Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED191126: A Study of Elementary School Principals' Self-Perceptions of Change Agent Behavior. Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Colleague Report."

See other formats


DOCUMENT BESOME 

ED 191 126 EA 012 525 



AOTHOB 
1I1LE 



mSTITOTION 

POE DATE 
^aoiE 



Johnson, Bruce: Sloan, Charles A« 

A Study of Elementary School Principals* 

Self-Percepticns of Change Agent Behavior, Procedures 

for Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Colleague 

Eeport* 

Texas Oniv*, Austin* Research and DeveioptBeat Center 
for Teacher Education* 
Aug 77 

3tip*: Appendixes may be marginally legible* 



EDFS PBICE 
DESC5IFT0BS 



IDEMT^FIEBS 



MF01/PC02 Plus Postage* 

♦Administrator Attitudes: *Administrator Bole: 

♦Change Agents: Educational Chaiige: Elementary 

Education: * Leader ship: *Principals : 

Quest ionnaires _ 

Illinois 



ABSTBACT 

Winety*five elementary principals Jrom 1^* northerii 
Illinois schcol districts participated in a study of the role of 
school principals in bringing about educational change* Ihe ^tudy 
indicated that el^ementary schocl p^^i^icipal^ recognized needs for 
€Stabxisbing effective communication and good working relationships 
with their constituent?* Principals utilized a variety of methods for 
actively promoting change* Central office personnel rated experienced 
principals and those employina paid teacher aides as deeply involved 
in change more often than inexperienced principals aad than 
principals who did not employ paid aides* Demographic characteristics 
did not seem crucial factors in predicting which principals wculd 
initiate change* In general, the principals were awate of the 
behaviors necessary tc implement charge* The questionnaires used iTi 
the study are included as appendixes to this docuaeat* Also iiicluded 
is a review and discussioTi of the study by members of the staff of 
the Procedures fcr Adopting Educational Innovations/Conceriis-Based 
adoption Model Program fPAEI/CBArj) of the Besearch and Developmeiit 
Center for Teacher Education at the University of Texas at Austin* 
(Author/PGD) 



1 



* Beproductions supplied by EDFS are the best that can be made * 

* . frciP the original documeiit* * 



A STUDY OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' 
SELP-PERCEPTIOHS OP CHANGE AGENT BEHAVIOR 



by 

Bruce Johnson 
ftugen Elementary School, Glenview, Illinois 

and 

Charles A* Sloan 
NcflTthern Illinois l^iversity, DeKalb, Illinois 



August 1977 



3 



M/IR 1 4 1980 "^X 



l^ABLE OF CONTENTS 



Introductioh 

A Study of Elementary School Principals' Self -Perceptions of 
Change Agent Behavior 

No^^S + *« **++++ + •+ +**** + + + + + ++ + + + 

Appendices + 

A* Elementary School Principal Rating Form 

B* Deinogrs^hic Suai^ey Instrument 

C* Change Behavior Sui *ey Instrument * * 

PAEI/CBAM Program Staff Rei^w and Discussion 



INTRODUCTION 

Keeping in touch with others who are interested in the study of change is 
an enjoyable activity for the staff of the Procedures for Adopting Educational 
Iimovationsj^Concems-Based Adoption Model Program of the Research and Develop- 
ment Center for Teacher Education* Keeping in touch entails sharing findings, 
measures f publications, experiences/ and hypotheses with others who are grappling 
with the study of change and related problems. We find that many useful avenues 
for future research and In^ortant "aha's" result from these interactions* 

As a part of this exchange of ideas around the theme of change in educa- 
tional institutions, the PAEI/CBAM crew decided to begin a series of "CBAH Col- 
league Reports*" From time to time as our collaborating colleagues conduct an 
interesting study, propose a new concept, or rais^ a thought-provoking issue, 
we would like to preserve thm in the narrative record* That way they can be 
readily available to stimulate further discussion* 

. The publication of these CBAM Colleague Reports does n^-t mean that NIE, 
UTR$D/ or the PAEl/CBAM staff necessarily agree with the ideas or points made 
in the reports, what it does mean is that we think that the report can serve 
as a useful tool or catalyst to further advance the study of change* 

