no. si
AN ANALYSIS OF TIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN f TEACHER INVOLVEMENT AND
TEACHER FEELINGS OF
PO.'VERLESSNESS
Jo A. Battles
A Dissertation • > Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
March 1971
Graduate School Reoresentaiiv©
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY © 1971
Jo Ann Battles
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT
This study was concerned with the relationship between teacher involvement in determining school policy and procedure and teacher feelings of powerlessness in school. It also explored the relation ship between broader social involvement and feelings of powerlessness in mass society.
The design of the study made it possible to (l) determine if involving teachers in determining school policy and procedure resulted in different feelings of powerlessness in school, (2) de termine if broader social involvement resulted in different feelings of powerlessness in mass society, (3) determine if teacher feelings of powerlessness in school and feelings of powerlessness in mass, society were significantly correlated, and (4) determine if a rela tionship existed between the level of school involvement and broader social involvement.
The results of the study indicated that (l) teachers highly involved in determining school policy and procedure expressed lower feelings of powerlessness in school and in mass society than teachers demonstrating limited involvement in determining school policy and procedure, (2) teachers with a higher level of broader social involvement expressed lower feelings of powerlessness in mass society and in school than teachers demonstrating a low level of broader social involvement, (3) a positive correlation existed between school involvement and broader social involvement, and (4) a positive correlation existed between a teacher’s feelings of power lessness in school and powerlessness in mass society.
The strength of the school involvement variable suggested that teachers involvement in determining school policy and procedure is of crucial importance. As several of the items on the school involve ment index dealt directly with involvement through professional teacher organization, the teacher organization may be a source of power for the teacher in the school, mediating between the individual and the formal institution of the school. However, organization involvement was less effective in serving as a bulwark against feelings of powerlessness than more direct work-related activities.
Suggestions were made for future research.
i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to a few people who warrant special acknowledgement. The continued understanding and encouragement of my husband, Jack, made it possible for me to meet the challenges of the doctoral program.
I would like to acknowledge my advisor and friend, Dr. Morris
Weinberger, for his professional guidance and help during the entire process.
Dr. Arthur Neal taught me a bit of sociology, stimulated my interest in pursuing a study in powerlessness, and permitted the use of his powerlessness instrument in this investigation.
Dr. Fred Pigge and Dr. Victor Hornbostel were most helpful to me in developing the design and statistical procedure for the study. Mr. Goeff Graue helped me overcome many of the problems involved in the analyses of data. His services were far above the obligations of his position.
I am grateful to Dr. Neil Pohlmann and Dr. Leslie Chamberlin for their time, personal interest, encouragement, and constructive criticism.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ...... i i i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iv
LIST OF TABLES...... ix
LIST OF FIGURES...... xiii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
THE PROBLEM...... 5
Purposes of the Study...... 6
Hypotheses ...... 6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 7
Definition of Terms ...... 7
Significance of the Study ...... 8
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ...... 8
2. RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE...... 10
EMPIRICAL INDEXES OF POWERLESSNESS ...... 10
SOURCES OF POWERLESSNESS IN ORGANIZATION ...... 15
PROCESSES BY WHICH FEELINGS OF POWERLESSNESS CAN BE MODIFIED...... 20
CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ...... 25
3. PROCEDURE ...... 27
RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 27
PARENT POPULATION ...... 29 v Chapter Page
ANALYSIS OF DATA ...... 31
INSTRUMENTATION ...... 31
Dependent Variables ...... 32
Independent Variables • ...... 33
FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 35
SCORING PROCEDURES ...... 35
Involvement Indexes ...... 35
Powerlessness Scale ...... 36
CODING PROCEDURES ...... 37
Code for the IBM Cards ...... 37
4. ‘ FINDINGS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS...... 40
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ...... T/nV
. SCHEFFE METHOD OF POST HOC MEAN COMPARISONS . . . . 42
Results of Scheffe Test ...... 43
CORRELATION OF POWERLESSNESS SCORES ...... 51
CORRELATION OF INVOLVEMENT INDEXES...... 51
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ...... 53
SUBGROUPS OF INVOLVEMENT ...... 54
School Involvement ...... 55
Broader Social Involvement ...... 55
5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...... 57
SUMMARY...... 57
The Problem ...... 57
Procedures ...... 58 v i i
Chapter Page
Procedures for Analysis ...... 59
DISCUSSION...... 60
School Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in School...... 60
School Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in Mass Society 60
Broader Social Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in Mass Society ...... 61
Broader Social Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in School • ...... 62
Correlation of Involvement Indexes...... 62
Correlation of Powerlessness Scores • ...... 63
Discussion Summary •••• ...... 63
Demographic Data ...... 69
6. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 72
CONCLUSIONS ...... 72
LIMITATIONS...... 74
RECOMMENDATIONS...... 75 /
APPENDIXES...... 79
A. Questionnaire 80
B. Cover Letter ...... 86
C. Development of School Powerlessness Scale Phi Coefficient Between Items and Total Scores for School Powerlessness Measure ...... 88
D. ANOV Summary Tables School Involvement and Powerlessness ...... 91
E. ANOV Summary Tables Broader Social Involvement and Powerlessness .... 94 vi i i
APPENDIXES Page
F. Demographic Variables, Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, School Involvement, School or Broader Social Involvement, and Selected Demographic Variable ...... 97
G. ANOV Summary Table Work-Related Involvement or Organizational Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness ...... - 122
H. ANOV Summary Tables Political or Non-Political Involvement in Broader Social Events and Feelings of Powerlessness ...... 126
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 130 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Summary of Returns of Questionnaires ...... 30
2. Summary Table ANOV Involvement and Powerlessness 41
3. Scheffe Post Hoc Method Mean Comparisons on Powerlessness in School ...... 44
4. Scheffe Post Hoc Method Mean Comparisons on Powerlessness in Mass Society ...... 47
5. Summary Table of Scheffe Test on Powerlessness Using Involvement as Independent Variable 50
6. Bivariate Distribution of Powerlessness in School and Powerlessness in Mass Society ...... 52
7. Four-fold Table of Relationship between School Involvement and Broader Social Involvement ...... 53
8. ANOV Suiwnary Table Two Levels of School Involvement (Low, High) on Powerlessness in School ...... 92
9. ANOV Summary Table Three Levels of School Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in School 92
10. ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of School Involvement (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in School ...•••»•*... 92
11. ANOV Summary Table Two Levels of School Involvement (Low, High) on Powerlessness in Mass Society ...... 93
ix X
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
12. ANOV Summary Table Three Levels of School Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in fess Society...... 93
13. ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of School Involvement (Low, Lov^-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in fess Society • ••••••... 93
14. ANOV Summary Table Two Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, High) on Powerlessness in fess Society .... 95
15. ANOV Summary Table Three Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in fess Society • ••.•••...... 95
16. ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in fess Society • ...... 95
17. ANOV Summary Table Two Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, High) on Powerlessness in School •••••.. 96
18. ANOV Summary Table Three Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in School ... 96
19« ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in School ...... 96
20. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Sex ••••••• 98
21. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and ferital Status...... 100 xi
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
22. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of involvement and Race ..... 102
23. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Number of Children in Family ...... 104
24. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Age ...... 106
25. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Level of Teaching ...... 108
26. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Building Size • 110
27. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Size of System ...... 112
28. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Family Income ...... 114
29. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Years of Teaching ...... 116
30. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Years of College ...... 118
31. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Last Degree • . 120
32. ANOV Summary Table Work-Related Involvement in School (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School ••.... 124
33. ANOV Summary Table Work-Related Involvement in School (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Mass Society ... 124 LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
34. ANOV Summary Table Organizational Involvement in School (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School ...... 125
35. ANOV Summary Table Organizational Involvement in School (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Mass Society • • • 125
36. ANOV Summary Table Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Mass Society ... 128
37. ANOV Summary Table Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School ...... 128
38» ANOV Summary Table Non-Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Mass Society ...... •• 129
39. ANOV Summary Table Non-Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School • • 129 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Primary Design - Comparison of Two Levels of School Involvement on Powerlessness in School . • • * 28
2. Primary Design - Comparison of Two Levels of Broader Social Involvement on Powerless in Mass Society • 28
3. Secondary Design - Relationship Between Feelings of Powerlessness in School and Powerlessness in Mass Society ...... r...... 29
4. ■ Secondary Design ~ Relationship Between School Involvement and Broader Social Involvement ..... 29
5. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Sex 99
6. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Marital Status • lOl
7. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Race ...... 103
8. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Number of Children 105
9. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Age ...... 107
10» Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Levels of Involvement and Level of Teaching ...... •*... 109
11. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Building Size • • 111
12. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Size of School System ...... 113
xiii xiv
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
13. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Family Income ...... 115
14. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Levels of Involvement and Years of Teaching ...... 117
15. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Levels of Involvement and Years of College...... 119
16. Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Last Degree ... 121 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
A central theme of sociological theory has been the alienating
effects of a large scale bureaucratic structure. Mills states that
rationally organized social arrangements are often a means of tyranny
and manipulation, a means of expropriating the very desire and chance
to act as a free man. As rationality increases, control is moved from
the individual to the large scale organization, and the freedoms of the
individual are destroyed.
The increasing rationalization of society, the contradiction
between such rationality and reason, and the collapse of the assumed
coincidence of reason and freedom, give rise to the man who is ’’with”
rationality but "without” reason. This man is increasingly self- 2 rationalized and increasingly uneasy.
For this individual much that happens seems the result of
manipulation by management or of blind drift. Without chance and will
to reason, the value of freedom and reason are unknown - he is alien
ated. Lucio and McNeil state that when there is excessive institutional
concerns for rules and ritual, prolonged occupancy in a teaching
position results in depersonality and rigidity. When self expression
is artifically limited by the work environment, and superior efforts
J C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination (New York! Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 170? 2Mills, p. 169. 2
. . . . 3 receive no recognition, the teacher tends to disintegrate.
Karl Mannheim used the term "self-rationalization” to refer
to the way in which the individual, caught in the limited segments of great, rational organizations comes systematically to regulate his
impulses and his aspirations, his manner of life, and his way of thought in rather strict accordance with ”the rules and regulations . 4 of the organization." The rational organization is an alienating organization. The guiding principles of the organization, (conduct, reflection, and emotion), are not seated in individual conscience or
independent reason. The guiding principles are alien to and in contra diction with all that is historically understood as individuality.
Lucio and McNeil state that every individual should possess the right to seek power, although it is recognized that individuals, groups, and communities differ in their opportunity and ability to 5 . . attain it. This statement raises the question as to whether a teacher should possess power to influence decisions regarding policies and practices that he must carry out. Teachers express concern that they are not given the opportunities to influence decisions within the school system. Administrators express concern that teachers are
William Lucio and John McNeil, Supervision: A Synthesis of Thought and. Action (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1969) p. 94. ^Karl Mannheim, fen and Society in an Age of Reconstruction (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1940), p. 57. 5 Lucio and McNeil, p. 82 3
unwilling to cooperate in making decisions within the school system.
In return, teachers’ comments reveal the feeling that it really doesn’t
matter what they want; the administration will make the decision.
Research in various disciplines has attempted to find solutions
to problems of low staff morale. Sociopsychological theory suggests
that the system must offer an outlet for personal capability within the
formal structure by diffusing leadership responsibility and authority.
Although scholars feel this theory provides insights into understanding
the behavior of teachers, testing of this theory has been slow to
develop in real situations. One of the reasons suggested as an explana
tion for limited involvement of teachers in leadership responsibilities
is that legal limitations upon the school still make necessary an author- -¿j- , . 6 , ...... ixative sxrucxure. Decisions made oy faculties must often be modified
to become part of the overall general plan.
One of the important responsibilities of the school administra
tor is that of creating and sustaining a professional climate which
permeates and stimulates every employee for his best effort. This
responsibility demands a process for using the energies of all people
involved in setting educational goals, and bringing the total resources 7 of the system to bear in moving toward goals. Bridges states that
of the myriad activities in which he engages, the school administrator’s
involvement of teachers in making decisions is one of the most crucial.
Lucio and McNeil, p. 87. TRalph Clabaugh, School Superintendents’ Guide (West Nyack, New York: Parker Pub 1 ishTng Co.,19667p. 15•
* 4
He emphasizes that this does not imply that other administrative acts are not important. It is to say that they are no more important to
the functioning of the school than the provision for subordinates to 8 participate in the decision-making process.
The school has the responsibility of providing a systematic program of instruction to insure that students acquire certain types of learning. Schools have developed a bureaucratic mechanism which
induces an impersonal and rational orientation to the instructional task to attain these goals. Recognizing the need for a bureaucratic structure, educators are concerned with the quality of human life with in this structure. It becomes necessary to further explore the impli cations of involving teachers in determining school policy and procedure
Administrative theory also emphasizes the need for group and leader participation in the formation of policies which serve as guidelines for institutional operation. Knezevich states, "The key stone of democratic leadership is that the formation of policy should 9 involve those who will be influenced by it.”
Tannenbaum states that involvement is one approach to the problems created by authority in organization. Real involvement is a matter of some degree of control by subordinates over work-related
Edwin M. Bridges, ”A Model for Shared Decision Making in the Sehool Principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly, III (Winter, 1967), 49. 9 Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Education (New York: Harper, 1968), p. 93. 5
matters® He states that although different systems of involvement
will have different effects, involvement generally mitigates, if not overcomes, some of the problems created by hierarchy.^ j Although much emphasis has been placed upon involvement,
questions have been raised about some of the unfavorable results of
involvement that may limit its applicability. Strauss has pointed out
that, though individuals are involved in determining policy and
procedure, the individuals whose opinions have been rejected by the group may become alienated from it.^
THE PROBLEM
The problem of this study was to investigate the existing
relationship between teacher involvement and teacher feelings of power
lessness. Related literature and research suggested that staff involve
ment in determining school policy and procedure at the action level
helps to fulfill the autonomy expectations of the teacher. No litera
ture has directly suggested that involvement in determining school
policy and procedure influences or is related to feelings of powerless
ness. The review of literature and research suggested that the extent
of involvement is related to differences in generalized attitudes con
cerning oneself in relation to the domain of work and mass society.
^Arnold S. Tannenbaum, Social Psychology of the Work Organiza- at ion (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1966;, p. 98. ^G. Strauss, "Some Notes on Power Equalization," The Social Science of Organization: Four Perspectives, ed. H. Seavitt (Englewood Cliffs, No" J.": Prentice Hall, 1963;, P* 70. 6
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of this study were (l) to determine if teachers with various levels of involvement in determining school policy and
procedure would demonstrate differences in feelings of powerlessness
in school and mass society, and (2) to determine if teachers with various levels of involvement in broader social events would demon
strate differences in feelings of powerlessness in school and in mass society. The study reviewed the literature about theories of educa tional administration concerning teacher involvement in the context of current sociological theory and research concerning feelings of power lessness.
