o r i s one of the most important. The schools i n the present study come from suburban areas around Vancouver, and while they do represent a range from the highest socio-economic areas to the lowest, they do not represent nearly as wide a range as would be found i n a c i t y l i k e Chicago, and neither are they geographi-c a l l y remote enough from Vancouver to j u s t i f y c a l l i n g any of them r u r a l , i n the sense of being "way out i n the s t i c k s . " ^Robert J . Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten, Society and Education. (Boston, A l l y n and Bacon, 1962), p. 552. Havighurst and Neugarten refer to the following work to substantiate t h i s statement: John Winget, "Teacher Inter-School Mobil i t y Aspirations of Elementary Teachers, Chicago Public School System, 1947-1948. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1952). 24 Moreover, the amount of p r o v i n c i a l control, p a r t i c u l a r l y over such f i n a n c i a l matters as teachers' salary, i s enough to produce some, though not complete uniformity i n standards of teaching. There would, therefore seem to be factors working f o r and against a relationship between teacher and p r i n c i p a l relationships and Socio-economic Background. This study was designed to see i f these relationships do e x i s t . D. Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Halpin and Croft's book, The Organizational Climate of Schools, contains more than just a description of t h e i r experimental work. I t also contains a great deal of t h e o r e t i c a l discussion.^" I t would seem only l o g i c a l i n a study so c l o s e l y a l l i e d to Halpin and Croft's to discuss both t h e i r experimental work and t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l discussions. The actual construction of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire followed a pattern s i m i l a r but not i d e n t i c a l to the pattern followed by the members of the Ohio State Leadership Studies i n con-structing the Group Dimensions Questionnaire and the Leader Behavior p Description Questionnaire. Instead of selecting items t o f i t i n t o a set of predetermined factors or dimensions, as was done with the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Halpin and Croft derived t h e i r o r i g i n a l factors from a large number of questions by a process of factor analysis. However, the questions were not arrived at randomly. The selection of See i n p a r t i c u l a r Chapter 5> "Whither?" i n Halpin and Croft, The  Organizational Climate of Schools. 2See Chapter I , Part B. 25 questions and the eventual i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of eight f a c t o r s , or subtests, were strongly influenced by'a th e o r e t i c a l pattern which the researchers i d e n t i f i e d before they began t h e i r research. They i d e n t i f i e d three schemata f o r describing administrative r e l a t i o n s h i p s , "which recurred i n the l i t e r a t u r e so frequently that we could i l l afford to ignore them," and used these schemata as guidelines i n selecting questions and i d e n t i f y i n g factors. They i d e n t i f i e d these schemata as follows: ... The f i r s t of these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s focussed upon the locus, or the source, from which interations stemmed. The second method of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was evaluative i n that i t pertained t o the "effectiveness" or "ineffectiveness" of the group (or organization). And.the t h i r d basis.of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n dealt with the relat i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l needs of the i n d i v i d u a l as a group member, and the s o c i a l control imposed upon as the price of being a member of the group. 3 The possible sources of in t e r a c t i o n i n the f i r s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are: leader behavior, group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , procedures or actions by persons superior to the leader, and i n d i v i d u a l behavior. The second schema i s based on a nomothetic-idiographic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of behavior, s i m i l a r to that of Getzels, and s i m i l a r to the consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure factors i d e n t i f i e d i n the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. This schema contains four pure, t h e o r e t i c a l types: the ef f e c t i v e organization, which has high task accomplishment and s o c i a l needs s a t i s f a c t i o n ; the social-needs oriented organization; the task-oriented organization; and the i n e f f e c t i v e organization, which s a t i s f i e s neither f a c t o r . The t h i r d schema refers to the degree to which membership i n the organization s a t i s f i e s the individual's s o c i a l needs, or s t i f l e s them by excessive s o c i a l c o n t r o l . ^ These three schemata were used i n the selection of questions, i n the •'Halpin and Croft, p. 16. h a l p i n and Croft, pp. 16-17. 26 tentative c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of items, and i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of dimensions arrived at s t a t i s t i c a l l y . A l l questions were i n the form of behavior descriptions. Each respondent was asked t o indicate the extent t o which each statement characterized h i s school according to the following categories: 1. Rarely occurs. 2. Sometimes occurs. 3. Often occurs. 4. Very frequently occurs. It should be reiterated here that what i s being measured i s the respon-dent's perception, not objective f a c t s . Some sample questions are: 1. The p r i n c i p a l insures that teachers work to t h e i r f u l l capacity. 2. The p r i n c i p a l i s i n the building before teachers a r r i v e . 3 . The p r i n c i p a l helps teachers solve personal problems. 6 Halpin and Croft used several methods of c o l l e c t i n g items. Some items were obtained from teacher interviews; some were obtained from graduate students; some were devised i n t e n t i o n a l l y t o f i t i n with t h e o r e t i c a l expectations; and others were obtained from other question-naires, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and 7 the Group Dimensions Description Questionnaire.' These methods of item c o l l e c t i o n yielded 1000 items. These were ^Halpin and Croft, p. 19. 6 H a l p i n and Croft, p. 19. "^Halpin and Croft, The Organizational Climate of Schools, pp. 20-21. 27 screened f o r l o g i c a l defects, such as lack of c l a r i t y , redundancy, and so on. S i x hundred items survived t h i s screening. They were divided into twenty-five subtests on l o g i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l grounds, and these sub-tests were divided among four quadrants according to the "effectiveness" c r i t e r i o n e a r l i e r discussed by Halpin and Croft. The 600 items were then divided into four 150 question versions of Form I of the questionnaire. "The items incorporated into each of the four forms were drawn from a l l four quadrants." From then on, the question-naire went through a series of administrations and analyses designed to i d e n t i f y r e l a t i v e l y separate and s i g n i f i c a n t subtests, to select those questions which best described these subtests, and to i d e n t i f y the factors measured by the subtests. This was done by a series of clust e r analyses and item analyses. By the time that the questionnaire reached Form I I I , only eight dimensions remained, and the "effectiveness" taxonomy had been discarded. The remaining subtest factors f i t t e d i n t o four quadrants based on the source of i n t e r a c t i o n and social-needs - s o c i a l - c o n t r o l c r i t e r i a . The same taxonomy was used f o r Form IV, the f i n a l form of the questionnaire. Form IV was obtained by administering Form I I I , which contained eighty questions, to 1151 teachers i n 71 d i f f e r e n t schools. By analyzing the matrix of cor r e l a t i o n , Halpin and Croft were able t o assign some items to other, more appropriate subtests. They also eliminated sixteen items, either because they were redundant or because they added l i t t l e t o subtest 9 variance. The f i n a l form consisted of sixty-four items organized °Halpin and Croft, p. 23. % e e Appendix A f o r the completed questionnaire (Form IV) and f o r the breakdown of questions into subtests. 28 according to the following taxonomy: Figure 2 - Eight Dimensions of the OCDQ, Form I I I (80 items) Group Leader Dimensions Associated Primarily with S o c i a l -Needs S a t i s f a c t i o n IV Esprit Intimacy I Thrust Consideration Dimensions Associated P r i m a r i l y with Aspects of S o c i a l Control I I I Disengagement Hindrance I I Production emphasis Aloofness As can be seen, t h i s taxonomy combines two of the possible "sources o f interaction" with the social-needs - s o c i a l control factor. I t i s tempting t o t r y t o c l a s s i f y the subtests as two matrices based on the "effectiveness" c r i t e r i o n , one f o r group characteristics and one f o r leader ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but Halpin and Croft warn against t h i s . I t would, f o r example, be interesting i f i t were possible to define Thrust as the "effective" leader, Consideration as the S o c i a l Needs oriented leader, Production Emphasis as the task oriented leader, and Aloofness as the " i n e f f e c t i v e " leader. Not a l l the subtests f i t into t h i s categorization when t h e i r question-content i s analyzed, however, as w i l l be shown, so t h i s taxonomy does not f i t the questionnaire as i t presently e x i s t s . The factors measured by these subtests are defined by analyzing the item content of each. They are as follows:^" Halpin and C r o f t , p. 27. indented descriptions of subtests are from Halpin and Croft, pages 29 and 32. I have interspersed my own comments among them. 29 Teacher's Behavior 1. Disengagement refers to the teachers' tendency to be "not with i t . " This dimension describes a group which is "going through the motions," a group that is"not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. It corresponds to the more general concept of anomie as fi r s t described by Durkheim. In short, this subtest focusses upon the teachers' behavior in a task-oriented situation. The key item in this subtest is "The mannerisms of teachers at this 12 school are annoying." Most of the other questions describe behavior which is either annoying ("Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings") or illustrative of displeasure ("Teachers talk about leaving the school system"). A l l questions are illustrative of a negative attitude to task achievement. 2. Hindrance refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary busy-work. The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work. It is not surprising that the teachers* complaint of too much non-profes-sional work should manifest itself here, but i t is surprising that i t should appear as a measure of teacher behavior. However, this subtest does not claim that the teachers are responsible for this hindrance; merely that they feel i t . It may be cuased by the principal, the school system, or any combination of a number of sources. It could even be a figment of the imaginations of a group of permanent malcontents. A l l that the subtest does is measure perception of its presence or absence, not its cause. The difference between Hindrance and Disengagement is that Hindrance measures the frustration of a supposedly existent desire for task Sample questions are obtained from pages 30 and 31 of Halpin and Croft, where they are divided into subtests. This form of the questionnaire is given in Appendix B of the present study. accomplishment, while Disengagement measures a lack of t h i s desire. The items i n the Hindrance subtest are quite straight-forward. The key item i s : "Routine duties inte r f e r e with the job of teaching." Others refer to too much work i n connection with "student progress reports," "committee requirements," and "administrative paper work." Two items i n t h i s subtest are scored negatively: " S u f f i c i e n t time i s given to prepare administrative reports," and "Instructions f o r the operation of teaching aids are available." Obviously a lack of these behaviors would hinder teachers. 3. E s p r i t refers to "morale." The teachers f e e l t h e i r s o c i a l needs are being s a t i s f i e d , and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment i n t h e i r job. This subtest i s a f a i r l y clear measure of "effectiveness." The key question refers to morale: "The morale of teachers i s high." But the question which i s most in d i c a t i v e of the whole subtest states: "The teachers accomplish t h e i r work with great vim, vigor and pleasure." This i l l u s t r a t e s the combination of task accomplishment and social-needs s a t i s f a c t i o n . This subtest measures the degree of integration of nomothetic and i d i o -graphic behavior within the group. Several of i t s questions r e f l e c t Getzels and Thelen's concept of belongingness and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as i n t e -grating forces. Belongingness i s indicated i n "Teachers at t h i s school show much school s p i r i t , " while the "vim, vigor and pleasure" item shows i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n with task accomplishment. 4. Intimacy refers to the teachers 1 enjoyment of f r i e n d l y s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s with each other. This dimension describes a s o c i a l needs s a t i s f a c t i o n , which i s not necessarily associated with task-accomplishment • This subtest measures purely s o c i a l relationships - the idiographic dimension of the group. The key item, "Teachers' closest friends are other f a c u l t y members at t h i s school," i s i n d i c a t i v e of the whole subtest. 31 Principal's Behavior -5. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. He "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an informal, face-to-face situation. His behavior, in brief, is universalistic rather than idiosyncratic. To maintain this style, he keeps himself - at least, "emotionally" - at a distance from his staff. The principal is aloof socially, but he is very present in a formal, task oriented sense. For example, "Teachers are contacted by the principal every day," and "Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings." The key item i s : "Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda." 6 . Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by close super-vision of the staff. He is highly directive, and plays the role of "straw boss." His communication tends to go in only one direction, and he is not sensitive to feedback from the staff. The key item here i s : "The principal makes a l l class scheduling decisions." Both Aloofness and Production Emphasis describe situations in which the principal is highly task-oriented, and exerts a high degree of social con-trol . However, in Aloofness this control is exerted formally and impersonally, by means of rules and procedures, while in Production Emphasis the principal exerts his control personally and directly. For example, one item in the Production Emphasis subtest says "The principal talks a great deal." 7. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by his evident effort in trying to "move the organization." "Thrust" behavior is marked not by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through the example which he personally sets. Apparently, because he does not ask the teachers to give of themselves any more than he willingly gives of himself, his behavior, though starkly task-oriented, is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. 32. The key item is "The principal goes out of his way to help teachers," but most items deal with the task situation. The questions do indicate, however, that a principal scoring a high mark on Thrust is interested in both teacher welfare and task achievement. The behaviors described here would be accepted by most thearetists as describing "effective" leader-ship. This principal " ... sets an example by working hard himself ... uses constructive criticism ... is well prepared when he speaks at school functions ... explains his reasons for criticism to teachers, ... looks after the personal welfare of teachers," and so on. However, i t must be remembered that this can only be construed as "good" behavior on theoreti-cal grounds. There is not yet any proof that a principal who scores high on Thrust does indeed create a "good" educational situation for the children under his command. None of these subtests have yet been validated against external criteria of education or social relationships, so they must be looked on as objective descriptions as much as possible. &. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers "humanly," to try to do a l i t t l e something extra for them in human terms. As in: a l l other cases, this subtest attempts to measure what the teachers perceive as happening, not what they think should happen. Some of the questions in this subtest would be looked on as human interest by some teachers, and meddling in private affairs by others. For example, the key item, "The principal helps teachers solve personal problems," and another "The principal does personal favors for teachers," were looked on by some teachers in the present study as examples of their principal's bad habit of meddling in their private affairs. What this subtest does measure is the extent of the principal's interest in his teachers as individuals, be this interest good or bad, appreciated or not. Having thus established the final form of the questionnaire, Halpin . 3 3 and Croft set out to i d e n t i f y within the questionnaire some factors more general than the subtests, because: ... whenever one constructs a battery of t e s t s , one must be concerned with three standards: (1) that each test measures a r e l a t i v e l y different "thing" or type of behavior; (2) that the battery, as a whole, taps enough common behavior to describe the pattern i n terms of a few, more "General" factors (i.e.,.fewer, c e r t a i n l y , than the number of subtests); and (3) that the "general" factors which he extracts for a p a r t i c u l a r domain of enquiry are not discordant with those which previously have been reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . 13 In extracting these f a c t o r s , Halpin and Croft were more interested i n adding to t h e i r understanding of the subtests than i n using the factors themselves. They factor analyzed the correlation matrix f o r the eight subtests, using an N of 1151, (that i s , using i n d i v i d u a l rather than school r e s u l t s ) . They were able to i d e n t i f y three factors, which they c a l l e d S o c i a l Needs, E s p r i t , and S o c i a l Control. Factor I i s marked by high p o s i t i v e loadings on Consideration and Intimacy, the two factors of pure s o c i a l needs s a t i s f a c t i o n . " ^ Factor I I secures high loadings f o r E s p r i t and Thrust, and high negative loadings f o r Disengagement and Hindrance. This would seem to be a measure of acceptable task-orientation, or "effectiveness," and as Halpin and Croft note that most of the questions i n t h i s factor describe group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , they c a l l the factor E s p r i t . Factor I I I , on the other hand, correlates highly with Aloofness and Production Emphasis, both measures of the pri n c i p a l ' s attempts to exert s o c i a l control. These three factors d e f i n i t e l y coincide with other factors already reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Halpin and Croft r e f e r to Schutz's three Halpin and Croft, p. 38. "halpinrand Croft, pp. 43-44. factors, Affection, Control, and Inclusion. Affection is similar to the social needs factor, control to the social control factor, and inclusion to esprit, except that inclusion measures group interaction, whereas esprit measures teacher and principal interaction.-^ The three factors also closely correspond to several theories already discussed. They f i t the Source of Interaction taxonomy: Social Needs refers to individual interaction; Esprit refers to group interaction; and Social Control refers to principal-based interaction. The factors themselves are similar to factors widely discussed in the literature. Social needs satisfaction is part of the idiographic dimension, while social control is an aspect of the nomothetic dimension as perceived by the individual. Esprit refers to an integration of nomo-thetic and idiographic demands. Halpin and Croft accepted these factors as evidence of the usefulness of the subtests, but instead of concentrating on them, went on to analyze subtest results at the school level. They chose to do this by comparing subtest profiles rather than by factor analyzing relationships between a l l school subtest scores, because this could be done by the Q-technique, 16 which is much less laborious than the R-technique for subtest analysis. The procedure consisted of four steps: 1) Subtest profiles, con-sisting of double-standardized subtest scores were prepared. The scores were standardized normatively (across the sample of 71 schools) and ipsatively (across subtests, within schools). 15 Halpin and Croft, p. 46, refer to: William C. Schutz, FJRO: A Three- Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (New York, Rinehart, 1958). l 6Halpin and Croft, p. 53. 2) The profiles were factor-analyzed, and three factors were extracted. Six factor loadings were recognized, and established as patterns for six "climates." 3) For each of the six sets of profiles, the mean profiles were computed for the profiles which registered highly on one factor only, (three positive correlations and three negative correlations). This pro-duced six prototypic profiles, which Halpin and Croft designated as climates. 4) "We ranked these six Organizational Climates in respect to Openness 17 versus Closedness," then used the content of the subtests and profiles to describe the teacher and principal behavior described by each climate. In effect, what Halpin and Croft did was to identify three factors, note that the school profiles seemed to cluster around high positive and negative correlations with only one factor, then use those profiles which correlated most closely with single factors to identify the factors. The last step was achieved by working out mean profiles for each of t he six sets of results which correlated with single factors. They ranked these six climates "in respect to Openness versus Closedness" by ranking them according to their score on the Esprit subtest, which, as will be shown, correlated highly with the factor which was described as "Openness versus Closedness." This is not normal procedure in a situation like this. For example, when Halpin identified his four factors in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, he separated them, and worked out individual subtests to measure each one accurately. In this case, Halpin and Croft combined the factors, to form a continuum based on the Esprit subtest, because i t appeared to them that most schools only correlated with only one factor. Halpin and Croft, p. 54. 36 They also f e l t that the climates identified permanent enough patterns of relationships between teacher behavior and principal behavior to discard the differentiation between the two. Table 1: Prototypic Profiles for Six Organizational Climates Ranked i n Respect to Openness vs. Closedness Group 's Characteristics Leader's Characteristics Climates Disen-gage-ment Hin-drance Esprit I n t i -macy Aloof-ness Produc-tion Empha-sis Thrust Con-sidera-tion Open 43 43 63 50 42 43 61 55 Autonomous 40 41 55 62 61 39 53 50 Controlled 38 57 54 40 55 63 51 45 Familiar 60 42 50 58 44 37 52 59 Paternal 65 46 45 46 38 55 51 55 Closed 62 53 38 54 55 56 41 44 The climates which correlate with the same factors are: open and closed, autonomous and paternal, and controlled and familiar. From Table 1, i t i s possible to define the climates, and, eventually, the factors. The open climate i s one i n which the teachers f e e l a strong sense of pleasure i n task-accomplishment. The high score on Esprit shows that there i s a very high social needs satisfaction and task accomplish-ment. The average score on Intimacy shows that they do not f e e l that an undue closeness of personal relationships i s necessary to achieve this high Esprit. The high Esprit i s matched by low scores on Disengagement and Hindrance, indicating that the teachers do not have any lack of interest Halpin and Croft, p. 59. A l l scores are double-standardized with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. 37 i n their work, and that they do not f e e l hindered by red tape. Corres-pondingly, the principal has a low score on Aloofness and Production Emphasis, a very high score on Thrust, and above average on Consideration. He i s task-oriented, but i n a manner that i s acceptable to his staff. They do not f e e l that he attempts to impose too much control on them, and they f e e l that he i s reasonably interested i n their personal welfare. This a l l adds up to a climate which i s very high on socially acceptable task accomplishment, and very low on the hindering influences of disinterest, red tape, and social control by the principal.. The very high scores on Esprit and Thrust indicate that this i s a climate i n which task accomplish-ment and individual social needs are well integrated, and both are satis-fied without any exceptional amount of close social interaction or social control. The Autonomous Climate is distinguished by "the almost complete freedom that the principal gives to teachers to provide their own struc-tures-for-interaction as well as to find ways within the group for satis-fying their social needs." 1 9 The principal attempts to exert a considerable amount of control, but he does i t impersonally, by means of rules and directives (High Aloofness). He exerts very l i t t l e personal control over the teachers, however, and leaves their social interactions up to them (low Production Emphasis). The teachers give him sli g h t l y above average on Thrust, indicating that they f e e l that he gets the job done in a socially acceptable manner, and an average score on Consideration. The teachers i n the autonomous climate, like those i n the open climate though not to so great an extent, score high on Esprit, and low on Disengagement, but they also score high on Intimacy. The group balances the principal's Aloofness with a high degree of social interaction (intimacy), and they f e e l Halpin and Croft, p. 62. 38 that they are accomplishing their tasks and satisfying their social needs at the same time. The Controlled.Climate i s marked by the principal's very high Production Emphasis. This would be expected to produce "a press for achieve-20 ment at the expense of social needs satisfaction." The principal scores close to average on the other subtests. The teachers are very low on both Intimacy and Disengagement, and above average on Hindrance and Esprit. They achieve a f a i r l y high level of Esprit without Intimacy, despite too much red tape and busy work (some of which probably comes from the prin-cipal), and because of their involvement with their work (low disengage-ment) . The Familiar Climate i s marked by "the conspicuously friendly manner of both the principal and the teachers. Social-needs satisfaction i s extremely high, and l i t t l e i s done to control or direct the group's 21 ac t i v i t i e s towards goal achievement." The principal has low scores on the subtests which measure social control - Aloofness and Production Emphasis, and has a correspondingly high score on Consideration. Despite this marked lack of nomothetic tendencies, he s t i l l scores sli g h t l y above average on Thrust. The teachers show low scores on Hindrance, and high scores on Dis-engagement and Intimacy, once again indices of low social control and high social needs orientation, yet s t i l l have an average score on Esprit. It would seem l i k e l y that "the Esprit that i s found i n this climate i s one-22 sided i n that i t stems almost entirely from social-needs satisfaction." Halpin and Croft, p. 63. 2 % a l p i n and Croft, p. 64. ^Halpin and Croft, p. 64. The Paternal Climate i s the opposite end of the scale to the Autonomous Climate, The paternal principal has a very low score on Aloof-ness. He prefers to exert his social control directly and personally (high Production Emphasis)• He also scores above average on Consideration, but only average on Thrust. . Halpin and Croft f e e l that he i s not success-f u l : "The Paternal Climate i s characterized by the ineffective attempts of the principal to control the teachers as well as to satisfy their social needs. In our judgment, his behavior i s 'non-genuine' and i s perceived by 23 the teachers as non-motivating." The Closed Climate scores lower than any other climate on Esprit and Thrust. Neither the group nor the principal i s effective i n satisfying either social needs or task achievement. The principal attempts to exert control both directly (Production Emphasis) and by means of rules and regulations (Aloofness), but ignores the teachers' social needs (low Consideration). The teachers, although they mix freely (high Intimacy) have no interest i n their work (high Disengagement) and f e e l that they are overburdened by routine duties (Hindrance).. No one i s happy, and no one is accomplishing anything. This i s an extreme climate. It i s defined as closed, i n that there i s no room or desire for effective communication. Halpin and Croft describe the principal's efforts at control as "inauthen-t i c " i n that he t r i e s very hard to exert control, without either giving effective leadership or letting anyone else give i t . His nomothetic strivings result i n control rather than leadership, and act against both social needs satisfaction and task accomplishment. These are the six climates. It is a l l too easy to describe them, as has been done, largely i n t u i t i v e l y from the content of the subtests, but this i s two steps removed from rea l i t y . It would be wise now to analyze Halpin and Croft, p. 65 40 the three f a c t o r s with which these s i x climates c o r r e l a t e . Halpin and Croft d i d do an R-technique a n a l y s i s of the school subtest r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are given i n Appendix D. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare the r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s method with those obtained by studying the subtest p r o f i l e s . The p r o f i l e s can be analyzed by reference to those subtests which show great d i f f e r e n c e s between climates supposedly corre-l a t i n g p o s i t i v e l y and negatively with the same f a c t o r . For example, "by reviewing the way i n which the Open and the Closed Climates d i f f e r , we can understand b e t t e r what Factor I r e p r e s e n t s . " 2 ^ The three subtests i n which the Open and Closed Climates d i f f e r most markedly are Disengagement, E s p r i t and Thrust, with E s p r i t and Thrust being higher i n the Open Climate, and Disengagement lower. Halpin and C r o f t r e l a t e t h i s to the "genuineness" or " a u t h e n t i c i t y " of behavior, i n that the task-oriented behavior described by t h i s f a c t o r i s more r e a l , and therefore more e f f e c t i v e . That i s , i t corresponds t o the r e a l characters and s o c i a l needs of the i n d i v i d u a l s involved, and enables task accomplishment and s o c i a l needs s a t i s f a c t i o n to become integrated. Perhaps the term Integration might better describe t h i s f a c t o r . E s p r i t and Thrust both are measures of i n t e g r a t i o n of nomothetic and idiographic demands. Disengagement measures a complete la c k of i n t e g r a t i o n . Many of the behaviors i n the Disengagement subtest are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Getzels' d i s i n t e g r a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y - a 25 p e r s o n a l i t y u n w i l l i n g to f i t i n t o the organization. Halpin and Croft c a l l t h i s f a c t o r "Authenticity" or "Openness." They use these terms frequently, C r o f t , p. 74. <Jacob W. Getzels, "Administrative Behavior As A S o c i a l Process," i n A. W. Halpin (ed.) Administrative Theory In Education. Midwest Administration Centre, U. of Chicago, 1958. 41 and use scores on Esprit as a measure of this factor to rank a l l the climates with respect to "Openness versus Closedness." This analysis agrees with the analysis by the R-technique. The R-technique analysis shows Disengagement, Esprit and Thrust as correlating highly with Factor I, Disengagement correlating negatively and the other two positively. Halpin and Croft c a l l the factor which correlates with the Autonomous and Paternal Climates Factor III, and the present study w i l l continue t h i s . Halpin and Croft describe this factor as referring to the source of leader-ship acts. In an Autonomous Climate, the principal's Aloofness and the high Intimacy of the staff combine to give each a source of potential leadership. In the Paternal Climate, on the other hand, the principal's emphasis on Production Emphasis, combines with the low Intimacy of the teachers to restr i c t teacher participation i n leadership i n i t i a t i o n . This factor i s not as clear as the "Authenticity" factor, however. The R-technique shows a correlation with Aloofness, which i s evident i n the profile analysis, and with Consideration, which i s not. The correlation with Aloofness i s positive, while that with Consideration i s negative. This would describe a factor which ranged from strong social control, by means of rules and regulations and accompanied by a thwarting of individual needs, to strong social needs orientation. There are also unexplained relationships with Disengagement, which might result i n part from contamina-tion by Factor I, although they seem too strong to be entirely caused by this, and lesser relationships with Production Emphasis and Intimacy, which might arise from Factor II. Halpin and Croft do l i t t l e to justify their description of Factor III as; "Leadership i n i t i a t i o n : The latitude within which the group members, as well as the leader, can i n i t i a t e leadership 2 6Halpin and Croft, p. 76. 