Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
39
/1 0/
A STUDY OF THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND THE
PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AS PERCEIVED BY
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN BANGKOK, THAILAND
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Sumeth Deoisres, B.A., M.Ed., Ed.S.
Denton, Texas
May, 1979
Deoisres, Sumeth, A Stud of the School Organiza-
tional Climate and the Principal's Leadership Behavior as
Perceived by Secondary School Teachers in Bangkok, Thailand.
Doctor of Philosophy (Administrative Leadership), May 1979,
198 pp., 25 tables, bibliography, 128 titles.
The problem of this study was to determine teachers'
perceptions of their school organizational climate, to deter-
mine teachers' perceptions of their principal's leadership
behavior, and to ascertain the relationships between teachers'
perceptions of school organizational climate and principal's
leadership behavior.
The study had three major purposes. The first was to
determine teachers' perceptions of their school organiza-
tional climate as measured by the Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) across selected variables.
The second was to determine teachers' perceptions of their
principal's leadership behavior as measured by the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) across selected
variables. The third was to ascertain whether significant
relationships existed between teachers' perceptions of school
organizational climate and their principal's leadership
behavior.
A group of 300 secondary school teachers in Bangkok,
Thailand, was selected to participate in this study. Of the
300 teachers, 286 (95.33 per cent) completed and returned
the two sets of questionnaires--the OCDQ and the LBDQ.
The variables employed in this study were sex of the
teacher, teachers' years of teaching experience, teachers'
educational level, and sex of the principal.
The school organizational climate as perceived by
teachers was determined by the formula adapted from Halpin's
study and his prototypic climate profile. One-way analysis
of variance and the Scheffe test were utilized to determine
the significant differences in the way in which teachers
perceived their principal's leadership behavior. The Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was utilized to ascer-
tain the significant relationships between teachers' percep-
tions of their school organizational climate and their prin-
cipal's Initiating Structure and Consideration.
Based on the analyses of data, the conclusions could
be drawn that:
1. The school organizational climates as perceived
by secondary school teachers tended to fall into the closed
end of the open-closed climate continuum. It is interesting
to note that teachers with more years of teaching experience
perceived their school organizational climates as being open.
2. All of the teachers in this study perceived their
principal as an effective leader.
3. There was a significant relationship between orga-
nizational climate and principal's leadership behavior; how-
ever, no matter how teachers perceived their school organiza-
tional climate, they still perceived their principal as an
effective leader.
As a result of the findings of the study, it is rec-
ommended that
1. The secondary school principals in Bangkok should
make themselves familiar with research studies and literature
concerning teachers' perceptions of organizational climate
and leader behavior. In turn, -they should utilize the results
of research studies on leadership and organizational climate
to more efficiently formulate and accomplish school goals
and objectives. They should participate in programs offering
activities that emphasize the human relations aspects of
administrative leadership.
2. Additional research should be conducted to deter-
mine the school organizational climate, the principal's
leadership behavior, and their relationships in other prov-
inces in Thailand. Further studies should be conducted to
determine why teachers with eleven years or more of teaching
experience perceived their school organizational climate as
being open as opposed to being closed or paternal as indi-
cated by those with less years of teaching experience. Also
studies should be conducted to determine why teachers who
worked under a male principal perceived their school organi-
zational climate as being closed as opposed to those who
worked under a female principal and perceived their school
organizational climate as being paternal.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOFTABLET.. B El$ ----- - v
Chapter
I.'INTRODUCTION..T.O. .. ----
Statement of the ProblemPurposes of the StudyResearch Questions and HypothesesDefinition of TermsBackground and Significance
of the StudyLimitations of the StudyBasic AssumptionsOrganization of the Study
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ......... 22
Theory and Research inEducational Administration
Research Studies on SchoolOrganizational Climate
Research Studies on the LeadershipBehavior of the Principal
III. METHODOLOGY .. - -990
The InstrumentsPopulation and SampleData Collection ProceduresData Analysis Procedures
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSES OF DATA ..... 103
School Organizational ClimatePrototypic ClimatePrincipal's Leadership BehaviorSchool Organizational Climate andPrincipal's Leadership Behavior
11:
PageV. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 140
SummaryFindingsConclusions and ImplicationsRecommendations
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . -154
BIBLIOGRAPHY... ....... .. 185
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers'Perceptions of Eight Subtests of School
Organizational Climate . ..... . . . . 104
II. Comparison of the Teachers" Perceptionsof the Organizational Climate UsingTeachers' Sex as the Variable . . . . . . . . 107
III. Comparison of the Teachers' Perceptionsof the Organizational Climate UsingTeachers' Years of Teaching Experienceas the Variable . a a - -*aaa. 108
IV. Comparison of the Teachers' Perceptionsof the Organizational Climate UsingTeachers' Educational Level as theVariable . a . . . . . . . * - a - - - - .a110
V. Comparison of the Teachers' Perceptionsof the Organizational Climate Usingthe Sex of the Principal as theVariable . . . . . . .. ..a * -. - - - -.a G112
VI. Prototypic Climate Profile of OrganizationalClimate Description Questionnaire . . . . . . 114
VII. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Male Teachers . .. .. . .a. . . . 118
VIII. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Female Teachers . .. .. a. .a . .9 119
IX. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers with Five Years orLess of Teaching Experience .8. . . . . . . . 120
V
Table Page
X. Analysis of Absolute Difference of School
Organizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers with Six to TenYears of Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . . 121
XI. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers with Eleven Yearsor More of Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . 122
XII. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers with Less Than a
Bachelor Degree . . . . . . - - . - . - . . 123
XIII. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers with a BachelorDegree with or without AdditionalCourse Works . . . . . ... . .-..... . - 124
XIV. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers with a MasterDegree or Higher . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
XV. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers Working under aMale Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
XVI. Analysis of Absolute Difference of SchoolOrganizational Climate from PrototypicClimate of Teachers Working under aFemale Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
XVII. Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers'Perceptions of Their Principal'sLeadership Behavior across SelectedVariables . . . . . . . . . . . . .a. . . . . 129
XVIII. Analysis of Variance of Teachers' Perceptionsof Their Principal's Initiating Structureacross Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . . 131
vi
XIX. Analysis of Variance of Teachers' Perceptionsof Their Principal's Consideration acrossSelected Variables . . . . . . . . . .
XX. Scheffe Test of Difference in the Principal'sConsideration among the Three Teachers'Groups . . . . . . . . a a * - - - - - - - -
XXI. Correlation Coefficients of the SchoolOrganizational Climate and thePrincipal's Leadership Behavioras Perceived by Teachers UsingTeachers' Sex as the Variable
XXII. Correlation Coefficients of the SchoolOrganizational Climate and thePrincipal's Leadership Behavioras Perceived by Teachers UsingTeachers' Years of TeachingExperience as the Variable . . a . . . .
XXIII. Correlation Coefficients of the SchoolOrganizational Climate and thePrincipal's Leadership Behavioras Perceived by Teachers UsingTeachers' Educational Level asthe Variable .. .. . .. . . . . . . .a.a- -
XXIV. Correlation Coefficients of the SchoolOrganizational Climate and thePrincipal's Leadership Behavioras Perceived by Teachers Usingthe Principal's Sex as theVariable . . . a a . . a * a . a a .-a -a
XXV. Summary of Teachers' Perceptions of TheirSchool Organizational Climate acrossSelected Variables . .a . . . . . . . a . .a.a
133
134
135
136
137
138
144
vii
PaeTable
. . . . .
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
School administration is a process concerned with
the execution of policies within a unified system related
to organizing and allocating human and material resources
to accomplish predetermined objectives (21, p. 23).
The school administrator devotes much of his professional
time to developing strategies and techniques of planning,
coordinating, and controlling the affairs of organizations.
He functions within the environment of the educational
system, and, to a considerable extent, it is in this setting
where he makes decisions, exercises leadership, and in
general "behaves" as a school administrator (24, p. 45).
Each individual school unit is led by a school
administrator whose position is called "principal." The
principal has the responsibilities of coordinating educa-
tional purposes, teaching strategies, service personnel,
time distribution, public interpretation, and the evalua-
tive demands of a specific school within a total school
system (11, p. 189).
1
2
The administrative structure of the Thai educational
system differs from that in the United States. In the
United States the state is the governmental unit charged
with the responsibility for education. State legislatures,
within the limits expressed by the federal Constitution and
respective state constitutions, are the major policy makers
for education. State legislatures grant powers to state
boards of education, state departments of education, chief
state school officers, and local boards of education. In
Thailand the central government is responsible for educa-
tion by delegating powers to the Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Education consists of four offices, seven
departments, and one institution; namely: (a) The Office
of the Secretary to the Minister, (b) The Office of the
Under-Secretary of State for Education, (c) The Office of
the Private Education Commission, (d) The Office of the
Youth Promotion; (a) The Department of General Education,
(b) The Department of Vocational Education, (c) The Depart-
ment of Physical Education, (d) The Department of Teacher
Training, (e) The Department of Educational Techniques, (f)
The Department of Religious Affairs, (g) The Department of
Fine Arts; and (a) Institute of Technology and Vocational
Education (31, p. 1). But at the local school level the
organizational structure is much the same in both the United
States and Thailand. The principal is the person who sets
the tone of his school.
3
In the process of school administration, school
principals are likely to exhibit their own leadership styles.
They demonstrate their styles by the ways in which they do
what they do (9, p. 22). One of the major analyses of
leadership within an institutional framework appears in the
work of Getzels and Guba, who stated that administration may
be conceived structurally as the hierarchy of subordinate-
superordinate relationships within a social system (14, p.
133). The term "social system" is conceptual rather than
descriptive, and should not be confused with society or
state. A school-community may be considered as a social
system; and the school itself or even a single class within
the school may be considered a social system in its own
right (6, p. 184).
The social system consists of two aspects. These
are: first, the institutions with certain roles and expec-
tations that will fulfill the goals of the system; and
second, the individuals with certain personalities and need-
dispositions inhabiting the system. Social behavior is a
function of the two major elements: institution, role, and
expectation, which constitute the nomothetic or organiza-
tional dimension; and individual, personality, and need-
disposition, which constitute the idiographic or personal
dimension of activity in a social system (12, p. 266)
4
Social behavior results as the individual attempts to cope
with an environment composed of patterns of expectations for
his behavior in ways consistent with his own independent
pattern of needs. A principal is "nomothetic" to the extent
that he is influenced by institutional or organizational expec-
tations and "idiographic" to the extent that he is influenced
by personal need-dispositions (2, p. 237). Getzels expressed
this idea by giving the following equation: B = f ( R x P ),
where B is observed behavior, R is a given institutional role
defined by the expectations attaching to it, and P is the per-
sonality of the particular role incumbent defined by his need-
dispositions (13, p. 157).
The Getzels-Guba's social systems theory suggests
that some leaders may be more nomothetic or normative in
their behavior and some more idiographic or personal in their
behavior. Moser was able to use these ideas and defined three
styles of leadership as follows:
1. The nomothetic style is characterized by behavior
which stresses goal accomplishment, rules and
regulations, and centralized authority at the
expense of the individual. Effectiveness is
rated in terms of behavior toward accomplishing
the school's objectives.
2. The idiographic style is characterized by behavior
which stresses the individuality of people, mini-
mum rules and regulations, decentralized authority,
and highly individualistic relationships with sub-
ordinates. The primary objective is to keep sub-
ordinates happy and contended.
3. The transactional style is characterized by behav-
ior which stresses goal accomplishment, but which
also makes provision for individual need fulfill-
ment. The transactional leader balances nomothetic
5
and idiographic behavior and thus judiciouslyutilizes each style as the occasion demands
(23, p. 2).
In an analysis of a theoretical framework for the study
of behavior in organizations, Shartle stated that in the study
of administrative behavior it seems important to consider the
environmental setting in which the administrator works as well
as his personal performance. He added that in studying the
behavior of persons in organizations, events with various ref-
erence points must be considered. These included: (a) indi-
vidual behavior (acts of a particular person, such as an admin-
istrator); (b) organizational behavior (events occurring within
the organization); (c) environmental events (events outside the
organization, such as those that occur in the community); and
(d) interactions of (a), (b), and (c) (27, pp. 73-75).
In administering the school, the principal would benefit
from knowing how teachers perceive his behavior and the organi-
zation. An individual teacher's out-of-school life may influ-
ence his perceptual patterns; however, what teachers perceive
in their in-school daily life may be a major determinant.
Combs asserted that people do not behave according to the facts
as others see them. What governs behaviors from the point of
view of the individual are his unique perceptions of himself
and the world in which he lives, the meanings things have for
him (7, p. 17). As a result, the perceptual patterns of the
teacher can be ascertained by their reaction to general and
specific conditions or persons existing in the school setting.
6
According to Halpin, the administrators' behavior as
perceived by organizational members is a major aspect of orga-
nizational climate. These perceptions are essential informa-
tion for the principal. The principal, who wants to be suc-
cessful, has to provide leadership behavior affecting teachers'
perceptions and behaviors that consequently contribute to the
development of school organizational climate and that is con-
ducive to achieving predetermined goals and objectives.
Teachers' perceptions of organizational climate and the prin-
cipal's leadership behavior have been determined using the
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) and
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) respec-
tively in numerous studies.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was to determine teachers'
perceptions of their school organizational climate, to deter-
mine teachers' perceptions of their principal's leadership
behavior, and to ascertain the relationships between teachers'
perceptions of school organizational climate and their prin-
cipal's leadership behavior.
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of this study were
1. To determine teachers' perceptions of their
school organizational climate as measured by the Organiza-
7
tional Climate Description Questionnaire across selected
variables.
2. To determine teachers' perceptions of their
principal's leadership behavior as measured by the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire across selected variables.
3. To ascertain whether significant relationships
existed between teachers' perceptions of their school orga-
nizational climate and their principal's leadership behavior
across selected variables.
4. To provide information contributing to an under-
standing of school organizational climate and leadership
behavior which may encourage school systems to recognize the
important role of educational research which is necessary
for solving problems concerning school administration.
Independent and Dependent Variables
The following variables were used in this study
which the literature and research indicate may be influen-
tial factors effecting both leader behavior and organiza-
tional climate. The independent variables for teachers were
1. Sex of the Teacher:
(a) Male(b) Female
2. Teachers' Years of Teaching Experience:
(a) 5 years or less(b) 6 years - 10 years(c) 1i years or more
8
3. Teachers' Educational Level:
(a) Less than a bachelor degree(b) Bachelor degree with or without
additional course works
(c) Master degree or higher
4. Sex of the Teachers' Principal:
(a) Male(b) Female
The dependent variables for teachers were
1. Teacher "raw" composite scores (rating) of their school
organizational climate on the Organizational Climate
Descript ion Questionnaire:
(a) Disengagement(b) Hindrance(c) Esprit(d) Intimacy(e) Aloofness(f) Production Emphasis(g) Thrust(h) Consideration
2. Teachers mean composite score (rating) of their school
organizational climate on the Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire.
3. Teacher mean composite scores (rating) of their princi-
pal's leadership behavior on the Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire:
(a) Initiating Structure(b) Consideration
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study initially sought answers to the following
research questions:
(a) How do teachers across selected variables
perceive their school organizational climate
as measured by the Organizational ClimateDescription Questionnaire (OCDQ)?
9
(b) How do teachers across selected variables
perceive their principal's leadership behavior
as measured by the Leader Behavior DescriptionQuestionnaire (LBDQ)?
Secondly, this study tested the following hypotheses:
H : There is no significant difference in the way1 in which teachers across selected variables
perceive the leadership behavior of their
principals as measured by the LBDQ.
H : There is no significant relationship in the
2 way in which teachers across selected variables
perceive the organizational climate of schools
and the leadership behavior of principals as
measured by the OCDQ and the LBDQ.
Definition of Terms
Perception--is a continuous process of integration of
present and past sensory impressions (16, p. 413), as indi-
cated by the subjects' responses to the questionnaires used
in this study.
Organizational Climate--is theoretically defined as a
set of properties of the work environment, perceived directly
or indirectly by the employees, assumed to be a major force in
influencing employee behavior (15, p. 480); and operationally
defined as the teachers' perceptions of their school organiza-
tional climate as measured by the OCDQ.
Leadership Behavior--is theoretically defined as the
leader's ability and readiness to inspire, guide, or manage
his subordinates (16, p. 332); and operationally defined as
the teachers' perceptions of their principal's behavior as
measured by the LBDQ.
10
Secondary School--is a school in Thailand, comprising
Maw Saw 1 to Maw Saw 5 which is equivalent to American grades
8 to 12.
Secondary School Teacher--is a teacher who is respon-
sible for instruction in a secondary school.
Changad--can be comparable to a state in the United
States because each changwad is governed by a governor. There
are seventy-one changwads (provinces) in Thailand.
Background and Significance of the Study
Thailand is a part of Southeast Asia and borders on
the Indian Ocean and Burma on the West, Cambodia and Laos on
the East, Laos and Burma on the North, Malaysia and the Gulf
of Thailand on the South. The population at the present time
is approximately 42,600,000 (28, p. 580).
Thailand was originally known as Sayam. The name was
changed in the 1850s to Siam and was so known until 1939,
when the name Thailand (land of the free) was adopted. In
1945, the name reverted back to Siam, but was changed back
again to Thailand in 1949 (20, p. 6).
The modernization of the Thai nation took place
slowly. It took Thai education, for instance, over hundred
years to make the transition from the traditional to the
modern system that it has today (5, p. 1). The present
system of education in Thailand is the product of many
11
forces and influences which have forged and tempered it over
many centuries. The first educational system (1257-1868) in
Thailand was quite similar to that of the monastic and cathe-
dral schools of Medieval Europe, i.e., it had a religious
orientation and was centered in the temples (31, p. 1).
Between 1868-1931, known as the expansion period,
King Chulalongkorn (Rama) was a pioneer and reformer in edu-
cation and in government. A modern school was established
on the palace grounds in 1871. Palace schools were estab-
lished for the express purpose of training boys for office
work or the civil service (17, p. 3). In 1887, the Depart-
ment of Education was established and five years later it
became a ministry. The new ministry was assigned the respon-
sibility for cultural and religious affairs as well as for
educational administration. The Ministry of Education laid
the foundation for educational expansion and better adminis-
tration (1, p. 3).
The year 1932 marked the beginning of the modern era
of Thai educational history. The absolute monarchy in Siam
came to an end and was replaced by a constitutional monarchy.
With the establishment of a Parliament, a need was felt for
greater literacy in the adult population. The lion's share
of the education budget that went to elementary and adult
education focused on basic literacy (17, p. 4).
12
The school organization of Thai education has been
changed many times. In 1913, there was a 3-3-3-2 plan; in
1932, a 4-4-4 plan; in 1936, a 4-3-3-2 plan; and in 1960, a
7-3-2 plan (10, pp. 4-6). In 1977, the Ministry of Educa-
tion adopted a 6-3-3 plan, which is the most popular school
organization in the United States. A diagram of the present
educational system in Thailand is shown in Appendix B.
According to the National Scheme of Education 1977,
the Thai educational system is divided into four levels
(29, pp. 129-131):
(a) Pre-school education--which is aimed at child
rearing and upbringing prior to compulsory education.
(b) Primary education--which is aimed at providing
and maintaining literacy and developing in the individual
cognitive ability, numerical manipulation and communication
skills, adequate knowledge and abilities to apply in future
occupational roles. It is also aimed towards personal
development and the promotion of upright citizenry desirable
for life in a democratic government under the Monarchy.
Primary education shall be offered in continuity for a
period about six years.
(c) Secondary education--which is aimed at providing
appropriate academic and vocational knowledge compatible with
the learner's age, needs, interests, skills and aptitudes
13
which ultimately will be beneficial to his chosen career and
his society. Secondary education shall be divided into two
segments--lower and upper secondary education, each of which
requires three years of study.
(d) Tertiary level or higher education--which is
aimed at providing for the full development of human intel-
lectual abilities to facilitate the advancement in knowledge
and technology. High level academic and professional man-
power for national development is to be produced.
Today, education in Thailand basically is central-
ized; however, at the primary educational level there is
some decentralization. For instance, responsibility for
the administration, operation, and financing of primary edu-
cation is vested in the Seventy-One Changwad Administrative
Authorities. At the same time, however, what is taught in
the primary schools, the curriculum, is still centralized
in the Ministry of Education. Secondary education also is
highly centralized. Responsibility for secondary education
is centralized in the Ministry of Education and the Depart-
ments concerned (19, pp. 2-3).
In 1970, Raksasataya predicted:
The pendulum toward monopolizing education will
swing back toward the direction of decentralization.Within twenty years, the government will face such
a financial burden in providing more education to
everyone that it will have to let private and local
authorities provide some services for the people.Since the government will not have enough money to
do all these itself, it will have to relinquish its
14
control to the people who actually pay for the
schools and colleges. They will, of course, then
have a more decisive role to play, that is decen-
tralization (26, p. 60).
Educational issues have been an important cause of
national government controversy in the past twenty years.
There are serious problems of shortages of all kinds--of
teachers, classrooms, qualified administrators, supervisors,
and funds (25, p. 160).
The fact that Thailand allocated almost as much of
its annual budget to education (19.1 per cent in 1973) as it
did to its top priority sector, national defence (19.5 per
cent), should constitute convincing evidence of the faith
that political and educational leaders place on the power of
the classroom, with or without walls, to shape national des-
tiny. But faith alone, and even money, are not enough.
Imaginatively conceived action programs, founded on sound
theoretical and conceptual constructs, and balanced by prag-
matic and hard-earned practical experience, are surely needed
(22, p. 8).
It is true that experimentation and research in edu-
cation are necessary for solving problems in school adminis-
tration, teaching, and learning. In the United States, gov-
ernmental enthusiasm for funding educational research influ-
ences many of the larger school districts. Many large- and
medium-size districts employ full-time research directors who
15
plan and carry out research projects aimed at evaluating the
educational effectiveness of the district and developing and
validating new curricula, teaching methods, and educational
programs (3, p. 485).
In Thailand, the situation is different. The Thai
government lacks funds to fully support educational research
and development. For the past twenty-five years support of
educational development has been given by the United States
government in cooperation with many outstanding universities,
such as Indiana University, the University of Texas, Colorado
State University, the University of Hawaii, Michigan State
University, and Oklahoma State University (1, pp. 12-14).
Although research activities based on Thai problems were
successfully carried out and many well-informed Thai re-
searchers were produced as a result of these activities,
there is no discernible advancement of educational experi-
mentation and research at the present time. The main problem
seems to be the lack of adequate financial support from the
government (8, p. 4).
Little research has been done in educational adminis-
tration, especially in the areas of school organizational
climate and leadership behavior. It was this situation that
influenced this study to emerge. Hopefully this study would
contribute to the advancement of the Thai educational system
16
and lead the government to recognize research as an essential
technique for solving school administration, learning, and
teaching problems and encourage them to provide more support
for educational research.
The focus of this study was an attempt to determine
whether there was a relationship between teachers' percep-
tions of the school organizational climate and the princi-
pal's leadership behavior.
The significance of this study may be realized if it
contributes to the general understanding of the relationship
between the school organizational climate and the principal's
leadership behavior as perceived by teachers. In addition,
the study could provide principals and other educational
administrators in Thailand with instruments to investigate
the school organizational climate and the leadership behavior
of the principal. As Brown stated, "The main thing an offi-
cer of an organization can do about organizational climate
is to study its climate. After that, specific practice
suggests itself" (4, p. 44).
Limitations of the Study
The scope of this study was limited to identifying
teachers' perceptions of their school organizational climate
and their principal's leadership behavior. It was limited
to selected public secondary school teachers in Bangkok,
17
Thailand. The findings and conclusions of this study are
valid for the population studied and others that might be
similar.
Basic Assumptions
It was assumed that (a) the Thai translation of the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and the
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) have
validity as a criterion for assessing the principal's leader-
ship behavior and the school organizational climate, (b) the
teachers expressed their perceptions according to what they
had experienced in the actual school environment, and (c)
the variables selected in this study would be factors influ-
enced the responses of the subjects. In addition, within
schools and by subjects analyses of the data were conducted
upon the assumption that since all Thai secondary schools
are organized and controlled by the Ministry of Education,
there would be no significant variance among teachers' per-
ceptions of organizational climate and their principal's
leadership behavior between schools.
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I
includes an introduction, statement of the problem, purposes
of the study, research questions and hypotheses, definition
of terms, background and significance of the study, limita-
tions of the study, basic assumptions, and organization of
18
the study. Chapter II is a presentation of the review of the
literature and related research. Chapter III delineates the
instruments employed in the study, population and sample,
data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures.
Chapter IV deals with a presentation and analyses of data.
Chapter V consists of the summary, findings, conclusions and
implications, and recommendations.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Adams, Harold P., A Brief Historical Sketch of Educa-
tional Development in Thailand , Washington, D.C.,
Agency for International Development, 1970.
2. Boles, Harold W. and James A. Davenport, Introduction
to Educational Leadership, New York, Harper & Row,Publishers, 1975.
3. Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. Gall, EducationalResearch: An Introduction, New York, David McKay
Company, Inc., 19 7
4. Brown, Alan F., "Research in Organizational Dynamics:
Implications for Administrators," The Journal of
Educational Research, 5 (May, 1967), 36-49.
5. Bunnag, Te j, "From Monastery to University: A Surveyof Thai Education from 1824 to 1921," Education in
Thailand: A Century of Experience, The Departmentof Elementary and Adult Education, Ministry ofEducation, Thailand, Karnsasana Press, 1970.
6. Campbell, Roald F., Edwin M. Bridges, and Raphael 0.
Nystrand, Introduction to Educational Administration,Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977.
7. Combs, Arthur W., Individual Behavior, New York, Harper,Bros., 1959.
8. Dachanuluknukul, Sumala, "A Study of the OrganizationalClimate of Elementary Schools in the Province ofSukhothai, Thailand," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,North Texas State University, 1976.
9. Doll, Ronald C., Leadership to Improve Schools, Worthing-ton, Ohio, Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1972.
10. Educational Planning Office, Current and ProjectedSecondary Education Programs for Thailand: A Manpowerand Educational Development Plannin Project, Ministryof Education, Bangkok, Thailand, 19 7.
19
20
11. Eye, Glen G., "Principals' Principles," The Journal of
Educational Research, 69 (January, 1976), 189-192.
12. Faber, Charles F. and Gilbert F. Shearron, Elementary
School Administration: Theory and Practice, New York,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.
13. Getzels, Jacob W., "Administration as a Social Process,"
Administrative Theory in Education, edited by Andrew
W. Halpin, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1970.
14. Getzels, Jacob W., James M. Lipham, and Roald F.
Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social
Process: Theory, Research, Practice, New York,
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968.
15. Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, and James H.
Donnelly, Jr., Organizations: Behavior, Structure,
Process, Dallas, Texas, Business Publications, Inc.,
1976.
16. Good, Carter V., Dictionary of Education, New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
17. Gue, Leslie R., Educational Reorganization in Thailand,
American Educational Research Association, 1972.
18. Halpin, Andrew W., Theory and Research in Administra-
tion, New York, The Macmillan Company, 196
19. Harper, Ray G. and Somchai Wudhiprecha, Educational
Planning at the Local Level, Educational Planning
Division, Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand,1968.
20. Henderson, John W., and Others, Area Handbook for Thai-
land, American University, Washington, D.C., 1971.
21. Lipham, James M. and James A. Hoeh, Jr., The Principal-
ship: Foundations and Functions, New York, Harper &
Row, Publishers, Inc., 1974.
22. Manone, Carl J., The Improvement of Education in Rural
Thailand: A Multi-Dimensional Approach, A Report
Prepared for the Ministry of Education, Royal Thai
Government, Bangkok, Thailand, USOM, April, 1973.
21
23. Moser, Robert F., "The Leadership Patterns of School
Superintendents and School Principals," Administra-
tor's Notebook, 6 (September, 1957), 1-4.
24. Owens, Robert G., Organizational Behavior in Schools,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.
25. Passow, A. Harry, Harold J. Noah, Max A. Eckstein, and
John R. Mallea, The National Case Study: An Empirical
Comparative Study of Twenty-One Educational Systems,
New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
26. Raksasataya, Amara, "Evolution of Educational Adminis-
tration," Education in Thailand: A Century of Expe-
rience, The Department of Elementary and Adult
Education, Ministry of Education, Thailand, Karnsasana
Press, 1970.
27. Shartle, Carroll L., "A Theoretical Framework for the
Study of Behavior in Organizations," Administrative
Theory in Education, edited by Andrew W. Halpin, New
York, The Macmillan Company, 1970.
28. The Dallas Morning News, The World Almanac & Book of
Facts, 9, New York, Newspaper Enterprise Associa-
tion, Inc., 1977.
29. The National Education Council, "The Development of the
National Scheme of Education: Past and Present,"
Journal of the National Educational Council, 11
(April-May, 1977), 125-139.
30. Wattha, Opal, An Introduction to the Department of
Teacher Training, Bangkok, Thailand, Chongcharoen
Printing Press, Ltd. Part., 1976.
31. Wronski, Stanley P. and Kaw Sawasdipanich, SecondaryEducation, Manpower and Educational Planning in
Thailand, Institute for International Studies in
Education, College of Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of the literature is divided into three
sections--(a) theory and research in educational administra-
tion, (b) research studies on school organizational climate,
and (c) research studies on the leadership behavior of the
principals.
Theory and Research
In Educational Administration
The word "theory" means different things to different
people. Feigl's definition of theory is widely accepted and
very popular in the literature of educational administration.
He defined theory as "a set of assumptions from which can be
derived by purely logico-mathematical procedures, a larger
set of empirical laws" (28, p. 182). According to Feigl,
the theory furnishes an explanation of these empirical laws
and unifies the originally relatively heterogeneous areas of
subject matter characterized by those empirical laws.
Theory has potential not only for explaining and pre-
dicting events but also for gaining new knowledge through
application of formal deductive logic to verifiable major
22
23
premises (52, p. 138). Theory guides practice; practice,
in turn, guides theory. Without theory, practice can be only
incidentally successful (26, p. 264). Theory, stated Dewey,
is in the end the most practical of all things (21, p. 17).
Theories in the behavioral and administrative
sciences are very useful for the principal. They provide
him with principles, concepts, alternative ways of viewing,
understanding, ordering a multitude of variables, and pre-
dicting and influencing the outcomes of issues with which he
must deal on a daily basis. A theoretical view serves the
principal as would a "pair of spectacles," bringing into
focus a few selected aspects of the world around him which
he, perhaps negligently, would not otherwise have singled
out for attention (12, p. 179).
In order to serve as a basic background for the
principalship, three eras of administration--(a) classical
design theory, (b) the human relations movement, and (c)
modern organizational theory--are delineated.
Classical Design Theory
The ideas and concepts which comprise classical
design theory represent the works of many different writers,
both practitioners and scholars (35, p. 263). Frederick
Taylor (Scientific Management), Henri Fayol (Classical Or-
ganizational Theory), and Max Weber (Bureaucratic Theory)
24
are three giants in the pre-World War I years who led the way
in the efforts to understand the problems of managing modern
organizations (71, pp- 9-10).
Scientific management.--Frederick Taylor (1856-1915)
is commonly regarded as the father of scientific management.
His definition of scientifc management is as follows:
Scientific management i not any efficiency device,
nor a device of any kind for securing efficiency;
nor is it any branch or group of efficiency devices.
It is not a new system of figuring costs; it is not
a new scheme of paying men; it is not a piecework
system; it is not a bonus system; it is not a pre-
mium system; it is no scheme for paying men; it is
not holding a stopwatch on a man and writing things
down about him; it is not time study; it is not
motion study nor an analysis of the movements of men;
it is not the printing and ruling and unloading of
a ton or two of blanks on a set of men and saying,
"Here's your system; go use it." It is not divided
foremanship of functional foremanship; it is not
any of the devices which the average man calls to
mind when scientific management is spoken of. The
average man thinks of one or more of these things
when he hears the words "scientific management"
mentioned, but scientific management is not any one
of these devices. I am not sneering at cost-keeping
systems, at time study, at functional foremanship,
not at any new and improved scheme of paying men,
not at efficiency devices, if they are really de-
vices that make for efficiency. I believe in them;
but what I am emphasizing is that these devices in
whole or in part are not scientific management, they
are useful adjuncts to scientific managements, so
are they also useful adjuncts of other systems of
management (93, p. 34).
Taylor thought that work could be analyzed scientif-
ically and that it was management's responsibility to provide
the specific guidelines for worker performance. As a result,
25
his thought led to the development of the one best method of
doing the task, standardization of this method (usually by
means of time and motion studies), selection of workers best
suited to performing the specific tasks, and training them
in the most efficient method for performing the work. It
was an engineering approach and viewed the worker as an ad-
junct to the machine. The assumption was that workmen would
be motivated by great economic rewards which would come from
the increasing productivity. Taylor further stated:
It is no single element, but rather this wholecombination, that constitutes scientific manage-ment, which may be summarized as: Science, not ruleof thumb. Harmony, not discord. Cooperation,not individualism. Maximum output, in place ofrestricted output. The development of each manto his greatest efficiency and prosperity(92, p. 140).
Johns and Morphet remarked that Taylor conceptualized
the worker as being only the extension of a machine. He ig-
nored the fact that the worker also belonged to one or more
social systems that vitally affected his production (49,
p. 39).
From Taylor's various writings, Villers summarized
principles of scientific management as follows:
A. Time-Study Principle. All productive effort
should be measured by accurate time study anda standard time established for all work donein the shop.
26
B. Piece-Rate Principle. Wages should be propor-tional to output and their rates based on thestandards determined by time study. As acorollary, a worker should be given the highestgrade of work of which he is capable.
C. Separation-of-Planning-from-Performance Principle.Management should take over from the workers theresponsibility for planning the work and makingthe performance physically possible. Planningshould be based on time studies and other datarelated to production, which are scientificallydetermined and systematically classified; itshould be facilitated by standardization oftools, implements, and methods.
D. Scientific-Methods-of-Work Principle. Managementshould take over from the workers the responsi-bility for their methods of work, determinescientifically the best methods, and train theworkers accordingly.
E. Managerial-Control Principle. Managers shouldbe trained and taught to apply scientific prin-ciples of management and control (such asmanagement by exception and comparison withvalid standards).
F. Functional-Management Principle. The strictapplication of military principles should bereconsidered and the industrial organizationshould be so designed that it best serves thepurpose of improving the co-ordination of activ-ities among the various specialists (98, p. 29).
In terms of educational applications, the effects of
the scientific management movement carried into the educa-
tional enterprise. Faber and Shearron pointed out that effi-
cient operation of schools became a major goal, and too often
efficient really meant "cheap." Superintendents gained
reputations for being scientific and efficient by eliminat-
ing small classes, increasing the pupil-teacher ratio, and
27
cutting costs in other ways, then preparing charts and graphs
to show the resultant of lower costs (26, p. 83).
The focus of scientific management was the work done
at the lowest level in the organization. Taylor and his
followers analyzed the relationships between the physical
nature of work and the physiological nature of workers to
determine job descriptions. Therefore, its focus was quite
narrow in that it did not propose solutions to the broader
and more abstract problems of departmentalization, spans of
control, and delegation of authority. The literature which
emerged to fill this knowledge gap is termed classical organ-
izational theory (35, p. 263).
Classical organizational theory.--Henri Fayol, a
French engineer and geologist, was the first to state the
series of principles of management that provide guideposts
for successful management coordination in the early 1961
(85, p. 37). He defined the functions of administrator as:
(a) to plan, (b) to organize (both men and materials), (c)
to command--that is, to tell subordinates what to do, (d)
to coordinate, and (e) to control (18, p. 195). He also
laid down a number of principles for the administration.
Fayol's fourteen principles were
A. Division of Work. The principle of specializa-tion of labor in order to concentrate activitiesfor more efficiency.
28
B. Authority and Responsibility. Authority is the
right to give orders and the power to exact
obedience.
C. Discipline. Discipline is absolutely essentialfor the smooth running of business, and without
discipline no enterprise could prosper.
D. Unity of Command. An employee should receive
orders from one superior only.
E. Unity of Direction. One head and one plan for a
group of activities having the same objectives.
F. Subordination of Individual Interests to General
Interest. The interest of one employee or a
group should not prevail over that of the organ-ization.
G. Remuneration of Personnel. Compensation should
be fair and, as far as possible, afford satis-faction both to personnel and the firm.
H. Centralization. Centralization is essential to
the organization and is a natural consequence oforganizing.
I. Scalar Chain. The scalar chain is the chain of
superiors ranging from the ultimate authority tothe lowest rank.
J. Order. The organization should provide an order-
ly place for every individual. A place foreveryone and everyone in his place.
K. Equity. Equity and a sense of justice pervadesthe organization.
L. Stability of Tenure of Personnel. Time is needed
for the employee to adapt to his work and to per-form it effectively.
M. Initiative. At all levels of the organizational
ladder zeal and energy are augmented by initia-tive.
N. Esprit de Corps. This principle emphasizes the
need for teamwork and the maintenance of inter-personal relations (27, pp. 19-42).
29
Although modifications have been made by later ad-
ministrative management theorists, these fourteen principles
provided the basic foundation for the school of thought. In
order to avoid a rigid and dogmatic application of his ideas
to the administration of organizations, Fayol emphasized
that flexibility and a sense of proportion were essential
for managers who adapted principles and definitions to par-
ticular situations. His thought was quite different from
Taylor who held firmly to uniform, emphatic application of
principles.
Bureaucratic theory.--The third major pillar in the
development of classical design theory was provided by Max
Weber's bureaucratic theory. Gibson stated, "Bureaucracy
refers to negative consequences of large organizations,
such as excessive 'red tape,' procedural delays, and general
frustration" (35, p. 271). However, according to Weber,
bureaucracy is the ideal type of structured management for
accomplishing organizational purposes (61, p. 26).
In the ideal bureaucracy Weber envisioned certain
characteristics which are, in a sense, principles of admin-
istration: (a) a division of labor based on functional
specialization, (b) a well-defined hierarchy of authority,
(c) a system of rules covering the rights and duties of
positional incumbents, (d) a system of procedures for dealing
30
with work situations, (e) impersonality of interpersonal re-
lations, and (f) promotion and selection for employment
based upon technical competence (99, pp. 196-198).
Since the concept of authority is central to bureau-
cratic theory, it is worth discussing Weber's analysis.
According to him, there are three types of authority:
A. Rational-Legal Authority. The rational-legal
authority is legitimized by a belief in the supremacy of law
and the belief that obedience is owed to the legally estab-
lished, impersonal orders. Persons exercise authority only
by virtue of the formal legality of their commands, and only
within the scope of authority of their office.
B. Traditional Authority. Traditional authority is
based on belief in the sanctity of age-old traditions. The
present social order is considered to be sacred and is not
to be changed. Those who exercise authority do so under
rules that have always existed. Obedience is given not only
to the rules, but also to the rulers.
C. Charismatic Authority. Charismatic authority
depends on the personal devotion of the followers to the
magnetic personality of the leaders. In the eyes of his
followers, the charismatic leader has almost superhuman
powers; he is viewed as being divinely inspired and incapa-
ble of error (100, p. 238).
31
In terms of bureaucratic attributes of schools, Owens
stated that because schools have inherited much of the clas-
sical tradition of organization and administration, they
exhibit many bureaucratic characteristics. The strong asym-
metrical exercise of authority and control from top to bottom
is one obvious expression of this tradition. He cites an
example that, in order to exercise control of potentially
disruptive students, schools have resorted to at least three
widely used techniques:
A. The use of rules, often differentially applied.
B. Segregation of students into classes, tracksand schools.
C. Differential treatment in such matters as dis-
cipline, giving remarks, and rewarding symbolsof status.
In the same way, effort to control potentially dis-
ruptive teachers include:
A. The use of rules.
B. Differential treatment in the assignment of
classes, facilities, schedules, and symbols ofstatus.
C. Manipulating the system's rewards--both tangibleand intangible (72, p. 28).
The Human Relations Movement
Human relations constituted the second major approach
to administration. The work of two major contributors in the
human relations movement belong to Mary Parker Follett and
32
Elton Mayo. Although Follett was a contemporary of the other
administrative theorists and set forth certain general prin-
ciples and guidelines for practice, her approach was signif-
icantly different. She brought to her writings and speeches
a vast knowledge of governmental and business administration.
She presented many lectures and wrote articles which taken
together established a philosophy of management (32).
Follett was unique in emphasizing the psychological
and sociological aspects of management. She viewed manage-
ment as a social process and the organization as a social
system. She tended to reduce her principles of organization
to four in number, all aspects of what she termed coordina-
tion. The principles were
A. Coordination by direct control of the responsible
people concerned. That is, control should be effected hori-
zontally through cross-relations between departments instead
of up and down in line through the chief executive.
B. Coordination in the early stages. That is, the
direct contact must begin while policy is being formed, not
after a policy has been laid down when all that remains is
compliance.
C. Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all
the factors in the situation. That is, an individual does
not only adjust to another individual, but also is influenced
33
by him, and among all individuals and units within the organ-
ization.
D. Coordination as a continuing process. That is,
attention must be given to new machinery, procedures, in-
formation, and knowledge as the basis for renewal of both
the organization and the individual (72, p. 297).
While Follett became the first great exponent of the
aspect of human relations in administration, the systematic
and empirical data in support of this view came from a num-
ber of experiments in human engineering carried out by Mayo
and his colleagues. They conducted a series of research
studies at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Com-
pany between 1927 and 1932. Their five-year period studies
covered these three phrases: (a) the relay assembly test
room experiment, (b) the interviewing program, and (c) the
bank wiring observation room (50, p. 79). Mayo drew con-
clusions from these experiments that employees would be
happy and productive only if they could belong to a cohesive
and stable work group, that the "sense of belonging" was
more important to them than anything else (18, p. 187).
After the human relations movement in the 1920s, new
concepts were available to the administrator to use in ap-
proaching his work. Among them were (a) morale, (b) group
dynamics, (c) democratic supervision, and (d) personnel
34
relations. The human relations movement emphasized the human
and interpersonal factors for administering the affairs of
organizations. Supervisors in particular drew heavily on
human relations concepts, employing such notions as involve-
ment, motivational techniques, the sociometric of leadership,
and democratic procedures (71, p. 10).
In the field of education, the concept of democratic
procedures was not new during the human relations movement.
John Dewey wrote of the need for democratic procedures in
school administration as early as 1903 that
...But until the public school system is organizedin such a way that every teacher has some regularand representative way in which he or she can reg-ister judgement upon matters of educational impor-tance, with the assurance that this judgement willsomehow affect the school system, the assertionthat the present system is not, from the internalstandpoint, democratic seems to be justified.Either we come here upon some fixed and inherentlimitation of the democratic principle, or elsewe find in this fact an obvious discrepancy be-tween the conduct of the school and the conductof social life, a discrepancy so great as to de-mand immediate and persistent effort at reform(20, pp. 194-195).
However, the other concepts emerged during the human
relations movement spread rapidly and became vastly influen-
tial in the field of education. More recently, human rela-
tions efforts have been directed toward the development and
utilization of new techniques, such as T-groups, encounter
groups, and other modes of sensitivity training. Course,
seminar, workshop, and other pre-service and in-service
35
training experiences are now utilized in many colleges, uni-
versities, and school districts to improve the human rela-
tions skills of principals and other educational personnel
(61, p. 25).
Modern Organizational Theory
One of the most profound and insightful treaties on
organization and administration was written by Chester I.
Barnard (5), based upon his many years of experience as
president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company. In The
Functions of the Executive, originally published in 1938, he
made important contributions to the understanding of (a) the
satisfactions of individuals received from the organization,
(b) the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency, (c) the
importance of communication, and (d) the relationship of the
formal and informal organization.
Satisfactions of individuals.--Barnard stressed that
the existence of the organization depended upon the mainte-
nance of an equilibrium between the contributions and the
satisfactions of the organizational participants. The satis-
factions an individual receives in exchange for his contri-
butions may be regarded as incentives, in which economic
motives play a secondary tough indespensable place. Specific
inducements include (a) material inducements, such as money;
(b) personal non-material opportunities for distinction,
36
prestige, and personal power; (c) desirable physical working
conditions; and (d) ideal benefactions, such as pride of
workmanship, sense of adequacy, or feelings of loyalty. He
also listed four general types of incentives: (a) associated
attractiveness based upon compatibility with coworkers; (b)
adaptation of working conditions to habitual methods and
attitudes; (c) opportunity for the feeling of enlarged par-
ticipation in the cause of events; and (d) the opportunity
for comradeship, satisfactory social relations, and mutual
support in personal attitudes (5, pp. 142-149).
Effectiveness and efficiency.--Barnard's second major
contribution was the distinction he made between the concepts
of effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness was defined
as system-oriented, having to do with the achievement of
cooperative and organizational goals; efficiency was defined
as person-oriented, having to do with the feelings of satis-
faction an individual derives from membership in an organiza-
tion. Campbell, Bridges, and Nystrand remarked that the in-
terrelationship of organization achievement and individual
satisfaction was noted for the first time. This conception
did much to put the work of Taylor and Fayol, who had con-
centrated on organization achievement, and Follett and Mayo,
who had tended to emphasize individual satisfaction, in
appropriate perspective (11, p. 93).
37
Communication.--Barnard emphasized the role of com-
munication in maintaining the organization as a cooperative
system. By a cooperative system, he meant a group of persons
some or all of whose activities are coordinated. The system
was held together by a common purpose as well as by the
willingness of certain people to contribute to the operation
of the organization. People are in a position to cooperate
more effectively if they can communicate with one another.
Aside from stressing the importance of the informal organi-
zation to the communications process, Barnard confined him-
self to such formal principles as follows:
A. Channels of communication should be definitelyknown.
B. Objective authority requires a definite, formalchannel of communication to every member of anorganization.
C. The line of communication must be direct orshort as possible.
D. The complete line of communication shouldusually be used.
E. The competence of the persons serving as com-munication centers, that is, officers, super-visory heads, must be adequate.
F. The line of communication should not be inter-rupted during the time when the organizationis to function.
G. Every communication should be authenticated(5, pp. 175-180).
38
Formal and informal organization.--Barnard was among
the first to differentiate between the formal and informal
aspects of organization. He explained that a formal organi-
zation was
an impersonal system of coordinated human efforts;always there is purpose as the co-ordinating andunifying principle; always there is the indispen-sable ability to communicate, always the necessityof personal willingness, and for effectiveness andefficiency in maintaining the integrity of purposeand the continuity of contributions (5, pp. 94-95).
Barnard pointed out that in each formal organization
there are informal organization. One cannot exist without
the other. He claimed:
Informal organization is definite and rather struc-tureless, and has not definite subdivision. It maybe regarded as a shapeless mass of quite varieddensities, the variation in density being a resultof external factors affecting the closeness ofpeople geographically or of formal purposes whichbring them specifically into contact for consciousjoint accomplishments. These areas of specialdensity, I call informal organizations, as dis-tinguished from societal or general organizationsin their informal aspects. Thus there is an in-formal organization of a community, of a state.For our purposes, it is important that there areinformal organizations related to formal organi-zations everywhere (5, p. 115).
In addition to Barnard's analysis of informal organi-
zation, the answer to the question of how informal organiza-
tions develop within each formal organization can be found
from the analysis of George Homans (48). There are three
elements in a social system--(a) activities, (b) interactions,
and (c) sentiments. Activities are the tasks that people
39
perform. Interactions are the behaviors that occur between
people in performing these tasks. Sentiments are the atti-
tudes that develop between individuals and within groups.
Homans argued that while these concepts are separate, they
are closely related. A change in any of these three elements
will produce some change in the other two.
In an organization, certain activities, interactions,
and sentiments are essential, if it is to survive. Jobs
(activities) have to be done that require people to work
together (interactions). These jobs must be sufficiently
satisfying (sentiments) for people to continue doing them.
People develop sentiments toward each other as they interact
in their jobs. As the interaction increases, more positive
sentiments will tend to develop toward each other. The more
positive the sentiment, the more people will tend to inter-
act with each other. Along with the occurrence of the pro-
cess, there is a tendency for the group members to become
more alike in their activities and sentiments. The group
will tend to develop expectations or norms that specify how
people in the group "might" tend to behave under specific
circumstances (44, pp. 58-59). This is the way in which
the informal organization is formed.
The informal organization, stated Gorton, may operate
either for or against the interests of the formal organiza-
tion. An understanding of the informal organization and its
40
important components and elements is vital for the school ad-
ministrator. Its operation can affect (a) the implementation
of administrative policy; (b) the role behavior of an indi-
vidual or group; (c) the extent to which communication within
the formal organization is accurate and complete; and (d) the
degree of satisfaction experienced by people working within
the organization (37, pp. 342-343).
Another influential work utilizing the behavioral
sciences in the analysis of administration was Administrative
Behavior by Herbert A. Simon (84). He asserted that the most
fruitful approach to understanding and improving administra-
tive behavior was through a decision-making framework. He
attacked the classical principles of organization as proverbs,
superficial, oversimplified, and unreal. Dimock remarked
although Simon was forced to reject former principles of or-
ganization as mere "proverbs," he came up with some sugges-
tions of his own which sounded familiar (23, p. 115). These
suggestions included five mechanisms of organization influ-
ence affecting the decisions of individual member. They were:
(a) the organization divides work among its members; each is
given a particular task and he limits himself to that task;
(b) the organization establishes "standard" practices; (c)
the organization transmits decisions through its ranks by
establishing "systems" of authority and influence; (d) it
41
provides channels of communication for decision-making; and
(e) it trains and "indoctrinates" its members, this last
being called the "internalization" of influence (84, pp.
102-103).
Simon attempted not only to propose that administra-
tion is a science in a framework of decision making, he also
brought mathematical decision theory into administrative
thought through the use of such concepts as limits of deci-
sions, utility of decisions, maximization of decisions, and
rationality of decisions. In his analysis of organizational
decision processes, Simon was also concerned with such issues
as planning, budgeting, controlling, and coordinating by
means of decisional terms. His emphasis on decision making
gave his analysis of the administrative process a unity and
coherence which earlier formulations lacked.
While Simon is developing a new approach to adminis-
trative decision making, other new theoretical approaches
are starting to come into existence. Among these are infor-
mation theory, cybernetics, operations research, game theory,
and general systems theory. Other theories which are arbi-
trarily classing as administrative rather than organizational
theory include the work of Jacob W. Getzels, Egon G. Guba,
Daniel E. Griffiths, John K. Hemphill, and Andrew W. Halpin
(26, pp. 101-102).
42
The year 1950 may be the turning point in the develop-
ment of educational administration (71, p. 16). With the
increasing ferment in education, attention was focused upon
the roles and the functions of the educational administrator,
both in the operation of the schools and in providing the
leadership which is essential for maintaining the viability
of public education in a dynamically changing society. Since
1950 the training of educational administrators has been al-
tered in significant ways. Whereas the training of adminis-
trators previously emphasized the technological problems of
school administration, the "new movement" stressed the impor-
tance of administrative theory, the applications of the be-
havioral sciences to the problems of educational administra-
tion, the social context in which educational administration
takes place, the analysis of school organization as a social
system, the analysis of the reciprocal relationships of
diverse roles within the organization, and the interpreta-
tion of educational administration within the boarder sphere
of public administration of the public schools (36, p. 1).
In 1955, Coladarci and Getzels did much to stimulate
concern and interest in theories related to educational ad-
ministration. Two major premises of their work were that
theory and practice constitute an integrity and that theo-
rizing is always present in human behavior (14, p. 7).
Since the latter years of the 1950s, interest in
theories related to educational administration has grown
considerably. There has been an attempt to develop a global
theory of school administration. The past decade has brought
forth a variety of theories, none of which explains the over-
all task of administration. What have been developed are
administratively related theories--theories of administrative
functions and behavior, and theories of dimensions tangential
to the process of administration. However, one important
development has been the interdisciplinary approach to the
study of educational administration. New insights into the
process of administration have been gained by interrelating
the available facts and theories of a variety of disciplines,
such as the social sciences, psychology, and philosophy
(86, pp. 75-76).
Within the scope of this study, leadership theories
will be discussed. These leadership theories are believed
to be foundational and have great potential for assisting
an individual to understand and thereby improve the behavior
of principals.
Leadership
The successful organization, stated Blanchard and
Hersey, has one major attribute that sets it apart from un-
successful organizations--dynamic and effective leadership
44
(44, p. 83). In general leadership has been a loosely de-
fined term. Leadership has meant and still means different
things to different persons at various times under differing
situations. Of the many different attempts to define leader-
ship, none seems to be all inclusive. In discussing some of
the various definitions of leadership, it is recognized that
an operational definition may best describe and serve princi-
pals on the job.
Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly defined leadership
as an attempt at interpersonal influence which involves the
use of power and the acceptance of the leader by followers.
The ability to influence is related to the followers' need
satisfaction (35, p. 195).
Davis described leadership as the ability to persuade
others to seek defined objectives enthusiastically. He felt
that it was the leader who is in a strategic position with
the power to motivate people and guide them toward goals
(19, pp. 96-97).
Southworth pointed out that leadership is not the
imposition of the status leader's will upon the group or the
implementation of the will of the group by the status leader.