Further purposes of this study were to determine if (l) a teacher’s sense of powerlessness, ana (2) a teacher’s involvement level were isolated to a specific sphere of social relationships or were more general in nature, spilling over into mass society.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were defined for testing:
1. Teachers with a low level of involvement in determining school policy and procedure would express higher feelings of powerlessness in school than teachers with a high level of involvement.
2. Teachers with a low level of involvement in broader social events would express higher feelings of powerlessness in mass society than teachers with a high level of involvement.
3. Teachers expressing feelings of powerlessness in school would express higher feelings of powerlessness in mass society than teachers 7
expressing a sense of power in school.
4. Teachers with a high level of involvement in determining school
policy and procedure would also demonstrate a higher level of involve
ment in broader social events than teachers with a low level of
involvement in school.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Definition of Terms
Powerlessness. Powerlessness is the expectancy or probability
held by the individual that his behavior cannot determine the occur- 12 rence of the outcomes or reinforcements he seeks.
Power. Power is the expectancy or probability held by the
individual that his behavior can influence the occurence of the out comes or reinforcements he seeks.
Involvement, involvement is the formal participation of the
individual in influencing the goals and means toward a specific end, 13 usually through decision-making in a group situation.
School Involvement. School involvement is the extent the respondent participated in determining school policy and procedure.
Broader social involvement. Broader social involvement is the extent the respondent participated in civic, social, cultural, or
12 Melvin Seems.n, ”0n the Meaning of A1i enat i on «” American Sociological Review. XXIV, (December, 1959), 784. 13 . * Tannenbaum, Social Psychology of the Work Organization. p. 85. 8
political events in mass society.
Powerlessness in school. Powerlessness in school is low expectancy held fay the teacher that he can control what happens to
him as a teacher or how the school will be run.
Powerlessness in mass society. Powerlessness in mass society
is the expectancy that the outcome of political and economic events cannot be adequately controlled by oneself or collectively by persons
1 ike oneself•
Significance of the Study
The task of collecting empirical data to validate and to extend theory is an important task for the educational researcher. It is through studies such as this that researchers will be able to explain more adequately why teachers feel and behave as they do. As this study had its origin both in administrative theory and the theory of aliena tion, it was plausible to investigate the relationship that existed between the involvement of teachers and feelings of powerlessness.
This study permits the analysis of teacher involvement in policy-making in relation to his sense of powerlessness. This investi gation has implications for the school administrator in his attempts to involve teachers in determining policy and procedure. It also provides a broader basis for action in working with the human element.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The study is organized into six chapters. Chapter 2 provides 9
a review of the research and literature relating to this study. The three areas of the review consist of the following: empirical indexes of powerlessness, sources of powerlessness in organization, and a section concerning the relation of involvement to feelings of powerless ness.
Chapter 3 describes the procedures used to implement the study including the following: design, parent population, analysis of data, instrumentation, final questionnaire, and the scoring and coding pro- _ cedures.
The findings and statistical analyses are provided in Chapter
4. The summary and discussion are reported in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 contains the conclusions, limitations of the study, and recommendations for further research. IO
Chapter 2
RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE
Review of the literature revolves around the following questions:
1. What has been done in the development of empirical indexes of powerlessness?
2. What are the forces at work which lead to feelings of powerless ness in rationally structured formal organizations?
3. Can feelings of powerlessness be modified by involvement?
EMPIRICAL INDEXES OF POWERLESSNESS
The roots of alienation and its alternative meanings of power lessness are deep in sociological theory. It was the central theme of the classics of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. The development of empirical indexes of alienation is a relatively recent phenomenon.
The following studies were concerned with defining alienation in operational terms.
Davids dealt with the phenomenon of social apperception and developed an instrument designed to measure optimism, pessimism, trust, distrust, sociocentricity, ego-centricity, resentment, and anxiety.1 Davids provided no justification for labeling his syndrome alienation.
^Anthony Davids, ’’Alienation, Social Apperception and Ego Structure,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, IXX, (1955), 21-27. 10 11
Srole conceived an eunomia-anomia continuum to measure the pervasive sense of ”self-to-other belongingness.” Srole’s evidence .2 supported the unidimensionality of the anomia scale. The five-item scale has been described as a measure of personal demoralization, of either hopelessness or discouragement.
Dean took an historical perceptive of social theories and viewed alienation in terms of three components: powerlessness, normlessness ... 3 and social isolation. Dean’s concept of powerlessness stemmed from the writings of Hegel, Marx, and Weber. His concept of normlessness and social isolation were derived from Durkeim’s ideal of anomie. With regard to the high intercorrelation of the subscales, Neal and Rettig stated that "the three Likert type scales developed by Dean were so highly intercorreiated that there were empirical grounds for combining 4 them into a single measure of alienation.”
Seeman helped to operationalize the components of alienation, chiefly through the notion of "expectancy” and reward values. He postulated five key components—powerlessness, meaninglessness, norm lessness, isolation, and self-estrangement. Seeman!s key components are a milestone in alienation research as they provide benchmarks for
2 Leo K. Srole, "Social Integration and Certain Corrollaries,” American Sociological Review. XXI, (1956), 709-16. 3 Dwight G. Dean, "Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement," American Sociological Review. XXIV, (l96l), 753-58. 4 Arthur Neal and Salomon Rettig, "On the Mul-t¡dimensionality of Alienation." American Sociological Review. XXXII, (February, 1967) 62 12
later research. Seeman gave five alternative meanings of alienation
as follows:
powerlessness: the expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or reinforcements, he seeks.
meaninglessness: a low expectancy that satis factory predictions about future outcomes of behavior can be made.
normlessness: a high expectancy that socially unapproved behaviors are required to achieve given goals.
isolation: the assignment of low reward value to goals or beliefs that are typically highly valued in the given society.
self-estrangement: the degree of dependence of the given behavior upon anticipated future rewards, that is, upon rewards that lie out- sids xhs sclivity itssif or inability of* ths individual to fipd self-rewarding the activities that engage him.5
Using Seeman’s conceptual analysis, Middleton constructed
single-item alienation measures of powerlessness,.meaninglessness, normlessness, cultural estrangement, social estrangement, and estrange ment from work. Referring to the first five types of alienation,
Middleton concluded that....’’Although these five types of alienation may be distinct on a conceptual level, there is apparently an under
lying unity.
^Melvin Seeman, "On the Meaning.of Alienation," American Sociological Review, XXIV, (December, 1959), 783-791. ^Russell Middleton, "Alienation, Race and Education," American Sociological Review, XXVIII, (1963), 973-77, 13
The alienation dimensions of powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, and social isolation, in economic and political spheres of the larger mass society, were also operationalized by
Groat and Neal. The operational definitions for the dimensions were as follows:
powerlessness: the expectancy that the outcome of political and economic events cannot be adequately controlled by oneself or collectively by persons like oneself.
meaninglessness: the degree to which national and international events are regarded as over whelming, complex, or chaotic, and as unpredictable.
normlessness: the expectancy that socially unapproved behavior is necessary for goal attainment. . . in some area of business or government.
social isolation: the extent to which the individ ual experiences a cleavage between himself and his fel low man.'
The generality of feelings of alienation between different levels of social organization are dealt with by Neal and Seeman. They state that ’’the sense of powerlessness can occur in many contexts, ranging from powerlessness with respect to the intimate sphere of friendship and affection to powerlessness in domains of work or inter- 8 national affairs.” Twelve forced-choice items on powerlessness were included in their questionnaire, and after testing for scalability,
7 Theodore H. Groat and Arthur G. Neal, "Social Psychological Correlates of Urban Fertility,” American Sociological Review, XXXII, (December, 1967), 945-59. g Arthur G. Neal and Melvin Seeman, ’’Organizations and Power lessness: A Test of the Mediation Hypothesis,” American Sociological Review, XXIX, (April, 1964), 219. 14
seven items were selected for the final measure. These items presented
a dichotomous choice between mastery and powerlessness.
Feuer sounded a warning to attempts by researchers to opera
tionalize alienation. Feuer maintained that scaling of this type
imposed artificial boundaries upon the phenomenon of alienation.
Feuer pointed to the difference in the interpretations of meaningless
ness. Using Seeman’s idea, it is a mode of alienation characterized
by a low expectancy that satisfactory predictions about future out
comes of behavior can be made. The person senses that his ability to
predict behavioral outcomes is low. On the other hand, Karl Popper
and Isaiah Berlin "find themselves alienated in a world of social
determinism; they wish for a world in which the degree of social pre- ...... 9 dictability would be low."
Moeller and Charters assumed that powerlessness, or ’’sense of
power,” was in some degree situationally specific—in that it would
vary with the bureaucratic character of the teacher’s work setting.
They maintained that experienced powerlessness is not independent of
objective circumstances. The ’’sense of power” scores reflected
variations in teachers’ access to the decision-making arena. The organizational structure of the school provided the arena where the teachers’ orientations to power and the realities of power meet.^
9 Lewis Feuer, ’’What is Alienation? Career of a Concept,” Sociology on Trial, ed. Maurice Stein and Arthur Vidich (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, inc., 1963), p. 143. ^Gerald H. Moeller and W. V/. Charters "Relation of Bureau cratization to Sense of Power Among Teachers," Administrative Science Quarterly, X, (1966), 444-465. 15
The measure of sense of power developed by Moeller and Charter was conceived as a continuum. At one end were teachers who felt
unlimited in thd degree to which they could affect school system
policy, and at the other end were those who felt totally powerless to
influence its direction in any way. Their measure of power was ob tained by a set of six Likert-form questionnaire items. This study provides some evidence that teachers actually feel more powerful in their school when the school system is perceived as being bureau cratic.
The review of literature and research indicates that feeling of powerlessness can be measured by empirical indexes. Seeman’s key components of alienation, and the alternative meaning of powerlessness have been operationalized in various spheres of society. There appears to be sufficient support for using indexes of powerlessness in the domain ofwork and in mass society.
SOURCES OF POWERLESSNESS IN ORGANIZATION
Merton reviewed two abstract concepts included in Weber’s dis cussion of the ’’ideal type” of rational goal-oriented organization.
Weber stated that it is essential that the power to direct action be vested, not in the individual as such, but in the office which the indi vidual occupies. This is the bureaucratic concept called "impersonal ity." If the organization is to function efficiently, the rules and regulations must be found in precise and orderly fashion. This is the 16
concept known as discipline. Merton^ ancj Argyris^ suggested that logical applications
of Weber’s concept of bureaucracy can create tension and stress lead
ing to inefficiency, disintegration and dysfunction since the rational
goal-oriented organization is impersonal and emphasizes functional
efficiency.
There appears to be general agreement that the requirements
or needs of formal organization and the needs of individuals and
groups within the organization are not always congruent. Because of
this, Malinowski, using his concept of institution, held that every
'’institution” should not only contribute toward the integral workings of the community as a whole, but should satisfy the desire and basic 14 needs of the individual as well*
Ellsworth refined Malinowski’s concept of institutional functions which satisfied directly the needs of the personnel from those which meet the organizational or operational needs of the
institution. However, Ellsworth then showed that the organizational requirements were often in conflict with the needs of members of the
Robert K. Merton, Social Theory end Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957), p. 195. 12., . Merton, p. 123. 13 Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York: Harper Row, 1957), p. 13. 14 Bronislaw Malin ows k i, A Scientific Theory, .af Culture (Chapel Hill, N. C.Univ. of N. C. Press, 1944), p. 52. 17
15 organization in subordinate positions. When the requirements of
the organization and the needs of the individual are in conflict,
simultaneous need-satisfaction is impossible.
Kahn and Morse stated that one criterion of organizational
effectiveness becomes the extent to which the organization facili
tates or thwarts the maximization of need satisfaction on the part of the members. Argyris states, "The basic impact of formal organization structure is to make employees feel dependent, sub missive, and passive, and to require them to utilize only a few of 17 their less important abilities.”
In his discussion of deviant behavior, Merton insisted that there are often built-in discrepancies between the requirements of a secondary group, such as one structured according to bureaucratic principles, and the social requirements of persons working daily in primary groups. The contradictions can create what Merton called
’’dysfunctions." When these occur in a given social system, the system fails to fulfill its chosen objectives. In time either the organization ceases to exist, or the tension may be instrumental in 18 leading to changes in the system.
15 John S. Ellsworth, Factory Folkways (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), p. 101. 16 Robert L. Kahn and Nancy C. Morse, ’’The Relationship of Productivity to Morale,” Journal of Social Issues, VII, 3, (l95l), 8. 17 Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization«, p. 74. 18 Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, p. 123. 18
Some consideration needs to be given to the fact that strain
and tensions are related to expectations that people hold, and that
they are conditioned by the culture outside the immediate work situ
ation. Znaniecki stressed the need to understand the broader pattern 19 of the culture as it conditioned the immediate situation. Chase^O and Bridges^ noted that subordinates are not always
interested in participating in decision-making. Their studies found
that teachers expressed resentment toward excessive committee work,
attendance at meetings, and being consulted on decisions that they
felt the principal was paid to make.
Barnard^ pointed out that subordinates do have a ’’zone of
indifference” within which an administrator’s decision will be
accepted unquestionably. For the administratcr to sssk involvement
within this zone of indifference is to court resentment, ill will, and
opposition.
The works of Barnard, Chase, and Bridges suggested that (l) as
the administrator involves teachers in making decisions located in their zone of indifference, participation will be less effective, and
19 Florian Znaniecki, The Social Bole of Man of Knowledge (New York: Columbia University Press, Ï940), p. 86. 20 Francis S. Chase, ’’The Teacher and Policy Making,” Administrator’s Notebook. Î (May, 1953), 1-4. 21 . Edwin M. Bridges, ’’Teacher Participation in Decision Making," Administrator’s Notebook. XII (May, 1964), 1-4 22 Chester Barnard, The Function of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938j7"p* 19
(2) as the administrator involves teachers in making decisions clearly
outside their zone of indifference, participation will be more
effective.
Blake and Mouton suggested that decisions that clearly fall
outside the zone of indifference are those which have consequences for
them. This becomes more pronounced as the magnitude of these conse- 23 quences increases. Bridges extended this idea stating that when the
teacher’s personal stakes in the decision are high, their interest in
participation should be high. Decisions of this type are those that
deal primarily with classroom affairs. Administrators who attempt to make unilateral decisions in matters such as these will encounter resis
tance from teachers and eventually alienate them. Bridges also
suggested that if the administrator indiscriminately persists in asking teachers to discuss issues in their zone of indifference, alien- 24 ation will result.
