Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-3584

INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-3584

WAGENAAR, Theodore Clarence, 1948- ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN SCHOOLS: THE ROLE OF SELECTED STRUCTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1975 Sociology, general

Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

THEODORE CLARENCE WAG&NAAR.

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School

of The Ohio State University

Theodore C. Wagenaar, A.B., M.A.

******

The Ohio State University

1975

Reading Committee: Approved

Professor Ronald G. Corwin ,< / Professor Russell R. Dynes Professor John Seidler

Adviser Department of Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Professor Ronald G. Corwin for his contributions to my intellectual development. He has skillfully played the roles of mentor, c ritic , and friend. This work has benefitted greatly from his advice on substantive, methodological, and s ty lis tic issues.

The assistance given by Professors Russell R. Dynes and John Seidler--the other members of my dissertation committee--is also very much appreciated. Professor Dynes is particularly valued for his interest in my professional development (which includes se curing employment). Professor Seidler is valued for his constant encouragement and close attention to some of the methodological and analytical nuances in this study. I also wish to acknowledge Pro fessor Robert M. Jiobu for his perceptive advice on statistical issues. Liberal amounts of computer funds were made available to me by the Department of Sociology (through Professor Kent P. Schwirian).

Financial assistance for this study was made possible by the National Program for Educational Leadership, co-directed by Luvern L. Cunningham (College of Education) and Richard C. Snyder (Mershon Center), both affiliated with the Ohio State University. This program is sponsored by U.S. Office of Education Grant #0EG-0-7.0-2108 (725). The assistance of Dr. Rodney Muth and Dr. Larry Slonaker, both associated with the program, is also appreciated. Ms. Ann Cato Murrin e ffic ie n tly transmitted data from several different sources into useable format; her diligence and accuracy are also appreciated.

My wife, Barbara, has become a s till closer friend to me these past five years. Her interest, involvement, encouragement, and sense of humor have played a crucial role in my a b ility to cope with the demands of graduate school I t is with sincere appre ciation that I dedicate this work to her.

i i VITA

July 19, 1948 Born—The Netherlands

1966-1970 A.B., Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan

1970-1973 HEW Fellowship, Sociology of Education

1971 M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1971-1973 Research Associate, Teacher Corps Follow-Up Study, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1973-1975 Teaching Associate, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State Univer sity, Columbus, Ohio

1973-1974 Participant, Detroit Decision Seminar, Mershon Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1974 Interviewer, Survey Research Ser vice, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1975 Research Associate, Abt Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts

1975 Instructor, "Perspectives on Or ganizations," Teacher Corps Intern Training Program, Richmond, Va.

PUBLICATIONS

"Activist Professionals: The Case of Teachers" Social Science Quarterly (September 1974)

"Dynamic vs. Static Organizations: An Extension of the Basic Typology" Sociological Focus (Summer 1973) i i i FIELDS OF STUDY

Studies in the Sociology of Education—Professor Ronald 6. Corwin

Studies in Complex Organizations—Professor Russell R. Dynes

Studies in Sociological Methods—Professor Wen L. Li TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA...... i i i

LIST OF TABLES...... vii

LIST OF FIGURES...... v iii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION...... 1

I I THEORETICAL BACKGROUND...... 12

What Are Complex Organizations? ...... 12 What Is a Bureaucracy? ...... 13 Types of Organizations ...... 14 Are Schools Complex Organizations? ...... 15 Complex Organization Theory: Two General Approaches ...... 17 Specific Perspectives ...... 19 Conclusions...... 25

I I I THE SPECIFIC VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES...... 38

Introduction...... 38 Independent Variables ...... 41 Centralization ...... 41 Standardization ...... 45 Close Supervision ...... 50 Size ...... 54 Specialization ...... 58 Flexibility ...... 63 Environmental Variables ...... 65 Permeability ...... 70 S tab ility ...... 74 Socioeconomic Status: A Control V ariab le.... 76 Conclusions...... 77

IV METHODS AND MEASURES...... 100

Site and Schools Selected ...... 100 Sources of Data ...... 102 The Sample ...... 104 v CHAPTER PAGE

Chapter IV, cont.

Operationalization of the Dependent Variable.... 106 Operationalization of the Independent Variables ...... 107 Statistical Techniques Used ...... 117 Treatment of Missing Data ...... 119 Conclusions...... 119

V ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND EFFECTIVENESS...... 124

The Basic Relationships—Correlation ...... 124 The Combined Relationships—Regression ...... 128 Discussion...... 131 Other Relationships ...... 135 Summary and Conclusions ...... 137

VI ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLESAND EFFECTIVENESS ...... 141

Permeability ...... 141 S ta b ility ...... 148 Socioeconomic Status: A Control Variable 153 Discussion...... 157 Conclusions...... 160

VII SOME CAUSAL SUGGESTIONS...... 162

Discussion...... 167 Conclusions...... 168

V III CONCLUSIONS...... 170

Contributions to the Literature ...... 170 A Note to Policy Makers ...... 172 Shortcomings of the Study ...... 174 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 176

APPENDICES...... 179

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 202

v i L IS T OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

3.1 Summary Description of Operational Definitions Used in This Study ...... 80

4.1 Comparison of Respondent and Nonrespondent Schools on Selected Item s...... 105

4.2 Mean, Range, Standard Deviation, and Relia bility Coefficients for the Variables Used ill -the Study ...... 108

5.1 Correlation Matrix of Organizational Variables and Effectiveness ...... 125

5.2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Or ganizational Variables with Effectiveness ...... 130

6.1 Correlations Among Environmental Variables, Organizational Variables, and Organizational Effectiveness ...... 144

6.2 Correlations Between Organizational Variables and Organizational Effectiveness with Controls for Permeability, S tability and Socioeconomic Status ...... 145

6.3 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Or ganizational Variables and Environmental Permeability with Effectiveness ...... 147

6.4 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Or ganizational Variables and Environmental Sta b ility with Effectiveness ...... 152

6.5 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Or ganizational Variables, Permeability, Sta b ility and Socioeconomic Status with Ef fectiveness ...... 155

v ii LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

3.1 Summary of All Expected Relationship*.

7.1 Path Diagram Relating the Organizdtln ables, Permeability, and Stability za ti ona 1 Ef f ec ti veness ......

7.2 Path Diagram Relating the Organizattl Variables, Permeability, Stability, Socioeconomic Status to Organizatti Effectiveness ...... CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

I t has become almost a cliche to lament the in effectiveness of America's public schoolsJ

This study is an analysis of organizational effectiveness in schools. The effects of several basic structural variables on or ganizational effectiveness are examined. Also, a few environmen tal variables are examined for their direct and indirect effects on organizational effectiveness.

Over a decade ago, Coleman^ completed one of the most tho rough analyses of educational achievement in American public schools. He examined attitudes of individual students, pupils' family back ground characteristics, and school factors such as teacher charac teristics, fa c ilitie s , and composition of the student body. With regard to school fa c ilitie s , Coleman concluded that these “organ izational variables" have l i t t l e impact on achievement.

However, several criticisms of the "Coleman Report" can be made. The most basic criticism concerns Coleman's equating school resources with organizational variables and subsequently concluding that educational organizations are irrelevant to educational per formance^ this common sense approach to organizational variables neglects the body of organizational theory in which a more complete inventory of organizational variables is found.4 Thus resources are only one type of organizational variable; more fundamental to any organizational analysis are such concepts as the control structure, the reward structure, and grouping practices.5 Coleman has also been criticized for viewing the school as an economic system rather than as a complex organization, for using inadequate operational definitions, for using inappropriate statistical techniques which overestimate the effect of socioeconomic status, and for over emphasizing negative findings.

A second important study for this analysis is a recent examin ation of organizational effectiveness in school districts by Bidwell 1 2 and Kasarda.6 In their social-ecological approach, they examine the effects of such environmental conditions as d is tric t size, fiscal resources, and proportion disadvantaged on such organiza tional attributes as the pupil-teacher ratio, administrative inten sity, and staff qualifications; both groups of variables are examined vis-a-vis academic achievement. This work is one of the few that ex p lic itly deals with schools as complex organizations. They clearly demonstrate that such structural variables as span of supervision and specialization influence educational achievement.

However, a few comments on the Bidwell and Kasarda work should be noted. They use the d is tric t rather than the school as the unit of analysis; this procedure results in some aggregation problems and often reduces the variance in the variables examined. Also, several of their "environmental conditions" could be considered as organiza tional characteristics. Thirdly, their "organizational attributes" include few of the theoretically central organizational variables, such as standardization and centralization.

Another weakness in much of the research on school effective ness stems from a tendency to be preoccupied with individual student and teacher characteristics, such as student and teacher socioeco nomic status, to the exclusion of organizational variables.7

This study attempts to remedy some of the basic inadequacies in these studies. The school w ill be the unit of analysis in this study. This approach focuses on concepts which represent the over a ll, holistic structure of the organization rather than aggregates of personal characteristics. These data can be acquired by having teachers and principals act as informants to describe the organiza tion, particularly the control structure. This approach relies upon concepts drawn from the complex organizations literature. The basic premise is that schools, as organizations, d iffer on struc tural dimensions, irrespective of the individual persons filling the roles of student, teacher, and administrator. The assumption of this study is that such variables as standardization and centrali zation will have some impact on organizational effectiveness.9 Such an organizational approach is to be clearly distinguished from a psychological approachi'O

Organizations can be viewed as an aggregate of individuals, each with his own abilities, interests, behaviors, and motives. This is is the essence of the psychological approach. Organizations can also be viewed as a col lective of jobs or "social positions," each with its own skills, power, rules, and re wards. This is the essence of the sociolo gical perspective. 3

An open system model w ill be used. This model treats organiza tions as entities appropriate for analysis at their own level and at the same time recognizes the relevance of the organization's en vironment for organizational effectiveness.11 Several characteris tics of the environment which might influence organizations w ill be examined in conjunction with organizational variables.

A comparative approach w ill be used in this study.That is, "systematic comparisons are made of a large number of organiza tions to determine how variations in some organizational conditions are associated with differences in others."!’ Blau and Scott note that "this approach would involve a research design in which organiza tions in a sample are systematically compared."14 The emphasis in this approach is on a quantitative comparison of a fa irly large num ber of organizations, as compared to the case study approach so popu lar in the fiftie s and early sixties.The comparative method i t self is not new; what is relatively new is the application of this method to the study of complex organizations.^ In contradistinc tion to the case study approach, the ultimate goal of the compara tive method (based on large samples) is the generation of "empirical and ultimately theoretical generalizations about organizational structures and their environments."17 This study attempts to meet the four criteria that Heydebrand outlines for the comparative ap proach:18

1. a large number of separate, concrete organizational units are analyzed

2. there is a significant amount of variation in the observed variables

3. the variables contain theoretically significant and empirically measurable dimensions

4. the organizations should be studied in their larger context

The three general questions to be addressed in this analysis include;

1. Which organizational characteristics of schools make them effective?

2. Which environmental characteristics make schools more or less effective? 3. Do the environmental characteristics have any circum scribing effect on the relationships between the organ izational variables and organizational effectiveness?

There are various ways of defining organizational effective ness in schools, including such outcomes as character building, citizenship s k ills , social s k ills , occupational s k ills , problem solving a b ilitie s , academic achievement (primarily mathematics and reading), development of self concept, and a b ility to adapt to changes "future shock" w ill produce. Academic achievement is the operational definition of organizational effectiveness in this study. As the following chapter illustrates more completely, achievement is a goal schools themselves stress, and i t is the primary means schools use to measure their own relative levels of success. Also, achievement.is the way that school success is most commonly defined in the lite ra ture.

There are seyeral reasons for undertaking this analysis. First, contemporary American society is largely one composed of complex or ganizations.^ And, as Etzioni observes, not only does modern so ciety as a whole tend to be "bureaucratic," but the most powerful social units of modern society, including school systems, are also bureaucracies in a loose sense of that term.20 I t seems plausible that so pervasive a development will be related to the effectiveness of organizations.

Second, i t is hoped that this study w ill contribute to the com plex organizations literature, and especially to two relatively underdeveloped aspects of i t . First, up to the mid-sixties, much of the research and discussion in the field focused on business organi zations^! in spite of some early attemots to include nonbusiness organizations in classification schem es.22 However, "modern organi zation theory" has broadened the perspective by including both business and service organizations.23 This study w ill hopefully assist this theoretical expansion by providing s till another analysis of schools from a complex organization framework.2^ A second po tential for contributing to complex organization theory is the fact that organizational effectiveness is used as a dependent variable. Although Weber was very much concerned with the implications of or ganizational structure for organizational performance, recent works in the fie ld of organizational analysis have tended to ignore this c o n c e r n . 25 in an introduction to their monumental work on employ ment security organizations, Blau and Schoenherr suggest that the study of organizations may be approached in two ways: 1) how con ditions in an organization effect individual conduct or human rela tions, and 2) what produced these characteristics in the fir s t p la c e .26 L ittle interest is expressed by these authors in the 5 relationship of organizational variables to the relative output or productivity of the organization.2' This study contributes toward filling this gap by taking organizational effectiveness, in this case school achievement, as the dependent variable.

A third reason for undertaking this study is to contribute to our understanding of the forces that affect academic achievement. As previously noted, the emphasis often is on variations in the achieve- : mant of individual students in relation to aggregate characteristics of teachers, such as their gender, experience, and amount of educa tion. 23 The complex organizations perspective employed in this study w ill add another dimension to this literature. There is a great po tential for contribution because much of the literature is inconclu sive:2^

A great deal of research has been carried out over an extended period to investigate the relationship between achievement and such variables as size of class..., qualifica tions of the teacher, homogeneous and hetero geneous grouping practices, school fa c ilitie s , and the lik e The findings of these studies have in general been inconclusive and the correlations obtained have not been strong.

The analysis of organizational effectiveness within the complex organizations perspective has seldom been applied to schools. Al though several educational researchers have used what they term or ganizational variables (such as school resources, fa c ilitie s , and grouping practices),30 as noted above these variables are specific to schools and are not generally found in the complex organization literature.

Fourth, viewing schools as complex organizations w ill help i l luminate the role that environmental characteristics play in schooling outcomes. Social scientists and educators alike are increasingly recognizing the salience of the environment for educational achieve ment.31 Concern for environmental variables, such as permeability and stab ility , can be found in recent writings in the complex or ganizations perspective, although as yet there has been very l i t t l e empirical research using such variables.32

The fifth reason for using a complex organizations perspective is that some characteristics of complex organizations can be manipu lated,33 especially standardization and centralization (within lim its ).34 In fact, as Azumi and Hage point out, " if some control over organizations is to occur, then we fir s t need to understand the \

hows and whys of organizational b e h a v i o r . "35 This study takes a step in that direction.

In Chapter I I , the concept of complex organizations is defined and schools are examined within this definition. Also, this chapter contains a discussion of organizational theory in general and four theoretical perspectives that are used. Chapter I I I contains de finitions of the concepts and outlines the specific hypotheses and questions. Chapter IV summarizes the methods used..Chapter V con tains the analysis of the organizational variables, while Chapter VI contains the analysis of the unvironmental variables. Chapter VII makes a few causal interpretations, and Chapter V III contains con cluding comments on the contribution of this study to the literature, implications for policy makers, shortcomings of the study, and sug gestions for future research. 7

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

1. Richard C. Williams et a l ., Effecting Organizational Renewal in Schools: A Social Systems Perspective (New York: McGraw- • H ill, 1974), p." 17

2. James S. Coleman et a l., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966).

3. Ronald G. Corwin, Education in Crisis: A Sociological Analysis of Schools and Universities in Transition' (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), pp. T i l -172; Ronald G. Corwin, "On the Significance of Educational Organizations," paper presented at a workshop on "Sociological Theory and Research in Education," Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (May 1971).

4. James L. Price, Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of Propositions (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968).

5. Corwin, Education in Crisis, pp. 111-172.

6. Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School D istrict Organiza tion and Student Achievement," American Sociological Review (hereafter abbreviated as ASR) 40 (February 1975), pp. 55-70.

7. For example, see U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Educational Personnel Develop ment, Do Teachers Make a Difference?' A Report on Recent Research on Pupil Achievement, with a Foreword by Don Davies (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970); William G. Spady, "The Impact of School Resources on Students," in Review of Re search in Education, 2 Vols., eds. Fred N. Kerlinger and John B. Carroll (Itasca, 111.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, 1973-74) 1, pp. 135-177.

8. See Ronald G. Corwin,"Education and the Sociology of Complex Organizations," in On Education--Socio1ogical Perspectives, eds. Donald A. Hansen and Joel E. Gerstl (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), pp. 156-223; and Ronald G. Corwin, "Models of Educational Organizations," in Review of Research in Education, 2, pp. 247-295. This theoretical approach is developed more fu lly in the next chapter.

9. See Derek S. Pugh et a l., "A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly (hereafter abbre viated as ASQJ 8 (December 1963), pp. 289-315. They distinguish 8

"structural" from "performance" organizational variables. Structural variables include such concepts as centralization,and performance variables refer to outcomes of organizational func tioning, such as program change, volume of production, and ef fectiveness. In this analysis several structural variables are examined for their impact on effectiveness, the performance variable analyzed.

10. Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, Social Change in Complex Organi zations (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 11.

See also S.W. Becker and F. Stafford, "Some Determinants of Or ganizational Success," The Journal of Business 40 (4 1967), p. 11, who observe that "the sociologist generally focuses on such topics as structure, bureaucratization, administrative size, innovation, and formal versus informal organizations. The psy chologist usually restricts his investigation to inter- and intragroup behavior as i t occurs within a formal organization." Koya Azumi and Jerald Hage, eds., Organizational Systems: A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Organizations (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972), p. 26, stress the global level studied by sociologists: "There must be, as we suspect, some patterns governing the rise of organizations, the types of organizations fostered, and the course of life that they assume. The socio logical task lies in discovering the patterns and basic variables that account for them." See also Charles Perrow, Organizational Analysis: A Socioloqical View (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1970), pp. 21-26.

11. Ephraim Yuchtman and Stanley E. Seashore, "A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness," ASR 32 (December 1967), pp. 891-903). Several other theoretical approaches are also utilized; Chapter I I reviews these approaches.

12. For an explicit discussion of the comparative approach see Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations; Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations; and Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations.

13. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations, p. 7.

14. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p. 223.

15. Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, p. 2. See also Price, QrganizationaT Effect!veness'. Ft is interesting to observe that the Price volume, which is Considered to be a landmark in the organizational effectiveness literature, is replete with analyses and summaries of case studies and studies with very small sam ples. This undoubtedly is a function of his decision to include only books in his review. 9

16. See Richard H. Hall, J. Eugene Haas, and Norman J. Johnson, "Organizational Size, Complexity and Formalization," ASR 32 (December 1967), p. 904, who noted that one of the problems confronting research'on organizations is that "many studies include one or only a few organizations as the sample."

17. Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, p. 2.

18. Ibid ., p. 8. The comparative approach is not necessarily a theoretical framework within which to analyze complex organiza tions; rather i t is a general methodological approach to the analysis of complex organizations (as compared with the case study approach, for example). The particular theoretical and conceptual perspectives appropriate for this particular study w ill be outlined in the next chapter.

19. Amitai Etzioni, "Organization and Society," in A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, 2nd ed., ed. Amitai Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), p.293.

20. Ibid.

21. See James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958); James D. Thompson, Organiza tions in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967); and Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956).

22. For example, Amitai Etzioni, "A Basis for Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations," in A Sociological Reader, pp. 59- 76; Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962), pp. 40-58.

23. Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood C liffs: Pren tice Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 49. The inclusion of schools as a subset in the larger set of complex organizations is more fully substantiated in the following chapter.

24. Several writers have applied the complex organizations perspec tive to schools in recent years, such as James G. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968); E.M. Beck and Michael Betz, "A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Conflict in Schools," Sociology of Education 48 (Winter 1975), pp. 59-74; Ronald G. Corwin, M ilitant Profes sionalism (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970Ti 10

25. Wolf V. Heydebrand, "General Introduction," in Comparative Organizations: The Results of Empirical Research, ed. Wolf V. Heydebrand '(Englewood C liffs ,T re n tic e -H a ll, Inc., 1973), p. 5. In fact in Heydebrand's section on organizational structure, no studies on effectiveness or production are included. For a further example of concern with the interrelationship of structural variables at the expense of concern for output or effectiveness, see Azumi and Hage, eds., Organizational Systems, pp. 223-28.

26. Peter M. Blau and Richard A. Schoenherr, The Structure of Or ganizations (New York: Basic Books, 1971), p. 4.

27. See also James L. Price, "The Study of Organizational Effec tiveness," Sociological Quarterly 13 (Winter 1972), pp. 3-15, and Basil S. Georgopoulos and Arnold S. Tannebaum, "A Study of Organizational Effectiveness," ASR 22 (October 1957), pp. 534- 40. The latter observe that "organizational effectiveness is one of the most complex and least tackled problems in the study of social organizations." Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology of Organizations, have also emphasized the significant role output plays in an organization's functioning.

28. Do Teachers Make A Difference?; Spady, "Impact of School Re sources.

29. John P. Keeves, Educat ional Environment and Student Achievement (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1972), p. 20. See also. Harvey A. Averch et a l., How Effective is Schooling? A C r iti cal Review and Synthesis of Research Findings (Santa Monica: Rand Corp., 1972), p. x, who note that "research has not identi fied a variant of the existing system that is consistently re lated to students' educational outcomes."

30. For example, see Coleman et a l., Equality of Educational Op portunity; Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P. Moynihan, eds., On Equality of Educational Opportunity (New York: Random House, 1972); Henry M. Levin, "A New Model of School Effectiveness," in Do Teachers Make a Difference?, pp. 55-78.

31. See Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, pp. 194-221; Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and Phillip R. Kunz, eds"., Complex Organizations and Their Environments (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1972); Richard H. H all, Organizations: Structure and Process, (Engle wood C liffs: Prentice-Hali, In c ., 1972), pp. 295-348; Elihu Katz and Brenda Danet, eds. Bureaucracy and the Public: A Reader in Official-Client Relations ( N e w York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 31-156; Shirley Terreberry, "The Evolution of Organizational Environments," ASQ 12 (March 1968), pp. 590-613. 10

25. Wolf V. Heydebrand, "General Introduction," in Comparative Organizations: The Results of Empirical Research, ed. Wolf V. Heydebrand (Englewood C liffs ,T re n tic e -H a ll, Inc., 1973), p. 5. In fact in Heydebrand's section on organizational structure, no studies on effectiveness or production are included. For a further example of concern with the interrelationship of structural variables at the expense of concern for output or effectiveness, see Azumi and Hage, eds., Organizational Systems, pp. 223-28.

26. Peter M. Blau and Richard A. Schoenherr, The Structure of Or ganizations (New York: Basic Books, 1971), p. 4.

28. Do Teachers Make A Difference?; Spady, "Impact of School Re sources.

29. John P. Keeves, Educat ional Environment and Student Achievement (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1972), p. 20. See also. Harvey A. Averch et a l., How Effective is Schooling? A C r iti cal Review and Synthesis of Research Findings' (Santa Monica:' Rand Corp., 1972), p. x, who note that "research has not identi fied a variant of the existing system that is consistently re lated to students' educational outcomes."

30. For example, see Coleman et a l., Equality of Educational Op portunity; Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P. Moynihan, eds., On Equality o fE ducational Opportunity (Mew York: Random House, 1972); Henry M. "Levin, "A New Model of School Effectiveness," in Do Teachers Make a Difference?, pp. 55-78.

31. See Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, pp. 194-221; Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and Phillip R. Kunz, eds"., Complex Organizations and Their Environments (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1972); Richard H. Hall, Organizations: Structure and Process, (Engle wood C liffs: Prentice-Hal IV Inc.',' 19^72), pp. 295-348; Elihu Katz and Brenda Danet, eds. Bureaucracy and the Public: A Reader in O fficial-C lient Relations (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 31 -156;' iShTrley Terreberry, "The Evolution of Organizational Environments," ASQ 12 (March 1968), pp. 590-613. 11

32. The widely cited Terreberry article noted above is an example of highlighting the importance of the environment, particularly environmental change, while failing to take a reasearch approach.

33. For example, many in the accountability movement stress the re moval of certain teachers and administrators. This study w ill assist in analyzing the extent to which the "fault" lies with the organizational structure itself.

34. George F. Wieland, "The Contributions of Organizational Sociology to the Practice of Management: A Book Review Essay, " Academy of Management Journal 17 (June 1974), p. 320, notes that " it is necessary to conduct research on matters that are amenable to the control of management."

35. Azumi and Hage, eds., Organizational Systems, p. 1. CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this chapter, the characteristics of complex organizations w ill be discussed. The salient features of schools as complex or<* ganizations w ill be described, and several promising theoretical perspectives w ill be reviewed.

What Are Complex Organizations?

The term "complex organization" refers to "a relatively per manent and relatively complex discernible interaction system."' Com plex organizations generally contain subgroups, have clear identities, engage in specific programs of activity, and have specific proce dures for replacing members.^ Perhaps the key feature of organiza tions is their complexity, which simply reflects the differentia tion of tasks along both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions (which necessitates control and coordination). As organizations be come increasingly larger, the interaction systems invariably become more complex; for this reason size is often considered to be_a cru cial variable in organizational analyses.

Complex organizations are generally distinguished on the one hand from small groups such as the family or peer group and on the other hand from such large, relatively undefined groups such as ag gregates (e .g ., crowds and audiences) and communities. Most complex organizations are established for the "pursuit of relatively spe c ific objectives on a more or less continuous basis/'3 Thus complex organizations are generally goan or task oriented;5 they are de liberately established for a specific purpose.5 Olsen stresses the deliberate or planned feature of organizations,7 as compared to the unplanned feature of aggregates or families. However, once estab lished, the goals often change or become ambiguous; survival or ex pansion goals often supersede the original goals.8

The key to complex organizations is their division of labor. Individuals, groups, departments and other segments of organizations carry out specialized tasks. To achieve these tasks, coordination is required. Organizations must have a fa irly well-defined control structure to provide for an overall balance of input and output (true particularly of very large organizations). This control is 12 13 generally supplied by an "authority system,"9 i . e . , a series of offices and/or positions within the organization linked in a hier archy and coordinated by close supervision and standardization.

A complex organization that is goal oriented and has a control - coordination system is also likely to have the stable patterns of interaction mentioned by Corwin, Biddle, and Haas and Drabek;™ the group structure with a collective identity mentioned by Caplow, Cor win, and Fraser;11 the set of offices noted by Biddle;'2 the division of labor and specialization mentioned by Bidw ell;^ the power cen ters that Etzioni14 describes; and the communication system and norma tive order noted by Scott and H allJS Thus complex organizations can be characterized by several different features, all relating to the relatively large size, well-controlled, deliberate and goal- oriented structure so commonly found in these organizations.

What Is a Bureaucracy?

For many sociologists the discussion of complex organizations is inextricably linked with the Weberian notion of bureaucracy, which is a particular way of organizing the administrative component of an organization. Merton claims that Weber may properly be regarded ’ as the "founder of the systematic study of bureaucracy."I6 Weber was interested in bureaucracy because i t represented another facet of the process of rationalization--a process which seemed to him to characterize modern society in contrast to "traditional" forms of society. But Weber described his concept in ideal typical fashion,1' i.e ., in terms of the logical extremes of a rational ordering of social organization, whose primary objective was that of efficiency. Without noting all of Weber's oft-quoted criteria of bureaucracy,1® a few central ideas can be outlined.19 First, organizations have explicit goals. Second, organizational behaviors are viewed as ra tional and goal-oriented. Third, the hallmark of the bureaucratic organization is efficiency. Fourth, the organizational structure is viewed as manipulable so as to increase effectiveness. Fifth, de cisions must be made rationally. And sixth, any departures from rationality are assumed to be random mistakes. While few organiza tions attain all of these as well as Weber's criteria simultaneously,211 the bureaucratic model as proposed by Weber has served as a very valuable heuristic device to focus social scientific interest on organizations, which already in Weber's time could easily be charac terized as "complex" organizations.

However, i t is important to note that a bureaucracy is one particular pattern of variables. It is only one type of complex organization. 14

Types of Organizations

Complex organizations are not of a uniform type;^ and, "we. know enough about organizations now to recognize that most generali zations that are applicable to a ll organizations are too obvious, or too general, to be of much use for specific predictions."22 At tempts to both develop and test a general theory applicable to all organizations have made li t t l e headway. The diversity of various types of organizations hinders the development of such a theory.

Early formulations of organizational "theory" dealt primarily with business organizations.23 Callahan24 depicts how a business organization perspective shaped the evolution of schools, a non business organization. In the fiftie s and sixties research on?organizations began to include hospitals,23 schools,23 colleges, ' com munity service organizations,28 police organizations,20 and voluntary organizations.30 However, there was a fair degree of uncertainty concerning the generality of organizational concepts developed in analyses of business organizations.

Various typologies have been suggested to assist organizational theorists and researchers. Among the earliest were the Blau-Scott and Etzioni typologies.3^ Blau and Scott organized organizations around the beneficiary: 1) the rank-and-file participants benefit most in mutual benefit associations; 2) owners or managers benefit most in business organizations; 3) clients benefit most in service organizations; and 4) the public at large benefits most in common weal organizations. The Etzioni typology is based on (a) sanctions employed by the organization (coercive, remunerative, or normative), and (b) type of membership involvement (alienative, calculative, or moral). Schools are located in the service organization type a la Blau and Scott and in the moral-normative type a la Etzioni.

Organizations can also be typologically arranged by technology. Woodward32 distinguishes three general types of technology: unit and small batch processes, large batch processes, and mass or assembly processes. Schools generally are either large batch or mass in type. Perrow33 differentiates organizations according to (a) the degree of va ria b ility in the raw materials processed, and (b) the extent to which operational problems are fam iliar to the workers. Schools vary along both these dimensions. Thompson34 discusses three types of technology: "Long-linked" technology, which involves serial inter dependence; "mediating" technology, in which workflows center on bringing individuals together to satisfy their various needs; and "intensive" technology, which emphasizes the individual project or the individual. Schools can be included in all three types. Typo logical attempts to classify organizations using presumably salient characteristics of organizations have met with little success, 15 particularly from a theory building or research perspective.35 Thus contemporary researchers tend to analyze only one, or very simi lar, types of organizations at a time, although replications often occur in different settings.

One distinction in defining organizations that has proven use ful is the distinction between service and business organizations.36 As noted previously, early work on organizations was done primarily on business organizations. More recently, theorists have indicated the relative applicability of this research to service organizations such as schools and social work agencies. Most definitions of or ganizations, including those noted above, are meant to apply equally well to business as well as to service organizations. However, some writers have outlined the key features of professionally staffed ser vice organizations. For example, Montagna37 defines a professional service organization as one in which 1) members of one or more pro fessional groups define and achieve the primary organizational goal; 2) the majority of the people in the organization are professionals; 3) authority in professional matters is placed in the hands of pro fessional associations; and 4) the professional promotes norms of personal autonomy. L itw a k 3 8 used the term "professional bureau cracy" to emphasize the overlap between bureaucratic business or ganizations and professionally staffed organizations. Corwin39 highlights the contrasts in the bureaucratic and professional- employee principles in professional bureaucratic organizations. Al though the analytical problems posed by "professional bureaucracies" are not the focus of analysis, the fact that schools are professional bureaucracies w ill be kept in mind.

Are Schools Complex Organizations?

In order to apply the complex organizations perspective to schools, i t must fir s t be clearly demonstrated that schools are com plex organizations. Several researchers and organizational theorists believe so; Beck, Bidwell, Blau and Scott, Corwin, Dornbush, Etzioni, G riffith s, Haas and Drabek, Hall, Herriott and Hodgkins, Katz, Price, Thompson, and Williams are among those who explicitly view the school as a complex organization.40 Several of these writers indicate the • c riteria upon which their definitions of schools as complex organiza tions are based. Bidwell^l notes that schools have such bureaucra tic characteristics as 1) a functional division of labor, 2) the de finition of staff roles as offices, 3) a hierarchical ordering of offices, and 4 ) operation according to rules of procedure. Moeller's index of bureaucracy^ in schools included such characteristics as a uniform course of study, communication through established channels, explicit statement of policies, and specific lines of authority. 16

However, schools are not to be equated with the Weberian de fin itio n of bureaucracy. Weber's definition of bureaucracy is most applicable to organizations dealing with uniform, repetitive events in which a routine technology is applied.43 Such organizations are most effective when they comply with Weber's criteria of impersonal relations, prior specification of job authority, hierarchical au thority, extensive rules, and extensive division of labor. Schools more often deal with nonuniform, nonrepetitive events. That is , the individual needs of students are such that a nonroutine technology is more appropriate. Such nonuniform organizations operate more e f fectively with horizontal patterns of authority, a mixture of de cisions on policy and on administration, little prior limitation of duty and privileges to a given office, personal rather than impersonal relations, and a minimum of rules. Schools have characteristics of both uniform and nonuniform organizations; since they deal with c li ents whose needs vary widely, i t seems safe to conclude that schools are more nonuniform than uniform.

Although i t is generally recognized that schools can, in fact, be defined as complex organizations, there are some features of schools that set them apart from other complex organizations, particularly business organizations. However, some of the distinguishing charac teristics of schools turn out to be distinguishing characteristics of service organizations in general. For example, goals in schools are less clearly defined and less often attained than in other or ganizations. Levin44 indicates that whereas firms have knowledge of relevant production sets and discretion over the way inputs are used, schools lack both these control features. Lefton and Rosengren4^ differentiate between service organizations in general and business organizations:

...emphasis upon such issues as rational efficiency, internal structures of authority and control, and the maintenance of organizational autonomy, while of obvious importance for the sake of better under standing economic and administrative organizations, may be of less u tility in the analysis of organi zations concerned with the social and personal di lemmas of men.

Lefton^ highlights the difference between service and business organizations: 1) the internal procedures and forms of service organi zations must be able to attract and then motivate temporary members or clients to be served, and 2) the transactions of service organi zations traditionally are not determined by the requirements of the "market place" in any direct sense. 17

Thus schools are both similar to and dissimilar from "tradi tional" forms of complex organizations. This dissimilarity in no.way precludes an application of the complex organizations perspective to schools; however, this dissim ilarity should be kept in mind in an analysis of schools within this frameowrk, since varying interpre tations may be appropriate when applying similar organizational con cepts to both business and service organizations.47

Attempts to employ a complex organizations perspective in re search or schools is a recent phenomenon. A decade ago Bidwell^8 commented that "few students of organizations have turned their a t tention to schools, and few students of schools have been sensitive to their organizational attributes." I t is only in the last decade that commentaries such as those by Bidwell, Corwin, and Katz appeared;49 a few dissertations in which schools were viewed as complex organizatio n s 5 0 have also been published in the past ten years, such as those by Rhea, Fraser, and MacKay.51 Floud and Halsey5* indicate that studying schools as organizations has not been a popular approach because social scientists have limited themselves to examining teacher-student relations in the classroom or historical and philo sophical developments that have shaped education as an institution. Thus, in the words of Corwin, "the underlying structure of schools as social organizations.. .has been largely taken for granted,"53 and "the consequences of organizational settings themselves for learning were for the most part ignored."54 This study makes the organiza tional structure the primary focus of analysis, i . e . , various organi zational variables are examined for their impact on organizational effectiveness.

Complex Organization Theory: Two General Approaches

Explanatory Approach

"Theory" can mean many different things. Perhaps most uses of the term, at least with regard to complex organizations, can be re duced to the "explanation" and the "perspective-providing" roles of theory.55 Theory as explanation strives to "...provide a basis for the prediction and explanation of social behavior."56 Explanatory theory can take on two different forms. The "ideal" form of ex planatory theory is deductive; the social sciences have not yet attained this ideal.57 The social science application of theory is more heuristic and analytical than deductive;58 that is , theory summarizes and interrelates concepts based on previous research and provides an analytical framework within which to order these concepts and extendthe previous research. Subsequently, empirical investiga tions play the role of verifying, modifying, and enlarging the 18

substantive base of theory. Thus theory has an open-ended guiding function rather than a close-ended deductive role; i t provides a framework rather than a logical calculus.

In this study theory w ill be used more heuristically than de ductively. As have Blau and Schoenherr, we "have tried to raise problems of theoretical significance, many of which were inspired by the previous literature." The basic question asked is: how can we explain organizational effectiveness in schools? More specifically, which organizational and environmental characteristics explain or ganizational effectiveness in schools? The research hypotheses and questions are carefully grounded in the literature on complex or ganizations, but they are not systematically or propositionally in terrelated in a deductive fashion. Furthermore, the analysis of the role of the environment serves largely an heuristic function since few works on the environment are empirical. This heuristic approach is seen most clearly in the analysis of the environment as an ex ternal factor. Although possible effects of the environment have been discussed in the literatu re, l it t le empirical research has been car ried out on these effects. In short, this study stresses the heur istic approach within the explanatory application of theory.

Perspective-Providing Approach

The contribution of the explanatory application of theory to research lies in the highlighting of salient variables and inter relationships. The perspective-providing application of theory plays a similar, role: various "theoretical approaches" or "perspec tives" on a particular subfield (each perspective is usually identi fied with a particular period of history) call attention to particu lar aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. In doing so, a perspective highlights certain variables or types of variables that perhaps had not been considered prior to the rise of that particular perspective. The role of theoretical perspectives is particularly germane for newly developed areas of investigation.

Perspectives have played an important role in moving the field of organizational analysis from a theoretical vacuum to a stage of incipient deductive theorizing. As indicated above, the field of complex organizations does not have theories in the sense of empiri-. cally verified, logically linked propositions. However, the fie ld is characterized by "a number of perspectives or conceptualizations that are becoming increasingly crystallized and increasingly based upon previous research."60 Although all of these perspectives are not thoroughly reviewed here, those perspectives which are relevant to the topic and approach utilized in this study are described below. 19

Specific Perspectives

Weber's Perspective

The importance of Weber's conceptualizations of organizations for contemporary research can be seen in both the numerous studies referring to his ideal type bureaucracy and in studies testing some of the implicit and explicit hypotheses in his formulation. We ber’s ideal type bureaucracy embodies the previously mentioned two key features of organizations—rationality and goal orientation. Thus the main criteria of organizational evaluation are efficiency and effectiveness. Presumably the ingredients of the ideal type bureaucratic organizations, such as specialization, a division of labor, a hierarchical structure of offices, and a system of rules and regulations, function so as to maximize efficiency and effec tiveness in an organization, especially within a rationally organized setting.®'

Weber fe lt that the bureaucratic arrangement was superior to other forms because i t had more precision and speed, and reduced both material and personal costs.62 An organizational structure requires a bureaucratic (or "rational-legal") type of authority structure for maximal effectiveness. In such an authority structure the members of the organization accept a ruling as justified because i t agrees with a set of more abstract rules which they consider le gitimate. Charismatic and traditional authority structure types are less effective in a rationally ordered society: charismatic author ity structures lack a division of labor and specialization, and tra ditional authority structures are too caught up with nonrelevant political and kinship factors. In the bureaucratic authority struc ture power is generally highly centralized; i.e ., there exists a clear line of authority and power allocation from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom. This combination of centralization and for malization affords organizational officials a greater degree of con trol over their subordinates.6^

This study w ill draw upon Weber's rational perspective in several ways. First, the goal orientation emphasis of Weber is retained. Cognitive achievement is considered to be a primary goal of schools as organizations. Achievement is.seen to be a main goal whether o ffi cial goals or operative goals64 are stressed. The school handbook or charter, which represents the o ffic ia l goals, generally contains references to cognitive achievement skills as well as non-traits such as "character development," "citizenship," and similar other social skills.65 In terms of operative goals, i.e ., designated ob jectives based on the actual operating policies of the organization, the emphasis of cognitive achievement as a primary goal can be even more clearly seen. Observations in classrooms, talks with teachers, and reviews of assessment and accountability plans all clearly reveal 20

the primacy of cognitive achievement as a goal. The emphasis given to this achievement goal can be most clearly exemplified in states with assessment programs; teachers increasingly teach for the test in the interests of improving the overall school score on these tests.66 Thus school achievement becomes the operationalized defini tion of goal attainment, and hence the dependent variable, in this study.

The second contribution of Weber to this study lies in the ex plicit assertion on Weber's part that a bureaucratic mode of organi zational structure is the most predictive of efficiency and effec tiveness. Thus Weber suggests that such variables as centralization, standardization, formalization, and specialization are positively associated with organizational efficacy. Weber's contribution is twofold: first, he suggests a particular approach (i.e ., organiza tion as bureaucracy) as being the most predictive of organizational efficacy; second, he suggests specific variables that comprise the bureaucratic model, which has the effect of making the model researchable. Weber's basic assertion--that bureaucratic structuring increases organizational efficacy--becomes the main research question in this study of schools. This question becomes particularly cru cial in view of the increasing bureaucratization of school systems in the past half century.6?

Weber's thinking certainly has its shortcomings, some of which are taken into consideration in this analysis. For one thing, Weber failed to consider alternative patterns of characteristics besides that of bureaucratization.66 He also failed to recognize the struc tural implications of dealing with uniform events versus nonuniform events. Perhaps his most important oversight is his total disregard for the environment, both internal and external. The informal re lations that develop in an organizational setting is the main example of internal environmental factors. External environmental factors are comprised primarily of characteristics of the surrounding en vironment, such as quality, s ta b ility , permeability, sociocultural characteristics, and the existence of other organizations. This analysis incorporates only external environmental factors; the general question for analysis is: what role do external environmental fac tors play in the relationships between organizational variables and organizational output (or effectiveness)?69

Parsons' Perspective

Parsons is a second major theorist whose ideas are used in this study. Parsons notes that all social systems, and therefore complex organizations, must solve four basic problems: 1) adaptation, which refers to a system's accommodation to environmental demands; 21

2) goal achievement, which refers to the definition of objectives and the mobilization of resources to attain these objectives; 3) inte gration, which refers to coordination processes; and 4) latency, which refers to the maintenance over time of a system's motivational and cultural patterns.7^ parson's stress on the "primacy of orien-. tation to the attainment of a specific goal"71 sets his analysis of organizations apart from that of other social systems. The attain ment of a goal for an organization is defined in part as the relation between the organization and the relevant parts of the external en vironment; thus, adaptation fosters goal achievement. Parsons thus views organizations as a major mechanism for mobilizing power in the interests of goal attainment ("trained capacity" in the case of schools); the particular structures devised to attain goals (and solve the other three basic problems) w ill vary with the type of organization under consideration.

Parsons also observes that organizations exhibit three distinct levels of responsibility and control, or levels of hierarchy. The technical level is where the actual "product" of the organization is manufactured or dispensed. As Thompson notes,72 "the primary exi gencies to which the technical suborganization is oriented are those imposed by the nature of the technical task, such as the materials which must be processed and the kinds of cooperation of different people required to get the job done effectively." Thompson refers to the conduct of classes by teachers as an example. Corwin73 notes that at this level teachers are concerned primarily with the problems of adaptation and goal achievement. The second level, the managerial, has a coordinating and mediating function. At this level various parts of the organization are coordinated and the demands of the institutional subsystem are integrated with those from the tech nical subsystem; Corwin74 notes that at this level the principal and his staff are concerned primarily with coordination problems. The institutional level is the level at which the organization is con nected to the wider social system; this wider social system is the source of the meaning, legitimation, or higher-level support which makes the implementation of the organization's goals possible. Thus an organization may be relatively independent in terms of formal controls; but in terms of the meaning of the functions performed by the organization, and consequently its rights to command resources and to subject its clients to discipline, an organization such as a school is never entirely independent. Corwin75 suggests that the governing board, which represents the public, is primarily concerned with the remaining problem of latency ( i. e . , maintenance of cultural patterns over time);

Parsons' writings give some direction to this study. In the fir s t place, as does Weber, Parsons emphasizes the goal orientation 22

of organizations. This emphasis gives further legitimacy to an inves tigation of the relative degree of organizational effectiveness (i.e ., goal attainment) and the organizational variables associated with e f fectiveness.

In the second place, this study includes organizational variables related to three of the four basic problems mentioned by Parsons. The fir s t, goal achievement, is examined via organizational effec tiveness and becomes the dependent variable. The second, adaptation to the environment, is not directly examined; however, relationships with the immediate environment w ill be a major concern, particularly the effects of permeability and stability on effectiveness. The third problem is integration, which represents coordination and con trol processes. This concept is assessed by such variables as stan dardization and closenss of supervision. In short, two of the prob lem areas mentioned by Parsons—adaptation and integration—are in directly related to the third, which is goal achievement.

Third, Parsons' notion that organizations are subsystems of a larger system is retained in the study. That is, this study attempts to examine Parsons' implicit concern about how organizations relate to the larger environment. Fourth, Parsons' structural-functional or ientation, which generally relates some aspect of the structure to some aspect of the function is retained. The relationships of several structural variables, such as centralization and standardization, to organizational performance, in this case effectiveness, are examined. According to this perspective, if the structure seems to facilitate performance, it is functional; if it fails to facilitate performance, or facilitates performance unrelated to the main goals of the organi zation, it is dysfunctionalThe basic point is that structure to some extent determines the kinds of levels of performance; 77 this study attempts to make this assertion more researchable than is evi dent in Parsons' formulation.