42 Factor I I i s more d i s t i n c t . Both the R-technique and the p r o f i l e analysis show s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with Intimacy (negative) and Production Emphasis ( p o s i t i v e ) , and a lesser correlation with Hindrance ( p o s i t i v e ) , although f o r some reason, Halpin and Croft do not recognize 27 the high loading on Production Emphasis. This would tend to indicate a factor describing behavior ranging from strong personal control by the p r i n c i p a l , to strong s o c i a l l y oriented control by the s t a f f group. Halpin and Croft describe t h i s f a c t o r as; "S a t i s f a c t i o n : The group members' attainment of conjoint s a t i s f a c t i o n i n respect to task accomplishment and s o c i a l needs. Factor I I i s also confused by a high relationship with Disengagement i n the p r o f i l e analysis. These three factors have not been accurately defined. I t does seem very l i k e l y that three factors do e x i s t , and Halpin and Croft have been w i l l i n g to accept t h i s , and place t h e i r emphasis on t h e i r climate patterns rather than doing anything to c l a r i f y the factors themselves. Their climate patterns are based on the b e l i e f that most schools would correlate with only one f a c t o r , thus making i t possible to place a l l climates on a continuum ranging from Open to Closed. L o g i c a l l y , i t would seem that schools would correlate with a l l three f a c t o r s , and should be measured with respect to a l l three. One of the purposes of the present study i s to determine whether schools tend to correlate with only one f a c t o r , or ^Halpin and Croft, p. 129. In the table f o r the R-technique analysis, which i s reproduced i n Appendix D of the present study, Halpin and Croft underline "those loadings which most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y define the three major patterns of subtest scores," but do not underline the very high loading (.76) of Factor I I on the Production Emphasis subtest. This may just be a typographical error. 28 Halpin and Croft, p. 76. with a l l three, that i s , whether the factors are separate factors, or points on a continuum. Another question which is not satisfactorily answered by Halpin and Croft is whether i t i s profitable to talk of fixed patterns of teacher and principal behavior. Perhaps i t might be better to keep these two separate, as there may not be fixed relationships between them. However, since this question was not considered in the present study, i t must remain for future researchers to attack. Chapter five of The Organizational Climate of Schools contains some self-criticism, some limitations on results, discussion of theoretical questions raised by the results of Halpin and Croft's study, and some possible directions for future research, both specific and general. Among the criticisms and limitations are several relating to the scope of the original study. Halpin and Croft's study was originally 29 intended as a feasibility study only. 7 As a result, the questionnaire is s t i l l far from perfect, and the patterns of results are not in any way norms. The questionnaire will have to be administered to many more schools before anything approaching norms will be identified, and before this is done, i t will have to be expanded. Several of the subtests do not contain enough questions to be able to measure accurately the factors which they are designed to measure, or to permit any accurate tests of reliability. However, this could be remedied, as the subtests are now clearly defined, and i t would seem possible to add questions to them. Another limitation stems from the fact that the questionnaire has not been validated against external standards. The only tests of reliability have been tests of internal consistency. One way in which an external Halpin and Croft, p. 77. 44 measurement could be obtained would be to send people into the school, disguised as teachers, and have them assess the climate, then administer the questionnaire to the staff. "Then a group of qualified judges should be asked to do a 'blind matching' between the case reports and the OCDQ 30 profiles."^ Halpin and Croft also point out that the relationships between subtests which make up factors may be curvilinear. They f e e l that the use of subtest patterns overcomes t h i s , but give no solution to the problem i n connection with the factors themselves. They also point out that the double standardized results have had an a r t i f i c i a l pattern forced on them by the double standardization, and i t i s important not to seize on this pattern as a discovery, proved by experimental results. For example, i n standardizing the results, they have limited the ranges of these results, and thus increased the poss i b i l i t i e s of correlations between them. It would be wrong to think of correlations caused by t h i s as being significant i n terms of experimentally proven phenomena. Halpin and Croft point out that the climate profiles are s t i l l very crude, being drawn only from the four to six schools which correlated most closely with each theoretical p r o f i l e . They also warn, correctly, that the vignettes which they use to describe climates are exaggerated. A very necessary warning i s given against taking questionnaire results as descriptions of principal behavior. Halpin and Croft see the principal's behavior as "a necessary but not a sufficient condition i n 31 determining the school's climate." Climate i s the result of interaction much more than individual behavior, and the climate factors measured by 3°Halpin and Croft, p. 8 3 . 3 1Halpin and Croft, p. 8 6 . 45 the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire describe the teachers' perception of behavior; not pure behavior. This leads t o a l i s t of factors not measured by the questionnaire. These include: the effect of the group on the leader; the effects of the outside s o c i a l system on the school; demographic and socio-economic factors; biographical and personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; p o l i t i c a l pressures; and a great many more facto r s . In the realm of personal relationships, f o r example, a teacher's relationships with her students may t o t a l l y overshadow f o r her any effects of teacher and p r i n c i p a l relationships. Another l i m i t a t i o n stems from the fact the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire i s descriptive, and may not be e a s i l y translated into action. I f you decide that an Open Climate i s desirable, how do you achieve i t ? How do you "Open" a "Closed Climate" once you have i d e n t i f i e d i t ? Which i s more important, to "be authentic" or to be perceived as being authentic? These questions lead Halpin and Croft into a highly t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of authenticity. They discuss authenticity with respect to four major conceptual frameworks: 1. The problem of marginal man; 2. The problem of other-directedness and of s o c i e t a l pressures which impose conformity upon the i n d i v i d u a l ; 3. The problem of person to person relations i n cross-c u l t u r a l exchange; 32 4. The c r i s i s of i d e n t i t y . Halpin and Croft predict that men i n marginal positions w i l l tend to behave i n inauthentic ways. For example, the school p r i n c i p a l , whose authority and power t o command are often quite l i m i t e d may react by 'Halpin and Croft, p. 95. overexerting what authority he has. The principal who i s insecure i n that he i s not sure that what he i s doing j u s t i f i e s his being described as the school's educational leader may attempt to "lead" where he should leave alone. The result would be unnecessary social control - inauthenticity. The problem i n connection with other-directedness i s the conflict 33 between being authentic and being perceived as being authentic. Halpin and Croft take the point of view of inner direction when they say: ... i n an other-directed society i n which man's actions are gauged mainly either by expediency or by a desire to conform to the group, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to find a stable standard against which "authenticity" can be measured. 34 The third conceptual framework deals with crosscultural exchange. Halpin and Croft see the danger that insecurity might result i n distorted communication. The American in Europe who i s insecure i n his own se l f -concept w i l l tend to be on the defensive, and react against anything which differs from his own weak concepts. He w i l l gather only oversimplified and probably erroneous impressions about the people he meets, and he w i l l , i n his inauthenticity, give a false impression of Americans. This concept could be applied with great profit to several of Henry James's novels. Another example of inauthenticity i n crosscultural exchange would be the professor of education who reacts defensively to the current trend to scorn educational research, and attempts to paint an unreal picture of his own research, but only succeeds i n displaying an a i r of inauthenticity. The " c r i s i s of identity" i s not a new concept. It is related to the search for something higher than basic needs, which has been so important in the development of c i v i l i z a t i o n . This something higher has been given -'-'Halpin and Croft, p. 97. 3 % a l p i n and Croft, p. 97. 47 many names and many descriptions. Halpin and Croft r e f e r to Schachtel, who sees " f o c a l attention" and "the t o o l , the d i s t i n c t i v e l y human equip-35 ment, by means of which the capacity f o r object-interest can be real i z e d . " Focal attention gives man both the a b i l i t y and the desire to search beyond the bounds of pure s u r v i v a l . I t i s the f a c u l t y which causes him to ask "Who am I?_ What i s t h i s world around me? What can I hope for? What 36 should I do?" But t h i s enquiry can not take place unless the basic needs have been s a t i s f i e d . In t h i s Schachtel discusses a factor very s i m i l a r to the anxiety factor. Man can only move beyond his s o c i a l needs i f those needs have been s a t i s f i e d and he feels secure that they w i l l continue to be s a t i s f i e d - that i s , i f he no longer f e e l s anxiety. Halpin and Croft extrapolated t h i s to hypothesize that an excessive anxiety factor i n the members of an organization w i l l lead to inauthentic behavior. P a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of a school p r i n c i p a l ; he w i l l not be able to view the problems of the school r a t i o n a l l y , from the point of view of education rather than from the point of view o f h i s own i n d i v i d u a l needs, i f he has a high anxiety factor caused by h i s insecurity i n his p o s i t i o n . He w i l l spend more time worrying about whether he i s "leading" than he w i l l spend worrying about education. Next, Halpin and Croft describe some methods of vali d a t i n g t h e i r climate descriptions and increasing understanding of them. They propose a system of construct v a l i d a t i o n which amounts, b a s i c a l l y , to making 35 Halpin and Croft , p. 101 refer t o : Ernest G. Schachtel Metamorphosis (New York, Basic Books Inc., 1959), p. 268. ^ H a l p i n and Croft, p. 102 refer to Schachtel, Metamorphosis. pp. 273-275. 48 predictions based on the factors to be validated, and testing to see i f these predictions are accurate. In this manner, factors which are not measurable can be used to predict measurable factors, and can thus be validated. 3 7 Halpin and Croft suggest obtaining two groups of schools; one scoring high on "Openness," and one scoring high on "Closedness." These schools could then be compared on behaviors predicted from climate descriptions. One measurable behavior might refer to personal characteristics. For example, "we would expect that the faculty i n the Open Climate would, on the whole, score lower i n concretism, higher i n intraception, and higher 38 in the a b i l i t y to accept and deal with their own emotional problems." Open Climates would be expected to foster more complex "axes of 39 reference ... personal role-constructs." There would probably be greater congruence between non-verbal and verbal communication in an Open Climate.^ Principals i n schools with Open Climates would be expected to use less cliches, slogans, platitudes and jargon than those in Closed Climates. Seeman1s measures of status-attitudes would be expected to correlate with the Halpin-Croft measurement. Seeman defines inauthenticity as: "the use of irrelevant or inappropriate status references, that i s , overreference to the fact of a given status incumbency."^"1" 37 For a discussion of construct val i d i t y see Croribach and Meehl, "Construct Validity i n Psychological Tests," Psychology Bulletin. 52 (1955), pp. 281-302. 3 8Halpin and Croft, p. 107. 3 9Halpin and Croft, p. 108. ^ H a l p i n and Croft, p. 108. ^Halpin and Croft, p. 109, quote Melvin Seeman, Social Status and  Leadership: The Case of the School Executive. (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, Monograph No. 35, The Ohio State University, i960), p. 103. 49 Other factors which might be expected to correlate with climate factors are risk-taking and conformity. Another measuring device which measures behavior applicable to climate i s Ryans' Teacher Characteristic 42 Study. This describes teacher behavior i n terms which might be expected to correlate with Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire descrip-tions. Halpin and Croft end their report by appealing to educators to u t i l i z e their results, particularly i n the f i e l d of teacher education and principal education. They f e e l that inauthenticity i n "Mickey Mouse" courses and i n methods of teacher selection and reward drive many of the best teacher-prospects away from education. E. Further Organizational Climate Research Recent studies i n Alberta have sought to validate the OCDQ, and study i t more closely. Dr. John H. M. Andrews, in a paper presented to the American Educational Research association, discusses "Some Validity Studies of the OCDQ." He says that "The method used here i s the construct val i d i t y approach."^ He studied the v a l i d i t y of both the subtests and the climates. He found that "the overall Climate categories may be considered as reasonably valid descriptions of commonly occurring patterns of certain aspects of principal-staff interaction," but that "The term Organizational Climate ... i s so much broader than the actual measures as to be quite ^Halpin and Croft, p. I l l , Refer to D.$. Ryans, Characteristics of  Teachers: Their Description. Comparison and Appraisal. Washington, D. C, American Council on Education, i960. "kjohn H. M. Andrews, "Some Validity Studies of the OCDQ," (mimeographed copy). This report was published i n Canadian Educational and Research  Digest. Dec. 196$. "'Andrews, p. 2. 50 3 misleading." But he later says that " i n many relationships the Climate variable acts merely as a somewhat blurred Esprit score."^ Andrews i s much more positive i n his statements about the subtests: " ... i t i s concluded that the subtests of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire provide reasonably valid measures of important aspects of the leadership of the school principal i n a perspective of interaction with his staff." Andrews' general conclusions seem to be that the subtests are valid, and that the climates seem to be measuring something, but that the ranking of climates on the basis of Esprit introduces an extremely unclear theoretical bias into experimental results. He obviously feels that the subtests are more reliable than the climates. Several other discussions of the Alberta OCDQ studies are included in the CSA Bulletin for July 1965.