The review of literature and research indicates that the bureaucratic structure of the school can create dysfunction. As goals of the school and those of the individual may be in conflict, simul taneous need satisfaction is impossible.
There is sufficient reason to investigate feelings of
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Press, 1964), pp. 154-168. 24 Edwin M. Bridges, ”A Model for Shared Decision Making in the School Pr incipalship.11 Educational Administration Quarterly, lil (Winter, 1967), 53. 20
powerlessness as a dysfunction derived in part from the bureaucratic structure, it appears that the immediate work situation may influence the individual’s feelings tov/ard events in broader society. The culture outside of the school may also influence the more immediate situation. Studies suggest that lack of involvement of subordinates in areas of concern can result in feelings of powerlessness
PROCESSES BY WHICH FEELINGS OF POWERLESSNESS CAN BE MODIFIED
The following summary of research concerns processes by which feelings of powerlessness, or other dysfunctional consequences of rational organization, can be modified. Involvement is one approach to the problems of authority. The research indicates that it is possible to determine how the level of teacher involvement would influence his feelings of powerlessness.
A Teacher Opinion Poll conducted by the National Education
Association, Research Division, explored the question of how teachers felt about their ’’piece of the action” in the operation of schools.
Sixty-five percent of the teachers indicated that they wanted to be more involved in determining class size. This percentage was about twice as great as the percentage indicating they wanted to be more involved in any other areas. In most of the other areas, teachers responded that they were involved as much as they wanted to be. Per centages of teachers indicating over involvement were extremely small with one exception. Over involvement in supervising extra-curricular 21
nc activities was indicated by 13.3 percent of the teachers.
Support for the importance of making provisions for subordi
nates to participate in the decision-making process can be found in
research in two type of organizations, business and service. Knezevich
reviewed experiments started in the 1920’s at the Hawthorne plant of 26 the Western Electric Company. These experiments mark one of the
beginnings of the human-relations approach to organization and to a
more systematic investigation of psychological factors. The gain in
productivity stemmed from demonstrated concern for the needs of the
individual and the special attention accorded him during the period of
study.
A field experiment conducted by Coch and French showed dramat
ically the effects of employee participation on decreasing absenteeism,
turn over, and incidence of grievances while increasing efficiency and
productivity. Coch and French used different degrees of participation 27 in initiating required changes. Similar results favoring employee ?8 participation in decision-making have been reported by Guest ,
25 Today’s Education, Teacher Opinion Poll - "Teacher Involve- ment in School Policies and Procedures,” NEA Research Division, LV111, (April, 1969), 11. 26 Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Education. p. 93. 27 L. Coch and J. R. P. French, Jr., "Overcoming Resistance to Change,” Human Re lat i ons, I, 4 (1948), 512-32. 23 Robert H. Guest, Organizational Change: The Effect of Successful. Leadership (Homewood, Illinois, Dorsey Press, 1962), 7» 17-38". 22
Vroom^^, Maier^O, and Weikert^.
Chases’s study emphasized this point: ’’Teachers who reported
opportunity to participate regularly and actively in making policies were more likely to be enthusiastic about their school system than
those who reported limited opportunity to participate.” The opportu
nity to share in policy formation is apparently an important factor .32 in the morale of teachers and in their enthusiasm.
Sharma explained how practices in decision-making were related
to an individual’s satisfaction in teaching. The data indicated that teacher satisfaction was related directly to the extent to which they 33 participated in decision-making.
Bridges argued that the autonomy of expectation is more deeply
•i •n «nCji«* ia ’ WW in* ‘ » T>.1h rav «»•«V- »» 'Poee Ai 1A T*»h »gC»n« » in ' *» « O tI * U-aA rV** 4W W » * J\j *» V» I IWI -« T»1k1*;0- *.» I JT of autonomy implies that if the teacher is denied a share in decision making, more disasterous consequences will result than from the same
29 Victor H. Vroom, Some Personality Determinants in the Effects of Participât ion, Englewood Cl iffs, (n7 J.: Prentice Hall, I960), PP 27-49. 30 N. R. F. Maier and R. A. Maier, "An Experimental Test of the Effects of ’Developmental’ vs. 'Free Discussion on the Quality of Group Decision,” Journal of Applied Psychology, XL I, (1957), 320-23•
R. F. Wickert, "Turnover of Employee Feelings of Ego Involvement in the Day to Day Operations of a Company," Personnel Psychology. IX, (1951), 185-97. 32 Francis S. Chase, "The Teachers and Policy Making, 1—4 • ^^Ghiranji Lal Sharma, "Who Should Make What Decisions?" Administrator*s Notebook, III, (April, 1955), p. 1-4, 23 denial to the factory worker. Bridges advanced the autonomy expecta tion argument in his study of teacher participation in decision-making.
He found that teachers preferred principals who involved their staff in decision-making. This preference was expressed both by teachers 34 with a high and with a low need for independence.
The correlation of feelings of powerlessness and participation has received little attention in alienation research. In a study by
Seeman on Swedish workers, three indices of organization involvement were used: attendance at meetings, importance of membership, and per ceived member influence. Consistently negative but low correlation was 35 obtained between involvement in the organization and powerlessness.
Clark defined participation as the degree to which the member meats the rois expectation of the organization. He discovered that participation in the organization and feelings of powerlessness were inversely related.^
Prior research by Neal and Seeman indicated that members of labor unions are characterized by less intense feelings of powerless- 37 ness than are their counterparts who lack union membership.
Edwin M. Bridges, ’’Teacher Participation in Decision Making," 1-4. 35 Melvin Seeman, "Alienation Membership, and Political Know ledge: a Comparative Study," Public Opinion Quarterly. XXX, (1966), 354-67. 36 John P. Clark, "Measuring Alienation Within a Social System," American Sociological Review, XXIV, (Dec. 1959), 834-52. 37 ' Arthur Neal and Melvin Seeman, "Organization and Powerless ness: A Test of the Mediation Hypothesis," Amarican Sociological Review, IXXX, (April, 1964), 216-225. 24
A number of authors have raised serious questions about the
generality and practicability of participation. The logic of involve
ment hinges on the very crucial assumption of a substantial common
ality of interest between employer and employee. The assumption of
common interest has grown through the years in the United States.
Some administrators have been opposed to the common-interest assump
tion, even though their public pronouncements have stressed harmony and agreement. Tannenbaum states that even though administrators have
become more accepting of this assumption, the administrator decides whether to allow involvement in his organization, and (if he decides
to allow it) whether those persons involved will be given an oppor- . 38 tunity to prove or disprove themselves.
Other literature emphasizes the point that the administrator will allow involvement of teachers if he feels that his decision will be the same as that of the teachers. As Simon has put it, ’’The employer may tolerate genuine participation in decision-making only when he believes that reasonable men, knowing the relevant facts and thinking through the problem, will reach a decision that is generally 39 consistent with his goals and interest in the situation.
The review of literature and research indicated that involve ment of personnel in policy-making has been, and continues to be, of
Tannenbaum, Social Psychology of the Work Organization, p. 100. 39 H» Simon, "Authority,” Research in industrial Human Relations - A Critical Appraisal, ed. C. Arensberg et al. (New York: Harper Row, l957)7V* in. ' 25
prime interest to those concerned with the social psychology of work
organizations. There appears to be some minimal evidence to argue
that involvement in determining the policies and procedures of the
formal organization mitigates against feelings of powerlessness. In
a similar way, involvement in broader social events may function to
mitigate against more general feelings of powerlessness.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
The review of the literature and research suggested these
conclusions: (a) it is possible to determine the level of teacher
involvement in determining school policy and procedure, (b) it is
possible to determine the level of teacher involvement in broader
social events, (c) it is possible to measure powerlessness in the
area of work and in mass society, (d) the extent of teacher involve
ment in policy making in the formal institution will result in
different feelings of powerlessness or feelings of mastery and con
trol, (f) feelings of powerlessness in the domain of work and in mass
society will be mutually perpetuating, (g) involvement in the domain
of work and in broader social events will be mutually perpetuating.
The examination of the literature and research reveals several
issues in the measurement of alienation. The first issue is the extent to which a person’s sense of powerlessness 'in the organizational context is a generalized attitude derived, to some degree, from his earlier socializing. A second issue is the particular realm of 26
organizational life in which powerlessness is experienced. A third issue is the relationship between feelings of powerlessness and the objective situation of power, as defined by a person's location in the power structure.
Issues revealed in the review of literature concerning involvement included the question of when teachers should be involved in making decisions, and the consequences of involvement in areas of teacher indifference. Other issues were the causal relationship between involvement and powerlessness, and whether involvement would reduce earlier socialized feelings of powerlessness. Chapter 3
PROCEDURE
The major purpose of the present study was to investigate the
feelings of powerlessness among classroom teachers in the social
organization of the school and in the larger society.
The problems investigated were (l) to determine if teachers with various levels of involvement, in determining school policy and
procedure would demonstrate differences in feelings of powerlessness
in school and in mass society, (2) to determine if teachers with vari ous levels of involvement in broader social events would demonstrate differences in feelings of powerlessness in school and in mass society, a n/J (3) to no! crmî if* SSfiSQ OT* pOWSf I SSSfiSSS SflcJ IsVsI oF
involvement were isolated to a specific sphere of social relationships or were more general in nature.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The study was designed to determine if different involvement patterns would result in different feelings of powerlessness (l) in school, and (2) in mass society.
Figures 1 and 2 represent the design of the primary focus of this study.
1 Knezevich, p. 108.
27 28
Determining School Policy and Procedure
High involvement Low Involvement
Powerlessness Powerlessness Scores Scores (Domain of Work) (Domain of Work)
Figure 1
Primary Design - Comparison of Two Levels of School Involvement on Powerlessness in School
Broader Social Events
High Involvement Low Involvement
Powerlessness Powerlessness Scores Scores (Mass Society) (Miass Society)
Figure 2
Primary Design - Comparison of Two Levels of Broader Social Involvement on Powerlessness in Mass Society
The secondary research design was constructed to determine if feelings of powerlessness and patterns of involvement are pervasive in nature.
Figures 3 and 4 represent the design of this portion of the study. 29
Powerlessness in School
Powerlessness in fess Society
F igure 3
Secondary Design - Relationship Between Feelings of Powerlessness in School and Powerlessness in fess Society
School Involvement
Low High High Broader Social
Low Involvement
Figure 4
Secondary Design - Relationship Between School Involvement and Broader Social Involvement
PARENT POPULATION
The parent population for this study was all of the public
school teachers in the State of Ohio. The respondents were those members of the random sample who returned the questionnaire. Since this number amounted to only forty-eight percent of the parent population, the degree to which conclusions of this study can be generalized to the parent population are limited. The findings do not represent the 30
reactions of all public school teachers in the State of Ohio, but
represent the responses of those teachers, past, present, and future,
having the same attributes as those teachers in the sample of the study
Questionnaires were mailed to 900 randomly selected teachers
in the State of Ohio. The random sample of 900 names was supplied
through the services of the Division of Computer Services and Statis
tical Reports, Ohio Department of Education. Each teacher selected
was requested by mail to complete the following instruments: (A)
Teacher Involvement in Determining School Policy and Procedure Instru
ment, (B) School Powerlessness Instrument, (C) Broader Social Involve
ment Instrument, and (D) Powerlessness in Mass Society Instrument.
The instruments were not entitled as such on the questionnaire, but each section was preceded by brief directions. Certain demographic characteristics were secured in the interest of future research. The complete questionnaire is found in Appendix A.
Forty-eight percent (or 43l) of the questionnaires sent out were returned and usable. Table 1 provides an analysis of the returns.
Table 1
Summary of Returns of Questionnaires
N
Total Eligible Returns 900 100
Usable Returns 431 48
Unusable Returns 21 2
Non-participants 448 50 31
ANALYSIS of DATA
The information was scored and categorized as indicated by
the design of the study. The scores of the respondents were grouped
for analysis according to the following variables. The primary
independent variable was involvement. Amount of school involvement
referred to the extent the respondent participated in determining
school policy and procedure. Amount of broader social involvement
referred to the extent the respondent participated in civic, social,
cultural, or political events in mass society. Levels of involvement
were defined, both in school and in broader social events. The place
ment of the respondent's score was determined by rank ordering the
involvement scores for all teachers both in the domain of work and in
mass society. Both sets of involvement scores were then grouped for
analysis by two, three and four levels.
The primary dependent variable, powerlessness in school,
referred to the low expectancy hold by the teacher that he can control
what happens to him as a teacher or how the school will be run. In
the secondary study, the dependent variable, powerlessness in mass
society, was defined as the expectancy that the outcome of political
and economic events cannot be adequately controlled by oneself or collectively by persons like oneself.
INSTRUMENTATION
The design of the survey instruments involved both cognitive and structural conditions, expectancies as well as effects. It was 32
hypothesized that teachers who reported different levels of involve
ment in determining school policy and procedure, as well as those
reporting different levels of broader social involvement, would demon
strate differences in feelings of powerlessness.
Dependent Variables
School powerlessness scale. The school powerlessness scale was developed by the researcher before the large scale mailing, it was comprised of statements of the teachers expectations for control
ling events within the formal school organization in which they worked.
These items dealt with teachers influencing administrators and school policy and freedom of effective expression within the school system.
The original set of items was developed by reviewing indexes used to measure powerlessness in other situations. The suggestions of the doctoral committee were also solicited. It was tested with an inde pendent randomly selected sample of one hundred public school teachers. A summated rating scale (Likert-type scale) was used.^ The items of the set were considered of approximately equal attitude value, and to each the subject responds with degrees of intensity. Fifty-five of the one hundred teachers in the sample responded. The first fifty returned were used in determining the scale.
The scores of the scale were summed to yield the individual's attitude score. The purpose of the summated rating scale was to place the individual somewhere on an agreement continuum on feelings of
Fred Kerlinger, Foundation of Behavioral Research (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), p. 434. 33
powerlessness.
The split-half reliability coefficient was computed by correl ating the sum of the odd-numbered items with the sum of the even- numbered items. The Spearman-Brown correction for attenuation was used to establish the reliability. The resulting correlation was .84, large enough to consider the set of items as internally consistent.
Items were selected for the final instrument according to the following criteria: (l) high phi coefficient value, (2) variability of item content, (3) a minimum of two reverse scoring items. A copy of the items and their phi coefficient values is found in Appendix C.
The items receiving high phi coefficient values v/ere abstract state ments expressing a sense of futility in controlling school affairs.
Mass society powerlessness scale. The reliability of the mass society powerlessness scale had been previously established by Groat 2 and Neal. The items of the scale consisted of seven pairs of state ments. The respondent selected one of the statements in each pair which he more nearly believed to be true. One statement of the pair expressed the mastery or power possessing alternative while the other statement exemplified the feeling of helplessness or powerlessness.