The Goal Perspective

The goal emphasis of both Weber and Parsons has more recently crystallized into what has become known as the "goal approach."78 Proponents of this approach stress the impact of goal orientation for the structure of organizations^ they also stress goal attainment as the most appropriate indicator of organizational effectiveness. How ever, this emphasis seems somewhat one-sided. I t is equally possible that structure influences the goals of an organizations, particularly i f the structure is operating dysfunctionally under the current goal s.80 Under certain circumstances, the relationship between struc ture and goals is reciprocal. 23

In a recent assessment of the goal approach, Georgopolous®* notes that studies in this vein are somewhat shortsighted. Resear chers employing this approach often have d iffic u lty in accurately determining organizational goals; goals are not the uniform phenomena that many researchers assume them to be;^2 goals are seldom fu lly attained; the organization often has different goals from those it claims to have; and the organization is viewed as a self-enclosed entity existing in, but not necessarily interacting with, the sur rounding environment. Also, as noted above, goal displacement is not uncommon. Many of these shortcomings are a function of allowing a model to overstructure the scientist's analyses.

Priced suggests that the following four caveats be kept in mind when using the goal approach:

1) the focus should be on the major decision-makers 2) the focus should be on organizational goals 3) the focus should be on operative goals 4) the focus should be on intentions and activities

Academic achievement, in this analysis of schools, seems to f u lf ill these c rite ria . Key decision-makers in education (boards and super intendents) generally stress academic achievement, particularly in the wake of pressures for accountability. Academic achievement is obviously an organizational goal as well as an operative goal, judging from the time and attention given to achievement. Intentions refer to the teachers' view of what teachers are in fact observed to be doing; the primacy of academic achievement with respect to both in tentions and activities is apparent from even cursory observations of schools.

Thus academic achievement appears to be a salient goal for schools. However, two points should be stressed. The fir s t is that academic achievement is only one of the goals schools strive to attain. As noted in the previous chapter, other goals commonly pursued by schools include citizenship skills, values clarification, social s k ills , problem-solving a b ilitie s , and vocational s k ills . These a l ternative goals are receiving more attention recently due to a sen timent on teachers' part expressing dissatisfaction with the over emphasis on academic achievement; this sentiment arises in large part in response to statewide assessment programs, which measure only academic achievement and ta c itly encourage teachers to "teach for the test." Teachers and parents are also becoming increasingly aware of the need for schools to meet alternative goals.

The second point to be stressed is that the primacy of aca demic achievement over other goals is d iffic u lt to establish simply 24 because adequate empirical measures for the other goals do not exist. Thus perhaps the main reason for the popularity of academic achieve ment as a dependent variable in studies of school effectiveness lies in its easy operationalization. Consequently, the relative priority of academic achievement over other goals cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. Although academic achievement thus becomes the predomi nant goal in the literatu re, more attention should be focused on a l ternative goals vis-ci-vis academic achievement.

The Open Systems Perspective

A fourth theoretical perspective that has relevance for this study is the open-systems perspective. The systems perspective stresses two features of organizations: the interdependence of the parts of an organization and the existence of the organization in an environment. In the words of Miles. 4

An open social system is a bounded collection of interdependent parts, devoted to the accomp lishment of some goal or goals, with the parts maintained in a steady state in relation to each other and the environment by means of (1) the standard modes of operation, and (2) feedback from the environment about the conse*- quences of system actions.

In describing the school in this open systems approach Ov/ens observes that:85

we have a picture of an open social system, a school which exists in a larger environment which is social and physical and interacts with this environment as w ell.

A system, such as an organization, exists in an environment (the suprasystem) and has within i t an administrative apparatus, which is the subsystem. The main characteristic of the organization's relation to its environment is its interaction with that environment— thus the term open systems. The particular environment within which the organization is located has a considerable impact on the struc ture of the organization, i.e ., similar organizations located in environments with varying levels of stab ility often have very d if ferent organizational structures. As Miles noted above, organiza tions have feedback and regulatory mechanisms to deal with environ mental pressures as well as with alterations in organizational struc ture caused by these pressures. Thus organizations also d iffe r with 25 respect to the degree and scope of environmental impact; that is, boundaries .between the organization and its environment vary in the degree to which they are permeable and the degree to which this per meability is specified.

Several of the major elements of the open systems perspective are d iffic u lt to operationalize,86 e.g., concepts such as "adapta tion" or "boundary." In fact, systems theorists seldom have identi fied those aspects of the environment they consider crucial to analyze. Empirical studies employing systems concepts are exceptional. This study does not apply the systems perspective in its entirety; only the stress given to the potential impact of environmental influences on organizational structure and functions is utilized. Schools are explicitly defined as existing in an environment that 1) may have an impact on the effectiveness of schools, and 2) may have a circum scribing influence on the relationship of the organizational variables with effectiveness.8? The open systems perspective legitimizes both of these suppositions.

Other Perspectives

There are also many other perspectives about the nature of organizations.88 Minimal attention will be given in this study to the classical perspective with its emphasis on scientific management, the neoclassical approach with its emphasis on the decision making process, the human relations approach with its stress on the role of employees' motives and roles, the conflict perspective which le g iti mated the analysis of conflict in organizations, the exchange school with its emphasis on persons and their interactions, the emphasis on the role of technology found in the technological perspective, and the inducements-contribution approach of March and Simon. Another approach that is popular in the analysis of schools that w ill be ignored here is the analysis of organizational climates.89 This ap proach stresses the role of the leader in setting an "open" climate; research studies using this perspective examine the relationship of organizational climate to such dependent variables as educational output or job dissatisfaction.90 The minimal attention given the above perspectives (and others) does not represent an estimation of their theoretical worth; i t simply indicates that these perspectives have less direct bearing upon the topic under analysis.

Conclusions

I t should be apparent that the perspectives drawn upon are not theoretically "tight" and do not, therefore, yield clear hypotheses. However, they do suggest salient concepts and variables for analysis. 26

In summary, the approach taken in this study:

1. is more heuristic than deductive, 2. stresses the nonuniform nature of schools, 3. recognizes the goal orientation most organizations have, and recognizes that the relationship between structural variables and goal attainment may be reciprocal, 4. focuses on key characteristics of organization, as defined by Weber, 5. focuses on the organization as i t exists in an environ ment, 6. defines academic achievement as the indicator of or ganizational effectiveness in schools.

Hall9! refers to the approach to be taken in this study as a "goal-oriented social systems" perspective. This perspective avoids the p itfa lls of viewing organizations as totally closed systems fo cused on goals or as totally open systems in which organizations blindly respond to external threats and internal conflicts. From this vantage point theoretical perspectives become suggestions for research, rather than merely prescriptions.

This chapter has set the background for the discussion of vari ables and tentative hypotheses in the next chapter. The discussion has been couched in terms of the overall research questions: 1) do struc tural variables have a bearing on organizational effectiveness? and 2) do selected environmental variables have a bearing on effective ness, and what is their impact on the relationships between the structural variables and effectiveness?

The next chapter separately discusses the impact of the or ganizational and environmental variables on organizational effective ness. Each variable is defined and the literature reviewed with re gard to its potential impact on effectiveness. 27

NOTES TO CHAPTER I I

1. Thomas E. Drabek and J. Eugene Haas, Understanding Complex Organizations (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. G. Brown, 1974), p. 108.

2. Ronald G. Corwin, "Education and the Sociology of Complex Or ganizations," in On Education--Sociological Perspectives, eds. D.A. Hansen and J.E. Gerstl "(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), p. 161.

3. W. Richard Scott, "Theory of Organizations," in Handbook of Modern Sociology, ed. R.E.L. Faris (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964), p. 488.

4. Richard H. H all, Organizations: Structure and Process (Engle wood C liffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. ,1 9 7 2 ), p. 9; Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962), p. 5. Later in their book (p. 223) Blau and Scott go on to note that "perhaps the minimum definition of formal organization is that collective effort is explicitly organized for specific ends." See also Max Weber, Basic Cone cepts in Sociology, trans. H.P. Secher (New York: Citadel Press, 1962), p. 115, where he defines an organization as a "system of continuous activity pursuing a goal of a specified kind."

5. RonaId G. . Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism: A Study of Organi zational Conflict i n High Schools (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1970), p. 24; Daniel E. Griffiths, "Administrative Theory and Change in Organizations," in Innovation in Edu cation, ed. M.B. Miles (New York: Teachers College Press, Co lumbia University, 1964), p. 426.

6. Merlin B. Brinkerhoff and P hillip R. Kunz, eds., Complex Or ganizations and their Environments (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1972), p. xiv; Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, Social Change in Complex Organizations (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 7-11; Wolf V. Heydebrand, ed., Comparative Organizations: The Results of Empirical Research TEnglewood C liffs: ’ Prentice- Hall , In c ., 1973), p.^C See also Amitai Etzioni, Modern Or ganizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 4, who prefers to avoid terms such as bureaucracy, formal organization, and institution in favor of using the term or ganization "to refer to planned units, deliberately structured." Koya Azumi and Jerald Hage, eds., Organizational Systems: A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Organizations (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972), p. 7, relate the objectives of the organization to "some larger institutional process." Many of 28

these emphases on the planned nature of complex organizations go back to Sumner's distinction between "crescive" and "enacted" social institutions (See William G. Sumner, Folkways (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1907), p. 54.

7. Marvin E. Olsen, The Process of Social Organization (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), p. 31. I t should be noted that Olsen does not use the term "complex organization," rather the concept is subsumed under his term "association," a type of social organization "that is more or less purposefully created for the attainment for relatively specific and limited goals" (p. 92).

8. For example, see Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (Glencoe, 111,: Free Press, 1954); Philip Selz- nick, TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkeley: University of Califor nia Press, 1949);’ and David L. S ills , The Volunteers: Means and Ends in a National Organization (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 19571: ~ ~ 9. See Corwin, Militant Professionalism, p. 24; Bruce J. Biddle, "The Institutional Context," in Scholars in Context: The Effects of Environments on Learning, ed. W.J. Campbell (Sydney: John Wiley and Sons, Australasia Pty. Ltd., 1970), p. 160; G.S. Fra ser, "Organizational Properties and Teacher Reactions" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1967); Scott, "Theory of Organizations," p. 488; Hall, Organizations, p. 9; Phillip Selz- nick, TVA and the Grass Roots "[Berkeley: University of Califor nia Press, 1949), p. 25. Chester I. Barnard, "Organizations as Systems of Cooperation," in A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, 2nd ed., ed. Amitai Etzibni (New York: Holt, JTinehart and Winston, 1969), p. 17, emphasized the coordination feature of organizations: "an organization is defined as a sys tem of consciously coordinated personal activities or forces." Charles E. Bidwell, "The School as a Formal Organization," in Handbook of Modern Organizations, ed. James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965), p. 1013, writes that the distinc tive structural arrangements of organizations, in his case schools systems, "can be viewed as an adaptation, perhaps largely an unanticipated consequence of historical circumstance, to the exigencies of coordination."

10. Corwin, Militant Professionalism, p. 24; Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 160; J. Eugene Haas and Thomas E. Drabek, Comp!ex Organizat ions: A Sociological Perspective (New York: Macmillan, 1973) ,' p . 8. 29

11. Theodore Caplow, Principles of Organization (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964). Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism p. 24; Fraser, "Organizational Properties.*' '

12. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 160.

13. Bidwell, "School as Formal Organization," p. 974.

14. Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 3.

15. Scott, "Theory of Organizations," p. 488; Hall, Organizations, p. 9.

16. Robert K. Merton, Alisa Gray, Barbara Hockey, and Hanan C. Sel- vin, eds., Reader in Bureaucracy (Glencoe: Gree Press, 1952), p. 17.

17. See Max Weber, Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford Univer sity Press, 1946); Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, trans. A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947); Max Weber, "The Essentials of Bureaucratic Organizations: An Ideal-Type Construction," in Reader in Bureaucracy, eds. R.K. Merton, et a l., pp. 18-27. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p. 33-34, note that "Weber's construct of ideal-type is an admixture of a concep tual scheme and a set of hypotheses," which leads Blau and Scott to "discard his misleading concept of the ideal-type.11

18. For example, see R.P. Cuzzort, Humanity and Modern Sociological Thought (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), pp. 63-69.

19. These "central ideas" can be found in Haas and Drabek, Comp!ex Organizations, p. 27.

20. For a critique of this rational perspective see Ronald G. Corwin, "Models of Educational Organizations," in Review of Research in Education, 2 vols, eds. Fred N. Kerlinger and John B. Carroll (Itasca, 111.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, 1973-74), 2, pp. 254- 255; and Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, pp. 29-31.

21. In fact, writers in the field do not even agree on terminology to refer to organizations. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, and Peter M. Blau and Richard A. Schoenherr, The Structure of Organizations (New York; Basic Books, 1971) prefer the term "formal organization" to distinguish the deliberate, planned characteristic of organizations from the complexity dimensions. Most of the other writers prefer the term "complex organization." Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, refers to "comparative nrganizations, whi1e James G. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education 30

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968) simply refers to "bureau cracy." S till others, such as Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966) prefer the simple term "organization."

22. Charles Perrow, Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View (Belmont, C a lif.: Wadsworth, 1970), p. 19."

23. For example, see Barnard, "Organizations as Systems"; Herbert A. Simon, Adminstrative Behaviour (New York: Macmi11 an, 1958); and . Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Row, 1947).

24. Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chi cago: University of Chicago "Press, 1962)".

25. For example, Wolf V. Heydebrand, "Autonomy, Complexity, and Non-Bureaucratic Coordination in Professional Organizations," in Comparative Organizations, ed. Wolf V. Heydebrand, pp. 158- 189.

26. For example, R.G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," ASQ 14 (December 1969), pp. 507-520; Burton R. Clark, "Inter- organizational Patterns in Education," ASQ 10 (September 1965), pp. 224-237.

27. For example, Edward Gross, "Universities as Organizations: A Research Approach," ASR 33 (June 1968), pp. 518-544.

28. For example, Rita Braito, Steve Paulson, and Gerald Klonglon, "Domain Consensus: A Key Variable in Interorganizational Analy sis," in Complex Organizations and Their Environments, eds. M.B. Brinkerhoff and P. Kunz'TDubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1972), pp. 176-192; Hage and Aiken, Social Change; Sol Levine and Paul E. White, "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relations," ASQ 5 (March 1961), pp. 583- 601.

29. For example, David J. Bordua and Albert J. Reiss, "Command, Con trol and Charisma: Reflections on Police Bureaucracy," American Journal of Sociology (hereafter abbreviated as AJS) 72 (July 1967), pp. 68-76.

30. For example, Ruth C. Young and Olaf F. Larson, "The Contribution of Voluntary Organizations to Community Structure," AJS 76 (September 1965), pp. 178-186. 31

31. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, pp. 45-58; Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press, 1961}.

32. Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1964). ’

33. Charles Perrow, Organizational Analysis (Belmont, C alif.: Wadsworth, 1970).

34. Thompson, Organizations.

35. For example, see Richard H. Hall, J. Eugene Haas, and Norman J. Johnson, "An Examination of the Blau-Scott and Etzioni Typolo gies," ASQ.12 (June 1967), pp. 118-139.

36. Of course the dichotomy between work and professional organiza tions is not truly dichotomous; in fact, many professionals can be found in the "traditional" work organizations.

37. Paul D. Montagna, "Professionalization and Bureaucratization in Large Professional Organizations," AJS 74 (September 1968), pp. 138-145.

38. Eugene Litwak, "Models of Bureaucracy 'Which Permit Conflict," AJS 67 (September 1961), pp. 177-185. ...

39. Ronald G. Corwin, "Professional Persons in Public Organizations,11 Educational Administration Quarterly 1 (Winter 1965), pp. 1-22. See also Richard H. Hall, "Professionalization and Bureaucra tization," ASR 33 (February 1968), pp. 92-104, and George A. Miller, "Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation Among In dustrial Scientists and Engineers," ASR 32 (October 1967), pp. 755-768.

40. E.M. Beck and Michael Betz, "A Comparative Analysis of Organiza tional Conflict in Schools," Sociology of Education 48 (Winter 1975), pp. 59-74; Bidwell, "School as Formal Organization;" Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p. 51; Corwin, M ilitant Pro fessionalism; Stanford N. Dornbusch, Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975); Amitai Et zioni, "A Basis for Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations," in A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, 2nd ed., ed. A. Etzioni (New York: HoTt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), pp. 59-76; G riffith s, "Administrative Theory," p. 426; Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations ,p. 213; Hall, Organizations; Fred E. Katz, "The^School as a Complex Organization," Harvard Educational Review 34 (Summer 1964), pp. 428-455; Robert E.Herriott 32

and Benjamin J. Hodgkins, The Environment of Schooling Formal Education as an Open Social System- (ErTglewood Cl iffs Prentice- Hall, 1 9 7 3 7 ; James I. Price ^Organizational Effectiveness (Home wood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,' 1968); James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (Hew York: McGraw-Hill, 1967)*, Rich ard C. Williams et al., Effecting Organizational Renewal in Schools: A Social Systems Perspective (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974).

41. Bidwell, "School as Formal Organization," p. 974. Richard H. Hall, "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment," AJS 69 (July 1963), pp. 32-40, describes bureaucratic organiza tions in much the same terms, although his research indicates that these characteristics are not necessarily all present to the same degree in actual organizations.

42. Gerald Moeller, "Bureaucracy and Teachers’ Sense of Power," School Review 72 (Summer 1964), pp. 137-157.

43. Litwak, "Models of Bureaucracy."

44. Henry M. Levin, "A New Model of School Effectiveness," in Do Teachers Make a Difference? (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1970), pp. 55-78.

45. Mark Lefton and William R. Rosengren, "Organizations and C li ents: Lateral and Longitudinal Dimensions," ASR 31 (December 1966), pp. 802-881. Etzioni, Sociological Reader, p. 197; states that the usual generalizations "apply only to certain types of organizations--to economic and governmental bureaucra cies, for instance--but that they are not applicable to many others."

46. Mark Lefton, "Client Characteristics and Structural Outcomes: Toward the Specification of Linkages," in Organizations and Clients: Essays in the Sociology of Service, eds. W.R. Rosengren and M. Lefton (Columbus, Charles*E. M e rrill, 1970), p. 19.

47. For example, the staff-line relationship in professional organi zations tends to be reversed in comparison to other functional types, thus an increase in centralization may be concomitant with an increase in production in nonprofessional organizations while being concomitant with a decrease in production in pro fessional organizations (Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch Organization and Environment (Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1960 and Price, Organizational Effectiveness.). 33

48. Bidwell, "School as Formal Organization," p. 972. Five years after Bidwell's comment, Biddle, "Institutional Context, " p. 159, observed that "there are s t ill very few studies of the organizational properties of schools." Although Willard Waller, The Sociology of Teaching (New York: Wiley, 1932) recognized several organizational features of schools, he failed to sys tematically define schools in complex organizational terms.

49. Bidwell, "School as Formal Organization," Ronald G. Corwin, A Sociology of Education (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965); Katz, "School as Complex Organization."

50. Fraser, "Organizational Properties;" D.A. Mackey, "An Empirical Study of Bureaucratic Dimensions and Their Relation to Other Characteristics of School Organizations," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alberta, 1964); B.R. Rhea, "Organizational Analy sis and Education: An Exercise in Sociological Theory," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1964).

51. The term "complex" should be emphasized, since many researchers (particularly educators) used the term "organizational" to refer to studies of classroom structure, departmentalization vs. self-containment, open vs. traditional structure, day care vs. Headstart experiences, leadership "styles," peer groups, team teaching, etc. Others are more nebulous; Williams et a l ., Organizational Renewal, p. 3, define the school as a complex organization in the sense that "the school is composed of many intersecting and dynamic factors."

52. Jean Floud and A.H. Halsey, "The Sociology of Education," Current Sociology 7 (January 1958), p. 186, cited by Corwin, M ilitant Professional ism, p. 17.

53. Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism, p. 17.

54. Ronald G. Corwin, "Education and the Sociology of Complex Or ganizations," in On Education-Sociological Perspectives, eds. D.A. Hansen and J.E. Gerstl (New- York:""John Wiley and Sons, 1967), p. 166.

55. See Joseph Bensman and Arthur Vidich, "Social Theory in Field Research," AJS_ 65 (May 1960), pp. 577-584, for a somewhat similar distinction.

56. Haas and Drabeck, Complex Organizations, p. 1. 34

57. Warren S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959), pp. 1-8. Herbert Blumer, "What is Wrong with Social Theory," ASR 19 (February 1954), pp. 3-10, stresses the ambiguous nature of concepts as the basic deficiency in sociological theory.

58. Frederick M. Wirt and Michael Kirst, The Political Web of American Schools (Boston: L ittle , Brown and Co., 1972), pp. 4-20. Regarding this point, Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. (New York: Free Press, 1968), p. 52, observes that:

One must admit that a large part of what is now called sociological theory consists of variables which need somehow to be taken into account rather than clear, verifiable statements of relationships between speci fied variables. We have many concepts but few confirmed theories; many points of view but few theorems; many "approaches" but few arrivals.

59. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations, p. 10.

60. Hall, Organizations, p. 14. Perrow, Organizational Analysis, and Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, also refer to "perspectives." Etzioni, Modern Organizations, and James. L. Price, "The Study of Organizational Effectiveness," Sociolo gical Quarterly 13 (Winter 1972), pp. 3-15, refer to "approaches," while Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism, and "Models," refers to "schools of thought" arid "models."

61. Effectiveness refers to the degree of goal attainment; efficiency refers to the relative amount of resource utilization to produce a unit of output (cf. Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 8). Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p.* 34, stress this ef ficiency implication of Weber: "A careful reading of Weber indicates that he tends to view elements as 'bureaucratic' to the extent that they contribute to administrative efficiency." For further discussion on goals and goal attainment, see Price, "Organizational Effectiveness."

62. Hans Gerth and C. Wright M ills, From Max Weber: Essays in So ciology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 214. The basic reason for the efficiency of the bureaucratic model of organization was its superior discipline and control of role per formance (Gerth and M ills, From Max Weber, p. 197).

63. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p. 32. 35

64. See Charles Perrow, "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organiza tions," ASJR 26 (December 1961), pp. 854-866, and Amitai Et zioni, "Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion," ASQ 5 (September 1960), pp. 257-278.

65. A perusal of a couple local school handbooks yielded these and similar goals.

66. The reason for this emphasis on cognitive achievement is twofold. F irst, cognitive achievement is more easily measured than are some of the other goals (see Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School D istrict Organization and Student Achievement," ASR 40 (February 197^) > P* 57). Second, many educators feel that schools should focus more on the achievement goal and leave the social tra it goals more to the family.

67. D.A. Goslin, The School in Contemporary Society (Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman'and Co.', 1965), pp. 132-133.

68. Arthur L. Stinchcombe, "Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A Comparative Study," ASQ 4 (September 1959), pp. 168-187.

69. Various writers have noted shortcomings in Weber's formulation (see Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, pp. 27-36; Corwin, "Models," pp. 252-255; Etzioni, Modern Organizations, pp. 56-57; and Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, pp. 29-31). Other criticisms include the definitional problem of goals, the exag gerated distinctions among authority types, the naive consensus approach, the problems of ideal-typical formulations, the vary ing forms organizational variables can take, and the oversimpli fied view of organizations that Weber's approach assumes.

70. Talcott Parsons, Robert R. Bales, and Edward A. Shils, Working Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1953), pp. 183-186.

71. Talcott Parsons, "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations, I," ASQ 1 (June 1956), pp. 63-85; Tal cott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Society (New York: Free Press, I960)’, p .T 7 .

72. Thompson, Organizations in Action, p. 10.

73. Corwin, "Models," p. 271.

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid, p. 272. 36

76. Merton, Social Theory (1968 edition), pp. 73-138.

77. This contention has been made explicit by Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," ASQ 10 (December 1965), pp. 289-320; Price, OrganizationalEffectiveness; and Clagett Smith and 0. A ri, "Organizational Structure and Member Consesus," AJS 69 (May 1964), pp. 623-638.

78. See Etzioni, Modern Organi zations; Jaisingh Ghorpade, Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness (Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1971); Perrow, Organizational Analysis; and Price, "Organizational Effectiveness."

79. S.N. Eisenstadt, "Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, and Debu reaucratization, " ASQ 4 (December 1959), pp. 302-320; Parsons, "suggestions"; Selznick, TVA and Grass Roots.

80. Gouldner, Industri al Bureaucracy; Selznick, TVA; S ills , Volunteers.

81. Basil Georgopolous, "An Open-System Theory Model for Organiza tional Research," in Modern Organizational Theory, ed. A.R. Ne- gandhi, pp. 102-131.

82. See Perrow, Organizatio nal Analysis, for a discussion on this point. Schools probably “fi t best in his "output goals," where the referent is the public in contact with the organization. Schools probably do not have "system goals" or "product goals" as Perrow discusses them.

83. Price, "Organizational Effectiveness," pp. 5-6.

84. Mathew B. Miles, "Educational Innovation: The Nature of the Problem," in Innovation in Education, ed. M.B. Miles (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1964), p. 13. For other discussions on systems theory see G riffith s, "Administrative Theory"; Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology of Organizations; and Thompson, Organizations in Action.

85. Owens, Organizational Behavior, p. 53. However, some writers view education as a closed system (e .g ., Lawrence Iannaccone, • Politics in Education (New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1967).

86. Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, p. 92.

87. See also Basil S. Georgopolous and Arnold S. TAnnenbaum, "A Study of Organizational Effectiveness," ASR 22 (October 1957), pp. 534-540, who note: "For theoretical reasons, however, i t is preferable to look at the concept of organizational effectiveness from the point of view of the system its e lf ..." 37

88. See Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations; Corwin, "Models”; Etzioni, Modern Organizations; Negandhi, Modern Organizational Theory; OlsenTTrocess of Social Organi zation; and Perrow, Organizational Analysis.

89. Andrew W. Hal pin and Don B. Croft, Organizational Climate of Schools (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1963).

90. For example, see Alexander M. Feldvebel, "Organizational Climate, Social Class, and Educational Output," Administrator's Notebook 12 (April 1964), pp. 1-4.

91. Richard li. H all, "Introduction," in The Formal Organization, ed. R.H. Hall (Hew York: Basic Books, 1972), pp. 5-6. CHAPTER I I I

THE SPECIFIC VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES

This chapter contains discussions of several variables often used in research on complex organizations, including the dependent variable organizational effectiveness. The meaning and salience of the dependent variable is fir s t noted. Following is a description of each independent variable and a discussion of the probable relation ship between that variable and organizational effectiveness.*

Introduction

Organizational Effectiveness: The Dependent Variable

Although empirical studies have not usually examined effective ness as a dependent variable (particularly in service organizations)J as Azumi and Hage2 have observed, organizational effectiveness "is easily one of the most critical issues." This concern for effective ness is part of a larger growing concern for the effects and conse quences of organizations, in contrast to much of the earlier research attention which focused on determinants of organizations.3 Goal attainment w ill be used here as the key definition of organizational effectiveness.^

Thompson5 states that "complex organizations are most alert to and emphasize scoring well on those criteria which are most visible to important task-environment relations." In the case of schools, the criterion certainly would be cognitive achievement. In fact, Hauser5 states quite simply that "the choice of academic achievement to indicate educational performance requires l i t t l e defense...." We concur. In two separate reviews of the literature on school effective ness, both Averch et a l . and Lavin? conclude that educational out- , comes, i.e ., school productivity, are almost exclusively measured by cognitive achievement.8

*A summary description of the operational definitions used in this study can be found at the end of this chapter in Table 3.1.

38 39

Effectiveness should be distinguished from efficiency. Although there is only minimal discussion of efficiency in organizational re search on schools, the two terms are frequently (and erroneously) used interchangeably in reference to business organizations. Etzioni^ refers to effectiveness as goal attainment and efficiency as "the amount of resources used to produce a unit of output." Similarly, Katz and Kahn10 view efficiency as the amount of input that emerges as product. Thus effectiveness refers to how well an organization f u lf ills its basic goals while efficiency refers to the proportion of organizational resources used in the attainment of organizational goals. Organizational effectiveness is the dependent variable in this study. What follows is a discussion of the relationship of or ganizational variables to organizational effectiveness.

Bureaucracy Vis-a-Vis Effectiveness

As indicated in the previous chapter, Weber viewed the bureau cratic model of organization as the epitome of rationality, effective ness, and efficiency. Many contemporary analysts stress the red tape, maladaptivity and inefficiency of modern bureaucracies, especially those writing of schools.11 However, many of these accounts are jour nalistic and not based on empirical evidence; they are often l i t t l e more than diaries of events in one particularly inefficient school or system. The empirical relationship between the bureaucratic struc ture of schools and school effectiveness remains to be empirically investigated; this study takes a step in this direction.

• Bureaucracy is often treated as a unitary phenomenon. Thus the romantic critics mentioned above view schools as monolithic bureaucracies with l i t t l e regard for what i t is about these bureau cracies that makes for pathological functioning. Some social scien tists have taken a similar unitary approach to an analysis of bureau cracies. For example, Punch notes a positive relationship between bureaucratization and student alienation and a negative correlation between bureaucratization and teacher ratings of satisfactio n.^ In these instances, as well as others, bureaucracies are viewed as a unitary phenomenon and are generally found to be uniformly in e ffi cient. However, i t seems more analytically fru itfu l to examine the components of bureaucracies and then to examine the relationship of each component to organiztional effectiveness.

Components of Bureaucracies

Organizational theorists and researchers each have their own definition of the basic components of complex organizations. Pugh and his colleagues13 have made the most significant contribution in this area. On the basis of a thorough review of the literatu re, they define "six primary dimensions of organization structure:" 40

1. Specialization (division of labor): the distribution of o fficial duties among the number of positions;..degree to ' which specialized activities are carried out by specia lists 2. Standardization: the number of procedures 3. Formalization: extent to which rules and procedures are written 4. Centralization: "locus of authority to make decisions" 5. Configuration: vertical span of control 6. Flexibility: degree of traditionalism

On the basis of a series of factor analyses, Pugh and his colleagues arrived at the following "structural variables:"

1. Structuring of activities: specialization, standardization, formalization 2. Concentration of authority: centralization, autonomy 3. Line control of workflow: subordinate ratio 4. Relative size of the supportive component: vertical span 5. Performance variables: effectiveness, efficiency, adaptive ness, morale

Rosengren^ distinguishes between "two conceptually divergent though empirically related issues:1' the internal structure, which includes such variables as division of labor and specialization, and the ad ministrative leadership influence, which includes such variables as closeness of supervision and centralization. Heydebrand15 speaks of four "clusters" of organizational variables: the organizational en vironment, the organizational goal and task structure, internal struc tural differentiation, and coordination-control. In his discussion of organizational conflict, Corwin^6 notes three types of regulating procedures employed by organizations: standardization of procedures, emphasis on rules, and closeness of supervision. He found that schools are not always consistently bureaucratic on all three dimensions. Like Pugh and his colleagues, Reimann17 factor analyzed eleven struc tural measures developed by other researchers and discovered four general underlying factors: centralization, specialization, formali zation, and administrative density.

The preceding discussion of organizational variables includes the best theoretical and empirical analyses of the previous decade. On the basis of these and other discussions, those variables found to be the most theoretically relevant for analyses of organizations have been selected for inclusion in this study. Three of the variables included are those noted by Reimann on the basis of factor analysis: centralization, formalization, and specialization. The others are all noted by organizational theorists and researchers as also being critical to any organizational analysis: closeness of supervision, size, and flexibility.'8 41

Centralization refers to the degree to which organizational de cisions are made by those at the upper levels of the hierarchy. For malization in this study will be termed "standardization;" this more limited concept refers to the number of rules and how extensively they are applied. Specialization represents the degree of advanced training found in an organization. Closeness of supervision is a con trol measure organizations often employed in addition to, or instead of, standardization; i t refers to the degree to which supervisors review the performance of subordinates. Size has been of perennial interest to^organiztional theorists and taps the relative degree of growth vis-a-vis other organizations. And flexibility simply taps the change climate of the organization.

Following ReimannJ^ a multidimensional model of bureaucracy is assumed to be more appropriate than a unidimensional, Weberian model.20 The variables mentioned above, therefore, are not assumed to be operating in the same direction; in fact, attention to each of these variables individually will undoubtedly yield varying models for optimal organizational effectiveness. Each of the six organiza tional variables will be discussed individually, with particular attention given to the hypothesized relationship to effectiveness.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Centralization

Definition and Salience

Centralization, which reflects the relative amount of decision making power at the various levels in a hierarchy, has often been con sidered one of the most important organizational variables. Azumi and Hage21 observe that "what is clearly important is the distribution of power across a number of levels." Perhaps its reference to the distribution of power makes centralization such a crucial variable; organizational analysts apparently feel that the distribution of power in an organization is largely responsible for the functioning of the organization. Yet, in spite of the salience attached to centraliza tion, "there is surprisingly little published literature on^which to base a formal explication of the decentralization concept."22 Cen- ' tralization is generally defined in terms of the degree to which de cision making is concentrated among the members at various levels of an organization; maximal centralization exists when all decisions are made by persons at the top of the hierarchy and minimal centralization exists when each individual in an organization shares equally in the making of decision.2^ Thus in this study centralization reflects the relative degree of participation by teachers in several decision areas vis-ai-vis the administration. 42

Weber's Approach

As indicated in the previous chapter, Weber viewed the bureau cratic arrangement as the most rational and predictive of effective goal attainment. He saw bureaucracy yielding more precision, speed, and reduced costs due to the superior discipline and control of role performance. Centralization was one of the key features of such a bureaucracy.24 Weber thus im plicitly suggested that high levels of centralization are concomitant with high levels of organizational effectiveness. However, a few caveats are in order. Although cogni-. zant of professional bureaucracies, Weber referred primarily to business organizations in his analyses. Also, his intention was to stress the minimal levels of bureaucratization (and centralization) necessary for rationality and effectiveness; at no point did he state that, without lim its, the higher the level of bureaucratization, the higher the effectiveness. Furthermore, Weber was speaking of an ideal-type bureaucracy--the logical extremes on several continua— rather than organizations actually in existence. Thus he failed to note the difference which the level of complexity (level of profes sionalization) may have on the relationship between centralization and organizational effectiveness.25 Price26 suggests that Weber's thesis applies primarily to non-professional organizations. Blau, Heyde- brand, and Stauffer27 also conclude that a centralized authority structure is appropriate for the coordination of functions differen tiated into simple routines, but not for that of professional special ties. It appears that centralization and professionalization con stitute alternative modes of control.28 Thus, initially it seems appropriate to conclude that, for schools, increases in centraliza tion may not necessarily foster higher levels of effectiveness.

Expected Relationship with Effectiveness

A review of the literature seems also to suggest an inverse relationship betv/een centralization and organizational effective ness. Ratsoy?9Concludes that several studies "seem to suggest that decisions reached through cooperative effo rt have desirable conse quences." Decentralization of decision making can be seen as an attempt to increase the cooperative effo rt referred to by Ratsoy. In a study of firms in India, Negandhi and R eim an36 note that the most effective firms were those which combined decentralization of decision making with highly developed operations control mechanisms. In this case, i t appears that a combination of decentralized decision making and close control over mechanical operations (e .g ., cost, quality, maintenance) is the most predictive of effectiveness. Likert31 describes an experiment in which two divisions of an organization were organized into decentralized and centralized structures. The results: "turnover and the adverse attitudes created by the hierarchically- controlled program tend typically to affect productivity adversely over a long period of time." Marcus and Marcus32 observe that the 43

absenteeism and Toss of morale described by Likert are particularly acute for professionals in highly centralized organizations. In their analysis of service organizations, Aiken and Hage33 found a similar relationship between lack of participation in decision making and alienation from work. I f i t can be assumed that high levels of alienation yield less effective performance, then an inverse relation ship between centralization and effectiveness is again suggested.

Studies of nonbusiness organizations corroborate the general inverse relationship between centralization and organizational ef fectiveness. In their milestone analysis of employment security agencies Blau and Schoenherr34 observe that, in large organizations at least, decentralization of responsibilities seems to improve over all operations. They also found that a large administrative staff relative to organizational size discourages the delegation of respon sibilities and reduces the extent and quality of services rendered.3® Korman3^ found that "high hierarchical control of behavior" seems to accompany behavior characterized by lower levels of achievement, noncreative problem solving, and hostility to change and innovation.

Several researchers have examined the relationship of centrali zation to such outcome variables as adaptability; the implicit as sumption is that organizations which are adept at responding to pres sures for change are more effective overall. In their analysis of organizational change Hage and Aiken3' discovered an inverse rela tionship between centralization and change. Similar findings have been noted by Burns and Stalker38 and Lawrence and Lorsch.3”

The literature on nonbusiness organizations supports Litwak's contention that nonroutine organizations operate effectively under different structural conditons than do routine organizations. Thus Weber's hypothesized direct relation between centralization and e f fectiveness does not apply to nonbusiness organizations. In short, studies on nonbusiness organizations (other than schools) suggest an inverse relationship between centralization and effectiveness.

Literature on Schools

Much research on the centralization-effectiveness relationship focuses on schools. Mackay40 found that achievement scores were higher in schools with lower hierarchies of authority, i.e ., less centralization. Few researchers make the connection as direct as does Mackay. Often an attempt is made to link the hypothesized deleterious effects of centralization to job dissatisfaction on the part of teachers; this reduced job satisfaction presumably results in inferior teaching and hence lowers overall organizational e f fectiveness. The centralization-job dissatisfaction link is generally supported, while the job dissatisfaction-reduced effectiveness link 44

is more empirically tenuous.41 Various factors besides job satasifac- tion have been suggested as intervening in the decentralization- organizational effectiveness link: the attitude of the teacher to ward the principal (the source of power at the higher levels of the hierarchy),42 a higher level of overall teacher satisfaction,43 teacher autonomy in the classroom,44 a heightened feeling of impor tance among personnel ,45 greater interpersonal communication,46 teaching styles that stress the importance of the student,47 heightened professional responsibility,48 heightened teacher creativity resulting from increased teacher autonomy,49 reduced pupil anomie and increased personal interaction between teachers and pupils,50 and heightened innovativeness in schools with comparatively low levels of centrali zation. 51 It is argued that decentralization fosters the above men tioned factors, which in turn improve learning, i.e ., organizational effectiveness. I t should again be stressed that the links between most of these factors and organizational effectiveness remain em pirically unspecified.

Lipset, Trow, and C olem an52 have argued that the broader the range of goals, the more likely organizational members are to desire some measure of control over policies. Since schools are generally viewed as attempting to meet such diverse goals as character develop ment, cognitive achievement, mental acuity, and preparation for careers, i t can be assumed that there is at least a modicum of de sire for decision-making power among teachers.

The discussion thus far im plicitly assumes that centralization ■< precedes and therefore influences effectiveness. But the converse is also possible: organizations sometimes respond to ineffective performance by becoming more centralized (e .g ., Gouldner's analysis of a gypsum factory).53 The direction of the relationship is not clear. However, the literature does suggest an inverse relationship between centralization and effectiveness, particularly for schools.

Conclusions

In general, organizations performing nonroutine function, such as schools, perform more effectively when individuals at the lower end of the hierarchy are involved in decision making. Apparently serivce organization members identify more extensively with the or ganization, feel less alienated and more satisfied with their job, are more ready to change, and feel that they can more adequately meet the needs of the organization when they are involved in decision making. Therefore:

Hypothesis 1: Centralization and effectiveness are inversely related. 45

Standardization

Definition and Salience

Standardization generally refers to the amount, extensiveness, and enforcement value of organizational rules and procedures;54 highly standardized organizations are characterized by extensive regulation and control of behavior.55 Standardization thus represents a rational organizational adaptation to the vagaries of individual organizational members; it serves to uniformly orient organizational energies toward goal fulfillm ent. In the words of Anderson,55 rules play a role "in ' integrating and structuring a stable social system capable of mobili zing resources to accomplish specific goals." Corwin5? sim ilarly defines standardization as "the application of uniform policies and practices throughout a system." Whereas centralization represents the dispersion of power at various hierarchical levels in the or ganization, standardization represents the legitimate, codified role and task definitons for those occupying positions at the various hierarchical levels. Anderson58 goes on to note that "rules become the 'bearers of authority' for the organization " Rules and standards often become the main means of control that higher level officials apply, particularly when lower level members are profes sionals. Rules have several functional consequences, including the impersonalization of authority, the legitimation of punishment, the setting of boundaries for individual discretion, and the provision of security.59

The literature contains references to both formalization .and standardization. Pugh and his colleagues58 define formalization as "the extent to which rules, procedures, instructions, and communica tions are written" and standardization as the extent to which "there are rules or definitions that purport to cover all circumstances and that apply invariably." The distinction for Pugh lies between the existence and extensiveness of rules (standardization) and the ex tent to which these rules and other procedures are written (formaliza tion). Factor analysis indicated that these two variables combine with specialization to form a "structuring of activities" factor. Hage51 virtually equates formalization and standardization when he states that "formalization, or standardization, is measured by the proportion of codified jobs and the range of variation that is tolera ted within the rules defining the jobs." Hall also equates standardi*: zation with formalization, although less explicitly than does Hage. Hal 1's52 definition of formalization reveals this approach: "formali zation is the organizational technique of prescribing how, when, and by whom tasks are to be performed." Thus formalization generally refers to the overall structuring of activities that organizations must perform to rationally and efficiently attain their goals. Stan dardization can be viewed as a subset of formalization; standardiza tion refers to the emphasis placed on rules and procedures as a 46 means to rationally and efficiently structure organizational activities. The more limited concept of standardization is used in this analysis.

Standardization was an integral part of Weber's formulation, although he never referred to i t by that name. Emphasis on rules and procedures became another application of the principal of rationality. Standardization, along with centralization, was seen by Weber as assisting in effective and efficient goal attainment. Furthermore, standardization is what distinguishes, in Weber's terms, bureaucra tic and traditional organizations from charismatic ones. Child5,5 considers standardization to be the most important characteristic of bureaucracy. Anderson64 similarly stresses the salient role of standardization:

Most compelling of all of the administrative mechanisms used to control individual be havior is the formal authority which is articulated . through a body of bureaucratic rules.

Thus standardization is viewed by popular theorists as a requisite for rational and effective goal attainment. Standardization generally assists in interrelating the various subunits and individual positions and roles in an organization. It serves to allocate power and re sources and to delimit the various tasks. Standardization thus serves to coordinate the organization's many activities. Organizations use it to deal with certain administrative problems. Standardization and centralization serve complementary functions; both function to or ganize, coordinate, and regulate the organizational pursuit of.goals. Whereas centralization serves to allocate decision making powers to organizational members at various levels in the hierarchy, standardi zation serves to regulate how organizational members fu lfill their individual roles and carry out their tasks.

Weber's Approach

I t was indicated in the discussion of centralization that Weber regarded the complex organizational framework as the most predictive of rational goal fulfillment, i.e ., organizational effectiveness. Given Weber's emphasis on procedural devices for work situations and on rules governing the behavior of positional incumbents, i t can be concluded that Weber considered standardization a requisite for or ganizational effectiveness. However, the caveats mentioned previously s till apply, particularly Weber's primary concern for work organiza tions. Weber's view of standardization implies that duties are susceptible to easy specification and preplanning and assumes that work demands are highly predictable and repetitive, thus obviating any need for worker discretion. The nonapplicability of these con ditions to professionally staffed service organizations is obvious. Price65 suggests that work and service organizations are very different 47

in terms of the requisites for organizational effectiveness. There fore the generally positive relationship he notes between standardi zation and organizational effectiveness applies only to non- professionally staffed organizations.66

Expected Relationship with Effectiveness

Leavitt®^ conducted research on this matter and found that groups working on relatively simple and certain tasks tended to per form tasks better when the group had more formalized structure, whereas groups working on uncertain, more complex tasks tended to perform better with less formalized structure. Research on work organizations, where the tasks to be performed are relatively simple, corroborates Leavitt's findings for groups.6® Apparently standardi zation yields more organizational control over organizational pro cesses when the task is routine; in the face of a noproutine task, which generally requires the presence of professionals, it seems that the less standardized approach is the more p ro d u c tiv e .L itw a k 's thesis that routine and nonroutine organizations perform effectively under different structural conditons is again supported. High levels of standardization apparently preclude the idiosyncratic response pattern which is crucial for effectiveness in client-serving organi zations. Thus initially an inverse relationship between standardi zation and organizational effectiveness in schools is suggested.

The literature supports the hypothesized inverse relationship between standardization and effectiveness. B la u 7 0 indicates that a high level of emphasis on such bureaucratic elements as emphasis on rules and procedures decreased the amount and quality of professional service given by social workers. Korman7! found that "high external programming of activities" (e .g ., hours of work, punctuality) seems to accompany the previously described role behavior characterized by lower achievement levels, noncreative problem solving, and ho stility to change and innovation. Litwak72 notes that organizations dealing with nonroutine events (most client-serving organization) are more efficient when personal rather than impersonal relations prevail and where there is a minimum of rules and regulations. Human relations theorists suggest that high levels of standardization are counter productive for effectiveness and efficiency. Rosengren73 found that bureaucratic procedures lower staff-c lie n t communication, an indica tor of reduced organizational effectiveness. In short, there appears to be an inverse relationship between standardization and effective ness in professionally staffed organizations.