^ Dr. Andrews gives a summary of his va l i d i t y studies, and decides subjectively that Esprit, Intimacy, Thrust, and Consideration are probably desirable, Disengagement and Hindrance are not desirable, and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess the desirability of Aloofness 7 and Production Emphasis. •^Andrews, p. 37• ^Andrews,- p. 37. ^Andrews, p. 38. 6CSA Bulletin. (July, 1965) Vol. IV, No. 5. ^John H. M. Andrews, "what School Climate Conditions Are Desirable?" in The CSA Bulletin. (July I965) Vol. IV, No. 5, pp. 4-20. 51 R. Plaxton studied relationships between principal personality and OCDQ results. He found relationships "between personality variables and four of the eight climate subtests: Production Emphasis, Aloofness, 8 Thrust, and Hindrance." D. E. Millar studied relationships between organizational climate and pupil achievement. He found " ... l i t t l e relationship between the global concept of Organizational Climate and pupil achievement," but 11 significant relationship between certain OCDQ subtests and the achievement 9 criterion." He found that high Intimacy, low Aloofness, high Considera-tion, and low Production Emphasis tended to correlate with high pupil achievement. His definition of pupil achievement is based largely on examination passing a b i l i t y , however, and i s not necessarily the best definition. Millar's results are interesting because they seem to indicate that a high degree of so c i a l control affects student achievement detrimentally. Wi G. Schmidt compared LBDQ results with OCDQ results, to study possible relationships between "Organizational Climate and Leader Behavior." He found that "There are a number of significant correlations between OCDQ and LBDQ dimensions," (on the subtest leve l ) . However, there were fewer correlations between climates and LBDQ scores. "This leads one to suspect that since there were a number of correlations between the R. Plaxton, "Principal Personality and School Organizational Climate," in The CSA Bulletin. (July I965) Vol. IV, No. 5, pp. 21-35. 7D. E. Millar, "Organizational Climate and Achievements," in The CSA  Bulletin. (July 1965) Vol. IV, No. 5, pp. 36-39. W. G. Schmidt, "Organizational Climate and Leader Behavior," i n The CSA Bulletin. (July 1965) Vol. IV, No. 5, pp. 40-63. 52 dimensions (subtests) of the instruments used, the climates, i n contrast to the dimensions, are a less useful description of the personality of the school.""^ The f i n a l study in The CSA Bulletin i s a discussion by Alan Brown 12 of "Two Strategies for Changing Climate." This i s somewhat premature, since the OCDQ i s not yet satisfactorily validated, and the climates have been questioned. The two "strategies of change" which Brown discusses are the " c l i n i c a l strategy" and the "growth-centred strategy." The " c l i n i c a l strategy" i s based on the following pattern: knowledge of the organism, diagnosis, prognosis, prescription and follow-up. Basically, i t consists of analyzing the situation, prescribing (and taking) action. A l l these steps require an understanding of organizational climate."^ The "growth-centred strategy" i s based on the assumption that a l l organizations inevitably change. By the use of such devices as "change agents," i t i s possible to direct that change. Once again, an under-standing of organizational climate i s invaluable to this method of pro-14 ducing change. These two "strategies of change" are not mutually exclusive. They can, and should, be used side by side. Both of them require, or would be greatly f a c i l i t a t e d by, an understanding of Organizational Climate. ^Schmidt, p. 61. 12 Alan Brown, "Two Strategies for Changing Climate," i n The CSA  Bulletin. (July 1965) Vol. IV, No. 5, pp. 64-80. •^Brown, pp. 67-70. kWown, pp. 72-76. 53 Appendix B of the CSA Bulletin l i s t s OCDQ studies presently under way i n Alberta. These seem to reflect a growing interest i n and under-standing of the concept of Organizational Climate. The Alberta studies are somewhat premature in that the OCDQ i s s t i l l far from perfect, and they are not large enough to generalize from, but they do raise several interesting points. They show what can, and no doubt w i l l be done with the concept of Organizational Climate. And they seem to indicate that Halpin and Croft's climate pattern i s much more d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y than their subtests. F. Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview For Social Planners 1 This survey gives several sociological maps of the Metropolitan Vancouver area, showing variations i n sociological characteristics by census tracts. Of interest i n determining the Socio-economic Backgrounds of schools i s the map on page seven, which shows the status of each 2 census tract on a five l e v e l "Socio-economic Index." Mr. B e l l also gives, i n table form, the data from which he calculated his index. The source of these data i s the 1961 Canadian Census, as reported i n : "Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts," Catalogue No. 95-537, Census of Canada, 1961. L. I. B e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview For Social Planners, (Vancouver, Community Chest and Councils of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1965). 2 B e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver, p. 54. 3 B e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver, p. 1. 54 The socio-economic index i s based on the following factors: 1. Income - percent of male labor force with wage and salary income $6,000 or more. 2. Occupation - percent of male labor force i n managerial or professional occupations. 3. Education - percent of t o t a l population, not attending school, 5 years of age and over, who have attended university. 4 One weakness of this method of determining socio-economic status i s that i t uses a single cut-off point for each factor. This does not take into account other variations within the factors. For example, the income factor, based on an arbitrary cut-off point of $6,000 does not take into account variations among those earning less (or more) than $6,000. They could a l l be out of work, or they could a l l be earning $5,000. However, while this argument would probably invalidate this scale as an accurate measurement of individual status, i t i s perfectly satisfactory for placing areas on a five-point scale. So are his data, secured as they are from census tracts. B e l l refers to a study by J. A. Kahl and J . A. Davis** to substan-6 t i a t e his scale. Kahl and Davis have done a factor analysis which divides most types of socio-economic scales into two groups: those which measure environmental factors, such as area rating, parents' education, and house Metropolitan Vancouver, p. 54. A. Kahl and J. A. Davis, "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status," American Sociological Review. 20, (June 1955), pp. 317-325. ^ e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver, p. 54. 55 rating. Census occupation and education correlate highly (.84 and .75 respectively) with the f i r s t factor. Income correlates relatively poorly 7 with both factors. This does not mean that income i s not a factor of socio-economic status. It merely means that i t correlates equally with both groups of factors, and can probably be looked on as a separate factor. This means that Bell's scale w i l l give a measure of socio-economic status which emphasizes personal characteristics (of the children's parents) and also includes financial status. This i s quite appropriate for the present study. 56 CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY A. The Problem The purpose of this study i s twofold: to test the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire and the Climates which i t measures i n elementary schools i n the Lower Mainland area of British Columbiaj and to study possible relationships between scores on this question-naire and the Socio-economic Backgrounds of the schools tested. More specifically, the study i s designed to answer the following questions: 1. Are the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire items valid and applicable to the British Columbia situation? 2. Do the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire subtests measure commonly perceived aspects of teacher and principal relationships? 3. Do the school subtest scores correspond to Halpin and Croft's pattern of Climates? 4. Do the school subtest scores correspond to any pattern of Climates? 5. Is there any relationship between Organizational Climate and Socio-economic Background? B. Hypotheses The following, i n n u l l form, are the hypotheses which this study seeks to test: 1. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire items do not apply to the Br i t i s h Columbia situation. 57 2. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire subtests do not measure commonly perceived aspects of teacher and principal relationships. 3. The school subtests scores do not correspond to Halpin and Croft's Climates. 4. The school subtest profiles do not f i t into any patterns or climates. 5. In the schools tested, there i s no significant relation-ship between Organizational Climate, as measured by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, and Socio-economic Background, as given i n Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview for Social Planners 1 C. C r i t e r i a For Rejection Of Null Hypotheses (Numbers correspond to numbers of hypotheses.) 1. "The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire items do not apply to the British Columbia situation." Items w i l l be evaluated individually only. Teachers were asked to comment on questions which gave them d i f f i c u l t y , or which seemed i n any way vague, unclear or ambiguous. The criterion for acceptance or rejection of the n u l l hypothesis i s purely subjective. This part of the study was designed mainly as an attempt to identify items which describe behavior not applicable to the Br i t i s h Columbia school system, although i t should also detect any l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s which may exist. Items not queried w i l l be accepted as valid and applicable. L. I. B e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview for Social Planners. (Vancouver, Community Chest and Councils of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1965). 58 2. "The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Quest ionnaire subtests do not measure commonly perceived aspects of teacher and p r i n c i p a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " This hypothesis w i l l be t e s t ed by c o r r e l a t i n g the scores of the odd and even numbered respondents, pa ired by s choo l , on each sub-t e s t . Any c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t to the .01 l e v e l w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t f o r r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis f o r that subtest . 3 . "The school subtest scores do not correspond t o H a l p i n and C r o f t ' s c l imates ." Thi s hypothesis w i l l be tes ted by the same c r i t e r i o n that H a l p i n and C r o f t used. Any school with a s i m i l a r i t y score of less than or equal to 45 on any c l imate w i l l be deemed to have that c l imate . The pat tern of cl imates w i l l be accepted, and the n u l l hypothesis r e -j e c t e d , i f i t describes e ighty per cent of the schools; that i s , s ix teen out of twenty. k. "The school subtest p r o f i l e s do not f i t i n t o any patterns or c l imates ." Since the present study uses a smal ler sample than H a l p i n and C r o f t used (approximately one t h i r d as many schools ) , t h i s n u l l hypothesis w i l l only be r e j e c t e d i f (a) n u l l hypothesis three i s r e -j e c t e d , or (b) two or l e s s cl imates or subtest p r o f i l e s can be i d e n t i f i e d which s a t i s f y Ha lp in and C r o f t ' s c r i t e r i o n f o r at l e a s t e ighty per cent (s ixteen) of the schools . 5. "In the schools t e s t e d , there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e , as measured by the OCDQ, and S o c i o -economic Background, as given i n Metropo l i tan Vancouver." The s implest s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n between cl imate and Socio-economic Background is less than satisfactory. This i s to obtain a simple product-moment correlation between climate score, numbered from one (Open) to six (Closed), using the climate which each school most closely approaches, and Socio-economic Background, numbered from 2 one to five according to Bell's scale. This w i l l be done, but more leliance w i l l be placed on intuitive and subjective attempts to hypothesize relationships which could be studied more closely later. A correlation significant to the . 01 level w i l l be accepted as sufficient for rejection of the n u l l hypothesis. D. Delimitations 1 . Any criticisms of questionnaire items w i l l be designed to point out weaknesses only. Any attempt to change possible defective items w i l l be avoided because of the problems this would create in respect to subtest and climate characteristics. 2. The degree to which the subtests measure commonly perceived aspects of Organizational Climate should not be over-generalized. The results obtained here w i l l apply only to the schools tested. They may be generalized with some confidence to the entire suburban area, but not any further. They describe characteristics of the teachers, not of the questionnaire. 3. Care must be taken i n generalizing any results with respect to climates. A sample as small as that used in this study may point to certain general conclusions, but i t can i n no way prove them. It w i l l not be possible to accept or reject the climates on the basis of this study. It may be possible to indicate certain possible strengths or X. I. B e l l , Metropolitan Vancouver, p. 7 60 weaknesses, which may o r may not be backed up by t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a -t i o n s . k. Any p r o f i l e p a t t e r n s observed w i l l a p p l y o n l y t o t h e s c h o o l s t e s t e d and can i n no way be t r e a t e d as i n d i c a t i v e o f norms. They may i n d i c a t e p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s on a l o c a l l e v e l . 5. T h i s s t u d y i s des igned t o measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c l i m a t e and Socio-economic Background, not t o show why t h e y do o r do not e x i s t . 6. T h i s s t u d y does n o t attempt t o measure " s o c i a l i n e q u a l i t y i n e d u c a t i o n ; " o n l y one f a c t o r which c o u l d p o s s i b l y cause some i n e q u a l i t y . E . Procedures 1. The s c h o o l s t o be t e s t e d were s e l e c t e d w i t h t h e a i d o f t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s o f Sch o o l s i n t h e D i s t r i c t s i n v o l v e d . A l l S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s were h i g h l y c o - o p e r a t i v e , and a s s i s t e d i n the s e l e c t i o n o f s c h o o l s on t h e b a s i s o f B e l l ' s soc io-economic c h a r t . The S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s were a b l e t o ensure t h a t t h e s c h o o l s s e l e c t e d were indeed r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the l a r g e r a r e a on B e l l ' s c h a r t f rom w h i c h t h e y were s e l e c t e d . Four s c h o o l s were s e l e c t e d f rom each of B e l l ' s f i v e soc io-economic a r e a s . 2. The procedures f o l l o w e d i n c o n t a c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s v a r i e d . I n most c a s e s , t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t informed t h e p r i n c i p a l s i n v o l v e d t h a t t h i s s tudy had h i s s u p p o r t , and t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h e r would arrange a s u i t a b l e t i m e w i t h them. I n o t h e r c a s e s , the Super intendent set a t i m e , and t h e n checked w i t h h i s p r i n c i p a l s t o see i f t h i s was s u i t a b l e f o r them. I n every c a s e , however, t h e p r i n c i p a l was c o n t a c t e d by the author b e f o r e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d , e i t h e r t o e x p l a i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and set a t i m e , o r t o make sure t h a t the p r i n c i p a l knew 61 when and how the questionnaire would be administered. 3. The actual administration was hampered by the fact that i t was conducted i n the l a s t two weeks of the school term. However t h i s was la r g e l y overcome by administering the questionnaire at recess, i n the morning, at noon, and after school, making i t possible to administer the questionnaire to as many as four schools i n one day. •a 4. The questionnaire was administered^ to the teachers as a supervised group. P r i n c i p a l s were asked to leave the room, although no insistence was placed on t h i s as long as they did not look at teachers' questionnaires. Teachers were asked not to discuss t h e i r answers, and t h i s was la r g e l y observed, although most s t a f f rooms found at least one question which they f e l t they had to comment on. This was quite amusing. I t seemed that there was at least one question which struck home f o r c i b l y i n each st a f f room, and caused great mirth. 