Independen t Var i ab1es
The validity and reliability of the Teacher Involvement Instru ments was determined by presenting the questionnaire to two graduate
Education classes, totalling fifty-eight students, at Bowling Green
Groat and Neal, "Social Psvchological Correlates of Urban Fertility,” 945-59. 34
State University. The students completing the questionnaire offered critical evaluations. The suggestions of the doctoral committee were solicited. Revisions were made based upon the suggestions of both groups.
Index of school involvement. A series of twenty-two items constructed by the present investigator served as an index of the teacher’s involvement in school affairs. The items dealt with member ship, attendance, and leadership in local, state, and national teacher organizations and involvement in influencing various aspects of school curriculum, personnel policies, and more general operational procedures of how the school would be run. The respondent was instructed to indi cate one of two response categories, "yes" or "no” scored as one and zero, respectively. The numerical index of the teacher’s involvement in determining school policy and procedure could range from a low of zero to a high of twenty-two. Since there was no reason to assume an inher ent consistency among these items, no attempt at scaling them was made.
The total index score on the items was used as an indication of the extent the respondent was involved in determining school policy and procedure.
Index of broader social involvement. A series of thirteen items constructed by the present investigator served as an index of the teacher's involvement in voluntary organizations outside his immediate world of work. The items dealt with membership or involvement in youth work, church affairs, service and fraternal organizations, and involve ment in various levels of governmental affairs. 35
The respondent was instructed to mark one of two response categories, ’’yes'* or "no.” The numerical index of the teacher’s
involvement in broader social events could range from a low of zero to a high of thirteen with a ’’yes" scored as one and a "no" as zero.
No attemptwas made to scale the items. The total index was used as an indication of the teacher’s involvement in broader social affairs.
Demographic variables. The census-type items incorporated
into the questionnaire dealt with sex, marital status, race, number of children in the family, age, level of teaching (elementary or secondary), size of building, size of school system, family income, years of teaching, number of years of college completed, and the college degree held by the teacher.
FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
The final questionnaire was sent to a random sample of nine hundred teachers in the State of Ohio. Four hundred and thirty-one usable final questionnaires were returned. The returned questionnaires were used as the data for the study and contained the school involve ment index, the school powerlessness scale, the broader social involve ment index, the mass society powerlessness scale, and selected demo graphic information.
SCORING PROCEDURES
Involvement Indexes
The items on the school involvement index and the index of 36 broader social involvement were activities in which the respondent might participate. The respondent was instructed to simply check the activities in which he participated. The total number of items checked in the section on activities taking place within the domain of work provided an index of school involvement. The total number of items checked in the section on activities in broader society provided an index of broader social involvement.
Powerlessness Scale
The school powerlessness score was determined by a summated rating scale. The respondent was instructed to check the appropriate word or words that reflected how he felt about the item. The respon dent was given only four choices: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The respondent was forced into a dichotomous situation. The choices carried a weight of one, two, three, and four.
The weight of one was attached to the mastery alternative and the weight of four was attached to the powerlessness alternative* The numerical weights attached to the choices were in reverse order on the reverse scoring items.
On the mass society powerlessness section, the respondent was instructed to check the statement he more strongly believed to be true.
The seven item, forced choice powerlessness scale, was scored by giving one point for each time the respondent selected the powerlessness alternative. The total scores ranged from zero for the mastery to a total score of seven for the powerlessness end of the continuum. 37
CODING PROCEDURES
A coding system was used to facilitate the identification of
the data, to facilitate the transmittal of the data, and to manage
the data for final analysis by computer.
As each of the questionnaires v/as returned, it was assigned an identification number beginning with the number 001. Information v/as then transferred from the source document to eighty column code forms or coding sheets. The coding sheets, were then used as the source documents for the preparation of the IBM cards. Each card was then verified for accuracy.
Code for the IBM Cards
Cn1umn Informat i on Explanation
1 Card Identification No.
2, 3, 4 Respondent’s Identification No.
6 Sex Code 1 ~ male 0 -• female
8 Marital Status 1 - married 0 - single
10 Race 1 - white 0 - non-white
12 No. of Children in Family Actual Number
14 Age 1 (20-29) 2 (30-39) 3 (40-49) 4 (50 and older)
16 Level 1 - Elementary 2 - Secondary 38
Col umn Information . Explanation
18 Size of Building 1 - under 500 2 - 500 - 749 3 _ 750 - 999 4 - 1000 and over
20 Size of System 1 - under 2000 2 - 2000 - 4999 3 - 5000 - 10999 4 - 11000 and over
22 1ncome 1 - under $8000 2 - $8000 - 10999 3 - $11000 - 13999 4 - $14000 and over
24, 25 Years of Teaching Actual Number
27 Categories for Years of Teaching 1 - under 3 years 2- 3 through 8 3- 9 through 14 4- 15 and over
29 Years of College Completed Actual Number
31 Last Degree 1 - less than Bachelors 2 - Bachelors 3 - Masters and over
33, 34 Work Related Involvement Index
36 Organizational Involvement Index
38, 39 Total School Involvement Index
41 Non-Political Involvement Index
43 Political Involvement Index
45, 46 Broader Social Involvement Index
48, 49 Powerlessness in School Score
51 Powerlessness in Mass Society Score
53 Involvement in School 1 - Low 2 - High
55 Involvement in Broader Social Events 1 - Low (Sorting on Columns 45-46) 2 - High 39
Column Informât ion Explanation
57 Number of Children 1- 0 Children 2 - 1 Child 3-2 Children 4 - 3 or more Children
59 Categories for Years of 1 - less than 4 College Completed 2- 4 (Sorting on Column 29) 3- 5 4 - more than 5 Chapter 4
FINDINGS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data obtained from the returned questionnaires was submitted
to a simple analysis of variance to determine if teachers with differ
ent levels of involvement would demonstrate differences in feelings of powerlessness.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Twelve simple analysis of variance computations were made to
determine if significant differences in mean powerlessness scores
existed among teachers with various levels of involvement.Six of
these twelve analyses dealt with the relationship between involvement
in determining school policy and procedure and feelings of powerless
ness. Six of the analyses concerned the relationship between involve
ment in broader social events and feelings of powerlessness.
The results of the six analyses on school involvement and
powerlessness are displayed in Table 2 and in Appendix D, Tables 8 .
through 13, pages 92 and 93. The results of the six analyses on broader social involvement and powerlessness are also displayed in
Table 2 and in Appendix E, Tables 14 through 19, pages 95 and 96.
Two results emerged from the simple analysis of variances.
^George Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 28l.
40 41
Table 2
Summary Table
ANOV-Involvement and Powerlessness
Powerlessness Powerlessness in in School Mass Society
Comparison N Mean Score ' F Mean Score F
School Involvement
L 215 28.49 2.96 H 216 23.39 100.07* 2.51 5.52*
L 143 29.44 2.94 A 143 26.29 2.91 H 145 22.12 76.17** 2.36 3.92**
1 on no u 107 ÛV.UO □O ♦AVlI LA 107 27.15 2.91 HA 107 25.78 2.75 H 110 21.43 58.68*** 2.28 2.87***
Broader Social Involvement
L 215 26.37 3.07 H 216 25.50 2.34*NS 2.40 12.21*
L 143 26.90 3.24 A 143 25.45 2.66 H 145 25.46 2.89**NS 2.30 8.57**
L 107 27.22 3.40 LA 107 25.38 2.72 HA 107 26.05 2.64 H 110 25.11 2.81*** 2.19 7.11***
*Significant F - ratio at .05 for 1 and 429 df = 3.86. **Significant F - ratio at .05 for 2 and 428 df = 3.02. ***Significant F - ratio at .05 for 3 and 427 df = 2.62, 42
(l) Differences in feelings of powerlessness in school were expressed by teachers with various levels of involvement. Teachers with lower levels of involvement, both in school and in broader social events, expressed greater feeling of powerlessness in school (2) Differences
in feelings of powerlessness in mass society were expressed by teachers with various levels of involvement in school and in broader social events. Greater feelings of powerlessness in mass society were ex pressed by teachers with lower involvement in school and in broader social events. Feelings of mastery and control tended to be expressed by teachers with a higher level of involvement in school and in broader social events«
The data revealed no significant differences among the levels of broader social involvement on feelings of powerlessness in school when the data was divided into two or three levels of involvement.
However, when the index of broader social involvement was divided into four levels, significant differences were revealed somewhere among the four levels in feeling of powerlessness in school«
SCHEFFE METHOD OF POST HOC MEAN COMPARISONS
The results of the simple analysis of variance clearly indica ted that significant differences in feelings of powerlessness were expressed by teachers with different levels of involvement. However, before a meaningful interpretation of this data could be made, the mean scores of the various levels of involvement were compared to determine precisely which levels differed significantly in feelings of powerless 43 ness. Since these comparisons were made after, and suggested by, inspection of the data, the Scheffe method of post hoc mean comparison was applied to the data. The Scheffe method is considered to be more rigorous than the Student’s ’’t" distribution since it usually yields fewer significant differences. The .10 level of confidence was used, as this is the level recommended by Scheffe himself.
The results of the Scheffe test may be found in Table 3, pages
44 and 45, and Table 4, pages 47 and 48. Table 3 summarizes the compar isons of the mean powerlessness in school scores with the various levels of involvement as defined by the school involvement index and the index of involvement in broader social events. Table 4 summarizes the comparisons of the mean powerlessness in mass society scores with the various levels of involvement as defined by the index of broader social involvement and the school involvement indexes.
Results of Scheffe Test
The Scheffe test revealed a significant difference in the mean scores on school powerlessness among various levels of school involve ment. Significant differences were apparent in both analyses, when the school involvement index scores were divided into three and into four levels. When the school involvement scores were divided into three levels, the differences in feelings of powerlessness were significant at all levels.
Ferguson, Statistical Analysis, p. 297» 44
Table 3
Scheffe Post Hoc Method Mean Comparison on Powerlessness in School
Powerlessness in School
Comparison Means Degrees of Obtained F Freedom
School Involvement (Three Levels)
SIL 29.44 siA 26.29 2,428 26.45*
SI* 26.29 SIH 22.12 2,428 49.12*
SI, 29.44 S,H 22.12 2,428 151.36*
School Involvement (Four Levels)
SIL 30.03 s'la 27.15 3,427 17.79** 27.15 s 'HA 25.78 3,427 4.07**NS
SIHA 25.78 siH 21.43 3,427 42.86**
S>L 30.03 S!k 21.43 3,427 167.71**
SILA 27.15 Slff 21.43 3,427 74.19**
SI, 30.03 SIHA 25.78 3,427 38.76** 45
Table 3 (Continued)
Powerlessness in School
Comparison Means Degrees of Obtained F Freedom
Broader Social Involvement (Four Levels)
BSI, 27.22 BSIla 25.38 3,427 5.38**
BSIia 25.38 26.05 3,427 ,72**NS
BSiHA 26.05 bsih 25.11 3,427 1.42**NS
DQ i. 07 OO bsih 25.11 3,427 7.14** bsila 25.38 bsih 25.11 3,427 .13**NS bsil 27.22 BSIha 25.10 3,427 2.16**NS
*Required F* at »10 level of significance with 2 and 428 df = 4.60. **Required F1 at .10 level of significance with 3 and 427 df = 4.16.
When the school involvement scores v/ere divided into four levels, all mean school powerlessness comparisons revealed a significant difference with the one exception, the comparison between the mean scores of the low-average and the high-average levels. The mean power lessness scores were lower for teachers higher in school involvement in 46
all significant comparisons. The teachers who reported that they were more highly involved in determining school policy and procedure also
expressed feelings of mastery and control in both the domain of work and in mass society.
The Scheffe method was not used to compare the mean score on powerlessness in school among the three levels of broader social
involvement as the simple analysis of variance did not yield a signif
icant F. The Scheffe was used to compare the mean scores on school powerlessness among the four levels of broader social involvement as a significant F had been yielded. The results are shown in Table 3, pages 44 and 45. This analysis revealed significant differences in feelings of school powerlessness only between teachers low and low- average in broader social involvement and between teachers low and high in broader social involvement.
When examining feelings of powerlessness in mass society, the
Scheffe method revealed significant differences in mean scores on powerlessness in mass society among the various levels of teacher involvement in broader social events as shown in Table 4, pages 47 and
48. When the broader social involvement index scores were divided into three levels, comparisons between teachers low and average, and between teachers low and high in broader social involvement proved to be significant.
The division of the broader social involvement index scores into four levels yielded three significant differences in feelings of powerlessness in mass society. The comparison of mean powerlessness scores between teachers low and low—average, low and high, and low and 47
Table 4
Scheffe Post Hoc Method Mean Comparisons on Powerless ness in Mass Society
Powerlessness in Mass Society
Compar i son Means Degrees of Obtained F Freedom
Broader Social Involvement (Three Levels)
BSI, 3.24 bsia 2.66 2,428 5.37*
BSL 2.66 bsih 2.30 2,428 2.83*NS
BSI, 3.24 bsih 2.30 2,428 19.13*
Broader Social Involvement (Four Levels)
BSI, 3.40 bsi^a 2.72 3,427 6.48** bsila 2.72 2.64 3,427 .09**NS
88 ¡HA 2.64 bsih 2.19 3,427 2.9**NS
BSI, 3.40 BSlh 2.19 3,427 20.9** bsila 2.72 BS iff 2.19 3,427 4.0**NS bsil 3.40 8S,ha 2.64 3,427 8.17** 48
Table 4 (Continued)
Powerlessness in Mass Society
Compar¡son Means Degrees of Obtained F Freedom
School Involvement (Three Levels)
SIL 2.94 3'a 2.91 2,427 .02*NS SI* 2.91 SI* 2.36 2,427 5.50*
SIL 2.94 s'h 2.36 2,427 6.24*
School Involvement (Four Levels)
SIL 3.01 S'b 2.91 3,427 1.14**NS
2.91 SI1* b,HA 2.75 3,427 .36**NS s!”* 2.75 2.28 3,427 3.05**NS
SfL 3.01 SIH 2.28 3,427 7.35**
3 'la 2.91 bS liHLH 2.28 3,427 5.55**
SIL 3.01 SIHA 2.91 3,427 .93**NS
^Required F’ at .10 level of significance with 2 and 428 df = 4.60«. **Required F’ at .10 level of significance with 3 and 427 df = 4.16. 49
high-average were significant. Examination of mean scores revealed
that mean scores on powerlessness in mass society were in all cases
higher for the level with low broader social involvement. Teachers
reporting a high level of broader social involvement tended to express
greater feelings of mastery and control over the outcome of events than
teachers reporting a lower involvement.