Several theorists speak of the relationship of standardization to indicators of organizational effectiveness besides improved ser vice. Hage and A i k e n 7 4 argue that standardization retards the adop tion of new programs because rules and regulations discourage 48

individual initiative. Clearly, organizations that do not adapt to forces for change become less effective; thus Hage and Aiken's research further suggests an inverse relationship between standardi zation and effectiveness. In another study the same authors75 found that standardization and alienation are positively related; again it can be argued that organizations with alienated personnel w ill en counter reduced levels of effectiveness. Thus i t appears that the dysfunctional consequences of standardization in service organizations include worker alienation and reduced job autonomy; the la tte r is par ticularly crucial for professionals in client-serving organizations. . High levels of standardization may also yield role overload and role ambiguity.76 All of these intervening variables help explain the general inverse relationship between standardization and organiza tional effectiveness in client-serving organizations.

Literature on Schools

Several' writers deal directly with the relationship between standardization and effectiveness in schools. Williams77 observes that:

if a teacher is limited by bureaucratic rules in the way he applies his knowledge, then the logical result is that the service rendered the student may not be the maximum that could be provided by the particular teacher.

Biddle78 similarly observes that bureaucracies:

tend towards r ig id ity and to be bound by rules that stifle individual iniative. Thus, teach ers in a large school system may find that they are constrained by standardized texts, curricula and procedures that are inappropriate for a par ticular pupil population, or that they are bound by rules that were created fo r adm inistrative convenience rather than for educational benefit, or that th e ir promotion is determined by tenure or marital status rather than by the excellence of their instruction.

He goes on to note that pupils in schools high on standardization are likely to be treated less personally, experience anomie, and to ex perience education less tailored to their individual needs; they are also less lik e ly to be independent or creative. He concludes that "...some standardization must, in fact, be detrimental to the ac complishment of educational tasks."79 Biddle does not suggest that rules per se adversely affect learning, but rather that standardization 49 is a crucial characteristic of, and promulgates, bureaucratization, which is thought to have the adverse effects on learning. Corwin 88 suggests that standardization may serve to insulate professionals from changing values and special problems of their clientele. He also suggests that standardization tends to produce tensions between teachers and administrators; tension-ridden faculties are undoubtedly less e ffe c tiv e in improving student achievement. Prigmore8! suggests an alternative dysfunctional consequence of standardization: "the less rule-oriented a teacher is, and the less he perceives his prin cipal to be, the greater is his success in meeting the expectations of his students." Presumably teachers who are more successful in meeting the expectations of their students will also be more success ful in producing high levels of achievement in their pupils.

There is considerably less research on the consequences of standardization than there is for centralization. All of the authors cited above speak on the basis of well-informed conjecture; none are summarizing research resu lts. I t seems plausible that several of the variables suggested as intervening in the c e n tra liza tio n - organizational effectiveness link also apply to the standardization- effectiveness link. That is, high levels of standardization may re duce teacher autonomy, reduce professional commitment, impair crea tiv e teaching e ffo rts , enhance pupil anomie, and suppress innova- tional teaching techniques. All of these factors generally foster reduced organizational effectiveness.

As with centralization, it is possible that organizations may respond to in e ffe c tiv e performance with increased standardization. Thus the direction of the relationship remains unclear, although the literature does suggest an inverse relationship between standardiza tion and effectiveness.

Conclusions

Apparently extensive emphasis on rules, procedures, and uni formity in service organizations yields factors not conducive to effective functioning. Standardization seems to hinder the personal relationships crucial in service organizations. Additional results of extensive standardization include reduced staff-client communi cation, reduced propensity to change, alien atio n , role overload, in * sulation from c lie n t concerns, and pupil anomie, which work against effective organizational functioning. Thus service organizations, whose technologies are generally nonroutine, operate less effectively under extensive standardization. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2: Standardization and effectiveness are inversely related. 50

Close Supervision

Definition and Salience

Close supervision represents s till another means of organiza tional control. Like centralization and standardization, close super vision represents an organizational response to control and coor dination difficulties; all three function in the efficient pursuit of goal attainment. Pugh 82 subsumes these concepts under the larger concept "concentration of authority." Unlike centralization and standardization, which are re la tiv e ly impersonal modes of control, close supervision represents a very personal mode of control. Yet, the three modes of control are closely related; centralization re flects the rules and regulations which are to be enforced via close supervision.

Close supervision involves the degree to which supervisors actually supervise their subordinates; it refers to "...the degree to which the supervisor checks up on his employees frequently, gives them detailed and frequent instructions and, in general, limits the employees' freedom to do the work in th e ir own general way."83

Weber's Approach

Weber's ideal-typical bureaucracy included close supervision; Weber noted that the bureaucratic employee is subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in performing his official duties. Weber included more than just supervision in this concept of disci pline and control; in fact, he considered rules to be a part of an organization's capacity for discipline and control. Yet supervision is an integral part of the organizational control structure. And since Weber believed the bureaucratic principle to be the most rational, efficient and effective means of organization, it seems plausible to conclude that he suggested a positive relationship between close supervision and organizational effectiveness.

As with his discussion of centralization and standardization, Weber was thinking primarily about business organizations in his dis cussion of organizational control. P r i c e ' s 8 8 contention again seems appropriate: in terms of effective performance, what is appropriate for business organizations often is inappropriate for service organi zations. Thus it seems reasonable that close supervision is a pre requisite for the effective production of automobiles or garments. In this case, close supervision helps assure that at least minimal levels of production are met, and that workers work efficiently. On the other hand, professionals need at least a modicum of freedom from supervision to effectively perform their duties. Such professionals as research scientists, teachers, doctors, and social workers need 51

the opporunity to exercise their professional judgments in individual cases .06 Often supervisors in these organizations lack the expertise with which to determine if the professional is, in fact, performing effectively. If close supervision is exercised in such circumstances, reduced effectiveness is the usual consequence: Blau87 concludes that "Experts are more likely to resent having their discretion limited by managerial directives than employees whose lesser s k ills make them welcome such guidance." Blau also found that the superiors of experts spent little time in supervision, compared to those of non-experts. It appears, therefore, that close supervision in professionally staffed organizations adversely affects effectiveness.

Expected Relationship with Effectiveness

H all^ notes the difference that the requisite technology makes fo r organizational structure: departments in organizations that per formed routine tasks were generally more bureaucratized than those en gaged in nonroutine tasks. This study suggests that close super vision, a component of the bureaucratic model, is less appropriate for service organizations, whose technologies generally are very non routine. Thus i t appears that employees in the more professionalized organizations perform more effectively with less supervision than those in mass production organizations.

The writings of Etzioni89 shed some light on the topic of supervision requirements in professional organizations. The reduced need for close supervision in service organizations is due in part to the type of power exercised in these organizations. Etzioni identifies three forms of power--coercive, remunerative, and normative. Coercive power is based on the recipient's perceptions of the ability of the power holder to d is trib u te punishments, remunerative power is based on the ability to reward, and normative power rests on the alloca tion and manipulation of symbolic rewards and deprivations. The corresponding types of subordinate involvement are alienative, caT- culative, and moral. Thus in service organizations, which are nor mative, control is exercised through symbolic rewards rather than punishment or reward. This more abstract means of control lessens the necessity for close supervision since personnel in normative or ganizations tend to be self-motivated and professionally oriented. Thus their affiliation is more moral than alienative or calculative. Warren^O applied E tzio n i's typology to schools and found that coercive or reward power yielded ineffective control; normative power was more productive. This analysis also suggests an inverse relationship between close supervision and organizational effectiveness in schools.

Etzioni also discusses patterns of leadership; he distinguishes task leadership from socio-emotional (expressive) leadership.9' He then combines this discussion with that mentioned above in suggesting that expressive leadership is the most functional in socializing or 52 service organizations; in production organization the task type of leadership is the most functional. Again, it appears that close supervision, which is often used in task leadership, is inimical to the effective functioning of professional organizations such as schools, where expressive leadership is more common.

The literature on close supervision is considerably more in complete than the literature on centralization and standardization. Several theorists, such as P o n d y , 9 2 suggest that close supervision be included in organizational analyses. Katz and his colleagues 93 studied, twenty-four sections of office workers in a major insurance company and found that the section heads of the low-producing sections super vised their employees more closely than the section heads of the high-producing groups. In their study of health and welfare organi zations, Hage and Aiken 94 found that emphasis on close supervision, which was designed to insure conformity, resulted in reduced attention to the search fo r better ways of doing work. They found that very close supervision made the employees and the organization less change oriented, and in many cases, therefore, less effective.

Gouldner95suggests that close supervision may be a r esult of ineffective performance; employees that are not performing according to the goals of the organization need more supervision so that the goals may be met. However, close supervision may heighten the level of interpersonal tension, which in turn may res u lt in both an increase in rules and a further decrease in performance. In short, the re lationship between close supervision and effectiveness is not clearly unidirectional.

Turning to schools, Punch9** suggests that close supervision, as a component of school bureaucratization, is closely related to the way in which principals behave, although he offers no research to substantiate the implied deleterious e ffe c ts . Warren97 suggests that the professionalism of teachers seems to lessen the effects of various forms of control, including close supervision. He also suggests that this reduced supervision of professionals may improve th e ir e ffe c tiv e ness. These few studies and discussions suggest that, for profes sionals in service organizations, very close supervision often im pedes the effective performance of their duties.

Conclusions

Close supervision represents another form of organiztional con trol . As with centralization and standardization, extensive close supervision is dysfunctional for effectiveness in service organizations. The nonroutine technology requires that employees be relatively free of close control so that the needs of clients can be met on the basis of professional knowledge. 53

Several of the intervening variables suggested in the previous analyses of centralization and standardization may also be appropriate for close supervision. That is, close supervision may reduce teacher job satisfaction, hinder the teacher-principal relationship, reduce teacher autonomy in the classroom, impair interpersonal communica tions, reduce professional responsibility, impede teacher creativity, and hinder teacher innovativeness. Undoubtedly the most serious ef fect of very close supervision lies in the limitation of personnel discretion necessary for effective performance in service organiza tions. Thus:

Hypothesis 3a: Closeness of supervision and effectiveness are inversely related.

Close Supervision Vis-a-Vis Standardization

Close supervision is often discussed in conjunction with stan-r dardization. I t is suggested that these two forms of organizational control often function in a compensatory fashion. Standardization serves to alleviate the need for continued close supervision by making control more impersonal. Blau and Schoenherr^ stress the impersonal substitutable feature of standardization:

Extensive regulations that stipulate the procedures to be followed are impersonal mechanisms of control that substitute to a degree for personal control exer cised through supervision and managerial directives.

Anderson, Azumi and Hage, and H a ll, Haas and Johnson^ a ll suggest that standardization tends to obviate the necessity for close super vision by providing administrators with an alternative means of direc ting and controlling the efforts of subordinates. Rushingnotes that more use will be made of rules where it is difficult to exercise close supervision ;^1 he also notes that rules may reduce hostility that develops from supervisor-subordinate contacts. Thus the situa tion apparently determines which of the two functionally equivalent organiztional control modes—standardization or close supervision— is the most appropriate. In sum, several writers suggest that stan dardization and close supervision w ill not be simultaneously applied since they both appear to serve a similar function. Therefore:

Hypothesis 3b: If the standardization-effectiveness rela tionship is strongly negative, then the close supervision-effectiveness relationship w ill be nonsignificant; if the close supervision- effectiveness relationship is strongly nega tive, then the standardization-effectiveness relationship will be nonsignificant. 54

Size

Definition and Salience

Size is often considered to be the most important variable in organizational analyses. Hinings102 observes that many w riters from Weber onwards have mentioned size as being one of the most important causes of differences among structures. Pugh and his colleagues^ maintain that size causes structuring of organizations through "its effect on intervening variables such as frequency of decisions and social control." In their major analysis of employment security organizations, Blau and Schoenherr 104 maintain that size is the major factor in determining the "shape" of an organization. Hall and Tittle, Presthus, and Tsouderos10^ an conclude that large organizations are more bureaucratized than small organizations. Writers such as Caplow and Grusky '06 suggest that large organizations are bv definition more complex and formalized than smaller ones; Anderson10' states that "size appears to affect the complexity of the organization's struc ture, resulting in increased procedural specification through rules." Other writers, such as Blau and Scott, Zelditch and Hopkins, and Hall, Haas, and Johnson ,100 have minimized the role of size in determining organizational structure, but there appears to be l i t t l e agreement on the relative importance of size vis-a-vis other aspects of organi zational structure .109

The bulk of research attention on size has centered on either the relationship of size to such organiztional variables as centraliza tion and standardization or on the relationship of size to output variables, including performance and effectiveness. For example, H a ll 110 discusses the impact of size on the individual, the society, and the organization, but fails to suggest.tbat size mav be related to organizational effectiveness.

Negandhi 111 is one of a few organizational theorists that views organizations and th e ir outcomes simultaneously. He suggests that size be seen as an antecedent, primary variable which influences several mediating structural variables (e.g., standardization, specialization, centralization), these variables in turn influence the outcomes of the organization's functioning. Although his discussion does not specifically include a direct link between size and outcome, his framework does not rule out that p o s s ib ility . His analysis stresses the indirect effect of size on outcome. This analysis makes the direct size-outcome relationship a focal relationship for empirical analysis.

Size is more easily conceptualized and defined than some of the other structural variables. In its simplest terms, size refers to the absolute magnitude of operations of an organization. Price112 defines 55

size as the volume of output produced and distributed by a social system. However, this d e fin itio n is d if f ic u lt to apply to service organizations, unless the number of clients is equated with the volume of output. H a ll, Haas, and J o h n s o n ' ^ calculated the number of fu ll time equivalent employees. Analyses of service organizations often use the number of clients served. However, several researchers have established that high intercorrelations exist among the different measures of size;''^ Hal 11i 5 concludes that "measures of size do appear to be largely interchangeable for research and operational pur poses." Thus the concept of size refers to the overall magnitude of . operations, whatever the specific indicator selected.

Weber's Approach

The rational perspective espoused by Weber included the assump tion that large organizations could more rationally, and therefore more effectively, attain their goals. Many of the early theorists assumed that large size would foster standardization, centralization, and specialization, which were presumed to increase organizational effectiveness. Apparently large size meant more assets, branch of fices, more specialized personnel, more uniformity through standardi zatio n, and more centralized authority; a ll of these presumably im proved effectiveness . ! ' 6

However, the uniqueness of professionally staffed service or ganizations makes many of these assumptions inaccurate. Hall resolves some of the inconsistencies in the size literature by distinguishing organizations on the basis of the routineness of their technologies. This technology determines the relationship of size to other structural variables;!!7

If the technology involves a rather routinized product or service, formalization and complexity would tend to increase with increased size. If, on the other hand, the technology is b u ilt around nonstandard products and services, the relation ship will not hold.

As mentioned above, Price !!8 also distinguishes organizations on the basis of complexity (by which he means professionalization). Thus for less complex organizations with relatively routine tech nologies large size, formalization, centralization, and close super vision will yield increased effectiveness. With regard to size, Price comments ; ! ! 9

A large size which generally results in a high degree of effectiveness, results in a low degree of effectiveness where there is a 56

high degree of professionalization, be cause the large size reduces the relative, importance of the professional-client re lationship.

Thus the link between size and effectiveness lies in the deleterious effect on the professional-client relationship. Initially, therefore, it seems appropriate to hypothesize a negative relationship between school size and effectiveness.

Expected Relationship with Effectiveness

The literature gives some support to this hypothesized negative relationship between size and effectiveness. Blau and Schoenherrl20 found that large employment security organizations devote a lesser share of their resources than small agencies to providing extensive employment services. In their study of psychiatric departments of hospitals, Hrebiniak and Alutto'2' discovered an inverse relationship between department size and performance, as measured by the discharge rate. Thomasl22 found that the larger the social welfare agency, the less personal the orientation towards c lie n ts . Negative re la tionships between size and various criteria of productivity have also been reported by Marriott (in automobile facotries) and Worthy (in Sears, Roebuck Company)J23 Also, large size has been found to have a deleterious effect on morale, productivity, and attendanceJ24

Literature on Schools

The research on size of schools is quite inconsistent. In a survey of doctoral dissertations on the impact of school size , McCowan et al J25 conclude that larger schools have greater curricular di v e rs ity , better trained teachers, less interpersonal communication, and less student participation in extracurricular activities. The effects of size on achievement are the most inconsistent. In a re view of Project Talent data, Boocockl26 notes that there are no dis tinctive relationships between high school size and achievement. In a review of many of the major studies, a University of New York Studyl27 notes that school size is s ig n ific a n tly related to student performance in only 30 percent of the studies. Thus studies on school size and achievement have produced inconsistent results.

However, there are some problems in these studies. In the f ir s t place, most of these studies relate school size to individual student performance; sound organizational theory suggests that only aggregate, organizational measures be u s e d .128 Secondly, many of these studies use varying definitions of large size; different studies may differ entially define a school with an enrollment of 300 as large or small. Thirdly, a careful inspection of these studies reveals a curvilinear effect in many cases. That is, up through a certain level, size is 57

positively related to effectiveness; thereafter a leveling-off de velops and perhaps eventually a negative relationship accrues. Fourthly, consistent interpretation is difficult due to the m ultipli c ity of indicators of educational outcome. These and other problems make an accurate assessment of the impact of size d ifficu lt.

One of the most recent studies of size is an analysis of school district size on achievement by Bidwell and Kasarda.12^ T h e y found that school district size has no direct effect on achievement, but uncovered some indirect effects with inconsistent implications for achievement. An increase in district size was associated with a re duction in administrative intensity and also with better trained s ta ff, both of which resulted in "minimal diversion of human resources from front-line tasks" and, therefore, increased achievement. But larger districts also have a higher pupil-teacher ratio, which is negatively associated with achievement. These simultaneously positive and negative indirect effects on achievement result in a zero direct effect. Although this analysis is at a higher level of aggregation than the organization, it does suggest that the indirect as well as the d ire c t effects of size on achievement should be examined. I t also highlights the possibility that size may have contradictory im plications for organizational effectiveness.

Organization theory does offer some suggestions on the empirical implications of size. Anderson13^ maintains that size increases in schools lead to extended hierarchicalization, a proliferated status system, more minute divisions of labor, increases in the span of con trol, and increased standardization. The result of these shifts in organizational structure include such outcomes as loss of meaning of work, minimal levels of work performance, and impersonal treatment of students. Anderson maintains that the ultimate result will be reduced school effectiveness. Biddle 131 takes a similar stance in stressing that size is not important in and of itself; rather "size is merely a marker variable." Biddle notes that size correlates positively with other organiztional properties, which he feels seriously affect the lives of both pupils and teachers. Worthy 132 also argues that the negative impact of size on output is operative through increased levels of centralization and standardization; Averch et a l . ' 33 note similar intervening variables in the size-innovation relationship. Meltzer and Sal ter134 found that large size hindered professional freedom, which in turn adversely affected productivity. Corwin '35 lends some credence to this line of reasoning with his findings that size is positively associated with hierarchy, standardization, and complexity. Since these three variables have deleterious effects on effectiveness, it appears, as the review of Negandhi's work above indicates, that much of the impact of size on outcomes is mediated through other structural variables. In the final analysis, however, Pricel3® suggests th at; 58

...if large and small schools were matched with respect to a l l sig n ific a n t mechanisms which have a functional impact on effectiveness, then the small schools would be more effective, than the large schools.

A different analysis is taken by such authors as Kahn and Anderson.'37 The point made by both these authors is that increasing organizational size generally produces higher levels of stress, role ambiguity, and role conflict, particularly for professionals. Such dysfunctions generally arise out of rising coordination problems in large organizations. Byproducts include reduced morale, job satisfac tion, and productivity.

Conclusions

Size represents the overall magnitude of operations in an organ ization. The implications of size for functioning remain somewhat unclear. There is some reason to believe that, in service organiza tions, large size may impede the professional-client relationship. There is also some reason to view size as a "marker 11 variable, whose effects are less direct and more indirect through other structural variables, such as standardization, centralization, and hierarchy. Also, large size is thought to be associated with reduced morale and reduced professional freedom, both with deleterious effects on ser vice. Therefore:

Hypothesis 4: Size is inversely related with organizational effectiveness.

Specialization

Definition and Salience

Specialization is a subset of the more encompassing variable of complexity. Complexity generally refers to the diversity of internal structure of an organization; the various subparts require coordina tion and control. The more subparts an organization has, the more complex it is. The concept of complexity dates back to the writings of Durkheim,138 noted the concomitant structural diversity that accompanied the specialization of individual societal subparts. In organizations, complexity refers to the structural byproducts of the division of labor. Blau and Scott1^ view complexity as the di versity of jobs and positions. They also stress the scope of the concept: for them complexity encompasses hierarchy, specialization, the division of labor, and differentiation. Heydebrand^O deals with "structural differentiation" in terms of the division of labor, 59

technology, and the skill structure. Blau and Schoenherr^l also refer to the number of different positions and different subunits in an organization. In his analysis of schools C orw in^42 includes such items as the complex course structure, departm entalization, and the variety of specialized programs in his conceptualization of complexity, all indicators of the number of segments or parts of an organization.

H a ll 143 subsumes several of the analyses noted above in his tripartite summary of complexity into horizontal differentiation (di vision of labor with its attendant specialization), veritcal dif ferentiation (hierarchy), and spatial dispersion. Thus complexity is a fundamental feature of complex organizationsit represents the overall growth and substructural diversity of an organization. This structural diversity, often a correlate with size, has a definite impact on organizational functioning. Obviously, structurally diverse organizations will function very differently than will structurally simple organization. The question for analysis becomes: does this structural diversity have an impact on organizational effectiveness?

Most organizational theorists view complexity in terms of the subpart d iffe re n tia tio n d e fin itio n noted above. Most theorists also view complexity as including, but not limited to, specialization. However, several sidely cited works by Aiken and Hagel45 USe the term "complexity" to refercnly to specialization. They use such indicators as the number of specialized occupations, the extent of professional training, and the extent of professional involvement to operational ize th e ir d e fin itio n of complexity. Although most theorists would subsume these indicators under the concept of specializatio n , Aiken and Hage explicitly state that they prefer the term "complexity" over "specialization" since they believe "complexity" is more in keeping with Durkheim’ s usage of the term. Durkheim's analysis does re fle c t concepts now commonly defined as complexity; however, he was more concerned with structural d iffe re n tia tio n than specializatio n. I t appears that Aiken and Hage artificially extend the scope of their usage of specialization indicators by applying them to the term "com plexity." This analysis concurs with the majority of the organiza tional theorists in viewing complexity as the overall amount gf structural differentiation; in this framework specialization is one of several aspects of complexity.

Weber saw the need for a division of labor in his ideal-typical bureaucracy. He also saw the need of specialized positions and spoke o f the requirement of "thorough and expert tra in in g ." In an^ earlier source, Weber observed that "the role of technical qualifi cations in bureaucratic organizations is continually increasing."*47 Weber included the two primary aspects of specialization; a number of diverse specialized occuaptional categories and the prerequisite of advanced tra in in g . Both components refe r to the degree of know ledge required to produce the output of an organization.»48 This 60 definition is applicable to organizations with simple and repetitive tasks as well as to those with complex and unique tasks; the former generally produce things while the la tte r generally comprise service organizations. In fact, task specialization can be juxtaposed with personal specialization; an assembly plant would be characterized by high task specialization and low personal specialization, while schools (particularly elementary schools) would be characterized by low task specialization and high personal specialization.149 Thus specialization reflects both the diversity of specialized occupa tional positions and the extent of advanced training.

This latter characteristic-advanced training—would make vir tually all service organizations specialized, since such organiza tions are staffed primarily with well-trained specialists. On this point, P r i c e ! 50 observes that:

Organizations can also attain complexity to the degree that they have highly professionalized role performance. Complexity is associated with professionalization, because professional occupa tions are characterized by a body of abstract knowledge.

Thus i t can be concluded that every organization high on professional ization will usually also be high on complexity (but not necessarily vice versa). For example, Heydebrand and Noel 1151 equate specializa tion with professionalization. This is not to suggest that service organizations, which are generally staffed by professionals, have uni form levels of specializatio n; th is is only to suggest that s p e c ia li zation reflects professionalization in service organizations.

This analysis will use extent of training, as reflected by the proportion of staff with an MA degree, as an indicator of speciali zation. There is some justification in the literature for using such an indicator. Blaul52 defines professionalization as the proportion of the staff required to have the BA; Blau, Heydebrand and Staufferl53 use a sim ilar d e fin itio n . Heydebrand and Noel 1154 use the proportion of the professional staff with an MSW in their study of social work agencies. Pricel55 ai so equates complexity with specialization and indicates it can be measured by the degree of education of the or ganization's staff. In his analysis of schools, Corwinl56 also re fers to specialization as the "personal training of employees." The amount of expert training, or advanced education, therefore, is the most common definition of specialization.157

Expected Relationship with Effectiveness

Weber suggested expert training in conjunction with several other characteristics as the most efficient and effective means of 61 goal attainment. Several of the other theorists reviewed above, particularly Price, suggest that service organization staff members with advanced training are more capable of, and usually do, provide better service than those with less tra in in g . The im p lic it sugges tion is that specialization is positively related to organizational effectiveness. With regard to schools, Coleman, Goodman, Katzman, and Mollenkopf and M elvillel58 all note a significant positive asso ciation between amount of advanced s ta ff training and achievement (th is relationship was found to hold with socioeconomic status con trolled). Although not based on data, Biddlel 59 also suggests a positive effect of specialization on achievement. Aiken and HagelGO found complexity (specialization) to be directly related to organiza tional interdependence and change. If interdependence and change can be seen as a component of effectiveness (the effective organization must be able to change readily and interrelate with other organiza tions), then their work can also be seen to suggest a positive rela tionship between specialization and effectiveness.

However, one prominent theorist does suggest a negative re la tionship between specialization and effectiveness. HagelGl presents the following syllogistic argument (Hage's "complexity" refers pri marily to educational attainment, which is the definition of "spe cialization" in this study):

Major Propositions

I. The higher the centralization, the higher the pro duction.

VII. The higher the complexity, the lower the centrali zation.

Therefore:

Corollary 6. The higher the complexity, the lower the production.

He goes on to argue that organizations with high levels of complexity perform less well due to the higher cost of specialists' salaries and because of lower formalization, which itself decreases efficiency, according to Hage . 162 He also suggests that reduced production occurs in organizations of high complexity because such organizations place emphasis on the quality of the product or service produced. However, Hage offers no data and acknowledges that this corollary may appear to be "provocative." Also, the syllogistic logic applied and the overlapping definitions of the various concepts make Hage's corollary questionable. 62

and demand s k ills which require discretio n." This f ir s t dimension of fle x ib ility represents this professional autonomy component. The other dimension of f le x ib ilit y encompasses the change climate of the organi zation. An organization is flexible in this use of the term when it rapidly responds to e ith e r change needs or change demands. This d i mension reflects the adaptability of an organization, i.e., the rapidity with which a majority of an organization's staff can assimilate a change. Both dimensions re fle c t the adap tab ility potential of an or ganization. The f ir s t refers to professional freedom to respond to the idiosyncracies of the job and the second refers to the overall rap id ity of adaptation to changes; the f ir s t w ill be referred to as professional flexib ility and the second as adaptability.

Expected Relationship with Effectiveness

For both dimensions i t seems lik e ly that higher levels of f le x i b ility will be conducive toward increased organizational effectiveness, particularly in service organizations. Professional flexibility, the f ir s t dimension, affords personnel the freedom to deal with individual client problems; it allows the application of the professionalized training to emergent, often unique problems. This flexib ility allows the staff to meet the clinets' needs more effectively; presumably, therefore, increased organizational flexib ility will produce higher levels of organizational effectiveness. Also, flexibility generally improves job satisfaction among professional staff; presumably, per sonnel satisfied with their jobs will perform more effectively. In the case of schools, the freedom to a lte r the modes, techniques, and pacing of teaching, to select appropriate supplementary materials, to select from various altern atives of classroom control, and the lik e should allow the individual teacher to teach more e ffe c tiv e ly . High levels of overall professional freedom can be expected to produce high levels of school achievement.

Similar results can be expected for the adaptability dimension. Staff readiness to adapt to new and better techniques of serving clients should result in better service for clients. Relatively high levels of adaptability reflect a willingness and ability on staff members' parts to evaluate and perhaps utilize the most recent techni ques and materials. Again, improved service, and hence organizational effectiveness, should result. In the case of schools, teachers that keep abreast of improved teaching techniques and materials, and who display the ability and readiness to adopt such aids, will generally be more effective teachers. Thus a direct relationship between adapta b ility and organizational effectiveness can be expected.

The- lim its hypothesis suggested by Hage 166 is appropriate with reagrd to the relationship between adaptiveness and effectiveness; Hage suggested that relationships among organizational variables only 63

Conclusions

This analysis takes the position that specialization reflects advanced training of organizational personnel and that this advanced training better equips them for performing effectively. Specializa tion re fle c ts the composite knowledge pool in a service organization presumably the greater this body of knowledge, the more e ffective the services rendered. The studies on schools noted above corroborate this point. Thus:

Hypothesis 5: The greater the level of specialization, the greater the organizational effectiveness.

Flexibility

Definition and Salience

Flexibility refers to the ability of organizational personnel to change and to adapt to change, either internal or external. It does not represent a control variable as does standardization or close supervision; in fact, flexibility reflects the ability of an organiza tion to deviate from controls (within limits) in order to more ef fectively adapt to a perceived need. The flexible organization is characterized by an adaptive, innovative climate. Effective organiza tions must foster at least a modicum of flexib ility since ready adap tation to rapidly changing needs and environmental situations is a prerequisite for effective functioning.

There are several terms used in reference to flexibility. Adaptability or change orientation are closely overlapping terms. Analyses of service organizations often refer to professional auto nomy, i.e., the degree of freedom that the professional s ta ff have over the performance of th e ir jobs. Weber and Gouldnerl63speak of autonomy, which emphasizes the self-governance feature of organiza tions. Heydebrand and P ric e l6 4 take a similar stance in their dis cussions of autonomy as freedom from external, environmental control. Flexibility has also been defined in terms of the amount of organiza tional controls, although this definition does result in conceptual . redundancy with standardization, centralization, and close supervision.

Most uses of the term flexib ility, and similar terms, can be reduced to two dimensions. One dimension refers to the professional freedom aspect noted above. Service organization personnel require at least a modicum of discretion in carrying out their jobs; this flexib ility is necessary to effectively deal with the unique problems that clien ts pose. On this point B ell ‘65 observes th at "the more pro fessional train in g an employee has acquired, the more he w ill possess 64

apply above certain minimum and below certain maximum values of the variables. With regard to adaptiveness, a certain degree of control and autonomy are required for effective performance,'°7 but beyond these minimums, a positive relationship between adaptiveness and ef fectiveness can be expected.

The literature offers some support for this hypothesized posi tive relationship between flexibility and effectiveness. From a theoretical perspective, the natural systems perspective maintains that organizations which most easily adapt to changes, p a rtic u la rly those generated by the environment, are more likely to survive than those which cannot.168 On this point Owens1^ comments: "...th o se organizations which can adequately adapt w ill be adjudged the most satisfactory." For example, the adaptiveness and autonomy of the Tennessee Valley Authority was a major factor in the effective func tioning of that organization.170 a study by Seashore and Bowersl71 also indicated a positive relationship between change orientation and effectiveness.

Concerning the other flexib ility dimension, professional flexi b il i t y , Pelz and Andrewsl72 found a general positive relationship between professional flexib ility and productivity of research scien tists; Meltzer and Salterl73 found a similar positive relationship in th e ir study of physiologists. Worthyl74 suggests that a possible reason for this relationship is the intervening effect of job satis faction. That is, personnel in flexible organizations are more satis fied with their jobs; this increased job satisfaction fosters higher levels of productivity. The study by Seashore and Bowersl75 noted above corroborates this reasoning.

Conclusions

Flexibility includes two dimensions: change orientation and professional freedom. Particularly in service organizations, it appears that staff willingness and ability to adapt to change demands will result in the utilization of new techniques and materials; im proved service to clients can be expected. Similarly, staff profes sional freedom can be expected to y ie ld improved, individualized ser vice to clients.

Thus professional fle x ib ility improves the working conditions of professional staff, and organizational adaptability reflects a climate conducive to change and innovation. Both these dimensions of flexib ility are seen as conducive to more effective work perfor mance and, therefore, as significant factors in improving organiza tional effectiveness. Therefore: 65

Hypothesis 6a: The greater the level of professional flexibility, the greater the organiza tional effectiveness.

Hypothesis 6b: The greater the organizational adapta b ility, the greater the organizational effectiveness.

Environmental Variables

Definition and Salience

Most w riters re fe r to "the environment" without defining what is meant by this term. Generally, the term refers to the external situ ation in which an organization is located. Concern for the environ ment originated prim arily in studies of business organizations, which rely on input from, and return output to, the environment. Such early studies focused on market environments and the relationships among organizations that supplied each other with resources. Studies such as Dill’s^ 6 also examined the impact of environmental factors on managerial autonomy. In itially at least, "the environment" re ferred to the more immediate physical surroundings of an organization. Subsequently, the definition was expanded to include cultural fac tors, sociohistorical factors, and interorganizational relations among service organizations J77

A few theorists do define the environment. T h o m p s o n78 ! refers to environmental variables as "exogenous variables;" they act as con straints and contingencies that are generally beyond the control of the organization. Emery and Trist!79 define the environment as the components with which the organization transacts and which are comprised of a "causal texture." Dil, Even, H a ll, and T h o m p s o nSO ! all stress the existence of other organizations in the environment; for them, inter organizational relationships become the main adaptive response. Dun can!8! views the environment as the totality of cultural, physical and social factors used by organizational members in taking action. Simi la r ly , Osborn and Hunt !82 refer to the environment simply as "the total universe outside the boundaries of the organization." In spite of increasing empirical attention on the environment, however, defini tions s till remain global. Thus, the environment is conceptualized most generally as the sum total of factors external to the organiza tio n . Both immediate and more distant factors are included; both phy sical, market variables and atmospheric variables such as uncertainty and permeability are included. 66

Theoretical Approaches

As noted in Chapter I I , several early theorists have noted the salience of the environment for organizational functioning. One of the four systems problems discussed by Parsons is adaptation, which refers to a system's accomodation to environmental demands. Parsons also stressed the systems approach, i.e., units such as organizations are subsystems w ithin a larger system. S im ilarly, the natural sys tems theorists argued that as organizations sought to adapt to th e ir environment, these adaptive actions in turn often modified their basic structure. The open-systems perspective was discussed in Chapter I I ; this perspective stresses the feedback and regulatory mechanisms that exist in organization-client relations.

Several other early theorists spoke of organization-environment relations. In the early fifties HomansT83 dealt with the "external system" of organizations and indicated that the organization was in many ways shaped by the environment. A few years la te r Emery and T r i s t l 8 4 spoke of the "causal texture of the environments," by which they meant interdependencies existing among environmental agents themselves, besides the relationships between organizations and the environment. Later in that decade Eisenstadt ^88 referred to the “great interdependence" existing between bureaucratic organizations and the social environment. Thus the recognition of the environment as an important theoretical variable dates back to early organization al theorists.

The late fiftie s , the sixties and seventies witnessed a more conceptually and empirically sound picture of organization-environment relatio n s. Simpson and Gulley ^86 related the scope of environmental pressure to organizational structure. Elling and HalebskyW also examined the environment as an independent source of variation in or ganizational variables. Crozier and also Richardson^ noted the role that variations in cultural values and norms may have on internal organizational structure and function. Lawrence and Lorschl8^ made a very significant contribution to the literature with their contingency theory of organizations, i.e., different types of organizations are e ffe c tiv e under d iffe re n t conditions. They also noted the impact of environmental certainty on organizational structure.

The s ix tie s was the decade in which Pugh and his colleagues^O made significant contributions to the scaling of organizational vari ables. The late sixties and early seventies also was the time of Blau'sl^l contributions to comparative organizational theory, his em pirical results underscored the salience of the local environment J 92 This was also the time of Terreberry'sl93 seminal contributions to the lite ra tu re ; she emphasized that organizational environments are in creasingly turbulent and that, as a result, organizations are in creasingly less autonomous. Several theorists speak particularly of 67 schools. For example, B id d le l9 4 states that schools "may also be differentiated in terms of their relations with the community and school system in which they are embedded." Methodologically, this time period experienced a shift from predominantly case studies to analyses of several dozen organizations; a similar shift in statistical sophis tication occurred. In a relatively short period of time the field of organiztional analysis made signifcant theoretical and empirical strides.

Thus the works of this time period adequately reflect the sa lient role given to environmental variables. In addition to the ex plicit empirical and theoretical attention, several writers have called attention to the role of the environment in more general discussions of organizational functioning. For example, at the beginning of the s ix tie s Blau and S co tt^^ observed th at:

Since environmental conditions and organizational characteristics are so closely connected, the com parative study of organizations in different envi ronments also provides an opportunity for analy zing the association between various organizational characteristics.

At the beginning of the seventies two other organizational theorists, Azumi and HageJ 96 noted that:

it is highly probable that the characteristics a given organization can assume are largely de termined by its societal environment.

Azumi and Hage suggest that the sum total of an organization's char acteristics are largely influenced by the societal context; Blau and Scott go a step further in suggesting that this organization-environment relationship itself influences the interrelationships among organiza tional variables within the organization. This suggestion is pursued in this analysis by examining the circumscribing effect of environ mental variables on the original relationships existing between organ izational variables and effectiveness.

Dimensions

What dimensions of "the environment" are considered important? Since the bulk of research on environmental effects is limited to business organizations, task environmental variables are frequently examined. That is , relationships oriented to obtaining the necessary raw m aterials and disposing of the finished product become paramount. In these analyses, technological and economic considerations pre dominate. 197 68

However, other levels of analysis exist. Osborn and Hunt^® suggest that, in addition to task environment variables, aggregate relationships and macro environmental variables be considered. The macro environment encompasses the general cultural context, both im mediate and more distant. Economic, educational, legal-political, and social-cultural factors are subsumed under this macro category. The aggregation environment contains the associations, interest groups, and constituencies operating within a given macro environment. Both of these types of variables are more global than task variables.

Azumi and Hagel" break this macro variables concept into cul tural variables, organizational relationships, and the immediate com munity. It should be added that, for a long time, interorganizational relations were the primary focus of theroists interested in organiza tion-environment relations.200 6abarro201 takes an interesting ap proach to environmental dimensions; he breaks the environment into concerns with change, with d iv e rs ity (e.g., of client or other focal groups), and with uncertainty. These dimensions are a ll more appro priate for service organizations than business organizations. They also re fle c t more the environmental atmosphere rather than simply en vironmental components.

Shortcomings in the Literature

However, in spite of the widespread theoretical and empirical attention given to the environment, serious shortcomings exist in this literature. The poor conceptualization of "the environment" has already been noted. For example, natural systems theorists stress the role of the environment, but offer no clear definition of the concept. Terre- berry's important contribution 202 similarly fails to define the con cept of environment. Price's synthetic volume203 on organiztional effectiveness fails to deal explicitly with the role of the environ ment. In th e ir summarizing typology of the organizational lite ra tu re Azumi and Hage204 themselves observe that the most glaring omission of th e ir typology is "the problem of the environment." In his analy sis, Thompson notes that the concept of environment is primarily a residual one. Thus even the more prominent theorists in the field are vague in their definition of the environment.205 conceptual ambiguity is one of the basic reasons why the environment has not been adequately analyzed.

A second inadequacy in the literature on the environment lies in a general failure to examine the relation of environmental variables to organizational variables. In fact, C o r w in 2 0 6 notes that "most studies have concentrated on interanl organizational characteristics as though they function independently from external influences." Similarly, after noting the salience of environmental conditions, H a l l 207 states that "a more difficult task is to determine the extent to which they actually affect the organizations in a social system." 69

One reason for this failure to examine the relation of environmental variables to organizational variables may lie in a failure to dis tinguish organizational variables from environmental variables. Hell- riegel and Slocum208 note that "this distinction is necessary to un cover the properties of a subsystem's external environment that might moderate the relationship between climate and the internal functioning of the organization." Thus a necessary first step in examining the impact of environmental variables on the organization is to conceptu alize environmental and organizational variables separately and em pirically assess their relationship, particularly as both are related to organizational effectiveness.

A third inadequacy in the literature is reflected in the wide spread application of the market model (input-output). This model is inappropriate for service organizations since the input-output re lations are less clearly defined. New models of organization- environment relations must be developed for service organizations, in cluding such variables as permeability. Many of the service organiza tion-environment studies focus on how the publics in contact are made congruent with organizational needs (e.g., Selznick's analysis of the Tennessee Valley A uthority ) . 209 Also, the specific transactions be tween service organizations and th e ir environments remain larg ely uncharted.210 S im ila rly , little research attention has been focused on the role of publics and clients vis-a-vis service organization functioning.

The inadequacies noted for service organizations in general are particularly applicable to schools. Little attention has been focused on the role of environmental factors on school-boundary relationships. For example, Biddle 2l 1 spends a great deal of time reviewing the or ganizational and systemic features of schools, but does little more than note the salience of "horizontal instrusion." Environmental variables are generally limited to the home and peers. In short, re search on service organization-environment relations is somewhat limited in theoretical maturity and empirical application.

Focus of This Analysis

This analysis recognizes and attempts to deal with these gen eral inadequacies. The environment is defined primarily in terms of two charactersitics of the local secondary c lie n te le —how much and what type of influence this c lie n te le has on school functioning (permeability) and the general stability of this populace. Both characteristics can have a direct impact on school functioning. Se condly, an empirical approach in taken in addition to a theoretical approach. Thirdly, explicit attention is directed to the publics of schools. Fourthly, this analysis of organization-environment rela tions is centered on a service organization, rather than business 70 organizations, which are so often used in market models analyses. Within this service organization emphasis, attention is not focused on how to make the publics-in- contact congruent with organizational needs, which is so popular in analyses of service organization- environment relations. Three general issues are dealt with in an examination of the effect of permeability and stability:

1. What is the direct relationship between these two environ mental variables and organizational effectiveness?

2. What is the direct relationship between these two environ mental variables and bureaucratization? That is, do these variables foster or retard the development of a bureau cratic structure?

3. What impact do these two environmental variables have on the basic relationships previously discussed in this chapter?

Since the theoretical and empirical literature is both quite limited and unclear, these issues are framed in the context of empirical ques tions rather than hypotheses.

Permeabi1i ty

Definition and Salience

Permeability re fle c ts the overall impingement environmental factors have on organizational functioning. The concept has been only recently applied to organizational analyses, although two decades ago Goffman commented th at organizations are surrounded by a "semi- permeable membrane." Goffman elaborates: 212

Another dimension of variation among to ta l in s titu tio n s is found in what might be called their permeabi!it.y, that is, the degree to which the social standards maintained within the institution and the social standards main tained in the environing society have influenced each other sufficiently to minimize differences.

Thus organizations are seen as existing in an environment, but more importantly, the environment is viewed as having a direct influence on the functioning of organizations. Whereas Goffman stresses the impact of the environment on the organization, Selznick 2 '3 stresses the re quisite organiztional adaptive response: " the organization is sub ject to the pressure of an institutional environment to which some overall adjustment must be made." 71

Although much of the literature in the fifties was very market- oriented, several writers in this period noted the role of variables other than those crucial to the market input-output model. For ex ample, March and Simon ^14 recognize the importance of the quality of relations with the environment by characterizing task environments as hostile or benign. Similarly, D i 11215 differentiates task environ ments on continua of homogeneity-heterogeneity and unified-segmented. Both these authors fail to implement these conceptualizations via empirical analyses.