5. Because of the group administration and personal supervision, i t was possible to administer the questionnaire t o almost a l l the teachers i n a l l schools. Except f o r the few teachers who were absent due to i l l n e s s , the only teachers out of a possible 224 who did not com-plete the questionnaire were two who were on supervisory duty, one who handed i n an incomplete questionnaire, and one who refused t o answer the questionnaire. One paper was also l o s t , as i n one school one less questionnaire was received than there were teachers, and every teacher claimed that he had handed his questionnaire i n . 6. The only other problem was the fact that i t became necessary, on two occasions, to administer the questionnaire to three schools at -'The form of the questionnaire that was administered i s given i n Appendix A. 62 approximately the same time. This meant that i t was necessary to begin the administration i n one school, leave i t before the teachers had completed their questionnaires, move on to the second school, and f i n a l l y to the third school, where the principal had already handed out the questionnaires. However, a l l people involved co-operated f u l l y , and no serious problems were involved. This did mean, however, that these teachers were not supervised f o r the f u l l time that they were f i l l i n g i n the questionnaire. 7. The questionnaire was successfully administered to 219 teachers i n twenty schools i n five socio-economic areas i n the Lower Mainland area of B r i t i s h Columbia. 8. The data were then organized, analyzed and studied as described i n the later chapters of the present report. Details of organization and analysis of data are included i n Appendix C. 63 CHAPTER III RESULTS A. Items Null hypothesis 1: "The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire items do not apply to the British Columbia situation." The following, with comments, are the items which teachers c r i t i c i z e d . Numbers correspond to those used i n the form of the 1 questionnaire which was administered. It should be noted here that the form of the questionnaire used was identical to that used by Halpin and Croft, except that the word "faculty" was changed to staff i n a l l except items 70 and 71, and the word "supervisor's" was changed to "superintendent's" i n item 76: "Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's v i s i t . " Item 19: "Extra books are available for classroom use." The term "extra books" was c r i t i c i z e d as being vague. This was an isolated criticism, however, and i s not j u s t i f i e d . Item 23: "In staff meetings, there i s a feeling of 'Let's get things done."1 Some teachers interpreted "Let's get things done" as meaning "Let's get things over with" rather than "Let's get things accomplished." This problem was encountered by enough teachers to make i t serious. While i t may not sound so euphonious, "Let's get things accomplished" might be less open to misinterpretation. Item 29: "Teachers have fun socializing together during school time," worried some teachers. They did not know whether this applied to time between classes or time when they should be teaching, and this "See Appendix A. 64 made a great difference to their responses. Since this question i s designed to measure social interaction (Intimacy), and not whether social interaction i s perceived as interfering with work, "Teachers have fun socializing together between classes" or words to that effect, might be better. Item 42: "Teachers at this school stay by themselves" was described as vague. Teachers complained that i t did not say whether this meant i n school or out of school. Since i t is a measure of Dis-engagement, i t seems l i k e l y that i t means i n school, and the wording should be changed accordingly. Item 50: "Teachers socialize together i n small select groups." Inadvertently, the word "select" was missed out in the version of the questionnaire used for this study. This caused some problems, but none which could not be solved by the inclusion of "select." Item 51: "The principal makes a l l class scheduling decisions." This caused a great deal of trouble. Most teachers f e l t either that the term "class scheduling decisions" was vague, or that such decisions belonged entirely to the principal because of some inviolable procedure adhered to throughout the province. However, the claim of vagueness was isolated and probably not j u s t i f i e d , and the claim that no one else ever makes or has any opportunity to make class scheduling decisions merely indicates that most principals take this duty entirely on them-selves. This may be a provincial custom, but there i s no law which says the principal can not consult his teachers i n making such decisions. Item 58: "Teachers help select which courses w i l l be taught." Most decisions on curriculum are made at levels above the school i n British Columbia, so this item i s not s t r i c t l y applicable. Teachers 65 were asked to answer i t on the basis of the amount of teacher p a r t i c i -pation i n any curriculum decisions which were made within the school. The d i f f i c u l t i e s with this item were purely the result of local conditions, and were not insurmountable. Item 62: "The principal t r i e s to get better salaries for teachers." Once again, this i s not normally part of the principal's duties i n British Columbia. Teachers were asked to answer this item on the basis of the behavior which they would expect i f this were part of their principal's duties. The item was answered satisfactorily on this basis. Item 64: "The rules set by the principal are never questioned." Many respondents were confused by the fact that this item is i n a negative form. If the principal's rules are never questioned, the correct response to this item i s "very frequently occurs." It would be less confusing to state this item positively ("The rules set by the principal are often questioned,") and then score i t negatively. Items 70 and 71: In both these items, the word "faculty" was not changed to "staff," due to typographical errors. These items caused enough queries to make i t obvious that changing this word was desirable in administering the questionnaire to Bri t i s h Columbia teachers. Item 76: "Teachers are informed of the results of a superinten-dent's v i s i t . " This question had already been changed by changing "supervisor's" to "superintendent's." However, a great many teachers claimed that they were never visited by their superintendent. Some teachers also did not realize that the v i s i t s referred to were presumably v i s i t s for the purpose of inspection. This item would have been answered much more easily i f i t had read: "Teachers are informed of the results of a principal's inspection." This refers to behavior within the school 66 which i s l i k e l y to happen relatively frequently, and i t also makes the purpose of the visit-more specific. In summary, i t should be noted that the criticisms noted are not serious, and while they might cause d i f f i c u l t i e s i f respondents were answering the questionnaire by themselves, they are easily over-come when the questionnaire i s administered by someone who i s familiar with i t . B. Subtests Null hypothesis 2: "The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire subtests do not measure commonly perceived aspects of teacher and principal relationships." Table 2 shows that there i s a wide variation i n individual teachers' perceptions of organizational climate. Only one subtest (Thrust) showed a correlation between the scores of odd and even numbered respondents significant at the .01 level, and four subtests did not even show a correlation significant at the .05 level (Disengage-ment, Hindrance, Intimacy, and Production Emphasis). This does not mean that Organizational Climate does not exist. It merely means that in the schools tested, there was a wide variation in teachers' perceptions of climate. In terms of the hypothesis, i t cannot be said that the OCDQ measures commonly perceived factors. Rather, i t seems to measure something about which there i s wide difference of opinion among members of the same staff. Obviously, the present sample i s too small to generalize from. It i s possible that the observed variation of perception could be a l o c a l characteristic. 67 Table 2: Coefficients of Correlation between Odd and Even Respondents, Paired According to School, on the Eight Subtests of the  Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Subtest Correlation b Significance 1. Disengagement .18 NS 2. Hindrance .17 NS 3. Esprit .21 .05 4. Intimacy .13 NS 5. Aloofness .25 .05 6. Production Emphasis .09 NS 7. Thrust .48 .01 8. C onsiderat ion .21 .05 a A l l coefficients are product-moment coefficients. To be significant at the .01 level, coefficients must exceed .25. To be significant at the .05 level, they must exceed .19. (See T. C. McCormick, Elementary Social S t a t i s t i c s , New York, McGraw-Hill, 1941, Table 4, p. 306.) 68 C. Climates Null hypothesis 3: "The school subtest scores do not correspond to Halpin and Croft's climates." Null hypothesis 4: "The school subtest profiles do not f i t into any patterns or climates." Only five schools out of twenty satisfy Halpin and Croft's criterion for inclusion in one of the six climates (a similarity score equal to or less than 45). Moreover, i t seems that Halpin and Croft's criterion i s too generous, as the range o f similarity scores i s limited. Several schools have no similarity scores over one hundred, and few have very similar similarity scores on different climates. For example, school eighteen i s designated as having an Autonomous Climate, because i t s error score of 62 on the Autonomous Climate is i t s smallest error score. However, i t has an error score of only 63 on the Continuous Climate, which indicates that i t i s probably equally close to each. School three has similarity scores on three Climates (Autonomous, Con-trolled and Closed) which are within six points of each other. Obviously Halpin and Croft's Climates do not provide an accurate description of enough schools to be accepted on the basis of this sample of schools. However i t was possible to devise two climates (A and B i n Table 2) which accounted for eighteen of the twenty schools. These climates were obtained quite unscientifically by averaging the scores on each subtest of those schools which seemed to follow similar patterns. This intuitive approach led to dividing the schools into two groups, one of eleven schools (A) and one of eight schools (B). Only one school thus included did not f i t into the patterns obtained by averaging subtest scores. This was school twenty. School fourteen was perceived from the beginning as differing markedly from both groups of schools. Table 3; Subtest Scores of Twenty Schools on Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire School Subtest Production Disengagement Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Aloofness Emphasis Thrust Consideration 1 51 50 60 62 53 46 36 38 2 49 40 55 51 63 59 36 43 3 49 59 64 42 53 51 40 37 4 35 44 50 57 61 58 39 51 5 36 37 57 45 60 52 50 59 6 36 42 63 54 61 44 50 45 7 58 60 43 44 57 57 38 39 8 51 57 54 52 54 56 29 43 9 55 50 59 54 57 51 35 36 10 52 64 51 50 53 54 32 41 11 51 57 56 57 53 52 34 35 12 38 35 52 54 69 46 52 60 13 48 56 52 39 65 55 45 37 14 61 56 51 62 39 42 47 39 15 42 36 49 56 67 53 49 47 16 46 51 42 50 69 53 38 48 17 44 54 57 52 62 38 53 36 18 42 38 49 41 67 54 48 56 19 42 48 62 43 62 52 52 36 20 57 59 37 49 52 56 34 51 ON NO 70 Table 4: Climate Similarity Scores for Twenty Schools on the  Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire School Olamate Open Aut. Contr. Fam. Pat. Closed u A c B 1 88 70 86 88 105 6gd 38 69 2 91 66 68 96 92 62 32 40 3 89 101 iZ 115 98 67 39 72 4 88 i i 64 86 90 71 60 44 5 64 i i 59 80 79 101 78 35 6 52 2k 65 81 102 87 73 24 7 126 114 64 106 73 2B 36 85 8 103 91 56 101 92 4j> 20 67 9 97 84 83 93 94 2^ 27 62 10 106 102 66 102 90 i i 23 74 n 103 87 71 97 101 i l 25 72 12 62 21 77 62 90 96 84 29 13 108 89 kk 114 91 69 42 58 14 87 80 94 25 70 64 68 96 15 83 bl 74 81 84 72 70 31 16 99 78 73 106 85 kl 45 50 17 72 46 67 86 111 84 54 45 18 76 62 63 83 72 91 77 42 19 69 65 i2 107 92 87 57 38 20 112 112 80 94 68 2k 49 90 Similarity scores are obtained by adding the absolute values of the differences between each school and the climate profiles on each subtest. b' cClimates A and B are hypothetical climates, derived from these results. (See Table 5). dThe lowest Halpin and Croft similarity scores are underlined. Table 5t Prototypic Profiles for Two Climates (A and B) Perceived i n Schools Measured Climate Subtest Disengagement Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Aloofness Production Emphasis Thrust Consideration A 51 55 54 50 58 54 36 40 B 40 42 55 50 62 49 49 49 H 7-2 The profiles designated as climates A and B were obtained by-averaging the subtest scores of the schools -which seemed to f i t into each climate. It would be easy to adapt climate A to include school twenty, but the prototypic climate would then not be an average of a l l the schools described by i t . Climate A consists of the following subtest scores: Disengagement, $1; Hindrance, 55; Esprit, 54; Intimacy, 50; Aloofness, 58; Production Emphasis, 54; Thrust, 36; Consideration, 40. This would seem to indicate a school i n which the teachers f e e l that there is an excessive amount of social control, coming from several sources. High Aloofness (58) indicates that the principal exerts a great deal of control through directives, and other indirect methods. He also exerts a lot of personal control (Production Emphasis, 54). The high score on Hindrance (55) indicates that the teachers f e e l overburdened by red tape from a l l sources. In view of the excessive social control indicated i n climate A i t i s surprising to find that the teachers give themselves a high rating oh Esprit (54). They seem to f e e l that they have a high stan-dard of accomplishment despite the many restrictions they encounter. This accomplishment does not seem to stem from any great intimacy either, (a rating of 50). Neither does i t seem to stem from any great feeling of dedication (Disengagement, 51). Either the individuals find enough satisfaction i n carrying out their duties well to make up for the disadvantages of too much social control, or they do not di s -l i k e the social control. The teachers have an extremely low opinion of their principal (Thrust, 36), and f e e l that he has l i t t l e or no consideration for their social needs (Consideration, 40)• The extremely low Thrust and high social control ratings of these principals would seem to indicate that their staffs f e e l that they spend most of their time t e l l i n g the staff what to do, and l i t t l e or no time doing anything constructive them-selves. Once again, however, the staff members do not seem to f e e l that the principal's behavior makes i t impossible for them to carry out their work to their satisfaction, (high Esprit). Perhaps this indicates a situation i n which the principal i s expected to exert a great deal of social control over his teachers, without giving any educational leadership. Climate B consists of the following subtest scores: Disengagement, 40; Hindrance, 42; Esprit, 55; Intimacy, 50; Aloofness, 62; Production Emphasis, 49; Thrust, 49; Consideration, 49. Curiously enough, this climate differs from climate A in most respects, but i s almost identical to i t i n Esprit, which Halpin and Croft f e e l i s the most important subtest. This climate i s much easier to describe. The extremely high rating on Aloofness (62), and the low ratings on Disengagement and Hindrance would indicate a climate i n which the prin-cipal exerts considerable control by means of directives, without giving the teachers the feeling that they are smothered in red tape. The teachers are very involved i n their work (low Disengagement), and f e e l that the situation i s very satisfactory i n terms of task accomplishment and social needs satisfaction (Esprit). The other subtests a l l register average scores, and so would not influence the Esprit significantly. Climates A and B are also interesting i n that they show that i t i s possible f o r schools with similar ratings on Esprit to be very dissimilar i n other ways. This would seem to indicate that Halpin and Croft's practice of ranking schools i n one continuum according to Esprit i s unsound. It must be remembered, however, that these descriptions have no 74 more value than the subtest scores can give them. They are patterns of subtest scores which have been found to apply to the schools tested. They do not correspond to individual Halpin and Croft climates, but seem to be combinations of climates. This would seem to indicate that Halpin and Croft's three factors, i f they exist, are separate factors, and should not be forced into one continuum. However this i s a theoretical observation, and w i l l be enlarged on later. A superficial study of similarity scores would seem to indicate a relationship between the similarity scores on climates supposedly related to the same factor. For example, a school with a low similarity score on the open climate will have a correspondingly high score on the closed climate. This would seem to indicate the existence of three factors - three continua - on which the schools could be measured. Since the present study was not designed to study this possibility, i t would be wrong to come to any positive conclusions. But i t would definitely be worthwhile to undertake further studies to determine whether studying these three factors separately would produce any better results than Halpin and Croft's method of placing them a l l on one continuum. Because results seemed to indicate that the entire basis of the Halpin and Croft climate system was erroneous, and because the similarity score method of classifying climates did not seem to be accurate enough, i t was deemed necessary to use another method of classification. Simple product-moment correlations were worked out between school subtest profiles and the eight climate profiles (six Halpin and Croft climates plus climate A and climate B). (See Appendix E). These correlations showed the same pattern as the similarity scores. In general, a l l corre-lations were high, and no pattern of specific relationships with Halpin and Croft climates existed. There were very noticeable correlations with climates A and B, however. 