Rather leadership is a combination of the will of the status
leader and the will of the group, developed in a collegial
way, so that the leadership that evolves represents the best
thinking of all concerned individuals (87, p. 31).
45
Lipham placed administration and leadership in cor-
relate and approximate positions. He stated that:
Except perhaps for a few complex institutions of
very large size, leadership functions and adminis-
trative functions are usually combined in a single-
role incumbent. The superintendent of a school,for example, must, at times, wear an "administra-tive hat." Having but one head, the superinten-dent should, indeed, be aware of which "hat" he
is wearing, since he undoubtedly is expected both
to administer and to lead.
The distinction made here between leadership and
administration carries no implication that one is
universally more appropriate, more important, or
more difficult than the other. In both leadership
and administration, the same organizational andindividual variables are involved. Although the
initiation of change within an organization isusually perceived as a complex and energy-consuming
process, adherance to existing goals, structures,and procedures in a kaleidoscopic field of forcescan be equally as demanding (60, p. 123).
Styles of Leadership
One theory which has been particularly influential
in the field of education was stated by Lewin, Lippit, and
White. They classified leadership into three forms--(a)
authoritarian, (b) democratic, and (c) laissez-faire (57,
pp. 271-299). In authoritarian leadership decision-making
is centered in one person or a very few persons. Under
authoritarian leadership the behavior and thinking of the
group are dominated by the leader. The group that functions
under democratic leadership has the opportunity to decide
its own objectives and policies on the basis of group
46
information and discussion. Under laissez-faire leadership
the group members are given complete freedom to decide what
they are going to do and how they are going to do it.
Two additional styles of leadership were added to
the above formulation by Hubert Bonner (7). They were bu-
reaucratic and charismatic. Bureaucratic leadership sug-
gested that the structured arrangements within which leaders
rely upon were for their status and for making decisions and
getting the work done. A bureaucratic leader is an incumbent
in a bureaucratic office. His style, typically, is a combi-
nation of authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire styles
of leadership. Owens remarked that how well a bureaucratic
leader integrates, blends, balances, and adjusts the compo-
nents of his style in concert with the situation, the group,
and his personal being will largely determine his impact as
a leader in the organization (71, pp. 135-136). Charismatic
leadership is a compound of personal charm and inner spirit-
ualness by which leaders influence their followers' decision-
making and functioning (24, p. 26). However, charismatic
leadership tends to be unstable because it is linked to one
mortal man. The death or replacement of the charismatic
person may seriously disrupt the functioning of the organi-
zation (26, p. 77).
In each of five aforementioned styles, the leader may
choose to direct or influence the group in four ways:
47
(a) Force, which can come from any source, but isusually inherent in the leader's own status orposition.
(b) Paternalism, the "papa-know-best; you-wouldn't-want-to-hurt-papa" gambit.
(c) Bargaining, by which the leader says, in effect"You help me, and I'll help you," or "You grantme the favor, and I'll grant you one in return."
(d) Mutual means, in which leader and followersshare the same aims, so that neither needs toforce the other to subscribe to them andpursue them (53, p. 39).
Situational Leadership Theory
Gorton rejected the premise that one style of leader-
ship is preferable to another or that there exists a set of
personal qualities which every leader must possess (37, p.
296). Stoops and Johnson claimed that in leadership situa-
tions two factors are always present--the characteristics of
the leader and the environmental conditions which demand
attention. Basically leadership depends upon one's ability
to satisfy the needs of others. This ability requires know-
ledge of the needs and an understanding of those conditions
which can fulfill those needs. A successful leader must
have the ability to know that (a) which is needed and (b)
how best to secure it (91, p. 37).
McKague emphasized that
The situation approach to leadership supports theview that more must be involved than simply theleader and the group. Unless a situation exists,such a problem to be solved or a decision to be
made, groups may not require leadership. Situa-
tional theory does not maintain that personal
qualities of leadership are unimportant; neither
does it state that situations automatically pro-
duce the leadership required. But it does main-
tain that personal qualities must be examined in
the context of a particular situation (64, p. 2).
Contingency Leadership Theory
The contingency leadership theory by Fiedler (30)
proposed that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon
the interaction of the leader's style and the favorableness
of the situation for that leader. Fiedler classified leaders
as being task-oriented or interpersonal relations-oriented
on the basis of the way they described the individual with
whom they least liked to work (59, p. 574). His extensive
research strongly indicated that task-oriented leaders per-
form most effectively either under favorable or unfavorable
situations. Relationship-oriented leaders, on the other
hand, obtain more effective group performance in situations
that are intermediate in favorableness (83, p. 107).
Fiedler concluded that the most effective leadership style
is dependent upon three conditions--(a) relations between
the leader and group members, (b) nature of the task to be
accomplished--whether structured or unstructured, and (c)
position power of leader (30, p. 22).
49
Exchange Theory of Leadership Determination
George Homans (47) developed a theory of exchange for
explaining social behavior. Exchange theory incorporated
four basic concepts--reward, cost, outcome, and comparison
level. The concept of Homans' exchange theory of leadership
determination can be explained as follows. In a problem
situation that an actor in a group wants to initiate a
leadership act, he considers what rewards he may receive if
he provides leadership in terms of increased status, need
for dominance, desire to see the problem solved, and other
factors. He then considers the cost in terms of loss of
status if the group rejects him or his solution fails, in-
creased effort and responsibility on his part, and other
factors. He then attempts to determine the outcome by sub-
tracting the costs from the rewards. If the outcome is
positive, it is a profit, and if negative, a loss. His
decision to act will also depend upon the comparison level.
The profit must be sufficiently above a "break even" point,
and his past experiences in comparable situations must have
been successful often enough for him to take the chance of
leadership (66, p. 142).
Kimbrough pointed out that the exchange theory of
leadership can be applied to educational administration
(51, p. 101). The principal incurs costs when he exerts
leadership. Some of these costs might be loss of friendship,
50
failure, lack of promotion, hostility from the faculty, and
eventual loss of prestige. On the other hand, the principal
is rewarded by successful leadership. These rewards may in-
clude satisfaction in goal accomplishment, social recogni-
tion, promotions, and many others. Thus the principal un-
consciously and consciously balances the costs and rewards
as a basis for his leadership behavior.
The Group Dynamics Theory of Leadership
The group dynamics theory of leadership by Cartwright
and Zander advanced the idea that leadership should vary
according to the needs of the group with which the adminis-
trator is associated. This theory stresses that the needs
of the group define the nature of the situation to which the
leader should respond and will constitute the expectations
against which the leader's behavior will be evaluated (37,
p. 298).
Cartwright and Zander, based on the findings of
numerous studies at the Research Center for Group Dynamics,
claimed that most groups possess two basic needs--(a) group
achievement and (b) group maintenance (13, pp. 496-499).
They stated that the type of behavior involved in goal
achievement is illustrated by these examples--the manager
"initiates action...keeps members' attention on the goal ...
clarifies the issue and develops a procedural plan" (13,
51
p. 496). In meeting the maintenance needs of any group with
which he works, the dynamics oriented administrator will
involve himself in the following kinds of activities--(a)
creating and maintaining positive interpersonal relations
among the members of the group, (b) fostering feelings of
cohesion and unity on the part of the group, (c) ameliorat-
ing interpersonal conflict among the members of the group,
and (d) stimulating self-direction on the part of the group
(13, p. 496).
Research Studies
On School Organizational Climate
The primary rationale for the existence of organiza-
tions is that certain goals can be achieved only through the
concerted action of groups of people (35, p. 4). Whether
the goal is profit, providing education, religion, or health
care, or getting a candidate elected, organizations are char-
acterized by their goal-directed behavior.
No organization exists in a vacuum. Each must deal
with its environment every day. Each organization continu-
ally interacts with other organizations and individuals in
that environment--customers, students, parents, and citizens.
The Lewin study in 1930s caused the study of the linkage
between individuals and environment to emerge. As a part
of his study, he proposed formula number 25 which can be
52
described in words as that every behavior Be is a function
of the total life space (L) which includes both the person
P and the environment E. This formula can be written as
(56, pp. 78-79):
Be = F (L) = F (PE)
In the field of education, Halpin and Croft (41)
studied the climate of elementary schools by sampling teach-
ers' perceptions of their school environment. Halpin defined
organizational climate as the way that a school "feels" of
its own "personality." He wrote:
It is this "personality" that we describe here
as the "organizational climate" of the school.Analogously, personality is to the individual
what organizational climate is to the organi-zation (40, p. 131).
One of major motivations that prompted Halpin and
Croft to study the organizational climate of schools was
their dissatisfaction with the concept of morale and with
the sloppy way in which this concept had been used in typi-
cal studies of schools and school systems. Statements
about the morale in a school failed to indicate enough
about the school's organizational climate (40, p. 132).
After the study of Halpin and Croft, the Organiza-
tional Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) has been
used many times. Brown replicated the original OCDQ analy-
sis with a sample of eighty-one schools drawn from the
53
St. Paul-Minneapolis area. He found that the pattern of in-
tercorrelations among the subtest score was, in general,
similar to that found in the original study (39, p. 7).
Andrew's study based on data from 165 Alberta schools. He
concluded that the OCDQ possessed good construct validity.
He stated that the eight subtest scores were measures of the
concepts they purported to measure (4, pp. 332-333). From
his study involving a sample of twenty teachers and 779
students, Hinojosa concluded that the OCDQ was appropriate
and valid instruments for the purpose for which they were
designed (46, p. 6901).
But different results were found in Roseveare's
study. A sample of ten schools with faculties ranging from
twelve to fourteen teachers was used in his study of the
validity of the OCDQ. On the basis of his findings of the
study, it was concluded that the subtest Thrust of the OCDQ
was a valid measure and that the subtest Esprit of the OCDQ
seemed to have validity, but the data were not conclusive.
The subtests Intimacy, Aloofness, and Production Emphasis
contained very low reliability coefficients in this sample
indicating that utmost caution should be used in interpret-
ing data obtained from these subtests (80, p. 7501).
However, Owens indicated that the OCDQ represents
the most practical of the pioneer technique available for
assessing the organizational climate of schools in a sys-
54
tematic way. This technique provides an overall assessment
of the interpersonal milieu of a school organization ex-
pressed in terms of certain behavioral dimensions as per-
ceived by teachers (71, p. 194).
Anderson studied the significance of the differences
in perception of climate in three ways--(a) differences in
perception of climate between members of the same subgroup,
(b) differences in composite perception of subgroups within
the same school, and (c) between school differences of com-
parable subgroups in composite perception of climate. It
was found that differences in perception of climate between
members of the same subgroup were not significantly different.
Differences between composite subgroups in the same school
were not significant when all eight subtests were considered.
There were statistically significant differences when analy-
sis was limited to differences in subtests, Thrust and Esprit.
The only between schools constant discernible to composite
subgroups was the presence of the principal. Differences
between composite subgroups including principals in member-
ship were not statistically significant (2, pp. 5900-5901).
Novotney investigated the organizational climate of
selected Roman Catholic elementary schools. The OCDQ was
administered to 1,072 principals and teachers in 100 Roman
Catholic elementary schools in the Los Angeles Archdiocese.
He found that factor analysis of item intercorrelations
55
resulted in loadings on eight dimensions. Items loading dis-
tribution on the eight subtest dimensions generally coincided
with the results obtained by Halpin and Croft. Factor analy-
sis of the parochial school profile intercorrelation matrix
revealed three factors which delineated six types of organi-
zational climate--open, autonomous, controlled, familiar,
paternal, and closed. Two-thirds of the parochial schools
were placed in categories construed as "open" (69, pp. 3723-
3724).
Organizational Climate and Student Achievement
Kritzmire studied the relationship between gain in
academic achievement of students and the educational environ-
ment. He found that there was insufficient evidence to indi-
cate the existence of a relationship between student achieve-
ment and staff perception of the educational environment.
School environments perceived as favorable by students are
more likely to be characterized by higher achievement than
school environments which students perceived as unfavorable
(54, p. 5471).
Panushka investigated the relationship between ele-
mentary school climate and student achievement in a large
metropolitan school district. A sample of his study con-
sisted of twenty-six principals from twenty-six schools, 447
teachers, and 2,300 students of grades five and six. He
56
concluded that no important evidence was found of a relation-
ship between climate or climate dimensions and student
achievement. When the findings were dichotomized by the
Getzels' nomothetic-idiographic model, teacher social needs
satisfaction, as measured by OCDQ subtests, was held as more
important to student achievement than the institutional goal
behavior of principals (73, p. 2072).
Feldvebel studied the relationships of OCDQ variables
with student achievement in Illinois, using urban fifth-grade
students. The two significant relationships he found were
negative with Production Emphasis (-.40) and positive with
Consideration (.39). Intimacy was not significant and was
not reported. It is interesting to note that Feldvebel did
not control academic ability, although its effects might be
speculated upon in his findings regarding socio-economic
status. Both variables which he found to be significantly
related to achievement were more strongly related in the
opposite direction to socio-economic status (Production
Emphasis .51 and Consideration -.41). Had the socio-economic
status factor been removed, the relationships between these
two variables and achievement would likely have disappeared
(29, pp. 1-4).
Flagg attempted to show existing relationships between
organizational climate and student achievement in reading. A
sample of his study included ten elementary schools in the
57
South Side Project Area in Newark, New Jersey. He concluded
that no relationship between climate and student achievement
in reading could be said to have established because of the
relative sameness in climate of the schools in the study.
He also found that as the size of the school increased, the
climate tended to become more closed (31, p. 818).
A study was undertaken by Morton attempting to deter-
mine if a relationship existed between teacher perception of
organizational climate of the elementary school and the aca-
demic achievement of students. The sample included 306 ele-
mentary schools. Correlational analyses among the student
achievement variable (math and reading scores) and the eight
subscales of elementary school organizational climate found
no significant relationship (67, p. 2463).
Reilley's study was an attempt to find the answer to
the following question. Are teacher responses to subscales
derived from the OCDQ significantly and meaningfully corre-
lated with measures of student achievement derived from the
Assessment Battery of the Michigan Educational Assessment
Program? A sample of his study consisted of 120 elementary
schools which had participated in the 1970-1971 Michigan
Educational Assessment Program. A finding generally sup-
ported recent assertions that achievement in school was
largely a function of the socio-economic background and
native ability the student brought to the school (79, p.
2988).
58
Organizational Climate and Other Variables
Winter investigated the relationship of certain per-
sonal status factors of elementary school professional staff
members and organizational climate. Three conclusions drawn
from an analysis of the data were: A. Middle Tennessee ele-
mentary schools have a tendency to fall near the closed end
of the organizational climate continuum, with paternal cli-
mate being the most common. B. There is a significant rela-
tionship between organizational climate and certain personal
status factors of elementary school professional staff mem-
bers. C. The personal status factor "age" has more signifi-
cant relationship to organizational climate than other per-
sonal status factors tested. The factor "age" also related
significantly to more of the other personal status factors
tested than any other factor (101, p. 2083).
McLeod's study was concerned with the relationship of
principal-teacher interaction and the organizational climate
existing in fifty-six elementary schools located in a large,
suburban district in Colorado. The data suggested that
teachers with more classroom experience tended to have the
more open climate (65, pp. 2298-2299).
Lutzemeier studied the relationships between and
among organizational climate, teachers' needs, and pupil-
pupil classroom relations in elementary schools. A sample
of his study included the faculties and principals of twenty
59
elementary schools from four suburban school districts in
Houston, Texas metropolitan area. It was found that: A.
Principals of the schools assessed tended to perceive school
climate as being more open than teachers' perceptions of
school organizational climate. B. The organizational cli-
mates of these schools did not seem to be related to the
inter-personal needs of teachers. Teachers appeared to dem-
onstrate occupational uniformity in aspects of personality.
C. Organizational climate did not appear to be related to
pupil-pupil classroom relations. The social structures of
these classrooms were apparently the products of some other
factor or factors (62, p. 2295).
Ford investigated the relationships between aspects
of the psychological health of elementary school principals
and certain leadership behaviors contributing to the organi-
zational climate of the school. The subjects consisted of
forty-two principals serving elementary schools in Central
New York. It was concluded that principals serving open
climate schools possessed a higher measured level of psy-
chological health than principals serving closed climate
schools. The open climate principal possessed greater
acceptance of his own aggressiveness, greater self-accep-
tance and greater capacity for intimate contact than the
principal serving the closed climate school (33, p. 900).
6o
Hillman's study sought to determine the relationship
between organizational climate and innovation and also leader
characteristics and innovation in selected high schools in
south-western Ohio. The sample of the study consisted of
twenty-four high schools. The results of the study showed
a definite relationship between organizational climate and
innovation. It showed further that there was a strong coex-
istence between salaries paid to the principals and the
amount of innovation occurring in the school. The consis-
tency df more open climates in the smaller schools seemed
to indicate that the principal-teacher communication and
subsequent relationship was better in the smaller schools,
but that because of insufficient personnel great amounts of
innovation were not taking place. The indication of a
greater amount of innovation in the larger schools tended
to support earlier studies (45, pp. 3816-3817).
Lewis attempted to study the relationship between
size, span of control, leadership behavior and organizational
climate in the educational organization. It was concluded
that organizational climate was not a function of the inter-
action of size and span of control with leadership behavior,
nor could leadership behavior be implied from the size of
school or span of control. The results of the study did
indicate that there was a hierarchy of factors among which
leadership and role perceptions, structural, social, envi-
61
ronmental, situational and professional training factors
seemed to be prominent in their influence on leadership
behavior (58, p. 3295).
Lake studied to identify specific variables related
to characteristics of principals, teachers, and school which
tend to influence or contribute to climate openness in
schools. He found that principal age, experience, accept-
ance of self and perceptions of self-acceptance of others
could not serve as criteria for identifying school climate.
Principals' educational levels were predictors of school
climate. Teacher age and experience could not be predictors
of school climate; sex could be. Size of enrollment, attend-
ance, and student population could not serve as a basis for
identifying school climate. With teachers and principals
combined into a single group, age was a predictor of climate,
while sex and experience were not (55, p. 1153).
Null studied (a) the relationships between personal
variables of teachers and the way in which these teachers
perceived the eight dimensions of organizational climate,
and (b) the differences in attitude and personality factors
among teachers in schools characterized by different climates.
The population studied consisted of 154 elementary schools
located in number districts of the Educational Research and
Development Council of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
He concluded that relationships were found between teacher
62
attitude toward children and teacher perception of the eight
dimensions of climate, and between certain personality fac-
tors and perception of certain of the dimensions of climate
(70, p. 4392).
Sellinger tried to determine if there were relation-
ships among organizational climate of elementary schools,
teacher anxiety, and student test anxiety. A sample of his
study included teachers and students in twenty-three ele-
mentary schools in New London County in the State of
Connecticut. He found that students in elementary schools
with open organizational climate exhibited slightly more
test anxiety than students in elementary schools with closed
organizational climates. Organizational climate and teacher
anxiety had significant interactional effects on student
test anxiety (82, p. 5515).
Braden investigated the relationship between teacher,
principal, and student attitudes and organizational climate.
He found that the attitudes teachers held toward students
differed between teachers in differing organizational cli-
mate groups. The teachers in the more open climate schools
held more positive attitudes toward students. The attitudes
students held toward teachers did not differ between students
in differing organizational climates. The attitudes students
held toward schools did not differ between students in differ-
ing organizational climates. Teachers and principals who
63
perceived their own school's organizational climate in a
similar manner appeared to hold similar attitudes toward
the students of that school (9, p. 3801).
Possible relationships between the organizational
climate of an elementary school as perceived by teachers
and student achievement, student self concept as a learner,
student classroom behavior, and student attendance in
schools with divergent climates were studied by Pumphrey.
A sample of his study consisted of teachers and students in
twenty-six schools in Anne Arundale County, Maryland. He
found that no statistically significant relationships were
found between teachers' perceptions of organizational cli-
mate in an elementary school and: achievement of students;
student self concept as a learner; teachers' perceptions of
students' classroom behavior; nor student absence or tardi-
ness. The study did not find empirical evidence to support
the assumption that students, with regard to the variables
considered, benefited more from one organizational climate
than from another (76, p. 1377).
In his study of the relationships between the organi-
zational climate and student ideology as perceived by
teachers, and the self esteem and power dimensions of the
students' self concept as perceived by the students, Hinojosa
used a sample of twenty-nine teachers and 779 students. They
came from the fourth and sixth grades of six elementary
64
schools in the Corpus Christi Independent School District.
He found that there was a positive relationship between
organizational climate and student power (46, p. 6901).
Prenoveau attempted to determine what relationships
existed between dimensions of the perceived organizational
climate of schools, as measured by Halpin and Croft's OCDQ,
and a measure of the teaching-learning process, Vincent's
Indicators of Quality. The sample consisted of twenty-nine
rural-suburban schools. The findings of his study provided
empirical evidence to confirm that behaviors in the class-
room were linked to social interactions which prevailed in
the schools, and that the social interactions were linked
to the principal's perceived behaviors wherein he set a
high standard of performance by example coupled with a high
level of concern for teachers. These findings confirmed
that the level of morale in an elementary school was an
important aspect of the organizational climate highly
related to classroom behaviors (74, p. 6724).
Magee examined relationships between bureaucratic
structure and organizational climate in schools as perceived
by teachers in selected elementary schools. His sample com-
posed of all teachers of a single elementary school building
in each of the three communities which were located in New
England. There was a total population of sixty-four teachers.
It was found that a trend that older teachers who had been
65
in their present position longer was found in the more closed
urban school. Trends indicated that teachers perceived rules,
regulations and procedures as inhibiting the principal to
facilitate the task-accomplishment of teachers and the abil-
ity to motivate the teachers by setting a good example.
Teachers in the more closed school viewed structure as being
more of a constraint on organizational climate (63, p. 3189).
The relationships between and among leadership style,
leadership effectiveness, and organizational climate in the
elementary principalship were studied by Albright. A sample
of his study included twenty-one principals and 100 teachers
in the State of Kansas. He concluded that the research
variables--leadership style, leadership effectiveness, and
organizational climate--were highly correlated. The partial
correlations indicated that subordinates viewed Initiating
Structure and Consideration as being important to organiza-
tional climate. Leadership styles were correlated with
types of climates found in schools (1, p. 3818).
Thayer investigated the relationships between some
variables of the classroom and the school pertaining to the
elementary school environment. Teachers and students from
sixteen schools in sixteen school districts were included
in the sample. He found that there was no relationship
among the spread of the teachers' and students' perceptions
of organizational climate (95, p. x).
66
Research Studies on School
Organizational Climate in Thailand
Dachanuluknukul studied the organizational climate of
elementary schools in the province of Sukhothai. A sample
of the study included thirty-four elementary schools. The
conclusions of the study indicated that the climate of the
elementary schools tended to be more closed than open. Prin-
cipals tended to perceive the climate of the school to be
more open than did the teachers. Teachers in elementary
schools with enrolments of 300 or less perceived the climate
of the schools to be more open than did teachers in elementary
schools with enrolments of more than 300 students. And when
the school size increased the climate was more likely to be
closed (17, pp. i-iii).
Musigsarn investigated the relationship of certain
personal status factors of the principals of comprehensive
secondary schools and organizational climate. The total
number of 1024 teachers and principals from fourteen compre-
hensive secondary schools were included in her study.
Results of the study indicated that comprehensive secondary
schools tended to have autonomous climate continuum with
controlled climate. The personal status factors of princi-
pals showed significance related to organizational climate.
Only certain dimensions of organizational climate were sig-
nificantly different among schools categorized by principals'
age, educational backgrounds, and years of experience as a
67
principal. The older principal had more degree of openness
for hindrance and aloofness, less esprit, production empha-
sis, thrust and consideration than the younger one. The
qualified-educational-background principal had less degree
of openness for disengagement and intimacy than the unquali-
fied one. The principal with more years of experience had
a greater degree of openness for aloofness and production
emphasis, and a less degree of openness for thrust and con-
sideration (68, p. i).
Research Studies on the
Leadership Behavior of the Principal
One major emphasis of early research focused upon
isolating the physical, intellectual, or personality traits
that distinguished a leader from his followers. Tead (94)
reported that the traits of the effective leader were
nervous and physical energy, a sense of purpose and direc-
tion, enthusiasm, friendliness, integrity, technical mastery,
decisiveness, intelligence, teaching skills, and faith. He
emhasized, "Leadership is known by the personalities it
enriches, not by those it dominates or captivates. Leader-
ship is not a process of exploitation of others for extra-
neous ends" (94, p. 81). Barnard (5) stated that the sig-
nificant traits that distinguished leaders from their
68
followers were physique, technical skill, perception, know-
ledge, memory, imagination, persistence, endurance, and
courage.
Stogdill examined 124 leadership studies conducted
in both organizational and experimental environments (89,
pp. 35-71). He concluded that a person does not become a
leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of
traits, but the pattern of personal characterisitcs of the
leader must bear some relevant relationship to the charac-
teristics, activities, and goals of the followers. He
further concluded that the followings were associated with
leadership and classified them as follows:
(a) Capacity--intelligence, alertness, verbalfacility, originality, judgment.
(b) Achievement--scholarship, knowledge, athleticaccomplishments.
(c) Responsibility--dependability, initiative,persistence, aggressiveness, self-confidence,desire to excel.
(d) Participation--activities, sociability,cooperation, adaptability, humor.
(e) Status--socioeconomic position, popularity(90, p. 58).
The most recent approach to the study of leadership
is the analysis of leadership behavior, which recognizes
that both psychological and sociological factors, both indi-
vidual and situational variables, are powerful determinants
of behavior (61, pp. 180-181). John Hemphill had been
69
known for scholarly studies of leadership when he and Alvin
Coons developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
at the Ohio State University (43). All details concerning
this study can be found in Chapter III.
In education there is no single best pattern to
prepare principals. There is no educational program that
will ensure success in administration. It appears that
leadership has no specific curriculum, no predetermined set
of performance objectives, and no common experimental base
(96, p. 38). Briner gave some suggestions that, to be suc-
cessful in his principalship, the principal cannot imagine
or strive for one particular school model, because each
school embodies essentially the people in it who will be
self determining and self regulating. What suits the choice
of the group within the institution and its environment
becomes the fulfillment of the group, just as the choice of
activity by the individual becomes his fulfillment (10, p.
35).
Redfern classified the patterns of the principal
leadership into four categories--(a) directive behavior, (b)
guiding behavior, (c) vacillating behavior, and (d) appeasing
behavior (78, pp. 14-16). Directive behavior is aggressive
and domineering. The reaction that follows it is either
resistive or acquiescent. The staff resents high-handed
action, and they either resist or go along to avoid unpleas-
70
antness. Guiding behavior leads to the release of staff
potential and facilitates work. Staff reaction is favorable
and accepting, since their work as individuals is recognized.