Several contemporary theorists also deal with environmental per-* m eability. Speaking of schools, F r a s e r 2 1 6 refers to "horizontal in trusion," which refle c ts the degree to which the local environment (primarily parents) intrude into the operation of the school. Corwin locates the problem of organization-environment relations under the theoretical rubric of boundary definition and maintenance. Organiza tions, particularly service organizations, jealously guard their au- tomy and generally resist attempts by external agents to influence th e ir operations. Corwin2 " defines boundary d e fin itio n as "the de marcation of jurisdictional limits and the identification of members;" boundary maintenance refle c ts attempts to maintain these lines of de marcation. Since service organizations depend on the environment for support, these lines of demarcation are often difficult to draw. He 2 l8 goes on to distinguish containment from permeability; the former refers to "how well an organization controls its members," while the latter refers to "how far groups not on the school's official member ship list can penetrate into the organization's affairs." Only per m eability is analyzed in this study; Corwin breaks this concept-down into extensiveness of penetration (the number of nonmember groups par ticipating in the system) and external influence (the relative ability of those external elements to control the school). These two dimen sions reflect amount of influence and salience of this influence. Haas and D r a b e k 2 1 9 take a similar approach in distinguishing exten siveness (the frequency of any given type); they fail to incorporate the re la tiv e influence dimension noted by Corwin. Heydebrand 220 ex pands this influence dimension by focusing on the degree of environ mental control over policies as well as over budget and resources

A basic inadequacy in most of these analyses, however, lie s in the failure to discuss what the relationship is between permeability and organizational operations. A second shortcoming lies in a failure to empirically assess the relationship between permeability and or ganizational functioning. This study attempts to deal with these in adequacies .221 72

Direct Relationship with Effectiveness

Several writers discuss the possibility of a direct relationship between permeability and organizational effectiveness. P rice 2 2 2 states explicitly that organizations relatively free of environmental pressure are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness, i.e., low permeability yields high effectiveness. Organizations that experience low levels of permeability also generally experience mini mal levels of interference with tasks ,223 such as pressure by parents to change g r a d e s . 224 Apparently non-interference from the environ ment means that the organization can devote all of its energy to goal attainment. However, other writers who deal with the direct permea bi 1 ity-effectiveness link suggest a positive relationship between the two variables. For example, M cDill 2^5 found that parental involve ment and concern was po sitively associated with student aspirations and achievement. Owens22° suggests that re la tiv e ly high levels of permeability prevent the organization from becoming "closed," and therefore from becoming less sensitive to environmental change. The implication is that organizations forced to keep attuned to environ mental changes and demands w ill be more adaptive and more e ffe c tiv e . Biddle22? s im ila rly suggests that low levels of permeability ("h o ri zontal intrusion") result in a closed bureaucracy, with similar ef fects. Biddle goes on: "provided that it does not involve public controversy, it is reasonable to presume that pupils will do better in schools high in horizontal intrusion." In short, permeability forces an organization to be responsive to environmental demands; presumably responsive organizations are more effective. It should be stressed that all the writers cited are speaking theoretically, and do not summarize empirical analyses. I t should also be noted that few theorists deal with this direct permeabi 1ity-effectiveness relation ship. Therefore:

Empirical Question 1; What is the direct effect of environ mental permeability on organizational effectiveness?

Direct Relationship with Bureaucratization

A second issue revolves around the impact of permeability on bureaucratization. That is, does permeability foster or retard bureau cratization? This issue can be discussed in the context of the general negative relationship between bureaucratization and organizational effectiveness discussed previously in this chapter. Does permeability promote high bureaucratization (which hinders effectiveness) or does it promote a less bureaucratized structure (which aids effectiveness)? 73

Some theorists suggest that high levels of environmental per meability promulgate a less bureaucratized organizational structure. For example, Thompson 228 suggests th a t, fo r business organizations, when the task environment is dynamic, the regional divisions of an or ganization will be decentralized. Also speaking of business organi zations, D ill229 notes that centralization increases as external de mands for personal transactions decrease. With regard to schools, Pilo230 makes a similar point in suggesting that as environments be come more demanding and heterogeneous, organizations become more de centralized. Burns and Stalker231 developed the antipodal mechanis tic vs. organic organizations; mechanistic organizations represent the classical bureaucratic pattern of high standardization, centralization, and close supervision, while the organic pattern represents the con verse. They note that the mechanistic pattern is the most appropriate fo r stable, less permeable environments. C o r w in 2 3 2 suggests th at tu r bulent, permeable environments may m ultiply the number and complexity of decisions that have to be made; the more complex decisions that must be made, the more overloaded the central offices become, and the more decentralization that will occur.

Other theorists suggest that high levels of environmental per meability promulgate a more highly bureaucratized organizational structure. Apparently high levels of permeability elicit a response by organizations designed to maintain their organizational structure and position. To quote C o rw in :283

Organizations become defensive and seek to impose more internal control in turbulent environments. Thus schools can be expected to become more cen tralized, standardized, and otherwise bureaucra tized in turbulent environments.

In previous research C o r w i n 2 8 ^ found that schools were lik e ly to be come consistently bureaucratized only in the most turbulent, conflict- ridden environments. Both Berelson and Steiner and Chi 1 d 2 3 5 note that in situations of extreme threat organizations are likely to move toward high centralization. Permeability has a similar effect on standardization: in the face of high permeability rules develop to protect the organization from potentially disruptive environmental pressure.236 since permeability reflects in part a high level of personal relations between organiztional members and environmental agents, rules serve to impersonalize these relationships to protect the organization from excessive environmental perm eability.237

Thus arguments can be made for both the bureaucratization and debureaucratization effects of permeability, each with implications for effectiveness. Therefore: 74

Empirical Question 2: What is the effect of environ mental permeability on bureau cratization?

Circumscribing Effect on Basic Relationships

The third area for examination is the effect of permeability on the six basic relationships between organizational variables and effee tiveness. That is, what happens to each of these relationships when permeability is statistically controlled? Few theorists discuss the effect of permeability on relationships between organizational vari ables and organizational effectiveness. It does seem plausible to assume that the degree of permeability may have an effect on the re lationship between centralization and effectiveness, for example. This part of the analysis focuses on the centralization-effectiveness relationship within varying levels of environmental permeability to examine the circumscribing effect, if any, of permeability on the centralization-effectiveness relationship (and on other hypothesized relationships). Since this focus is unexamined in the literature, this part of the analysis is exploratory in nature. Therefore:

Empirical Question 3: What is the circumscribing effect of environmental permea b ility on each of the hypothe sized organizational variable effectiveness relationships?

S ta b ility

Definition and Salience

Environmental stability is the second environmental factor examined. The lite ra tu re is less e x p lic it about this variable and its effects than it is for permeabi!ity. Stability reflects the over a ll s h ift in population in an area. Presumably organizations existing in shifting, unstable environments will respond differently to the environment than would organizations in a stable s i t u a t i o n .2 3 8 Haas and D ra b e k 2 3 9 note that population shifts "may precipitate major changes within the organization." For purposes of this analysis, stability reflects the changeability in the immediate environment; more spe cifically, it reflects the changing clientele of a service organiza tion such as schools. Since service organizations are dependent on th e ir c lie n te le , a less stable environment with c lie n te le changeover will have some effect on organizational functioning. For this rea son stability is examined in addition to permeability. 75

Direct Relationship with Effectiveness

Several writers discuss the possibility of a direct relationship between stability and organizational effectiveness in suggesting that organizations require at least a minimal amount of environmental sta b ility to insure smooth functioning. Duncan 240 notes that stable en vironments produce less decisional uncertainty in the organization; it seems plausible to assume that less decisional uncertainty w ill improve decision making and organizational functioning. In fact, Thompson241 suggests that uncertainty and instability “interfere with . the orderly operation of the core technology, and thereby reduce (the organization's) performance." Service organizations in particular function more effectively with a stable environment; since environ mental members often are th e ir c lie n te le , a sizable annual population, (clientele) shift would cause some serious adaptive problems for the service organization.

On the other hand, complete s ta b ility would allow the organiza tion to function in complete oblivion to the environment. A certain amount of instability and environmental change would force the organi zation to be more adaptive and ready to meet the needs of clientele. Presumably, such an organization would also be more effective than the less adaptive organization. The implications of stability for effectiveness remain unclear. Thus:

Empirical Question 4: What is the direct effect of environmental stability on or ganizational effectiveness?

Direct Relationship with Bureaucratization

A second issue revolves around the impact of stability on bureau cratization. As with the discussion on permeability, does stability foster or retard bureaucratization? On the one hand, more bureau cratic forms of organization are thought to be appropriate for stable environments.24^ C o r w in 2 4 3 suggests th at "a stable homogeneous en vironment is more conducive to rational control." Similarly, Ga- barro 244 suggests th at organizations experiencing sh ifts in the en vironment w ill be more effective if they follow an adaptive problem solving approach instead of applying rules and procedures. All these theorists suggest that the more bureaucratic mode of control (high centralization, standardization, and close supervision) is more ap propriate for a stable environment.

On the other hand, some theorists argue that more bureaucratic organizational forms are a response to excessive in s ta b ility in the environment. Thus Corwin24^ suggests that in less stable, more tu r bulent environments schools become more highly bureaucratized. Also, 76 following Duncan^ less stable environments experience more decisional uncertainty. In these situations organizations often become more bureaucratic in an adaptive response to maintain their boundaries.

Thus arguments can be made fo r both the bureaucratization and debureaucratization effects of stability, each with implications for effectiveness. Therefore:

Empirical Question 5: What is the effect of environ mental s ta b ility on bureaucra tization ?

Circumscribing Effects on Basic Relationships

As with permeability, there is another possible effect of sta bility: the circumscribing role it may play on the six basic organi zational variables—effectiveness relationships. That is, the basic relationships hypothesized in the discussion of organizational vari ables may be altered in the fact of a control for stability. Again, few theorists recognize, much less discuss, this potential circum scribing effect of stability on relationships between organizational variables and organizational effectiveness. This phase of the analysis is also more heuristic than hypothesis testing. Thus:

Empirical Question 6: What is the circumscribing ef fect of environmental stability on each of the hypothesized or ganizational variable-effectiveness relationships?

Socioeconomic Status: A Control Variable

The negative relationship between socioeconomic status and academic achievement is one of the most consistent relationships in the sociology of education lite ra tu re . However, i t is also a re la tionship that is not manipulate; policy makers cannot increase in dividuals' socioeconomic status. I t is fo r this reason that attention in this study has been directed to several organizational variables that are manipulate (within lim its).

Socioeconomic status is correlated with many school factors that may independently be related to academic achievement. It seems appropriate, therefore, to enter socioeconomic status as a control variable to assess the unique contribution of the organizational variables to effective performance. If the relationships are not 77

significantly altered, increased validity can be attached to the findings. Thus:

Empirical Question 7: What is the effect of socioeconomic status on the basic relationships?

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has defined organizational effectiveness, primarily in terms of goal attainment. The overall construct of bureaucracy vis-a-vis effectiveness was also summarized. Subsequently, the larger construct of bureaucracy was decomposed into dimensions; the rela tionship between each of these dimensions and organizational effec tiveness was explored. More specifically, the following hypotheses and empirical questions were developed:

Hypothesis 1: Centralization and effectiveness are inversely related .

Hypothesis 2: Standardization and effectiveness are inversely related .

Hypothesis 3a: Closeness of supervision and effectiveness are inversely related.

Hypothesis 3b: If the standardization-effectiveness relation ship is strongly negative, then the close supervision-effectiveness relationship will be nonsignificant; if the close supervision- effectiveness relationship is strongly negative, then the standardization-effectiveness relation ship will be nonsignificant.

Hypothesis 4: Size is inversely related with organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis 5: The greater the level of specialization, the greater, the organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis 6a: The greater the level of professional flexibility, the greater the organizational effectiveness. 78

Hypothesis 6b: The greater the organizational adaptability, the greater the organizational effectiveness.

The discussion of the two environmental variables, permeability and stability, was more heuristic in nature than hypothesis testing. Therefore, several empirical questions were developed:

Empirical Question 1: What is the direct effect of environmental permeability on organizational effective ness?

Empirical Question 2: What is the effect of environmental per meability on bureaucratization?

Empirical Question 3: What is the circumscribing effect of en vironmental permeability on each of the hypothesized organizational variable effectiveness relationships?

Empirical Question 4: What is the direct effect of environmental stability on organizational effectiveness?

Empirical Question 5: What is the effect of environmental sta b ility on bureaucratization?

Empirical Question 6: What is the circumscribing effect of environmental stability on each of the hypothesized organizational variable effectiveness relationships?

Empirical Question 7: What is the e ffe c t of socioeconomic status on the basic relationships?

A summary of a ll the hypotheses and empirical questions analyzed in this study can be found in Figure 3.1. I t should be emphasized that this diagram is not a causal diagram; it only outlines all the rela tionships examined. Permeability (31

Centralization

Standardization

(or)

Socioeconomic Status Close Supervision \K Effectiveness

Size

Specialization

\^Flexibility S ta b ility

Figure 3.1—Summary of all expected relationships*

*The numbers on the arrows from perm eability, s ta b ility , and socioeconomic status correspond to the empirical question numbers. TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS STUDY

VARIABLE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

Size Per school enrollment as obtained from o ffic ia l documents

Specialization Proportion per school with MA de gree or above as obtained from o ffic ia l documents

Environmental S ta b ility Proportion people who moved in pre ceding five years, as obtained from o ffic ia l documents

Socioeconomic Status Percent m inority group students per school as obtained from o ffic ia l documents

Effectiveness Mean of reading and mathematics scores fo r grade 4 as obtained from o ffic ia l documents

Centralization Ratio of teacher participation in several decision areas to the sum of participation by principal and other central office administrators in these areas, as estimated by principal

Standardization Scale based on 11 Likert-type items assessing emphasis on uniformity, existence of rules, and enforcement value of rules, as estimated by principal

Close Supervision Scale assessing how many times per year the regional superintendent, other regional staff, and the prin cipal observe the classrooms of teachers, as estimated by principal Table 3.1, continued 81

VARIABLE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

Professional Freedom Scale based on 4 Likert-type items assessing the freedom teachers have over in-class teaching techniques and materials, as estimated by the principal

Adaptability Scale based on 2 items assessing the proportion of teachers who ad just to change and the rapidity with which teachers adjust to change, as estimated by principal

Permeability Scale based on 10 items assessing the role of environmental agents, the importance of environmental agents, and the actual parental and other involvement in school a c tiv itie s , as estimated by principal 82

NOTES TO CHAPTER I I I

1. James L. Price, Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of Propositions (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1968) , p. 57 Koyd Azumi and Jerald Hage, Organizational Systems: A Text- Reader in the Sociology of Organizations (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972), p. 413 note that "the re la tiv e number of research studies on how various models of structure effect per formance and policy) is surprisingly small, especially when con trasted to the amount of theoretical work."

2. Azumi and Hage, Organizational Systems, p. 417.

3. Wolf V. Heydebrand, "The Study of Organizations," Social Science Information 6 (October 1967), pp. 59-86.

4. See Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Frankcisco: Chandler, 1962), pp. 1-8; Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 8; and Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 3. Basil S. Georgopoulos and Arnold S. Tannenbaum, "A Study o f Or ganizational Effectiveness, ASR 22 (October 1957), p. 534, ob serve that "the concept of organizational effectiveness.. .is or dinarily used to refer to goal attainment." Similarly, Wo.lf V. Heydebrand, ed. , Comparative Organizations: The Results of Em p iric a l Research (Englewood C liffs : P ren tice-H all, In c ., 1973), p. 19, discusses effectiveness in terms of the quality, volume, and efficien cy of goal attainment.

5. James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw- H i l l , 1967), p. 90.

6. Robert M. Hauser, Socioeconomic Background and Educational Per- formance (Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association, 19727, p. 60.

7. Harry A. Averch et a l . , How E ffective is Schooling? (Santa Moni ca: Rand Corporation, 1972), p. ix ; David E. Lavin, The Predic tion of Academic Performance (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965), p. 14. See also Peter F. Drucker, Management (New York: Harper, Row, 1974 ), pp. 155ff. for his discussion of produc tivity in schools.

8. Alternative definitions of organizational effectiveness exist. Frank Fried!ander and Hal Pickle, "Components of Effectiveness in 83 Small Organizations," ASQ (September 1968), pp. 289-304, re fe r to system maintenance, subsystem fulfillm ent, and environmental fu l fillm e n t. Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum, "Organizational E ffective ness," p. 537, refer to effectiveness as the absence of intra- organizational strain, success of the organization in maintaining itself, morale, commitment, and absenteeism. Richard H. Hall, Organizations: Structure and Process (Englewood C liffs : Prentice- Hall In c ., 1972), distinguishes the goal approach from e ffe c tiv e ness as the ability of the organization to obtain scarce re sources from the environment. Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment (Boston: Graduate School of Busi ness Administration, Harvard University, 1967), p. 39, speak of effectiveness as conflict resolution.

9. Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 8.

10. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organi zations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1966), p. 170. 11. For example, see Philip W. Jackson, Life in Classrooms (New York: H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968); Jonathan Kozol, Death at an Early Age (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1967): and David Rogers, 110 Livingston Street (New York: Random House, 1968).

12. Keith F. Punch, "The Study of Bureaucracy in Schools," The Australian Journal of Education 16 (October 1972), p. 257.

13. D.S. Pugh et a l., "Dimensions of Orgniazation Structure," ASQ 13 (June 1968), pp. 65-105. See also D.S. Pugh et a l . , "A Con ceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis," ASQ 8 (December 1963), pp. 289-315, and D.S. Pugh et a l., "The Context of Or ganizational Structures," AS£ 14 (March 1969), pp. 91-114.

14. William R. Rosengren, "Structure, Policy, and Style: Strategies of Organizational Control," ASQ 12 (June 1967), pp. 140-164.

15. Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, p. 11. « 16. Ronald G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," ASQ 14 (December 1969), p. 507-520.

17. Bernard C. Reimann, "On the Dimensions of Bureaucratic Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal," ASC|_ 18 (December 1973), pp. 462-476.

18. A few of the variables mentioned by the theorists were not ap propriate. For example, the vertical span of control was inap propriate since there was little variation on this variable. Others were simply deemed to be of lesser importance to this analysis, such as communication processes and the task structure. 84

19. Reimann, "Dimensions."

20. See Richard H. Hall, "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment," AJS 69 (July 1963), pp. 32-40, fo r an example of the undimensional approach; see Pugh, e t a l . , "Dimensions," fo r an example of the multidimensional approach.

21. Azumi and Hage, Organizational Systems, p. 227. Michel Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (ChicagoT" University of Chicago Press, 1964), and James 6. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), p. 38, make similar observations.

22. Manfred Kochen and Karl W. Deutsch, "Toward a Rational Theory of Decentralization: Some Implications of a Mathematical Ap proach," in Comparative Organizations, ed. W.V. Heydebrand, pp. 355-377.

23. See Bernard H. Baum, Decentralization of Authority in a Bureau cracy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 21-29, and Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 60.

24. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 334; see also Hans Gerth and C. Wright M ills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Mew York: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 197.

25. It should be noted that most of the studies expressing a positive relationship between centralization and effectiveness are indus tries, which generally have low levels of professionalization.

26. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 62.

27. Peter M. Blau, Wolf V. Heydebrand, and Robert E. S tau ffer, "The Structure of Small Bureaucracies," ASR 31 (A pril 1966), pp. 179-191. Victor Vroom, "Industrial Social Psychology," in Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. V ., eds. G. Lindzey and E. A r onson (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), makes a similar point on the basis of the social psychological literature.

28. See Heydebrand, "Study of Organizations," on this point.

29. Eugene W. Ratsoy, "Participative and Hierarchical Management of Schools: Some Emerging Generalizations," The Journal of Edu cational Administration (October 1973), p. 162. 85

30. A.R. Negandhi and B.C. Riemann, "Task Environment, Decentraliza tion and Organizational Effectiveness," Human Relations 26 (April 1973), pp. 203-211.

31. Rensis L ik e rt, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw- H i l l , 1961) p. 68.

32. Philip M. Marcus and Dora Marcus, "Control in Modern Organizations," Public Administration Review 25 (June 1965), pp. 121-127.

33. Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, "Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis," ASR 31 (August 1966), pp. 497-507.

34. Peter M. Blau and Richard A. Schoenherr, The Structure of Organi zations (New York: Basic Books, 1971), p. 171.

35. For further discussion on the deleterious effect of centraliza tion on service, see Morgatt et a l., "Alienation."

36. A.K. Korman, "Organizational Achievement, Aggression, and Crea tivity: Some Suggestions Toward an Integrated Theory," Organi zational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (September 19717/ pp. 593-613.

37. Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, "Program Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis," AJS 72 (March 1967), pp. 503-519.

38. Tom Burns and G.M. S talker, The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock Publications, 1961).

39. Lawrence and Lorsch, Organization and Environment.

40. D.A. Mackay, "An Empirical Study of Bureaucratic Dimensions and Their Relation to Other Characteristics of School Organizations" (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Alberta, 1964); Punch, "Study of Bureaucracy," p. 257, makes a similar argument, but does not furnish any data.

41. See G.S. Fraser, "Organizational Properties and Teacher Reac- . tions" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1967); Morgatt et a l.. Alienation," p. 38; George A. M iller, "Profes sionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation Among Industrial Scientists and Enigneers," ASR (October 1967), p. 755; and Owens, Organiza tional Behavior, p. 107, all suggest that the centralization- alienation link is particularly true for professionals.

42. Owens, Organizational Behavior, p. 107. 86

43. James A. Belasco and Joseph Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher Satisfaction," Educational Administration Quarterly (Winter 1972) pp. 44-58, found a significant positive relation between teacher satisfaction and amount of decisional partici pation.

44. Ki-Suck Chung, "Teacher-centered Management Style of Public School Teachers and Job Satisfaction of Teachers," (ERIC #D042-259, 1970), pp. 19-70.

45. Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology of Organizations, p. 366. This factor and several other intervening factors have been suggested by proponents of the human relations perspective.

46. Ki-Suck Chung, "Teacher-centered Management."

47. L.K. Bishop and J.R. George, "Organizational Structure—Factor Analysis of Structural Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools," Educational Administration Quarterly (Win ter 1973), p. 77.

48. Morgatt e ta l., "Alienation."

49. David Selden, "Teacher Workload and Teacher Dropout," AFT QUEST Paper #5, (ERIC #032-272), 1969.

50. Bruce J. Biddle, "The Institutional Context," in Scholars in Context: The Effects of Environments on Learning, ed. W.J. Campbell (Sydney: John Wiley and Sons, A ustralasia, Pty. L td ., 1970), pp. 159-184.

51. Max G. Abbott, "Hierarchical Impediments to Innovation in Edu cational Organizations," in Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, eds. F.D. Carver and T.J. Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), pp. 42-50, and Bishop and George, "Organizational Structure," p. 77, both found that reduced job satisfactio n produced a resistance toward change; this finding suggests the possibility of a three or four linked-variables explanation for the decentralization-effectiveness hypothesis. See also Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology of Organizations, p. 366, on this last point.

52. Seymour M. Lipset, Martin Trow, and James S. Coleman, Union Democracy (Glencoe: Free Press, 1956), pp. 407, 415-446.

53. Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1954). "" 87

54. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 174, defines standardization as "the degree to which procedures within the school are fixed by ru le ."

55. Gerald D. Bell, "Formality versus Flexibility in Complex Or ganizations," in Organizations and Human Behavior, ed. G.D. Bell (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), pp. 97-106.

56. James Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education (Baltimore: Johns Hop- kinds Press, 1969), p. 16.

57. Ronald G. Corwin, Education in Crisis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), p. 21.

58. Anderson, Bureaucracy, p. 17.

59. Ib id ., p. 39.

60. Pugh et a l., "Dimensions," p. 75.

61. Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," ASQ 10 (December 1965), p. 295.

62. Hall, Organizations, p. 196.

63. John Child, "Predicting and Understanding Organizational Struc tu re ," ASQ 18 (June 1973), pp. 168-185.

64. Anderson, Bureaucracy, p. v i i .

65. Price, Organizational Effectiveness. Price's position is primari ly based on conjecture. Hall, Organizations, p. 188, empirically demonstrates the inverse relationship between bureaucracy and profess i onali zati on.

66. Recall that Blau, Heydebrand, and S tau ffer, "Small Bureaucracies," concluded th at although a centralized authority structure is appropriate for the coordination of functions differentiated into simple routines, such a structure is inappropriate for profes sional specialties. A similar rationale can be offered for the inappropriateness of excessive standardization in professionally staffed organizations.

67. Harold J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Communication Pat terns on Group Performance," in Readings in Social Psychology, ed. E. Maccobby et al. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958), pp. 546-563.

68. For example, see Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, pp. 211, 251, and Hage, "Axiomatic Theory." 88

69. Bell, "Formality versus Flexibility," notes that the more pro fessional training an employee has acquired, the more he w ill possess and demand s k ills which require discretion.

70. Peter M. Blau, "Orientation Toward Clients in a Public Welfare Agency," ASQ. 5 (December 1960), pp. 341-361.

71. A.K. Korman, "Organizational Achievement, Agression and Crea tivity: Some Suggestions Toward an Integrated Theory," Organi zational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (September 197TJ» pp. 593-613.

72. Eugene Litwak, "Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit Conflict," AJS 67 (September 1961), pp. 177-185.

73. William R. Rosengren, "Communication, Organization, and Conduct in the 'Therapeutic M ilie u 1," ASQ 9 (June 1964), pp. 70-90.

74. Hage and Aiken, "Program Change."

75. Aiken and Hage,."Organizational Alienation."

76. Cf. Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology of Organizations.

77. James 0. Williams, "Professionalism and Bureaucracy: Natural C o n flic t," NASSP B ulletin (No. 359 1971), p. 65.

78. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 174.

79. Ibid., p. 176.

80. Corwin, Education in Crisis, p. 24.

81. Charles T. Prigmore, A Study of Teachers' Fulfillment of Student Expectations as Related to School Organization Bureaucracy. (Ed. D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1968).

82. Pugh et a l., "Context."

83. Daniel Katz, Nathan Maccoby, and Nancy C. Morse, P roductivity, Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation (Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1950).

84. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1947), pp. 333-334.

85. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 8.

86. See Hall, Organizations, pp. 220-225 on this point. 89

87. Blau, Heydebrand, and S tau ffer, "Structure of Small Bureaucra cies," p. 458.

88 . Hall, Organizations, p. 157.

89. Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press, 196177 Amitai Etzioni, "Dual Leadership in Complex Organizations, ASR 30 (October 1965), pp. 688-698.

90. Donald I. Warren, "Power, V is ib ilit y , and Conformity in Formal Organizations," ASR 33 (December 1968), pp. 951-970.

91. Etzioni, "Dual Leadership."

92. Louis R. Pondy, "Effects of Size, Complexity, and Ownership on Administrative In te n s ity ," ASQ 14 (March 1969), pp. 47-61.

93. Katz et a l . , P roductivity, pp. 17-20.

94. Hage and Aiken, "Program Change."

95. Gouldner, Industrial Bureaucracy. See also James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 45.

96. Punch, "Bureaucratic Structure."

97. Warren, "Power."

98. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations, p. 228.

99. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education, p. x; Azumi and Hage, Or ganizational Systems, p. 223; Richard H. H a ll, J. Eugene Haas, and Norman J. Johnson, "Organizational Size, Complexity, and Formalization," ASR 32 (December 1967), pp. 903-912.

100. William A. Rushing, "Organizational Rules and Surveillance: Propositions in Comparative Organizational Analysis," ASQ 10 (March 1966), p. 441. 101. For an example see Herbert Kaufman, The Forest Ranger (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1960). See especially page 197 fo r a d is cussion of the many procedural devices and rules used in the Forest Service.

102. C.R. Hinings et a l., "An Approach to the Study of Bureaucracy," Sociology 1 (January 1967), pp. 62-72.

103. Pugh et a l., "Context," p. 112. 90

104. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations.

105. Richard H. Hall and Charles R. Title, "Bureaucracy and Its Cor relates," AJS 72 (November 1966), pp. 267-272; Robert V. Presthus "Towards a Theory of Organizational Behavior," ASQ 3 (June 1958), pp. 48-72; John E. Tsouderos, "Organizational Change in Terms of a Series of Selected Variables," ASR 20 (April 1955), pp. 206- 210.

106. Theodore Caplow, "Organization Size," AS^. 1 (March 1957), pp. 484- 505; Oscar Grusky, "Corporate Size, Bureaucratization, and Mana gerial Succession," AJS 67 (November 1961), pp. 261-269.

107. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education, p. x. Marshall W. Meyer, "Two Authority Structures of Bureaucratic Organization," ASQ 13 (September 1968), pp. 211-228, corroborates the positive re la tionship of size to complexity.

108. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p. 7; Hall, Haas, and John son, "Organizational Size;" Morris Zelditch, Jr. and Terrence K. Hopkins, "Laboratory Experiments with Organizations," in Com plex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, 1st ed., ed. A. Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), pp. 465-478.

109. For additional studies on size see Theodore Anderson and Seymour Warkov, "Organizational Size and Functional Complexity: A Study of Administration in Hospitals," ASR 26 (February 1961), pp. 23- 28; Sheila R. Klatzky, "Relationships of Organizational Size to Complexity and Coordination," ASC). 15 (December 1970), pp. 428-438; Sergio Talacchi, "Organization Size, Individual A tti tudes and Behavior," ASQ 5 (December 1960), pp. 398-420; and Frederic W. Terrien and Donald L. M ills , "The E ffect of Changing Size Upon the Internal Structure of Organizations," ASR 20 (Feb ruary 1955), pp. 11-14.

110. H a ll, Organizations, pp. 128-134.

111. Anant R. Negandhi, e d ., Modern Organization Theory, (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1973), pp. 10, 36, 70.

112. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 185.

113. H a ll, Haas, and Johnson, "Organizational S ize," p. 905.

114. Anderson and Warkov, "Organizational S ize," p. 25; Pugh e t a l . , "Context," p. 98. 91

115. H a ll, Organizations, p. 111.

116. For example, see Price, Organizational Effectiveness.

117. Hall, Organizations, p. 119. See also David J. Hickson, D.S. Pugh, and Diana C. Pheysey, "Operations Technology and Organiza tion Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal," ASQ 14 (September 1969), pp. 378-397.

118. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 8.

119. Ib id ., p. 189.

120. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations, p. 108.

121. Lawrence G, Hrebiniak and Joseph A. A lu tto , "A Comparative Or ganizational Study of Performance and Size Correlates in In patient Psychiatric Departments," ASQ 18 (September 1973), pp. 365-382.

122. Edwin J. Thomas, "Role Conceptions, Organizational Size, and Community Context," ASR 24 (Fegruary 1959), pp. 30-37. Thomas does raise the possibility that community size may be an impor tant mediating variable.

123. R. Marriott, "Size of Working Group and Output," Occupational Psychology 23 (January 1949), pp. 47-57; James C. Worthy, "Or ganizational Structure and Employee Morale," ASR 15 (April 1950), pp. 169-179..

124. Talacchi, "Organizational Size," Worthy, "Size of Working Group."

125. Richard J. McCowen, Robert P. O 'R e illy , and Gregory J. Illen b erg , "Relation of Size of High School Enrollment to Educational Ef fectiveness," Child Study Center B u lletin 4 (4 ), pp. 73-79. See also W.J. Campbell, "The Community Context," in Scholars in Context, W.J. Campbell (Sydney: John Wiley and Sons, 1970), p. 55.

126. Sarane S. Boocock, An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning (Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1972).

127. University of the State of New York, What Research Says About Improving Student Performance: A Manual fo r Administrators (Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1973), p. 8.

128. See Peter M. Blau, "Structural Effects," ASR 25 (April 1960), pp. 178-193. 92

129. Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School District Organi zation and Student Achievement," ASR 40 (February 1975), pp. 55- 70.

130. Anderson, Bureaucarac.y in Education, p. 157.

131. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 175 .

132. Worthy, "Organizational Structure."

133. Averch et a l., How Effective is Schooling?, p. 94.

134. Leo Meltzer and James Salter, "Organizational Structure and the Performance and Job Satisfaction of Physiologists, ASR 27 (June 1962), pp. 351-362.

135. Corwin, Militant Professionalism.

136. Price, Organizational Effecitveness, p. 191.

137. Kahn et a l., Organizational Stress (New York: John Wiley, 1964); Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education, p. 165.

138. Emile Durkheim, Division of Labor in Society, trans. George Simp son (Glencoe: Free Press 1947)*]

139. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, pp. 223-225.

140. Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, p. 23.

141. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations, p. 16.

142. Corwin, Militant Professionalism, p. 230.

143. H a ll, Organizations, pp. 143-149.

144. The salience of complexity for organizational structure can be seen in the widespread use of the term'fcomplex organization."

.145. Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," ASQ 10 (December 1965), pp. 289-320; Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, "Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties," ASQ 12 (June 1967), pp. 72-92; Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, Social Change in Complex Organizations (New York: Random House, 1970T

146. Max Weber, Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 198.1- 93

147. Weber, Economic Organization, p .335.

148. Price,'Organizational Effectiveness, p. 26, defines complexity as the degree of knowledge required to produce the output of a system.

149. See Abbott, "Hierarchical Impediments," p. 46, and William B. T yler, "Measuring Organizational S pecialization: The Concept of Role V ariety," ASQ 18 (September 1973), pp. 383-392, fo r further discussions on task and personal specialization.

150. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 32.

151. Wolf V. Heydebrand and James J. N o e ll, "Task Structure and Inno vation in Professional Organizations" in Comparative Organizations, ed. W.V. Heydebrand, pp. 294-322.

152. Peter M. Blau, "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organiztions," AJS 73 (January 1968), pp. 453-467.

153. Blau, Heydebrand, and S ta u ffe r, "Structure of Small Bureaucra cies."

154. Heydebrand and N oell, "Task Structure."

155. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 26.

156. Corwin, Militant Professionalism, p. 228.

157. There are a few pragmatic reasons fo r lim itin g complexity to specialization, and specialization to degree of advanced training. The other significant component of complexity--division of labor— was considered. However, schools in general, and this school system in particular, display a limited and relatively uniform division of labor.

Hierarchy (the number of organizational levels) was also con sidered, but discussions with school o ffic ia ls uncovered an a t tempt at organizational uniform ity in terms of separate levels in the hierarchy.

The alternative measure of specialization—proportion of tea chers teaching in their major area—was not employed because only principals were questionnaired.

I t should also be noted that specializatio n is p o sitiv e ly as sociated with complexity (Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism, p. 277), which indicates a certain degree of conceptual uniformity. 94 158. James S. Coleman et a l., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966); S.M. Good- man, The Assessment of School Quality (Albany: State Education Department of New York, 1959); Theodore M. Katzman, "D istribution and Production in a Big City Elementary School System," Yale Economic Essays 8 (Spring 1968), pp. 201^256; W.G. Mollenkopf and D.S. M e lv ille , "A Study of Secondary School Characteristics as Related to Test Scores," Research Bulletin 56-6 (Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1956).

159. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 175.

160. Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, "Organizational Interdependence and Intra-organizational Structure," ASR 33 (December 1968), pp. 912-931; Hage and Aiken, "Program Change."

161. Hage, "Axiomatic Theory."

162. Recall that, contrary to Hage, a negative relationship between formalization and effectiveness was hypothesized earlier in this analysis.

163. Max Weber, Economy and Society, Vol. 1, eds. G. Roth and C. W it- tich (Mew York: Bedminster Press, 1968), pp. 49-50; Alvin Gouldner, "Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory," in Symposium on Sociological Theory, ed. L. Gross (New York: Har- perand Row, 1959), pp. 241-270.

164. Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, p. 187.

165. Bell, "Formality versus Flexibility," p. 101.

166. Hage, "Axiomatic Theory."

167. Fred E. Katz, "The School as a Complex Organization," Harvard Educational Review 34 (Summer 1964), pp. 428-455; James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).

168. Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, p. 52.

169. Owens, Organizational Behavior, p. 62.

170. Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkeley: University of C alifo rn ia Press, 1949). However, excessive levels of adaptiveness can lead to cooptation, which often has dysfunc tional consequences for effectiveness.

171. Stanley E. Seashore and David G. Bowers, Changing the Structure and Functioning of an Organization (Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, In s titu te fo r Social Research, 1963). 95

172. Donald C. Pelz and Frank M. Andrews "Autonomy, Coordination, and Stimulation in Relation to Scientific Achievement," Behavioral Science 11 (March 1966), pp. 89-97. The relationship did not hold at the two extremes, however, i . e . , those scientists under extremely lim ited freedom or v irtu a lly complete freedom.

173. Meltzer and Salter, "Organizational Structure."

174. Worthy, "Organizational Structure."

175. Seashore and Bowers, Changing the Structure.

176. William D ill, "Environment as an Influence on Managerial Auto nomy," ASQ 2 (March.1958), pp. 409-433.

177. For example, see Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations; Arthur Stinchcombe, "Social Structure and Organizations," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 142-193.

178. Thompson, Organizations, pp. 66-82.

179. F.W. Emery and E.L. Trist, "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environment," Human Relations 18 (February 1965), pp. 21-31.

180. D i l l , "Environment as Influence;" W illiam M. Even, "The Organi zation-Set: Toward a Theory of Interorganizatinal Relations," In Approaches to Organizational Design, ed. J.D. Thompson (P itts burgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966); Hall, Organiza tions, pp. 295-324; Thompson, Organizations.

181. Robert B. Duncan, "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty," ASQ 17 (September 1972) pp. 313-327.

182. Richard N, Osborn and James G. Hunt, "Environment and Organiza tional Effectiveness," ASQ 19 (June 1974), pp. 231-246.

183. George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950), pp. 90-94.

184. Emery and T r is t, "Causal Texture."

185. S.N. Eisenstadt, "Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, and Debureau cratization," ASQ 4 (December 1959), pp. 302-320.

186. Richard L. Simpson and William H. Gulley, "Goals, Environmental Pressures, and Organizational Characteristics," ASR 27 (June 1962), pp. 344-351. 96

187. Ray H.Elling and Sandor Halebsky, "Organizational Differentiation and Support: A Conceptual Framework," ASQ 6 (September 1961), pp. 185-209.

188. Michel Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1964); Stephen A. Richardson, "Organizational Contrasts on B ritis h and American Ships," ASQ 1 (September 1956), pp. 189-207.

189. Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment . (Boston: Graduate School of Business Adm inistration, Harvard University, 1967).

190. Pugh et a l., "Dimensions."

191. Peter M. Blau, "A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organiza tions," ASR 35 (April 1970), pp. 201-218; Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations.

192. Blau and Schoenherr, Structure of Organizations, p. 232.

193. Shirley Terreberry, "The Evolution of Organizational Environments," ASQ 12 (March 1968), pp. 590-613.

194. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 174.

195. Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, p. 194.

196. Azumi and Hage, Organizational Systems, p. 26.

197. For example, see Tom Burns and G.M. S ta lk e r, The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock Publications , ” 1 9 6 1 1 ; Lawrence and Lorsch, Organization; (London: Oxford U niversity Press, 1965).

198. Osborn and Hunt, "Organizational Effectiveness," p. 232.

199. Azumi and Hage, Organizational Systems, pp. 25-35.

200. For example, see Burton R. Clark, "Interorganizational Patterns in Education," AS£ 10 (September 1965), pp. 224-237; Evan, "Or- ganization-rSet;1' Sol Levine and Paul E. White, "Exchange as a conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Rela tionships," ASQ 5 (March 1961), pp. 583-601; James D. Thompson and William J. McEwen, "Organizational Goals and Environment," ASR 23 (February 1958), pp. 23-31.

201. John J. Gabarro, "Diagnosing Organization-Environment 'F it'," Education and Urban Society 6 (February 1974), pp. 153-178. 97

202. Terreberry, "Organizational Environments."

203. Price, Organizational Effectiveness.

204. Azumi and Hage, Organizational Systems, p. 519.

205. Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, pp. 18-19, observe that "...most theorists conclude that organizations are affected by their environment (and then usually drop the point there)..."

206. Ronald G. Corwin, "Models of Educational Organizations," in Review of Research in Education, Vol. 2, eds. F.N. Kerlinger and J.B. Carroll (Itasca, 111.: F.E. Peacock, 1974), p. 263.

207. Hall, Organizations, p. 304.

208. D. H ellrie g e l and J.W. Slocum, "Organizational Climate Measures, Research and Contingencies," Academy of Management Journal 17 (March 1974), p. 263.

209. Selznick, TVA.

210. Ronald Randall, "Influence of Environmental Support and Policy Space on Organizational Behavior," ASQ 18 (June 1973), p. 236.

211. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 181.

212. Erving Goffman, "The Characteristics of Total Institutions;" in A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, 2nd ed., ed. A. Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969), p. 337. This article was originally written in 1957.

213. Philip Selznick, "Foundations of the Theory of Organization," ASR 13 (February 1948), p. 26.

214. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958).

215. D ill, "Environment."

216. Fraser, "Organizational Properties."

217. Ronald G. Corwin, "Education and the Sociology of Complex Or ganizations," in On Education - Sociological Perspectives, eds. D.A. Hansen and J.E. Gerstl (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), pp. 198-199.

218. Ibid., p. 201. 98

219. Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, p. 215.

220. Heydebrand, Comparative Organizations, p. 16.

221. For other discussions on the salience of environment permeability see Katz and Kahn,-Social Psychology of Organizations pp. 60-61; Owens, Organizational Behavior, p. 68; and William R. Rosengren, "Structure, Policy, and Style: Strategies of Organizational Con t r o l," ASQ. 12 (June 1 9 6 7 ),.pp. 140-164. An important excep tion to this second inadequacy can be found in Edward McDill et a l., "Educational Climates of High Schools: Their Effects and Sources," AJS 74 (May 1969), pp. 567-586, who found that external involvement and concern eliminated the impact of several other contextual variables.

222. Price, Organizational Effectiveness, p. 96.

223. Fred E. Katz, "The School as a Complex Organization," Harvard Educational Review 34 (Summer 1964), pp. 428-455; Thompson, Or ganizations in Action.

224. Willard Waller, The Sociology of Teaching (New York: John Wiley, 1932).

225. McDill et a l., "Educational Climates." It should be noted that the focus of concern in this study is on the in te re s t and in volvement of parents in the academic performance of their child ren; this type of interaction and support is less directed at the organization per se and is more concerned with how well the students are performing.

226. Owens, Organizational Behavior, p. 69.

227. Biddle, "Institutional Context," p. 174.

228. Thompson, Organizations in Action, p. 73.

229. D ill, "Environment."

230. Marvin R. Pilo, "Sequential and Organizational Models of School' Decentralization: New York City and Detroit," paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1974.

231. Burns and Stalker, Innovation.

232. Corwin, "Models," p. 281.

233. Ib id . 99 234. Corwin, Mi 1itant Professionalism.

235. Bernard Berelson and Gary Steiner, Human Behavior (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964), p. 370; John Child, "Organi zational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice," Sociology 6 (January 1972), p. 4.

236. Owens, Organizational Behavior, p. 158.

237. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education, p. 36. Anderson states that "bureaucratic rulesw ill have a direct relationship to the lik e li hood of outside pressure on organizational members."

238. For example, see Lawrence and Lorsch, Organization and Environment.

239. Haas and Drabek, Complex Organizations, p. 284.

240. Duncan, "Environmental Uncertainty."

241. Thompson, Organizations in Action, p. 22.

242. Burns and Stalker, Innovation.

243. Corwin, "Models," p. 262. See also Thompson, Organizations in Action.

244. Gabarro, "Organization-Environment 'F it'," p.156.

245. Corwin, "Models," p. 281.

246. Duncan, "Environmental Uncertainty." CHAPTER IV

METHODS AND MEASURES

This chapter summarizes the methods and measures used in the study. Topics discussed include sample selection and representative ness, sources of data, composition of the dependent and independent variables, and analytical methods used.

SITE AND SCHOOLS SELECTED

Metro C ity

The study was carried out in "Metro City,"^ a large, urban city located in the Midwest. Metro City was selected for several reasons. First, an urban setting was desired since the bulk of Ameri can students are educated in large city school systems.2 Secondly, several midwestern cities are often thought to be representative of the larger American society.3 T h ird ly, the researcher was working with the Metro City school system in another capacity, and therefore had few entree problems in terms of gathering data fo r this study.^

In many ways, Metro City is comparable to most large c itie s . For example, in comparison to the ten largest cities, Metro City:

—ranks in the top third of percent blacks —ranks in the bottom th ird of fam ilies below the poverty lin e —ranks in the top third of families earning more than $15,000 —ranks in the top third of percent total work force unemployed —ranks in the top third of pupil-teacher ratio —ranks in the middle third of per pupil expenditures5

In terms of achievement le v e ls, Metro City ranks somewhat below the national norms. In short, Metro City shares in the problems faced by most large cities. Since many students are educated in large cities such as Metro City, it seemed appropriate to select Metro City as the source of data.

Schools Selected

A ll the elementary schools in Metro City were selected fo r analysis.' The decision to select only elementary schools was made fo r several reasons. The f ir s t two reasons involve differences in both structural complexity and structural homogeneity. Regarding 100 101 the firs t, elementary schools are generally characterized by six grade levels and one or two administrators. Each teacher generally teaches all or most subject areas to her or his students; little differentiation exists regarding teacher tasks. In short, elementary schools are relatively simple structures. On the other hand, high schools are more complex in structure. Various curricula exist in high schools (i.e ., college preparatory, vocational, and general), and teachers are often differentiated by curriculum. Departmental or ganization also contributes to this complexity, as does the existence of such specialized personnel as guidance counselors.

In addition to being more structurally simple, elementary schools are also more stru ctu ra lly homogeneous than secondary schools. That is, there is less variation among elementary schools in structural composition than among secondary schools. Secondary schools are more structurally divergent, i.e ., there is more variation among such schools in organizational structure. Thus secondary schools may differentially combine the various curricular emphases, may differentially emphasize departmental organization, and may d iffe r e n tia lly employ various specialized personnel. Sampling both elementary and secondary schools would have necessitated the incor poration of differences in both structural complexity/simplicity and in structural diversity/homogeneity. Thus, only elementary schools were selected fo r analysis.