However, being the talkative people that we are, v/e are allowing ourselves 
a few pages for members of the program staff to "review and comment" on each 
report* In the PAEI/CBAM Program Staff Review and Discussion section, ws would 
like to begin the further dialogue by pointing out particular aspects of the 
report that were interesting, new, or that we simply agree with, or disagree 
with, from our perspective* 

This report by Bruce Johnson and Charles Sloan fits our expectations. An 
interesting study had been done, and the study offers interesting points for 

1 5 



discussion as well as implications for future studies* Consequently! a lively 
interaction has ensued between Archie George and Bill Rutherford of the PAEI/CBAM 
staff and the authors* That dialogue is briefly represented in the Review and 
Discussion section* 

With this report:! the CBAM Colleague Reports series is launched to encour-- 
age research on^hangei stimulate discussion, introduce new ideasi and to im^ 
prove future studies* This report is the beginning of what will hopefully be a 
long and challenging dialogue for the better understanding of the change process 
and how to facilitate and personalise the experience* 



Gene £, Hall 
Program Director 



A STUDY OP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' 
SELP-PBFCBPTIOWS OF CHANGE AGENT BEHAVIOR 



by 

Bruce Johnson and Charles A* Sloan 



The study 'reported in this monograph was a research topic for a doctoral 
dissertation at Northern Illinois University* The study was generated as a 
research interest of the authors and completed in April of 1976* Further, they 
collaborated with research interests of the CBAM Program at the University of 
Texas/ Gene E*^ Hall/ Program Director* 

The entire discussion was e ititled THE S5LP-PERCB1VSD ADMINISTRATIVE 
BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN BRINGING ABOtJT CHANGE* 
Interested persons may contact the authors or review same in ERIC documents or 
Dissertation Abstracts* 

Dr* Johnson is principal of Rugen Elementary School in Glenview/ Illinois* 
Dr* Sloan is Chairman/ Department of Elementary Education^ Northern Illinois 
Univers ity # DeKalb # Illinois * 

INTRODUCTION 

For the past several decades, researchers have been examining leadership 
from the perspective of what enables individuals in leadership positions to 
£iffect meaningful change* These studies have encompassed psychological ap- 
proaches as well as sociological approaches* However, a more recent approach 
to the study of leadership has evolved by focusing on observed behavior in 



4 

si-jecific situations*^ Such an approach is useful to the active school adxninis*- 
trator because it focuses on what is happening rather than on finding the sup- 
posed causes of observed behavior (thereby providing the practicing school 
administrator with direction regarding appropriate change behavior) * 

There is little question that leadership studies are warranted in all 
Phases of education* This is particularly obvious when one examines re arch 
by Mort and Ross, who suggested that the average American school lagged twenty- 
five years behind the best educational practice available and that fifty years 

elapsed between the development of a new educational practice and its adoption 

2 

in all public schools. Further, the literature reveals a paradox for element 
tary school principals. On one hand, they are expected to comply to a societal 
prescribed role which causes a maintenance of present normative behavior, while 
on the other hand, dynamic leadership is essential to keep pace with society. 
Because of this perplexing situation regarding how elementary school principals 
viewed their role in bringing about change, thi^ study was developed. 

RESEARCH EFFORT 

Given the tremendous diffusion lag that exists in education and the paucity 
of research available for guiding the behavior of the practicing school admin- 
istrator, the authors elected to exaiitine administrative behaviors which have 
proven useful in bringing about change, thereby hopefully reducing this tremen- 
dous diffusion lag. In examining educational change in the elementary school 
setting, the behavior of the elementary school principal was chosen for inves- 
tigation because s/he occupies a strategic leadership position. Evidence of 
this crucial position is presented in the literature. Demeter, following a 
study concerning ir^proved educational practices, concludes that: 



School principals are key figures in the process (of inno- 
vation) . Where they are both aware of and sympathetic to an 




t 



innovation, it tends to prosper* VJhere they are ignorai^t 
if not hostile, it tends to remain outside the blood stream 
of the school*^ 

This study was designed to determine the sel£**perceived administrative 

behaviors elementary school principals ucilize in bringing about change. Change, 

for purposes of this study, implies that "between'time 1 and time 2 some notice- 

4 

able alteration has^ taken place in something.*' In an effort to further clarify j 
the study's direction, the following four research questions were examinedi 

1. What self -perceived administrative behaviors do elementary 
sc'hool principals utilize in bringing about change? 

2. Was there a relationship between the elementary school 
principals' degree of involvement in change as assessed 
by a committee of central office administrators and 
selected demographic characteristics of elementary school 
principals? 