75 Table 6; Relationships Between ClimatesA and B, and the a Socio-economic Background of the Schools Measured. b Climate Socio-economic a Status 1 2 3 4 5 A 2 3 4 2 1 B 2 1 0 2 3 Table 7: Relationships Between Climates A and B, and the  School District of the Schools Measured, Climate School D i s t r i c t 1 2 3 4 5 A 2 3 2 2 3 B 2 0 1 4 1 a"Socio-economic background" refers to socio-economic status on a scale from 1 (high) to 5 (low). Schools are a r b i t r a r i l y described as having the climate for which they have the lower similarity score. Table 8t Relationships Between Subtest Scores and Socio-economic Background Socio-(schoo3 Economic a Background Subtest Production Disengagement Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Aloofness Emphasis Thrust Consideration ( 6 36 42 63 54 61 44 50 45 1 ( 7 58 60 43 44 57 57 38 - 39 (12 38 35 52 54 69 46 52 60 (1A 61 56 51 62 39 42 47 39 ( 4 35 44 50 57 61 58 39 51 2 ( 8 51 57 54 52 54 56 29 43 ( 9 55 50 59 54 57 51 35 36 (11 51 57 56 57 53 52 34 35 ( 1 51 50 60 62 53 46 36 38 3 ( 2 49 40 55 51 63 59 36 43 ( 3 49 59 64 42 53 51 40 37 (10 52 64 51 50 53 54 32 41 (16 46 51 42 50 69 53 38 48 4 (17 44 54 57 52 62 38 53 36 (18 42 38 49 41 67 54 48 56 (20 57 59 37 49 52 56 34 51 ( 5 36 37 57 45 60 52 50 59 5 (13 48 56 52 39 65 55 45 37 (15 42 36 49 56 67 53 49 47 (19 42 48 62 43 62 52 52 36 a"Socio-economic background" refers to the socio-economic status of the school's patrons on a five point scale ( l = high, 5 - low). 77 The Halpin and Croft climates did not describe the situation in the schools studied, whereas climates A and B did. D. Relationships between Climate and Socioeconomic Background Null hypothesis 5: "In the schools tested, there is no s i g n i f i -cant relationship between Organizational Climate, as measured by the OCDQ, and Socioeconomic Background, as given i n Metropolitan Vancouver." Because Halpin and Croft's climates do not describe the schools measured, i t would be pointless to look for relationships between them and the schools' socioeconomic background. It is not so pointless, however, to study relationships between climates A and B and the socio-economic factor. Table 6 shows that there seems to be some relationship between socioeconomic background and the two observed climates. This relationship i s quite d i f f i c u l t to describe, and would be much more d i f f i c u l t to explain. Schools at the top and bottom of the socioeconomic scale tend to have climates similar to climate B, while those in the middle of the socioeconomic scale follow climate A. One factor which might have caused- this unexpected relationship i s the fact that these schools are from different school d i s t r i c t s , but table 7 shows that there i s no apparent relationship between school d i s t r i c t and climate. Table 8 explores the po s s i b i l i t i e s of relationships between sub-test scores and socioeconomic background. While some subtests do seem to have remarkably similar scores within individual socioeconomic levels, there i s no identifiable pattern to these similarities. 78 CHAPTER IV1 CONCLUSIONS 1. Null hypothesis one, "The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire items do not apply to the British Columbia teaching situation," can be rejected. Two items are not applicable to the Bri t i s h Columbia teaching situation and six others could benefit from slight changes, but none of these weaknesses i s at a l l serious. The two items which are not applicable are item 58, "Teachers help select which courses w i l l be taught," and item 62, "The principal t r i e s to get better salaries for teachers." 2. Null hypothesis two, "The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire subtests do not measure commonly perceived aspects of teacher and principal relationships," can not be rejected. The correla-tion between the odd and even numbered respondents was significant at the .01 level for only one subtest (Thrust). This i s a comment on teacher perception; not on subtest r e l i a b i l i t y . 3. Null hypothesis three, "The school subtest scores do not correspond to Halpin and Croft's climates," can not be rejected. Only five out of twenty schools satisfied Halpin and Croft's criterion for inclusion i n one of their climates, as opposed to the standard of sixteen out of twenty set for the rejection of the n u l l hypothesis. Halpin and Croft's climates do not describe the situation i n the schools measured. 4. Null hypothesis four, "The school subtest scores do not f i t into any pattern of climates," can be rejected. Eighteen out of the twenty school profiles can be grouped in one of two climate patterns, A and B, satisfying Halpin and Croft's criterion of a similarity score of 45 or less. Both these climates indicate a high degree of independence in the 79 teachers, so both w i l l be labelled "independent". Climate A indicates a great deal of control, both in the form of Aloofness and Production Emphasis, and a strong feeling of Hindrance, and so w i l l be labelled "Independent Controlled". The seeming contradiction i n this term arises from the fact that although the principal attempts to control his teachers, and they f e e l that this control hinders them, they f e e l that they are able to work well (high Esprit) despite this. In Climate B, however, the principal attempts to exert his control primarily through directives (high Aloofness), and the teachers do not f e e l hindered. This climate (B) w i l l be called "Independent Aloof". Both climates seem to represent situations i n which the teachers f e e l that they are working well despite their principals' very low Thrust and very strong attempts at control. Both climates seem to represent combinations of Halpin and Croft's three climate factors, rather than scoring highly on only one. 5. It was impossible to test hypothesis five, "In the schools tested, there i s no significant relationship between Organizational Climate and Socioeconomic Background," because of the breakdown of Halpin and Croft's climate patterns. There did seem to be some relationship between climates A and B and Socioeconomic Background, but i t did not f i t the expected linear pattern. Schools i n high and low socioeconomic areas tend to have climates similar to Climate B (Independent Aloof), while schools i n the middle socioeconomic areas have climates similar to Climate A (Independent Controlled). However these findings would apply only to the schools measured, and could not be taken as bases for generalization. 80 CHAPTER V LIMITATIONS The primary limitation in this study is that i t does not measure a large enough sample of schools to allow any generalizations. A l l results can only be taken as referring to the schools studied, and can not be taken as proving or disproving anything beyond these schools. They do indicate that there may be very definite weaknesses in the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, but they should not be used as reasons for discarding the questionnaire or the climate factors. They very definitely do indicate that i t i s necessary to investigate further the questionnaire, and in particular the climates. The relationship between Socioeconomic Background and Climate which was observed must be looked on as extremely tentative, and applying only to the schools studied, particularly as there does not seem to be any theoretical reason for i t . There is also a grave danger that value judgments might creep into this study. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire describes objectively. It has never been validated against any external standard of "good" or "bad", and any statement of values must be opinion only, and must be based on theoretical considerations rather than any experimental results. 81 CHAPTER VI THEORY AND IMPLICATIONS The OCDQ was designed to study organizational climate, and find experimentally those climate factors which were perceived by teachers as being most common. While i t is not yet complete and accurate, i t has certainly identified several important climate factors. These factors are on two levels: the subtest factors, which are not as distinct as could be desired; and the three climate factors, which are broader, and not yet clearly defined, although capable of being more clearly defined. The subtest factors are somewhat random, but do seem to f i t in quite well with present theory. Disengagement would seem to be one possible reaction by the individual to nomothetic demands. A high score on disengagement would describe a group which was not nomothetically oriented—which was not interested i n achieving organizational goals. A low score on disengagement would describe a group which was interested in achieving organizational goals. Hindrance is obviously a feeling on the part of the individual that the nomothetic dimension i s restricting him. This introduces a factor which i s not f u l l y covered by Getzels' model—social control. Social control would seem to be nomothetic behavior which restricts individual action, often without furthering organizational goals. It would seem that excessive social control could act against the achievement of organi-zational goals. Experimental evidence shows that social control i s quite common i n schools. Esprit would weem to measure the integration of social needs satis-faction and task accomplishment. If this i s so, i t i s an extremely important factor. It seems theoretically l i k e l y that an organization i n 82 which social needs satisfaction and task accomplishment are well integrated would be highly successful i n achieving both organizational and individual goals. Intimacy does not measure co-operation, or necessarily social needs satisfaction, as Halpin and Croft claim. A closer study of the items in this subtest, and the results of climate patterns observed seems to indicate that Intimacy measures only the closeness of personal relation-ships within the staff. This may or may not be related to social needs satisfaction, and i t seems to have l i t t l e or no connection with task accomplishment. Aloofness and Production Emphasis are two more indices of social control, Aloofness being indirect control, and Production Emphasis direct. Both describe control which may or may not be directed towards organi-zational goals. Thrust, l i k e Esprit, seems to be very important. It describes a principal who combines goal-oriented leadership and consideration for individuals. Consideration, lik e Intimacy, refers purely to the idiographic dimension, and need not directly affect the nomothetic, although i t i s obviously important. Some of these subtests overlap; for example, the three which discuss social control (Hindrance, Aloofness, and Production Emphasis); so i t would seem theoretically desirable to create a form of the question-naire which measured fewer factors, but measured them more accurately. The factors could then be more clearly defined, and would, supposedly, be the most important factors of school climate. Although they are by no means proven, Halpin and Croft's three climate factors are extremely interesting. "Authenticity" ("openness"), 83 i f i t exists has endless implications. It seems to give a more refined measure of Esprit, on the level of the group. That i s , i t shows the degree to which the group provides a climate within which individuals can combine the satisfaction of individual needs with the accomplishment of organizational goals. Halpin's theoretical pronouncements on Authen-t i c i t y are extremely interesting, but somewhat premature. At the present time, i t i s only a fascinating possibility. It w i l l take a great deal of study and experimentation to discover whether i t lives up to i t s promises. Halpin and Croft's other two factors are even more vague, and they tend to become overshadowed by the authors' excitement over Authenticity. They are very interesting,nevertheless. Halpin and Croft describe factor II as Satisfaction (controlled vs. familiar climates). It would seem more accurate to discuss this i n terms of social control, which has been seen to be so evident in the teacher's opinions. It is not sur-prising to find that social control is a very noticeable factor in school climates. Obviously, this factor needs closer study and more accurate definition. Factor III, Leadership Initiation, relates to the Autonomous and Paternal climates. It would seem to describe types of organizations. In an Autonomous climate leadership, or nomothetic behavior can come from the group or the leader, while the paternal climate describes a situation i n which a l l such behavior comes from the principal. Perhaps this i s the result of the principal's exerting goal-oriented social control, thereby restricting the i n i t i a t i v e of group members. Like the other climate factors, however, this i s only a possibility. Also like them, however, i t i s a p o s s i b i l i t y which should be investigated. The two observed climates (Independent Controlled and Independent Aloof) are very interesting, both theoretically and as descriptions of 84 the B. C. system. Both appear to be combinations of Halpin and Croft's three factors. There i s a very definite relationship between Open and Closed, Autonomous and Paternal and Controlled and Familiar Climates. Schools with a high positive correlation with the Closed Climate have a correspondingly high negative correlation with the Open Climate and so on. There i s no such relationship between climates measuring different factors (e.g., between Open and Autonomous).^" These observations are largely intuitive, and the present study was not designed to measure climate factors. However they do point out the necessity of designing a new study to isolate, measure and describe those factors i f they do exist. Halpin and Croft's climates do not describe existing situations, and do not seem to be theoretically sound, but the three factors do seem to exist. Specifically, the two climates seem to indicate that control and independence are the two main climatic characteristics of Lower Mainland elementary schools. Principal control takes several forms, and i s ineffectual. The behavior of the principal i n the Independent Controlled Climate is even more closed than the behavior of Halpin and Croft's Closed principal. The Independent Controlled principal scores lower on Thrust and Consideration, the same on Production Emphasis, and higher on Aloofness than the Closed principal. This excessive control i s emphasized by the fact that the staff i n the Independent Controlled school f e e l greater Hindrance than those in the Closed school. The behavior of the principal i n the Independent Aloof school is similar to that of Halpin and Croft's Autonomous principal, except that 'See Appendix E. 8 5 i t i s higher on Production Emphasis. Its dominant characteristic, however, i s the principal's Aloofness. The two climates indicate varying forms of control and an extremely low Thrust. The type of control affects the teachers' feelings of Hindrance but not their Esprit. This seems to indicate that the Aloof principal i s easier to ignore, but that both can be and are ignored. It i s surprising to find such high Esprit among teachers who have such a low opinion of their principals. One other question remains. That i s , "Is i t desirable to treat staff and principal behavior together, or should they be treated separately?" The answer would seem to be that they should be treated together. This study i s designed to measure group characteristics and interactions, and from the point of view of the education of children, the important factors are the overall attitudes of t he staff group—including the principal. Once group characteristics have been identified and studied, i t w i l l be desirable to find out which are caused by the prin-cipal, which by the staff as a group, and which by the teachers individually. The f i r s t step, however, must be the identification and study of group characteristics. 