Thirdly in support of the first two points, several researchers studying both elementary and secondary schools have found s ig n ific a n t differences between these two types. On the basis of factor analysis, Bishop and George^ uncovered certain basic structural differences between elementary and secondary schools, p a rtic u la rly in the hierarchy of authority. Hodgkins and H e rrio tt7 have found that elementary schools have a normative compliance pattern while secondary schools have a utilitarian compliance pattern. Beck and BetzS developed a model re la tin g school structure and c o n flic t, but found th at the model did not f it elementary schools. These research results fur ther suggest basic differences between elementary and secondary schools.

Fourthly, there are more elementary schools in a city than secondary schools. In Metro C ity , for example, there are 233 e le mentary and about 75 secondary (ju n io r and senior high) schools. Selection of secondary schools would undoubtedly res u lt in an inade quate sample from a standpoint of s ta tis tic a l adequacy.

Fifthly, elementary schools represent their local environments more adequately than do secondary schools, due to the greater amount of cross d is tr ic t busing fo r secondary school students. Secondary schools often specialize according to curriculum and draw students from many neighborhoods. Since this analysis includes several local 102 environmental variables, it seemed appropriate to lim it the analysis to elementary schools.

SOURCES OF DATA

The data come from two general sources—existing documents and questionnaires answered by principals. Metro C ity school system documents were used to gather data on enrollment, proportion staff with an MA degree or higher (specialization), and proportion minority students. Metro City census tract data were transformed by school tract to yield data on population stability (environmental stability).

The Questionnaire

Principal questionnaires were used to obtain data for the standardization, centralization, flexib ility, closeness of super vision, and environmental permeability variables. The principal is viewed as the head of the organization and, therefore, the person best informed about the organization as a whole and its relationships with the environment. Thus the principal is used as an informant about the school's organizational structure and its relationship to the environment.

Questionnaires containing school names were sent via Metro City inter-school mail to all 233 elementary school principals during the second semester of the.1973-1974 school year. A personally signed cover letter printed on university stationary and a self-addressed, stamped envelope accompanied each questionnaire. The cover le tte r indicated the study was a doctoral dissertation, briefly summarized the study, assured c o n fid e n tia lity , and stressed the importance of prompt participation by each school. Another cover letter on Metro City school stationary indicated that the study was approved by the central administration and also encouraged participation. Three weeks after the initial mailing, a new questionnaire was mailed directly to each nonresponding p rin cip al; a b rie f cover le tte r , again encour aging participation, and another self-addressed stamped envelope accompanied this follow-up m ailing. (See Appendix A fo r copies o f the questionnaire and cover letters.)

A Note on Using Survey Data

There is some disagreement about the usefulness of question naires to operationalize organizational concepts. In a very unusual study, Pennings* measured centralization and formalization by using both official documents and questionnaires; he found relatively low correlations between the two measures. However, he also found low 103

intercorrelations among the dimensions w ithin each concept.

It is reasonable to expect some bias; Seidler1° details the progress social scientists have made in assessing bias and goes on to discuss theoretical and empirical methods of dealing with bias. Other writers, such as Scott" downplay the role of bias: "just be cause an individual is used as a source of data is no reason that the data must describe his own characteristics rather than the charac teristics of some external system to which he is .. .responding." Similarly, Hal1^2 indicates that scores from perceptual scales are quite valid, particularly when other indicators are used as validity checks. The a ltern ative to informants as a source of data is the use of o ffic ia l documents. However, these too are subject to bias, per haps more so than survey data.*3 in short, both methods are apparently subject to varying amounts and types of bias.

S e id le r l4 suggests that informants be selected on the basis of their expertise; principals were selected to be informants because they generally do have a considerable amount of knowledge about the school as a whole. He also suggests that informants occupying simi lar positions in different organizations be selected; this again results in the selection of principals. This latter procedure has the effect of standardizing the biases to an extent.

In comparison to the documentary approach, survey research measures are more comparable across organizations, both w ithin one type and across types. Comparability is a prerequisite for adequate statistical and substantive analysis. Similarly, gathering official documents for various organizational variables is difficu lt, due pri marily to the inconsistency of these records across organizations.15 Furthermore, the survey (perceptual) approach is by far the most com mon approach.16

Pretest and Interviews

The instrument was pretested with the assistance of ten prin cipals in a school system other than Metro City's. Although the sample was too small for adequate item analysis, the pretest did serve to sharpen the instrument. As a result of the pretest, several items were elim inated, new items were added, and others were reworded. All principals noted that the questionnaire was easy to read and understand; twenty minutes was the average completion time.

Inverviews with six administrators in the Metro City School System also assisted in clarification of instrument items; in ad dition, these interviews served to verify the salience of the con cepts measured in the instrument. The interviews also served to make the administrators familiar with the specifics of the study, so that they could more knowledgeably encourage support. 104

THE SAMPLE

Questionnaires were distributed to all 233 elementary school principals, with one follow-up as noted above. Three question naires were nondeliverable, due prim arily to school mergers and lack of a principal. One hundred and forty three questionnaires were re turned, resulting in an overall response rate of 62 percent. Nine of the questionnaires returned were incomplete and were discarded; therefore the net usable response is 58 percent. This figure is not s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t from the response rates reported on studies such as those by Coleman17 and Corwin.18 Neither is it significantly different from the 60 to 65 percent return rates obtained by private survey organizations with three or four call-backs.19

Since some data were gathered from o ffic ia l documents, Which exist for all schools, it was possible to compare respondent and non respondent schools on several items. Table 4.1 summarizes these com parisons. Although there are several differences between the means of respondent and nonrespondent schools, only the difference in percent minority students is statistically significant. That is, the average respondent school has about 10 percent fewer minority students than does the average nonrespondent school. To some extent this finding may reflect the resistance by minorities to outside research; this resistance is often in ten sified when lower socioeconomic blacks are repeatedly studied by middle and upper class whites. This d if f e r ence may also partially account for the slightly higher achievement scores and slightly higher average teacher experience in respondent schools, since shcools with large proportions of minority students generally have reduced achievement levels and higher teacher turnover rates. Respondent schools also tend to be somewhat larg er. As noted above, only the difference in proportion of minority students is statistically significantly different (p ^ .10).

Representativeness at a more general level should also be noted. Since this study is limited to one city, it seems tenuous to draw statistical inferences to the larger population of urban elementary schools. Technically, the study cannot draw inferences beyond Metro City elementary schools. However, three comments are in order. First, as already indicated, Metro City is somewhat typi cal of many urban areas in terms of the problems i t experiences. With a few exceptions, Metro City elementary schools face problems sim ilar to those faced by other urban areas. Secondly, the time and money problems in a multi-city study are considerable. And thirdly, limiting the study to Metro City precluded the otherwise necessary inclusion of larger community and contextual variables, such as the mode of financial operations and the political structure.20 Limiting a study to one locale automatically eliminates many such possibly contaminating effects. For these reasons, it seemed appropriate to lim it the study to Metro City. 105

Table 4.1 Comparison of Respondent and Nonrespondent Schools on Selected Items

Standard Item Mean Deviation T-value Significance

Enrollment Respondents 717.4 376.8 Nonrespondents 648.0 340.8 1.47 .14

Building Age Respondents 41.0 19.6 Nonrespondents 42.9 23.4 .66 .51

Average Teacher Experience Respondents 12.1 8.0 Nonrespondents 11.0 3.8 1.39 .17

Teachers with MA or Higher (per cent) Respondents 34.8 13.2 Nonrespondents 34.3 13.2 .31 .76

Proportion Moved Last Five Years • Respondents 45.1 13.3 Nonrespondents 45.9 11.4 .47 .54

Achievement Scores (average of math and reading) Respondents 45.6 4.2 Nonrespondents 44.5 6.8 1.35 .18

Percent Minority Students Respondents 62.6 37.9 Nonrespondents 71.8 34.9 1.90 .06 106

OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Achievement is measured on two dimensions—mathematics and reading. Educators generally consider these two dimensions to be the most important in measuring achievement.

Both reading and mathematics te st items were developed by state assessment officials in conjunction with educational testing experts fo r purposes of state assessment. The reading battery of items con tained questions on:

1. vocabulary items, including synonym, associative, and illu s tra tiv e items

2. sentences, including inferences and comprehension items

3. reading comprehension, including factual (e x p lic it) and in terp retive (inference) items

The mathematics battery items contained questions on:

1. number and operations, including operations with integers

2. place value

3. properties of integers

4. proper fractions

5. properties of operations (commutative, associative, dis tributive, closure)

6. estimation

7. computation

8. rela tio n s , functions, and graphs

9. logical thinking

10. mathematical sentences

11. applications

The scores were reported in standard format. In addition, the standard scores for 1973-1974 were mathematically equated to a base year, so that statewide scores in the base year had a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. 107

The grade four means fo r reading and mathematics scores were summed and divided by two to create an average achievement score that was comparable in scoring to the original items (grade four is the only elementary grade tested by state assessment officials). Some researchers examine reading and mathematics separately;21 in view of a correlation coefficient of .92 between the two scores however, i t was decided to use an average score. The mean, range, and standard deviation for the achievement variable can be found in Table 4.2

OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Variables From Documents

Size.—As indicated in Chapter III, various measures of organi zational size are highly intercorrelated. Size is operationalized by using student enrollment figures supplied by Metro City school officials. Enrollment represents the overall size of primary clientele served, one of the most appropriate size indicators for service or ganizations. Mean, range, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.2

Specialization.—Chapter III noted that specialization is a sub set of complexity, which represents internal structural diversity. Specialization represents the division of labor and advanced training requirements of complex organizations, and therefore is only one com ponent of complexity. One of the most common operational definitions of specialization in service organizations is the proportion of the s ta ff with an advanced d e g r e e . 22 Thus in this study specialization is operationalized by the proportion of each school's staff with a Masters degree (MA) or higher. Mean, range, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.2

Environmental Stabilitv.--Environmental stability reflects the population stability of the local environment. Census tract data on the percentage of people who have moved in the previous five years were transformed by school tract to provide the operational definition of environmental stability. Mean, range, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.2 Since a low value represents.high.stability, the values were reversed by subtracting each value from the sum of the minimum value and the maximum value; this procedure retains the original range and standard deviation.

Socioeconomic Status. —Socioeconomic status is operationalized by using the percent minority students per school, as obtained from official documents. Since a low value represents high SES, the values were reversed by subtracting each value from the sum o f the m ini mum value and the maximum value. Table 4.2 MEAN, RANGE, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE VARIABLES USED IN THE STUDY

Range Variable Mean Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Reliabi1ity Coeffecient

Achievement 45 38 57 4.2 Not Applicable

Size 717 100 1920 377.8 Not Applicable

Specialization (%MA) 35 13 87 13.2 Not Applicable

Environmental S ta b ility * 45 20 74 13.3 Not Applicable

Socioeconomic Status* 62 1 98 37.8 Not Applicable

Centralization .36 .19 .58 .07 .70

Standardization 42 7 94 21.2 .63

Close Supervision 5.4 0 13 2.7 .48

Flexibility- Professional Freedom 21 14 25 2.3 .66

FI exi bi 1 i ty—Adaptabi 1 i ty 6 2 10 2.1 .70**

Envi ronmental Permeabi1ity 38 19 59 8.8 .81

*The values on both stability and SES were reversed so that a low value would represent low sta b ilit y and low SES. **The adaptability scale had only two items; therefore the reliability coefficient represents o the correlation between the two items. 109

Scale Variables

Centralization.--Centralization generally refers to the degree of participation in decision m a k in g , 23 or the distribution of power across organizational l e v e l s . 24 Two basic approaches have been developed to measure cen tralizatio n : questions designed to c o llect information about influence with respect to the making of specific decisions, and global questions designed to collect information about influence in general. The first is found in the Hage and Aiken work and the second in Tannenbaum's "control graph."25

The measure employed in this study combines both these approaches. Like the Aiken and Hage approach, participation in specific decision areas is established for persons at various levels in the hierarchy. Aiken and Hage compute a mean score fo r each position and also a grand mean score fo r the en tire organization, and thus measure "to ta l influence." The Tannenbaum approach involves measuring the power o f persons at one level in the hierarchy in terms of the power exer cised by persons at the other levels. The measure developed fo r this study measures teacher participation in decision making in comparison to p articip atio n by persons a t other levels.

The decision issues are derived from Corwin.2® Respondents were asked to assess the degree of influence each of several persons exercises on selected decision areas. Response, categories included were:

Alternatives

1. Usually does not participate 2. Usually participates but has no influence 3. Usually participates and has minor influence 4. Usually participates and has moderate influence 5. Usually participates and has decisive influence

Decisions

1. selecting required texts 2. selecting supplementary materials 3. establishing course objectives 4. determining daily lesson plans and activities 5. hiring new teachers 6. establishing policy and procedures for evaluating tea chers 7. the marking policies 8. establishing student disciplinary policies 9. budget allocation 110

Total scores were computed for central office administrators, inter- mediate administrators, principals, and teachers. The total teachers' score was divided by the sum of all three administration influence scores, thus giving. a ratio of teachers' influence vis-ct-vis adminis trative influence (mean, range, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.2). Thus if teachers in a school have a uniformly high level of influence while administrators also have high levels of in fluence, the ratio will be fairly low (perhaps .20). On the other hand, i f teachers have high influence while administrators have re latively low influence, the ratio will be much higher (perhaps .60). Although one system component is assessed, the unit of analysis is s till the organization.

The resulting scale ranges from low teacher p articip atio n in decision making to high participation. However, since low teacher participation reflects a high level of centralization, a reversal of the scale scores was required so that a low score would represent low centralization. The scores were reversed by subtracting each score from the sum of the minimum value and the maximum value; this procedure retains the original range and standardization, which are reported in Table 4.2. The split-half reliability coefficient for this scale is .70.27

There are several advantages to norming the p articip atio n of teachers in decision making to the participation of a ll persons higher in the hierarchy. In the first place, it insures comparability. Since principals often use various standards to indicate influence at the various levels, norming teacher influence against administrative in fluence has the effect of standardizing the estimations. Secondly, centralization generally represents participation in decision making by each hierarchical level in proportion to the influence exercised by those at the other levels; such a definition is more in accord with most of the theoretical discussions than are definitions stressing simply the raw total amount of influence at each level. Thirdly, this approach is more operationally adequate than several common measures which globally assess whether subordinates can make up th e ir own minds about decisions in general.

Standard!*zation. — Standardization generally incorporates the dimensions of rules and procedure emphasis, uniform ity, and e x p lic it ness of operations. Most generally, the concept refers to uniformity; rules and explicit operations serve to establish uniformity.

Operational definitions reflect these dimensions. Hage2® speaks of the proportion codified jobs and the range of variation that is tolerated within the rules defining the jobs, as indicated by infor mants. Pugh et al. 20 also use the number of rules and procedures, but obtain their indicators directly from organizational records rather than rely on informants. Thus standardization generally refers I l l to explicitness of norms and importance of rules and procedures.30

Several of the items employed in the standardization scale in this study come from Corwin's works on schools,31 which emphasize the existence and enforcement value of rules, the uniformity and explicit ness of lesson plans, and the uniformity that exists school-wide. Eighteen items were developed to measure standardization; these items represent the dimensions of rules and procedures, uniform ity, and ex plicitness of operations.32 Examination of the total correlation matrix revealed many low coefficients (r£ .20). Therefore, an oblique factor analysis (with Kaiser normalization) was employed to assi st in statistically determining the most salient, most highly intercorrelated items. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 3.1 and explained 72 percent of the total variation in the standardiza tion concept. All items with a factor loading of .40 or higher on Factor 1 were included in the final scale; the other factor was not used due to its low contribution to the variance explained. Respon dents were asked to indicate how characteristic each of the following traits is of their school:

Alternatives

1. Not a t a ll ch aracteristic of my school 2. Minimally characteristic of my school 3. Moderately characteristic of my school 4. Quite characteristic of my school 5. Very characteristic of my school ... • Loadings Items

1. .62 1. A teacher is resposible to see that the content in textbooks is completed in the course of a year.

2. .58 2. Identical school-wide tests are used for students taking the same subjects.

3. .60 3. The subject m aterial is planned so that every child studying the same subject throughout the school system w ill eventually cover the same material.

4. .52 4a. Rules specify when teachers should arrive and depart from the building.

4b. These rules on arrival and departure are strictly enforced.

5. .65 5a. To prevent confusion and friction among the staff there is a rule covering almost any problem that might come up. 112

5b. These rules on possible problems are strictly enforced.

6. .49 6a. There are rules specifying the topics that are and are not appropriate for discussion in the classroom.

6b. These rules on topics are strictly enforced.

7. .42 7a. A manual of rules and regulations exists.

7b. These rules and regulations are strictly enforced.

The factor loadings on the firs t factor are located in the column headed "Loadings" (see Appendix B for a lis t of all the items and their loadings on the two factors). The first three items measure uniformity. Items 4a, 5a, 6a, and 7a measure the existence of rules concerning specific issues, and items 4b, 5b, 6b, and 7b measure the extent to which rules are enforced. Since the extent to which rules are enforced is as important as the existence of the rules themselves, it was decided to weight each rule item by the corresponding enforce ment for that rule item. Since multiplication is a common weighting procedure, item 4a was multiplied by item 4b, item 5a by item 5b, item 6a by item 6b, and item 7a by 7b.

Thus the scale is comprised of seven items which are summed to create the scale, the last four of which are weighted items. The split-half reliability coefficient for the scale is .63. The mean, range, and standard deviation of the standardization scale can be found in Table 4 .2 .

Close Supervision.--In addition to centralization and stan dardization, close supervision also represents a means of organiza tional control. Close supervision represents the most personal, di rect means of control; i t represents the degree to which supervisors actually monitor their subordinates.

The measure of close supervision used in this study is also adopted from Corwin.33 Measures were developed to assess the amount of overall close supervision applied in each school in comparison to that applied in other schools, the number of times per year the prin cipal is observed by the central office, the number of times per year teachers are observed by the principal and central office administra tors, and how seriously these observations are taken. Since the over all intercorrelations were relatively low, an oblique factor analysis (with Kaiser normalization) was performed to select the most s a lie n t 113 items. The firs t factor had an eigenvalue of 1.45 and explained 65 percent of the variance in the close supervision concept; since the majority of the variance is explained fay this firs t factor, loadings on the second factor are not used. All items with factor loadings of .40 or higher on Factor 1 were included in the fin al, summed scale. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of times per year each of the following observes the classrooms of teachers;

Alternatives

0. Not a t a ll 3. Three times 1. One time 4. Four times 2. Two times 5. Five times or more

1. Regional superintendent (.42) 2. Other regional staff (.52) 3. The principal (and assistant principal) (.49)

The factor loadings on the firs t factor are in parentheses after each item (see Appendix C for a lis t of all the items and their loadings on the two facto rs ). Thus only the dimension re fle c tin g actual numbers of observations of teachers is used in the closeness of supervision scale. The split-half reliability coefficient for this scale is .48, somewhat lower than the average acceptable reliab ility coefficient. The mean, range, and standard deviation for this scale are located in Table 4.2.

Flexibility.—As indicated in Chapter III, flexibility en compasses the twin dimensions of professional freedom and organiza tional adaptability. Professional freedom represents the profes sional autonomy teachers experience; as professionals, teachers re quire a certain degree of freedom to make th e ir own decisions in cer tain areas. The adap tab ility dimension represents the organization's capacity to adapt to change needs or change demands

Professional freedom is measured by the re la tiv e amount of freedom experienced by teachers in several d iffe re n t issues; the items are derived from Corwin.34 Nine items were i n it ia lly developed to measure this dimension. Three were deleted due to th e ir minimal v a ri ation. An oblique factor analysis (with Kaiser normalization) was again employed to assist in the determination of statistically salient items. The firs t factor had an eigenvalue of 1.5 and explained 70 percent of the variance in the flexibility concept. All items with factor loadings of .40 or higher on Factor 1 were included in calcu lating the final score; loadings on the second factor were not em ployed due to the low explanatory power of that fa c to r. Respondents were asked to indicate the relative amount of freedom teachers in each school have in the following areas: 114

Alternatives

1. No freedom 2. L it t le freedom 3. Some freedom 4. Much freedom 5. Complete freedom

1. The selection and use of supplementary materials (.53) 2. The subject content to emphasize with students (.65) 3. The timing and pacing of teaching each dav (.57) 4. The modes and techniques of teaching (.47)

The factor loadings on the firs t factor are in parentheses (see Ap pendix D for a lis t of all the items and their loadings on the two factors). The scale was created by summing the scores on these four items. The split-half reliability coefficient for this scale is .66. The mean, range, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.2. The high mean (21) should be noted. Metro City school teachers have acquired a great deal of flexib ility through active involvement in their professional associations, and therefore display much higher levels of flexibility than do teachers in the pretest city.

The adaptability scale was created specifically for this study and is comprised of two dimensions: the ra p id ity with which teachers accept and adjust to changes in the routines, materials, or teaching techniques, and the proportion of the staff that rapidly accepts and adjusts to these changes. The two items are:

1. When changes are made in the routines, materials, or teaching techniques, how quickly do the teachers in your school accept and adjust to these changes? (Check one.)

a. Most teachers accept and adjust to these changes very slowly. b. Most teachers accept and adjust rather slowly. c. Most teachers accept and adjust fairly rapidly. d. Most adjust very rapidly, but not immediately. e. Most teachers accept and adjust to these changes immediately.

2. What proportion of the teachers in your school rapidly or immediately accept and adjust to these changes? (Check one.)

. a. Considerably less than half of the teachers accept and adjust to these changes rapidly. 115

b. Slightly less than half accept and adjust rapidly. c. About half accept and adjust rapidly. d. Considerably more than half accept and adjust rap id ly. e. Practically everyone accepts and adjusts to these changes rap idly.

The intercorrelation between the two items is .70. The mean, range, and standrad deviation are reported in Table 4.2.

The correlation between the two dimensions of f l e x i b i l i t y - professional freedom and adaptabil i t y — is r = .29, which indicates a sufficient amount of discriminant validity to examine the two di mensions separately.

Permeabi1i t v . — Permeabi1itv re fle c ts the overall impingement, or influence, that the environment (particularly the "secondary clientele") exerts on an organization. More generally, it reflects the degree to which organization-environment boundaries are trans cended by environmental agents. As noted in Chapter III, many theo rists discuss the importance of the environment for organizational functioning, but none offer empirical definitions. Thus the permea b ility scale developed for this study is a new and previously un tested scale. Hence, an initial pool of twenty-six items was de veloped to assess various dimensions of perm eability. Dimensions tapped included:

1. the role of environmental agents (positive or negative) '2 . the importance of environmental agents 3. actual parental and other involvement in school activities 4. actual teacher and principal involvement with the environment 5. organizational environmental influence (i.e ., committees) 6. community use of school f a c ilit ie s

Since many of the intercorrelations were quite low, an oblique factor analysis (with Kaiser normalization) was employed to assist in the selection of the most highly intercorrelated items. The initial analysis produced seven facto rs, the f ir s t four of which were s ta tis t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. (See Appendix El and E2 fo r the items and their, loadings on these four facto rs). In an attempt to maximize the number of s ig n ifican t loadings on the f ir s t fa c to r, which tends to be the most important statistically and tends to be the most general factor, the number of factors was set at three. The resulting first factor had an eigenvalue of 4.1 and explained 62 percent of the variation in the permeability concept. A ll items with loadings in excess of .40 on this first factor were used to calculate the permeability scale; loadings on the other factors were not used due to th e ir reduced ex planatory power. Respondents were asked to rate th e ir schools on the following items: 116

Alternatives

1. Not a t a ll characteristic of my school 2. Minimally characteristic of my school 3. Moderately characteristic of my school 4. Quite characteristic of my school 5. Very ch aracteristic of my school

1. The active community groups a ll have been very supportive of this schools's policies (.55).

2. Community groups have been instrumental in helping to raise funds that th is school needs (.4 8 ).

Alternatives

1. Much below average 2. Somewhat below average 3. Average 4. Somewhat above average 5. Much above average

3. The extensiveness of parental participation in school activities (.53).

4. The opportunity for parents to sit down and discuss problems with the teacher (.56).

5. The opportunity for parents to sit down and discuss problems with the administration (.43).

6. The support given to the school by parents (.69).

Approximately what percentage of parents and citizen s (other than school personnel) in this community do each of the following? (Select one alternative for each item.)

Alternatives

1. 0 - 10% 5. 51 - 65% 2 . 1 1 - 20% 6. 66 - 80% 3. 21 - 35% 7. 81 - 90% 4. 36 - 50% 8. 91 -100%

7. Attend a t least one school-community meeting per year (.7 1 ).

8. Attend at least one parent-teacher conference per year (.59).

9. Help with fund raising (.72). 117

10. Voted In the la s t school bond issue (.5 7 ).

The loadings on the firs t factor are noted in parentheses after each item (see Appendix E3 for the loadings on all three factors). The dimensions emphasized by the resultant scale include the role o f en vironmental agents, the importance of environmental agents, and ac tual parental and other involvement in school activities. The split- half reliability coefficient for the permeability scale is .81. The mean, range, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.2.

A Note on Conceptual Adequacy

The operationalization of concepts in complex organizations theory is considerably less refined than in most other theoretical approaches. There are two difficulties in operationalizing organiza tional variables. First, since the field is still in the developmen tal stages, few concepts are uniformly defined nominally. If theorists cannot agree on a nominal definition of a concept, operational de finitions will be even more difficult to develop. For example, there is s till some disagreement about the nominal definitions of such con cepts as standardization and c e n tra liza tio n . The second problem in volves inadequate and incomplete operationalization of concepts. C o r w i n ^ S notes that "there are not yet available sufficiently reliable and standardized instruments to measure most organizational variables." In his review analysis of many organizational studies, Hage36 notes th at his hypotheses are both supported and disconfirmed by the l i t e r ature. A major cause of the problem, he notes, is "the conflicting definitions of concepts."

This study has attempted to follow the most widely accepted measures for organizational concepts. Reliability coefficients in dicate that most scales have the requisite minimal reliability co efficient. Environmental permeability has not been previously opera tionalized; hence an initial pool of twenty-six items was developed to measure this concept. Items for the other concepts were derived from the lite ra tu re to assure conceptual s im ila rity . This approach makes data interpretation somewhat more simple, since results con flicting with previous analyses cannot be attributed totally to d if ferential operationalization.

STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED

Correlation and regression were the primary statistical tech niques employed. There were three general analytical steps. F irs t, the basic relationships between each of the organizational variables and the dependent variable were established with Pearson correlation coefficients. Second, the impact of each environmental variable on 118 the basic relationship between each organizational variable and the dependent variable was calculated with p a rtia l correlation techni ques; that is, each of the basic relationships was controlled for the environmental variables so that the contextual effect of the en vironmental variables could be assessed. Third, stepwise multiple regression techniques were employed to assess both the combined effect of the organizational variables on the dependent variable and the relative predictive salience of each variable. Multiple regres sions were also used to assess the contextual effects of the en vironmental variables on the predictive salience of the organizational variables.

Stepwise regression techniques were employed, with forward calculations. That is, the most salient variable, from a statistical standpoint, is entered into the regression equation firs t. With that variable already in the equation, the variable next in statis tical salience is entered. Similar procedures are used to evaluate and sequentially enter each of the remaining variables, one at a time. Any variable not meeting the minimum statistical parameters established (F = .01 in this study) is not entered into the regres sion equation.

The advantage in using stepwise calculation (over the multiple mode) lies in the fact that the stepwise approach rank orders the variables in terms of statistical contribution to the variance ex plained in the dependent variab le. A second advantage is that this procedure allows specific variables to be controlled ("held constant") while examining the contribution of others. Thus, the unique e ffe c t of each independent variable can more accurately be determined.

Multiple regression techniques do operate on the basis of several assumptions. One assumption is that a ll variables are in terval in level of measurement. Several of the scales are forced into interval-appearing scales, but are basically ordinal. However, current understanding and practice legitimize the use of interval techniques on such v a r i a b l e s . 37 Secondly, it is assumed that all X-Y relationships are linear. An inspection of scattergrams for each X-Y relationship did not uncover any relationships deviating s ig n ifi cantly from linearity. Thirdly, multi collinearity is assumed to be at a minimum. Since the highest coefficient in the table of correla tions among the basic variables is .49, multicollinearity was not con sidered to be a problem. Fourthly, it is assumed that the relation ships are additive, i.e ., that minimal interaction effects exist. Although there were a few interaction effects when socioeconomic status was entered as a control, only minimal interaction effects were found among the basic variables. In short, stepwise m ultiple regression analysis seemed to be the most appropriate statistical technique. 119

TREATMENT OF MISSING DATA

Overall, about four percent of the data were missing (the range is from 0 to 15 percent). Metro City school system was broken up into regions and the regional mean was inserted for each missing datum. This procedure insures more accuracy than simply applying the to ta l sample mean to each missing datum. The bulk of the missing data were confined to centralization scale items, which asked about central and regional office roles. It seemed particularly appropriate to use regional means for these data.

The application of means to missing data was done for two rea sons. In the first place, leaving certain items with missing data values would have a r t if ic ia lly altered the scales, which were con structed by summing items. That is, total scale scores would be ar tific ia lly low or high if the missing values of "0". or "9" were added in the computations. Secondly, insertion of means for missing data is a conservative approach from a s ta tis tic a l standpoint. Since th is approach minimizes the variation of the variab le, i t also attenuates the regression coefficients. For these reasons, the application of mean values was applied to missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has outlined the methods and measures used in the study. Chapter V contains an analysis of the relationships between the organizational variables and organizational effectiveness. Chapter VI assesses the role of the environmental variab les, while Chapter V II makes a few causal interpretations and Chapter V III sum marizes the results, makes a few policy suggestions, notes several shortcomings in the study, and contains suggestions fo r future studies. 120

NOTES TO CHAPTER IV

1. "Metro City" is a pseudonym.

2. Ronald G. Corwin, Education in Crisis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), p. 3, notes that 85 percent of a ll students in American are educated in 20 percent of the school systems; these school systems are predominantly located in urban areas.

3. Robert E. H e rrio tt and Benjamin J. Hodgkins, The Environment of Schooling: Formal Education as an Open Social System (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 38, refer to the Great Lakes region as "the most ty p ic a lly American region in America."

%4. The entree problem should not be underestimated. In the wake of recent accountability pressures, many school systems have become increasingly resistant to being researched, particularly by indi viduals who are not members of the organization.

Two other factors contribute to school resistance to research. F irs t, many researchers f a il to liv e up to th e ir promises of data summaries. Secondly, school o ffic ia ls generally desire ‘useful" research and are skeptical of research that cannot pro vide "useful answers." Metro City school o ffic ia ls were aware of the contribution of this organizational study and actively supported its completion.

5. The economic indicators were obtained from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1974, 95th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974), pp. 870- 911; the education indicators were obtained from U .S ., Depart ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Education Division, Digest of Educational Statistics 1974 (Washington, D.C.: Govern ment Printing Office, 1974), p ."36.

6. L.K. Bishop and J.R. George, "Organizational Structure—Factor Analysis of Structural Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools," Educational Administration Quarterly 9 (Winter 1973), p. 74.

7. Benjamin J. Hodgkins and Robert E. H e rrio tt, "Age-Grade Structure, Goals, and Compliance in the School: An Organizational Analysis," Sociology of Education 43 (Winter 1970), pp. 90-105. 121

8. E.M. Beck and Michael Betz, "A Comparative Analysis of Organi zational Conflict in Schools," Sociology of Education 48 (Winter 1970), pp. 90-105...... 9. Johannes Pennings, "Measures of Organizational Structure: A Methodological Note," AJS 79 (November 1973), pp. 686-704.

10. John Seidler, "On Using Informants: A Technique for Collecting Quantitative Data and Controlling Measurement Error in Organiza tional Analysis," ASR 39 (December 1974), pp. 819-820.

11. William Scott and Ruth Scott, Values and Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), p. 130.

12. Richard H. H a ll, Organizations: Structure and Processes (Engle wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall', Inc., 1972), p. 176.

13. Ib id .

14. Seedier, "On Using Informants," pp. 819, 823.

15. James L. Price, "The Study of Organizational Effectiveness," Sociological Quarterly 13 (Winter 1972), p. 13.

16. For example, see Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, Social Change in Complex Organizations (New York: Random House, 1970); Richard H. Hall, "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment," AJS 69 (July 1963), pp. 32-40; Wolf V. Heydebrand, ed. , Comparative Organizations: The Results of Empirical Research (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 37; Louis Kriesberg, "Organizations and Interprofessional Cooperation," in Comparative Organizations, ed. W.V. Heydebrand, pp. 242-268.

17. James S. Coleman et a l., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966).

18. Ronald G. Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism (New York: Appleton- Cnetury-Crofts, 1970); Ronald G. Corwin, Reform and Organiza tional Survival (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973).

19. "Survey Research Problems Getting Worse, Study Shows," Footnotes 2 (May 1974), p. 2.

20. Frederick M. Wirt and Michael Kirst, The Political Web of Ameri can Schools (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1972), p. 1$5, note regional differences in such items as differential expen ditures and voting patterns.

21. For example, see Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School D istrict Organization and Student Achievement," ASR 40 (February 1975), pp. 55-70. 122

22. For example, see Peter M. Blau, "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations," AJS 73 (January 1968), pp. 453-467; Wolf V. Hey debrand and James J. Noel!. "Task Structure and Innovation in Professional Organizations," in Comparative Organizations, ed. W.V. Heydebrand, pp. 294-322; James L. Price, Organizational Effectiveness (Homewood, 111: Irw in , 1968), p. 26.

23. Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, "Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties," AS£ 12 (June 1967), p.72-92; James L Price, Handbook of Organizational Measurement (Lexington,* Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972), p. 43.

24. Koya Azumi and Jerald Hage, Organizational Systems: A Text- Reader in the Sociology of Organizations (Lexington, Mass; D.C. Heath an d C o ., 1972), p. 227.

25. Hage and Aiken, "Relationship of Centralization," Arnold S. Tannenbaum, e d ., Control in Organizations (New York: McGraw- H ill, 1968).

26. See Ronald C. Crowin, M ilitant Professionalism (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 19701, pp. 375-378; and Ronald G. Corwin Reform and Organizational Survival (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), pp.' 412-413. *

27. The split-half reliability coefficient is simply the correlation c o e ffic ie n t between the two halves of the scale items with* the Spearman-Brown correction factor applied. James G. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), p. 74, notes that the split-half reliability coefficient measures the homogeneity of the items. J.P. G uilford, Fundamental S ta tis tic s in Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hi11 1956),' p. 458, notes That this coefficient underestimates the reliability of a scale. Regarding coefficient magnitude, it is desirable that the coefficient be greater than .50; Edward McDill Leo C. Rigsby, and Edmund D. Meyers, J r., "Educational Climates of High Schools: Their Effects and Sources," AJS 74 (May 1969), pp. 567-586, note that a coefficient of .59 indicates that a scale has an acceptable level of internal consistency.

28. Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," ASQ 10 (December 1965), p. 295.

29. Pugh et a l., "Dimensions."

30. Price, Handbook, p. 107. 123

31. Corwin, Militant Professionalism, pp. 99, 388-391.

32. The literature indicates that standardization consists of more than one dimension. For example, see Pennings, "Organizational Structure," p..699.

33. Corwin, Militant Professionalism, p. 385.

34. Corwin, Reform, p. 414.

35. Corwin, Militant Professionalism, p. 88.

36. Hage, "Axiomatic Theory."

37. For example, see Roland K. Hawkes, "The Multivariate Analysis of Ordinal Measures," AJS 76 (March 1971), pp. 908-926; Sanford Labovitz, "Some Observations on Measurement and S ta tis tic s ," Social Forces 46 (December 1967), pp. 151-160; and Lawrence S. Mayer, "A Note on Treating Ordinal Data as Interval Data," ASR 36 (June 1971), pp. 519-520. 124

CHAPTER V

ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND EFFECTIVENESS

This chapter examines the relationships of the organizational variables previously defined with organizational effectiveness. Two approaches are taken. F irs t, each of the organizational variables is individually examined for its association with effectiveness; this is done with the use of simple Pearson correlations. Second, assuming a causal ordering, the net combined impact of all organizational vari ables on effectiveness is examined; step-wise m ultiple regression is used for this purpose. A brief discussion on some of the intercor relations among the variables follows these two analyses.

THE BASIC RELATIONSHIPS—CORRELATION

Centralization

Centralization has been defined as the extent to which decision making power is concentrated at the upper levels of the organizational hierarchy, or conversely, decentralization refers to the extent to which teachers (who are at the lower end of the hierarchy) participate in decision making. It was hypothesized that, in professionally staffed service organizations such as schools, centralization would be inversely associated with organizational effectiveness (Hypothesis 1).

The zero order correlation coefficient between estimated cen tralization and organizational effectiveness is .15 (p£ .05), Table 5.1 contains the correlation matrix for all organizational variables. That is, the higher the level of estimated centralization of decision making, the higher the average level of school achievement. This finding is contrary to the hypothesized relationship; the data indi cate that the less teachers participate in decision making, the greater the organizational effectiveness.

Standardization

Standardization refers to uniformity in an organization; an empha sis on rules and procedures, and a careful delineation of operations serve to maintain uniformity. 126

It was hypothesized that standardization would be inversely as sociated with organizational effectiveness (Hypothesis 2); standardi zation seems to insulate professionals from their clients and, therefore, results in reduced organizational effectiveness.

The zero order correlation coefficient between estimated standardi zation and effectiveness is .01. There is no relationship between standardization and effectiveness, and the hypothesis is not supported.

Close Supervision

Close supervision represents a third means of organizational con trol. This control measure is more personal than the other two and represents the degree to which supervisors actually monitor the per formance of th e ir subordinates.

It was hypothesized that close supervision, as estimated by principals, would be inversely associated with organizational ef fectiveness in schools (Hypothesis 3a). The literature seems to indi cate that, in professional organizations, a high amount of close supervision retards the application of professional judgments to in d i vidual cases. That is, teachers who are closely supervised may feel compelled to abide very closely by the rules and accepted practices rather than dealing with individual clients on the basis of individual need.

The correlation coefficient between estimated close supervision and effectiveness is .05, which is not statistically significant. Neither is it of substantive significance. Apparently the amount of close supervision by administrators has little impact on organizational effectiveness; the hypothesis is not supported.

Hypothesis 3b suggested that standardization and close supervision represent alternative measures of control and, therefore, would not be simultaneously associated with effectiveness. Since neither vari able was significantly associated with effectiveness, this hypothesis was tested by examining the correlation coefficient between the two variables; this coefficient is .22 (pS .01). Instead of performing in a substitutable fashion, it appears that close supervision and standardization perform in a reinforcement fashion, and in a direc tion opposite to that expected. They both represent alternative in dicators of the more general underlying dimension of control.

Size

Size re fle c ts the magnitude of operations in an organization. For schools, it reflects the number of clientele served, i.e ., Table 5.1 CORRELATION MATRIX OF ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND EFFECTIVENESS (N=134)*

SIZE SPEC STAND ADAPT FREEDOM CENT SUPERVISION EFFEC

SIZE 1.00

SPECIALIZATION -.25 1.00

STANDARDIZATION .16 .02 1.00

ADAPTABILITY -.11 .20 .06 1.00 ,

PROFESSIONAL i FREEDOM -.27 • o cr> -.15 .29 1.00

CENTRALIZATION .02 .04 .20 .03 -.11 1.00

CLOSE 1 lO SUPERVISION -.03 -.13 .22 -.09 • o .09 1.00

EFFECTIVENESS -.21 .27 .01 .18 .20 .15 .05 1.00

*The minimum correlation for a significance level of .001 is r = .27; for p = .01 it is r a .19, and for p = .05 it is r = .13.

ro in 127

enrollment. On the basis of the literature on service organizations it was hypothesized that size would be negatively associated with effectiveness (Hypothesis 4).

Table 5.1 indicates that the correlation coefficient between size and effectiveness is -.21 (p £ .01). Thus the hypothesis is supported; the larger the size of the school, the lower the mean achievement levels.

Specialization

Specialization is a subset of the larger concept of complexity. Complexity refers to the overall internal structural diversity, while specialization refers to the level of advanced training found in the organization. Specialization has been operationalized by using the proportion of the teaching staff with a master's degree or above. It was hypothesized that specialization would be positively associated with effectiveness (Hypothesis 5).

The correlation coefficient between proportion of specialized staff and organizational effectiveness is .27 (p ^ .01), the largest coefficient among the basic relationships between organizational vari ables and effectiveness. Although the co e ffic ie n t is only of moderate size, it does indicate that advanced training is associated with in creased effectiveness, in accordance with the hypothesis.

Flexibility

Professional Freedom. —The professional freedom dimension of fle x ib ility represents the professional autonomy teachers experience in their schools. That is, it represents the discretion teachers experience to make situational decisions based on individual client needs. I t was hypothesized that professional freedom would be posi tively associated with organizational effectiveness (Hypothesis 6a). The correlation coefficient between estimated professional freedom and effectiveness is .20 (p ^ .0 1 ). Thus a moderate positive associa tion exists between professional freedom and effectiveness, as hypo thesized. It does seem appropriate to conclude that, whatever spe- • c ific factors may be involved, this dimension of f le x ib ilit y does have a positive relationship with effectiveness.

Adaptabi1ity .—The adaptability dimension of flexib ility encom passes the change climate in the organization. An organization is fle x ib le in this use of the term when i t rapidly responds to eith er change needs or change demands. This dimension is operationalized by ascertaining the proportion of teachers in each school who rapidly 128 accept and adjust to changes. It was hypothesized that this adapta b ilit y dimension of f le x ib ilit y would also be p o s itiv e ly related to effectiveness (Hypothesis 6b); adaptability reflects a climate of change orientation and acceptance, which has a functional relationship with effectiveness.

The correlation coefficient between estimated adaptability and effectiveness is .18 (p S .0 5 ). Although the c o e ffic ie n t is low, i t is in the hypothesized direction and is statistically significant. Thus the data confirm the hypothesis that schools characterized by staffs willing to accept changes readily have slightly higher levels of organi zational effectiveness.

I t may be argyed that since professional freedom and adap tab ility both represent dimensions of the concept f le x ib ilit y , they should be treated as one index. Since the correlation coefficient between the two dimensions is a moderate one (.2 8 , p ^ .0 1 ), i t was decided that conceptual redundancy was a t a.minimum and, therefore, the two d i mensions should be examined separately. Also, the use of separate variables in regression analysis affords the opportunity to assess which of the variables is the more salient. Combining two variables whose in te rc o rre la tio n is only moderate would have the e ffe c t o f re ducing the total variation explained in the dependent variable.

THE COMBINED RELATIONSHIPS—REGRESSION

This phase of the discussion more explicitly assumes direc tionality in the relationships; this approach assists in more clearly interpreting the data.

Stepwise multiple regression analysis was employed to assess the relative statistical salience of each variable with the remaining variables controlled. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 5.2; the F values and betas at the fourth step, which is the last statistically significant step, are reported in parentheses.

Several comments can be made on the basis of th is tab le. The most striking result is the amount of total variance explained: only 16 percent of the total variation in organizational effectiveness is explained by all seven variables. Fifteen percent of the variance is explained by four variables: specialization, professional freedom, centralization, and close supervision. Although 15 percent of the variance is not a very large proportion of the total variance ex plainable, it is crucial to note that this proportion can make a considerable difference for a large number of students.1 That is, changing schools in the factors suggested by the four variables explaining 15 percent of the variance in effectiveness could mean successful performance for a large number of borderline students. 129

Given the general problems of measurement error and the crudeness of sociological variables, both particularly characteristic of organi zational research, regression coefficients tend to be seriously un derestimated or biased downward.2 Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the results presented in Table 5.2 and in subsequent chapters underestimate the "real" coefficients; from a policy stand point, it is preferable to use underestimated coefficients than to use overestimated co efficien ts. I t should also be noted that ex plaining more than 20 percent of the variance in sociological vari ables is uncommon;3 this figure is particularly accurate for organi zational research.

There is some disagreement as to v/hether the contribution to the variance explained or the beta value is the most important indicator of theoretical worth fo r a variable. This study concurs with Blau^ in his position that the beta value is more appropriate because it "is indicative of the direct effect of each independent on the depen dent variable, controlling the other variables in the regression equation." The beta value reflects the unique influence of each independent variable on the dependent variable. On the other hand, the contribution of each variable to the variance explained is depen dent on the variables already in the equation. It is possible for a variable to have a sizeable beta value while contributing little to the variance explained; this situation often occurs when one or two variables enter the equation first and, therefore, artificially ex plain the bulk of the variance. In addition, the beta value is not dependent on the order of variable entry into the equation, as is the contribution to the variance explained. Although both values are reported, the beta values figure prominently in the theoretical dis cussions.

Given these introductory comments, which variables appear to be the most salient? Specialization appears to be the most important from the standpoint of contribution to variance explained (seven percent contribution to the variance explained). The simple r (r » .27, p - .01) and beta (B = .25) also highlight the relative impor tance of specializatio n. S ta ff training appears to be the most impor tant factor in explaining organizational effectiveness.