Vacillating behavior is characterized as inconsistent and
allows the staff to take the initiative, while the principal
withdraws. The staff becomes uncertain and uncomfortable.
A principal who expresses appeasing behavior is characterized
by timidity and insecurity. He may be striving for personal
popularity, or be unable to stand criticism by the staff or
his superiors. The natural reaction to this type of leader-
ship is resentment. The tendency is for the staff to take
over the leadership role and replace the existing leaders.
Rubin stated that in order to be a successful prin-
cipal and no matter whatever style and method of leadership
he uses, the principal must strive to create the incentive
and desire to improve performance. He must give his energies
to a constant appraisal of his organization, and he must
insist upon renewal and change which is intelligent and
purposeful (81, p. 52).
Most of the research concerning the behavior of
leaders in the field of education derives from concepts
developed at the Ohio State University and at the University
of Chicago (61, p. 188). One of the most interesting stud-
ies is the study used the Leader Behavior Description Ques-
tionnaire (LBDQ). After the study of Halpin, the LBDQ has
been used many times.
71
Hayden studied to determine if a relationship existed
between a secondary principal's leader behavior and certain
background data relative to his position. Certain conclu-
sions were formulated: A. The number of years of experience
in teaching and administrative position had no effect upon
the leader behavior effectiveness. B. The social science
majors had a considerably higher chance of being an effective
secondary principal than those in other fields. C. The
active participation of secondary principals in professional,
civic and fraternal organizations was conducive to effective
secondary administrative leadership. D. Those secondary
principals who kept abreast of current theories, concepts,
and changes in education and who participated in, conducted
or administered in-service training programs, had good staff
relations (42, pp. 4373-4374).
In his study to determine if there were significant
differences between the leadership behavior of elementary
school principals and the organizational climates of the
schools which they administered, Cook employed 303 teachers
in twenty elementary schools in Camden County, New Jersey.
He found that: A. Leadership behavior of elementary school
principals differed from situation (climate) to situation.
B. The leadership behavior of the elementary school principal
was instrumental in determining the organizational climate
of his school. C. The size of an elementary school might
be a contributing factor to the determination of its organi-
72
zational climate. D. The age of teachers on the staff of a
school may be a contributing factor to the determination of
its organizational climate. E. The "Openness" or "Closedness"
of the organizational climate of a school might be determined
by an analysis of LBDQ scores (15, pp. 345-346).
Trimble examined how teachers judged the principal's
leader behavior. The population of the study consisted of
twenty-four principals and 110 teachers from elementary
schools in Lake County, Indiana. It was found that teachers
assigned significantly higher scores to principals on the
Consideration dimension as compared to the Initiating
Structure dimension of leadership behavior (97, pp. 4432-
4433).
The relationships between perceptions of the leader-
ship behavior of principals and the nature of informal
groupings in their schools were investigated by Croghan.
In his study, the external pattern of the partial social
system existing within the school was described by the
Leader Behavior Description Questionfaire. The internal
patterns were measured by the use of Informal Group Member-
ship Device and by the Group Dimensions Description Ques-
tionnaire. He concluded that all groups had a need of
structure and consideration. If the external pattern did
not provide for these needs, the internal pattern would
accommodate itself by replacing them in another fashion.
73
In schools where structure and consideration were not pro-
vided by the principal, the informal groups compensated by
providing their own negative aspects of structure and sen-
timental interaction. Structure and consideration appeared
to be complementary and interdependent; if one pattern of
organization did not provide them, another pattern would
do so (16, pp. 3220-3221).
In Beamer's study including 220 teachers in twelve
elementary schools, it was found that specific administra-
tive leadership practices by Charles County elementary
school principals which tend most to strengthen teacher
morale include (a) cooperative practices between teachers
and principals, (b) support of teachers, (c) recognition of
accomplishments, and (d) cultivating friendly and understand-
ing relations. Specific practices which tend most to weaken
teacher morale include (a) lack of teacher participation in
policy formulation, (b) unstructured and lengthy faculty
meetings, (c) lack of support for teachers in discipline
problems, and (d) unavailability of the principal. Specific
practices suggested by teachers to improve morale include
(a) provision of time for planning, (b) acquisition of
teacher aides or assistants, (c) fewer nonteaching duties,
(d) recognition of teacher efforts, and (e) better structured
and planned faculty meetings (6, p. 574).
74
Anderson examined the relationships between teacher
identified leadership styles of secondary school principals
and curriculum patterns and found that: A. Principals of
secondary schools with innovative curriculum patterns were
more concerned with personal relations than were principals
of secondary schools with conventional curriculum patterns.
B. Faculties felt the principals, as groups, were equally
adept at organization and in setting up procedural method-
ology. C. Principals attempting to institute innovative
curriculum patterns in a school should be cognizant of
faculty leadership ideology. D. Differences in leadership
behaviors of principals were a matter of emphasis on the
part of the principals. E. Principals and staff identified
the leadership behaviors of the principals differently. F.
Regardless of the curriculum pattern involved staff leader-
ship ideologies are essentially the same. G. Teachers are
concerned that their principals be individuals of personal
warmth. H. Principals felt that personal relations were
more important than organizational skills insofar as leader-
ship was concerned (3, p. 2327).
From his study of the secondary principal's leader-
ship role in organizational problem-solving, Gates concluded
that, to be effective, school organizations must satisfy two
imperatives--(a) satisfaction of the needs of the organiza-
tion (internal reciprocity) and (b) satisfaction of the needs
75
of its surrounding environment (external adaptability).
Encouraging staff to participate in problem-solving, the
central activity of the school organization, is considered
the best vehicle for involving the greatest number of
people in the affairs of the school in a meaningful way.
If and how the principal approaches the problem-solving
leadership role depends mainly on his perception of the
nature of man, of organizations, and of leadership (34,
p. 4724).
Evans attempted to find, if secondary school prin-
cipals represent these three organizational types--ambiva-
lents, indifferent, and upward mobiles, whether or not these
groupings differ in leadership qualities. It was found that
the three organizational types of secondary school princi-
pals do not differ with regard to the leadership dimensions
of Consideration and Initiating Structure (25, p. 1206).
Prince investigated if a difference in the leader-
ship behavior of male and female elementary principals was
perceived by teachers with various levels of teaching expe-
rience in Los Angeles County, California. It was concluded
that the teacher's perception of the leadership behavior of
the principal was not affected by the sex of the teacher,
the length of teaching experience, or the sex of the prin-
cipal(s) under whom the teacher worked (75, p. 7794).
76
Quinn compared the self-perceptions of the leadership
behavior, instructional leadership, and decisionmaking orien-
tation of male and female elementary school principals in
the Chicago public schools. The study indicated some dif-
ferences between amle and female elementary school princi-
pals in their perceptions of their administrative behaviors.
Marital status, teaching experience, and race were found to
affect these differences (77, pp. 6199-6200).
Research Studies on the
Leadership Behavior of Principal in Thailand
Boonme's study was concerned with describing the
secondary school principalship as perceived by selected prin-
cipals and teachers in Bangkok. A sample of the study con-
sisted of seventy-one principals and 355 teachers from the
government and private secondary schools. The conclusions
of this study were as follows: A. Principals in government
and private secondary schools appeared equivalent in profes-
sional preparation as measured by highest degree held. B.
Principals in government and private secondary schools
earned equivalent salaries. C. Teachers in private secon-
dary schools had less professional preparation than teachers
in government secondary schools. D. Teachers in government
schools were better paid than teachers in private schools.
77
E. Principals in both government and private secondary
schools perceived their effectiveness as higher than did
the teachers in those schools (8, pp. i-iii).
Dheerakul attempted to obtain the description and
analysis of the leadership behavior patterns of the secon-
dary school principals in Bangkok based upon sex, experience,
age, and education. It was concluded that the principals
were more effective in Consideration dimension than the
Initiating Structure. The academic background and former
professional experience including other training of the
principals influenced the leadership behavior more than sex
and age (22, p. 520).
Sripraphai studied to determine the secondary school
principals' opinions concerning the existing school programs,
as well as, the ideal school programs in the public and
private schools in Bangkok and Thonburi. The results of the
study indicated that: A. Most of the public and private
schools had well-established programs to reflect the National
Objectives of Education. The curriculum used in the schools
had been prepared by the Ministry of Education. Very little
adaptation of the curriculum had been made by both the public
and private schools to meet the local needs. B. The mutually
respectful relation between the teacher and the student was
one of the most effective ways to motivate the students in
the Thai schools. Most of the public and private schools
78
lacked adequate audio-visual equipment. Rote learning was
the most common method of teaching in the schools. Very
few schools had guidance programs to help the students with
their personal problems. C. The most widely used method to
evaluate students in the secondary schools in Bangkok and
Thonburi was by the various examinations conducted by the
schools and by the Ministry of Education. The principals,
however, expressed the need for new ways to evaluate the
students and evaluation by subject rather than by the entire
grade was favored. D. The physical structures of the public
schools were superior to those of the private schools.
Nevertheless, the principals of both school systems were
not satisfied with the present physical school structures.
Libraries in both school systems were poorly equipped. The
principals indicated the need for much improvement in their
school library programs. E. Participations by the teachers
and the public in the school administration and decision-
making were very limited (88, p. 1558).
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albright, Barton K., "A Study of the Relationships betweenand among Leadership Style, Leadership Effectiveness,and Organizational Climate in the Elementary Principal-ship," Dissertation Abstracts International, 38/07A(January, 1978 ), 3818, University of Kansas.
2. Anderson, Gary W., "The Relationships of OrganizationalClimates and Subgroups in Elementary Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 26/09 (March,1969), 5900-5901, University of Arizona.
3. Anderson, Wesley R., "Leadership Styles of SecondarySchool Principals in Innovative and ConventionalCurriculum Patterns," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 32/05A (November, 1971), 2327, Universityof Southern California.
4. Andrews, John H.M., "School Organizational Climate: SomeValidity Studies," Canadian Education and ResearchDigest, 5 (December, 1965), 332-333.
5. Barneard, Chester I., The Functions of the Executive,Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,1938.
6. Beamer, John L., "The Relationship of AdministrativeLeadership Practices to Teacher Morale in the PublicElementary Schools of Charles County, Maryland,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 31/01A (July,1970), 574, The George Washington University.
7. Bonner, Hubert, Group Dynamics, New York, The RonaldPress Company, 1959.
8. Boonme, Narong, "A Description of the Secondary SchoolPrincipalship as Perceived by Selected Principalsand Teachers in Bangkok, Thailand," Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, North Texas State University, 1976.
79
80
9. Braden, James N., "A Study of the Relationship betweenTeacher, Principal and Student Attitudes and Organi-zational Climate," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 31/07A (January, 1971), 3801, Universityof Missouri--Columbia.
10. Briner, Conrad, "Viewing the School Principalship," ThePrincipalship in the 1970's, edited by Kenneth E.McIntyre, Austin, Texas, The University of Texas, 1971.
11. Campbell, Roald F., Edwin M. Bridges, and Raphael 0.Nystrand, Introduction to Educational Administration,Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977.
12. Campbell, Roald F., W. W. Charters, Jr., amd WilliamL. Gragg, "Improving Administrative Practice: ThreeEssential Roles," Administrative Theory as a Guideto Action, edited by Roald F. Campbell and James M.Lipham, Chicago, Midwest Administration Center,University of Chicago, 1960.
13. Cartwright, Darwin and Alvin Zander, "Leadership andGroup Performance: Introduction," Group Dynamics:Research and Theory, edited by Darwin Cartwrightand Alvin Zander, Evanston, Row, Peterson and Com-pany, 1960.
14. Coladarci, Arthur P. and Jacob W. Getzels, The Use ofTheory in Educational Administration, Stanford,California, Stanford University Press, 1955.
15. Cook, Edward A., "Leadership Behavior of ElementarySchool Principals and the Organizational Climate ofthe Schools Which They Administer," DissertationAbstracts, 27/02A (August, 1966), 345-346, Rutgers--The State University.
16. Croghan, John H., "A Study of the Relationships betweenthe Perceived Leadership Behavior of ElementaryPrincipals and Informal Group Dimensions and Compo-sition in Elementary Schools," Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 30/07A (January, 1970 ), 3220-3221,Syracuse University.
17. Dachanuluknukul, Sumala, "A Study of the OrganizationalClimate of Elementary Schools in the Province ofSukhothai, Thailand," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,North Texas State University, 1976.
81
18. Dale, Earnest, Management: Theory and Practice, New York,McGraw-Hill Book, Company, 1965.
19. Davis, Keith, Human Relations at Work, New York, McGraw-Hill Book, Company, 1967.
20. Dewey, John, "Democracy in Action," Elementary SchoolTeacher, 3 (December, 1903), 194-195.
21. Dewey, John, The Sources of a Science of Education, NewYork, Liverigh, 1929.
22. Dheerakul, Vichit, "Leadership Behavior of the SecondarySchool Principals in Bangkok, Thailand, as Related toSex, Age, Experience and Qualification," DissertationAbstracts International, 33/02A (August, 1972), 520,Brigham Young University.
23. Dimock, Marshall E., A Philosophy of Administration:Toward Creative Growth, New York, Harper & BrothersPublishers, 1958.
24. Doll, Ronald C., Leadership to Improve Schools, Worthing-ton, Ohio, Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1972.
25. Evans, Gary W., "Organizational Types Holding the Secon-dary School Principalship and Their Relationship toLeadership Variables," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 36/03A (September, 1975), 1206, Universityof Missouri--Columbia.
26. Faber, Charles F. and Gilbert F. Shearron, ElementarySchool Administration: Theory and Practice, New York,Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.
27. Fayol, Henri, General and Industrial Management, trans-lated by Constance Storrs, London, Sir Isaac Pitman &Sons, 1949.
28. Feigl, Herbert, "Principles and Problems of Theory Con-struction in Psychology," Current Trends in Psycho-logical Theory, Pittsburgh, University of PittsburghPress, 1951.
29. Feldvebel, Alexander M., "Organizational Climate, SocialClass, and Educational Output," Administrator's Note-book, 12 (April, 1974), 1-4.
30. Fiedler, Fred E., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness,New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
82
31. Flagg, Joseph T., "The Organizational Climate of Schools:Its Relationship to Pupil Achievement, Size of School,and Teacher Turnover," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 26/02 (August, 1965), 818, Rutgers--TheState University.
32. Follett, Mary Parker, Dynamic Administration: The Col-lected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, edited by HenryC. Metcalf and Lyndall F. Urwick, New York, Harper &Row, Publishers, Incorporated, 1941.
33. Ford, Richard W., "The Relationship of PsychologicalHealth of Elementary School Principals to the Organi-zational Climate of Schools," Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 28/03A (September, 1967), 900, SyracuseUniversity.
34. Gates, Phillip E., "The Secondary Principal's LeadershipRole in Organizational Problem-Solving," DissertationAbstracts International, 33/09A (March, 1973), 4724,University of Massachusetts.
35. Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, and James H.Donnelly, Jr., Organizations: Behavior, Structure,Processes, Dallas, Texas, Business Publications, Inc.,1976.
36. Goldhammer, Keith, John E. Suttle, William D. Aldridge,and Gerald L. Becher, Issues and Problems in Contem-porary Educational Administration, Eugene, Oregon,The Center for the Advanced Study of EducationalAdministration at the University of Oregon, 1970.
37. Gorton, Richard A.,Conflict, Controversy and Crisis inSchool Administration and Supervision: Issues, Casesand Concepts for the '70s, Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C.Brown Company Publishers, 1972.
38. Hall, 'Richard H., "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Em-pirical Assessment," American Journal of Sociology,69 (July, 1963), 33.
39. Halpin, Andrew W., "Change and Organizational Climate,"The Journal of Educational Administration, 5 (May,197775-25.
40. Halpin, Andrew W., Theory and Research in Administration,New York, The Macmillan Company, 1966.
83
41. Halpin, Andrew W. and Don B. Croft, The OrganizationalClimate of Schools, Chicago, Midwest AdministrationCenter, University of Chicago, 1963.
42. Hayden, Don E., "Leader Behavior of Secondary Principalsin Nevada as Related to Experience, Education and Re-lated Activities," Dissertation Abstracts International,26/08 (February, 1966), 4373-4374, University ofSouthern Mississippi.
43. Hemphill, John K. and Alvin E. Coons, "Development of theLeader Behavior Description Questionnaire," LeaderBehavior: Its Description and Measurement, edited byRalph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, Columbus, Ohio,The Ohio State University Press, 1957.
44. Hersey, Paul and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management ofOrganizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1977.
45. Hillman, Larry W., "Organizational Climate, LeadershipCharacteristics and Innovation in Selected High Schoolsof Ohio: A Study of Relationships," DissertationAbstracts International, 31/08A (January, 1971), 3816-3817, Miami University.
46. Hinojosa, David, "A Study of the Relationship betweenthe Organizational Climate, the Pupil Control Ideologyand the Self-Esteem and Power Dimensions of the Stu-dents' Self Concept in Selected Elementary Schoolsin the Corpus Christi Independent School District,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 34/11A (May,19747),7901, University of Houston.
47. Homans, George, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms,New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961.
48. Homans, George, The Human Group, New York, Harcourt,Brace & World, Inc., 1950.
49. Johns, Roe L. and Edgar L. Morphet, The Economics andFinancing of Education: A Systems Approach, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1975.
50. Kast, Fremont E. and James E. Rosenzweig, Organizationand Management: A Systems Approach, New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1974.
84
51. Kimbrough, Ralph B., Administering Elementary Schools:Concepts and Practices, New York, The Macmillan Com-pany, 1968.
52. Knezevich, Stephen J., Administration of Public Education,New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1975.
53. Knickerbocker, Irving, "Leadership: A Conception andSome Implications," The Journal of Social Issues, 4(1948), 39.
54. Kritzmire, William J., "A Study of the Relationshipbetween Educational Environment and Gain in StudentAchievement in Selected Urban Elementary Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 32/10A (April,1972),-1-71, Illinois State University.
55. Lake, Jevoner F., "An Investigation of Selected Charac-teristics of Principals, Teachers, and Schools withinTwo Dimensions of Organizational Climate in the PublicSchools of Caroline County, Maryland," DissertationAbstracts International, 38/03A (September, 1977),1153, The George Washington University.
56. Lewin, Kurt, The Conceptual Presentation and the Measure-ment of Psychological Forces, Durham, North Carolina,Duke University Press, 1938.
57. Lewin, Kurt, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, "Pat-terns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created'Social Climates'," Journal of Social-Psychology, 10(1939), 271-299.
58. Lewis, Clarice A., "An Empirical Investigation of the Re-lationship between Size, Span of Control, LeadershipBehavior and Organizational Climate in the EducationalOrganization," Dissertation Abstracts International,36/06A (December, 1975), 3295, State University ofNew York at Baffalo.
59. Lilly, Edward R., "A Study of the Relationship betweenTeaching effectiveness, Leadership Style and SituationFavorableness: The Contingency Model and the PublicSchools of Connecticut," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 38/02A (August, 1977), 574, The Universityof Connecticut.
85
60. Lipham, James M., "Leadership and Administration,"Behavioral Science and Educational Administration,National Society for the Study of Education, 63rdYearbook, Part II, Chicago, The University ofChicago Press, 1964.
61. Lipham, James M. and James A. Hoeh, Jr., The Principal-ship: Foundations and Functions, New York, Harper &Row, Publishers, Inc.,1974.
62. Lutzemeier, John A., "Organizational Climate, Teachers'Interpersonal Needs, and Pupil-Pupil Relations inElementary Schools," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 30/04A (October, 1969), 2295, Universityof Houston.
63. Mage, James M., "A Study of Relationships between Bu-reaucratic Structure and Organizational Climate inSchools as Perceived by Teachers in Selected Elemen-tary Schools," Dissertation Abstracts International,38/06A (December, 1977), 3189, Northeastern University.
64. McKague, Terrence R., "LPC--A New Perspective on Leader-ship," Educational Administration Quarterly, 6(Autumn, 1970), 1-14.
65. McLeod, Ronald K., "Relationship of Staff Size and Se-lected Staff Variables to the Organizational Climateof Elementary Schools," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 30/04A (October, 1969), 2298-2299, Univer-sity of Colorado.
66. Morphet, Edgar L., Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller,Educational Organization and Administration, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974.
67. Morton, Davis S., "The Relationship between Teacher Per-ception of Elementary School Organizational Climateand Student Achievement," Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 38/05A (November, 1977), 2436, NMichiganState University.
68. Musigsarn, Paipan, "The Relationship of Certain PersonalStatus Factors of the Principals of ComprehensiveSecondary Schools and Organizational Climate," Un-published Master Thesis, College of Education atPrasarnmitr, 1974.
86
69. Novotney, Jerrold M., "The Organizational Climate ofParochial Schools," Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 26/07 (January, 1966),73723-3724, Universityof California, Los Angeles.
70. Null, Eldon J., "An Investigation into Relationshipbetween the Organizational Climate of a School andPersonal Variables of Members of the Teaching Staff,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 26/08 (Febru-ary, 1966),4329, University of Minnesota.
71. Owens, Robert G., Organizational Behavior in Schools,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1970.
72. Owens, Robert G. and Carl R. Steinhoff, AdministeringChange in Schools, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.
73. Panushka, Warren J., "Elementary School Climate and ItsRelationship to Pupil Achievement," DissertationAbstracts International, 31/05A (November, 1970),2072, University of Minnesota.
74. Prenoveau, Joseph N., "An Examination of the Relation-ship between the Organizational Climate and a Measureof Teaching-Learning Process in Elementary Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 32/12A (June,1972),-672, Columbia University.
75. Prince, Lillian J., "An Analysis of the LeadershipBehavior of Male versus Female Elementary Principalsas Perceived by Teachers," Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 36/12A (June, 1976), 7794, BrighamYoung University.
76. Pumphrey, Franklin, "Relationships between Teacher'sPerceptions of Organizational Climate in ElementarySchools and Selected Variables Associated with Pu-pils," Dissertation Abstracts International, 30/04A(October, 1969), 1377, University of Maryland.
77. Quinn, Kathryn I., "Self-Perceptions of LeadershipBehaviors and Decisionmaking Orientations of Men andWomen Elementary School Principals in Chicago PublicSchools," Dissertation Abstracts International, 37/10A(April, 19 77), 6199-6200, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.
87
78. Redfern, George B., Improving Principal-Faculty Relation-ships, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall,Inc.,, 1966.
79. Reilley, James P., "Organizational Climate and PupilAchievement in Michigan Elementary Schools," Disser-tation Abstracts International, 34/06A (December,1973), 2988, Michigan State University.
80. Roseveare, Carl G., "The Validity of Selected Subtestsof the Organizational Climate Description Question-naire," Dissertation Abstracts, 25/11 (May, 1965),7051, University of Arizona.
81. Rubin, Louis J., "Principals and Teachers: The Orches-tration of Autonomy," Frontiers in School Leadership,edited by Louis J. Rubin, Chicago, Rand McNally &Company, 1970.
82. Sellinger, Stuart, "An Investigation of the Effects ofOrganizational Climate and Teacher Anxiety of Elemen-tary School Students," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 32/10A (April, 1972), 5515, New York Uni-versity.
83. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. and David L. Elliot, Educationaland Organizational Leadership in Elementary Schools,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1975.
84. Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior, New York,The Macmillan Company, 1945.
85. Sisk, Henry L., Management and Organization, Cincinnati,Ohio, South-Western Publishing, Co., 1973.
86. Snyder, Fred A. and R. Duane Peterson, Dynamics of Ele-mentary School Administration, Boston, Massachusetts,Houghton Miff lin Company, 1970.
87. Southworth, William, "Leadership," The Clearing House,49 (September, 1975), 30-32.
88. Sripraphai, Pornchai, "A Comparative Study of the Sec-ondary School Programs as Perceived by the Principalsof the Public and Private Schools in Bangkok andThonburi," Dissertation Abstracts International, 34/04A (October, 1973), 1558, Miami University--Oxford,Ohio.
88
89. Stogdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated withLeadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal ofPsychology, 25 (1948), 35-71.
90. Stogdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated withLeadership: A Survey of the Literature," The Studyof Leadership, edited by C. G. Browne and T. S. Cohn,Danvill, Illinois, Interstate Printers and Publishers,1958.
91. Stoops, Emory and Russell E. Johnson, Elementary SchoolAdministration, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1967.
92. Taylor, Frederick, "The Principles of Scientific Manage-ment," Scientific Management, New York, Harper & Row,Publishers, Incorporated, 1947.
93. Taylor, Frederick, "What Is Scientific Management?"Classics in Management, edited by Harwood F. Merrill,New York, American Management Association, 1960.
94. Tead, Ordway, The Art of Leadership, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1935.
95. Thayer, George, "Some Relationships between School andClassroom Organizational Climate," Unpublished Ed.D.Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,1971.
96. Thomas, M. Donald, "No Perfect Model: The Complexitiesof Educational Leadership," The National Associationof Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 61 (December,1977), 34-40.
97. Trimble, Clifford, "Teachers' Conceptions of LeadershipBehavior of Principals as Related to Principal'sPerception of His Involvement in the Decision-MakingProcess," Dissertation Abstracts, 28/11A (May, 1968),4432-4433, Purdue University.
98. Villers, Raymond, Dynamic Management in Industry,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1960.
99. Weber, Max, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans-lated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, New York,Oxford University Press, 1946.
89
100. Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organiza-tions, translated by A. M. Henderson and TalcottParsons, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Oxford UniversityPress, 1947.
101. Winter, James A., Jr., "An Investigation on the Rela-tionship of Organizational Climate and Certain Per-sonal Status Factors of Elementary School Profes-sional Staff Members," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 29/07 (January, 1969), 2083, GeorgePeabody College for Teachers.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter is divided into four parts--(a) the
instruments, (b) population and sample, (c) data collection
procedures, and (d) data analysis procedures.
The Instruments
This research study dealt with teachers' perceptions
of their school organizational climate and their principal's
leadership behavior. Organizational climate was measured by
the OCDQ; and leadership behavior was measured by the LBDQ.
These two instruments were described as follows:
The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire
The OCDQ was developed by Halpin and Croft (5) in
1963 (Appendix C) as an instrument to identify the organiza-
tional climate of elementary schools as perceived by teachers.
The instrument was developed through an analysis of 71 ele-
mentary schools and 1,151 respondents. The questionnaire
consists of sixty-four items classified into eight subtests.