In the comparison of mean scores on powerlessness in mass
society among the three levels of school involvement, two of the three
mean comparisons were found to be significant. Statistically signifi
cant differences were revealed in the comparison of teachers categorized
as low and high in school involvement, and in that comparing teachers
average and high in school involvement.
When the school involvement index scores were divided into six comparisons of four levels, only two significant comparisons in feelings of powerlessness in mass society were revealed. The mean score on
powerlessness in mass society was significant in the comparison of teachers with low and high school involvement and of teachers low- average and high in school involvement. In all mean comparisons, mean scores on powerlessness in mass society for the level higher involved
in determining school policy and procedure were lower. Teachers reporting higher school involvement expressed a feeling of greater control over what happened to them as teachers and how the school would be run. They also expressed feelings of greater control over the out come of political and economic events in mass society.
The results of the Scheffe tests are summarized in Table 5.
The pervasiveness of involvement patterns and feelings of powerlessness are also revealed in Table 5. 50
Table 5
Summary Table of Scheffe Test on Powerlessness Using Involve- ment as Independ ent Var¡able
Involvement Involvement in in Broader Schools Social Events
Significant Significant Levels Compar i sons Levels Compar isons
Powerlessness L,A,H Average and L,A,H Low and in High Average Mass Society Low and Low and High High
L,LA, Low and L,LA, Low and HASH High HA,H Low-Average Low-Average Low and and High High Low and High-Average
Powerlessness L,A,H All compari- L,A,H Scheffe Test in sons not used (non- School significant significant F yielded in ANOV)
L,LA, Low and L,LA, Low and HA,H Low-Average HA,H Low-Average Low and High Low and High Low-Average and High Low and High-Average High-Average and High 51
CORRELATION OF PO.VERLESSNESS SCORES
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed between school powerlessness and mass society powerlessness scores.
Table 6 illustrates the joint distribution of the two sets of power lessness scores. The correlation coefficient between the two sets of powerlessness scores was .25. A test of the significance of the correlation, the distribution of "t", was applied yielding a "t” value of 5.31. The critical value of "t” at the .05 level of confidence for the conservation two-tailed test is 1.96.
The correlation obtained was clearly significant at the .05 level of confidence. The evidence indicated that the school power lessness scores varied positively and significantly with the subjects’ powerlessness in mass society scores. Teachers expressing feelings of powerlessness in school also tended to express feelings of power lessness in mass society. Teachers expressing feelings of mastery and control over the course of events in school also expressed feelings of mastery and control in mass society, although the correlation was at a low level.
CORRELATION OF INVOLVEMENT INDEXES
The statistical procedure of chi square was used to compare the observed with the theoretical frequencies in the four fold table.
The chi square of 35.10, or a phi coefficient of .29, clearly indicated that a positive relationship exists between the extent of a teacher's school involvement and the teacher’s broader social involvement. The 52
Table 6
Bivariate Distribution of Powerlessness in School and Powerlessness in Mass Society
Power 1essness « Row in School Total
40 2 1 1 2 6 39 1 2 1 4 38 2 2 1 1 6 37 1 2 2 3 1 9 36 1 1 1 2 1 6 35 1 1 2 1 5 34 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 9 33 2 2 2 2 1 9 32 2 1 4 2 9 31 3 3 4 3 7 4 1 25 30 1 6 6 3 3 1 3 2 25 29 9 8 5 4 3 2 2 33 28 3 1 10 2 6 4 1 4 31 27 3 6 4 8 3 1 2 27 26 1 6 3 3 1 1 15 25 5 7 6 3 1 3 2 27 24 8 4 4 3 3 2 2 26 23 8 6 1 6 1 22 22 2 5 7 4 4 2 2 26 21 9 5 6 4 1 1 2 28 20 7 9 7 5 5 4 2 39 19 3 7 1 2 1 14 18 2 3 1 6 17 2 1 1 4 16 1 1 2 1 1 6 15 3 2 1 1 7 14 1 1 1 3 13 1 1 12 0 11 0 10 1 1 2 9 0 8 0 7 1 1
(2) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Powerlessness RANGE in Mass Society COLUMN TOTAL 54 84 87 62 65 27 25 27 N = 431
Correlation Co-efficient = 0.25 Mean Powerlessness in Mass Society 2.73 (SD = 1.99). Mean Powerlessness in School = 25.94 (SD = 5.86). 53
critical value of chi square for one degree of freedom at the .05 level
of confidence is 3.84. Table 7 shows the relationship between the two
sets of involvement scores.
Teachers with a low level of broader social involvement tended
to have little involvement in determining school policy and procedure
in school. Teachers with a high level of involvement in determing
school policy and procedure tended to be more involved in broader social
events than teachers with a lower level of school involvement.
Table 7
Four-Fold Table of Relationship Between School Involvement and Broader Social Involvement
(School)
Low High
High 77 139 (216) (Broader Social Events) Low 138 77 (215)
(215) (216) Total Number
Chi Square of Table = 35 .10
Phi Co-efficient = .29
* Required chi square at .05 level of significance is 3.84.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Although it was not a defined purpose of the study to make an analysis of the data utilizing demographic categories, such information was gathered in the interest of future research. A preliminary analysis 54 of the data by demographic classification produced some interesting findings. These findings have not yet been subjected to rigorous statistical treatment and hence the findings need to be reviewed with caution.
The census-type items incorporated into the questionnaire dealt with sex, maritaT status, race, number of children in the family, age, level of teaching (elementary or secondary), size of building, size of school system, family income, years of teaching, number of years of college completed, and the college degree held by the teacher.
The data was analyzed by statistical procedures to obtain the frequency of observations, mean score on powerlessness, and the standard deviation of each subgroup. The analysis used, first, the index of teacher involvement in school, and second, teacher involve ment in broader social events as the independent variables. The selected demographic characteristics served as the other independent variable. The dependent variable was, first, the school powerlessness score and, second, the mass society powerlessness score. The numerical listing and graphs of the results of these analyses are provided in
Appendix F, Tables 20 through 31, pages 98 through 120. A brief discussion of the findings is included in Chapter 5.
SUBGROUPS OF INVOLVEMENT
As an outgrov/th of the study, and in the interest of future research, items of the two involvement indexes were subgrouped. 55
School involvement
The school involvement items were subgrouped as work-related involvement and organizational involvement. The items defined as work-related involvement dealt with activities directly associated with the daily operation of the school. The items included such activities as involvement in curriculum development, developing inservice education, and textbook selection.
The items defined as organizational involvement dealt with membership in teacher organizations, committee work within the pro fessional organization, and attendance at professional meetings of the organization.
Analysis of variance computations were made to determine if significant differences in mean powerlessness scores existed among teachers with various levels of work-related and organizational involvement. The subgroup items and the results of these analyses are displayed in Appendix G, pages 122 through 125. A brief discus sion of the findings are presented in Chapter 5.
Broader Social Involvement
The items of the broader social involvement index were sub grouped as political and non-political involvement. The items defined as political involvement dealt with participation in various activities taking place within the political arena, such as membership in politi cal clubs, voting, and communicating with political representatives.
The items defined as non-political dealt with membership in non political clubs, church involvement, and work with youth organizations. 56
Analysis of variance computations were made to determine if significant differences in mean powerlessness scores existed among teachers with various levels of political and non-political
involvement.
The subgroup items and the numerical findings of the analysis on political and non-political involvement are displayed in Appendix
H, pages 126 through 129. A brief discussion of the findings are presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The first section of this chapter summarizes the study up to
the results. The next section proceeds by summarizing and discussing
the major empirical findings presented in Chapter 4. The conclusions
of the study, limitations of the present design, and suggestions for
further research are made in Chapter 6.
SUMMARY
The Problem
Two abstract concepts included in Weber’s discussion of the
’’ideal type” or ’’rational goal-oriented organization” were the concepts
of impersonality and discipline. Sociopsychological theory suggested
that the logical application of Weber’s bureaucracy can create tension
and stress leading to inefficiency, disintegration and dysfunction.
Previous studies in business and service organizations
stressed the importance of making provisions for subordinates to
participate in the decision-making process. Related research indicated that teachers who participate regularly and actively in making policies v/ere more likely to be enthusiastic about their school system and satisfied with the teaching profession.
The roots of alienation, and its alternate meaning of power
lessness, are deep in sociological theory. The development of empirical indexes of alienation is a relatively recent phenomenon. 57 58
The purposes of this study were (l) to determine if teachers
with various levels of involvement in determining school policy and
procedure would reveal differences in feelings of powerlessness in
school and in mass society, (2) to determine if teachers with various
levels of broader social involvement would reveal differences in
feelings of powerlessness in school and in mass society, and (3) to
determine if a teacher’s sense of powerlessness and level of involve
ment was isolated to a specific sphere of social relationships, or was
more general in nature.
Powerlessness in school referred to the low expectancy held by
the teacher that he can control what happens to him as a teacher or
how the school will be run. Powerlessness in mass society was defined
as the expectancy that the outcome of political and economic events
cannot be adequately controlled by oneself or collectively by persons
like oneself•
Procedures
The design of the study made it possible to determine the
relation between the independent variables, school involvement and
broader social involvement, and the dependent variables, powerless ness in school and powerlessness in mass society.
A final questionnaire was developed containing the following sections: (A) School Involvement Instrument, (B) Powerlessness in
School Instrument, (C) Broader Social Involvement Instrument, (D)
Powerlessness in Mass Society Instrument, and (E) Selected Demographic
Data. Questionnaires were mailed to 900 randomly selected teachers 59
in the State of Ohio, and 431 of them sent usable returns. Because of the low level of returns, 48 percent, the parent population for this study must be considered only as the set of teachers in the State of Ohio having the same attributes as those who participated in the study.
Procedures for Analysis
One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to analyze data concerning the secondary study of involvement and feelings of powerlessness at school and at the mass society level.* Computation and F-tests for significance were at the .05 level. Posteriori comparisons were made following a significant F. The Scheffe method 2 was applied at the .10 level of significance.
The correlation between the two powerlessness scales was . . 3 computed by the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The correlation of school involvement and broader social involvement was . . 4 determined by the phi. coefficient. The demographic data was analyzed to obtain the frequency of observations, mean scores on powerlessness, and the standard deviation of each subgroup.
The results of these tests are contained in Chapter 4 and will be discussed below.
George A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Educat ion (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), pp. 231-297. 2 3 4 ¿Ferguson, p. 297. Ferguson, p. 111. Ferguson, p. 236. 60
DISCUSSION
School Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in School
The data indicated that teachers highly involved in determin
ing school policy and procedure expressed lower feelings of power
lessness in school than teachers demonstrating limited involvement in
determining school policy and procedure. A significant F was yielded
from the simple analysis of variance when the involvement index scores
were divided into two levels (L, H), three levels (L, A, H), and four
levels (L,LA, HA, H). With the exception of the comparison between
levels low-average and high-average, mean comparisons were also found
to be significant on the more riporous post-hoc Scheffe test.
School Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in Mass Society
The data indicated that teachers highly involved in determin
ing school policy and procedure expressed lower feelings of powerless ness in mass society than teachers with low school involvement. The
involvement index scores were divided into two, three and four levels.
The one way analysis of variance yielded a significant F in all three comparisons. When the mean scores of the three levels of involvement were compared by the Scheffe test, differences were significant in the comparison of the average and high (A, H) involvement levels and the low and high (L, H) involvement levels.
When the involvement inde,x scores were divided into four levels, the differences between the low-average and the high (L-A, H) and the 61
difference between the low and high (L, H) involvement levels were statistically significant.
The data indicated that feelings of powerlessness related to
involvement in school were pervasive in nature. The study suggested that teacher involvement in determining school policy and procedure would be associated with a general sense of mastery and control in mass society, as well as in school. Teachers with little involve ment in determining school policy and procedure expressed signifi cantly greater feelings of powerlessness both in the domain of work and in mass society. The data provides some empirical support for the mediating function of the teacher organizations, both in the domain of work and in mass society.
Broader Social Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in Mass Society
The data indicated that teachers with a low level of broader social involvement demonstrated greater feelings of powerlessness in mass society than teachers with a high level of broader social involve ment. The one way analysis of variance yielded significant F ratios when the involvement scores were divided into two, three, and four levels.
When the mean scores were compared among the three levels of involvement by the post-hoc Scheffe test, significant differences were found between the low and average (L, A) involvement levels and the low and high (L, H) involvement levels.
In the comparison of means among the four levels of involvement, a significant difference was found between the low and low-average 62
(L, L-A) involvement levels, the low and high (L, H) levels, and between the low and high-average (L, H-A) levels of involvement in broader social events. The findings suggested that a teacher with
little involvement in civic, church, youth, or governmental organi zations would feel that the outcome of political and economic events could not be adequately controlled by him or collectively by persons
1 ike himself•
Broader Social Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness in School
The data revealed a similar relationship between teacher
involvement and feelings of powerlessness. The involvement index scores were again divided into two, three and four levels.
The simple analysis of variance failed to yield a significant
F in the two and three level analyses. The F score resulting from dividing the involvement index scores into four levels was significant.
When the mean school powerlessness scores were compared among the four levels of involvement by the post hoc Scheffe test, significant differ ences were found between the low and low-average (L, L-A) levels and the low and high (L, H) levels of broader social involvement. The data indicates some empirical support for the mediating function of the social organizations as a means of lowering feelings of powerlessness in school.
Correlation of Involvement Indexes
The correlation between the two indices of involvement, school involvement and social involvement, was a chi square score of 35.10, 63
or a phi coefficient of .29. This was a significant correlation,
indicating that being involved in determining school policy and proce
dure is positively related with being involved in broader social events
Teachers who are involved in one area tend to be involved in other
areas as well.
Correlation of Powerlessness Scores
The correlation between teacher’s powerlessness scores and mass society powerlessness scores was .25. This significant correla tion indicates a degree of congruence between feelings of powerless ness in the immediate domain of work and feelings of powerlessness in the more distant sphere of mass society. Teachers who tend to feel powerless in one area, also tend to feel powerless in other areas.
Discussion Summary
The findings indicate that teachers reporting a high level of school involvement expressed attitudes of mastery and control in the domain of work and in attitudes toward events in broader society.
Teachers with low school involvement reported high feelings of power lessness in the domain of work and in broader society.
Teachers reporting high involvement in broader social events expressed greater feelings of mastery and control than teachers report ing low involvement. However, the comparisons of school powerlessness scores, using broader social involvement as the independent variable, were non-significant in the comparison of the two and three levels of involvement. The significance of comparison of the four levels of 64
broader social involvement was at a low level.