Second in importance is the professional freedom dimension of flexib ility (four percent contribution to the variance explained, r = .20 Cp £ .01] , B = .18). Thus the freedom to alter in-class teaching activities according to the dictates of professional know ledge also seems crucial to organizational effectiveness. Schools in which this freedom is ac tiv e ly encouraged apparently have higher levels of achievement. Table 5.2 STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES WITH EFFECTIVENESS (N=134)

VARIABLE SIMPLE R R MULTIPLE R SQUARE .RSQ CHANGE F VALUE** BETA**

SPECIALIZATION .27 .27 .071 .071 8.04*** (12.19***) 25(.30)

PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM .20 .34 .113 .042 4.05*** ( 7.68***) . 18(.23)

CENTRALIZATION .15 .37 .136 .023 3.03*** ( 3.21***) .14 (.15)

CLOSE SUPERVISION .05 .38 .145 .009 1.05**** ( -j jg ****) .09(.09)

SIZE -.21 .39 .150 .005 .86 -.08

ADAPTABILITY .18 .40 .155 .005 .67 .07

*The F value of standardization was too low for inclusion **The F value and Betas at the fourth step are in parentheses ★♦★Significance ~ .01 ★★★★Significance 6 . .05 131

Centralization represents the variable third in importance (2.3 percent contribution to the variance explained, r = .15 [p £ .OETJ, B = .1 5 ). Contrary to the hypothesis, c en tralizatio n appears to be positively associated with effectiveness. It is significant to note that centralization, one of the basic organizational variables, is not of primary importance in its contribution to the variance explained in effectiveness. Nonetheless, the beta does indicate a statistically * significant modest relationship with effectiveness.

The fourth and last statistically significant variable is close supervision (one percent contribution to the variance explained, r = .05 jp = not significant] , B = .09). Although close supervision does add a statistically significant amount to the variance explained, the amount is very small and both the simple correlation and the beta indicate a very weak impact on effectiveness. To a very minimal ex tent, close supervision is positively associated with effectiveness. However, due to the minimal substantive contribution of this variab le, its contribution will not be stressed.

Size and adaptability both enter the regression equation, but with statistically insignificant F values, which indicates that they fail to make an independent contribution to effectiveness. Since their zero order correlations with the dependent variables are mo derate, the contribution of these variables to the variance explained is probably occurring through the variables already in the equation. However, the data as arranged do not allow for a test of such indirect effe c ts.

DISCUSSION

The organizational variables examined in this chapter explain about 16 percent of the variance in organizational effectiveness. Spe cialization appears to be the most important variable (B = .25). Spe cialization represents additional training, commitment to maintaining professional competence, experience, and advanced c e rtific a tio n . The data do not suggest which of these, or possibly others, is the most accurate explanatory factor. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that specialization is associated with effectiveness, as hypo thesized.

I t should be noted that this is the only organizational variable employed that measures an aggregate personal characteristic; the other variables all tap more structural characteristics. Perhaps the implica tion is that aggregate personal charcteristics, such as mean level of training or experience, are more germane for organizational effectiveness than are less personal, more structural variables such as centralization. 132

I t should be noted that specialization is one of two concepts that were operationalized with official documents rather than scaled items (the other one being size). Perhaps the scaled variables are more subject to measurement error, which often results in attenuation of basic correlations. Nonetheless, it appears that aggregate staff training is a crucial variable for organizational effectiveness.

Professional freedom is second in importance (B = .1 8 ). The data indicate that schools high on estimated flexib ility tend to be somewhat high on effectiveness. The implication is that teachers who are given the autonomy to make their own decisions in terms of in structional modes and the like are more instrumental in improving overall school effectiveness. I t seems that classroom autonomy of teachers does have a bearing on effective performance, as LortieS has suggested.

The positive findings for both specialization and professional freedom have sim ilar im plications. F irs t, both represent an organiza tional setting that fosters the development of professionalization among teachers; professionalization reflects a desire to provide high quality services to clientele. Specialization reflects a commitment to acquire additional knowledge so as to be able to provide better ser vice; professional freedom gives teachers the opportunity to apply what they have learned in th e ir pursuit of advanced degrees.

A second sim ilar im plication concerns the area of influence: both specialization and professional freedom make their mark primarily at the suborganizational unit of the classroom, through the teacher. That is, the results of an advanced degree-increased knowledge about techniques and materials--will be exemplified most directly in the classroom. Sim ilarly, the professional freedom scale measures autonomy primarily over classroom activities. The remaining organizational variables exert their impact more at the total organizational level. Perhaps the implication of these data is that variables that operate primarily at the suborganizational level are more important because they more directly affect the level at which services are actually rendered.

Centralization is the third most salient variable (B = .14); the data indicate that estimated centralization is mildly positively, associated with effectiveness, contraryto the hypothesis. It appears that by centralizing decision making at the higher levels of the hierarchy teachers are more free to devote their time and energy to improved service. A lte rn a tiv e ly , centralization may be a response to ineffectiveness.

Although the re la tiv e ly low magnitude of the c o efficien t should be emphasized at the outset, several comments can be made. I t is possible th at a school system as large as that in Metro City might 133 operate more effectively with high centralization. That is, centraliza* tion may aid effectiveness when an organization must deal with a highly diverse student body and high truancy and turnover rates. Perhaps decentralizing decision making in such a setting would reduce the im pact of overall system and organizational efforts at effectiveness. In short, perhaps when the organization is part of a large total sys tem, a relatively high level of centralization is indicated to insure a high level of coordination.

Another consideration involves the role of teachers in decision making. Perhaps particip atio n in decision making has an e ffe c t oppo site to that generally discussed in the literature. Perhaps when professionalized subordinates are given a role in decision making they can just as easily inhibit organizational efforts as assist them;6 in such situations, increased centralization may yield increased ef fectiveness. That is, the more power is concentrated at the top of the hierarchy, the more effectively and efficiently the organization can mobilize resources and energy in pursuit of its stated goal s .7

The hypothesis relating estimated centralization negatively with effectiveness im plicitly assumes that teachers desire to improve the performance of th e ir organizations; under these conditions i t seems plausible that increased teacher participation in decision making may result in improved effectiveness. It is possible that this as sumption is incorrect: perhaps decentralization only serves to divert, the interests and energies of teachers away from effective service for clients and towards more control and power for teachers. Some prior research by the writerS is relevant at this point. In that reserach on teacher participation in professional organizations it was found that participation in affairs of these organizations had no bearing on several outcome variables. Thus, it seems that participation by teachers in organizational decision making may serve primarily to in crease the power and autonomy of teachers and may not necessarily res u lt in improved organizational effectiveness.

Two caveats are in order. The low magnitude of the co e ffic ie n t should be reemphasized. Although s ta tis tic a lly s ig n ific a n t, i t is of relatively low substantive significance. The interpretations noted above comment prim arily on the unexpected direction of the coef ficient. Second, the possibility of intervening and spurious rela tionships exists; the orientations of teachers noted above may be such a variable.

Close supervision was the last statistically significant variable to enter the regression equation (B = .09); the low beta value pre cludes any discussion on substantive significance.

Several suggestions can be made about the lack of a relationship between estimated close supervision and effectiveness. Out of a 134 possible range of 0 - 15 in the close supervision scale, the mean was about 5, which indicates that, overall, not much supervision takes place. Perhaps minimal amounts of supervision have no e ffe c t on effectiveness one way or the other, but major increases in close • supervision may have the deleterious effects noted in the literature.9 In addition, teachers may not react very strongly to close supervision since they may feel they have a certain amount of classroom autonomy, which cannot be violated, and since they may feel relatively secure in their positions as professionals. Participation in professional organizations may also reduce the importance of close supervision for teachers.

It was suggested in Chapter III that close supervision may be a response to ineffective performance, that is, increased levels of close supervision may resu lt in improved performance even though in i tia lly close supervision and effectiveness are negatively related. The negligible correlation between the two variables may represent two effects, opposite in direction, that cancel each other out. That is, on the one hand, close supervision may result in decreased effective ness; on the other hand (at a point later in time), increased close supervision may be applied in an attempt to improve performance. The net result of these negative and positive relationships may be the ob served negligible correlation.

Size has a modest zero order relationship with effectiveness (r = -.21), but a negligible relationship v/hen the other organizational variables are controlled (B = -.08). Such results in regression analy ses generally indicate intercorrelations between size and variables previously entered in the equation; Table 5.1 reveals that size is, in fact, correlated with specialization and professional freedom, the firs t two variables in the equation.10 However, the data are not arrayed in a fashion that would allow for a test of such possible in d ire c t e ffe c ts. I t can be concluded that size does appear to be more a "marker" variable,11 representing the effects of other factors, than a variable with a strong unique relationship with effectiveness.

A similar situation exists for adaptability: the modest zero order correlation (r = .18) is reduced when controlled fo r the other organizational variables (B = .07). Adaptability also is correlated with both specialization and professional freedom, the firs t two variables to enter the equation. In short, adaptability has a negli gible unique relationship with effectiveness.

Standardization has no relationship with effectiveness. It was suggested in Chapter I I I th at standradization may be a response to ineffective performance, i.e ., increased levels of standardization may res u lt in improved performance even though in it ia lly standradiza tion and effectiveness are negatively related. The negligible correla tion between the two variables may represent two effects, opposite in direction, that cancel each other out. That is, on the one hand, 135 standardization may result in decreased effectiveness; on the other hand (at a point later in time), increased standardization may be applied in an attempt to improve performance. The net result of these neqative and positive relationships may be the observed negligible correlation.

It is also possible that the deleterious effects of standardiza tion do not reach the teachers. Lortiel 2 maintains that elementary school teachers have considerable classroom autonomy; he suggests th a t, to a large extent, teachers can freely violate organizational rules and procedures since teachers have almost complete autonomy once th e ir classroom doors are closed. I f this is an accurate appraisal, then organizational standardization may have only a negligible impact on the in-class teaching by teachers, which is among the more impor tant variables (besides the students' socioeconomic status) in pro ducing high student achievement and, therefore, high organizational effectiveness. According to this line of reasoning, rules meant to apply to individual teachers' activities can easily be circumvented; thus the impact of standardization on learning, and ultimately organi zational effectiveness, is minimized.

A few comparisons can be drawn between these data and those re ported by Bidwell and Kasarda , ! 3 whose study is one of the few relatin g organizational variables to achievement. In the first place, the mul tiple R’s are quite similar: their multiple R for four organizational variables plus percent of the population that is nonwhite (i.e ., SES) is .487, while the multiple R reported in this study (excluding SES) is .40. Apparently system level data do not explain a significantly larger proportion of the variance than do the organization level data reported in this study. Second, both studies underscore the importance of specialization for achievement; in both studies the beta value for specialization is the largest among the organizational variables con sidered (for reading achievement in the Bidwell and Kasarda study, B = .29; for achievement in this study, B = .25). Staff qualifications appears to be a crucial variab le. Third, both studies find that size plays a negligible role, and again the betas are quite similar (Bidwell and Kasarda study, B = -.10, this study, B = -.08). In addition, both analyses suggest that size may be related to variables which themselves are related to achievement. It should be stressed that, other than size and specialization (which they label "staff qualifications"), the or ganizational variables examined are not identical. The difference in level of aggregation—system versus organization—should also be under scored. Nonetheless, the sim ilarity in several findings is noteworthy.

OTHER RELATIONSHIPS

A few other relationships found in Table 5.1 should be noted. The correlations among the variables do speak to the appropriate model of bureaucracy. As noted in Chapter III, Corwin^ notes three possible models; the reinforcement model (variables act as mutual 136 re in fo rc e rs ), the independence model (some patterns of variable in te r relationships more rational than others), and the compensatory model (variables have conflicting, often substitutable relationships). A compensatory model was suggested.in Chapter I I I , where i t was suggested that standardization and close supervision serve similar functions, but in different capacities. It was noted above that standardiza tion and close supervision are, in fact, positively correlated (r = .22, p - .01) suggesting a reinfocement model. Several other cor relations support the reinforcement model. Standardization is positi vely related to centralization (r = . 20, p £ .01), size is positively related to standardization (r = .16, p ^..05, standardization and c e n tra liza tio n are both negatively related to professional freedom (r = -.15; p< .05 and r = -.11; P - .10 respectively), speciali zation is negatively related to close supervision (r = -.13, p <1.05), size is negatively associated with both professional freedom and adaptability (r = -.27, p^.01 and r = -.11, p^ .10 respectively), and size is negatively associated with specialization (r = -.25, p £ .01). All of these relationships are in accord with the reinforcement model of organizations. That is, large organizations have more stan dardization, less flexib ility, and less specialization; highly standar dized and centralized organizations are less flexible; and organiza tions with high close supervision are less specialized. Although all the intercorrelations among these variables are not highly positive, the interrelationships do suggest a reinforcement model of organiza tion. Also, many of these relationships are in accord with the lite r ature; this situation lends credibility to viewing complex organiza tions as sets of logically interrelated common concepts. The dimen sions examined in this study seem to explain (at least partially) the phenomenon of complex organizations.

A few individual relationships should also be noted. Specializa tion is positively related to adaptability (r = .20, p£ .01). This suggests that schools with more highly trained teachers also have climates favoring ready adaptation to new teaching technologies and materials. Perhaps more highly educated teachers are more aware of the latest techniques and materials and therefore display higher adaptiveness. It is also possible that both advanced training and adaptiveness are dimensions of a more basic concept, such as profes sionalization. Alternatively, administrators who hire primarily teachers with advanced degrees may be more professionally and more competency oriented; i t seems lik e ly that such administrators would also actively promote a climate of adaptability. The possibility also exists that schools that can afford highly trained teachers can also afford to update their teaching techniques and materials.

Specialization is also negatively associated with close super vision ( r = -.1 3 , p £ .0 5 ). This relationship suggests that s p e c ia li zation and close supervision are antithetical, i.e ., that schools high on specialization are simultaneously low on close supervision. Apparently, more highly trained staffs do not need to be and do not 737 want to be very closely supervised. Alternatively, administrators who hire teachers with advanced training and encourage the furth er education of their staffs are less inclined to closely supervise their staffs; perhaps they foster a climate of professional involvement and s ta ff autonomy.

I t appears that f le x ib ilit y , which is po sitively related to organizational effectiveness, is incompatible with highly standardized, large organizations (size with adaptability: r = -.11, P -.10 ; size with professional freedom: r = -.27^ p5.01; standardization with professional freedom: r = -.15-^5.05 ). An emphasis on rules and ‘ uniformity understandably reduces the flexib ility teachers experience, which understandably reduces the effectiveness of th e ir performance. Since flexibility is functionally related to organizational effective ness, and standardization has no relationship with effectiveneiss, flexib ility seems to be a more salient dimension than standardization.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has reported on the tests of the basic hypotheses relating the organizational variables to organizational effectiveness. Each concept has been briefly reviewed and its expected relationship with effectiveness noted.

The following hypotheses have been supported (a t the zero order):

Hypothesis 4: Size is inversely related with organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis 5: The greater the level of specialization, the greater the organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis 6a: The greater the level of professional flexi b ility, the greater the organizational effec tiveness.

Hypothesis 6b: The greater the organizational adaptability, the greater the organizational effectiveness.

The following hypotheses have not been supported:

Hypothesis 1: The higher the level of centralization, the lower the organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis 2: The higher the level of standardization, the lower the organizational effectiveness. 138

Hypothesis 3a; The higher the level of close supervision, the lower the organizational effectiveness.

Hypothesis^ 3b: If the standardization-effectiveness relation ship is strongly negative, then the close supervision-effectiveness relationship will be non-significant; if the close supervision- effectiveness relationship is strongly nega tive, then the standardization-effectiveness relationship will be non-significant.

In summary, the p ro file of the e ffe c tiv e school appears to involve a relatively small size, ahigh level of specialization, and a high level of professional freedom and adaptability. Curiously enough, this profile also includes a high level of centralization. Standardi zation and close supervision, both means of organizational control, do not enter the profile Regression analysis reaffirmed the salience of specialization, professional freedom, and centralization in terms of variance explained in organizational effectiveness.

The relatively modest correlation and regression coefficients should be reemphasized. Many of the interpretations are made on the basis of correlation coefficients of about .15 and contributions to the variance explained ranging from seven to one percent. While all of these coefficients are statistically significant, their substantive and theoretical significance remain open for discussion. While the coefficients are comparatively low, it should be remembered that the literature contains very few, if any empirical discussions on the re lationships of organizational variables to organizational effective ness. In such a situation of empirical paucity, coefficients such as those reported in this study can make at least an initial contri bution to a more complete theoretical understanding of organizational effectiveness.

The next chapter reports on the effects of several environmental variables on the relationships between organizational variables and effectiveness. 139

NOTES TO CHAPTER V

1. Ronald G. Corwin, Education in Crisis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), pp. 147-148. ' ~

2. J. Johnston, Economic Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), pp. 148-150.

3. Charles Y. Glock and Rodney Stark, "Do Christian Beliefs Cause Anti-Semitism?—A Comment," ASR 38 (February 1973), p. 57.

4. Peter M. Blau The Organization of Academic Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), p. 34.

5. Dan Lortie, "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School Teaching" in The Semi professions and Their Organizations ed. A. Etzioni (New York: Free Press, 1969), pp. 1-53.

6 . Mauk Mulder, "Power Equalization Through Participation?" ASQ 16 (March 1971), pp. 31-39.

7. Daniel E. G riffiths, "Administrative Theory and Change in Or ganizations," in Innovation in Education, ed. Matthew Miles (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964), pp. 425-436.

8 . Theodore C. Wagenaar, "A ctivist Professionals: The Case of Teachers," Social Science Quarterly 55 (September 1974), pp. 372- 379.

9. Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," ASQ 10 (December 1965), pp. 289-320, suggests a "lim its hypothesis," i.e ., organizations must maintain certain minimums and not exceed maximums in order to make hypotheses appropriate. In the case of close supervision, perhaps the levels are so low that they represent only the minimal levels necessary.

10. Leo Meltzer and James Salter, "Organizational Structure and the. Performance and Job Satisfaction of Physiologists," ASR 27 (June 1962), pp. 351-362, discuss the effects of organizational size on professional freedom.

11. Bruce J. Biddle, "The Institutional Context," in Scholars in Context, ed. W.J. Campbell (Sydney: John Wiley and Sons, Aus tralasias Pty. Ltd., 1970), pp. 159-184. 140

12. L o rtie , "Balance of Control."

13. Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School District 0r~ ganization and Student Achievement," ASR 40 (February 1975), pp. 55-70.

14. Ronald G. Corwin, M ilitant Professionalism (New York: Appleton- Cnetury-Crofts, 1970)V pp. 204-206. CHAPTER V I

ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES AND EFFECTIVENESS

This chapter covers four foci of analysis. First, the rela tionship of the two main environmental variables—permeability and stability—with organizational effectiveness is assessed. Second, the study focuses on the relationships between these two environmental variables and the seven organizational variables which were treated as independent variables in the previous chapter; zero order correla tions are used. Third, each of the seven organizational variable effectiveness relationships is controlled for three environmental variables: perm eability, s ta b ility , and socioeconomic status (SES). Partial correlation techniques are used in the analysis. The fourth focus of analysis centers on the incremental effect of all three environmental variables on effectiveness over and above that of the basic organizational variables; multiple regression techniques are employed fo r this purpose. A subsidiary concern a t th is point is an examination of the alterations in the beta values to determine what each environmental variable does to the basic relationships examined previously. Several causal implications are made in this last phase of analysis.

I t should be noted that these analyses do not unequivocally in dicate the role of environmental variables. The effects of the en vironmental variables could have any of several roles. The environ mental variable may be a true source of impact on effectiveness .which appeared to be from an organizational variable. Second, the environ mental variable may be prior to the organizational v a ria b le , impeding its impact on effectiveness. Third, the environmental variable may be prior to the organizational variable, propelling its impact on effectiveness. Fourth, the environmental variable may be an inter vening variable. Fifth, the environmental variable may act in con junction (interaction) with the organizational variable in influencing effectiveness. Although the data and mode of analysis do not allow for a test of the specific role of the environmental variables, some discussion on environmental effects w ill be offered.

PERMEABILITY

Permeability has been defined previously as the overall impinge ment, or influence, environmental factors have on organizational functioning. The assumption in this d e fin itio n is that certain seg ments of the environment do, in fact, exert influence on the organi zation, and that the organization somehow responds to these influences Environmental influence can be examined for extensiveness, intensive ness, and relative influence. As operationalized in this study, 141 142 permeability refers to the role of environmental agents, the impor tance of environmental agents, and actual parental and other involve ment in school a c tiv itie s .

It was also established that permeability is a salient environ mental concept, p a rtic u la rly within the larger concept of boundary maintenance. Organizations must establish and maintain boundaries vis-a-vis their environments. Permeability reflects the ability of environmental agents to influence the organization.

Relationship with Effectiveness

As noted in Chapter III, the literature contains suggestions that permeability is both positively and negatively related to organiza tional effectiveness. On the one hand, a low level of permeability means organizations do not have to devote energy to environmental affairs and are relatively free of interference with tasks, which means they can devote all their energy to meeting organizational goals and, therefore, can improve organizational effectiveness. On the other hand, constant surveillance and intrusion by environmental agents may cause the organization to pay more attention to how effectively it is performing. This is particularly applicable for service organiza tions whose clientele are usually members of the environment. A high level of environmental surveillance often causes such service organizations as schools to remain a le rt to how well they are meeting the needs of their primary and secondary clientele (students and par ents respectively). Thus Empirical Question 1: What is the direct effect of environmental permeability on organizational effectiveness?

Table 6.1 reports the correlations between the environemntal variables and the organizational variables, including organizational effectiveness. The correlation between permeability and effectiveness is r ^ .42 (p S. .001). Thus a very strong positive relationship exists between permeability and effectiveness, which supports the contention in the literature that a high degree of permeability, i.e ., a high degree of environmental surveillance and influence, has a signifi cantly positive effect on organizational effectiveness. Apparently environmental pressure can contribute to effective performance. Al ternatively, organizations that are effective for other reasons may also experience high levels of permeability.

Relationship with Organizational Variables

The literature contains suggestions that permeability has both a bureaucratization effect and a debureaucratization effect. That Is, some w riters contend that perm eability results in high standardiza tion, high centralization, high close supervision, and low flexib ility 143

(i.e ., bureaucratization); other writers contend that permeability results in low standardization, low centralization, low close super vision, and high flexibility (i.e ., debureaucratization). Those who contend permeability results in bureaucratization indicate that bureaucratization developed as a defensive reaction, i . e . , to main tain organizational autonomy. Those who contend permeability results in debureaucratization argue that the environmental input forces the organization to become more responsive to environmental demands and, therefore, less bureaucratized. Empirical Question 2 refers to the effect of permeability on organizational variables.

Table 6.1 reports the correlations between permeability and the organizational variables. Permeability is not consistently associa ted with either bureaucratization or debureaucratization. It is positively related to both standardization (r a .19, p £ .01), and close supervision (r = .34, p.£ .001), two key features of a bureau cratized organization. It is possible that organizations respond to: * permeability in a defensive fashion by increasing organizational con trols, particularly personal control.' But permeability is also posi tively related to professional freedom (r = .16, p ^ .05) and adapta bility (r = .33, p^-. 001) , both of which represent f le x ib ilit y . I t appears that permeability simultaneously engenders both a more fle x ib le organization as well as a more controlled organization. The same for ces that lead to debureaucratization effects also seem to produce counterforces to reintegrate the organization, as Lawrence and Lorsch suggest . 2 A balance framework . as suggested by Litwak3 seems appro priate. Concerning size, large organizations experience less permea bility (r = -. 21, p ~ . 01) , which suggests that small schools are more easily influenced by community people.

Circumscribing Effects of Permeability

Empirical Question 3 focuses on the circumscribing effect of permeability on the basic relationships between the organizational variables and effectiveness. A subsidiary concern w ill be the con tribution of permeability to effectiveness over and above that of the basic organizational variables. Although the literature contains nothing on what to expect in these two areas, it does seem analyti cally fruitful to examine the circumscribing effects of permeability. This analysis is based on the assumption that environmental factors may have some impact on organization relationships, in this case on the relationships between the basic organizational variables examined and organizational effectiveness.

Table 6.2 contains the zero order correlations between the basic organizational variables and effectiveness (as examined in Chapter V), and first order partials with permeability controlled. These partial Table 6.1 CORRELATIONS AMONG ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES, ORGANIZATIONAL VARI ABLES, AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (N= 134)

PERMEABILITY STABILITY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS EFFECTIVENESS

SIZE -.21 -.2 0 -.16 -.21

SPECIALIZATION .10 .20 .27 .27

STANDARDIZATION .19 .08 -.05 .01

ADAPTABILITY .33 .21 .23 .18

PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM .16 .13 .1 1 .20

CENTRALIZATION .03 .13 .03 .15

CLOSE SUPERVISION .34 .08 -.06 .05

PERMEABILITY 1.00 .36 .27 .42

STABILITY .36 1.00 .53 .50 CM

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS • .53 1.00 .70

EFFECTIVENESS .42 .50 .69 1.00 Table 6.2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS WITH CONTROLS FOR PERMEABILITY, STABILITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (N=134)

EFFECTIVENESS SOCIOECONOMIC ALL THREE PERMEABILITY STABILITY STATUS VARIABLES NO CONTROLS CONTROLLED CONTROLLED CONTROLLED CONTROLLED

SIZE -.21 -.1 3 -.1 3 -.1 4 -.1 7

SPECIALIZA TION .27 .25 .21 .12 .12

STANDARDIZA TION .01 -.0 8 -.0 3 .06 -.0 2

ADAPTABILITY .18 .05 .09 .02 -.0 8

PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM .20 .14 .15 .17 .14

CENTRALIZA TION .15 .15 .10 .17 .16

CLOSE SUPERVISION .05 -.11 ..01 .12 -.01 146

correlation coefficients yield the relationships between each organi zational variable and effectiveness with the effect of permeability statistically controlled. The differences between these partial co efficients and the zero order coefficients represent the impact of permeability on these relationships.

As seen in Table 6.2, the relationships of size, adaptability, and professional freedom with effectiveness are considerably reduced when controlled on permeability. Since these three variables are related to permeability, it can be concluded that permeability is a more sa lient variable for effectiveness than these three variables. Only specialization and centralization retain their statistically signifi cant correlations with effectiveness. These data suggest that effec tive organizations contain a large percentage of specialized staff and experience relatively high centralization in spite of how much permeability such organizations experience.

Thus far the circumscribing effect of permeability on each re lationship between the organizational variables and effectiveness has been assessed. Empirical Question 3 also focuses both on the net contribution of permeability to effectiveness over and above that of the basic variables and on the effect of permeability on the multiple relationships between organizational variables and effectiveness. The regression analysis reported in Table 6.3 deals with both these issues. This table resembles Table 5.2 except that permeability was forced into the regression equation last to measure the additional contribution to the variance explained in organizational effectiveness by permea bility. The beta values in parentheses are those listed in Table 5.2, which represent the beta values for the organizational variables alone.

Table 6.3 indicates that permeability contributes 12 percent to the total 28 percent variance explained in organizational effectiveness. That is, the organizational permeability contributes an additional 12 percent to the variance explained. Thus, permeability has almost as much impact on organizational effectiveness as do all the organiza tional variables together. This is particularly significant in view of the fact that permeability was forced in last; this proceudre in sures that the contribution of permeability is unique over and above that of the organizational variables. The beta value for permeability is .42, which is about twice as large as the next largest beta value. These data suggest a very significant relationship between environ mental perm eability and organizational effectiveness: Schools th at experience high levels of permeability also experience high levels of effectiveness.

An examination of the beta values as compared with those reported without the inclusion of permeability reveals few signifcant differences. Most of the differences are about .03; the value for size shifts from Table 6.3 STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL ' VARIABLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERMEABILITY WITH EFFECTIVE NESS (N=l34)*

VARIABLE SIMPLE R R MULTIPLE R SQUARE RSQ CHANGE F VALUE BETA**

SPECIALIZATION .27 .27 .071 .071 7 A 7 * * * . 2 3 (.25)

PROFESSIONAL CO • FREEDOM .20 •c* .113 .042 2 .9 3 * * * . 15 ( .18)

CENTRALIZATION .15 .37 .136 .023 4 . o o * * * .16(.14)

CLOSE SUPERVISION .05 .38 .145 .009 .44 - . 0 6 ( . 09) o 00 o CM I 1 • SIZE -.21 .39 .150 .005 .07 •

ADAPTABILITY .18 .40 .155 .005 .33 - ,0 5 (.07)

STANDARDIZATION .01 .41 .159 .004 .61 -.0 6

PERMEABILITY .42 .53 .276 .117 2 0 .9 0 ^ .42

♦Permeability was forced in last. ♦♦The beta values in parentheses are those from Table 5 .2 , where only the organizational variables were in the equation. ♦♦♦Significance £ .01. 148

-.02 to -.08. Specialization, professional freedom, and centraliza* tion all remain significantly related to effectiveness (betas = .23, .15, .16 respectively).

The comparison of beta values indicates a minimal change in the effect of the organizational variables on effectiveness, but an examin ation of partial correlations between the organizational variables and effectiveness controlled for permeability revealed several re ductions in zero order coefficients. What does this apparent dis crepancy mean? An examination of Table 6.2 indicates that two variables whose p artia ls for permeability were s ig n ific a n tly reduced from the zero order coefficients are variables whose beta values indicate no contribution, with or without a control for permeability; these vari ables are size and adaptability. In short, the effects of these two variables seem to be eliminated due to the variables that enter the regression equation earlier; that is,, the relationships of size and adaptability with effectiveness may be spurious.

It is possible that certain interactions exist between permea bility and the organizational variables such that the inclusion of these interaction terms would significantly increase the variance ex plained in organizational effectiveness. To test for this possibility, interaction terms were computed by m ultiplying perm eability by each of the organizational variables; six interaction terms resulted, none of which resulted in multicollinearity problems with the independent variables. These six interaction terms were then added to the re gression equation which already included the seven basic organization al variables and permeability.^ The increment of all six interac tion terms to R2 is .047. The hierarchical F test, as applied to subsets of the independent variables, was employed to determine whether this increment was statistically significant:^

F =(R2-y-1»2»3, ...14 - R2y. 1 ,2 ,3 __8 )/M (1 - R2y.l,2,3 ...14)/ (N-K-l) where M is the number of independent variables in the subset fo r which the significance test is being made, N is the sample size, and K is the total number of independent variables. This equation yielded an F value of 1.36, which is not statistically significant at the .05 level. Thus the combined interaction effects of permeability with the organizational variables add a statistically insignificant amount to the variance explained in effectiveness.

STABILITY

Stability is the second environmental variable examined. Sta~ b ility has been defined generally as the overall shift in population in an area, and reflects the changeability in the immediate environment. 149

Organizations in highly unstable environments experience more clientele turnover, which undoubtedly has some influence on organizational ef« fectiveness. As operationalized in this study, stability refers to the percentage of people who have moved in the area surrounding each school in the previous five years.

Relationship with Effectiveness

The literature on stability is considerably less extensive than that on permeability, although there are suggestions that stability is both functional and dysfunctional for effectiveness. On the one hand, at least some stability is required so that organizations can focus th e ir attention prim arily on goal attainment; a high level of environmental instability would require extensive organizational at tention to maintaining equilibrium and would divert attention from goal attainment and e ffe c tiv e functioning. On the other hand, com plete stability would enable the organization to operate without re gard for environmental concerns. Since service organizations deal with clientele in the environment, a high level of stability would allow such organizations to generally ignore environmental events. It can be aruged that organizations not attentive to changes in the envi ronment w ill be less e ffe c tiv e .

Table 6.1 reports the correlations between environmental sta bility and organizational effectiveness, as well as with other or ganizational variables. The correlation between stability and ef fectiveness is highly positive (r = .50, p-.OOl). A very strong positive relationship exists between stability and effectiveness, which seems to.support the contention in the literature that stability is a prerequisite for effective functioning. This positive relation ship seems particularly appropriate for schools. In terms of ef fective performance, schools that experience low student turnover have two distinct advantages over schools that experience high turn over. They can focus most of their energy and resources on activities normally pursued in goal attainment, i.e ., they do not have to spend the considerable amount of energy and resources on orienting new c li entele to the organization required when service organizations ex perience high turnover. Secondly, students generally perform better and adjust to the organizational life of schools more effectively when they have to deal with only one school. Students that move and have to attend two or more schools in one year have more adjustment prob-. lems, both a t school and a t home. These problems often preclude e f fective individual performance. For these reasons, schools with high overall rates of turnover, which result from environmental instability, generally experience lower rates of overall performance.

Relationships with Organizational Variables

As with permeability, the literature contains suggestions that stability has both bureaucratization and debureaucratization effects. 150

On the one hand, there is some reason to believe that more bureaucra tic forms of organization are the most appropriate for stable en vironments since they enable the organization to rationally pursue its goals. On the other hand, there is reason to believe th at insta bility yields a bureaucratic response pattern. That is, bureaucra tic organizational forms are a response to excessive in s ta b ility in . the environment to preserve organizational boundaries. Empirical Question 5 deals with the effect of stability on the organizational variables.

Table 6.1 reports the correlations between stability and the organizational variables. The highest correlations are with adapta bility (r = .21, p ^ .01), specialization (r = .20, p ^ .01). Or ganizations in more stable areas are larger, have a larger proportion of highly educated staff, and have more change oriented staffs than organizations in less stable areas. If it can be assumed that spe cialization and adaptability are components of professionalization, then i t can be suggested that organizations in more stable environ ments are more professionalized. Organizations in more stable areas seem to produce more professional services; both of these factors are associated with improved effectiveness.

The data also reveal a negative relationship of size with sta b ilit y : small schools are more often found in stable areas. Both small size and stable environments are associated with increased e f fectiveness. In summary, stability has a mild debureaucratization effect and a negligible bureaucratization effect.

Circumscribing Effect on the Basic Relationships

Next the effect of stability on the basic relationships between the organizational variables and effectiveness w ill be examined. The contribution of stability over and above that of the basic variables w ill also be examined. Both of these areas are subsumed under Empiri cal Question 6 . As with perm eability, few theorists have recognized this possible role of environmental variables. However, in lin e with the heuristic emphasis of this study, this area seemed an important one to investigate.

Table 6.2 contains the correlations between the basic organiza tional variables and effectiveness (as examined in Chapter V), con trolling for stability. These partial correlation coefficients yield the relationship between each organizational variable and effective ness with the effect of stability statistically controlled. The dif ferences between these partials and the zero order coefficients (also reported in Table 6.2) represent the impact of stability on these relationships. 151

Controlling for stability reduces all the correlations between organizational variables and effectiveness. Reduced most were the coefficients for size (from r = -.21 to r = -.13, p—.01 and .05 res pectively) and adaptability (from r = .18 to r = .09, p ^-.05 and not significant respectively). These two variables are moderately cor related with stability; the implication is that stability is more salient for effectiveness than are size or adaptability. Specializa tion again retains its moderate association with effectiveness, sug gesting that extent of staff training is significant for effective ness in spite of the stability of the environments in which the or ganizations are located. This finding reaffirms the importance of the personnel most directly involved with service to clients. Cen tralization also retains its mild positive association with effec tiveness when stability is controlled; irrespective of environmental stability, organizations that emphasize control by those at the top of the hierarchy seem to be slightly more effective.

The net contribution of stability to effectiveness over and above that of the basic variables and the effect of stability on the mul tiple relationships between organizational variables and effective ness are discussed next. The data for both these issues are found in the regression analysis reported in Table 6 .4 . I t should be noted that stability was forced into the equation last to uncover the unique, additional contribution of this variable to effectiveness. As pre viously, the beta values in parentheses reflect the values with no environmental variables added to the equation; comparison of the two sets of beta values affords an assessment of the role of stability on the multiple relationships between the organizational variables .and effectiveness.

The data indicate that stability contributes 15 percent to the total 31 percent variance explained in effectiveness. Together, the organizational variables explain 16 percent of the variance. Stability has as much statistical impact on effectiveness as all the organiza tional variables combined, which is p a rtic u la rly notable in view of the fact that stability was forced into the equation last.

The data illustrate the very important role stability plays for effective functioning. Although the direct and indirect effects are not entirely clear, the level of direct influence is notable in it s e lf. The causal sequence fo r s ta b ility seems somewhat more clear than that for permeability. Although the possibility exists that population turnover may be a response to ineffective schools, it seems more plausible that stability antedates both the organizational vari able with relationships with both effectiveness and with some of the organizational variables.

As with permeability, an examination of the beta values as com pared with those reported without the inclusion of stability reveals few s ig n ific a n t differences; the differences range from .03 to .05 Table 6.4 STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STABILITY WITH EFFECTIVENESS (N=134)*

VARIABLE SIMPLE R R MULTIPLE R SQUARE RSQ CHANGE F VALUE BETA**

SPECIALIZATION .27 .27 .071 .071 5.63*** . 20(.25)

PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM .20 .34 .113 .042 3.14*** .1 5 (.18)

CENTRALIZATION .15 .37 .136 .023 1.76**** .11(.14)

CLOSE SUPERVISION .05 .38 .145 .009 .45 . 06(.09) 1 i SIZE -.21 .39 .150 .005 .1 1 • 0 GO • o CO

ADAPTABILITY .18 .40 .155 .005 .03 . 02(.07)

STANDARDIZATION. .01 .41 .159 .004 .18 -.03

STABILITY .50 .56 .307 .148 27.3*** .42

*Stability was forced in last. **The beta values in parentheses are those from Table 5.2, where only the organizational variables were in the equation. ♦★♦Significance S. .01. ♦♦♦♦Significance £ .05.

tn ro 153

(see last column in Table 6.4). Specialization and professional free dom retain their statistically significant modest relationships with effectiveness (betas = .20 and .15 respectively).

The partials indicated a significant reduction in the coef ficients for size and adaptability, while the betas indicate that these two variables have only a minimal relationship with effectiveness once some of the more significant variables (such as specialization and professional freedom) have been entered into the regression equation. As in the analysis of permeability, these results may indicate that the relationships of size and adaptability may be spurious.

Interaction terms were calculated for stability with each organi zational variable by the multiplicative approach; these interaction terms were then added to the basic regression equation. The incre ment to the R 2 by all six interaction terms is .026. Application of the hierarchical F test noted above indicates that this increment is not statistically significant. In sum, the interaction effects be tween stability and each of the organizational variables do not con tribute much to the explanation of variance in effectiveness.

Combined Effect of Permeability and Stability

Since permeability and stability are moderately correlated (r = .36, p 4 .0 0 1 ), i t seemed appropriate to examine th e ir combined im pact on effectiveness. This was done by forcing both into the re gression equation after the organizational variables. The results indicate that permeability adds an additional 12 percent to the vari ance explained in organizational effectiveness over the 15 percent variance explained by the organizational variables; stability adds another 10 percent to that already explained by the organizational variables and permeability. The beta values for permeability and stability in this final equation are .31 and .34 respectively (re sults not reported in tables).

The statistically significant, substantive, independent role of each environmental variable is noteworthy. Although correlated moderately, each has a unique substantive impact on effectiveness. This analysis reaffirms the independent climate-setting roles of en vironmental variables; they have a significant direct relationship ■ with effectiveness as well as a direct relationship with several or ganizational variables which are themselves related to effectiveness. The unique effect of each environmental variable is particularly noteworthy.

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; A CONTROL VARIABLE

Socioeconomic status is one variable that has consistently been associated with educational achievement. It is included in this 154 study as a control variable for this reason (Empirical Question 7). Perhaps this study can id e n tify additional factors through which socioeconomic status operates in influencing academic achievement. SES is controlled in two ways. Partials have been calculated between the seven basic organizational variables and effectiveness controlling for SES, and a stepwise multiple regression analysis of all variables was completed with SES forced in la s t.

The results of the partials analysis are reported in the fourth column of Table 6.2 (the zero order correlations of SES with the other variables are reported in Table 6.1). As with permeability and stability, several coefficients are reduced with the control for SES. The largest reductions are for size, specialization, and adaptability. Size is s till mildly associated with effectiveness (r = -.14, p ~ .0 5 ), suggesting that, to a very minimal extent, smaller schools seem to experience more effectiveness than do larger schools. The decrease in specialization was the la rg e s t, from r = .27 to r = .12, which sug- .. gests that the original correlation may be spurious. The correlation for adaptability was also considerably reduced (from r = .18 to r = .09); this relationship may also be spurious. The data suggest that SES may be a more important variable than either specialization or adaptability.

Professional freedom and cen tra liza tio n reta in th e ir mild posi tive correlations with effectiveness in spite of the control for SES. Professional freedom is associated with increased effectiveness across various levels of SES; this finding strengthens the validity of this positive relationship. Similarly, increases in centralization are mildly positively associated with effectiveness across SES levels.

The data indicate that SES has effects similar to permeability and stability when entered as a control variable. The only signifi cant difference involves the considerable decline in the coefficient for specialization, as noted above.

Table 6.5 reports on the regression analysis with SES in conjunc tion with all other organizational and environmental variables in the analysis. Researchers such as Burkhead 6 and Coleman? have allowed SES to enter the regression equation firs t in their analyses of SES; this procedure has the effect of exaggerating the explanatory power of SES and minimizing the possible explanatory power of other vari ables in the analysis. Both these researchers conclude that "school factors" play a minimal role once SES enters the equation. But this technique has been criticized more recently;** this technique vastly underplays the role of other variables in the equation. Critics contend that because SES is so highly associated with many other variables it should be entered into the regression equation last to uncover any incremental e ffe c t SES may have over and above that of the other variables in the analysis. This approach gives a more Table 6.5 STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES, PERMEABILITY, STABILITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS WITH EFFECTIVENESS (N=134)*

VARIABLE SIMPLE R R MULTIPLE R SQUARE RSQ CHANGE F VALUE BETA^

SPECIALIZATION .27 .27 .071 .071 2 .09**** •1 0 (.25)

PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM .20 .34 .113 .042 3 .5 4 *** .12 ( .18)

CENTRALIZATION .15 .37 .136 .023 4.31*♦♦ . 13 (.14)

CLOSE SUPERVISION .05 .38 .145 .009 .01 -.0 1 (.0 9 )

SIZE -.21 .39 .150 .005 .01 -.0 1 (-.0 8 )

ADAPTABILITY .18 .40 .155 .005 2 . 5 2 * * * * - .1 0 ( .07)

STANDARDIZATION .01 .41 .159 .004 .06 ».02

STABILITY .50 .55 .306 .147 1.06 .10

PERMEABILITY .42 .61 .370 .064 11.36*** .25

SES .69 .76 .580 .210 61. 8 0 ^ .57

♦Stability and permeability were forced after the organizational variables, and SES was forced after stability and permeability.

♦♦The beta values in parentheses are those from Table 5.2, where only the organizational variables were in the equation. ♦♦♦Significances .01; ♦♦♦♦Significance - .05. 156

accurate estimate of the unique contribution of SES. Other critics suggest that SES be excluded from the analysis because i t "m ultiplies the possibilities of misinterpreting school effects."9 It is for these reasons that SES has been excluded from prior analyses in this study and at this point is entered as a control variable in the re gression equation after the basic organizational variables.

What do the data in Table 6.5 indicate? First, SES explains an additional 21 percent of the variance over and above that explained by the organizational and other environmental variables. The contri bution of SES to the variance explained to greater than that ex plained by all seven organizational variables; the contribution of SES to the variance explained in effectiveness represents the unique effect of SES. Also, the beta value for SES is .57. SES obviously plays a significant role in determining organizational effectiveness. Second, a sig n ifican t reduction occurs in most of the betas in this table as compared to Table 5.2, where only the organizational varia bles were included in the analysis. The only betas that are even mildly significant are those for professional freedom, specialization, and centralization (B = .12, B = .10, and B = .13 respectively). Irres pective of SES, therefore, organizations with more highly trained staffs, with s taffs experiencing professional freedom, and with moderate levels of cen tralizatio n tend to be s lig h tly more e ffe c tiv e . However, the significant reductions in betas for specialization should be under scored (from B = .25 to B = .10); the possibility exists that the relationship between specialization and effectiveness may be spurious, i . e . , dependent on SES.

Third, the roles of both stability and permeability—the other environmental variables—are s ig n ific a n tly reduced in the face of controls for SES. The beta value for stability in the equation with only the organizational variables is B = .42 (Table 6.4), while its beta controlling for SES is B = .10 (Table 6.5). These data suggest that the impact of stability on effecitveness is largely spurious, although the minimal relationship that does s till exist between stability and effectiveness is positive. Similarly, the beta value for peremability in the equation with only the organizational variables is also B = .42 (Table 6.3), while its beta controlling for SES is B = .25 (Table 6.5). Permeability retains a modest positive asso ciation with effectiveness in spite of a control for SES. Permeability and SES both have independent, unique contributions to the variance explained in organizational effectiveness. In short, while stability and permeability have similar relationships with effectiveness without controls for SES (judging from the zero order r's and the betas), only permeability retains a modest positive association with effective ness when SES is controlled.