Four subtests (disengagement, hindrance, esprit, and intimacy)
are measures of characteristics of the teachers. The other
four subtests (aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, and
90
91
consideration) are measures of the principal. The items in
every subtest were answered on a four-point scale--(a) rarely
occurs, (b) sometimes occurs, (c) often occurs, and (d) very
frequently occurs. A point value of 4 was assigned to items
identified as very frequently occurs, 3 to items identified
as often occurs, 2 to items identified as sometimes occurs,
and 1 to items identified as rarely occurs. Those items with
an asterisk were scored inversely.
The OCDQ was translated into Thai in 1969. The coef-
ficients of reliability of the translated questionnaire were
as follows--(a) overall behavior = 0.83, (b) teachers' behav-
ior = 0.85, and (c) principal's behavior = 0.77 (8, p. 23).
This Thai version of the OCDQ was used as an instrument for
this study.
The eight subtests of the OCDQ were labeled and
described as follows:
A. Teachers' Behavior
1. Disengagement refers to the teacher's ten-dency to be "not with it." This dimensiondescribes a group which is "going throughthe motions," a group that is "not in gear"with respect to the task at hand. Thissubtest focuses upon the teachers' behaviorin a task-oriented situation.
2. Hindrance refers to the teachers' feelingthat the principal burdens them with routineduties, committee demands, and other require-ments which the teachers construe as unnec-essary busy-work. The teachers perceivethat the principal is hindering rather thanfacilitating their work.
92
3. Esprit refers to "morale." The teachersfeel that their social needs are beingsatisfied, and that they are, at the sametime, enjoying a sense of accomplishmentin their job.
4. Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoymentof friendly social relations with eachother. This dimension describes a social-needs satisfaction which is not necessarilyassociated with task accomplishment.
B. Principal's Behavior
5. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principalwhich is characterized as formal and imper-sonal. He "goes by the books" and prefersto be guided by rules and policies ratherthan deal with the teachers in an informal,face-to-face situation. His behavior, inbrief, is universalistic rather than par-ticularistic; nomothetic rather than idi-osyncratic. To maintain this style, hekeeps himself--at least, "emotionally"--ata distance from his staff.
6. Production Emphasis refers to behavior bythe principal which is characterized byclose supervision of the staff. He ishighly directive, and plays the role of a"straw boss." His communication tends togo in only one direction, and he is notsensitive to feedback from the staff.
7. Thrust refers to behavior by the principalwhidh is characterized by his evident effortin trying to "move the organization.""Thrust" behavior is marked not by closesupervision, but by the principal's attemptto motivate the teachers through the examplewhich he professionally sets. Apparently,because he does not ask the teachers to giveof themselves any more than he willinglygives of himself, his behavior, throughstarkly task-oriented, is nonetheless viewedfavorably by the teachers.
93
8. Consideration refers to behavior by theprincipal which is characterized by aninclination to treat the teacher "humanly,"to try to do a little of something extrafor them in human terms (3, pp. 150-151).
In their nationwide sample of schools, Halpin and
Croft were able to identify "school profiles" which tended
to cluster. They arbitrarily identified six such school
climate profiles and called them climate types--(a) open
climate, (b) autonomous climate, (c) controlled climate,
(d) familiar climate, (e) paternal climate, and (f) closed
climate (9, p. 178).
These six climates were described as follows:
A. Open Climate--high esprit, group works welltogether, not burdened by busy work, leaderfacilitates task accomplishments. Groupfriendly to each other but not intimate.Considerable job satisfaction and pride inorganization. Leader viewed as genuine, workshard himself and is considerate of others.Personal flexibility and integrity, not aloof,low emphasis on production but work gets done.
B. Autonomous Climate--almost complete freedomgiven to group to provide their own structures.High esprit and intimacy, work well together,and achieve goals. Not hindered by leader butleader remains aloof, little production empha-sis, and only moderately considerate. Leaderprovides thrust and is flexible but mainlyallows the group to run the show.
C. Controlled Climate--marked by a press forachievement at the expense of social needssatisfaction. Group works hard, engaged intasks, and follow the prescribed routine.They have much to do and do not have muchsocial involvement with others. Social iso-lation is common. The leader is dominatingand directive, somewhat aloof and dogmatic.Overall esprit is not bad as all members havea sense of pride in getting things done.
94
D. Familiar Climate--conspicuously friendly mannerof group and leader. Social needs satisfactionis extremely high with little being done towardgoal achievement. Everyone is viewed as a bighappy family with being nice as the only criteriaof success. The leader is concerned with makingthings easy for everybody.
E. Paternal Climate--group does not work welltogether, leader does most of work himself.Group does not enjoy friendly relationshipswith each other and really do not care. Theleader is the opposite of aloof, being involvedwith everything and taking on all responsibil-ities. He works hard but does not motivatethe group to do likewise. The feeling is that"Daddy Knows Best." It appears his considera-tion for others is a form of over-solicitous-ness to serve his own social needs rather than
the groups'.
F. Closed Climate--group members obtain littlesatisfaction in respect to task achievement orsocial needs. The group does not work welltogether yet they are fairly friendly towardseach other. The leader is detached from thegroup and directs what is to happen. He isviewed as low in consideration and emphasizesproduction by expecting others to work hardwithout giving them the freedom to accomplishthe task (1, pp. 85-86).
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
The operational measure used to determine the leader-
ship behavior of the principal was the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).- If the principal was
placed in Quadrant I, it meant that he was an effective
leader. In case that he was placed in Quadrant II, Quadrant
III, or Quadrant IV, he was perceived as ineffective. The
LBDQ is composed of thirty short, descriptive statements of
the way in which leaders behave (Appendix C). The instrument
95
was developed at the Ohio State University (Copyright 1952,
by the Ohio State University, U.S.A.) and has undergone
several revisions. The form employed in this study measured
two fundamental dimensions of leader behavior--Initiating
Structure and Consideration. Each dimension consisted of
fifteen Likert-type items. Responses were made on a five-
point scale and were scored from four to zero. A point
value of 4 was assigned to items identified as always, 3 to
items identified as often, 2 to items identified as occa-
sionally, 1 to items identified as seldom, and 0 to items
identified as never. The items with an asterisk were scored
inversely.
Reliability of the LBDQ, using the Spearman-Brown
formula, has been consistently high in Halpin's studies of
leader behavior yielding split-half cooefficient of .76 and
.86 on Initiating Structure and .94 and .93 on Consideration
(3, p. 88).
The concept of leadership has been a perennial topic
of concern and investigation in many fields such as business,
economics, political science, philosophy, history, sociology,
anthropology, psychology, and education. Although diverse
fields are represented, the major themes in the study of
leadership may be grouped according to psychlogical, soci-
ological, and behavioral approaches (7, p. 176).
96
Psychological studies of leadership have tended to
focus on personal traits associated with leadership, whereas
sociological studies have focused on aspects of the situation
in which leadership is attempted. Thus, a trait-situation
conflict arose because some scholars were convinced that
the key to understanding leadership lay in better research
on the personality traits of leaders and others were equally
sure that the answer lay in better understanding of the
interactions between leaders and followers. This trait-
situation dichotomy is reminiscent of the nature-nurture
conflict over learning theory which raged in academe a few
years ago. In recent years, this seemingly fruitless con-
flict has been superseded by a more general behavioral
approach to understanding leadership (9, p. 120). The
behavioral approach recognizes that both psychological and
sociological factors, both individual and situational vari-
ables, are powerful determinant of behavior (7, pp. 180-181).
Numerous studies involving observation of leadership
behavior have been reported by various types of organiza-
tions--military, educational, business, and others. One of
these studies is the Ohio State Leadership Studies which
employed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).
Most of the developmental work on the LBDQ was done in a
series of studies of aircraft commanders. Related studies
have also been conducted in industry and education (3, p.
91).
97
The LBDQ was devised by the Personnel Research Board
at the Ohio State University. Hemphill and Coons (6) con-
structed the original form of this questionnaire, and Halpin
and Winer (4), in reporting the development of an Air Force
adaptation of this instrument, identified Initiating
Structure and Consideration as two fundamental dimensions of
leader behavior. They defined these two terms as follows:
A. Initiating Structure refers to the leader'sbehavior in delineating the relationship betweenhimself and members of the work-group, and inendeavoring to establish a well-defined patternsof organization, channels of communication, andmethods of procedure.
B. Consideration refers to behavior indicative offriendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmthin the relationship between the leader and themembers of his staff (3, p. 86).
This two dimensional perspective provides a useful
framework for the study of leadership in school. Four
quadrants of leadership styles are generated by cross-
partitioning the dimensions (2, p. 2).
CONSIDERATION
INITIATINGSTRUCTURE
Mean ofINITIATINGSTRUCTUREScores
Mean ofCONSIDERATIONScores
(I) C+S+ S+
C- C+
98
The leader described in Quadrant I are evaluated
as highly effective, whereas those in Quadrant III, whose
behavior is ordinarily accompanied by group chaos, are
characterized as most ineffective. The leaders in Quadrant
IV are the "martinets" and the "cold fish" so intent upon
getting a job done that they forget they are dealing with
human beings, not with cogs in a machine. Those who are in
Quadrant II are also ineffective leaders. They may employ
human kindness, but this contributes little to effective
performance unless their Consideration behavior is accom-
panied by a necessary minimum of Initiating Structure
behavior (3, pp. 98-99).
In order to administer the LBDQ to teachers in
Thailand, the researcher translated the LBDQ into Thai. This
translated questionnaire was submitted to a jury panel for
content validation. The jury panel consisted of three
administrators and four instructors (Appendix A). Each
jury was requested to consider the relevance and clarity of
each translated item. At least five of the seven jury
members had to approve an item to be included on the final
questionnaire. Then the approved Thai-version LBDQ was
administered to teachers.
99
Population and Sample
The sample of this study was obtained from thirty
secondary schools in Bangkok, Thailand, drawn by a random
sampling technique from the total population of seventy-nine
schools. Ten teachers from each school were included in
this study. The first teacher was selected at random from
each school's roster of teachers and nine more teachers were
selected with a sampling interval according to the number of
teachers in each school. For example, if there were thirty
teachers in the first school, a sampling interval of two was
used. If the second school had fifty teachers, a sampling
interval of five was employed.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures in this study were accom-
plished by following these steps:
A. A letter asking permission to collect data and
administer the questionnaires to secondary school teachers
in Bangkok, Thailand was sent to the General-Director of
Department of General Education, Ministry of Education,
Bangkok, Thailand.
B. A letter asking cooperation and convenience in
the process of collecting data was sent to the principal of
each selected secondary school.
100
C. Letters explaining the purposes of the study
and copies of the questionnaires were distributed to
selected teachers.
D. Completing two sets of questionnaires took about
forty-five minutes. The questionnaires were collected after
they had been completed.
Data Analysis Procedures
All responses on the returned questionnaires were
tabulated in numerical code for subsequent analyses. The
following descriptive and inferential analyses of the data
were conducted using Fortran IV statistical technique and
programs.
A. Descriptive Statistics:
(1) Calculation of means and standard devia-tions of teachers' perceptions of theirschool organizational climate and theirprincipal's leadership behavior acrossselected variables.
(2) Calculation of "raw" scores of teachers'perceptions of their school organizationalclimate in each subtest across selectedvariables.
B. Inferential Statistics:
(1) One-way analysis of variance to determineif significant difference existed withrespect to teachers' perceptions of theirprincipal's leadership behavior acrossselected variables.
(2) Scheffe test to identify which specificvariables there were significant differ-ences in teachers' perceptions of theleadership behavior of principals.
101
(3) Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coef-ficient to determine significant rela-tionships in the way in which teachersacross selected variables perceived theorganizational climate of schools andthe leadership behavior of principals.
All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of sig-
nificance. The null hypothesis was rejected if the calcu-
lated statistic was equal to or greater than the tabled
value, which meant that significant difference existed.
If the calculated statistic was smaller than the tabled
value, the null hypothesis was not rejected, which meant
that no significant differences were found.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Glickman, Carl D., "An Investigation of the Relationshipbetween Teacher's Perception of Organizational Climateand Students' Perception of Classroom Climate,"Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia,1976.
2. Halpin, Andrew W., "The Superintendent's Effectivenessas a Leader," Administrator's Notebook, 7 (October,1958), 1-4.
3. Halpin, Andrew W., Theory and Research in Administration,New York, The Macmillan Company, 1966.
4. Halpin, Andrew W. and Ben J. Winer, The LeadershipBehavior of Airplane Commanders, Columbus, Ohio, TheOhio State University Research Foundation, 1952.
5. Halpin, Andrew W. and Don B. Croft, The OrganizationalClimate of Schools, Chicago, Midwest AdministrationCenter, University of Chicago, 1963.
6. Hemphill, John K. and Alvin E. Coons, Leader BehaviorDescription, Columbus, Ohio, Personnel ResearchBoard, The Ohio State University, 1950.
7. Lipham, James M. and James A. Hoeh, Jr., The Principal-ship: Foundations and Functions, New York, Harper &Row, Publishers, Inc., 1974.
8. Musigsarn, Paipan, "The Relationship of Certain PersonalStatus Factors of the Principals of ComprehensiveSecondary Schools and Organizational Climate,"Unpublished Master Thesis, College of Education atPrasarnmitr, 1974.
9. Owens, Robert G., Organizational Behavior in Schools,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1970.
102
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSES OF DATA
Analyses of the data concerning Thai secondary school
teachers' perceptions of their school organizational climate
and their principal's leadership behavior are presented in
this chapter. A total of 300 full-time secondary school
teachers from Bangkok secondary schools participated in this
study. However, only 286 of the subjects returned completed
questionnaires, for a 95.33 per cent return. These returned
questionnaires were used in data analyses. The first analy-
sis identified the differences in the way in which teachers
across selected variables perceived their school organiza-
tional climate. The second analysis identified the differ-
ences in the way in which teachers across selected variables
perceived the two dimensions of their principal's leadership
behavior. The third analysis identified the relationship
between teachers' perceptions of school organizational cli-
mate and their principal's leadership behavior.
103
104
School Organizational Climate
The first research question stated:
(a) How do teachers across selected variables
perceive their school organizational climate
as measured by the Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire (OCDQ)?
In order to analyze how teachers across selected
variables perceived their school organizational climate,
means and standard deviations of each subtest of the OCDQ
of all teacher respondents were computed, as shown in Table I.
TABLE I
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONSOF EIGHT SUBTESTS OF SCHOOL
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATEN = 286
Possible
Subtests of OCDQ Mean Range of S.D.Scores
1. Disengagement 19.552 0 - 40 5.335
2. Hindrance 13.035 0 - 24 3.277
3. Esprit 24.514 0 - 40 5.543
4. Intimacy 16.395 0 - 28 2.797
5. Aloofness 22.014 0 - 36 2.953
6. Production Emphasis 15.490 0 - 28 3.202
7. Thrust 24.231 0 - 36 5.826
8. Consideration 14.843 0 - 24 3.749
105
The first four subtests of the OCDQ identified teachers' per-
ceptions of teachers' behavior, and the remaining four sub-
tests identified teachers' perceptions of their principal's
behavior.
Teachers' perceptions of their school organizational
climate when collectively grouped are located in Table I.
The teachers' perceptions of teachers' behavior revealed a
low mean score on the subtest of Disengagement and slightly
above average mean scores on the subtests of Hindrance,
Esprit, and Intimacy. These data indicated that (a) teachers
as a group were not task-oriented (Disengagement), (b) they
perceived their principals as burdening them with busy work
and not allowing them to make many decisions (Hindrance),
(c) they felt that their social needs were being met ade-
quately and at the same time they enjoyed a sense of accom-
plishment in their work (Esprit), and (d) they enjoyed
friendly social relations with each other that were not nec-
essarily associated with task accomplishment (Intimacy).
The teachers' perceptions of principals' behavior
revealed above average mean scores on the subtests of Aloof-
ness, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration. This
could be an indication that teachers perceived that their
principals (a) went by the rules and policies rather than
dealing with them in an informal face-to-face situation
(Aloofness), (b) were highly directive (Production Emphasis),
106
(c) wanted to get things done and set an example for subordi-
nates (Thrust), and (d) treated them "humanly" (Consideration).
Teachers' perceptions of their school organizational
climate when grouped according to their sex are located in
Table II. The teachers' perceptions of teachers' behavior
revealed that male teachers had slightly higher mean scores
than female teachers on the subtests of Disengagement, Hin-
drance, and Esprit; however, female teachers had a slightly
higher mean score than male teachers on the subtest of Inti-
macy. These data indicated that male and female teachers (a)
perceived their group (teachers) as being task-oriented (Dis-
engagement), (b) perceived their principals as burdening them
with busy work and not allowing them to make many decisions
(Hindrance), and (c) felt that their social needs were being
met and at the same time they enjoyed a sense of accomplish-
ment in their work (Esprit). Both male and female teachers
perceived that they enjoyed friendly social relations with
each other that were not necessarily associated with task
accomplishment (Intimacy).
The teachers' perceptions of principals' behavior
revealed that male teachers had slightly higher mean scores
than female teachers on the subtests of Aloofness, Production
Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration. These data indicated
that both male and female teachers perceived that their prin-
cipals (a) went by the rules and policies rather than dealing
107
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF THE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE USING TEACHERS'
SEX AS THE VARIABLE
Male Teachers Female Teachers
Subtests of OCDQ N 90 N = 196
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1. Disengagement 20.722 5.335 19.015 5.119
2. Hindrance 13e267 3.253 12.929 3.290
3. Esprit 24.867 5.777 24.352 5.440
4. Intimacy 16.256 2.791 16.459 2.805
5. Aloofness 22.933 3.162 21.592 2.760
6. Production Emphasis 15.767 3.267 15.362 3.171
7. Thrust 24.622 6.200 24.051 5.654
8. Consideration 15.300 3.919 14.632 3.660
with them in an informal face-to-face situation (Aloofness),
(b) were highly directive (Production Emphasis), (c) wanted
to get things done and set an example for subordinates
(Thrust), and (d) treated them "humanly" (Consideration).
Teachers' perceptions of school organizational cli-
mate when grouped according to their years of teaching expe-
rience are located in Table III. The teachers' perceptions
of teachers' behavior revealed that teachers with five years
O-
H Mm --EH
H H
0 H
E--i
H H-
U)L~~U
E H -:140<
P~)P
P-1 w U
OH
0U)
0
0)
%OGOoc
)
c)
-r\Ce'- ONON Ces\
4 Cri
GOON -O 00
co N
%- C- -- V 0 ONO% N N O0 C C- ON - 0
V3 N N N W3 cr3
0 00 \ O Cn 0 ONS r-I 0 GO N
Cm GO NO N 0 W\
W3 NO 2- 3WN \ N N N a
N GO o- O O 3
n 0 3 N C c e-G 0 O Nco c)\ c NO O n 0 \D-
0 \ GO O N O ON
n \ 0 N0 CV\70 \ 0 NO N N
N mi N N N \
~ ON \O W 0 N N
-ON
to II d a
0\0
co Cn C &\ N W\ N C \N aH N a N a N aH
O0
0to
-Pto0)p
2
[a
oto-P-
) 00) 0) o 04O o |>: t -
a o -P
C -H E H 3) -i 0 r
to 4 P -P 0 0.H -H H o H-1
fq H < P-
- N cv; - -
to
E-
z0'H
4-)
-d
0
0
GO
108
109
or less of teaching experience had the highest mean scores on
the subtests of Disengagement and Hindrance. Teachers with
eleven years or more of teaching experience had the highest
mean scores on the subtests of Esprit and Intimacy. However,
since the mean scores for all three groups of teachers were
similar and only slightly above average, these data indicated
that they all perceived their group (teachers) as being task-
oriented (Disengagement), perceived their principals as
burdening them with busy work and not allowing them to make
many decisions (Hindrance), but yet felt that their social
needs were being met generally and enjoyed a sense of accom-
plishment in their work (Esprit), and experienced friendly
social relations with each other that were not necessarily
associated with task accomplishment (Intimacy).
The teachers' perceptions of principals' behavior
revealed that teachers of differing years of teaching expe-
rience all were similar and slightly above average on the
subtests of Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Con-
sideration. The perception patterns of these respondents
indicated that they perceived their principals as being for-
mal, directive, task-oriented, and yet tending to be humane.
Teachers' perceptions of their school organizational
climate when grouped across the variables of their educa-
tional level are located in Table IV. These data indicated
that teachers perceived their group (teachers) as being
110
00
H
HPM
O H
00
H :::
F4
<4 U)O
EU)
0U)
00
ci) 400rd (D v-4
.C
Q)4 i
) -P
A U)
rd -H H d ON
H 0 H i )Q) +4-DZ
+D rd ;:c.H rd 0
a rO-ao
C-- n --Ic- 00 0\00 \n V) 0t 0 N
S0 N \0 V-) C- 0
CO 72c0ci)
co \O N V - \0 00 ON coV> <; N - C 0 -
N 0 N- - C- N N
ON-1 C\ '0 N ~
" -- ~- ~
0D0 000 > 0w z~. ON -z N O 4 00 CN N
q n N 00 C- 00 a 00 00* B S S S S
Cut)C\
Ccr3ci)
n v 00 n 1 C rV- 4 v 5 n C- --J- T-4\0 ON iV- '- v11 CV 1 n o
O N 0 NT a N v-i N N V
Q) 0 \10 VW) 00 \10 ON -4 -rA 00D 00 - 0 ON C-
(a) CU) r C\ -- N C\ Wrd N
C4 C>-
S0 11--) >- vI \D \ 00 C D n - ON
0 0 W 0 N 0 O ' 0
Q) ~ o 'F c) ON C \ l V-1 C\ W-
0
0
Ui)
Uc)
U)
[a
-P-
cd )c U)4 0-wO c3-P cw 4 C)
4 -H r CH ;:c)rd A .H 0 rd
U) +3 p p 0 0.i co H H H
v- N e -z4 uI-3 'o
U)
,-C1
E-
C-
0* |
-d
c0
111
similar and slightly above average on each of the OCDQ sub-
test of Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit, and Intimacy.
Their perceptions of principals' behavior also were similar
and slightly above average on the OCDQ subtests of Aloofness,
Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration.
Teachers' perceptions of their school organizational
climate when grouped according to the sex of the principal
under whom they worked are located in Table V. These data
indicated that teachers perceived their group (teachers) as
being similar and slightly above average on each of the OCDQ
subtest of Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit, and Intimacy.
Their perceptions of principals' behavior also were similar
and slightly above average on the OCDQ subtests of Aloofness,
Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration.
In order to determine how teachers perceived their
school organizational climates in terms of six different orga-
nizational climates--open, autonomous, controlled, familiar,
paternal, and closed--the "raw" scores (means and standard
deviations in Table I) on the eight subtests were standardized
by using a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
The standardization formula was adapted and shown as
follows (1, p. 30):
X 10 X 10 M -50)s S.D. sub ( S.D. sub-50
112
TABLE V
COMPARISON OF THE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE USING THE SEX
OF THE PRINCIPAL AS THE VARIABLE
Teachers Working Teachers Workingunder Male under Female
Subtests of OCDQ Principal PrincipalN=174 N=112
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1. Disengagement 19.971 4.776 18.902 6.067
2. Hindrance 13.184 3.237 12.804 3.339
3. Esprit 23.805 5.270 25.616 5.796
4. Intimacy 16.282 2.505 16.571 3.204
5. Aloofness 22.132 2.899 21.830 3.040
6. Production Emphasis 15.075 3.045 16.134 3.344
7. Thrust 23.293 5.613 25.688 5.877
8. Consideration 14.460 3.578 15.438 3.943
X = standardized scores
S.D. = sample standard deviation
Xsub = subtest raw score
M sub = sample mean of appropriate subtest
A mean was determined for each subtest for each
selected variable. The standardized scores served as the
data for analyses of school organizational climate.
113
Prototypic Climate
The prototypic climate of the OCDQ that was developed
by Halpin is located in Table VI. The school organizational
climate was determined by computing the absolute difference
between the scores on each subtest and sum these differences
for each of the six prototypic profiles. After a profile
similarity had been calculated for each prototypic profile,
the prototype with the smallest sum indicated school orga-
nizational climate of those selected variables. The results
of the analyses were shown in Table VII-XVI.
As shown in Table VII, the Paternal column yielded
the smallest total absolute difference with a score of 50.02.
This could be an indication that male teachers perceived
their school organizational climate as being paternal.
In Table VIII, the Paternal column also yielded the
smallest total absolute difference with a score of 51.46.
This could be an indication that female teachers perceived
their school organizational climate as being paternal.
Table IX revealed that the smallest total absolute
difference fell into the Closed column with a score of 44.41.
This could be an indication that teachers with five years or
less of teaching experience perceived their school organiza-
tional climate as being closed.
It was shown in Table X that a score of 50.88, the
smallest total absolute difference, was in the Paternal
0 N n co -O - V) -z-- I -t\10 V- n IS)V ) V - --I ---I
om GO Go -o 0o e4~ CC\ o
P-
o c c Q i o 0 n vC - ) c 0
4 4 N v3 44 NOV
U)
-PU) 0,0DCH
COO
V)-H
-P
(1) rd ) 4 H U0 0SC o U) 'H
cim -P ci C 04 %M -H S H D
0) '" 9 -H 0 '"0i-U) - -P-3 0 0
H 'H U H Ht| 64
-PEU
S0-H-P
0 H.H
co0
0
G)
.H ci
CdrDH
HOo e(1)H 0
H0 r
*
o W
0 - ri
0H00
0 'H
43 4-3
Pd 0
r
Ii i
PH
c0
0 HHc0 H
SHr-4
Rc'3IId I
OPri
114
0 PzHH
HO0EH
<t| E-1U)
0 DHa
0z0pp
F00 H
p-i
-
E
0.HU
-1
.H-H
rdj
Cl
< -
0
A
m
4ION
'H 0
ci c>i
H
0A
HCO
115
column. This could be an indication that teachers with six
to ten years of teaching experience perceived their school
organizational climate as being paternal.
As shown in Table XI, the Open column yielded the
smallest total absolute difference with a score of 49.79.
This could be an indication that teachers with ten years of
teaching experience percieved their school organizational
climate as being open.
In Table XII, the Paternal column yielded the smallest
total absolute difference with a score of 47.20. This could
be an indication that teachers with less than a bachelor
degree perceived their school organizational climate as being
paternal.
Table XIII revealed that the smallest total absolute
difference was in the Paternal column with a score of 47.20.
This could be an indication that teachers with a bachelor
degree with or without additional course works perceived
their school organizational climate as being paternal.
It was shown in Table XIV that a score of 52.46, the
smallest total absolute difference, was in the Closed column.
This could be an indication that teachers with a master degree
or higher perceived their school organizational climate as
being closed.
As shown in Table XV, the Closed column yielded the
smallest total absolute difference with a score of 51-17.
116
This could be an indication that teachers working under a male
principal perceived their school organizational climate as
being closed.