The strength of the school involvement variable suggests that
teacher involvement in determining school policy and procedure is of crucial importance. As several of the items on the school involvement
index dealt directly with involvement through professional teacher organizations, the teacher organization may be a source of power for the teacher in the school. The organization appears to provide a mediating function between the individual and the formal institution ► of the school.
As an outgrowth of the major study, and in the interest of future research, levels of involvement in teacher organizations were compared on feelings of powerlessness. Teachers with a high level of organizational involvement were significantly lower in feeling of powerlessness in school and powerlessness in mass society when compared with teachers of a low level of organizational involvement.
The remaining items of the total school involvement index were grouped and referred to as work-related involvement. This type of involvement may have resulted from organizational involvement, however the items were not expressed directly in terms of the teacher organiza tion. Work-related involvement could result from administrative policy without the direct involvement of the teacher organization. The items referred to as work-related included such activities as textbook selection, curriculum development, and 'planning inservice education.
The significance of work-related involvement was at a higher level than any other type of involvement used as an independent variable. 65
The work-related involvement was much stronger than organizational
involvement. Teachers reporting a high level of work-related involve ment expressed lower feelings of powerlessness in school and in mass society than teachers reporting low involvement in work-related activities.
These findings indicate that being a member of various teacher organizations, working on organizational committees, and attending meetings is less effective in serving as a bulwark against feelings of powerlessness than direct work-related activities. Involvement in determining policy and procedure in the real day-to-day operation of the school was of crucial importance.
The findings suggest that if the teacher organization is to mediate between the individual and the formal institution of the school, the organization must strive to involve teachers in direct work-related activities at the operational level. Professional affiliation and involvement outside of the school does not replace the need for involve ment in the real school situation.
The items included in the questionnaire as work-related and organizational involvement and the numerical findings of the compari sons are reported in Appendix G, pages 122 through 125.
One of the real challenges to teacher organizations, adminis trative personnel, and lay leaders in the community at large, may be the magnitude of feelings of powerlessness reported by teachers. The feelings of powerlessness in mass society reported by the teachers in this study were greater than those reported by the respondents in a 66 community-wide survey conducted by Neal.^ The mean powerlessness 5 score reported in the community-wide sample (N-454)was 2.50. The mean powerlessness in mass society scores in this study were: teachers reporting low school involvement, 2.96; teachers reporting high school involvement, 2.51; teachers reporting a low level of broader social involvement, 3.07; teachers reporting a high level of g broader social involvement, 2.40.
As stated in Chapter 4, the items on the broader social involve ment index were subgrouped into categories of political and non political involvement. The data, presented in Appendix H, pages 126 to 129 indicates that no significant differences existed in feelings of school powerlessness regardless of the depth of involvement in political or non-political events of broader society. These findings again support the need for school involvement, it is apparent that involvement in broader social events did not replace, or compensate for, lack of involvement in determining policies and procedure within the immediate domain of work.
It is noteworthy that differences in the level of both poli tical and non-political involvement attained statistical significance on mass society powerlessness. The teachers reporting high involvement
For additional information concerning the community-wide sample, refer to an unpublished study of ’’Alienation and Political Commitment" by Arthur G. Neal, et. al.« Bowling Green State University, 1965. 6 These findings are reported in Appendix D, Tables 8 through 13, and in Appendix E, Tables 14 through 19. 67
in political and non-political events of broader society expressed
lower feelings of powerlessness in mass society than teachers report
ing low involvement. Non-political involvement proved to be a stronger variable than political invplvement on feelings of powerlessness in mass society.
The findings of this study also suggest a consistency between attitudes and behavior. Teachers highly involved in school and in broader social events possessed attitudes of mastery and control con sistent with their behavior. Teachers minimumly involved in policy making in school and with low involvement in broader social events possessed feelings of powerlessness consistent with their behavior.
Likewise, teachers involved in one social environment tended to behave the same in other settings. Attitudes tended to be global in nature.
A sense of power-possessing or powerlessness may tend to remain consis tent, regardless of social setting.
An alternate explanation is that teachers with low feelings of powerlessness either seek to be involved or agree to be involved as they feel capable of coping with various situations arising in school and in mass society. At the other end of the continuum, teachers with high feelings of powerlessness would not seek or agree to be involved as they feel unable to cope with the situation. This causal relation ship would indicate that the feelings of powerlessness proceeded the behavior of not being involved, rather than a low level of involvement resulting in high feelings of powerlessness.
These findings would lend support to the body of social 68
psychology theories of Heider, Osgood and Tannenbaum® Common to these
theories is the notion that thoughts, belief, attitudes and behavior 7 tend to organize themselves in meaningful ways.
The mediation hypothesis stated that individuals belonging to
voluntary organizations will be lower in feelings of alienation than 8 those not holding such membership. Presumably, organizations, by
standing between the single individual and the larger social order,
provide the individual with a sense of mastery, understanding, trust, and security. This study provided some support for the mediation
hypothesis, both within a school setting and in broader society. These results are consistent with Clark's findings that participation in the organization and feelings of powerlessness were significantly, inversely 9 related. 10 These findings support the related research by Chase , 11 12 Bridges , and Sharma . Their findings indicated that involvement of teachers in determining school policy and procedure is an important factor in the morale and enthusiasm of teachers. The results of this
7 Wrightman, Contemporary Issues in Social Psychology, p. 193. 8 Neal and Seeman, "Organization and Powerlessness: A Test of the Mediation Hypothesis, 216-225. ^Clark, "Measuring Alienation Within a Social System", 834-852.
l^Chase, "The Teacher and Policy Making", 1-4.
^Bridges, "A Model for Shared Decision Making", 49-61.
^Sharma, "Who Should Make What Decisions", 1-4. &
study added empirical support to Bridges’ statement concerning the importance of involving teachers. Of the myriad activities in which the administrator engages, the conscious involvement of teachers in making decisions does appear to be one of the most crucial.
Bridges strongly emphasized the possibility of alienation 13 resulting from lack of involvement. Administrators that attempt to make unilateral decisions in matters within the teachers area of concern may alienate them. What Bridges referred to as the ’’autonomy expectation” does appear to be deeply ingrained in the teacher. The data presented in this study lends support to Bridges idea of the autonomy of expectation, not only at the more immediate school level, but in mass society as well.
Demographic Data
The comparisons of mean score on powerlessness suggest that female teachers have greater feelings of powerlessness than male teachers in the domain of work. In the mean comparison of powerless ness in mass society, males with low involvement in broader social events demonstrated the highest feelings of powerlessness. Males with high involvement in broader social events expressed the lowest feelings of powerlessness of the four subgroups.
With regard to marital status, an interesting finding was that married teachers with low involvement in broader social events expressed the highest feelings of powerlessness in mass society.
13 Bridges, "A Model for Shared Decision Making,” 53» 70
Married teachers with high involvement expressed the lowest feelings
of powerlessness in both the domain of work and in mass society. Un
married teachers of both high and low involvement in broader social
events ranked between the two extremes held by the married teachers on
powerlessness in mass society.
Teachers with one child expressed the highest feelings of power
lessness if they were limited in their school involvement and broader
social involvement, when compared with teachers with high and low
involvement having zero, two, or more than two children. Teachers with
one child and high in broader social involvement and school involvement
expressed feelings of greatest mastery and control.
Using age as a variable, teachers over forty-nine years of age,
as compared with teachers in younger age categories with high or low
involvement, expressed the greatest feeling of mastery and control if
they were high in involvement. This same age group expressed the high
est feelings of powerlessness in school and in mass society of the eight
subgroups if they were ranked as low in their involvement.
With regard to size of building and size of school system, the
teachers in the category for smallest building and smallest system, as
compared to teachers with high or low involvement in larger school
buildings or systems, expressed the highest feelings of control and mastery of the eight subgroups if they ranked as high in involvement
in determining school policy and procedure, The teachers in this same category, representative of small buildings and small systems, expressed the highest feelings of powerlessness of the eight subgroups if they 71
were ranked as low in involvement in determining school policy and
procedure.
Consistent with the findings regarding the age of teacher,
teachers with more than fourteen years of teaching, as compared with
teachers having fewer years of teaching and high or low involvement,
expressed the greatest feelings of powerlessness of the eight sub
groups if they were also categorized as low in involvement in school
and broader social events. At the other extreme, teachers with over
fourteen years, and categorized as high in school involvement, ex
pressed the highest feelings of mastery and control when compared with
teachers with high or low involvement having fewer years of teaching.
Teachers with greater college preparation and/or advanced
degrees, and categorized as high in involvement, expressed the highest
feeling of mastery and control, both in the school and in mass society
when compared with teachers of high and low involvement with less
college preparation and advanced degrees.
Perhaps of more theoretical interest than the comparisons
mentioned above concerning the demographic variables was the over
whelming and reoccurring importance of involvement in accounting for
variation in both school and mass society powerlessness scores.
Graphs are included in Appendix F, pages 97 through 121. visually demonstrate the demographic comparisons reported above.
This concludes the summarization and discussion of the study.
Chapter 6 will state the conclusions of the study, the limitations of the present investigation and offer suggestions for future research. Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The first section of the present chapter states the conclusions of the study. The second section mentions the limitations of the present study. From these conclusions and limitations, recommandai ions for future research are explored in section three.
CONCLUS IONS
A number of concrete conclusions can be reached regarding the relationship between teacher involvement and teacher feelings of power lessness based on the findings of this study. Previous research in business and service organizations has been essentially concerned with various aspects of job satisfaction and performance. This study shows that feelings of powerlessness can be predicted with some degree of assurance from a knowledge of the teacher’s school involvement, or his broader social involvement.
Theory in educational administration encourages the practice of involving teachers in determining school policy and procedure. This study provided additional support to previous research and to this theory. The results of the analyses suggests that involvement in broader social events may not compensate for a lack of teacher involve ment in the domain of work. School involvement was clearly more impor tant than broader social involvement in relation to feelings of school powerlessness. 72 73
Feelings of mastery and control, both in the world of work and in mass society, were positively associated with the extent of teacher involvement in determining school policy and procedure.
The results tend to emphasize the structural similarity between educational institutions and the surrounding society.. Schools, like other social institutions, are becoming larger, more bureaucratic and specialized, and dominated by a pragmatic orientation. These findings suggest the conclusion that, on a social-psychological level as on a structural level, there is an integration of the crucial kinds of expectations that people carry toward the world.
The extent of teacher involvement in determining school policy and procedure is related to differences in feelings of teachers; not only in how they feel about themselves in relation to their world of work, but their feelings concerning their personal value in society at large.
The review of literature indicated that the bureaucracy of the school can be punishment-centered using compulsion and sanctions; or the bureaucracy may be representative, using human relations technique, information feedback, and education to attain educational objectives.
This study indicates that school boards, administrators, and teachers would find it worthy of their time to reexamine their formal policies and their policy-in-act ion concerning the involvement of teachers in determining school policy and procedure. Objective evaluation should indicate if teachers are genuinely involved in determining what is happening, and what should be occurring, in their field of specializa 74
tion—the education of children.
Training programs for teachers and administrators could benefit
from instructional situations which help participants become more
competent in interpersonal relations and group processes. It is essen
tial that the principles of human relations are understood if the human
quality of organizations is to improve. Armed with these principles,
and a belief in the dignity and worth of the individual, educators can
help formulate new techniques of applying theory and can improve the
quality of human life.
LIMITATIONS
As with any survey-type research, there is a question of accur
acy of reporting. The questionnaire method of collecting data for this
study provided a record of the respondent’s comments of his behaviors
rather than directly observed behavior. In addition, there may have
been a difference in the portion of the sample that responded to the
questionnaire and the portion that failed to respond.
One of the major limitations of the present investigation was
the lack of an attempt to determine whether there is a causal relation
ship between involvement and powerlessness. The present study demon
strated that a relationship existed but failed to clarify whether feelings of powerlessness result in different levels of involvement, or if the extent of involvement tends to produce differences in feel
ings of powerlessness. Further clarification of this cause and effect relationship would be desirable. 75
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has clearly emphasized the need for further research to explore the relationship between various kinds of teacher involve ment. At the present time, there is little information concerning the reason for this difference between the significance of work-related and organizational involvement. This study has made it possible to suggest some new directions for such research.
The design of this study did not delineate specific types of involvement, either in the domain of work or in broader social events.
To explore the possibility of pursuing these courses in future re search, the index of school involvement was subgrouped into categories of: (l) organizational involvement at the professional involvement level, and (2) work-related involvement taking place at the school level.1 The index of broader social involvement was subgrouped into categories for (l) an index of political involvement, and (2) an index ... 2 of non-political involvement.
One of the most apparent findings is the difference in work- related involvement and organizational involvement in relation to feelings of powerlessness in school. The data indicates that if the professional teacher organization performs a mediating function for the teacher, it may be of a general nature.