86 CHAPTER VII POSSIBILITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Halpin and Croft give a very complete description of the many 1 avenues open for further research i n the area of organizational climate. However, before any of this research is undertaken, i t would be well to make some improvements to the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. The pattern of climates created by Halpin and Croft does not seem to describe observed conditions satisfactorily. One possible reaction would be to discard the OCDQ and return to the older, but more successful Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. This i s not l o g i c a l . The OCDQ and the LBDQ are designed to measure entirely.different factors. The LBDQ i s designed to measure Leader Behavior, while the OCDQ i s designed to measure group climate. Leader behavior, or even perceived leader behavior, i s only one of the factors involved i n organizational climate. In other words, organizational climate i s complex, and d i f f i c u l t to identify and measure, but that does not mean that i t i s not worth measuring. Another possible answer would be to reject Halpin and Croft's climates, but retain the subtests, which seem to be more reliable. There are two reasons for rejecting this approach. The f i r s t is that the sub-tests, although better than the climates, are s t i l l not perfect. Halpin and Croft, using a "Split-half Coefficient of R e l i a b i l i t y , Corrected by 2 the Spearman-Brown formula," found a very low r e l i a b i l i t y for the Aloofness subtest ( . 26 ) , and quite low r e l i a b i l i t i e s for Production "Halpin and Croft, Chapter 5, pp. 77-116. •Halpin and Croft, p. 49. 37 Emphasis ( . 5 5 ) , Consideration ( . 5 9 ) , and Intimacy ( . 6 0 ) . However these r e l i a b i l i t i e s are not very reliable, because the subtests are too short for such a measure of r e l i a b i l i t y to be accurate. 3 ¥. G. Schmidt, in the Alberta study, found that the differences between subtest scores were significant at the .001 level for five sub-tests, at the .05 l e v e l for one (Disengagement), and not significant for Intimacy and Consideration. It i s significant that Intimacy and Considera-tion are two of the shortest subtests. If the subtest form of the OCDQ were used, some of the shorter subtests would have to be lengthened, and a l l would have to be improved. The second reason for not rejecting completely Halpin and Croft's climates i s that they do seem to have identified three very meaningful factors. The correct procedure to follow would be that followed i n the 4 construction of the LBDQ. If i t can be shown that the three factors do indeed exist, then a form of the OCDQ designed specifically to measure those three factors should be created. It should measure them i n three separate subtests, and rank schools on three separate continua, not on the one continuum which Halpin and Croft create. There i s no reason whatsoever to assume that a l l three factors can be forced into a single continuum, and Halpin and Croft do not justify doing so. Once the OCDQ has been reduced to a form which measures fewer factors, and measures them more accurately, i t w i l l be possible to con-tinue the studies which Halpin and Croft mention. But u n t i l then, % . G. Schmidt, "Organizational Climate and Leader Behavior," CSA Journal. (July, .1965) Vol. IV, No. 5, p. 43 . •^See Andrew W.' Halpin and James Winer, "A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions," i n Stogdill and Coons, Leader Behavior. This i s also discussed i n Chapter I of the present study. 88 studies based on the subtests are using a less accurate form of the questionnaire than is necessary, and studies based on the Halpin and Croft climates are using a questionnaire which seems to be based on a faulty assumption. Once a more reliable form of the questionnaire has been devised, the poss i b i l i t i e s are boundless. Climates can be studied from the point of view of value judgments, to discover the effects of various climates on organizational behavior. Other studies can t r y to discover t he causes of different climates, with the objective of changing climate, and producing more desirable climates. It w i l l never be possible to control something as complicated as climate thermostatically, but a greater understanding of i t should definitely help i n improving organizational behavior. BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Andrews, J. H. M. "Some Validity Studies of the OCDQ." Mimeographed paper, 1965. This report was published i n The Canadian Educational  and Research Digest. Dec. 1965. 2. Andrews, J. H. M. "What School Climate Conditions are Desirable?" The CSA Bulletin. Vol. IV, No. 5 (July 1965) pp. 4-20. 3. Argyris, C. "Some Problems i n Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank." Administrative Science  Quarterly, II (March 1958) 501-520. 4. Becker, H. S. "Schools and Systems of Stratification." i n A. H. Halsey, J . Floud and C. A. Anderson, Education, Economy  and Society, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1961, 5. B e l l , L. I. Metropolitan Vancouver: An Overview for Social Planners. Vancouver, Community Chest and Councils of the Greater Vancouver Area, I965. 6. Bidwell, C. E. "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction i n Teaching." Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (Sept. 1955) 41-47. 7. Bidwell, C. E. "Some Causes of Conflict and Tension Among Teachers." Administrator's Notebook. IV (March 1956). 8. Brown, A. "Two Strategies for Changing Climate." The CSA Bulletin, Vol. IV, No. 5 (July 1965) pp. 64-80. 9. Browne, C. G., and T. S. Conn. The Study of Leadership. Danville, I l l i n o i s , The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958. 10. Campbell, R. F., J. E. Corbally and J. A. Ramseyer. Introduction to Educational Administration. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1962. 11. The CSA Bulletin. Vol. IV, No. 5 (July 1965). 12. Chase, F. S. "Professional Leadership and Teacher Morale." Administrator's Notebook. I (March 1953). 13. Chase, F. S. "How to Meet Teachers' Expectations of Leadership." Administrator's Notebook, I (April 1953)• 14. Chase, F. S. Administration and Teacher Morale. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1954. 90 15. Cronbach, J . and Meehl. "Construct Validity" Psychological Bulletin. 1955, pp. 281-302. 16. Dempster, J., A. Gagne and R. Hogan. TRIP; Triangular Regression Package. Mimeographed. Vancouver, UBC Computing Centre, 1965. 17. Dettwiler, ¥. Multivariate Contingency Tabulation. Vancouver, UBC Computing Centre, 1964. 18. Erickson, D. "Selecting School Principals: Some Recent Developments." Administrator's Notebook, XII (Nov. 1963). 19. Etzioni, A. Modern Organizations. Englewoods C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1964. 20. Feldvebel, A. "Organizational Climate, Social Class and Educational Output." in Administrator's Notebook. Vol. XII (April 1964). 21. Fleishman, E. A. "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry." in Stogdill and Coons, Leader Behavior: Its Description and  Measurement. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1957. 22. Fleishman, E. A. "The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire." in Stogdill and Coons,- Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1957. 23. Gagne, A., and R. Hogan. 7040 Library Program Write-up Data Subroutine. Mimeographed. Vancouver, UBC Computing Centre, I965. 24. Getzels, J . W. "Administrative Behavior as a Social Process." A. W. Halpin (ed.) Administrative Theory in Education. Midwest Administration Centre, University of Chicago, 1958. 25. Getzels, J. W. "Changing Values Challenge the Schools." The School Review. LXV (Spring 1957) 92-102. 26. Getzels, J. W. and H. A. Thelen. "The Classroom as a Unique Social System." Chapter IV in Nelson B. Henry (ed.) The Dynamics of  Instructional Groups. The Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, University of Chicago Press, I960, pp. 53-60. 27. Guba, E. G. and Bidwell, C. E. Administrative Relationships. Midwest Administration Centre, University of Chicago, 1957. 28. Halpin, A. W. "Leadership Behavior." Harvard Educational Review. 25 (1955) pp. 18-32. 29. Halpin, A. W. The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents. Midwest Administration Centre, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1963. 91 30. H a l p i n , A . W. "Change and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e . " O n t a r i o J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . V o l . 8 ( S p r i n g 1966) pp. 229-247. 31. H a l p i n , A . W. "Escape f rom L e a d e r s h i p . " i n W. J . H a r t r i c k , e d . , Addresses t o the F o u r t h Conference and Workshop o f B r i t i s h Columbia S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s . Vancouver, The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1964. 32. H a l p i n , A . W. Theory and Research i n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New Y o r k , M a c M i l l a n , 1966. 33. H a l p i n , A . W. "The Development o f Theory i n E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . " i n A . W. H a l p i n , ( e d . ) A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Theory  i n E d u c a t i o n . Midwest A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , C h i c a g o , 1958. 34. H a l p i n , A . W. ( e d . ) A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Theory i n E d u c a t i o n . Midwest A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , C h i c a g o , 1958. 35. H a l p i n , A . W. and D . B . C r o f t . The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e o f S c h o o l s . Midwest A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , C h i c a g o , 1963. 36. H a l p i n , A . W. and D. B . C r o f t . "The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e of-S c h o o l s " A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook. V o l . X I , (March 1963). 37. H a l p i n , A . W. and D . B . C r o f t . " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e S c o r i n g Program." Mimeographed. U n i v e r s i t y o f Utah Computer C e n t r e , U t a h . 38. H a l p i n , A . W. and J . W i n e r . "A F a c t o r i a l Study of the Leader B e h a v i o r D e s c r i p t i o n s . " i n S t o g d i l l and Coons ( e d s . ) Leader  B e h a v i o r ; I t s D e s c r i p t i o n and Measurement. Columbus, O h i o , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. 39. H a r t r i c k , W. J . "Communication and t h e S c h o o l O r g a n i z a t i o n . " i n W. J . H a r t r i c k , ( e d . ) Addresses t o t h e F o u r t e e n t h Conference and  Workshop of B r i t i s h Columbia S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s . Vancouver, 1964, p p . 138-140. 40. H a v i g h u r s t , R . J . and B . L . N e u g a r t e n . S o c i e t y and E d u c a t i o n . B o s t o n , A l l y n and Bacon, 1962. 41. H e m p h i l l , J . K . Leader B e h a v i o r D e s c r i p t i o n . Ohio S t a t e Leader-s h i p S t u d i e s R e p o r t , Columbus, O h i o , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1950. 42. H e m p h i l l , J . K . S i t u a t i o n a l F a c t o r s i n L e a d e r s h i p . Columbus, O h i o , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1950. 92 43. Hemphill, J. K. Group Dimensions, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1956. 44. Hemphill, J. K. and A. E. Coons. "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire." in Stogdill and Coons (eds.) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1957. 45. Hemphill, J. K., D. E. Griffiths and N. Fredriksen. Administrative Performance and Personality. New York, Columbia University, 1962. 46. Kahl, J. A. and J. A. Davis. "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status." American Sociological Review, 20 (June 1955), pp. 317-325. 47. Lonsdale, R. C. "Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equilibrium." NSSE Yearbook. 1964, pp. 166-170. 48. Miklos, E. "School Climate and Program Development." Canadian Administrator, Vol. IV (Apr. 1965), pp. 1-4. 49. Millar, D. E. "Organizational Climate and Achievement." The CSA Journal. Vol. IV, No. 5 (July 1965), pp. 36-39. 50. Parsons, T. "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organizations." in A. W. Halpin (ed.) Administrative Theory  in Education. Chicago, Midwest Administration Centre, 1958, pp. 166-185. 51. Plaxton, R. "Principal Personality and School Organizational Climate." The CSA Journal. Vol. IV, No. 5 (July I 9 6 5 ) . 52. Rokeach, M. The Open and the Closed Mind. New York, New York, Basic Books, 1961. 53. Schmidt, W. G. "Organizational Climate and Leader Behavior." The CSA Bulletin. Vol. IV, No. 5 (July 1965), pp. 40-63. 54. Stogdill, R. M. Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. New York, Oxford University Press, 1959. 55. Stogdill, R. M. and A. E. Coons, (eds.) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1957. 56. Stogdill, R. M. and E. L. Scott and W. E. Jaynes. Leadership and Role Expectations. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1956. 57. Stogdill, R. M. and C. Shartle. Methods in the Study of Administrative Leadership. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University. 1955. 93 58. Stogdill, R. M. and C. L. Shartle. Patterns of Administrative  Performance. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1956. 59. Zalkind, S. S. and T. ¥. Costello. "Perception: Some Recent Research and Implications for Administration." Administrative Science Quarterly 7 (July 1962), pp. 218-235 ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE (as administered i n the present study) 94 ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE ' A. V/. Halpin and Don B. Croft The items in this questionnaire describe typical behaviours or conditions that occur within an elementary-school organization. Please indicate to what extent each of these descriptions characterizes your school. Please do not evaluate the items in terms of "good" or "bad" behaviour, but read each item carefully and respond in terms of how well the statement describes your school. The descriptive scale on which to rate the items i s printed at the top of each page. Please read the Instructions which describe how you should mark your answers. The purpose of this questionnaire i s to secure a description of the different ways i n which teachers behave and of the various conditions under which they must work. After you have answered the questionnaire we w i l l examine the behaviours or conditions that have been described as t y p i c a l by the majority of the teachers i n your school, and we w i l l construct from this description a portrait of the Organizational Climate of your school. Copied with permission of the authors. 95 1 Marking Instructions Printed below i s an example of a typical item found i n the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire; 1. Rarely occurs -2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers c a l l each other by their f i r s t names. 1 2 y) 4 In this example the respondent marked alternative 3 to show that the interpersonal relationship described by th i s item "often occurs" at his school. Of course, any of the other alternatives could be selected, depending upon how often the behaviour described by the item does, indeed, occur i n your school. Please mark your response clearly, as i n the example. PLEASE BE SURE THAT YOU MARK EVERY ITEM. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 5-7 School: (Write i n the name of your school) Please place a check mark to the right of the appropriate  category. 