In Table XVI, the Paternal column yielded the smallest
total absolute difference with a score of 50.41. This could
be an indication that teachers working under a female princi-
pal perceived their school organizational climate as being
paternal.
Data analyses revealed that teachers' perceptions of
their school organizational climates fell into three types
of climates--(a) open, (b) paternal, and (c) closed. The
open climate was characterized by high degree of satisfac-
tion in human relationships and production. The paternal
climate indicated that the principal was in the role of non-
genuine "papa." The closed climate revealed low degree of
satisfaction in both human relationships and production.
According to Halpin, the open climate was indicative
of (a) high in Esprit, Thrust, and Consideration, (b) aver-
age in Intimacy, and (c) low in Disengagement, Hindrance,
Aloofness, and Production Emphasis. The paternal climate
was characterized by (a) high in Disengagement and Produc-
tion Emphasis, (b) average in Consideration and Thrust, and
(c) low in Hindrance, Intimacy, Esprit, and Aloofness. The
closed climate indicated (a) high in Disengagement, Hindrance,
117
Aloofness, and Production Emphasis, (b) average in Intimacy,
and (c) low in Esprit, Thrust, and Consideration.
filE-1H
0
Hcc)E-
::[14HO
OH
0Ff
Fq O
0
0H ccFi0
0~LFq FMH
Q 0
Fri
F4
Fr0
HZ
U)0>-i
Fq
O 0o 2
OCH cdi0 rH
CH V) HCH P 0
2 .H-0r- PH 0
O -DWOO+)U) -
0
ON \-- 0 ON \--cc cx \D e cc aON N N - ) -0 CC C -y
C>-
N\0NN
cc c... \O aH 4H - m cc
00 IN- 0 TH \O cr cc-)
c O D \( 0-C C) C C>- C>-
C- -c 0 c ON - -H C- C-
ON ON \O 0 ON - m N N
ON 0 \\ 0\ ON \O C N \O
N ON N C N ccv- T-
0
ON r- \O 0 0 -1 \O- C - C V - cc
N N 0
v-4CC0
rO
0
rd>- C-) c \
~4-D
Cl)20'
tl)Q
cc
Cd
4-DHC)l
00~O o o2 m
40 |>H --P w oOH r - I CH p
0 rd *H 0 rCl) i P, 0 0
.H .H CO C4 H MFri H <C Ri
2U)
H
0
-HC
00
HLd
E-l0H
118
119
0
OU)HZ0E-i ril
0 -F-q
H Fil
0PL
H U H
H
-PEON
HFr0
0
0
U)~
o -P
(a) 4-*H
CH W HCH P0
C-P .H
0rc)P,
H 0TO 0 0WOO
.::44,PHa
00
.
N- C\ 0C-\ -O
ON4.~ - -
cO r
co
C a t- 0 e-H sO NOI
o \O Ge- N O 4 W e
\O \e 4 ::d 0 O -
a ' 5 O e-0 \O 02)o \O N O We \O e
aH C' 0 -- N N ONm
O e ON [I 0 C \0 N
** ON:, N C C - V-
o\ n 0, n n \ 0 ~~ COlOIN nN N --tm4
OIN D- ON D - 0 n\0 NON \O N C,- -t \O C \
( '- ON ac C'-
0
ONOIN QN
- O\1 Ce
c ON \!>0* 0 \
ON C'- O-i C C' 0 ONrd )ON'\C\0 D- N -) \D \0o ~
02) ON ON 0 CO ON ON 0r 0--t t -t V- -J- -t -t -t
UP
to-PO
-P CrctoQo)0
Ti
Pi
ci ci to 0
~D C z' o40 H4 0lM ci -P ci C4 0
4 --H CH0 d b arH 0 rd
to ! :P -P 0 0Q .H to P H -
Q % fi H <c| m
NN
0
o H
o 4-P0 0
-PD rd p
0 0
E-1 0
H
0
H
00
0E-4 -1%
0I 0
Z/2<4H -l NOzEm
He 0 1-E-i
0U)E 0
E-)o
E-:D p-,
co~
H
F-q NIH
EH z
0
H
0 H
C -PCH Cd0 r-4
CH HPC-H to
H 0O4HP
o o
c IS0 cc NO cc o\
V-4a co N V) N
o c cs i-i W\
o co V -) co n cV- ON co V c V-) \o Vc P ( 0 C C; c cc ON
v-H 0 (N NO v3 (N -4 (( (C
O -(N V -( I- c NO -)
c- cc N -i S) -- CN cc2-1 vi v- NO
ON 0 CN\j VN CC 01\> O
o o N U U U \ 1 r
- 0 N NO NO -4 2- c'\ v-
O N N NO N \2 m- c a4 ON T-- (N \D - NO 0
(Ni ON >- o cc n
0
ON 0 ClNO\D ' NC Q -l n-t ON N v N (- NOON C- - F C cc cc c cc
--- ---- -ma-mmard
0D:rd (i 0- O IS)s N
-P0)
V)-P0
0 c-P 0
) 0
PH
0
0 0 to 0D C H to P
4O c' -P c' C4 C)C -H E CH 3
to C Ph -P 0 0.H .H to C H M
Q N H <C6
EPto
0
'H-P
-HC
to0c
H
P0
120
0
o -t N T q-0 \O C \O
o cr a N N d
GOODC
N0
N
o t c) cO ON \O V) 0C ONO\ N c \D O
\ crD 7 VC 4- m 0 cG
o t O N ON ON \O V N
- O CC > C O0
o V O 0\ ) - C C)\O ) N0c Cn N 0O ' \ C N
A C C- r C 0 G
o \ N ON \0
4 O L 0 cO \O N 1 e
HH
FH
0
0
EHHH H0P1
OH
00
F-i
0H
0/ U)EH f\r\
0-Mr<4
HO
Q~ HU) 0O
P PZF;
0
Ul)H
GOq
)
ON r N C\ GO0,
H i) c \O.HC 0 -(3 -4 GO ON ON d W\ -rdo n ON \O N C GO GO CC)
0 i ON ON 4 N ON 0 a
-P
0)'H
C-P,
40w 00Q) 4--0
O 0 C .H H 0r- 4 P -P 0 0
.H .H C4 H HQ FiI H <CA
-PCD
H
0
-D
.H
CD
0-H
OON
\0
H
4P0H-
121
CHy0~41-P0CH CH
CH )0HHD
qm 0
H 0O MA-0) 00rH Pp4CHP-
Fq.:::H
0
c-P c
-30
121)0:: q-,
V-)111.
122
F-qEH
H x
0
E-HEH O
FHZ
H H
Zu2Z
P E-1 no H
Hq 11<H
00
H H c
0~r
HI
EFf1 Fil0Il
% OIEH Z0HrI
HEO
0
H>
P-1
0
H
H
z-
(1)
C F~-PCH CM
a H
CH C
-P -H
;:5 U)-PH 0WOO0 o Y+w 0 0
<c) A 4
0l
ov-4
v-4
0 \O n0Ce ON 4z 00
\0 -z4 0 Cx0
00o n -z 0l V) 0 \10 ~ rV) \ \ \0 ON O N
P -- i (Y!) -i v3 oOCc) n O CC) 0 ' 0 0 (\
V- 1 -t C \ D % OD
i 0 \0 -4CC) V) \0 vn O N CC) -0
* 00 W\ .z NO e ON 4 00 0
n \0m
O N N~ Cx e \. c0O O
cxi C\ - 0 \f a - e
00 Cn\ e - V 00 ON
>- 00 C -0 -Cxi \J,
0
Ncxi00CC)
- - \0-' 0 - - -
\O \0 ON CO
rd N00 \D- \ \ O N 0 -
SO 0- ON s-i - 00 ON C-t -4e 4u v 2v v
0/2
PcY
-P0
(o
t2'H
P-1
w C . a) 4Hw -P w
~o ce -P -H o C)-a- 'H 5 Ca pQ) rd H <0 rd
C~ PH-P 4-'0 0QH PHH ~
-P
EO
0
o --P
oi
00
H-P0
EH
123
EH
HT0
E- E-pEHEH
H C)P
0E 0
0
H 0H0
H O F-
F E-i mQ 0 U)
E-1 U)a0 NHI
-
E Z0
ZU)
FziHE
SPCH W0 15H
CH Ti)
CH 4302
-P OH
H 0
02000 E%4-
cc.
C".T-
0
(D.C 2 \O "0 \ CO\D I-Z o
00ON
j3
00O (0 C,- oN,\ V) (D.-Cy\ 0 0C C 0 0 ON \
CC) 0 C'.- - 4 V)\0 C- 0 -C' 0 0 v-4 'n 0O ON -,- -
(N 0 CC\ ON 1\ )-,- C- 0 00 D 0 0 0 4 N \0 O
CN1 0 it) \0 C- 0 ~
* \O 0 ON aH \0 CO ON "0 c'
-0 0 0 N \D M 0 \ 0
ON 0 e a C CO 0o a a o \D
0
N
".
00
CO n- V--V10\ V-40 Cn-m
C l C'1 \ O ~ -
Ho CN 0 c"- ON V-) \0 n 0rd0 \0 0 0 CO CC co 0
wO ON 0 C- C - ON 0
4
CO
-Pc
4-D00UP0CO O
V)02
4--D
j P 0>4 0 -P0Q cd -P c C 0
C -H E H p
02 C P -P 0 0-H -H 02 C H Mq M Ni H <C m
4P02
41
0
-P
corO
00
H
P0
124
0
0
H
<4 0
riH 0EHI; 0
O HOzoo
0
>< -qo
0 f4
H 0~
< H H
H U)2HEI H
p Q
fl0Pg A N
P E- 0
Fr O rQ0
Fr EF4 0ID0- ZE-1
FrP
H~OU)0Fr>--I
0
0tH C
CH WHCH G
H oO rimo o
rp)P-1-P ;5
0)
H C- 0 C'- \ \O C- ONGO cc - 4 -4
v - CN 4 4 ON
ONV
-4
-4
H Ce 0N 4 G H ONCo )\o 00 4 0 vr o-4 Cm v3 -4 C. W 0 v3
n ( 0 n 4 ON -00\ O -- i -4 W WV 0
ON G 0 G \(D O -4v-43
ON GD- 0 c- \0 C111- -V-4 Aq GOoH C '-- ON CO0- \ - W O c -
o * * cS 3 S S3 oS
C cc 0 C- C;~0~
ON C'- 0 CO O Cn H ON E-
a \Q ON v- W n\0 n 0
o GO V4 0 \V ' 0 )oH o-
0
ON n 0 C--- ,4 n H
C- "" oC 0 GO V,) 0
ON0
V
.H coON n 0 C-- 4 \ ON l-i -c\O v-) 4 GO - -ON
0000
U)
co fO(Do)0
SC/)O
OH
-P
00
0 0 wH 0 or
:C - CH *H
CO 4 R: -P 0 0H .H C w H p
Q Fri H <C A
-P
E-1
rdlaH-P
C)
5-(1
H
0
125
0'4~ON
... , C4
'Hos
L', T-qC- N Vo oG\'H C- o W\ ON
0 . . C- - -
'H o N a
H \O C"- OCC)\2V0 ) ON GD C
0-
0O 0(1\)C\ \D n n GC) V-) -j GD
~ ~p ~ r-~o o os GD C> -a Wo -
CHC F'
03 O m N C>- 0 CN 0o N
C PH H o c H Q
-*H WQ0Q ON N C>- C 0\ W\ ON- D O
4- *- O z-ONG\J- -
4-')H \0 -r\ GD0 C V') C\ (\ Cr-\ C>;5 ti2-Pv-T4H 0_co 0 0
r 4 AO N \0 n \ 'H C",- GD0 W 'H 0<4-m 1- 0 -,- 0 '0 C>- D - ) ON
ON ON 0 c ON C; e'H * * *
1
H
0
HHE-1 E-
H
0 0
< 4SO
F-q HPEI
00E
H11 0
OHH
FT- E-ifl -
o F
CDCD GD
HOZ0
I-4m
U) 0
HZ
H4O
O 0cr~ ~ ~ ~ VHc- D-)~'-~- 0 D C>- ~Ell_~
riHU) ON \0 c>,- ON COD 0\,Ordo - 0 -tV' ON G C- - -
cO ON 0 GD GD EliC>- GD Grdo - - - C -
-P
U))
to-P
(a) C) 0U) *
bLO d -Pr-j Cw 4-3
0 co d 5
0 rd H 0 dU 4 p d- P 0 0
q x Fc H < m
0
0
H-P
rd
0
0C
H('3
0H
0l
H
H-
WoUc)
0; cHCl)O
CNlIaj
C-)
00
HPEHHE
HOH
0cc
4 E--
E-1 H
H 0
Pr-, 0lPPHI EH
HPL lQ >-qQ
E- :Efpq 0PE-q -1
F-ql
pO
FI0P H
FMAH0
U)
PF-i
CU)H-CF4
C)
O 0o4 -P
C) '
CH -P0.H ri
H 0
0 -PH 0
o o: 41P
0
NN N
N C 0o -- ~
o ONC Cc0ON
N r N ON 0 0 - N HN -) 0 r 0 0 \O 0 C0
-4 -4 Ce C N \O N \O CC
N o c - C 0 0 C N ON -4 N 4 -4 N \O 0 0
ON02 ~02) (Y; ~0 ON
OWN--
0DO) V-) CO ON 0 0 TH a ( OND- V), N - \ n O ON \O
N M 4 ON- NC ON
CO lr\ 02 0 0 0 t N VCN- -t N -~ MO CD- \O 0 00)
S S S S
0
00O c 0
0-
\ NN
MO
r)N
0CC ) N ON 0 0 ON ) 0
Cd0 - - C'- - 0- \ Ord 0 0 CO ON 0 CO 02 CO
-PU)
to-P C
0
;: CH) 0
w'H
-PL
C)C) r-IOo a o -P
bf 4--" W !:I,!Z: P-1 - 0 -I H -H
0 ri l -H 0 Pc
-H -H to C H MrQ %: F- H <d m
to
0
CH
-d
00Hto00
VON
\O
H-i
4--
126
127
H
00HZE-H
H O
N 2H
H 0 H0i
0
HI EHHi tI
RHI
H
EE--
D 0
HZ
pq
0P)
U)H-i
0O 0
4 -1
CH-3
CHI 0r
0-P
r-l 00O '
<OO
0
N t ONC\2 EC- ON
c; A c
C>- NC\ \O
\103
ONON0
o ON
a C>- 0
N a ON ON G ON 0D n OO O C N V t
\O CC-\1- CQ H C;
N N G\ "--CO a 0 -iN N ON n O x o e
. . . . 0 0 - -
C --0GO a a Q N ON 0 ON C
0 *
T cm O O v-i
o C" OQ 0 NW 0 O O
GO ON I- C\l V-q 0 ONL- oC2 0 CC n \ 0 \0V)
GO GO C N
0 te NO O00 O\ -\10 n 0 WV) -
0 s C> ON GO C
Hc2 GOC ON ON (o GO O 0 O) C>- C ON \O *\ 0 *\ 0( \
dO ON - 0 On (N V C0 n -1
rOC) ) -t- V- ) V-) V-
-PU)2
-P 0
U)
co5
-P
00
oC o C) oHCCI o 0 0 -Po C -P C
C -H E H 30 rd i
H 0 rP -P 0 0
SH H C) C HQ rI H <4 p
-P
E-i
0
rH
0
0d-H
C00
0
rH
0
128
Principal's Leadership Behavior
The second research question stated:
(a) How do teachers across selected variablesperceive their principal's leadershipbehavior as measured by the Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire (LBDQ)?
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire has a
theoretical mean score of 30 on each dimension. The highest
possible score of rating for a principal by one teacher
could be a score of 60 per dimension while a score of zero
could be the lowest possible score. It was shown in Table
XVII that there was no single mean score falling below the
theoretical mean score. All teachers rated their principals
above the theoretical mean score on both Initiating Struc-
ture and Consideration. Theoretically speaking, the prin-
cipals were placed in Quadrant I. It meant that every
teacher perceived his or her principal as an effective leader.
In order to analyze the significant difference in
the way in which teachers perceived the two dimensions of
their principal's leadership behavior across selected vari-
ables, the first major hypothesis was tested. The first
major hypothesis was that there was no significant difference
in the way in which teachers across selected variables
perceived their principal's leadership behavior as measured
by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).
Two dimensions of the principal's leadership behavior of
129
TABLE XVII
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS
OF THEIR PRINCIPAL 'S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORACROSS SELECTED VARIABLES
Variable Number Initiating Considerationof Obser- Structurevations
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1. Sex of theTeacher:
Male 90 37.53 8.49 37.26 12.45Female 196 37.10 8.03 37.05 11.31
2. Teachers'Years ofTeachingExperience:
5 years or less 91 36.24 8.89 34.04 12.636 - 10 years 57 38.00 7.69 37.75 11.2111 years or more 138 37.57 7.85 38.87 10.83
3. TeachersEducationalLevel:
Less than a 72 37.93 6.79 37.18 10.68bachelordegree
Bachelor degree 196 37.14 8.61 37.21 12.19with or with-out additionalcourse works
Master degree 18 35.50 8.31 35.78 9.89or higher
4. Sex of thePrincipal:
Male 174 35.70 8.44 36.18 10.90Female 112 39.62 7.12 38.55 12.67
130
this hypothesis were stated in null-form sub-hypothesis for
statistical analyses and interpretation. The first sub-
hypothesis was that
H There is no significant difference in the way1 in which teachers perceive their principal's
Initiating Structure as measured by the LBDQ,when teachers are grouped according to theirsex, years of teaching experience, educationallevel, and principal's sex.
The analysis of variance was employed to test this
sub-hypothesis. The region of rejection at the .05 level
was determined to be an F equal to or greater than 3.84 with
1 and 284 degrees of freedom and 3.00 with 2 and 283 degrees
of freedom.
As shown in Table XVIII, one of the computed F-ratios
obtained a -level of significance of .0001, sex of the princi-
1pal . Only the null hyp othe sis ( H1 ) was re je ct ed ac cording t o
sex of the principal. The null hypothesis was not rejected
for teachers grouped according to their sex, years of teaching
experience, and educational level. Table XVII showed that
those teachers who worled under a female principal, with a
score of 39.62, perceived their principal's Initiating Struc-
ture higher than did those who worked under a male principal,
with a score of 35.70.
H2 :There is no significant difference in the wayin which teachers perceive their principal'sConsideration as measured by the LBDQ, whenteachers are grouped according to their sex,years of teaching experience, educationallevel, and principal's sex.
131
TABLE XVIII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OFTHEIR PRINCIPAL'S INITIATING STRUCTURE
ACROSS SELECTED VARIABLES
Source df Sum of Variance F P
Squares Estimate Ratio
1. Sex of theTeacher:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
2. Teachers' Yearsof TeachingExperience:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
3. Teachers'EducationalLevel:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
4. Sex of thePrincipal:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
1284285
2283285
2283285
1284285
11.:74618981 .28518993.031
138.86218854.25618993.118
90.86818902.18318993.051
1044.38117948.69118993.072
11,.74666.836
69.43166.623
45.43466.792
1044.38163.200
0.176
1.042
0.680
16.525
- - I _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __=q-
0.675
0.354
0.507
0.0001
132
The analysis of variance was employed to test this
sub-hypothesis. The region of rejection at the .05 level
was determined to be an F equal to or greater than 3.84 with
1 and 284 degrees of freedom and 3.00 with 2 and 283 degrees
of freedom.
As shown in Table XIX, one of the computed F-ratios
obtained a level of significance of .0078, years of teaching
experience. Only the null hypothesis (Hi) was rejected
according to years of teaching experience. The null hypothe-
sis was not rejected for teachers grouped according to their
sex, educational level, and principal's sex.
The Scheffe test was used to identify which specific
groups in which there were significant differences in the
means of the three groups of teachers' years of teaching
experience. The region of rejection was determined to be
an F equal to or greater than 3.00. Table XX indicated
that Group '3 (teachers having 11 years or more of teaching
experience) were significantly different from Group 1
(teachers having 5 years or less of teaching experience).
The differences between Group 1 and Group 2 and between
Group 3 and Group 2 were not significant. It could be con-
cluded from Table XVII that Group 3 with a score of 38.87
perceived the principal's Consideration higher than did
Group 1 with a score of 34.04.
'33
TABLE X IX
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OFTHEIR PRINCIPAL'S CONSIDERATION
ACROSS SELECTED VARIABLES
Source df Sum of Variance F p
Squares Estimate Ratio
1. Sex of theTeacher:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
2. Teachers' Yearsof TeachingExperience:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
3. Teachers'EducationalLevel:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
4. Sex of thePrincipal:
Between GroupsWithin GroupsTotal
1284285
2283285
2283285
1284285
2.78538751.28538754.070
1306.38037447.70338754.083
34.29838719.75838754.056
382. 62538371.34438753.969
2.785136.448
653.190132.324
17 .149136.819
382.625135.110
0.020
4s936
0.125
2.832
____________- .1I _____
0.887
0.0078
0.882
0o094
134
TABLE XX
SCHEFFE TEST OF DIFFERENCES IN THE PRINCIPAL'SCONSIDERATION AMONG THE THREE
TEACHERS' GROUPS
Group Number 1 2 3
1 (5 years or less) --- 1.823 4.825
2 (6 years - 10 years) --- 0.190
3 (11 years or more)
Significant at the .01 level
School Organizational Climate and Principal's
Leadership Behavior
In order to determine whether a significant relation-
ship existed between teachers' perceptions of their school
organizational climate and their principal's leadership
behavior, the second major hypothesis was tested. The second
hypothesis is that there is no significant relationship in
the way in which teachers across selected variables perceive
the organizational climate of schools and the leadership
behavior of principals as measured by the OCDQ and the LBDQ.
Each of selected variables of the sub-hypothesis are stated
in null form. The first sub-hypothesis is as follows:
135
1H21 There is no significant relationship in the2 -way in which teachers perceive their schoolorganizational climate as measured by theOCDQ and their principal's leadershipbehavior as measured by the LBDQ, whenteachers are grouped according to their sex.
The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation served as a
statistical tool to test this hypothesis. As shown in Table
XXI, the computed Coefficients (r) of school organizational
climate and the principal's Initiating Structure and Consid-
eration were significant at the .01 level as perceived by
male and female teachers. Therefore the null hypothesis was
rejected.
TABLE XXI
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONALCLIMATE AND THE PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS USINGTEACHERS' SEX AS THE VARIABLE
Variable df Initiating ConsiderationStructure
Climate:
Male (Paternal) 88 0.591 0.422
Female (Paternal) 194 0.492 0.447
Significant at the .01 level
136
H2 :There is no significant relationship in the
2 way in which teachers perceive their school
organizational climate as measured by the
OCDQ and their principal's leadership
behavior as measured by the LBDQ, when
teachers are grouped according to their
years of teaching experience.
The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to
test this hypothesis. As shown in Table XXII, the computed
Coefficients (r) of school organizational climate and the
principal's Initiating Structure and Consideration were sig-
nificant at the .01 level as perceived by teachers who had
years of teaching experience of 5 years or less, 6 to 10
years, and 11 years or more. Therefore the null hypothesis
(H ) was rejected.2
TABLE XXII
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONALCLIMATE AND THE PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS USING TEACHERS'YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE AS THE
VARIABLE
Variable df Initiating ConsiderationStructure
Climate:
5 years or less (Closed) 89 0.588 0-558
6 - 10 years (Paternal) 55 0.519 0.1427
11 years or more (Open) 136 0.459* 0.411
Significant at the .01 level
137
H3 : There is no significant relationship in the
way in which teachers perceive their schoolorganizational climate as measured by theOCDQ and their principal's leadershipbehavior as measured by the LBDQ, whenteachers are grouped according to theireducational level.
The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to
test this hypothesis. As shown in Table XXIII, the computed
Coefficients (r) of school organizational climate and the
principal's Initiating Structure and Consideration were sig-
nificant at the .01 level as perceived by teachers with less
than a bachelor degree and teachers with a bachelor degree
with or without additional course works. Therefore the null
hypothesis (H3) was rejected concerning school organizational
climate and the principal's Initiating Structure and Consid-
eration, except for teachers with a master degree or higher.
TABLE XXIII
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONALCLIMATE AND THE PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS USING TEACHERS'EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AS THE VARIABLE
Variable df Intiating CosiderationStructure
Climate:
Less than B.A. (Paternal) 70 0.393 o.426
B.A. with or withoutadditional course * *
works (Paternal) 194 0.591 0.456
M.A. or higher (Paternal) 16 0.152 0.098
Significant at the .01 level
138
H : There is no significant relationship in the2 way in which teachers perceive their school
organizational climate as measured by theOCDQ and their principal's leadershipbehavior as measured by the LBDQ, whenteachers are grouped according to theirprincipal's sex.
The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to
test this hypothesis. As shown in Table XXIV, the computed
Coefficients (r) of school organizational climate and the
principal's Initiating Structure and Consideration were sig-
nificant at the .01 level as perceived by teachers who
worked under male and female principals. Therefore the null
hypothesis (H2) was rejected.
TABLE XXIV
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONALCLIMATE AND THE PRINCIPAL 'S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS USING THEPRINCIPAL'S SEX AS THE
VARIABLE
Variable df Initiating ConsiderationStructure
Climate:
Male principal (Closed) 172 0.508 0.454
Female principal(Paternal) 110 0.511 0.391
Significant at the .01 level
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Glickman, Carl D., "An Investigation of the Relationshipbetween Teacher's Perception of the OrganizationalClimate and Students' Perception of Classroom Climate,"
Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia,
1976.
139
CHAPTER V
SUGARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECO1VTENDATIONS
Presented in Chapter V was a brief summary of back-
ground of this study. The findings, conclusions, implica-
tions, and recommendations were then presented.
Summary
This study was predicated upon the premises that
teachers were in a strategic position to provide relevant
information concerning the organizational climate of their
school and the leadership behavior of their principal. It
has been established through research and literature that,
in order to achieve the desired goals of the school, it is
necessary for the school administration to establish and
maintain a healthy organizational climate. Also, the
research and literature supported the supposition that it
would be useful in goal achievement and organizational
effectiveness for the principal to become aware of his
leadership behavior as perceived by teachers within the
school setting. The Thai translation of the OCDQ was deter-
mined to be a reliable and valid instrument to provide an
assessment of the organizational climate of Thai secondary
14o
141
schools as perceived by the teachers. The LBDQ was translated
into Thai by the researcher, and a panel of judges consisting
of seven persons at the universities in Thailand verified the
accuracy of the translation.
The purposes of this study sought answers to two
research questions:
(a) How do teachers across selected variablesperceive their school organizational climateas measured by the Organizational ClimateDescription Questionnaire (OCDQ)?