See Appendix G for information regarding the results of the work-related and organizational involvement. 2 See Appendix H for further information regarding the results of the political and non-political involvement. 76
Additional research to explore the impact of the professional
teacher organization upon feelings of powerlessness and of involvement
would be warranted. A point of interest would be to test the mediation
hypothesis. A teacher organization may serve as a mediating link
between the individual and the formal institution. In this situation,
the teacher could perceive himself as having the capacity to determine
his life and to affect the lives of his fellow teachers. In other
situations, a teacher may find himself more deeply involved in the
formal bureaucracy of the professional teacher organization in which
he expresses increased feelings of powerlessness. In the latter situ ation, the teacher organization may not be an agency for control and
expression. The power of the individual could become more dependent
upon an organization not access lUiS As indicated previously, certain demographic information v/as collected in the interest of future research. Further research is warranted using various demographic characteristics as the major thrust 3 of the study. Demographic characteristics could be further defined for comparison. One such comparison could be comparing older teachers with limited experience to older teachers with extended experience. Such a refinement could help to explain v/hy the category for older teachers ranked at the two extremes in the comparison on power.lessness. Perhaps these findings could indicate more precisely the cause, or origin, of feelings of powerlessness expressed by teachers. Data in oee Appendix F for the analyses by demographic variables. 77 this study might well be used as a starting point for such research. The teacher’s feelings of power in influencing school system policy may well be affected by variables lying within the teacher himself. The strength of the more direct work-related involvement may indicate that feelings of powerlessness can be induced by exposure to the organizational climate of the school. It would merit a longi tudinal investigation to determine if continued exposure to contrasting work environments would result in a. divergence of powerlessness. A longitudinal study would provide some basis for determining the causal relationship between involvement of teachers in school policy matters and feelings of powerlessness. These variables could be correlated to more broadly based personality measures. The nature of the causal relationship between involvement and feelings of powerlessness could be explored in an experimental study. Teachers defined as powerless could be deliberately involved in various activities, while the control group would not be involved. A post testing situation could help to determine if changes in powerlessness had occurred. The issue of the pervasiveness of feelings of powerlessness in different spheres of social life should be.explored. This could be done by generating additional scales measuring expectancies for personal control in relation to one’s health, family, job, friends, community, nation, or in relation to other kinds of formal institutions A comparison on powerlessness between teachers and other occupational groups should be investigated. A study such as this could 78 help to explain the reasons, or causes, for the high feelings of powerlessness in teachers as compared to the community-wide sample reported by Neal.^ The school administrator has been referred to as the man in the middle. A study focusing upon the school administrator could be of value. Finally, the relationship between involvement, powerlessness, and dimensions of alienation (such as, self-estrangement, meaningless ness, normlessness, and social isolation) should be studied. The replication of this study would help to determine the generaliza- bility of these findings and to validate the instruments. ruicuavivil onu vGu«hxluK5U i « APPENDIXES 79 * r> r-r- rt rr\ i \/ a rtrrciwiA m Quest ionnaire 80 81 Code No. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE In each of the areas below, please indicate if you are involved in determining policy and procedure by circling the word ’yes’ or ’no’. Are you involved? 1. Determining Class Size...... yes / no 2. Salary Policy...... yes / no 3. Developing Inservice Education ...... yes / no 4. Curriculum Development ...... yes / no 5. Textbook Selection ...... yes / no 6. Student Discipline Policy...... yes / no 7. Parent Conference Policy ...... yes / no 8. Selecting Instructional Supplemental Materials .... yes / no 9. Use of Auxiliary Personnel ...... yes / no 10. Teaching Assignment...... yes / no 11. Length of School Day...... yes / no 12. Leave Policy (e.g., sick, personal, etc.)...... yes / no 13. Limits and Length of Lunch Period...... yes / no 14. Are you a member of a local teachers’ organization?. . yes / no 15. Are you a member of a'state teachers’ organization?. . yes / no 16. Are you a member of a national teachers’ organization? yes / no 17. Do you work on committees at the local school level? • yes / no 18. Do you work on committees at the state level?. .... yes / no 19. Do you work on committees at the national level? ... yes / no 20. Do you attend meetings of a local professional organization ...... yes / no 82 21. Do you attend meetings of a state professional organization?...... yes / no 22. Do you attend meetings of a national professional organization?...... yes / no Please check the answer which most nearly represents the facts as you see them. If you aren’t sure about some of these matters, then just give your estimate of the situation. Please give an answer to each question. 1. In this system a teacher has a chance to make important decisions for the school system. Strongly Agree Agree D isagree Strongly Disagree ...... 2. A few people run this system and there is not much an individual teacher can do about it. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 3. Teachers are not consulted about matters but are simply told what to do. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 4. When it comes right down to making decisions, what the teacher thinks really matters very little. Strongly Agree Agree„___ Disagree Strongly Disagree 5. The longer I work as a teacher, the more I realize how little control I have over things happening in the school system. Strongly Agree Agree_ „ Disagree Strongly Disagree . . , 6. If I make an effort to study and understand school policy, I can exert great influence. Strongly Agree Agree_ Disagree Strongly Disagree ___ 7. Rules and regulations in this system help me to be an effective teacher. Strongly Agree,__ _ Agree Disagree^___ Strongly Disagree,__ „ 83 8. A teacher in this system has little chance of protecting his personal interests when they conflict with those of the administration. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree StronglyD isagree 9. There is a lot a teacher can do to improve conditions in this school system. Strongly Agree Agree___ Disagree Strongly Disagree 10. I really can’t influence administrative decisions and actions that affect me. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am also interested in the social and civic affairs teachers join or express interest in. Please circle ’yes’ or ’no'. Do you belong to any of the following groups? 1. Service Clubs (e.g., Rotary, Lions, Business and Professional Women, etc.) yes / no 2. Patriotic Clubs (e.g., American Legion, V.F.W., etc.) yes / no 3. Fraternal Organizations (e.g., Elks, Knights of Columbus, Eastern Star, etc.) yes / no 4. Political Clubs (e.g., Young Democrats’ Club, Republican Women, etc.) yes / no 5. Special Clubs (e.g., Country Club, Art Club, Community Theater, Great Books, etc.) yes / no 6. Do you work with a youth group? (e.g., Scouts, 4-H, etc.) yes / no 7. Do you attend church at least once a month? yes / no 8. Do you attend church related activities? (e.g., Sunday School, Ladies Club, Mens Club, etc.) yes / no 9. Do you read the local newspaper regularly? yes / no 10. Do you participate in civic government? yes / no 11. Have you written or talked with your congressman in the last year? yes / no BOWLING GREEN SIATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 84 12. Have you written or talked with your state represen tative in the last year? yes / no 13. Did you vote in the last election? yes / no In order to complete the study, I need the following census- type information on each person in the sample. sex - .male marital status - „married race female „single number of children in your family_ age - 20 - 29 30 - 39 level - Elementary >0 - 49 ______Secondary 50 and older How many students are in the building in which you teach? (Best Guess) ______ How many students are in the school system in which you work? (Best Guess) ______ Which of these comes closest to your family’s income last year? Under $8,000 .$11,000 to $13,999 “$8,000 to $10,999 „Over $14,000 Years of teaching. years of college completed. Last degree granted. Each item consists of a pair of stetements. Please select the one statement in each pair which you more strongly believe to be true. 1. ______I think we have adequate means for preventing run-away inflation. There’s very little we can do to keep prices from going higher. 2* Persons like myself have little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. I feel we have adequate ways of coping with pressure groups. 85 3» A lasting world peace can be achieved by those of us who work toward it. There’s very little we can do to bring about a permanent world peace. 4» There’s very little persons like myself can do to improve world opinion of the United States. I think each of us can do a great deal to improve world opinion in the United States. 5. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. The average citizen can have an influence on government decisions. 6. it is only wishful thinking to believe that one can really influence what happens in society at large. People like me can change the course of world events if we make ourselves heard. 7. ______.More and more, I feel helpless in the face of what’s happening in the world today. I sometimes feel personally to blame for the sad state of affairs in our government. PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED ADDRESSED ENVELOPE TO RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION APPENDIX B Cover Letter 86 87 April, 1970 1415 'White Avenue Fremont, Ohio 43420 Dear Teacher, Teachers are often caught in the middle. How do you feel when you have no voice in determining the course of events in your school? The enclosed questionnaire is part of a study aimed at helping us better understand the problems of involving teachers in the real decisions that affect their professional lives. This questionnaire is being sent to a random sample of teachers in the State of Ohio. Hopefully you will be able to , complete the questionnaire in a few minutes. I hope that, at ! least indirectly, you will benefit from the time you spend in completing the enclosed instrument. if you would like information concerning the results of this study, please write your name and address on a separate slip of paper and enclose it with the questionnaire. If you prefer, a separate envelope could be used. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jo A. Battles APPENDIX C Development of School Powerlessness Scale, Phi Coefficient Between Items and Total Scores for School Powerlessness Measure 88 89 DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL POWERLESSNESS SCALE PHI COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN ITEMS AND TOTAL SCORES FOR SCHOOL POWERLESS NESS MEASURE Phi Coefficient Item •19 in this school system a teacher has some control over what happens in the classroom, (r) .72 In this system a teacher has a chance to make important decisions for the school system, (r) .66* A few people run this system and there is not much an individual teacher can do about it. .30 Forces beyond my control shape my career as a teacher. .43 There are a number of effective ways in which a teacher can make his views heard, (r) .58* Teachers are not consulted about matters but are simply told what to do. .62* When it comes right down to making decisions, what the teacher thinks really matters very little. .31 As a teacher, I have to submit to what happens in the system and hope for the best. .72* The longer I work as a teacher, the more I realize how little control I have over things happening in the school system. .26 The school system is so complicated that I cannot seem to discuss the major issues satisfactorily with my fr i ends. .64* If I make an effort to study and understand school policy, I can exert great influence, (r) .54* Rules and regulations in this system help me to be an effective teacher, (r) 90 .44* A teacher in this system has little chance of protecting his personal interests when they conflict with those of the administration. .44* There is a lot a teacher can do to improve conditions in this school system, (r) .58* I really can’t influence administrative decisions and actions that affect me. * indicates that the item was incorporated into the final scale, (r) indicates a reverse scoring item. APPENDIX D ANOV Summary Tables School Involvement and Powerlessness 91 92 Table 8 ANOV Summary Table Two Levels of School Involvement (Low, High) on Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between^ 1 2796.81 ■ 2796.81 100.07* Within 429 11989.44 27.85 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 1 and 429 df = 3.86. Table 9 ANOV Summary Table Three Levels of School Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 2 3881.44 1940.72 76.17* Within 428 10904.81 25.48 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 2 and 428 df = 3.02. Table 10 ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of School Involvement (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High on Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 3 4316.63 1438.88 58.68* Within 427 10469.63 24.52 ^Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 3 and 427 df - 2.62. 93 Table 11 ANOV Summary Table Two Levels of School Involvement in School (Low, High) on Po^erless- ness in Miass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of . F f reedom squares squares Between 1 21.71 21.71 5.52* Within 429 1686.60 . 3.93 *Significant F - ratio at . 05 level for 1 and 429 df = 3.86. Table 12 ANOV Summary Tabl e Three Levels of School Invo lvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in Mass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 2 30.71 15.35 3.92* Within 428 1677.60 3.92 *Signif icant F - ratio at . 05 level for 2 and 428 df = 3.02. Table 13 ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of School Involvement (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in Miass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 3 33.81 11.27 2.87* Within 427 1674.51 3.92 ^Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 3 and 427 df = 2.62. APPENDIX E ANOV Summary Table Broader Social involvement and Powerlessness 94 95 Table 14 ANOV Summary Table Two Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, High) on Powerlessness in Mass Socie ty Source Degrees of Surn of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 1 47.27 47.27 12.21* Within 429 1661.05 3.87 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 1 and 429 dg = 3.86. Table 15 ANOV Summary Table Three Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Poweriessness in Mass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 2 65.75 32.87 8.57* ’Within 428 1642.57 3.34 *Significant F ~ ratio at .05 level for 2 and 428 df = 3.02. Table 16 ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in Mass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 3 81.23 27.08 7.11* Within 427 1627.08 3.81 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 3 and 427 df = 2.62. 96 Table 17 ANOV Summary Table . Two Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, High) on Powerless ness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 1 80.13 . 