Nine interaction effects were calculated and tested in the re gression equation by means of the hierarchical F test. All nine effects 157 added 1.5 percent to the variance explained; the resultant F value of .48 was not significant at the ,05 level. Parenthetically, it should be noted that one third of this additional 1.5 percent variance ex plained is made up by the interaction effect between SES and adapta b ility , which highlights the importance of looking at these two vari ables together.

DISCUSSION

Both permeability and s ta b ility were found to be highly associated with effectiveness at the zero order. Environmental variables do seem to have a crucial bearing on the performance of educational organiza tions.

This study takes the position that environmental variables gen erally antedate organizational variables. Thus permeability is as sumed to be temporally prior and, therefore, a possible cause of or ganizational effectiveness. A high level of involvement by parents and other community individuals and groups in the schools is likely to re sult in more organizational attention to the level of effectiveness; McDill et a l.‘° found parental interest and involvement to be the most important variable for students' achievement. In such a situa tion, parental interest and involvement become environmental demands which must be dealt w ith. However, the p o s s ib ility of a reciprocal e ffe c t should be acknowledged. Parents and other individuals are more likely to become involved with more effective organizations. More im portantly, highly effective organizations may actually seek out en vironmental input and support to assist them in maintaining high levels of effectiveness.

The permeability variable underscores much of the recent emphasis on community involvement in the schools. Permeability serves as a conduit of community, and particularly parental, influence. The data support the contention that communities involved in th e ir local schools generally have more effective schools. The data also support the theme in the lite ra tu re that a mutual concern by parents and the school does often result in improved learning.

Stability is also significantly associated with effectiveness. Stability may help provide the organization with the autonomy it needs to function effectively.*' From the systems perspective, equilibrium may be more easily attained in stable environments; generally organi zations that experience equilibrium are more effective than those ex periencing disequilibrium. Furthermore, balance with environmental agents is more easily attained in stable environments. Similarly, boundary maintenance w ill be more e asily achieved in stable environ ments.^ Balance with the environment and relatively effortless boundary maintenance allow the organization to d ire c t more of its energy to improving performance. On the other hand, low levels of 158 stability may result in several factors disruptive to effective func tioning. These factors could include high student turnover, high tea cher turnover, low citizen commitment and input, limited continuity in school programs, and sim ilar other factors.

The temporal priority of stability over effectiveness is again assumed; organizational performance undoubtedly is influenced by the s ta b ility of its immediate environment. However, i t is again pos sible that parents w ill be less lik e ly to move from neighborhoods where schools are performing effectively. The establishment of tem poral priority for the relationships of both permeability and stability- with effectiveness is less important than recognizing the strong, posi tive relationship between each of these variables and effectiveness.

The two environmental variables are themselves positively related--organizations in more stable environments experience more per meability. Permeability represents community input on organizational functioning; it is understandable that such input would be more d iffi c u lt to develop in neighborhoods experiencing considerable population turnover. This positive relationship may account for some of the si m ilar findings fo r both variables.

Another significant finding is the positive relationship between specialization and effectiveness with both permeability and stability controlled. The data underscore the significance of staff training irrespective of the environmental situation. This finding also sug gests that specialization may be more independent of environmental influences than some of the other structural variables. Professional freedom also remains m ildly p o sitively associated with effectiveness in the face of controls for permeability and stability. These data highlight the importance of a professional setting in service organi zations for effective performance. Perhaps professional freedom works together with permeability in yielding improved effectiveness since both variables involve the responsiveness of the organization, in the case to the needs of the primary clientele (students) and in the one other case to the needs of the secondary c lie n te le (parents and other community individuals); it seems reasonable to conclude that respon siveness may engender organizational effectiveness.

Both permeability and stability have similar relationships with several organizational variables. Smaller schools are located in more stable as well as in more permeable environments. Apparently large schools are less prone to environmental input; perhaps parents and others feel more intimidated by large schools. Nonetheless, large schools experience less environmental permeability and stability and are less effective. Both environmental variables are also related to a d ap tab ility; schools with change-oriented s taffs are more often found in stable and permeable environments. Perhaps schools that experience low clientele turnover (a result of environmental stability) and active community involvement can afford to be change-oriented. In fact, the 159 community involvement may encourage, even force, schools to be more change-oriented.

Socioeconomic status was also included as a control variable. I t reduced the correlations of size and adap tab ility with effectiveness, as did permeability and stability. Size is s till mildly negatively associated with effectiveness, but the adaptability-effectiveness relationship was completely eliminated, suggesting that it was largely spurious due to the environmental variables. The major role of SES over and above that of permeability and stability involves the large reduction in the coefficient for the specialization-effectiveness relationship; since SES is clearly antecedent to specialization, this relationship also appears to be spurious due to SES. Since SES is temporally prior to both specialization and adaptability, and since SES is correlated with both variables (r = .27 with specialization and r = .23 with adaptability), the data do illustrate possible intervening effects of specialization and adaptability in the strong positive re lationship SES has with achievement.

Professional freedom and centralization retain their mild positive correlations with effectiveness in spite of the control for SES; the result is increased validity for these relationships. The interpre tation fo r c e n tralizatio n suggested previously s t i l l seems appropriate; centralized decision making may be necessary in a large school system such as that found in Metro C ity.

Socioeconomic status has a sig n ifican t unique relationship with effectiveness and has a significant control effect on several of the relationships between organizational variables and effectiveness. The significant unique effect exists in the form of a significant contri bution to the variance explained in effectiveness over and above that of the organizational variables; this effect supports the emphasis given SES in the achievement literature. In short, schools in higher socioeconomic areas consistently perform more e ffe c tiv e ly than do those in lower socioeconomic areas.

The control effect of SES is useful in assisting in the suggestion of possible intervening variables through which SES influences achieve ment. The lite ra tu re suggests two levels of intervening variables for SES: family and organizational. That is, SES makes a difference for the type of socialization received in the family and also makes, a difference for the type of service rendered in service organiza tions. For example, the data in this study suggest that SES makes the relationships between both specialization and adap tab ility with effectiveness spurious. That is, SES seems to be associated with specialization and adaptiveness, which in turn are associated with effectiveness. One of the theoretical results of controlling for SES is that additional intervening variables are suggested fo r the causal lin k between SES and effectiveness. 160

Socioeconomic status also has some impact on the other two en vironmental variables examined; s ta b ility loses v irtu a lly a ll of its impact and permeability is somewhat reduced in its impact onv e ffe c tiveness. These data also suggest additional variables through which SES may be influencing effectiveness. The data also indicate that per haps these environmental variables work in conjunction in influencing effectiveness.

Several alternative roles for environmental variables were dis cussed in the introductory section to this chapter. For some or ganizational variables (such as adaptability), it seems that the en vironmental variables may be a true source of impact on effectiveness which appeared to be from the organizational variable. For other variables (such as size and professional freedom), the environmental variables are prior to the organizational variables and seem to impede the latter's impact on effectiveness. The analysis does not indi cate eith er an intervening or interaction e ffe c t fo r the environmen tal variables.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has highlighted the various relationships of three environmental variabTes--perm eability, s ta b ility , and socioeconomic status—with effectiveness. The results involve significant rela tionships of these variables with effectiveness and with the other or ganizational variables analyzed in the study. The data give some em pirical substance to the nonempirical discussions of environmental variables so often found in the lite ra tu re .

This chapter and the previous chapter have been quite limited in causal interpretations since the data have not been arrayed for rigorous tests of causality. In the next chapter, some causal im plications are advanced. The la s t chapter highlights the findings and their significance, makes a few policy suggestions, discusses the shortcomings of the study, and makes a few suggestions fo r future research. 161

NOTES TO CHAPTER VI

1. See Ronald G. Corwin, "Models of Educational Organizations," in Review of Research in Education, Vol. 2, eds. F.N. Kerlinger and J.B. Carroll (Itasca, 111.: F.E. Peacock, 1974), p. 281, and M.W. Meyer, "Expertness and the Supervisory Component of Or ganizations," Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, New Orleans (August 1972).

2. Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment (Boston: Graduate School o f Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967).

3. Eugene Litwak and Henry J. Meyer, School, Family, and Neighborhood (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974).

4. Both of these procedures—multiplication to create interaction terms and inclusion of interaction terms a fte r the basic va ria bles have been entered—are common procedures in interaction effects analysis. For example, see Peter M. Balu, The Organiza tion of Academic Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), p. 40.

5. Norman H. Nie et a l., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), p. 339.

6 . J. Burkhead e t a l . , Input and Output in Large City High Schools (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1967).

7. James Coleman et a l., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966)^

8 . See Robert M. Hauser, Socioeconomic Background and Educational Performance (Washington, D.C.: The Arnold M. and Caroline Rose Monograph Series, American Sociological Association, 1972) and F. Mosteller and D.P. Moynihan, On Equality of Educational Op portunity (New York: Vintage Books, 1972).

9. Hauser, Educational Performance, p. 44.

10. Edward L. M cD ill, Leo C. Rigsby, and Edmund D. Meyers, J r ., "Educational Climate of High Schools: Their Effects and Sources," AJS 74 (May 1969), pp. 567-586.

11. Fred E. Katz, Autonomy and Organization (New York: Random House, 1968).

12. Corwin, "Models," p. 281. CHAPTER V II

SOME CAUSAL SUGGESTIONS

The data in this study are cross sectional and have been examined with correlation and regression techniques. Under these conditions, causal analyses are not technically appropriate. However,

No meaningful analysis of social structures is possible i f the investigator always v a c illa te s , attributes any concomitant variation of condi tions to reciprocal influences, and refuses to commit himself to a predominant causal direction.^

Causal suggestions do serve as a summarizing device to represent the researcher's best understanding of the data. The causal diagrams discussed below should not be assumed to completely and accurately explain the data; they are only suggestions and interpretations. Path analysis w ill be used to examine the causal implications.2

Path diagrams become increasingly more d if f ic u lt to in te rp re t as they contain more variables. Also, many of the organizational vari ables are relatively simultaneous in time order; including many tem porally simultaneous variables in a path diagram also complicates the analysis. For these reasons, the organizational variables have been subdivided in bureaucratization variables (standardization, centrali zation, and close supervision) and professionalization variables (specialization, professional freedom, and adaptability). Bureaucra tization represents organizational control and professionalization encompasses variables that assist in the rendering of professional services.

Figure 7.1 represents the path diagram relating all organizational variables and environmental permeability and stability to organiza tional effectiveness. The two environmental variables are presumed to be temporally prior to the organizational variables and are there fore treated as exogenous variables in the model. Following Pugh,3 size is viewed as having a determinative effect on other structural variables and is therefore treated as temporally prior to both sub divisions of the organizational variables.

As seen in the previous chapter, both environmental variables are statistically significantly related to the organizational variables as well as to organizational effectiveness. Both permeability and stability have a mild negative effect on size (B = -.16 and B = -.15 respectively), suggesting that there is something about the environmental setting that influences organizational size. Both environmental variables 162 Permeability.

Bureaucratization

Effectiveness

Professionalizatioi

S ta b ility

Figure 7.1 PATH DIAGRAM RELATING THE ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES, PERMEABILITY, AND STABILITY TO ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. ONLY BETA VALUES THAT ARE AT LEAST ONE-AND-ONE HALF TIMES AS LARGE AS THEIR STANDARD ERRORS ARE REPORTED. ot co 164 have modest paths to effectiveness (for permeability B=.26, for sta bility B = .36), indicating a direct influence on effectiveness. The beta value from stability to effectiveness is the strongest one in the model. In addition, permeability has a direct positive path to bureaucratization (B = .27) and stability has a similar path to pro fessionalization (B = .18). It seems that permeability may result in the application of organizational controls, most likely as a defense mechanism to community involvement in the organizations. Stability is conducive of professionalization, i.e ., it seems to yield some of the components involved in quality client service.

Size seems to be a pivotal variable. On the one hand, as noted above, the enviornmental variables appear to result in smaller size. On the other hand, size is related to both subdivisions o f the or ganizational variables. Size has a modest positive path to bureau cratization (B = .21), affirming the determinative role given size in the literature. Size also has a modest negative path to professionali zation (B = -.26), illustrating the negative impact of size on a pro fessional structure. Since size has no direct path to effectiveness, i t can be concluded that what impact size does have on effectiveness is carried through the structural variables it influences.

Bureaucratization has no path to effectiveness; organizational con trols evidently have no bearing on how effectively organizations oper ate. Professionalization does have a modest path to effectiveness (B = .20); a more professional structure (as evidenced by more highly trained staff, considerable professional freedom, and change-oriented s ta ffs ) does seem to improve performance.

The model was recalculated with the most salient dimensions of bureaucratization and professionalization alone; centralization and specialization. The resulting coefficients were very similar to those reported in Figure 7.1.

In summary, Figure 7.1 illustrates the significant direct effects of both environmental variables on effectiveness as well as the in direct effects of these variables carried through size and profes sionalization. Size is seen to be a pivotal variable between the en vironmental variables and the organizational variables, with paths to both bureaucratization and professionalization. The organizational variables themselves have limited effects on effectiveness; organiza tional controls have no relationship and professionalization has a modest relationship.

Figure 7.2 represents the same model depicted in Figure 7.1 with the addition of socioeconomic status. This model represents the ad dition of SES as a control variable, which was discussed in the pre vious chapter. SES is treated as an exogenous variable and is pre sumed to be antecedent to (and therefore a possible cause o f) per meability and stability, as well as the organizational variables. Permeabi1i ty

Bureaucrati zati o iC -

-.01 nJ/ A'*' Size, Effectiveness

Professionalization

SES V> S ta b ility 1s Rb = .85

Figure 7.2 PATH DIAGRAM RELATING THE ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES, PERMEABILITY, STABILITY, £ AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS TO ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. ONLY BETA VALUES THAT ARE AT LEAST ONE-AND-ONE HALF TIMES AS LARGE AS THEIR STANDARD ERRORS ARE REPORTED. 166

The most s ig n ific a n t finding is the strong d irect path from SES to effectiveness (B = .6 2 ); socioeconomic status does have the posited direct link with effectiveness, in spite of the intervening variables included in the model. The significant explanatory contribution of SES to the model can also be seen in the reduction of the residual at effectiveness (from R = .80 to R = . 68 ) and in the corresponding in-, crease in the variance explained (from R 2 = 34 percent to R 2 = 54 per cent). The addition of socioeconomic status d e fin ite ly improves the explanatory power of the model.

SES is also related to both permeability and stability (B = .27 and B = .53 respectively); the impact on stability is twice that re lating SES to permeability. SES obviously is a determinative factor in the two environmental variables analyzed. The stronger path to stability highlights the significance of SES in causing a stable en vironment.

Both bureaucratization and professionalization are also influenced by SES (B = -.10 and B = .27 respectively); generally, the higher the socioeconomic status, the less the bureaucratization and the more the professionalization. In summary, socioeconomic status has effects at all three temporal levels; the environmental variables, the organiza tional variables, and organizational effectiveness. These findings underscore the direct as well as indirect effects of SES on effective ness. They also support the contention in the literature that SES is often associated with the majority of variables in any given model.

There are a few changes in the relationships of permeability and stability with the other variables as a result of the addition of SES to the model. The most noticeable is the reduction in the path from stability to effectiveness (from B = .36 to a nonsignificant beta). The implication is that stability has no "true" effect on effectiveness; its impact is carried largely through SES and permeability. In other words, the relationship between stability and effectiveness appears to be spurious. Stability also is no longer related to professionali zation; since SES is moderately related to professionalization (B ® .27), it again appears that the effect of stability is largely in direct through SES. The betas from permeability are quite similar to the model without SES, which clearly illustrates the salience of this environmental variable as a unique component of the model. For ex ample, the path from permeability to effectiveness is virutally the same in both models. In terms of effectiveness, therefore, permea b ility is an important independent variable.

Size retains its- pivotal position relating the environmental variables to the organizational variables. Also, it retains its mo dest bureaucratization and professionalization effects in spite of the addition of SES to the model. In other words, size retains its mo dest structural determinative effect. Size and effectiveness are 167 correlated at the zero order (r = -. 21); the lack of a direct path linking the two variables suggests that the e ffe c t of size is larg ely indirect through professionalization.

Bureaucratization again has no significant path to effectiveness; apparently organizational controls do not have any direct effect on effectiveness when the other variables are included in the model. The coefficient from professionalization to effectiveness is positive, but of low substantive significance (B = .10). To a very minimal extent, the more professional the structure (i.e ., high training, high professional freedom, and high organizational adaptability), the higher the effectiveness.

The model was recalculated with the most salient dimensions.of bureaucratization and professionalization alone: centralization and specialization. In this model centralization does have a mild posi tive relationship with effectiveness (B = .12); the other betas remain unchanged.

DISCUSSION

Several observations can be made on the basis of the two models examined. F irs t, the environmental variables do play an important role in the models. Without SES in the model, both permeability and stability have significant positive effects on effectiveness. With SES in the model, the effect of stability is eliminated, but the e ffe c t of permeability remains unaltered. Perm eability has a s ig n i ficant direct relationship with effectiveness in both models. The implication seems quite clear: the more parents and community indi viduals get involved with the schools, the higher the overall effec tiveness of the schools seems to be. The data support much of the literature on community involvement in the schools as being productive of increased effectiveness. In short, permeability serves as a con duit of community, and particularly parental, influence.

Second, the direct as well as in d ire c t effects of socioeconomic status are quite clear. In spite of the other variables included in the model, SES has a significant direct effect on effectiveness. In addition, SES has indirect effects through permeability and pro fessionalization. This finding contrasts with that reported by Bid- well and Kasarda in their analysis of achievement at the system level.4 They report a s ig n ifican t po stitive relationship between SES and spe cialization and a significant positive relationship between speciali zation and achievement, but no direct link between SES and achieve ment. This study uncovered only a mild lin k between specializatio n and achievement when SES was incorporated in the model, but a highly sig n ifican t d ire c t path from SES to achievement in spite of the organi zational variables included in the model. Bidwell and Kasarda interpret their data as reflecting only an indirect effect for SES (through 168

specialization), whereas this study underscores both the direct and indirect effects of SES on achievement. Perhaps the level of data aggregation accounts for the difference in results; SES may have more of a direct effect at the school level than at the district level.

Third, size is apparently an intervening variable whose impact on effectiveness is largely indirect through professionalization, in spite of a modest negative zero order correlation with effectiveness. This finding suggests an in terp retatio n sim ilar to Bidwell and Kasarda's:® size is important fo r organizational morphology, which in turn in fluences achievement, but it has a negligible direct effect on achieve ment. The interp retatio n found in the lite ra tu re emphasizing the structure-setting effect of size seems justified.

Fourth, the seven organizational variables examined (as subdivided into two larger constructs) have a minimal impact on effectiveness. Only the professionalization construct is even mildly linked with ef fectiveness; to a minimal extent, therefore, schools stressing a pro fessional structure are more effective (the most important component of this construct is specialization). The link is twice as strong when SES is eliminated from the model, revealing some interaction be tween these two variables.

In summary, environmental variables appear to be important for organizational effectiveness, p a rtic u la rly socioeconomic status and permeability. Size plays a mediating role between environmental vari ables and organizational variables, but has no direct relationship with effectiveness. Among the organizational variables examined, only those reflecting a professional structure are even mildly linked with effectiveness. In addition, centralization has a mild positive re lationship with effectiveness when only that variable, and not other organizational control variables is put in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The models depicted in this chapter have assisted in the inter pretation of possible causal links with organizational effectiveness. I t should be emphasized th at the analyses reported are not true tests of the models since the estimated paths are based on the same set of. data from which the models were specified. However, the models do assist in the interpretation of the data. The concluding chapter highlights the contributions of the study, makes a few policy sug gestions, acknowledges some of the shortcomings in the study, and makes some suggestions for future research on organizational effective ness in schools. 169

NOTES TO CHAPTER V II

1. Peter M. Balu, The Organization of Academic Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), p. 35.

2. Many of the d e fin itiv e works on path analysis can be found in H.M. Blalock, e d ., Causal Models in the Social Sciences (Chi cago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971).

3. D.S. Pugh et a l., "The Context of Organizational Structure," ASQ 14 (March 1969), pp. 91-114.

4. Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School Distirct Organi zation and Student Achievement," ASR 40 (February 1975), p. 65.

5. Ibid., p. 67. 170

CHAPTER V III

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter contains concluding comments on several topics. The contributions of this study to the literature are discussed first. Several policy suggestions are then made. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the shortcomings of the study and on lessons fo r fu ture research on organizational effectiveness in schools.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LITERATURE

Perhaps the major contribution this study makes to the litera ture is an empirical assessment of two types of variables--organizational and environmental--on organizational effectiveness in schools. Neither of these two types of variables has previously been empiri cally related to organizational effectiveness in schools. Although some of the organizational variables have been linked to effective ness in other types of organizations (primarily business), the two environmental variables examined have seldom been empirically analyzed in any type of organization.

A second major contribution concerns the analysis of environmen tal permeability. The contribution of this study to the analysis of this variable involves two dimensions. One is substantive: the re lationship between permeability and effectiveness is one of the strongest and most consistent in the study. This finding underscores the beneficial e ffe c t of school-community interaction and gives some empirical credence to the movement toward more local involvement in the schools. The other dimension is em pirical: the operationaliza tion of permeability in this study represents the first efforts at operationalizing this concept in the complex organizations literature. Twenty-six items were included in the initial scale for this reason. The operational definition of permeability developed in this study is specific to schools; it could be modified to apply to many social service organizations.

Third, this analysis on effectiveness in schools is one of the firs t to examine variables that are somewhat manipulable. The achievement literature too often focuses on variables that cannot be altered (such as socioeconomic statu s). This study makes some in i tia l suggestions to policy makers concerning variables which are both manipulable and related to achievement (see below). 171 Fourth, socioeconomic status has been examined as a control variable. It should be noted that SES has been defined as the pro portion of minority students per school. Although SES has been examined in hundreds of studies on school achievement, this study has illustrated the role of SES on effectiveness vis-a-vis other environ mental and organizational variables. Socioeconomic status has both a significant direct link and significant indirect links with effec tiveness. The indirect links are primarily through permeability and variables representing a professional structure (specialization, professional freedom, and organizational adaptability). The theore tical contribution of this aspect of the study lies in specifying addi tional intervening factors in the ubiquitous relationship between socioeconomic status and effectiveness so th at the causal sequence between SES and effectiveness may be more adequately described. In addition, the specification of manipulable intervening variables will be of in te re s t to policy makers.

The fifth contribution involves the specification of general constructs that are associated with effectiveness. One such finding involves the positive relationship that both permeability and pro fessional freedom have with effectiveness. Both of these variables represent the responsiveness of the organization to their clientele; permeability represents the responsiveness of the organization to community individuals, particularly parents (the secondary clientele), and professional freedom represents the responsiveness of the organi zation to the needs of the students (the primary clientele). The data indicate that responsive organizations experience more effec tiveness.

A similar situation exists for specialization, professional free dom, and s ta ff adap tab ility to change, a ll of which are p o sitively associated with effectiveness. All three of these variables repre - sent professionalization, i.e ., a structure and orientation that is focused on effective, quality client service. Specialization rep resents staff training; advanced training in the latest techniques and m aterials is conducive to improved c lie n t service. The freedom to make alterations in the modes of teaching and the willingness to adapt to changes when necessary are sim ilarly conducive to improved service. The data indicate that this professional structure is posi tiv e ly related to effectiveness. Of the three components, specializa tion and professional freedom are the most strongly related to ef fectiveness. Since these two variables are more operative at the classroom level than the other variables, and since these two variables have the strongest association with effectiveness of the organizational variables, the importance of the classroom as the site of effective service is highlighted.

A sixth contribution involves the support this study gives to the suggestion in the literature that size is an important deter minant of structure. Size was found to be positively related to bu reaucratization and negatively related to professionalization. Size 172 thus results in organizations becoming more control oriented and less professional service oriented. Also, size is influenced by both per meability and stability. In short, size seems to play a mediating role between environmental variables and structural variables.

In summary, this study has contributed to the limited knowledge about the environmental and structural determinants of organizational effectiveness in schools.

A NOTE TO POLICY MAKERS

One of the reasons this study focused on organizational variables is the manipulability of some of the variables. Policy makers are generally more interested in variables that can be manipulated than those that cannot be manipulated. However, four cautions must be emphasized. One is that correlation does not prove causation; simply because two variables are correlated does not prove that they are causally related. Correlation is a necessary, but not sufficient, con dition for causality. Policy makers must exercise caution in advo cating immediate change in a variable that is correlated with a de pendent variable of in te re s t. I t is fo r this reason that most of the previous discussion in this study avoids causal terms. . The second caution is represented in the ecological fallacy: the fact that relationships exist for groups of individuals or organizations does not necessarily mean that the relationship holds for any given individual or organization. That is, although a positive relationship exists across all organizations between specialization and effective ness, i t cannot be concluded that these two variables w ill be related in one specific school. Third, policy makers for organizations must avoid the reductionist fallacy; what is true of the organization as a whole may not necessarily be true of the individuals within the organization. For example, increasing the permeability one parent ex erts on a school cannot be expected to result in the increased achieve ment of his or her child within that school. Fourth,, many of the policy suggestions made below are based on rather modest correlations. Although such correlations are statistically significant and do offer some knowledge in an area that has been previously overlooked, policy makers should note the lim ita tio n s of making policy recommendations on the basis of low correlations.

What in itia l policy suggestions can be made? The permeablllty- effectiveness relationship is one area policy makers should explore. The data clearly indicate a significant relationship between com munity involvement and effectiveness. If some causal effect can be presumed, the im plication is clear; increase the avenues and amount of influence community people (especially parents) can have on the schools. More school-community meetings could be held. More at tention could be focused on how to improve parental attendance a t 173 parent-teacher conferences. Parents and other community people could be placed in ancillary roles in the schools (for example, parapro- fessionals). Community groups could be given a more significant role in school affairs, such as direct involvement in career education. Both students and community people could be encouraged to become more interested and involved in school bond issues. School officials could make school f a c ilit ie s available for community use a fte r school hours. Increased recognition of student accomplishments may increase parental interest and involvement in the school. Classes in recreation, auto mechanics, and the like could be offered to community residents. These are only a few possible methods of increasing environmental permeability on schools.

A second policy suggestion concerns the significance o f s p e c ia li zation for effectiveness. Specialization reflects the level of staff training, i.e ., the proportion of the staff with an advanced degree. This study concurs with a policy suggestion made by Bidwell and Ka sarda:'

Well-qualified teachers in large relative numbers will stand as a potent resource for schooling. This statement may be a truism, but it is often forgotten.

It seems that a high proportion of advanced degrees in schools is somehow related to effectiveness. Perhaps familiarization with new techniques and new materials is the crucial element. Perhaps ob taining an advanced degree represents a professional commitment that is also manifest in day-to-day teaching. Perhaps only those who ob tain advanced degrees plan to spend most of their lives teaching (this specualtion also presumes that commitment influences quality of tea ching). Perhaps only experienced teachers obtain advanced degrees; experience may be the crucial variab le. Whatever the specific causal influence, administrators would do well to stress professional train ing in th e ir hiring programs. Third, the positive links that both professional freedom and adaptability have with effectiveness merit the attention of policy makers. The more professional the climate of the school, that is, the more professional autonomy teachers experience and the more change-oriented they are, the higher the effectiveness tends to be. Administrators could emphasize a professional climate in th e ir day- to-day contacts with teachers to assist in improving effectiveness. Administrators could also take steps to formally upgrade professional inservice meetings. Fourth, centralization has a mild positive relationship with effectiveness. The implication for policy makers in large-city school systems is to maintain a modicum of control at the upper levels of the hierarchy to deal with the control and coordination problems that develop in such systems. This finding also has implica tions for decentralization and community control. The data seem to suggest that some centralization is necessary for effective performance. 174

Thus decentralization (which involves some centralized control) is indicated over community control (which involves virtually no cen tra liz e d c o n tro l). Administrators should perhaps retain a t least a basic minimum of control over decision making to effectively deal with problems a t the system le v e l.

Size has a modest negative correlation with effectiveness at the zero order, but the path analyses indicated that the effect of size is largely indirect through professionalization. In their efforts to improve professional climates in schools, therefore, administrators could do whatever is feasible to lim it the growth of th e ir schools. Where practical, large schools could be subdivided. Large size does seem to have adverse effects on both professional structural variables and on effectiveness. Also, permeability (which is also directly re lated to effectiveness) is more prevalent in small schools. The im p lic a tio n is to lim it school growth where feasib le.

Last, standardization and close supervision have no relationship with effectiveness. That is, an emphasis on uniformity and rules and a high level of close supervision of teachers by administrators does not seem to either increase or decrease effectiveness. Apparently basic amounts of standardization and close supervision are necessary for effective performance; slight deviations from these amounts do not seem to adversely affect performance.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE STUDY

Most studies are plagued by imperfections and inadequacies; th is study is no exception. It is hoped that outlining some of the short comings w ill assist both those who interpret these data and those who wish to do further research based on this study.

This study shares in the inadequacies of cross-sectional surveys. Such analyses measure certain segments of social reality at one point in time and then procede to make causal interpretations based on the data. The limitations in this approach are obvious. One cannot be sure that the point in time represented by the survey is representa tiv e . Since information on independent and dependent variables is gathered simultaneously, no true test of causality can be made; only inferences can be made. Neither can the exact time order of the variables be ascertained in cross-sectional data. Longitudinal analy ses may help solve some of these problems. Other common problems with survey research, such as question ambiguity and missing data, were also experienced.

Second, this study has not measured achievement before and a fte r the hypothesized variables have occurred. A more accurate estimate of the unique contribution of a particular school to the mean level 175 o f achievement among its students would involve measuring the achieve ment level before the students began school and again a t the comple tion of education at that school; the increase would represent the impact of that particular school. An analysis of the impact of or ganizational and environmental variables on this increase would more accurately meet the goals of this study. In other words, there has been no inclusion of input to organizations in this study. Naturally, such analyses require a considerable amount of time and money.

Third, the results of this study are undoubtedly somewhat biased for two reasons. One reason is that only one informant per school has been used to gather the data. Seidler 2 found that reliability coef ficients increase considerably when the number of informants per organi zation increases; he suggests that at least four or fiv e informants be used for each organization. Using only one informant may increase the measurement error, which may in turn depress the regression coef fic ie n ts and beta values. Another source of bias centers on the or ganizational position of the informant selected for this study. The principal may be expected to protect the image of his or her school and on occasion may a rtific ia lly overestimate of underestimate ques tionnaire item responses accordingly. In fa c t, some items requesting principals to rank their schools in comparison to other schools have means that are considerably above "average;" few principals describe th e ir schools as below average. Norming procedures were followed in an attempt to standardize possible biased responses. Nonetheless, these biases may partially account for the relatively low coefficients in the study.

Fourth, the hypotheses and analyses reported in this study rest on a number of assumptions that are not tested. For example, the hypothesized negative effect of standardization on effectiveness is suggested to occur through such possible intervening factors as aliena tion, job dissatisfaction, and unadaptability; none of these inter vening factors were em pirically examined. The suggestion of interven ing factors is part of the scientific goal to extend causal analyses; however, such intervening factors should be em pirically assessed wherever possible.

Fifth, although some of the relationships discussed in the study could be one way (X to Y), reverse (Y to X)^ or reciprocal, neither the data nor the methodology employed made i t possible to te s t fo r directionality. Longitudinal analysis is a prerequisite for accurate estimates of directionality. In short, the study is characterized by many of the problems common to survey research. 176

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Researchers often complete studies fu lly aware of the problems that must be dealt with in future studies on the same topic. This section represents the writer's suggestions for future research on or ganizational effectiveness in schools.

Future research on organizational effectiveness in schools must examine outcomes other than academic achievement. Although the easiest outcome to measure, i t d e fin ite ly understates the impact schools do have on children. Furthermore, effectiveness is not a unidimensional concept. Alternative outcomes for schools may involve motivation, attitudes, values, learning styles, social skills, self-awareness, happiness, career orientation, and the like. These outcomes are specific to students. Outcomes specific to the organization—such as problem-solving ability—could also be examined.3 The impact of or ganizational and environmental variables on each of these outcomes should be assessed. P arenthetically, i f achievement scores are used, perhaps the changes in these scores that occurred while students were in a particular school are a more accurate representation of organiza tional impact than raw achievement scores.

In addition to this important modification, future research should also: --incorporate longitudinal analyses^ --focus on broader concepts to extend g e n e ra liza b ility 5 --determine the directionality of relationships --id e n tify the specific dimensions of permeability that make it an important variable --devote more attention to classroom structure, particularly as it relates to total organizational structure --determine possible intervening factors for relationships dis cussed in this study --use at least five informants per organization --use informants representing the various organizational positions --examine effectiveness of coping with the environment in the analysis of environmental variables® --examine the impact of interorganizational relationships on effectiveness? --use cross cultural data if possible --examine client attitudes toward the organization 8 --incorporate the informal organization --use income rather than race to define socioeconomic status

These are the major items to be included in future research on organizational effectiveness in schools. In short,9

We absolutely must pin down the connections between the inputs and the outputs of education; 177

without that kind of theoretical structure we can flounder indefinitely in our efforts to improve the process.

It is to this end that this study has been directed, and to which future studies must be directed. 178

NOTES TO CHAPTER V III

1. Charles E. Bidwell and John D. Kasarda, "School District Organi zation and Student Achievement," ASR 40 (February 1975), p. 69.

2. John S eid ler, "On Using Informants: A Technique fo r Collecting Quantitative Data and Controlling Measurement Error in Organiza tional Analysis," ASR 39 (December 1974), p. 823.

3. For a discussion on other indicators of "organizational health," see Warren G. Bennis, Changing Organizations (new York: McGraw- H ill, 1966). For other discussions on alternative outcomes see H.A. Averch et a l., How Effective is Schooling? (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp., 1972), p. 16; Bruce J. Biddle, "The Institu tional Context," in Scholars in Context, ed. W.J. Campbell (Sydney: John Wiley and'Son's AustralasTa Pty. L td ., 1970), pp. 159-184; Basil Georgopolous, "An Open-System Theory Model fo r Organizational Research," in Modern Organizational Theory, ed. A.R. Negandhi (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1973), p. 103; Andrew M. Greeley and Peter H. Rossi, The Education of Catholic Americans (Chicago: Aldine, 1S66), p. 7; and James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 85. a 4. See Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," ASQ 10 (December 1965), pp. 289-320.

5. Peter M. B.lau, "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations," AJS 73 (January 1968), pp. 453-467.

6 . Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment (Boston: Graduate School of Business Adm inistration, Harvard University, 1967).

7. Thompson, Organizations, p. 6 8 .

8 . Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962), p. 75.

9. Alexander M. Mood, "Do Teachers Make a Difference?" in U.S. Department of Health, Education, and W elfare, O ffice of Edu cation, Bureau of Educational Personnel Developemnt, Do Tea chers Make a Difference? A Report on Recent Research on Pupil Achievement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing O ffic e , 1970) , p.' 8 . APPENDICES APPENDIX A-l

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

June 19, 1974

Dear Principal:

Several weeks ago your participation in my approved study (#74027) was requested. This study, a doctoral dissertation, is concerned with the organizational makeup o£ schools in

If you have already returned your questionnaire, or have decided not to participate, please dispose of the enclosed second copy of the questionnaire. If, on the other hand, you have mislaid your original copy, I would much appreciate your filling out the enclosed copy. Several of your peers who have already particpated note that the time required is less than twenty minutes.

I wish to remind you that no individual schools or principals will appear in any reports of the results--complete confidentiality is assured. The school name on the questionnaire is necessary for adding census information, achievement data, enrollment, and similar data to the information provided by the questionnaire. Please do not remove this school name.

Your cooperation lh this study is crucial, and is very much appreciated. If possible, please return the questionnaire in the enclosed postage paid envelope by July 10.

Again, my personal thanks for your assistance in the study.

Sincerely yours,

Theodore C. Wagenaar

Enclosure

Department of Sociology / College of Sociit and Behavioral Science* M2 llageit) Hall / 1775 South College Road Columbuk Ohio 43210 / Phone <614)4224611 181

APPENDIX A~2

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

May 29, 1974

Dear Principal:

I am writing to ask for your help in a study I am conducting on the organizational makeup of schools in Specifically, I would like to include your school in the study.

I realize that this is a busy time of year. Therefore I am only asking for twenty minutes of your time to candidly fill in the enclosed question" naire. If you have any consents, please feel free to use the margins or the reverse of the questionnaire. If you feel that you cannot answer certain questions, feel free to omit these questions.

The focus of this study, a doctoral dissertation, is on how schools function as complex organizations in relation to achievement. Your observations as a principal are vital to auch an understanding of schools.

No individual schools or principals will appear in any reports of tha results; your school will only be treated as one school of many. Neither will your school be compared with any others in your region. In short, complete anonymity is assured. The school name on the questionnaire la necessary for adding census information, achievement data, enrollment, and similar data to the information provided by the questionnaire. Please do not remove this school name.

Your cooperation in this study is very much appreciated. If at all possible, please return the questionnaire by June 14. If you would like a summary of the results, simply enclose a slip of paper with your name and address with your completed questionnaire or contact the research division of the - Public Schools in a few months.

Again, my personal thanks for your cooperation.

Sincerely yourc,

Theodore C. Wagenaar

TCW/ds

Enclosure

Department o f Sociology / College of Social and Behavioral Science* 112 Higerty Hall / 1775 South College Road / Columbui, Ohio 43210 / Phone (614)4224611 APPENDIX A-3

School (Region)

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL-OPERATIONAL STUDY

1. Please indicate, in your opinion, the extent to which each of the following statements applies to your school. (Select one alternative for each statement.)

Alternatives

1. Not at all characteristic of my school 2. Minimally characteristic of my school 3. Moderately characteristic of my school 4. Quite characteristic of my school 5. Very characteristic of my school

a. A teacher is responsible to see that the content in textbooks is completed in the course of a year.

b. Identical school-wide tests are used for students taking the same subjects.

c. The subject material is planned so that every child studying the same subject throughout the school system will eventually cover the same material.

d. Rules specify when teachers should arrive and depart from the building.

e. These rules on arrival and departure are strictly enforced.

f. To prevent confusion and friction among the staff there is a rule covering almost any problem that might come up. •

g. These rules on possible problems are strictly enforced.

h. There are rules specifying the topics that are and are not appropriate for discussion in the classroom.

i. These rules on topics are strictly enforced.

j. A manual of rules and regulations exists.

k. These rules and regulations are strictly enforced.

1. There can be little action taken in this school until the principal approves a decision.

m. A teacher who wants to make his/her own decision would be quickly discouraged here in this school.

n. The ultimate authority over the major educational decisions is exercised by teachers in this school.

o. A teacher is able to make his/her own decisions about problems that come up in the classroom.

p. Pressures from community groups and organizations have been a major factor in the decisions made by this school. 183

■2* 1. (Continued)

Alternatives

1. Not at all characteristic of my school 2. Minimally characteristic of my school 3. Moderately characteristic of my school 4. Quite characteristic of my school 3. Very characteristic of my school

a. The active community groups all have been very supportive of this school's policies.

r. Members of the community (other than school system personnel) maintain a close surveillance over this school.

s. Community groups have been instrumental in helping to raise funds that this school needs.

2. Compared to most other schools with which you are familiar, how would you rate your school on each of the following items? (Select one alternative for each item.)

Alternatives

1. Much below average 2. Somewhat below average 3. Average 4. Somewhat above average 5. Much above average

_ _ _ _ a. The extensiveness of parental participation in school activities

_ _ _ _ b. The opportunity for parents to sit down and discuss problems with the teacher

c. The opportunity for parents to sit down and discuss problems with the administration

_____ d. The support given to the school by parents

_____ e. The closeness of supervision given this school by the regional office

f. The closeness of supervision given this school by yourself as the principal

3. How vague or explicit are the policies governing the following Issues in this school? (Select one alternative for each issue.)

Alternatives

1. Very vague 2. Somewhat vague 3. Somewhat explicit 4. Very explicit

a. Student offenses that warrant official disciplinary .action b. Marking policies 184

- 3-

3. (Continued)

Alternatives

1. Very vague 2. Somevhat vague 3. Somewhat explicit A. Very explicit

c. Evaluation of teacher performance

d. Teachers' responsibilities for participation in the PTA and other extracurricular functions

A. Please indicate approximately how many times a year each of the following evaluates your performance as the principal of this school. Include both on-site and regional office evaluations. (Select one alternative for each person.)

Alternatives

1. One time A. Four times 2. Two times 5. Five times or more 3. Three times 6. Not at all

a. Regional superintendent

_____ b. Other regional staff members

5. Please indicate approximately how many times a year each of the following observes the classrooms of the teachers at this school. (Select one alternative for each person; indicate the average number of observations per teacher.)

Alternatives

1. One time A. Four times 2. Two times 5. Five times or more 3. Three times 6. Not at all

a. Regional superintendent

_____ b. Other regional staff

c. The principal (and assistant principal)

_____ d. A departmental head or other supervisor

6. Overall, how seriously are the observations by these persons taken in this school? (Check one.)

_____ a. not at all seriously b. minimally seriously _____ c.’ moderately seriously _____ d. quite seriously _____ e. very seriously 785

- 4-

7. Concerning lesson plans, please indicate which of the following statements best describes your school. (Check one.)

8. Concerning extensiveness of lesson plans, please indicate which of the following statements best describes your school. (Check one.)

a. Lesson plans are not required. b. The period covered by lesson plans is optional. c. Lesson plans mustcover each unit's work. d. Lesson plans mustcover each week's work. e. Lesson plans must cover each day's work.

9. In this school, are there standard lesson plans or curriculum guides for most subjects on file with the administration or other supervisor? (Check one.)

_____ e. No _____ b. Yea

10. Approximately what percentage of parents and citizens (other than school personnel) in this community do each of the following? (Select one alternative for each item.)

Alternatives

1. 0 - 10 X 5. 51 - 65 X 2. 11 - 20 X 6. 66 - 80 X 3 . 21 - 35 X 7. 81 - 90 X 4. 36 - 50 X 8. 91 - 100X

_____ a. Attend at least one school*community meeting per year.

b. Attend at least one regional school board meeting per year.

c. Attend at least one parent-teacher conference per year.

d. Help with school functions, such as school lunch programs.

e. Help with fund, raising.

f. Voted in the last school bond issue.

11. In this school, approximately how many times during this school year have school facilities been used by outside groups for meetings, sporting events, etc. (include use of classrooms, gymnasium, cafeteria, athletic field, etc.)? (Please enter number on line.) 186

- 5-

_____ 12. Approximately how many different groups used these facilities? (Please enter number of groups on line.)

13. Please indicate the approximate number of contacts per month that you as the principal have and each teacher in your school has on the average with parents at school and in the home. (Select one alternative for the principal and one for the teachers for each item.)

Alternatives

1. 3 contacts or less per month 2. 4 - 7 contacts per month 3. 8-10 contacts per month 4. 11 - 20 contacts per month 5. 21 or more contacts per month

Principal Teachers (average per teacher)

______a. number of contacts with individual parents at school

______b. number of contacts with groups of parents at school

______c. number of contacts with parents in the home

14. The following questions pertain to both standing and ad hoc committees in your school which include parents or other citizens (besides school system personnel). (Enter your answers on the lines provided.)

_____ a. Approximately how many such committees exist in your school? '

X b. Approximately what percentage of themembership in all these committees is comprised of parents and citizens?

_____ c. How many times a year on the average does each committee meet?

d. Please indicate the relative degree of influence all these committees have had on past decisions made in this school. (Check one.)

_ _ _ _ 1. no influence _____ 2. little Influence 3. moderate Influence 4. much influence _____ 5. great influence

15. Approximately what percentage of your total school budget comes from federal, state, local and other funds? (Please fill in approximate percentages.)

7. a. federal funds

% b. state funds

7. c. local funds

7. d. other funds 187

■6-

16. Please Indicate, in your opinion, the degree o£ influence each of the persons listed below has on each of the following decision areas. (Please insert the appropriate alternative in the appropriate space; every space should have an alternative number in it.)

Alternatives

1. Usually does not participate 2. Usually participates but has no influence . 3. Usually participates and has minor influence 4. Usually participates and has moderate influence 5. Usually participates and has decisive influence

PERSONS

Central Regional Regional DECISION . Office Board Supt* Principal Teachers Citizens a. selecting required texts [ I ] b. selecting supplementary materials [ ) c. establishing course objectives [ 1 d. determining daily lesson plans and activities [ 1 e. hiring new teachers I 1 f. establishing policy and procedures for evalua [ ) ting teachers g. the marking policies I 1 h. establishing student disciplinary policies [ ) i. budget allocation t ]

ues, how17. When changes are made in the routines, materials, or teaching techni ues, how17. ouickly do the teachers in your school accept and adjust to these changes? (Check one.)

a. Most teachers acceptand adjust to these changes veryslowly. b. Most teachers accept and adjust rather slowly. c. Most teachers accept and adjust fairly rapidly. d. Most adjust very rapidly, but not immediately. e. Most teachers accept and adjust to these changes immediately. 188

- 7-

18. What proportion of the teachers in your school rapidly or immediately accept: and adjust to these changes? (Check one.)

a. Considerably less than half of the teachers accept and adjust to • these changes rapidly. b. Slightly less than half accept and adjust rapidly. _____ c. About half accept and adjust rapidly. d. Considerably more than half accept and adjust rapidly. _____ e. Practically everyone accepts and adjusts to these changes rapidly.