(b) How do teachers across selected variablesperceive their principal's leadership behavioras measured by the Leader Behavior DescriptionQuestionnaire (LBDQ)?
This study also tested the following two hypotheses:
H : There is no significant difference in the wayin which teachers across selected variables
perceive the leadership behavior of theirprincipals as measured by the LBDQ.
H2 : There is no significant relationship in theway in which teachers across selected variables
perceive the organizational climate of schoolsand the leadership behavior of principals asmeasured by the OCDQ and the LBDQ.
The sample of the study included 286 full-time class-
room teachers from thirty randomly selected secondary schools
in the Bangkok area. The names of these schools are located
in Appendix B.
Data analyses were both descriptive and inferential.
The adapted formula of Halpin's original study of school
organizational climate and his prototypic climate profile
were used to determine school organizational climate of the
142
schools in this study. One-way analysis of variance was
employed to determine the difference in the way in which
teachers perceived their principal's leadership behavior.
In the event a significant difference was found in the
analysis of variance, the Scheffe test was used to identify
on which specific variables were the significant differences.
Finally, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used
to ascertain whether a significant relationship existed
between teachers' perceptions of their school organizational
climate and their principal's leadership behavior. Rejection
of all hypotheses was set at the .05 level of significance.
The independent variables for teachers used in this
study were
1. Sex of the Teacher:
(a) Male(b) Female
2. Teachers' Years of Teaching Experience:
(a) 5 years or less(b) 6 years - 10 years(c) 11 years or more
3. Teachers' Educational Level:
(a) Less than a bachelor degree(b) Bachelor degree with or without
additional course works(c) Master degree or higher
4. Sex of the Teachers' Principal:
(a) Male(b) Female
143
The dependent variables for teachers used in this
study were
1. Teacher "raw" composite scores (rating) of their schoolorganizational climate on the Organizational ClimateDescription Questionnaire:
(a) Disengagement(b) Hindrance(c) Esprit(d) Intimacy(e) Aloofness(f) Production Emphasis(g) Thrust(h) Consideration
2. Teachers mean composite score (rating) of their schoolorganizational climate on the Organizational ClimateDescription Questionnaire.
3. Teachers mean composite scores (rating) of their princi-pal's leadership behavior on the Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire:
(a) Initiating Structure(b) Consideration
Findings
The data were analyzed with reference to the two
research questions and two hypotheses of the study. The
first research question was: How do teachers across selected
variables perceive their school organizational climate as
measured by the Organizational Climate Description Question-
naire (OCDQ)? The findings relative to this research ques-
tion were summarized in Table XXV.
These data were analyzed across the selected variables
of (1) sex of the teacher, (2) teachers' years of teaching
144
TABLE XXV
SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIRSCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
ACROSS SELECTED VARIABLES
Number Perceived SchoolVariable of Obser- Organizational Climate
vations
I. Sex of the Teacher:
MaleFemale
2. Teachers' Yearsof TeachingExperience:
5 years or less6 - 10 years11 years or more
3. Teachers' Educa-tional Level:
Less than a bachelordegree
Bachelor degree withor without addi-tional courseworks
Master degree orhigher
4. Sex of the Principal:
MaleFemale
90196
9157
138
72
196
18
174112
PaternalPaternal
ClosedPaternalOpen
Paternal
Paternal
Closed
ClosedPaternal
145
experience, (3) teachers' educational level, and (4) the sex
of the principal under whom the teachers served. The data
revealed the following findings:
(a) With regard to the variable, sex of the teacher, both
male and female teachers perceived the organizational
climate of the schools as being paternal.
(b) When tested by the variable of teachers' years of
teaching experience, there were differences in the way
each group of teachers perceived the organizational
climate of the schools. Teachers with five years or
less of teaching experience perceived the school orga-
nizational climate as being closed, those with six to
ten years of teaching experience perceived the school
organizational climate as being paternal, and those
with eleven years or more of teaching experience per-
ceived the school organizational climate as being open.
(c) The subjects were grouped across the variable of their
educational level. Teachers with less than a bachelor
degree and those with a bachelor degree with or without
additional course works perceived the school organiza-
tional climate as being paternal, while teachers with
a master degree or higher perceived the school orga-
nizational climate as being closed.
146
(d) The final analysis grouped the subjects according to
the sex of the principal with whom they worked. Those
teachers who served under a male principal perceived
the school organizational climate as being closed,
whereas those who served under a female principal per-
ceived the school organizational climate as being
paternal.
The second research question was: How do teachers
across selected variables perceive their principal's leader-
ship behavior as measured by the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ)? The result of data analyses indicated
that all of the teachers perceived their principal as an
effective leader; i.e., they perceived their principal as
being high on both Initiating Structure and Consideration.
This placed each of the principals in Quadrant I (see pp.
97-98).
There were two major hypotheses tested in this study.
The first hypothesis stated,
H : There is no significant difference in the wayin which teachers across selected variablesperceive the leadership behavior of theirprincipals as measured by the Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire (LBDQ).
The LBDQ has two dimensions--Initiating Structure and
Consideration. The first sub-hypothesis was that there were
no significant differences in the way in which teachers
147
across selected variables perceived their principal's Ini-
tiating Structure. These findings were that there were no
significant differences concerning teachers' perceptions of
their principal's Initiating Strucutre when they were grouped
according to the following variables--(a) sex of the teacher,
(b) teachers' years of teaching experience, and (c) teachers'
educational level. However, there were significant differ-
ences concerning teachers' perceptions of their principal's
Initiating Structure with the following variable--(a) sex of
the principal for whom they worked. Those teachers who
worked for a female principal perceived their principal's
Initiating Structure higher than those who worked for a male
principal.
The second sub-hypothesis was that there were no sig-
nificant differences in the way in which teachers across
selected variables perceived their principal's Consideration.
These findings were that there were no significant differ-
ences concerning teachers' perceptions of their principal's
Consideration with the following variables--(a) sex of the
teacher, (b) teachers' educational level, and (c) sex of the
principal. However, there were significant differences con-
cerning teachers' perceptions of their principal's Considera-
tion with the following variable--(a) teachers' years of
teaching experience. Teachers with eleven years or more of
148
teaching experience perceived the principal's Consideration
higher than did teachers with five years or less of teaching
experience.
The second and final hypothesis stated,
H : There is no significant relationship in the
way in which teachers across selected vari-ables perceive the organizational climateof schools and the leadership behavior ofprincipals as measured by the OCDQ and theLBDQ.
The data revealed that there were no significant
relationships in the way in which teachers perceived their
school organizational climate and their principal's leader-
ship behavior (Initiating Structure and Consideration) on
the variable---(a) the teacher with a master degree or higher.
However, there were significant relationships in the way in
which teachers perceived their school organizational climate
and their principal's leadership behavior (Initiating
Structure and Consideration) with the following variables--
(a) sex of the teacher, (b) teachers' years of teaching expe-
rience, (c) the teacher with less than a bachelor degree, (d)
the teacher with a bachelor degree with or without additional
course works, and (e) sex of the principal.
Conclusions and Implications
Conclusions based on the analyses of data gathered
through this study could be drawn as follows:
149
1. The school organizational climates as perceived
by secondary school teachers tended to fall into the closed
end of the open-closed climate continuum. It is interesting
to note that teachers with more years of teaching experience
perceived their school organizational climates as being open.
2. All of the teachers in this study perceived their
principal as an effective leader, i.e. high on Initiating
Structure and Consideration.
3. An analysis of data indicated that there was a
significant relationship between organizational climate and
principal's leadership behavior as perceived by these sec-
ondary school teachers; however, no matter how teachers per-
ceived their school organizational climate, they still per-
ceived their principal as an effective leader.
The result of this study indicated that the school
organizational climates as perceived by teachers tended to
fall into the closed end of the open-closed climate con-
tinuum. There is an arguement about whether or not an open
climate is good. The research findings concerning students'
academic performance and an operL climate are mixed. Positive
teacher-principal relations might not lead to better cog-
nitive results on student achievement tests. In an open and
healthy organizational climate, when a sound new method is
introduced openness correlates with achievement. If teaching
methodology is not sound, however, the openness in climate
150
in and of itself may not necessarily lead to gains in learn-
ing achievement. Healthy, open organizational dynamics make
a contributing impact because they facilitate the process of
the organization, not necessarily its product. Openness per
se will not make a poor program effective. The principal
should be cognizant of these research findings.
In addition, teachers' perceptions of their school
organizational climates tending to fall into the closed end
of the organizational climate continuum imply average morale
in schools. Morale is a significant building force in any
organization. It is an essential accompaniment of success
in any form. Its connotations are positive with its. results
measured in accomplishments, either individual or group.
Among professional people such as teachers it would seem
reasonable to expect good morale without special administra-
tive effort. But teachers have the same emotions as anyone
else. Good morale has to be cultivated in schools as well
as in other group enterprises. And the key person in build-
ing it in a school is the principal. He must understand the
desires of his faculty and the factors bearing on their
morale. He must do everything within reason to provide the
best climate possible for good morale.
Regarding the principal's leadership behavior, this
study indicated that the principal was perceived as an
effective leader. It meant that he emphasized both Initia-
ting Structure and Consideration. However, the principal
151
should be aware of the fact that the teacher has the defi-
nite needs. In some cases, it is impossible to meet the
wishes of teachers without violating some rules and regula-
tions established for the operation of the school. His
leadership can be most effective when he knows how to util-
ize his knowledge and learned behaviors along with intuitive
insight in sensing needs and providing leadership in a given
situation.
As indicated by the result of this study with
respect to teachers' perceptions of their school organiza-
tional climate, it would be interesting to know why teachers
with five years or less, six to ten years, and eleven years
or more of teaching experience perceived their school orga-
nizational climate as being closed, paternal, and open
respectively. On the other hand, teachers with higher edu-
cational level perceived their school organizational cli-
mate as being closed. What are -the factors that make these
differences possible? It could possibly be that the number
of teachers with a master degree or higher (n = 18) in this
study were too small for the result to be conclusive.
The school organizational climates as perceived by
teachers who worked under male and female principals were
also different. Teachers who worked under a male principal
perceive -their school organizational climate as being closed.
On the other hand, teachers who worked under a female
152
principal perceived their school organizational climate as
being paternal. Do male principals have more of a tendency
to dominate over teachers than do female principals? Do the
backgrounds of male and female principals cause differences
in teachers" perceptions? These are among the types of
questions that further research should seek to answer.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended
that
1. The secondary school principals in Bangkok should
make themselves familiar with research studies and literature
concerning teachers' perceptions of organizational climate
and leader behavior. In turn, they should utilize the results
of research studies on leadership and organizational climate
to more efficiently formulate and accomplish school goals
and objectives. They should participate in programs offering
activities that emphasize the human relations aspects of
administrative leadership.
2. Additional research should be conducted to deter-
mine the school organizational climate, the principal's
leadership behavior, and their relationships in other prov-
inces in Thailand. Further studies should be conducted to
determine why teachers with eleven years or more of teaching
experience perceived their school organizational climate as
153
being open as opposed to being closed or paternal as indi-
cated by those with less years of teaching experience. Also
studies should be conducted to determine why teachers who
worked under a male principal perceived their school organi-
zational climate as being closed as opposed to those who
worked under a female principal and perceived their school
organizational climate as being paternal.
APPENDICES
154
APPENDIX A
155
156
JURY PANEL FOR INSTRUMENT VALIDATION
ADMINISTRATORS
1. Dr. Kanda Nathalang
2. Dr. Vichitr Sinsiri
3. Dr. Wacharee Buranasing
Dean of the Graduate School,Srinakharinwirot University,Bangkok, Thailand.
Coordinator, Department ofHigher Education,Srinakharinwirot University,Bangkok, Thailand.
Deputy Director ofDemonstration School,Ramkamhaeng University,Bangkok, Thailand.
INSTRUCTORS
4. Miss Churee Chivakul
5. Mrs. Prisna Nakornsri
6. Miss Wipudh Sobhavons
7. Miss Wiroonrat Chanaiagoon
Assistant Professor ofEnglish, SrinakharinwirotUniversity, Bangkok, Thailand.
Instructor of English,Kasetsart University,Bangkok, Thailand.
Assistant Professor ofThai Language,Srinakharinwirot University,Bangkok, Thailand.
Instructor of Thai Language,Srinakharinwirot University,Bangkok, Thailand.
Cricernir-g the L ader ?ehavf4or Desctc urdstionnai., and Related Forms
Perzlssion is gnt ed 'tfOtt forrai ramet to xse the Leader Behavior
Description Q'estIonnaire an% oter related fcr's deV.LO0@O at The Ohio State
University, object to the following condtions:
-. Use: The forms nay be uzed In research projects. They may notbe used for ;roa^IonQl activities or for ;roducirng income
on behaIi of indivlifus or organizr.ati.on other than The
Ohio State University.
rAdpt&ticn and Periston: The &iroctions and the form of the items
ma b-zei-p to spEcIfic sitatIons wher such steps are
de desirable.
3. L:2tIz: Suffctent ccpes for a specific research 'project
4. lncluzion 1r diseerirt .os: Zopies ~of the muesionnaire may be
i2cLde1 :n tes e! nd dtzsrertati.ons. Permission is granted
for he dupli a Cion of su-ct dissertations when filed with the
niVesi4y &rrofilr Servicr et Arp Arbor, Yichiar 48106 U.S.A
(5. Crvoright: In granting erCston to tcdfy or dupli-ate the2tStflunp re, we 20 not -urrender ur copyright, cup1lcate d
quei" o A--C rA r.d all adottions shoUld contain the notation-- aA
"Copyrxgnt, 4tN-, < The OThio State University.
6 nc 1ertes: Cccnrrtications ehold be dressedd to:
Center :cr B esranEcontc ResearchTheOhi sateU-v ersi-Y
J- -g C eRoad
- -C---/- - - -g- - - - -C
You In crr ' - n TnA uTCru
11VT1
II, 277 u~' he, a'~ ~'AAm
IL2C--i ~ .~ y'&p~ <
North TexasState
University
Denton, Texas76203
Departmentof
Nay 8, 197 8 Education
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that Mr. Sumeth Deosres is acandidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree witha ma cr in A dministrative Leadership at N.orth TexasState University. Up to the present, Pr. Deoisreshas successfully completed all of his academiccourse work and has recently been approved toproceed with his dissertation.
The topic of Mr. Deoisres's dissertation researchis "A Study of the School Organizational Climateand the Principals Leadership Behavior as Perceivedby Secondary School Teachers in Bangkok, Thailand.'As Mr. DeiseLs's major professor, I believe thathis study will contribute to the Thai educationalprocess. Your assistance and cooperation leadingto the success of his study are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
r. ?oosRevelt Washington, Jr.Chairman of Advisory Committee
"'-ii
159
CAI
Graduate SchoolSinacarintirot UnivrsitySukhumwiv 23, BangkcokThailand
June 29, 1978
Dr. Rooseuelt Washington, Jr.Asociated :zo essor f EducationNorth T'a State UniversityDenton. 21 76201USA
Dear Sir:
This is vo infom you that Lir, Stneth Deoisres has very well passed
the Drocess of having his tr nsatet questionnaire subitted for
approval to thzee adinistratOrt ar& four instructors as required.
lis ttn3J Zs& version I3ADQ has been apprvvei by the jury memberstobe adtnistered to the sampli
Sincerely yours,
Kanda UathalangDean, Graduat eSchool
I 6o
O IT TEE 9UL1 H -1p
L 'IV4 IBTIDZ11fl mki tIn 411 1 n 4 t M fl
*14
4 flfl W arN -
L"'t14 L 2591 PulU tmiql I 41 ," TN
~;ric&,f c2uU crr--kC
"A Study- of the Schoonl ^4aiz1onlCimrate and the Principalls
Leadership Behavior a3 Perceived by 3-ecandary Schoo]l Teach.-rs I'M Bangkok,
v v
4 4 LT aU li'fill TIt, viq34,1f
(27, Eeshm
161A LIMTER TO ThE TEACHER
30S Bradley St., # 29
Denton, Texas 76201
ICA
J~UGU 2521
2
'4 4
V V
n'~1fl W ( Admiistratise Leadership) 23 North Texas State University,
V 4
Denton, Texas S ru' 111UU tt7 A Study of The School
Qrgan1zatIonal Climate aM' The Principalt Leadership Behavior as
ley
Perceivedaby Secondary School Teachers in Bangkok, ThailandYMOtL uUVfl4
fi1 V . )'' 1V V 11 ii .5D'Vu i
U'0 0 1UiLULJAiBDZ'IiIhL t L71J7Ifl1
14I' JllI. vI 1 U'
RS64U A.....,,..................~*~a....a* U34'i'11'117Ll1J
1 1 9
( , %I . , j I JV tl z fi(i i
162
A LE~~7'T% O TfEl7 NCPA
08 Bradley St., # 29
Denton, Texas 76201
)Jt)wIUI4 2521
*5! 1#
L IUU EjtflJ' 21WUU Lv.- ui I U14.U L..'.
P-u?, ( n4 strative Leadership ) t3 North Texas Statev
University, Dentox, Texas tt L mIm 1U al4 L7if A Study of
The School Organizational Climate and The Principalis Leadership
Behavior as Perceived by Secondary School Teachers in Bangkok,
Thailand L1TItV14 12 Ibiu7t4 t I U U1AIIfl I UVlun'7I h TM U UZ.tt4
4?1 99: 10 tlu27 1J' C 10 ':3574tYUM0l~2U1B1: 7'UV~1ICJZni fl\4 T~ 10um liU LWa19Z451 JUI TufflJI17 NI
I $i
4JI 5ta r UL t" ' C 'a II T iI IV Vti ID-I '
veYVf)}1 1171U. 3y fiJUXaL ijfVItI 711W L tIL -b!) f, 1 ?t litfIf I/,lIII
U
AA
163
SCHOOLS SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Watmakutkasat
Watsraket
Satreemahaprutharam
Nontreewitaya
Watnongjog
Sriayuthaya
Sainampung
Watnoinai
Bangkapi
Santiradwitayalai
Suksanaree
Satreewitaya
Bangpakok
Watpaknam
Buddhachakwitaya
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. a
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Watjaengron
Wattrimitr
Thepleela
Watthatthong
Watrachathivas
Yothinburana
Horwang
Surasakmontree
Satreewatrakang
Thaveethabhisek
Prakhanongwitayalai
Prathoomkongka
Satreesrisuriyothai
Watsuthiwararam
Thepsirindara
APPENDIX B
164
Higher Ldca tClon
Above Bachelor's Degree Level
Higher Education
BJchelor's Degree Level and below
I Uppcr ScondaryEducation
v-4
L-e "J6Se --oda ryEduc tion
-
' Pritasry Edu~catioi I
-7L-
- M4- - --
-4I4
41
- 3
0 C
..........
.44
U
0
Pre-sch1ool Education
0
l
Fistional Sys
4A
163
0zi
H 0Ld
-4 )
C) C4
H
i -J
o Uyc-
o -
Cd9
r-.4,
0j-d
r4.
** -
d (4-PC.;C
H
Q- 0 '
)
-
W4
APPENDIX C
166
16?
hI iI fit nv1 u 7
'IiuV
v 3..... (1) 5 7MU 1
iJ *MVL5Uflfl
..... (2) 6 i 91
393
0 lVWp'10 j. .. (5) Ii i2iU1
5. .inufl-9to
e s ) K hti)l
168
e; V
t 1)f1 i" 1 " O
9 1, 1 91 t t u9
VntVn77 8iLJ ilU IuflWilM~ult" Mi WM4 '12
1qnyt t'V -u V"ugrnhu
Iqn7s V n t Ujg.)h'un
1. Z1Vod tu~wa 4bunsmtmtt4utuartzlEemen]JI V
I. 0171 u nf\V AIquu M M I p U uz't lovv:
2o -t I q U *11; fia197 4 v s -j -1 A 1 n i ,vi t l v II t610 All1 1
2 1* I1 1 t 1nW+)4 1 VT lthIT L I II MO 111,5Kf" httW). 1 Vlj 'Uf
5. ver soiL flt1 iN zi4Ua7.4.
5. thIV'2v Ut %14f 1? LTfi1U V1 24WIVefltfl240tm U447 1n' -
1. a' ''D W1 1 4L 1 1 L D -1 11 Yl71 l '
v
6.
11 U '7 I IlVI n
. ulThauTf Lu 1TZI "1.3Wnii4
12. t113U5u9uI70tanni1YrnDfl12lfl ngwtaf1.$V'314 iYJu, 1ih 10 hjUt t II~
JIfJ 1 - is' "V IV
2 1 ' l n '1 'S ''
I
I
I
I1
I
I
1
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
2a
3
3
3
3
.3
35
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
If
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.
5
5
1 2 3 4 5
2
2
I
I
3
.3
4
45
5
'C6 nlP! I t Fut 9 Sa;
alp
T'll I , I ",
kin
'pn n
hnvTh i
ihiwun k
14t'flhuf 5
52'1:441114oipt tznvu 1 4 2
b I
v
1?V.i II 1'i lJ lfl' j li In ti iZ t's
vI I IIILl'14"i01"a 11 v -Itd
-19. L n T 131''11 1 I ll lil10) 1 156-ID l 7 I
14.o1M2iI 4012 rIo in-1
IL 1.9 9 7L2'1n 410 ?7:t U 1a t 1 '1
22. '1 v'II rU m n 1i. u 1'ytu'iiA.. '
V23 3 ' s *11 ,1* - " 1%1 l
2 . wvi'1 2 I - S '1'uI
25 ' IC i il 3' 9 1 3'au 6 u' 17. IVIULVLf$8;-,"a Vltiiz@UV1f U ,I1111
twiU
26.A I 4 J) ,
S' V VSu
1 2 3 4 5
I 2 545
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
33
13
4I
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1 2 45
12 3 5
i694.j.1I
170
A' 4Yd)2f~YittL_ ?1Lflnr14L2
'I 6 '
A' 4 A'k '1 1<
qS 5,4Mann17t* 1's at
27. tIVI, f "UW9LL ViiI I
28.c
tituiz zfnn
Iig1 1 -
30. '19101n~rnat sue y ate uC
29. ' 0W t'itlye
Viann
rnTun
1 2
1
2
3
4
5
5 4 5
12545
1 254 5
1 234 5
m V
T,-l4tIIii11 l ! r l ") L 1 4f'It L'I ilTD 9IL a1
141
,11 u F_____i_ 'U2 f14 U I Lis 1113 *1 01 -5 L5 f, V .
eq
4w n j,
S1 VV 13233 4
L l IL I t 3 4 -
I D IIV T4 ' 4 4, '
* v4 444 4 . e
1.0 1 2 53
4 134 v4 .1j-
V IOW7T Li8 C9 i 34
V 0- y
II
'4 -. IL -14 2
7. DWi ZJ V2Jitz?4 :iiUilfUww'l 1 2 5 4
I It
4 44 ~a.e 97f'lC L7U'Tl hh JL d'JUVet2JtJJT:PWJ1 2 5 4
0 4 1 2 5-. IIUhfI7&vl mfi
10. 37$ .rb., 35i<ilUO 714t' 504 ,it^, 2V I t
12. 77:> . n 1 2 5 4
1 I I ON
12 e 777 n4'i:0 va'! f6 *4ti 90 I W09hLPIdf3' - l8(00) 1 2 5 4
10 721'7%M)DL d20414r ; i t-2317 i 4;J'f 1 2 3 415;
J i
A 4 ,
Vit>2:. at1 t{4c'. w jo
4 'P4
51~n7t L 2JCtu~Qn-
I p
S 45t4Cooh252v:L T J nVN
4 -e'15. WLILVKV4'Htlifl'fI, ? U8V57 1 'U9h 1
16. .i utBn3J m9rin 2
17& 1,
1?.
L n n1
C. 4
22. Ii iI 1 I if17L' *w'il26C,
v ~16,
23. n 1, TL ' Jiv1Iv, rl
60 v:I S4.,,I
_44 Q.
25. :
co V
25-? 7 4-I i ,J j4 I
4, tIiiU
20. Vtla- VII t ILUJL Zatlu P; u uv Y2VH. i u8k11
I I
c8. 10 1wnu u~ LuG LI)y ~
1234
I
I
2
2
3
5
4
4
1 2 3 4
1 2
1 2
1 2
I 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1I
3
3
3
5
5
'S
5.
5
I4
'4
4
4
4
4-4
i
if
If
172
4 4-
AJ 104Offv
A. -
1
~2
4
'73
1.
3 fi 4
in i I V # 2
ID 3
. f V w
35 - '1 1111 Ij fl, t lfl-! 7 1 4 1C"D
V 4
36.______ %4niw 4
1* 4 .
50. f4q i tIV 't fltB " flt T L V -Lizh'I1j2 5
41. *Th;L 4 pT Iu(TY-r1,iU 154J't"i ri1i 2 A? 3 442 ', 5,V fi jL L. I '
i , , l , 4
A
52. f8f7 Wt12V CTh91'171 C' U 1 2 3 4
a$
I l ,,
22
e 97Yl-1 2 3 4S I
-^Ac ~ S A C
38.*u4r2i~%24] 1 2 3 4
V t - -A 4 4C *1 *t.A C
fl Ls~i~VIk LU 4t2J tiiflL$hS9iK i v01139 25Vi2'J
8717lU1 2 5 4
40. 97 I79'D 2 5 4
Vt
46. 1 2 5 4
1 v :v
4
v 2
L LCi l
4 4
9 9997Y9 ')1t i'fl9t8 I
4 4
t'7184 1 '1 5' -i 9 '1 e1
4 4'19 1YIU LT q t4 I-I -kCaM
V '4
24
a9 7 Ii g iii 2 t 171
q rT f I I! t Cii lI -1 I c- 1H1
44
irraiN &U LJ4iU
41 u
3'117 9 aU2a-C1 a 6' n i1
U' ' OPA L -1 s i 9 71
'1?'1 K2N0tpln lt0Kn 11AUE
V.4
fK 15'
2 53 tk
2
2
2
2
2
2a
2
22
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
33
3
37
3I
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
235L
i74
A
V
Iwfl
I
2
5
48.
49.-
50.
51.
52.
53.e
55.
56.e
57.
5s.59'S 0
v v
44; A4i
I vA 4 ~A 'i IS&
t Vt V .
4
I V* 4 A 4
$54> ri tMufM Z~
jt leftf~6 i
V V
t i Ll ?163 1 Z1 1 1 4 ) 11.
4 4 4 463. B[tu UttS:::At$1422t "y Lili mau ; -agna x
q' bILI4A -
64. q1 v' :%upl1u 6n m) 4n ;e 'I 4IY LtD-a L 'Pa:i dVIu
1 23 4
125 4
1 2 5 4
4?-5
4-
APO
two
i L II22 WI)
1
2
3
4
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Please fill out the information below.