8. Position: Principal 1. Teacher 2. Other 3._ 9. . Sex: Man l . _ Woman 2._ 10. Age: 20-29 l . _ 30-39 2._ 40-49 3._ 50-59 4._ 60 or over 5._ 11. Years of experience in education: 0-9 l . _ 10-19 2._ 20-29 3._ 30 or over 4._ 12. Years at this school: 0-4 l . _ 5-9 2.. 10-19 3._ 20 or over 4. 97 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3 . Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 13. Teachers' closest friends are other staff members at this school. 1 2 3 4 14. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. 1 2 3 4 15. Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems. 1 2 3 4 16. Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. 1 2 3 4 17. Teachers invite other staff members to v i s i t them at home. 1 2 3 4 18. There i s a minority group of teachers who always oppose the majority. 1 2 3 4 19. Extra books are available for classroom use. 1 2 3 4 20. Sufficient time i s given to prepare administrative reports. 1 2 3 4 21. Teachers know the family background of other staff members. 1 2 3 4 22. Teachers exert group pressure on non-conforming staff members. 1 2 3 4 23. In staff meetings, there is a feeling of "let's get things done." 1 2 3 4 24. Administrative paper work i s burdensome at this school. 1 2 3 4 25. Teachers talk about their personal lives to other staff members. 1 2 3 4 26. Teachers seek special favours from the principal. 1 2 3 4 27. School supplies are readily available for use i n classwork. 1 2 3 4 28. Student progress reports require too much work. 1 2 3 4 29. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. 1 2 3 4 9a 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 30. Teachers interrupt other staff members who are talking i n staff meetings. 1 2 3 4 31. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. 1 2 3 4 32. Teachers have too many committee requirements. 1 2 3 4 33. There i s considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. 1 2 3 4 34. Teachers ask nonsensical questions i n staff meetings. 1 2 3 4 35. Custodial service i s available when needed. 1 2 3 4 36. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. 1 2 3 4 37. Teachers prepare adniinistrative reports by themselves. 1 2 3 4 38. Teachers ramble when they talk in staff meetings. 1 2 3 4 39. Teachers at this school show much school s p i r i t . 1 2 3 4 40. The principal goes out of his way to help teachers. 1 2 3 4 41. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. 1 2 3 4 42. Teachers at th i s school stay by themselves. 1 2 3 4 43. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigour, and pleasure. 1 2 3 4 44. The principal sets an example by working hard himself. 1 2 3 4 45. The principal does personal favours for teachers. 1 2 3 4 46. Teachers eat lunch by themselves in their own classrooms. 1 2 3 4 47. The morale of the teachers i s high. 1 2 3 4 99 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3 . Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 48. The principal uses constructive criticism. 1 2 3 4 49. The principal stays after school to help teachers f i n i s h their work. 1 2 3 4 50. Teachers socialize together i n small groups. 1 2 3 4 51. The principal makes a l l class-scheduling decisions. 1 2 3 4 52. Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. 1 2 3 4 5 3 . The principal i s well prepared when he speaks at school functions. 1 2 3 4 54. The principal helps staff members settle minor differences. 1 2 3 4 5 5 . The principal schedules the work for the teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 . Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. 1 2 3 4 57. The principal c r i t i c i z e s a specific act rather than a staff member. ' 1 2 3 4 58. Teachers help select which courses w i l l be taught. 1 2 3 4 59. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. 1 2 3 4 6 0 . The principal talks a great deal. 1 2 3 4 6 1 . The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. 1 2 3 4 62. The principal t r i e s to get better salaries for teachers. 1 2 3 4 6 3 . Extra duty for teachers i s posted conspicuously. 1 2 3 4 6 4 . The rules set by the principal are never questioned. 1 2 3 4 6 5 . The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. 1 2 3 4 100 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 66. School secretarial service i s available for teachers' use. 1 2 3 4 67. The principal runs the staff meeting like a business conference 1 2 3 4 68. The principal i s in the building before teachers arrive. 1 2 3 4 69. Teachers work together preparing administrative reports. 1 2 3 4 70. Faculty meetings are organized according to a s t r i c t agenda. 1 2 3 4 71. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. 1 2 3 4 72. The principal t e l l s teachers of new ideas he has run across. 1 2 3 4 73. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. 1 2 3 4 74. The principal checks the subject-matter a b i l i t y of teachers. 1 2 3 4 75. The principal i s easy to understand. 1 2 3 4 76. Teachers are informed of the results of a superintendent's v i s i t . 1 2 3 4 77. Grading practices are standardized at this school. 1 2 3 4 78. The principal ensures that teachers work to their f u l l capacity. 1 2 3 4 79. Teachers leave the building as soon as possible at day's end. 1 . 2 3 4 80. The principal c l a r i f i e s wrong ideas a teacher may have. 1 2 3 4 APPENDIX B: THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Items arranged by subtests) 101 APPENDIX B. OCDQ ITEMS ARRANGED BY SUBTEST OCDQ, FORM IV, ITEMS THAT COMPOSE FOUR SUBTESTS: TEACHERS' BEHAVIOR I - DISENGAGEMENT ft a 1. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. 2. There i s a minority group of teachers who always oppose the majority. 3 . Teachers exert group pressure on nonconforming faculty members. 4. Teachers seek special favors from the principal. 5. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking i n staff meetings. 6. Teachers ask nonsensical questions i n faculty meetings. 7. Teachers ramble when they talk i n faculty meetings. 8. Teachers at this school stay by themselves. 9. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. 10. Teachers socialize together in small select groups. II - HINDRANCE 11. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. 12. Teachers have too many committee requirements. 13. Student progress reports require too much work. 14. Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school. -15. Sufficient time i s given to prepare administrative reports. -16. Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. I l l - ESPRIT 17. The morale of the teachers i s high. 18. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor and pleasure. 19. Teachers at this school show much school s p i r i t . 20. Custodial service is available when needed. 21. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. 22. School supplies are readily available for use i n classwork. 23. There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. 24. In faculty meetings, there is the feeling of "let's get things done." 25. Extra books are available for classroom use. 26. Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems. ^These items are the key (i. e . , "tractor") items i n each dimension. aThese numbers are used solely to l i s t the items here and to provide a convenient way of referring to them in the Tables presented in Appendices C and D. •'"Halpin and Croft, pp. 30-31. 102 IV.- INTIMACY -k 27. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. 28. Teachers invite other faculty members to v i s i t them at home. 29. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members. 30. Teachers talk about their personal l i f e to other faculty members. 31. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. 32. Teachers work together preparing administrative reports. -33. Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. OCDQ, FORM IV, ITEMS THAT COMPOSE FOUR SUBTESTS: PRINCIPAL'S BEHAVIOR V - ALOOFNESS * -a • -34. Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. 35. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. 36. The principal runs the faculty meeting l i k e a business conference. 37. Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. 38. Teachers eat lunch by themselves in their own classrooms. 39. The rules set by the principal are never questioned. 40. Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. -41. School secretarial service i s available for teachers' use. -42. Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's v i s i t . VI - PRODUCTION EMPHASIS & 43. The principal makes a l l class scheduling decisions. 44. The principal schedules the work for the teachers. 45. The principal checks the subject matter a b i l i t y of teachers. 46. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. 47. The principal insures that teachers work to their f u l l capacity. 48. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. 49. The principal talks a great deal. VII - THRUST t 50. The principal goes out of his way to help teachers. 51. The principal sets an example by working hard himself. 52. The principal uses constructive criticism. 53. The principal i s well prepared when he speaks at school functions. 54. The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. 55. The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. —These items are the key (i . e . , "tracer") items i n each dimension. ^hese numbers are used solely to l i s t the items here and to provide a convenient way of referring to them in the Tables presented in Appendices G and D. 103 VII - THRUST (continued) 56. The principal is i n the building before teachers arrive. 57. The principal t e l l s teachers of new ideas he has run across. 58. The principal i s easy to understand. VIII - CONSIDERATION 59. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. 60. The principal does personal favors for teachers.-61. The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. 62. The principal helps staff members.settle minor differences. 63. Teachers help select which courses w i l l be taught. 64. The principal t r i e s to get better salaries for teachers. These items are the key (i. e . , "tracer") items i n each dimension. ^hese numbers are used solely to l i s t the items here and to provide a convenient way of referring to them i n the Tables presented i n Appendices C and D. APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN PRESENT STUDY APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL PROCEDURES Most of the s t a t i s t i c a l work was done by computer (IBM 4070 at UBC Computing Centre). The questionnaire i s set up in such a manner that i t i s possible to punch data cards directly from the question-naires. The individual computations were carried out as follows: 1) Subtest Scores: Halpin and Croft have produced a program which computes subtest scores, standardized normatively and ipsatively: 1 Normatively, we standardized the subtest scores across the sample of 71 schools so that we could com-pare each of the 8 subtest scores on a common scale. Thus, each subtest was standardized according to the mean and standard deviation of the t o t a l sample for that subtest. Then we took these standardized scores and standardized themvagain,_this time, ipsatively. Accordingly, a l l the subtest scores were standardized with respect to the mean and standard deviation of the profile scores for each school. For both standardization procedures we chose a standard-score system based upon a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.2 Thus, each individual school subtest score i s standardized i n relation to the scores of other schools on the same subtest, and in relation to the scores of the same school on other subtests. 1A. W. Halpin and D. B. Croft, "Organizational Climate Scoring Program," Mimeographed, University of Utah Computer Centre, Utah. "Halpin and Croft, The Organizational Climate of Schools, p. 55. 105 The basic formula for computing standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 i s : Standard score =. /Q (~^=r~~~) * SO where X i s any raw score of a given distribution A/ i s the arithmetic mean of the raw-score distribution & i s the standard deviation of the raw-score d i s t r i -3 bution. The standard deviation, , i s calculated by the following formula: / c - x / * - , (zxY where d" i s standard deviation i s the sum X i s any subtest score 4 N i s the number of subtest scores. 2) Coefficients of correlation: A l l coefficients of correlation were worked out by the computer, using a UBC Computing Centre program, 5 TRIP: Triangular Regression Package. This includes correlations be-tween odd and even numbered respondents on the eight subtests, and S. Ahmann and M. D. Glock, Evaluating Pupil Growth, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 196l, p. 161. ^Ahmann and Glock, p. 128. • M . Dempster, A. Gagne and R. Hogan, TRIP: Triangular Regression  Package. Mimeographed, Vancouver, UBC Computing Centre, I965. 106 correlations between school subtest profiles and eight climate profiles (six Halpin and Croft profiles plus Independent Controlled and Indepen-dent Aloof). The basic formula for these computations i s : IXZY where 7* i s the product-moment coefficient of correlation i s the sum X i s any subtest score of one characteristic y i s any subtest score of the other characteristic N i s the number of scores.^ 3) Climate Similarity Scores: The Halpin and Croft program also computes climate similarity scores: We obtained a similarity score by computing the absolute difference between each subtest score i n a school's profile and the corresponding score in the f i r s t prototypic profile, then i n the second one, and so on. Thus, we compared the scores of each school with those of the six prototypic profiles. In each case we computed the sum of the absolute differences between the profile scores.''' Similarity scores comparing each school profile with the Independent Controlled and Independent Aloof climates were computed in the same manner. Ahmann and Glock, p. 98. "^Halpin and Croft, pp. 70-71. APPENDIX D: »R" TECHNIQUE THREE-FACTOR ROTATIONAL SOLUTION FOR SUBTEST SCORES, BY SCHOOL 107 4) One further comment should be made. The two methods used to analyze similarities between school profiles and climates (similarity scores, p. 70, and product-moment correlations, Appendix E) are not t o t a l l y satisfactory. The similarity scores give no basis for comparison, while the correlations, based as they are on an N of eight are not very reliable. However, both add to the interpretation of the data as long as their limitations are recognized. A more refined technique for comparing profiles, "multiple discriminant analysis," is discussed i n Cooley and Lohnes' Multi-variateProcedures for the Behavioral Sciences. However, this procedure is too complex for the present study. W. Cooley and P. R. Lohnes, Multivariate Procedures for  the Behavioral Sciences, (John Wiley and Sons, 1962). See particularly chapters 6 and 7. 1 APPENDIX D "R" TECHNIQUE THREE-FACTOR VARIMAX ROTATIONAL SOLUTION FOR SUBTEST SCORES, BY SCHOOL (N = 71) OCDQ Subtest Profile Factors I II III h 2 1. D is engag ement -.86 00 -.33 .85 2. Hindrance -.13 .50 .34 .38 3. Esprit •22 -.28 -.04 .71 4. Intimacy -.07 -.85 .22 .77 5. Aloofness .08 -.09 .80 .66 6. Production Emphasis -.16 .76 .02 .61 7. Thrust -.64. .08 -.47 .64 8. Consideration .02 -.07 -.8£ .73 Factor Value 1.83 I.65 1.86 % Variance .23 .21 .23 • 67$ The underlined figures identify those loadings which most characteristically define the three major patterns of subtest scores. "Halpin and Croft, p. 129. APPENDIX E: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SCHOOL SUBTEST PROFILES AND CLIMATE PROFILES APPENDIX E: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SCHOOL SUBTEST PROFILES AND CLIMATE PROFILES School Climate Open Autonomous Controlled Familiar Paternal Closed A B 1 -0.154 0.363 -0.144 0.009 0.395 0.257 0.722 0.231 2 -0.375 0.229 0.274 -0.365 -0.301 0.317 0.735 0.618 3 -0.140 -0.171 0.518 -0.553 -0.358 0.005 0.781 0.140 4 -0.199 0.475 0.374 -0.404 -0.603 0.020 0.430 0.728 5 0.404 0.524 0.327 -0.141 -0.436 -0.566 -0.106 0.847 6 0.440 0.837 0.223 -0.133 -0.817 -0.499 0.217 0.897 7 -0.899 -0.516 0.311 -0.539 0.044 0.790 0.775 -0.215 8 -0.607 -0.187 0.258 -0.420 -0.212 0.501 0.933 0.049 9 -0.387 0.108 0.072 -0.232 -0.282 0.429 0.906 0.237 10 -0.685 -0.334 0.300 -0.487 -0.200 0.553 0.892 -0.152 11 -0.465 0.008 0.162 -0.351 -0.343 0.454 0.909 0.058 12 0.533 0.788 -0.049 0.216 -0.449 -0.560 -0.254 0.815 13 -0.490 -0.100 0.680 -0.780 -0.454 0.270 0.745 0.385 14 -0.088 -0.093 -0.547 0.396 0.226 0.357 0.150 -0.583 15 -0.121 0.670 0.134 -0.174 -0.511 0.080 0.202 0.849 16 -0.675 0.249 0.317 -0.464 -0.532 0.473 0.627 0.548 17 0.100 0.5-96 0.154 -0.200 -0.787 -0.126 0.375 0.511 18 -0.050 0.345 0.355 -0.278 -0.340 -0.133 0.091 0.793 19 0.120 0.315 0.634 -0.605 -0.642 -0.261 0.487 0.685 20 -0.912 -0.535 0.011 -0.220 0.251 0.824 0.508 -0.396 

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.831.1-0093620/manifest

Comment

Related Items