80.13 2.34* (NS) 'Within 429 14706.13 34.28 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 1 and 429 df - 3.86. Table 18 ANOV Surrmary Table Three Levels of Broader Social Involvement (Low, Average, High) on Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 2 197.25 98.63 2.89* (NS) Within 428 14589.00 34.09 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 2 and 428 df = 3.02. Table 19 ANOV Summary Table Four Levels of Broader Social Involve ment (Low, Low-Average, High-Average, High) on Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 3 286.75 95.58 2.31* Within 427 14499.50 33.96 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for 3 and 427 df = 2.62. APPENDIX F Demographic Variables, Mean Scores on Powerlessness b✓v indeoI endent Variables, School Involve ment, School or Broader Social Involvement, and Selected Demo graphic Variable 97 98 Table 20 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Sex (N=43l) Sex School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School Female Low 148 28.51 5.44 Female High 124 23.62 4.94 Male Low 67 28.15 5.92 Male High 92 23.30 5.24 Sex School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society Female Low 143 2.88 1.90 Female High 129 2.47 1.90 Male Low 72 3.43 2.17 Male High 87 2.31 1.97 99 Mean Scores Power lessness in Mass Society Mean Scores Power lessness in Mass Society _____ :______Female ------Male Figure 5 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variable, Level of Involvement and Sex 100 Table 21 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Marital Status (N=43l) Marital School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School Single Low 82 28.51 5.19 Single High 46 23.87 4.80 Married Low 133 28.32 5.83 Married High 170 23.38 5.14 Marital Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society Single Low 80 2.93 1.89 Single High , 48 3.04 2.12 Married Low 135 3.15 2.08 Marr i ed High 168 2.22 1.83 101 Mean Scores Powerlessness in fess Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ______Single _____ ferried Figure 6 Mean Scores on-Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and ferital Status 102 Table 22 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Race (N=43l) Race School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School Non-White Low 12 28.33 4.16 Non-White High 8 24.75 6.16 White Low 203 28.40 5.67 White High 208 23.44 5.03 Race Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society Non-White Low 12 3.17 2.17 Non-White High 8 1.38 1.51 White Low 203 3.06 2.00 White High 208 2.44 1.93 103 Mean Scores Powerlessness in fess Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ______Non-whi te White Figure 7 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of involvement and Race 104 Table 23 Mean Scores on Power 1essness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Number of Children in Family (N=43l) Number of School Mean Score of Standard Chi ldren Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Family in School 0 Low 115 28.56 5.28 ii High 96 24.23 4.63 1 Low 29 28.69 5.73 If High 24 22.38 5.98 2 Low 39 27.59 6.29 IS High 47 23.04 5.05 >2 Low 32 28.53 5.80 M High 49 23.00 5.36 Number of Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Children Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Family in Mass Society 0 Low 128 3.09 1.94 ti High 83 2.53 1.84 1 Low 22 3.22 2.02 it High 31 2.39 1.99 2 Low 37 3.16 2.29 it High 49 2.12 1.91 >2 Low 28 2.71 1.98 ii High 53 2.47 2.05 105 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Society 32 28 Mean Scores Powerlessness in School 24 20 _____ 0 Children .1 Child .o------2 Children ->2 Children Figure 8 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Number of Children 106 Table 24 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by independent Variables, Level of involvement and Age (N=43l) Age School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School 20-29 Low 122 27.90 5.25 n High 77 23.86 4.96 30-39 Low 36 27.81 6.40 n High 58 23.45 4.90 40-49 Low 36 28.50 5.27 n High 38 23.26 5.42 >49 Low 21 32.10 5.47 it High 43 23.07 5.28 20-29 Low 129 3.00 1.85 it High 70 2.33 1.69 30-39 Low 37 2.84 2.13 it High 57 2.39 2.14 40-49 Low 28 3.14 2.45 It' High 46 2.50 1.96 >49 Low 21 3.76 2.07 it High 43 2.44 2.02 107 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ______20-29 yrs. ___ -______30-39 yrs . o _____ 40-49 yrs. ______A> 49 yrs. Figure 9 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Age 108 Table 25 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Level of Teaching (N=43l) Level School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School Secondard Low 104 28.16 5.60 it High 106 23.71 5.55 Elementary Low 111 28.61 5.59 ii High no 23.27 4.56 Level Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society Secondary Low 105 3.13 2.09 it High 106 2.27 1.90 Elementary Low 110 3.00 1.94 it High no 2.53 1.95 109 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Miass Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ___ ,______Elementary ______Secondary Figure 10 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Levels of Involvement and Level of Teaching 110 Table 26 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Building Size (N=43l) Building School Mean Score of Standard Size Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School < 500 Low 47 29.19 5.58 It High 66 21.62 4.94 500-749 Low 56 27.64 5.95 n High 69 24.33 4.72 750-999 Low 40 28.17 5.27 » High 33 24.45 5.01 > 999 Low 72 28.58 5.50 » High 48 24.17 5.21 Building Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Size Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society <500 Low 56 3.25 2.09 it High 57 2.33 2.06 500-749 Low 56 2.82 1.95 n High 69 2.42 1.93 750-999 Low 39 2.77 1.72 II High 34 2.76 2.06 > 999 Low 64 3.30 2.14 it High 56 2.23 1.72 111 3.2 2.8 - Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Society 2.4 - 2.0 -*------Low Broader Social High Involvement Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ------< 500 ______500-749 ____ o----- — 750-999 ___> 999 Figure 11 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Building Size 112 Table 27 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Size of System (N=43l) Size of School Mean Score of Standard System Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School < 2000 Low 30 30.13 5.92 » High 53 21.75 5.08 2000-4999 Low 55 28.44 5.55 H High 64 24.05 5.21 5000-10,999 Low 37 26.81 4.62 ii High 48 23.85 3.95 >10,999 Low 93 28.44 5.75 ii High 51 24.24 5.50 Size of Broader Social Mean Score of Standard System Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society < 2000 Low 36 3.14 2.17 ii High 47 2.74 2.11 2000-499 Low 57 2.98 1.95 tv High 62 2.48 2.03 5000-10,999 Low 47 2.85 2.08 H High 39 2.03 1.81 >10,999 Low 75 3.23 1.95 n High 68 2.31 1.75 113 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ______< 2000 ______2000-4999 _____ o______5000-10,999 ------a------> 10,999 Figure 12 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Size of School System Table 28 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Family Income (N=43l) Income School Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School <8000 Low 70 28.39 5.25 « High 36 24.81 5.64 8000-10999 Low 52 27.12 6.21 M High 51 23.24 4.58 11000-13999 Low 37 29.76 4.70 » High 42 21.69 4.21 >13999 Low 56 28.70 5.80 it High 87 23.95 5.29 Income Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society < 8000 Low 72 2.82 1.66 tl High 34 2.35 2.09 8000-10999 Low 51 3.12 2.19 it High 52 2.54 2.11 11000-13999 Low 34 3.82 2.07 It High 45 2.47 1.93 >13999 Low 58 2.88 2.14 ii High 85 2.31 1.77 115 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ------< 8000 ______8000-10,999 ■------e------11,000-13,999 ______A______>13,999 Figure 13 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Family Income 116 Table 29 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Years of Teaching (N=43l) Years School Mean Score of Standard of Involvement Powerlessness Deviation Teaching in School <3 Low 68 28.07 5.37 M High 28 25.46 4.80 3-8 Low 75 27.88 5.84 It High 76 23.54 5.11 9-14 Low 34 28.74 5.13 » High 45 23.60 5.18 >14 Low 38 29.68 5.84 High 67 22.52 4.89 Years Broader Social Mean Score of Standard of Involvement Powerlessness Deviation Teaching in Mass Society < 3 Low 74 3.05 1.91 ti High 22 2.82 2.40 3-8 Low 73 2.82 1.82 it High 78 2.33 1.66 9-14 Low 33 3.12 2.47 u High 46 2.35 2.10 >14 Low 35 3.54 2.11 it High 70 2.39 1.94 117 Mean Scores Powerlessness in fess Soci ety Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ______<3 yrs.______3-3 yrs. _____ o_____ 9-14 yrs. ______A> 14 yrs. Figure 14 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Levels of Involvement and Years of Teaching 118 Table 30 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Years of College (N=43l) Years School Mean Score of Standard of Involvement Powerlessness Deviation College in School < 4 Low 8 30.75 4.23 11 High 6 24.00 4.86 4 Low 141 28.32 5.43 n High 109 24.23 5.14 5 Low 41 28.98 5.22 ii High 71 22.77 4.70 > 5 Low 25 27.12 7.17 u High 30 22.37 5.45 Years Broader Social Mean Score of Standard of Involvement Powerlessness Deviation College in Mass Society < 4 Low 7 3.29 2.69 11 High 7 3.29 2.14 4 Low 145 3.07 1.94 IT High 105 2.29 1.75 5 Low 41 3.24 2.22 it High 71 2.66 2.16 >5 Low 22 2.64 1.87 ft High 33 2.03 1.85 119 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Soci ety Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ------<4 yrs ______4 yrs. ------O------5 yrs. ------Â------> 5 yrs. Figure 15 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by independent Variables, Levels of Involvement and Years of College 120 Table 31 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of Involvement and Last Degree (N=43l) Last School Mean Score of Standard Degree Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in School None Low 10 29.60 5.04 n High 4 22.75 2.22 Bachelor Low 167 28.41 5.41 ri High 152 24.13 5.14 Master Low 38 28.03 6.52 It High 60 21.92 4.70 Last Broader Social Mean Score of Standard Degree Involvement Powerlessness Deviation in Mass Society None Low 6 3.33 2.94 II High 8 3.38 2.01 Bachelor Low 173 3.07 1.98 ti High 146 2.39 1.91 Master Low 36 3.00 2.06 rt High 62 2.31 1.96 121 Mean Scores Powerlessness in Mass Society Mean Scores Powerlessness in School ______None —————• Bach. —. i- o. Masters Figure 16 Mean Scores on Powerlessness by Independent Variables, Level of involvement and Last Degree APPENDIX G ANOV Summary Table iVork-Related involvement Or Organiza tional Involvement and Feelings of Powerlessness 122 123 Index of Work-Related Involvement Sub-group of Items 1. Determining Class Size 2. Salary Policy 3. Developing Inservice Education 4. Curriculum Development 5. Textbook Selection 6. Student Discipline Policy 7. Parent Conference Policy 8. Selecting Instructional Supplemental Materials 9. Use of Auxiliary Personnel 10. Teaching Assignment 11. Length of School Day 12. Leave Policy (e.g., sick, personal, etc.) 13. Limits and Length of Lunch Period Index of Organizational Involvement Sub-group of Items 1. Are you a member of a local teachers’ organization? 2. Are you a member of a state teachers’ organization? 3. Are you a member of a national teachers’ organization? 4. Do you work on committees at the local school level? 5. Do you work oh committees at the state level? 6. Do you work on committees at the national level? 7. Do you attend meetings of a local professional organization? 8. Do you attend meetings of a state professional organization? 9. Do you attend meetings of national professional organizations? 124 Table 32 ANOV Summary Table Work Related Involvement in School (Low, High) and Rawerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 1 3,197.50 3,197.50 118.37* Within 429 11,588.75 27.01 Work Related Involvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 28.67 5.49 H (216) 23.22 4.89 Table 33 ANOV Summary Table Work Related Involvement in School (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Miass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 1 21.71 21.71 5.52* Within 429 1,686.60 3.93 *Significant F - ratio at . 05 level for 1 and1 429 df = 3.86. Work Related Involvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 2.96 2.08 H (216) 2.51 1.88 125 Table 34 ANOV Summary Table Organizational Involvement in School (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 1 237.50 237.50 7.00* Within 429 14,548.75 33.91 Organizational Involvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 26.68 5.45 H (216) 25.19 Table 35 ANOV Summary Table Organizational Involvement in School (Low, High) and Power lessness in Mass Soci sty Source Degrees of Surn of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 1 16.66 16.66 4.22* Within 429 1,691.66 3.94 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for jI and 429 df = 3.86. Organizational Mean Standard Deviation Involvement L (215) 2.93 Io94 H (216) 2.54 2.03 APPENDIX H ANOV Summary Tables Political or Non-Political Involvement in Broader Social Events and Feelings of Powerlessness 126 127 Index of Political Involvement Sub-group of Items 1» Do you belong to a political club (e.g., Young Democrats’ Club, Republican Women, etc.)? 2. Do you participate in civic government? 3* Have you written or talked with your congressman in the last year? 4. Have you written or talked with your state representative in the last year? 5. Did you vote in the last election? Index of Non-Political Involvement Sub-group of items 1. Do you belong to any of the following groups? a. Service Clubs (e.g., Rotary, Lions, Business and Professional Women, etc.) b. Patriotic Clubs (e.g., American Legion, V.F.W., etc) c. Fraternal Organizations (e.g., Elks, Knights of Columbus, Eastern Star, etc.) d. Special Clubs, (e.g., Country Club, Art Club, Community Theater, Great Books, etc.) 2. Do you work with a youth group? (e.g., Scouts, 4-H, etc.) 3. Do you attend church at least once a month? 4. Do you attend church related activities? (e.g., Sunday School, Ladies Club, Mens Club, etc.) 5. Do you read the local newspaper regularly? 128 Table 36 ANOV Summary Table Political involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Miass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 1 33.82 33.82 8.66* Within 429 1,674.50 3.90 Political Involvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 3.01 2.07 H (216) 2.45 1.87 Table 37 ANOV Summary Table Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 1 112.19 112.19 3.28 (NS) Within 429 14,674.06 34.21 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for ]L and 429 df = 3.86. Political Invo lvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 26.45 5.22 H (216) 25.43 6.42 129 Table 38 ANOV Summary Table Non-Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in Mass Society Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F freedom squares squares Between 1 61.44 61.44 16.01* Within 429 1,646.87 3.84 Non-Political Involvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 3.11 1.97 H (216) - 2.36 1.96 Table 39 ANOV Summary Table Non-Political Involvement in Broader Social Events (Low, High) and Powerlessness in School Source Degrees of Sum of Mean of F f reedom squares squares Between 1 44.06 44.06 1.28 (NS) W ithin 429 14,742.19 34.36 *Significant F - ratio at .05 level for ;I and 429 df = 3.86. Non-Politicai Involvement Mean Standard Deviation L (215) 26.26 5.64 H (216) 25.62 6.08 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Arensberg, C. et al. (ed). Research in Human Relations - A Critical Appraisal. New York: Harper Row, 1957. Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper Row, 1957. Barnard, Chester. The Function of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938. Blake, Robert and Jane Mouton. The ManageriaI Grid. Houston: Gulf Press, 1964. Clabaugh, Ralph. School Superintendents' Guide. West Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Co.1^ 1966. Ellsworth, John S. Factory Folkways. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and, Education,. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Leadership. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1962. Karier, Clarence. Man, Society and Education. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1967. Kerlinger, Fred. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Knezevick, Stephen J. Administration of Public Education. New York: Harper, 1968. Lucio, William H. and John D. McNeil. Supervision: A Synthesis of Thought and Action. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1969. Malinowski, Bronislaw. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1944. Mannheim, Karl. Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1940. 130 131 Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957. Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Seavitt, H. (ed.), The Social Science of Organization: Four Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963. Stein, Maurice and Arthur Vidieh (ed.). Sociology on Trial. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963. Tannenbaum, Arnold S. Social Psychology of the Work Organization. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pubiishing Co., 1966. Vroom, Victor H. Some Personality Determinants in the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1960. Wrightman, Lawrence S. Contemporary Issues in Social Psychology. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing Co., 1968. Znaniecki, Florian. The Social Role of Man of Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. B. PERIODICALS Bridges, Edwin M. "A Model for Shared Decision Making in the School Principa1ship," Educational Administration Quarterly. Ill, (Winter, 1967), 49-61. ——------. "Teacher Participation in Decision Making," Administrator*s Notebook, XII (May, 1964), 1-4 Chase, Francis S. "The Teacher and Policy Making," Administrator*s Notebook. I (May, 1952), 1-4. Clark, John P. "Measuring Alienation Within a Social System," American Sociological Review, XXIV (December, 1959), 849-52. Coch, L. and J. R. P. French, Jr., "Overcoming Resistance to Change," Human Relations, I, 4 (1948), 512-32. Davids, Anthony. "Alienation, Social Appreception and Ego Structure," Journal of Consulting Psychology, IXX (December, 1955), 21-27. Dean, Dwight G. "Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement," American Sociological Review, XXVI (October, 1961), 753-58. 132 Groat, Theodore H. and Arthur G. Neal. ’’Social Psychological Correlates of Urban Fertility,” American Sociological Review. XXXII (December, 1967), 945-59. Kahn, Robert L. and Nancy C. Morse. ’’The Relationship of Productivity to Morale,” Journal of Social Issues. VII (Winter, 1951), 8. Maier, N. R. F. and R. A, Maier. ”An Experimental Test of the Effects of 'Developmental' vs. ’Free’ Discussion on the Quality of Group Decision,” Journal of Applied Psychology. XL I, 1957, 320-23. Middleton, Russell. ’’Alienation, Race, and EducationAmerican Sociological Review. XXVII (December, 1963), 973-77. Moeller, Gerald H. "Bureaucracy and Teachers’ Sense of Power,” Administrator’s Notebook, XI, 1962, 1-4. —------ancj v/. V/. Charter. "Relation of Bureaucratization to Sense of Power Among Teachers,” Administrative Science Quarterly. X, 1966, 444-465. Neal, Arthur and Salomon Rettig. ’’Dimensions of Alienation Among Manual and Non-manual Workers,” American Sociological Review. XXVIII, (August, 1963), 599-608. •------. "On the Multidimensionality of Alienation,” American Sociological Review, XXXII (February, 1967), 54-64. ------. and Melvin Seeman. "Organizations and Powerlessness: A Test of the Mediation Hypothesis," American Sociological Review. XXIX (April, 1964}, 216-226. Sayre, Wallace. "Additional Observations on the Study of Administra tion," Teachers College Record, LX (November, 1958), 73. Seeman, Melvin. "Alienation, Membership, and Political Knowledge: A Comparative Study,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XXX (Fall, 1966), 254-67. ------”0n the Meaning of Alienation,” American Sociological Review. XXIV (December, 1959), 784. Sharma, Chiranji Lal. "Who Should Make What Decisions?” Administra tor's Notebook, lil (April, 1955), 1-4. Srole, Leo K. "Social Integration and Certain Corrollaries," American Sociological Review, XXI (December, 1956), 709-16. 133 Teacher Opinion Poll - "Teacher Involvement in School Policy and Procedures," Today’s Education, NEA Research Division, LVIII, (April, 1969), 11. Wickert, R. F. "Turnover of Employee Feelings of Ego Involvement in the Day to Day Operations of A Company," Personnel Psychology. IV (1951), 185-97. C. UNPUBLISHED STUDY Neal, Arthur G. et al., "Alienation and Political Commitment," Bowling Green State University, 1965.