1. Your Sex:
(a) Male
(b) Female
2. Years of Your Teaching Experience:
(a) 5 years or less
(b) 6-10 years
((c) 11 years or more
3. Your Level of Education:
(a) Less than a bachelor degree
(b) Bachelor degree with or without additionalcourse works
(c) Master degree or higher
4. Sex of Your Principal:
(a) Male
(b) Female
176
THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIIVATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
DIRECTION: PlLease read each statement and choose only onealternative that better describes your school.For each numbered item draw a circle aroundthe 1, 2, 3, or 4 to indicate the answer youhave chosen.
1 Rarely occurs2 Sometimes occurs3 Often occurs4 Very frequently occurs
1. Teachers' closest friends are other facultymembers at this school.
2. The mannerism of teachers at this schoolare annoying.
3. Teachers spend time after school withstudents who have individual problems.
4. Instructions f or the operation of teachingaids are available.
5. Teachers invite other faculty members tovisit them at home.
6. There is a minority group of teachers whoalways oppose the majority.
7. Extra books are available for classroom use.
8. Sufficient time is given to prepareadministrative reports.
9. Teachers know the family background ofother faculty members.
10. Teachers exert group pressure onnon-conforming faculty members.
11. In faculty meetings, there Js the feelingof "let's get things done."
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1 2 3 4
1234
1234
1234
177
1 Rarely occurs2 Sometimes occurs3 Often occurs4 Very frequently occurs
12. Administrative paper work is burdensomeat this school.
13. Teachers talk about their personal lifeto other faculty members.
14. Teachers seek special favors fromthe principal.
15. School supplies are readily available foruse in classwork.
16. Student progress reports requiretoo much work.
17. Teachers have fun socializing togetherduring school time.
18. Teachers interrupt other faculty memberswho are talking in staff meetings.
19. Most of the teachers here accept thefaults of their colleagues.
20. Teachers have too many committeerequirements.
21. There is considerable laughter whenteachers gather informally.
22. Teachers ask nonsensical questions infaculty meetings.
23. Custodial service is available when needed.
24. Routine duties interfere with the jobof teaching.
25. Teachers prepare administrative reports
by themselves.
26. Teachers ramble when they talk infaculty meetings.
27. Teachers at this school show much schoolspirit.
178
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1 2 3 4
1234
1234
1 234
1 Rarely occurs2 Sometimes occurs3 Often occurs4 Very frequently occurs
28. The principal goes out of his wayto help teachers.
29. The principal helps teachers solvepersonal problems.
30. Teachers at this school stay by themselves.
31. The teachers accomplish their work withgreat vim, vigor, and pleasure.
32. The principal sets an example byworking hard himself.
33. The principal does personal favorsfor teachers.
34. Teachers eat lunch by themselveswhenever they can.
35. The morale of the teachers is high.
36. The principal uses constructive criticism.
37. The principal stays after school to helpteachers finish their work.
38. Teachers socialize together in smallselect groups.
39. The principal makes all class-schedulingdecisions.
40. Teachers are contacted by the principaleach day.
41. The principal is well prepared when hespeaks at school functions.
42. The principal helps staff members settleminor differences.
43. The principal schedules the work forthe teachers.
179
1234
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1234
1234
1234
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1 Rarely occurs2 Sometimes occurs3 Often occurs4 Very frequently occurs
44. Teachers leave the grounds during theschool day.
45. The principal insures that teachers workto their full capacity.
46. Teachers help select what curriculum
will be taught.
47. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes.
48. The principal talks a great deal.
49. The principal explains his reasonsfor criticism to teachers.
50. The principal tries to get better salariesfor teachers.
51. Extra duty for teachers is postedconspicuously.
52. The rules set by the principal are neverquestioned.
53. The principal looks out for the personalwelfare of teachers.
54. School secretarial service is availablefor teachers' use.
55. The principal runs the faculty meetinglike a business conference.
56. The principal is in the buildingbefore teachers arrive.
57. Teachers work together preparingadministrative reports.
58. Faculty meetings are organized according toa tight agenda.
59. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-reportmeetings.
180
1 234
1234
1
I
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1 Rarely occurs2 Sometimes occurs3 Often occurs4 Very frequently occurs
60. The principal tells teachers of new ideashe has run across.
61. Teachers talk about le avingthe school system.
62. The principal checks the subject-matterability of teachers.
63. The principal is easy to understand.
64. Teachers are informed of the resultsof a supervisor's visit.
181
1 234
1234
1234
1 234
1234
THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
DIRECTION: Please read each statement and choose only onealternative that better describes yourprincipal's behavior. For each numbered itemdraw a circle around the 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 toindicate the answer you have chosen.
1 Never2 Seldom3 Occasionally4 Often5 Always
1. He makes his attitudes clear to the staff.
2. He tries out his new ideas with the staff.
3. He rules with an iron hand.
4. He criticizes poor work.
5. He speaks in a manner not to be questioned.
6. He assigns staff members to particulartasks.
7. He works without a plan.
8. He maintains definite standards ofperformance.
9. He emphasizes the meeting of deadlines.
10. He encourages the use of uniform procedures.
11. He makes sure that his part in theorganization is understood by all members.
12. He asks that staff members followstandard rules and regulations.
13. He lets staff members know what isexpected of them.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
12345
12345
12345
182
183
1 Never2 Seldom3 Occasionally4 Often5 Always
14. He sees to it that staff members areworking up to capacity.
15. He sees to it that the work of staff membersis coordinated.
16. He does personal favors for staff members.
17. He does little things to make it pleasantto be a member of the staff.
18. He is easy to understand.
19. He finds time to listen to staff members.
20. He keeps to himself.
21. He looks out for the personal welfareof individual staff members.
22. He refuses to explain his actions.
23. He acts without consulting the staff.
24. He is slow to accept new ideas.
25. He treats all staff members as his equals.
26. He is willing to make changes.
27. He is friendly and approachable.
28. He makes staff members feel at easewhen talking with them.
29. He puts suggestion made by the staffinto operation.
30. He gets staff approval on importantmatters before going ahead.
12345
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1 2345
1 2345
12345
ITEMS THAT COMPOSE SUBTESTS OF THE OCDQ AND THE LBDQ
The OCDQ items that compose eight subtests
Teachers'
H
11
12
13
14
15
16
Behavior
E I
17 27
18 28
19 29
20 30
21 31
22 32
23 33
24
25
Principal's
A P
34 43
35 44
36 45
37 46
38 47
39 48
40 49
41
42*
Behavior
T c
50 59
51 60
52 61
53 62
54 63
55 64
56
57
58
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The LBDQ items that compose two subtests
Initiating Structure
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Consideration
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Scored inversely
184
26
BIBLIOGRAPHY
185
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Adams, Harold P., A Brief Historical Sketch of Educational
Development in Thailand, Washington, D.C., Agency forInternational Development, 1970.
Barnard, Chester I., The Functions of the Executive,Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1938.
Boles, Harold W. and James A. Davenport, Introduction to
Educational Leadership, New York, Harper & Row,Publishers, 1975.
Bonner, Hubert, Group Dynamics, New York, The Ronald Press
Company, 1959.
Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research:
An Introduction, New York, David McKay Company, Inc.,
19I76.
Briner, Conrad, "Viewing the School Principalship," The
Principalship in the 1970's, edited by Kenneth E.
McIntyre, Austin, Texas, The University of Texas, 1971.
Bunnag, Tej, "From Monastery to University: A Survey of ThaiEducation from 1824 to 1921,1" Education in Thailand: A
Century of Experience, The Department of Elementary and
Adult Education, Ministry of Education, Thailand,Karnsasana Press, 1970.
Campbell, Roald F., Edwin M. Bridges, and Raphael 0. Nystrand,Introduction to Educational Administration, Boston,Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977.
Campbell, Roald F., W. W. Charters, Jr., and William L. Gragg,"Improving Administrative Practice: Three EssentialRoles," Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action,edited by Roald F. Campbell and James M. Lipham, Chicago,Midwestern Administration Center, University of Chicago,1960.
Cartwright, Darwin and Alvin Zander, "Leadership and GroupPerformance: Introduction," Group Dynamics: Research andTheory, edited by Darwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander,Evanston, Row, Peterson and Company, 1960.
186
187
Coladarci, Arthur P. and Jacob W. Getzels, The Use of Theoryin Educational Administration, Stanford, California,Stanford University Press, 1955.
Combs, Authur W., Individual Behavior, New York, Harper,Bros., 1959.
Dale, Ernest, Management: Theory and Practice, New York,McGraw-Hill, Book, Company, 1965.
Davis, Keith, Human Relations at Work, New York, McGraw-Hill, Book, Company, 1967.
Dewey, John, The Sources of a Science of Education, NewYork, Liverigh, 1929.
Dimock, Marshall E., A Philosophy of Administration: TowardCreative Growth, New York, Harper & Brothers Pub-lishers, 1958.
Doll, Ronald C., Leadership to Improve Schools, Worthington,Ohio, Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1972.
Educational Planning Office, Current and Pro jected SecondaryEducation Programs for Thailand: A Manpower and Educa-tional Development Planning Project, Ministry of Edu-cation, Bangkok, Thailand, 1967.
Faber, Charles F. and Gilbert F. Shearron, Elementary SchoolAdministration: Theory and Practice, New York, Holt,Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.
Fayol, Henri, General and Industrial Management, translatedby Constance Storrs, London, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons,1949.
Feigl, Herbert, "Principles and Problems of Theory Construc-tion in Psychology," Current Trends in PsychologicalTheory, Pittburgh, University of Pittburgh Press, 1951.
Fiedler, Fred E., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, NewYork, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Follett, Mary Parker, Dynamic Administration: The CollectedPapers of Mary Parker Follett, edited by Henry C.Metcalf and Lyndall F. Urwick, New York, Harper & Row,Publishers, Incorporated, 1941.
188
Getzels, Jacob W., "Administration as a Social Process,"Administrative Theory in Education, edited by AndrewW. Halpin, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1970.
Getzels, Jacob W., James M. Lipham, and Roald F. Campbell,Educational Administration as a Social Process: Theory,Research, Practice, New York, Harper & Row, Publishers,1968.
Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, and James H. Donnelly,Jr., Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Process,Dallas, Texas, Business Publications, Inc., 1976.
Goldhammer, Keith, John E. Suttle, William D. Aldridge, andGerald L. Becher, Issues and Problems in ContemporaryEducational Administration, Eugene, Oregon, The Centerfor the Advanced Study of Educational Administrationat the University of Oregon, 1970.
Good, Carter V., Dictionary of Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
Gorton, Richard A., Conflict, Controversy and Crisis inSchool Administration and Supervision: Issues, Casesand Concepts for the '70s, Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. BrownCompany Publishers, 1972.
Gue, Leslie R., Educational Reorganization in Thailand,American Educational Research Association, 1972.
Halpin, Andrew W., Theor and Research in Administration,New York, The Macmillan Company, 1966.
Halpin, Andrew W. and Ben J. Winer, The Leadership Behaviorof Airplane Commanders, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio StateUniversity Research Foundation, 1952.
Halpin, Andrew W. and Don B. Croft, The Organizational Cli-mate of Schools, Chicago, Midwest AdministrationCenter, University of Chicago, 1963.
Harper, Ray G. and Somchai Wudhipreecha, Educational Planningat the Local Level, Educational Planning Division,Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand, 1968.
Hemphill, John K. and Alvin E. Coons, "Development of theLeader Behavior Description Questionnaire," LeaderBehavior: Its Description and Measurement, edited byRalph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, Columbus, Ohio,The Ohio State University Press, 1957.
189
Hemphill, John K. and Alvin E. Coons, Leader BehaviorDescription, Columbus, Ohio, Personnel Research Board,The Ohio State University, 1950.
Henderson, John W. and others, Area Handbook for Thailand,American University, Washington, D.C., 1971.
Hersey, Paul and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Orga-nizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977.
Homans, George C., The Human Group, New York, Harcourt,Brace & World, Inc., 1950.
Homans, George C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms,New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961.
Johns, Roe L. and Edgar L. Morphet, The Economics andFinancing of Education: A Systems Approach, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975.
Kast, Fremont E. and James E. Rosenzweig, Organization andManagement: A Systems Approach, New York, McGraw-Hill,Inc., 197.
Kimbrough, Ralph B., Administering Elementary Schools: Con-
cepts and Practices, New York, The Macmillan Company,1968.
Knezevich, Stephen J., Administration of Public Education,New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1975.
Lewin, Kurt, The Conceptual Presentation and the Measure-ment of Psychological Forces, Durham, North Carolina,Duke University Press, 1938.
Lipham, James M., "Leadership and Administration," Behav-ioral Science and Educational Administration, NationalSociety for the Study of Education, 63rd Yearbook,Part II, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press,1964.
Lipham, James M. and James A. Hoeh, Jr., The Principalship:Foundations and Functions, New York, Harper & Row,Publishers, Inc., 1974.
Morphet, Edgar L., Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller,Educational Organization and Administration, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974.
190
Owens, Robert G., Organizational Behavior in Schools,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1970.
Owens, Robert G. and Carl R. Steinhoff, AdministeringChange in Schools, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.
Passow, A. Harry and others, The National Case Study: AnEmpirical Comparative Study of Twenty-One EducationalSystems, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
Raksasataya, Amara, "Evolution of Educational Administra-tion," Education in Thailand: A Century of Experience,The Department of Elementary and Adult Education,Ministry of Education, Thailand, Karnsasana Press,1970.
Redfern, George B., Improving Principal-Faculty Relation-ships, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1966.
Rubin, Louis J., "Principals and Teachers: The Orchestra-tion of Autonomy," Frontiers in School Leadership,edited by Louis J. Rubin, Chicago, Rand McNally &Company, 1970.
Sergiovanni, Thomas J. and David L. Elliot, Educationaland Organizational Leadership in Elementary Schools,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1975.
Shartle, Carroll L., "A Theoretical Framework for the Studyof Behavior in Organizations," Administrative Theoryin Education, edited by Andrew W. Halpin, New York,The Macmillan Company, 1970.
Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior, New York, TheMacmillan Company, 1945.
Sisk, Henry L., Management and Organization, Cincinnati,Ohio, South-Western Publishing Co., 1973.
Snyder, Fred A. and R. Duane Peterson, Dynamics of Elemen-tary School Administration, Boston, Massachusetts,Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970.
191
Stogdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated withLeadership: A Survey of the Literature," The Studyof Leadership, edited by T. S. Cohn, Danvill,Illinois, Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1958.
Stoops, Emory and Russell E. Johnson, Elementary SchoolAdministration, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1967.
Taylor, Frederick, "The Principles of Scientific Manage-ment," Scientific Management, New York, Harper & Row,Publishers, Incorporated, 1947.
Taylor, Frederick, "What is Scientific Management?"Classics in Management, edited by Harwood F. Merrill,New York, American Management Association, 1960.
Tead, Ordway, The Art of Leadership, New York, McGraw-HillBook Company, 1935.
The Dallas Morning News, The World Almanac & Book of Facts,1978, New York, Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc.,1977.
Villers, Raymond, Dynamic Management in Industry, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 19 0.
Wattha, Opal, An Introduction to the Department of TeacherTraining, Bangkok, Thailand, Chongcharoen PrintingPress, Ltd. Part., 1976.
Weber, Max, From Max Weber: EssLys in Sociology, translatedby H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, New York, OxfordUniversity Press, 1946.
Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations,translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, FairLawn, New Jersey, 1947.
Wronski, Stanley P. and Kaw Sawasdipanich, Secondary Educa-tion, Manpower and Educational Planning in Thailand,Institute for International Studies in Education,College of Education, Michigan State University, EastLansing, Michigan, 1966.
192
Articles
Albright, Barton K., "A Study of the Relationships betweenand among Leadership Style:, Leadership Effectiveness,and Organizational Climate in the Elementary Princi-palship , " Dissertation Abstracts International, 38/07A(January, 1978), 3818, University of Kansas.
Anderson, Gary W., "The Relationships of OrganizationalClimates and Subgroups in Elementary Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts, 26/09 (March, 1966), 5900-5901, University of Arizona.
Anderson, Wesley R., "Leadership Styles of Secondary SchoolPrincipals in Innovative and Conventional CurriculumPatterns," Dissertation Abstracts International,32/05A (November, 1971), 2327, University of SouthernCalifornia.
Andrew, John H. M., "School Organizational climate: SomeValidity Studies," Canadian Education and ResearchDigest, 5 (December, 19 6 5), 332-333.
Beamer, John L., "The Relationship of AdministrativeLeadership Practices to Teacher Morale in the PublicElementary Schools of Charles County, Maryland,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 31/01A (July,1970) , 574, The George Washington University.
Braden, James N., "A Study of the Relationship betweenTeacher, Principal, and Student Attitudes and Orga-nizational Climate," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 31/07A (January, 1971), 3801, Universityof Missouri--Columbia.
Brown, Alan F., "Research in Organizational Dynamics:Implications for Administrators," The Journal ofEducational Research, 5 (May, 1967736-49
193
Cook, Edward A., "Leadership Behavior of Elementary SchoolPrincipals and the Organizational Climate of the SchoolsWhich They Administer," Dissertation Abstracts, 27/02A(August, 1966), 345-346, Rutgers--The State University.
Croghan, John H., "A Study of the Relationships between thePerceived Leadership Behavior of Elementary Principalsand Informal Group Dimensions and Composition inElementary Schools," Dissertation Abstracts International,30/07A (January, 1970), 3220-3221, Syracuse University.
Dewey, John, "Democracy in Action," Elementary School Teacher,3 (December, 1903), 194-195.
Dheerakul, Vichit, "Leadership Behavior of the SecondarySchool Principals in Bangkok, Thailand, as Related toSex, Age, Experience and Qualification," DissertationAbstracts International, 33/02A (August, 1972), 520,Brigham Young University.
Evans, Gary W., "Organizational Types Holding the SecondarySchool Principalship and Their Relationship to LeadershipVariables, 36/03A (September, 1975), 1206, Universityof Missouri--Columbia.
Eye, Glen G., "Principals' Principles," The Journal ofEducational Research, 69 (January, 1 9 7 6), 181 9 2 .
Feldvebel, Alexander M., "Organizational Climate-, SocialClass, and Educational Output," Administrator's Notebook,12 (April, 1974), 1-4.
Flagg, Joseph T., "The Organizational Climate of Schools:Its Relationship to Pupil Achievement, Size of School,and Teacher Turnover," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 26/02 (August, 1965), 818, Rutgers--TheState University.
Ford, Richard W., "The Relationship of Psychological Healthof Elementary School Principals to the OrganizationalClimate of Schools," Dissertation Abstracts International,28/03A (September, 1967)7,900, Syracuse University.
Gates, Phillip E., "The Secondary Principal's Leadership Rolein Organizational Problem-Solving," DissertationAbstracts International, 33/09A (March, 1973), 4724,University of Massachusetts.
194
Hall, Richard H., "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An EmpiricalAssessment," American Journal of Sociology, 69 (July,1963), 33.
Halpin, Andrew W., "Change and Organizational Climate," TheJournal of Educational Administration, 5 (May, 1967775-25.
Halpin, Andrew W., "The Superintendent's Effectiveness as aLeader," Administrator's Notebook, 7 (October, 1958),1-4.
Hayden, Don E., "Leader Behavior of Secondary Principals inNevada as Related to Experience, Education and RelatedActivities," Dissertation Abstracts International, 26/08(February, 1966), 4373-4374, University of SouthernMississippi.
Hillman, Larry W., "Organizational Climate, LeadershipCharacteristics and Innovation in Selected High Schoolsof Ohio: A Study of Relationships," DissertationAbstracts International, 31/08A (January, 1971), 3816-3817, Miami University.
Hinojosa, David, "A Study of the Relation between theOrganizational Climate, the Pupil Control Ideology andthe Self-Esteem and Power Dimensions of the Students'Self Concept in Selected Elementary Schools in theCorpus Christi Independent School District," DissertationAbstracts International, 34/11A (May, 1974), 6901,University of Houston.
Knickerbocker, Irving, "Leadership: A Comception and SomeImplications," The Journal of Social Issues, 4 (1948),39.
Kritzmire, William J., "A Study of the Relationship betweenEducational Environment and Gain in Student Achievementin Selected Urban Elementary Schools," DissertationAbstracts International, 32/10A (April, 1972), 5471,Illinois State University.
Lake, Jevoner F., "An Investigation of Selected Characteristicsof Principals, Teachers, and Schools within Two Dimensionsof Organizational Climate in the Public Schools ofCaroline County, Maryland," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 38/03A (September, 1977), 1153, The GeorgeWashington University.
195
Lewin, Kurt, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, "Patternsof Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created 'SocialClimate'," Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (1939),271-299.
Lewis, Clarice A., "An Empirical Investigation of theRelationship between Size, Span of Control, LeadershipBehavior and Organizational Climate in the EducationalOrganization," Dissertation Abstracts International,36/06A (December, 1975), 3295, State University of NewYork at Buffalo.
Lilly, Edward R., "A Study of the Relationship betweenTeaching Effectiveness, Leadership Style and SituationFavorableness: The Contingency Model and the PublicSchools of Connecticut," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 38/02A (August, 1977), 574, The Universityof Connecticut.
Lutzemeier, John A., "Organizational Climate, Teachers'Interpersonal Needs, and Pupil-Pupil Relations inElementary Schools," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 30/04A (October, 1969), 2295, Universityof Houston.
Mage, James M., "A Study of Relationships between BureaucraticStructure and Organizational Climate in Schools asPerceived by Teachers in Selected Elementary Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 38/06A (December,1977), 3189, Northeastern University.
McKague, Terrence R., "LPC-- A New Perspective on Leadership,"Educational Administration Quarterly, 6 (Autumn, 1970),1-14.
McLeod, Ronald K., "Relationship of Staff Size and SelectedStaff Variables to the Organizational Climate ofElementary Schools," Dissertation Abstracts International,30/04A (October, 1969), 2298-2299, University of Colorado.
Morton, David S., "The Relationship between Teacher Perceptionof Elementary School Organizational Climate and StudentAchievement," Dissertation Abstracts International,38/05A (November, 1977), 2463, Michigan State University.
Moser, Robert F., "The Leadership Patterns of School Super-intendents and School Principals," Administrator'sNotebook, 6 (September, 1957), 1-4.
196
Novotney, Jerrold M., "The Organizational Climate of ParochialSchools," Dissertation Abstracts International, 26/07(January, 1966), 3723-3724, University of California,Los Angeles.
Null, Eldon J., "An Investigation into Relationship betweenthe Organizational Climate of a School and PersonalVariables of Members of the Teaching Staff," DissertationAbstracts International, 26/08 (February, 1966), 4329,University of Minnesota.
Panushka, Warren J., "Elementary School Climate and ItsRelationship to Pupil Achievement," DissertationAbstracts International, 31/05A (November, 1970), 2072,University of Minnesota.
Prenoveau, Joseph N., "An Examination of the Relationshipbetween the Organizational Climate and a Measure ofTeaching Learning Process in Elementary Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 32/12A (June,1972), 6724, Columbia University.
Prince, Lillian J., "An Analysis of the Leadership Behaviorof Male versus Female Elementary Principals as Perceivedby Teachers," Dissertation Abstracts International,36/12A (June, 1976),7794, Brigham Young University.
Pumphrey, Franklin, "Relationships between Teacher'sPerceptions of Organizational Climate in ElementarySchools and Selected Variables Associated with Pupils,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 30/04A (October,1969), 1377, University of Maryland.
Quinn, Kathryn I., "Self-Perceptions of Leadership Behaviorsand Decisionmaking Orientations of Men and WomenElementary Principals in Chicago Public Schools,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 37/10A (April,1977), 6199-6200, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Reilley, James P., "Organizational Climate and PupilAchievement in Michigan Elementary Schools," DissertationAbstracts International, 34/06A (December, 1973), 2988,Michigan State University.
Roseveare, Carl G., "The Validity of Selected Subtests ofthe Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire,"Dissertation Abstracts, 25/11 (May, 1965), 7051,University of Arizona.
197
Sellinger, Stuart, "An Investigation of the Effects ofOrganizational Climate and Teacher Anxiety of ElementarySchool Students," Dissertation Abstracts International,32/10A (April, 1972), 5515, New York University.
Southworth, William, "Leadership," The Clearing House, 49(September, 1975), 30-32.
Sripraphai, Pornchai, "A Comparative Study of the SecondarySchool Programs as Perceived by the Principals of thePublic and Private Schools in Bangkok and Thonburi,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 34/04A (October,1973), 1558, Miami University--Oxford, Ohio.
Stogdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated withLeadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal ofPsychology, 25 (1948), 35-71.
The National Education Council, "The Development of theNational Scheme of Education: Past and Present,"Journal of the National Education Council, 11 (April-I'ay, 19777, 125-139.
Thomas, M. Donald, "No Perfect Model: The Complexities ofEducational Leadership," The National Association ofSecondary School Principals Bulletin, 61 (December,1977) , 34-40
Trimble, Clifford, "Teachers' Conceptions of LeadershipBehavior of Principals as Related to Principal'sPerception of His Involvement in the Decision-MakingProcess," Dissertation Abstracts, 28/11A (May, 1968),4432-4433, Purdue University.
Winter, James A., Jr., "An Investigation of the Relationshipof Organizational Climate and Certain Personal StatusFactors of Elementary School Professional Staff Members,"Dissertation Abstracts International, 29/07 (January,1969), 2083, George Peabody College for Teachers.
Report
Manone, Carl J., The Improvement of Education in RuralThailand: A Multi-Dimensional Approach, A ReportPrepared for the Ministry of Education, Royal ThaiGovernment, Bangkok, Thailand, USOM, April, 1973.
198
Unpublished Materials
Boonme, Narong, "A Description of the Secondary SchoolPrincipalship as Perceived by Selected Principals andTeachers in Bangkok, Thailand," Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, North Texas State University, 1976.
Dachanuluknukul, Sumala, "A Study of the OrganizationalClimate of Elementary Schools in the Province ofSukhothai, Thailand," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,North Texas State University, 1976.
Glickman, Carl D., "An Investigation of the Relationshipbetween Teacher's Perception of Organizational Climateand Students' Perception of Classroom Climate,"Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia,
1976.
Musigsarn, Paipan, "The Relationship of Certain PersonalStatus Factors of the Principals of ComprehensiveSecondary Schools and Organizational Climate,"Unpublished Master Thesis, College of Education atPrasarnmitr, Bangkok, 1 9 7 4.
Thayer, George, "Some Relationships between School andClassroom Organizational Climate," Unpublished Ed.D.Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,
1971.