19. Please indicate how much freedom of choice teachers at this school have on aspects of their day-to-day teaching. (Select one alternative for each area.)

Alternatives

1. No freedom 2. Little freedom 3. Some freedom 4. Much freedom 5. Complete freedom

a. the selection and use of supplementary materials

b. the subject content to emphasize with students

c. the timing and pacing of teaching each day

d. the modes and techniques of teaching

e. the opportunity to attend professional association meetings (not inservice programs)

f. the opportunity to set up a temporary team teaching arrangement with another teacher

g. the procedures for grouping students for teaching within the class

h. the methods of establishing and maintaining classroomcontrol

i. the scheduling of field trips

YOUR COOPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS SINCERELY APPRECIATED !

If you have any comments on any of the items, or if you wish to make a few personal comments on the' organizational makeup of schools, please use the reverse of this sheet. 189

APPENDIX B-l

Standardization Scale Items

Alternatives

1. Not at a ll characteristic o f my school 2. Minimally characteristic of my school 3. Moderately characteristic of my school 4. Quite characteristic of my school 5. Very characteristic of my school

1. A teacher is responsible to see that the content in textbooks is completed in the course of a year.

2. Identical school-wide tests are used for students taking the same subjects.

3. The subject material is planned so that every child studying the same subject throughout the school system w ill eventually cover the same material.

4a. Rules specify when teachers should arriv e and depart from the building.

4b. These rules on arrival and departure are strictly enforced.

5a. To prevent confusion and friction among the staff there is a rule covering almost any problem that might come up.

5b. These rules on possible problems are strictly enforced.

6a. There are rules specifying the topics that are and are not ap propriate for discussion in the classroom.

6b. These rules on topics are strictly enforced.

7a. A manual of rules and regulations exists.

7b. These rules and regulations are strictly enforced. 190

Alternatives

1. Very vague 2. Somewhat vague 3. Somewhat e x p lic it 4. Very explicit

8. Student offenses that warrant official disciplinary action

9. Marking policies

10. Evaluation of teacher performance

11. Teachers' responsibilities for participation in the PTA and other extracurricular functions

12a. Concerning lesson plans, please indicate which o f the following statements best describes your school. (Check one.)

a. Lesson plans are not required. b. Lesson plans are expected, but there is no provision for re viewing them. c. Lesson plans are required, but not given to the principal. d. Lesson plans are required and filed with the principal's o ffic e . e. Lesson plans are required and conferences are held with tea chers concerning them. « 12b. Concerning extensiveness of lesson plans, please indicate which of the following statements best describes your school. (Check one.)

a. Lesson plans are not required. b. The period covered by lesson plans is optional. c. Lesson plans must cover each unit's work. d. Lesson plans must cover each week's work. e. Lesson plans must cover each day's work.

13. In this school, are there standard lesson plans or curriculum guides for most subjects on file with the administration or other super visor? (Check one.)

a. No b. Yes

As noted in the text, the rule items are weighted by their appropriate inforcement item. Thus, item 4a is multiplied by item 4b, item 5a by item 5b, item 6a by item 6b, and item 7a by item 7b. Also, item 12a is multiplied by item 12b for similar reasons. 191

APPENDIX B-2

Factor Analysis of Standardization Items*

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

1 .62 -.0 3

2 .58 .02

3 .60 -.17

4 .52 .05

5 .65 .17

6 .49 .08

7 .42 .21

8 .08 .49

9 .08 .58

10 .00 .61

11 -.25 .78

12 .13 .34

13 .20 .34

Eigenvalue 3.1 1.2

Variance explained 72% 28%

*0blique factor analysis with Kaiser normalization 192

APPENDIX C-l

Closeness o f Supervision Scale Items

Compared to most other schools with which you are fa m ilia r, how would you rate your school on each of the following items? (Select one a l ternative for each item.)

Alternatives

1. Much below average 2. Somewhat below average 3. Average 4. Somewhat above average 5. Much above average

1. The closeness of supervision given this school by the regional o ffic e

2. The closeness of supervision given this school by yourself as the principal

Please indicate approximately how many times a year each of the fo l lowing evaluates your performance as the principal of this school. Include both on-site and regional office evaluations. (Select one alternative for each person.)

Alternatives

0. Not at a ll 4. Four times 1. One time 5. Five times, or more 2. Two times 3. Three times

3. Regional superintendent

4. Other regional staff members

Please indicate approximately how many times a year each of the following observes the classrooms of the teachers at this school. (Select one alternative for each person; indicate the average number of observations per teacher.) 193

Alternatives

0. Not a t a ll 4. Four times 1. One time 5. Five times or more . 2. Two times 3. Three times

5. Regional superintendent

6. Other regional staff

7. The principal (and assistant principal)

8. A departmental head or other supervisor

9. Overall, how seriously are the observations by these persons taken in this school? (Check one.)

a. not at all seriously b. minimally seriously c. moderately seriously d. quite seriously e. very seriously 194

APPENDIX C-2

Factor Analysis of Closeness of Supervision Items*

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

1 .12 -.1 9

2 .39 .13

3 -.11 -.53

4 -.0 6 -.7 0

5 .41 -.1 9

6 .52 -.4 0

7 .49 -.0 3

8 .37 .00

9 .33 .07

Eigenvalue 1.45 .78

Variance Explained 65% 35%

*0blique factor analysis with Kaiser normalization 195

APPENDIX 0-1

F le x ib ility Scale Items

1. No freedom 2. L it t le freedom 3. Some freedom 4. Much freedom 5. Complete freedom

1. the selection and use of supplementary materials

2. the subject content to emphasize with students

3. the timing and pacing of teaching each day

4. the modes and techniques of teaching

5. the opportunity to attend professional association meetings (not inservice programs)

6. the opportunity to set up a temporary team teaching arrangement with another teacher

7. the procedures for grouping students for teaching within the class

8. the methods of establishing and maintaining classroom control

9. the scheduling of field trips 196

APPENDIX D-2

Factor Analysis of Flexibility Items*

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

1 .53 .02

2 .65 -.0 6 O CM i 3 .57 •

4 .47 .07

5 -.0 9 .54

6 .23 .72

Eigenvalue 1.5 .66

Variance Explained 70% 30%

♦Items 7, 8, and 9 deleted due to minimal variation. Oblique rota tion with Kaiser normalization was employed. 197

APPENDIX E-l

Permeability Scale Items

Please indicate, in your opinion, the extent to which each of the following statements applies to your school. (Select one alternative for each statement.)

Alternatives

1. Not at a ll ch aracteristic of my school 2. Minimally characteristic of my school 3. Moderately characteristic of my school 4. Quite characteristic of my school 5. Very characteristic of my school

1. Pressures from community groups and organizations have been a major factor in the decisions made by this school.

2. The active community groups a ll have been very supportive o f this school's policies.

3. Members of the community (other than school system personnel) maintain a close surveillance over this school.

4. Community groups have been instrumental in helping to r a is e ‘funds that this school needs.

Compared to most other schools with which you are fa m ilia r, how would you rate your school on each of the following items? (Select one a l ternative for each item)

Alternatives

1. Much below average 2. Somewhat below average 3. Average 4. Somewhat above average 5. Much above average

5. The extensiveness of parental participation in school activities

6. The opportunity fo r parents to s it down and discuss problems with the teacher

7. The opportunity for parents to sit down and discuss problems with the administration 198

8. The support given to the school by parents

Approximately what percentage of parents and citizens (other than school personnel) in this community do each of the following? (Select one alternative for each item.)

Alternatives

1. 0 T 10% 5. 51 - 65% 2. 11 - 20% 6. 66 - 80% 3. 21 - 35% 7. 81 - 90% 4. 36 - 50% 8. 91 - 100%

9. Attend at least one school-community meeting per year.

10. Attend at least one regional school board meeting per year.

11. Attend at least one parent-teacher conference per year.

12. Help with school functions, such as school lunch programs.

13. Help with fund raising.

14. Voted in the la s t school bond issue.

15. In this school, approximately how many times during this school year have school f a c ilitie s been used by outside groups fo r meetings, sporting events, etc. (include use of classrooms, gymnasium, cafeteria, athletic field, etc.)? (Please enter number on line.)

16. Approximately how many different groups used these facilities? (Please enter number of groups on lin e .)

Please indicate the approximate number of contacts per month that you as the principal have and each teacher in your school has on the average with parents at school and in the home. (Select one alterna tive for the principal and one for the teachers for each item.)

Alternatives

1. 3 contacts or less per month 2. 4 -7 contacts per month 3. 8-10 contacts per month 4. 11-20 contacts per month 5. 21 or more contacts per month Principal Teachers (average per teacher)

17. 18. a. number of contacts with individual parents at school

19. 20. b. number of contacts with groups of parents at school

21. 22. c. number of contacts with parents in the home

The following questions pertain to both standing and ad hoc committees in your school which include parents or other citizens (besides school system personnel). (Enter your answers on the lines provided.)

23.Approximately how many such committees exist in your school?

24.Approximately what percentage of the membership in all these com mittees is comprised of parents and citizens?

25.How many times a year on the average does each committee meet?

26.Please indicate the relative degree of influence all these com mittees have had on past decisions made in this school. (Check one.)

1. no influence 2. little influence ___3. moderate influence 4. much influence 5. great influence 200

APPENDIX E-2

Factor Analysis of Permeability Scale Items*

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

1 -.01 .65 .07 .03 2 -.11 -.11 .03 -.09 3 -.1 6 .72 -.1 7 .02 4 ,13 .07 -.02 .05 5 .28 .25 -.12 -.01 6 .07 .09 .04 -.01 7 .00 .00 .02 -.01 8 .17 .05 .02 .01 9 .69 .08 .00 .01 11 .74 -.06 -.07 -.06 13 .52 -.04 .09 .14 14 .59 -.05 -.15 .01 15 -.0 6 .01 -.9 7 .03 16 .15 .01 -.6 4 -.0 6 17 -.12 .09 -.06 -.05 18 .10 -.1 8 .01 .01 23 .15 .10 .04 .44 24 -.0 7 -.0 3 -.0 3 -.61 25 .17 .11 .01 -.5 9 26 .14 .43 .09 -.15

Eigenvalue 4.2 1.6 1.3 1.1

Variance Explained 41% 15% 13% 10%

*Items 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, and 22 were deleted from the factor analysis due to minimal statistical variation. The other three factors, with eigenvalues of less than 1.0, are not reported. Oblique rotation with Kaiser normalization was employed. 201

APPENDIX E-3

Factor Analysis of Permeability Scale Items with Number of Factors Set to Three*

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

1 -.2 6 .51 .06 2 .55 .05 .13 3 .02 .62 -.0 7 4 .48 .03 .03 5 .52 .26 - v l l 6 .56 .34 .09 7 .43 .28 .05 8 . .69 .14 .08 9 .72 .01 - . 1 1 11 .59 -.0 8 -.1 9 13 .72 -.20 .03 14 .57 .01 -.22 15 -.10 .02 -.8 0 16 .13 .05 -.7 4 17 .16 .05 -.0 4 18 .32 -.1 9 -.02 23 .29 -.19 .05 24 .03 .26 -.0 5 25 .06 .31 -.0 8 26 .20 .38 .08

Eigenvalue 4.1 1.4 1.2

Variance Explained 61% 21% 17 %

*Items 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, and 22 were deleted from the factor analysis due to minimal statistical variation. Oblique rotation with Kaiser normalization was employed. 202

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Max G. "Hierarchical Impediments to Innovation in Educa tional Organizations." In Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, pp. 42-50. Edited by F.D. Carver and T.J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Aiken, Michael and Hage, Jerald. "Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis." American Sociological Reveiw. 31 (4) (August 1966): 497-507.'

Aiken, Michael and Hage, Jerald. "Organizational Interdependence and Intra-O rganizational Structure." American Sociological, Review. 33 (6) (December 1968): 912-931.

Aiken Michael and Hage, Jerald. Social Change in Complex Organiza tions. New York: Random House, 1970.

Anderson, James G. Bureaucracy in Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.

Anderson, Theodore and Warkov, Seymour. "Organizational Size and Functional Complexity: A Study of Administration in Hospitals." American Sociological Review. 26 (February 1961): 23-28.

• Averch, H.A.; Carroll, S.J.; Donaldson, T.S.; Kiesling, H.J.; and Pincus, J. How Effective is Schooling? A Critical-Review_and Synthesis of Research Findings. Santa Monica: Rand Corp., 1972.

Azumi, Koya and Hage, Jerald. Organiza tio nal Systems: A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Organizations. Lexington: DC. Heath and Co., 1972.

Barnard, Chester I. "Organizations as Systems of Cooperation." In A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations (Second Edition), pp. 15-19. Edited by A Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Baum, Bernard H. Decentral izatiojiM Authori tv in Bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.

Beck, E.M. and Betz, Michael. "A Comparative Analysis o f Organiza tional Conflict in Schools." Sociology of Education 48 (Winter 1975): 59-74. 203

Becker, S.W. and Stafford, F. "Some Determinants of Organizational Success. The Journal of Business 40 (4) 1967: 511-518.

Belasco, James A. and A lu tto , Joseph. "Decisional P a rticip atio n and Teacher Satisfaction." Educational Administratlon.-Quar ter! v. 8 (1) (Winter 1972): 44-58.

Bell, Gerald D. "Formality versus Flexibility in Complex Organiza tions." In Organizations and Human Behavior. Edited by G.D. Bell. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.

Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Bensman, Joseph and Vidich, Arthur. "Social Theory in Field Research." American Journal of Sociology 65 (May I960)*, 577-584.

Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary. Human Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964.

Biddle, Bruce J. "The Institutional Context." In Scholars in Con text: The Effects of Environments on.Learnlng. pp. 159-184. Edited by W.J. Campbell. Sydney: John Wiley and Sons Austra lasia Pty. Ltd., 1970.

Bidw ell, Charles E. "The School as a Formal O rganizations." In Handbook of Organizations, pp.972-1022. Edited by J.G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.

Bidwell, Charles E. and Kasarda, John D. "School D istrict Organiza tion and Student Achievement." American Sociological Review. 40 (February 1975): 55-70.

Bishop, George Jr. "Organizational Structure—Factor-Analysis of Structural Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools." Educational Administration Quarterly. 9(Winter 1973). pp. 66-80.

Blalock, H.M ., Editor. Causal Models in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971.

Blau, Peter M. "Orientation toward Clients in a Public Welfare Agency." Administrative Science Quarterly 5 (December,1960): 341-361.

Blau, Peter M. "Structural E ffects." American Sociological Review. 25 (April 1960): 178-193.

Blau, Peter M. "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations." Ameri- can Journal of Sociology 73 (January 1968): 453-467. 204 Blau, Peter M. "A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organiza tio ns." American Sociological-Review. 35 (A pril 1970): 201- 218.

Blau, Peter M. TheJOteflaniza11 on o f Academic _ Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

Blau, Peter M.; Heydebrand, Wolf V.; and Stauffer, Robert E. "The Structure of Small Bureaucracies." American Sociological Review 31 (April 1966): 179-191.

Blau, Peter M and Schoenherr, Richard A. The Structure of Organi zations. New York: Basic Books, In c ., 1971.

Blau, Peter M. and Scott W. Richard. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962.

Blauner, Robert. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Blumer, Herbert. "What is Wrong with Social Theory?" American Sociologjcal Revlew. 19 (February 1954): 3-10.

Boocock, Sarane S. An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning. Boston: Houghton M ifflin Co., 1972.

Bordua, David J. and Reiss, Albert J. "Command, Control and Charis ma: Reflections on Police Brueaucracy." American Journal of Sociology 72 (July 1966): 68-76.

Braito, Rita; Paulson, Steve; and Klonglon, Gerald. "Domain Con sensus: A Key Variable in Interorganizational Analysis." In Complex Organizations and Their Environments. Edited by M.B. Brinkerhoff and P.R. Kunz. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.C. Brown,“Co., Iy72.

Brinkerhoff, Merlin B. and Kunz, Phillip R. Complex Organizations and Their Environments. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1972.

Burkhead, J .; Fox, T.G .; and Holland, J.W. Input and Output in Large C itv High Schools. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1967.

Burns, Tom and S ta lk e r, G.M. The Management of Innovation. Lon don: Tavistock Publications, 1961.

Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chi cago: U niversity of Chicago Press, 1962. 205 Campbell, W.J. "The Community Context." In Scholars in Context:

66. Sydney: John Wiley and Sons Australasia Pty.PLtd., 1970.

Caplow, Theodore. "Organization S ize." Adm inistrative Science Q uarterly. 1 (March 1957): 484-505.

Caplow, Theodore. Principles of Organization. New York: Har- court, Brace, and World, 1964.

Child, John. "Organizational Structure, Environment and Perform mance: The Role of Strategic Choice." Sociology 6 (1) (January 1972); 2-22. \

Child, John. "Predicting and Understanding Organization Structure." Administrative Science -Quarterly 18 (2) (June 1973): 168-185.

Chung, Ki-Suck. "Teacher-centered Management Style of Public School Teachers and Job Satisfaction of Teachers." ERIC #D042-259, 1970.

Clark, Burton R. "Interorganizational Patterns in Education." Admin.isirAUY.e_.S£i^^Quad^nIy. 10 (2) (September 1965): 224-237.

Coleman, James S.; Campbell, Earnest Q.; Hobson, C.J.; McPartland, J; Mood, A.M.; Wienfeld, F.D.; and York, R.L. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966.

Corwin, Ronald G. A Sociology of Education: Emerging Patterns of Class, Status, and Power in the.Pbufic Schools. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.

Corwin, Ronald G. "Professional Persons in Public Organizations." Educational Administration Quarterly. 1 (Winter 1965): 1-22.

Corwin, Ronald G. "Education and the Sociology of Complex Organiza tions." In On Education—Sociological Perspectives, pp. 156- 223. Edited by Donald A. Hansen and Joel E. G e rs ti. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.

Corwin, Ronald G. "Patterns of Organizational Conflict."Administra te V.e...,s.ciencfi.Quarter 1 y . 14 (4) (December 1969): 507-520.

Corwin, Ronald G. fliljlardL^Ecotfe.s^ j onanism;— A.JJ.u.dy.-O.LJlraan^- tional Confl ic t in High_SchQ.ols. New York: Appleton-Century- . Crofts, 1970. 206

Corwin, Ronald G. "On the Significance of Educational Organizations." Paper presented at a workshop on "Sociological Theory and Research in Education." Myrtle Beach, S.C. May 1971.

Corwin, Ronald G. Reform and Organizational Survival: The Teacher Corps as an Instrument of Educational Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

Corwin, Ronald G. "Models of Educational Organizations." In Re- view of Research in Educatio n, pp. 247-295. Edited by F.N. Kerlinger and J.B. Carroll. Itasca, 111.: F.E. Peacock, Inc., 1974.

Corwin, Ronald G. Education in Crisis: A Sociological Analysis of Schools and U niversities in Tran sitio n . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.

Crozier, Michel. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: The Uni versity of Chicago“Press, 1964.

Cuzzort, R.P. Humanity and Modern Sociological Thought. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

D ill, William. "Environment as an Influence on Managerial Auto nomy." Adm inistrative Science Q uarterly. 2 (March 1958); 409-433.

Qo_ .leaches Jlak£-iL_Dlf.£erejicel„A.ReDQj:t_on J?e€£nt_Research on .Puoi 1 Achievement, with a foreword by Don Davies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Dornbusch, Stanford N. Evaluation and the Exercise of A uthority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.

Drabek, Thomas E. and Haas, J. Eugene. Understanding Complex Or ganizations. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1974.

Drucker, Peter F. Management. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Duncan, Robert B. "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty." Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (September 1972): 313-327.

Durkheim, Emile. Division of Labor in Society. Translated by George Simpson. Glencoe: Free Press', 1947.

Eisenstadt, S.N. "Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, and Debureau cratization." Administrative Science Quarterly. 4 (December 1959): 302-320. 207 Elling, Ray H. and Halebsky, Sandor. "Organizational Differentia tion and Support: A Conceptual Framework." Administrative Science Quarterly 6 (September 1961): 185-209.

Emery, F.W. and Trist, E.L. "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environment." Human Relations 18 (February 1965): 21-31.

Etzioni, Amitai. "Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion." Administrative Science Quarterly 5 (September 1960): 257-278.

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1961.

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1964.

Etzioni, Amitai. "Dual Leadership in Complex Organizations." Ameri can Socloloaical Review-30 (October 1965): 688-698.

Etzioni, Amitai. "A Basis for Comparative Analysis of Complex Or ganizations." In A Sociological Reader on Complex Organiza tions (Second Edition) pp. 59-76. Edited by A. Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Etzioni, Amitai, Ed. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations (Second Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and W iris ton, Inc. 1969.

Etzioni, Amitai. "Organization and Society." in A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations (Second E d itio n), pp. 293-296. "Edited by A. Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Evan, William M. "The Organization-set: Toward a Theroy of Inter- organizational Relations." In Approaches to Organizational Design, pp. 173-188. Edited by J.D. Thompson. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 1966.

Feldvebel, Alexander M. "Organizational Climate, Social Class, and Educational Output." Administrator's Notebook Vol. 12, No. 8. (April 1964): 1-4.

Floud, Jean and Halsey, A.H. "The Sociology of Education." Cur rent Sociology 7 (January 1958): 180-185.

Fraser, G.S. Organizational Properties and Teacher Reactions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1967.

Friedlander, Frank and Pickle, Hal. "Components of Effectiveness in Small Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly. 13 (September 1968): 289-304. 208

Fullan, Michael. "Industrial Technology and Worker In teg ratio n ." American Sociological Review. 35 (December 1970): 1028-1039.

Gabarro, John J. "Diagnosing Organization-Environment 'F it'" ,. Vol. 6 (2) (February 1974): 153-178.

Georgopolous, Basil. "An Open-System Theory Model for Organizational Research." In ModernlOrganizational Theory, pp. 102-131. Edited by A.R. Negandhi. Kent: Kent State U niversity Press, 1973.

Georgopoulos, Basil S. and Tannenbaum, Arnold S. "A Study of Or ganizational Effectiveness." American Sociological -Review. 22 (October 1957): 534-540.

Gerth, Hans and M ills , C. Wright. From Max Weber: Essavs in So ciology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Ghorpade, Jaisingh. Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness: Issues, Analysis, and Readings. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1971.

Glock, Charles Y. and Stark, Rodney. "Do Christian Beliefs Cause Anti-Semitism? —A Comment." American Sociological Review. 38 (February 1973); 53-59. ~ .

Goffman, Erving. "The Characteristics' of Total In s titu tio n s ." . In A Sociological Reader on Complex O rganizations (Second Edi- tion). ppT 312-338. Edited by A. Etzioni. New York; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Goodman, S.M. The Assessment of School Q u ality. Albany: State Education Department of New York, 1959.

Goslin, D.A. The School in Contemporary Society. Glenyiew, 111.: Scott, Foresman, and Co., 1965.

Gouldner, Alvin W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1954.

Gouldner, Alvin W. "Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory." In Symposium on Sociological Theory, pp. 241-270. Edited by L. Gross. New York: Harper and Row, 1959.

Greeley, Andrew M. and Rossi, Peter H. Th e -Educatj on. o f.. Ca thol i_c Americans. Chicago: Aldine, 1966. 209 G riffiths, Daniel E. "Administrative Theory and Change in Organi zations." In Innovation in Education, pp. 425-436. Edited by M.B. M iles. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1964.

Gross, Edward. "Universities as Organizations: A Research Approach." Ameri can_Sociologjcal-Revjew 33 (June 1968): 518-544.

Grusky, Oscar. "Corporate Size, Bureaucratization, and Managerial Succession." American Journal of Sociology. 67 (November 1961): 261-269.

Grusky, Oscar. "Managerial Succession and Organizational Effec tiveness." American Journal of Sociology 69 (July 1963): 21-30.

G uilford, J.P. Fundamental S ta tis tic s in Psychology and Education. (Fourth Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Haas, J. Eugene and Drabek, Thomas E. Complex Organizations: A Sociological Perspectives. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

Hage, Jerald. "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations." Administra tive Science Quarterly 10 (December 1965): 289-320.

Hage, Jerald and Aiken, M. "Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties." Administrative Science Quarterly. 12 (June 1967): 72-92.

Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael. "Program Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 72 (March 1967): 503-519.

Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael. Social Change in Complex Organi zations. New York: Random House, 1970.

Hall, Richard H. "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Asses sment." American Journal of Sociology 69 (July 1963): 32-40.

Hall, Richard H. "Professionalization and Bureaucratization." American Sociological Review. 33 (February 1968); 92-104. .i Hall, Richard H. Organizations: Structure and Processes. Engle wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Hall, Richard H., Editor. The Formal Organization. New York: Basic Books, In c ., 1972.

H a ll, Richard H .; Haas, J. Eugene; and Johnson, Norman J. "An Examination of the Blau-Scott and Etzioni Typologies." Ad- ministrative Science Quarter!v 12 (June 1967): 118-139. 210

H a ll, Richard H; Hass, J. Eugene; and Johnson, Norman J. “Organiza-i tional Size, Complexity, and Formalization.*' American Socio logical Review 32 (December 1967): 903-912.

Hall, Richard H. and T ittle, Charles R. "Bureaucracy and Its Cor re la te s ." American Journal of Sociology 72 (November 1966): 267-272.

Hal pin, Andrew W. and C ro ft, Don B. Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, U niversity of Chicago, 1963.

Hauser, Robert M. Socioeconomic Background and Educational Per formance. Washington, D.C.: The Arnold M. and Caroline Rose Monograph Series, American Sociological Association, 1972.

Hawkes, Roland K. "The Multivariate Analysis of Ordinal Measures." American Journal of Sociology. 76 (March 1971): 908-926.

Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. "Organizational Climate--Measures, Research and Contingencies." Academy of Management Journal 17 (March 1974): 255-280.

H e rrio tt, R.E. and Hodgkins, B.J. The Environment of.Schooling: Formal Education.as .an,..Open,.Social Jaystem. Englewood C liffs : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

Heydebrand, Wolf V. "The Study of Organizations." Social Science Information. 6 (October 1967): 59-86.

Heydebrand, Wolf V. "Autonomy, Complexity, and Non-bureaucratic Coordination in Professional Organization." In Comparative Qi^agjjgaJj.o.risjL--Ih£-Besul^g£.EiiipiicicaLL-Res.&ar.ch. pp. 158-189. Edited by W.y. Heydebrand. Englewood C liffs : P re n tic e -H a ll, Inc., 1973.

Heydebrand, Wolf V ., Editor. Comparative Organizations: The Re sults of Empirical Research. Englewood CliffsF: Prentice- Hall , Inc.~, 1973.

Heydebrand, Wolf V. "General Introduction" In Comparative Organiza tions: The Results of Empirical Research, pp. 1-30. Edited by W.V. Heydebrand. Englewood C liffs : P re n tic e -H a ll, In c ., 1973.

Heydebrand, Wolf V. and N oell, James J. "Task Structure and In novation in Professional Organizations." In Comparative Or-

Edited by W.V. Heydebrand. Englewood C liffs : P re n tic e -H a ll, Inc., 1973. 211 Hickson, David J„; Pugh, D .S.; and Pheysey, Diana C. "Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Re- Appraisal." Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (September 1969): 378-397.

Hinings, C.R.; Pugh, D.S.; Hickson, D.J.; and Turner, C. "An Approach to the Study of Bureaucracy." Sociology 1(January 1967): 62-72.

Hodgkins, Benjamin J. and H e rrio tt, Robert E. "Age-grade Struc tu re , Goals, and Compliance in the School: An Organizational Analysis." Sociology of Education 43 (Winter 1970): 90-105.

Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1950.

Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. and A lu tto , Joseph A. "A Comparative Or ganizational Study of Performance and Size Correlates in Inpatient Psychiatric Departments." Administrative Science Quarterly 18 (3) (September 1973): 365-382.

Iannaccone, L. Politics in Education. New York: Center for Ap plied Research in Education.

Jackson, P h ilip W. L ife in Classrooms. New York: H o lt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Johnston, J. Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Kahn, Robert; Wolfe, Donald M.; Quinn, Robert P .; Snoek, J. Die- dri ck; and Rosenthal, Robert A. Organizational Stress. New York: John Wiley, 1964.

Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organi zations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

Katz, Daniel; Maccoby, Nathan; and Morse, Nancy C. Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute^for^S ociar Research, 1950.

Katz, Elihu and Danet, Brenda. Bureaucracy and the Public: A. Reader in O ffic ia l-C lie n t R elations. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Katz, Fred E. "The School as a Complex Organizations." Harvard Educational Review. 34 (Summer 1964): 428-455.

Katz, Fred E. Autonomy and Organization: The Limits of Social Control. New Yor£: Random house, if368. 212 Katzman, Theodore M. "D istribution and Production in a B ig-C ity Elementary School System." Yale Economic Essays 8 (1) (Spring 1968): 201-256.

Kaufman, Herbert. The Forest Ranger. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1960.

Keeves, John P. Educational Environments and Student Achievement.. Stockholm: Almquist and W iksell, 1972.

Klatzky, S.R. "Relationships of Organizational Size to Complexity and Coordination." Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (De cember 1970): 428-438.

Kochen, Manfred and Deutsch, Karl W. "Toward a Rational Theory of Decentralization: Some Implications of a Mathmatical Approach." American P o litic a l Science Review. 63 (December 1969): 734-749.

Korman, A.K. "Organizational Achievement, Aggression, and Creativi ty: Some Suggestions Toward an Integrated Theory." Organiza tional Behavior and Human Performance 6 (September 1971): 593- 613.

Kozol, Jonathan. Death a t an Early Age. Boston: Houghton-M ifflin, 1967.

Kriesberg, Louis. "Organizations and Interprofessional Coopera- tio n ." In Comparative Organizations: The Results of Em p iric a l Research, pp. 242-268. Edited by WoIf V. Heydebrand. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

Labovitz, Sanford. "Some Observations on Measurement and Statis tics." Social Forces. 46 (December 1967): 151-160.

Lavin, David E. The Prediction of Academic Performance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965.

Lawrence, Paul R. and Lorsch, Jay W. Organization and Environment. Boston: Graduate School of Business Adm inistration, Har vard University, 1967.

Leavitt, Harold J. "Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns, on Group Performance." In R ead in g s jXlqcial^sycholo^ . pp. 546-563. Edited by E. Maccob.y et al. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958.

Lefton, Mark. "Client Characteristics and Structural Outcomes: Toward the Specification of Linkages." in Organizations and C ljentsj E ssay s,...in.£heJ»Qfi4oJqgy.jif.JteEy.lce . pp. 17-36. Edited by W.R. Rosengren and M. Lefton. Columbus; Charles E. M errill, 1970. 213 Lefton, Mark and Rosengren, W illiam R. "Organizations and Clients: Lateral and Longitudinal Dimensions." American Sociological Review. 31 (6) (December 1966): 802-881.

Levin, Henry M. "A New Model o f School Effectiveness." in Do Iej.cJ3finOakfi^O±£ffimi£Lfi.? P- 55-78. U.S Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1970.

Levine, Sol and White, Paul E. "Exchange as a Conceptual Frame work for the Study of Interorganizational Realtionships." Administrative Science. Quarterly. 5 (March 1961): 583-601.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Lipset, Seymour M.; Trow, M artin; and Coleman, James S. Union Democracy,. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956.

Litwak, Eugene. "Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit Conflict." American Journal of Sociology 67 (September 1961): 177-185.

Litwak, Eugene and Meyer, Henry J. School, Family and Neighbor hood: The Theory and Practice of School-Community Relations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.

Lortie, Dan. "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School Teaching." In The Semiprofessions and Their Organiza tion. pp. 1-53. Edited by A. Etzioni. New York: Free Press, 1969.

Mackay, D.A. "An Empirical Study o f Bureaucratic Dimensions and Their Relation to Other Characteristics of School Organiza tions." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of A lberta, Edmonton, 1964.

Mahoney, Thomas A. and W eitzel, W illiam . "Managerial Models o f Organizational Effectiveness." Administrative Science Quar te r! v. 14 (September 1969): 357-365.

March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958.

Marcus, Philip M. and Marcus, Dora. "Control in M dern Organiza tions." Public Administration Review. 25 (2) (June 1965): 121-127.

Marriot, R. "Size of Working Group and Output." Occupational Psychology. 23 (January 1949): 47-57. 214 Mayer, Lawrence S. "A Note on Treating Ordinal Data as In terval Data." American Sociological Review 36 (June 1971): 519-520.

McGowan, Richard J.; O'Reilly, Robert P.; and Illenberg, Gregory J. "Realtion of Size of High School Enrollment to Educational Effectiveness." Child Study Center Bulletin. Buffalo, New York: State University College, 1968.

McDill, Edward; Rigsby, Leo C.; and Meyers, Edmund D. "Educational Climates of High Schools: Their Effects and Sources." American Journal of Sociology. 74 (May 1969): 567-586.

Meltzer, Leo and Salter, James. "Organizational Structure and the Performance and Job Satisfaction of Physiologists." American Sociological Review 27 (3) (June 1962): 351-362.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1957.

Merton, Robert K.; Bray, A lisa; Hockey, Barbara; and S elvin, Hanan C,. Eds. ReaderJn-Bureaucracy.. Glencoe: Free Press, 1952.

Meyer, Marshall W. "Two Authority Structures of Bureaucratic Or ganization." Administrative Science Quarterly 13 (Septem ber 1968): 211-228.

Meyer, Marshall W. "Expertness and the Supervisory Component of Organizations." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association. New Orleans, August 1972.

M iles, Matthew E. "Educational Innovation: The Nature of the Problem." In Innovation in Education. Edited by M.B. Miles. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia U niversity, 1964.

M iller, George A. "Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation Among Industrial Scientists and Engineers." American Sociological Review. 32 (5) (October 1967): 755-768.

Moeller, Gerald. "Bureaucracy and Teachers' Sense of Power." School Review. 72 (3) (Summer 1964): 137-157.

Mollenkopf, W.G. and M e lv ille , D.S. "A Study of Secondary School Characteristics as Related to Test Scores." Research Bul letin 56 (6) (1956) Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey.

Montagna, Paul D. "Professionalization and Bureaucratization in Large Professional Organizations." American Journal of Sociology 74 (September 1968): 138-145. 215 Mood, Alexander M. "Do Teachers Make a Difference?" in Do Teachers Make a Difference? A Report on Recent Research on Pup il .Achievement, pp. 1-24 Forward by Don Davies. U.S. Depart ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Educational Personnel Development. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Morgatt, Robert A.; Mihalik, Gregory; and Mortin, Don T. "Alien ation in an Educational Context: The American Teacher in the Seventies." Paper presented a t the annual meetings o f the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1974.

Mosteller, F. and Moynihan, D.P. On Equality of Educational Op portunity. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.

Mulder, Mauk. "Power Equalization Through Participation?" Adminisr t r a t i v ^ x Li£iiC£-.QLiatitecly. 16 (March 1971): 31-39.

Negandhi, Anant R ., Ed. Modern Organizational Theory. Kent: Kent State University Press, 1973.

Negandhi, Anant R. and Reimann, B.C. "Task Environment, Decentrali zation and Organizational Effectiveness." Human Relations. 26 (April 1973): 203-211.

Nie, Norman; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean G.; Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale H. Statistical Package for the Social. Sciences. (Second Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Olsen, Marvin E. . The Process of Social Organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.

Osborn, Richard N. and Hunt, James G. "Environment and Organiza tional Effectiveness." Administrative Science.Quarterly 19 (June 1974): 231-246.

Owens, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools.. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Parsons, Talcott. "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations, K"«. Administrative. Science Quarterly,. 1 (June 1956): 63-85.

Parsons, T. Structure and Process in Modern Scoie ty . New York: Free Press, 1960. Parsons,Talcott; Bales, Robert F.; and Shils, Edward M. Working Papers_in_the-Ih&ary„o.fJ\ction. Glencoe: Free Press, 1953. 216

Pelz, Donald C. and Andrews, Frank M. "Autonomy, Coordination, and Stimulation in Relation to Scientific Achievement." Behavior- al Science. 11 (March 1965): 89-97.

Pennings, Johannes. "Measures of Organizational Structure: A Methodo logical Note." American Journal of Sociology. 79 (3) (Novem ber 1973): 686-704.

Perrow, Charles. "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations." AB)eilCLaJlJ^i&^ 26 (December 1961): 854-866.

Perrow, Charles. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1970.

Pilo, Marvin R. "Sequential and Organizational Models of School D ecentralization: New York City and D e tro it." Paper Pre sented a t the annual meetings of the American Educational Re search Association, Chicago, 1974.

Pondy, Louis R. "Effects of Size, Complexity, and Ownership on Administrative Intensity." Administrative Science Quarterly. 14 (March 1969): 47-61.

Presthus, R.V. "Towards a Theory of Organizational Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly 3 (June 1958): 48-72.

Price, James L. Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of Propositions,.7 Homewood. IT l.: Richard D. Irwin, T968.

Price, James L. Handbook of Organizational-Measurement. Lexing ton, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972.

Price, James L. "The Study of Organizational Effectiveness." .Soc.iologicalJlitartenlb* 13 (Winter 1972): 3-15.

Prigmore, Charles T. A Study of Teachers' Fulfillment of Student Expectation as Related to School Organization Bureaucracy. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1968.

Pugh, D.S.; Hickson, D.J.; Hinings, C.R.; Macdonald, K.M.; Turner, C.; and Lupton, T. "A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analy sis." Administrative Science Quarterly 8 (December 1963): 289-315.

Pugh, D.S.; Hickson, D.J.; Hinings, C.R.; and Turner, C. "Dimen sions of Organization Structure." Administrative Science Quarterly 13 (June 1968): 65-105. 217

Pugh, D.S.; Hickson, D.J.; Hinings, C.R.; and Turner, C. "The Context of Organizational Structures." Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (March 1969): 91-114.

Punch, K.F. "Bureaucratic Structure in Schools and Its Relation to Leader Behavior: An Empirical Study." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Toronto, Toronto, 1967.

Punch, Keith F. "The Study o f Bureaucracy in Schools." The Aus tralian Journal of Education. 16 (3) (October 1972): 254-261.

Randall, Ronald. "Influence of Environmental Support and Policy Space on Organizational Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly 18 (2) (June 1973): 236-247.

Ratsoy, Eugene W. "P articip ative and Hierarchical Management of Schools: Some Emerging Generalizations." The Journal of Educational Administration. 11 (2) (October 1973): 161-170.

Rhea, B.R. Organizational Analysis and Education: An Exercise in Sociological Theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni versity of Missouri, 1964.

Reimann, Bernard C. "On the Dimensions of Bureaucratic Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal," Administrative Science Quarterly. 18 (December 1973): 462-476.

Richardson, Stephen A. "Organizational Contracts on British and American Ships." Administrative Science Quarterly. 1 (Sep tember 1956): 189-207.

Rogers, David. 110 Livingston Street. New York: Random House, 1968.

Rosengren, W illiam R. "Communication, Organization, and Conduct in the 'Therapeutic M ilieu'." Administrative Science Quar terly. 9 (June 1964): 70-90.

Rosengren, William R. "Structure, Policy, and Style: Strategies of Organizational Control." Administrative Science Quarterly. 13 (June 1967): 140-164.

Rushing, William A. "Organizational Rules and Surveillance: Pro positions in Comparative Organizational Analysis." Adminis trative SciencelOuar.ter 1 v 10 (December 1966): 4?3-443.

Scott, W. Richard. "Theory of Organizations." In Handbook of Modern Sociology, pp. 485-529. Edited by R.E.L. Fans. Chi cago; Rand McNally and Co., 1964. 218

Scott, William and Scott, Ruth. Values and Organizations. Chi cago: Rand McNally, 1965.

Seashore, Stanley E. and Bowers, David G. Changing the Structure and Functioning of an Organization. Ann Arbor: Survey Re- search Center Institue for Social Research, 1963.

S eid ler, John. "On Using Informants: A Technique for Collecting Quantitative Data and Controlling Measurement Error in Organi zational Analysis." American Sociological Review. 39 (Decem ber 1974): 816-831.

Selderi, David. "Teacher Workload and Teacher Dropout." AFT QUEST Paper #5. ERIC #032-272, 1969.

Selznick, Philip. "Foundations of the Theory of Organization." American Sociological Review. 13 (February 1948): 25-35.

Selznick, Philip. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California, 1949.

S ills , David L. The Volunteers: __Means and Ends in a National Or ganization! Glencoe, fll.: Pree Press. 1957.

Simpson, Richard L. and Gulley, William H. "Goals, Environmental Pressures, and Organizational Charactersitics." American Sociological Review 27 (June 1962): 344-351.

Smith, Clagett and Ari, 0. "Organizational Structure and Member Consensus. American Journal of Sociology. 69 (May 1964): 623- 638.

Spady, William G. "The Impact o f School Resources on Students." In Review of Research in Education (Vol. 1 ). pp. 135-177. Edited by Fred N. Kerlinger. Itasca: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1973.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. "Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A Comparative Study." Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (September 1959): 168-187.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. "Social Structure and Organizations." In Handbook of Organizations, pp. 142-193. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965.

Sumner, William G. .Folkways. Boston: Ginn, 1907.

"Survey Research Problems Getting Worse, Study Shows," Footnotes 2 (May 1974): 2. Talacchi, Sergio. "Organization Size, Individual Attitudes and Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly. 5 (December 1960): 398-420.

Tannenbaum, Arnold S., Editor. Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.

Taylor, Frederick W. Scientific Management. New York: Harper, and Row, 1947.

Terreberry, Shirley. "The Evolution of Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly. 12 (March 1968): 590-613.

Terrien, Frederic W. and M ills, Donald L. "The Effect of Changing Size Upon the Internal Structure of Organizations." Ameri can Sociological Review. 20 (February 1955): 11-14.

Thomas, Edwin. J. "Role Conceptions,Organizational Size, and Com munity Context." American Sociological Review. 24 (Febru ary 1959): 30-37.

Thompson, James D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw- H ill, 1967.

Thompson, James D. and McEwen, William J. "Organizational Goals and Environment." American Sociological Review. 23 (Fe bruary 1958): 23*31.

Torgerson, Warren S. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York:’ John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1959.

Tsouderos, John E. "Organizational Change in Terms of a Series of Selected Variables." American Sociological,Review. 20 (April 1955): 206-210.

T y le r, William B. "Measuring Organizational Specialization: The Concept of Role Variety." Administrative,ScienceiQuarterlv 18 (3): 383-392.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstracts of the United ... States 1974. 95th e d itio n . Washington, D.C.: Govern ment Printing Office, 1974.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Education Divi sion. Digest of Educational Statistics 1974. Washington, D.C Government Printing Office, 1974. 220

University of the State of New York. What Research Says About Im proving Student Performance: A Manual for Administrators. Albany: The University of the Stateof "New York, 19731

Vroom, Victor. "Industrial Social Psychology." In Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume V. pp. 196-268. Edited" by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Wagenaar, Theodore C. "A ctivist Professionals: The Case of Tea chers." Social Science Quarterly 55 (September 1974): 372- 379.

Waller, Willard. The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley,. 1932.

Warren, Donald I . "Power, V is ib ilit y , and Conformity in Formal Organizations." American Sociological Review. 33 (6) (Decem ber 1968): 951-970.

Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.

Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Transla ted by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Weber, Max. "The Essentials of Bureaucratic Organizations: An Ideal-Type Construction." In Reader in Bureaucracy, pp. -18- 27. Edited by R.K. Merton et a l. Glencoe: Free Press, 1952.

Weber, Max. Basic Concepts in Sociology. Translated by H.P Secher. New York: The Citadel Press, 1962.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Volume 1. Edited by G. Roth and C.Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press, 1968.

Wieland, George F. "The Contributions of Organizational Sociology To the Practice of Management: A Book Review Essay." Aca demy of Management Journal. 17 (2) (June 1974): 318-333.

Williams, James 0. "Professionalism and Bureaucracy: Natural Con flic t." NASSP Bulletin No. 359. December 1971: 61-74.

Williams, Richard C.; Wall, Charles C.; Martin, W. Michael; and Berchin, Arthur. Effecting Organizational Renewal in Schools: A Social Systems Perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

Wirt, Frederick M. and Kirst, Michael. The Political Web of Ameri- Boston: L it t le , Brown, and Co., 1972. 221

Woodward, Joan. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Worthy, James C. "Organizational Structure and Employee Morale." American Sociological Review. 15 (A pril 1950): 169-179.

Young, Ruth C. and Larson, 01af F. "The Contribution of Voluntary Organizations to Community Structure." American Journal of Sociology. 76 (September 1965): 178-186.

Yuchtman, Ephraim and Seashore, Stanley E. "A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness." American Sociolo gical Review. 32 (December 1969): 891-903.

Zelditch, Morris, Jr. and Hopkins, Terrence K. "Laboratory Ex periments With Organizations." In Complex Oraani7atinns: A Sociological Reader, pp. 465-478. Edited by A. Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.