3. Was there a relationship between the self -perceived admin-* 
istrative behavior of elementary school principals and 
selected demographic characteristics? 

4. Was there a relationship between the elementary school 
principals' degree* q£ involvemenic in change as assessed by 
a cofmnittee of central office administrators and the self- 
perceived administrative behavior of the elementary school 
principals? 

The geographical area under consideration for tliis research project con- 
sisted of fourteen school districts in the northern Illinois region* Care was 
taken to secure both rural and urban sites, thereby making the findings more 
applicable to other regions of the country* 



STXJDY METHODS WD PROCEDURES 

t ^ 

In light of the information ^presented in the literature, a study was 
designed to answer the four research questions set forth previously* Twenty-^ 
five northern Illinois public school districts were contacted to solicit their 
support and cooperation in the research project* After a follow-up letter and 
a few telephone calls, fourteen school districts agreed to participate* 



ERIC 



4 



Official letters of participation w^re received from the fourteen school dis- 
strict superintendents or official designee. One hundred sJjxteen elementary 
school principals fiom. the fourteen school districts .were included in the study. 
The ninety-five elementary school princij^als who elected to participate repre- 
sented 87 percent of those originally contacted* 

A genuine effort was made to obtain a cross'^section of elementary school 
- principals* The principals contacted and those who elected to participate 
represented school districts of varying size* Table 1 contains information 
regarding the relative size of school districts based on total number of elecS^*- 
tary school principals employed in their district. 



Table 1 

Relative Size of School Districts Based on Total 
Number of Elementary School Principals 



Number of Elementary 
School Principals in 
the School District 



Number of School Districts 



Number 
of Districts 



Percent 
of Total 



1-2 
4-8 
14-31 



28.5 
50.0 
21.5 



Total 



116 



14 



100.0 



The stizdy was conducted in two ina;.ior phases. First, school superintend- 

■ i 

ents in the northern Illinois area wnre contacted regarding their possible par- 
ticipation in the research project. Upon their agreeing to participate, the 
school si:y?erintendent was asked to assemble a comittee of central office adn>*^- 
istrators for the purpose of e\ai mating each district's eleir-sntary school prin- 
cipals regarding their involvement in change* This rating was to take place 



10 



using the Elementary School E^rincipal Rating Form developed by the authors (see 

Appendix a) • The design of this rating scale was in accordance with internal 

5 

change agent functions as presented in the change literature. The rationale 
underlying such a rating scale was that to be a succe5;sful change agent, an 
innovation must pass through several phases before it could be fully implemented 
within a particular school* As assumed at the outset, the ratings of the ele- 
mentary school principals by the comiittee(s) of central office administrators 
allowed the. authors to place each of the elementary school^ principals, using 
the total Score, into one of three categories of change agents. They werei 
(1) comprehensive (Scores of 4*0 to 5,0); (2) moderate (Scores of 3*0 to 3*9); 
and (3) non-change (Scores of 1*0 to 2*9)* TaJjle 2 contaj.ns information re- 
garding the change agent categories with the number of elementary school prin- 
cipals in each category* 

Table 2 

Change Agent Categories with the Clumber of Elementary 
School E^rincipals in Each Category 



Number of Elementary 
School E^rincipals in 
Each Category 

Change Agent Percent 
Categories Number of Total 



Coi^prehensive * 24 25*3 

Moderate 41 43,2 

Non-Change 30 31*5 



Total 95 100*0 



Following the completion of this rating by the committee (s) of central 
office administrators, each elementary school principal was contacted by his/her 

n 



O 8 

school superintendent and requested to complete the second ^hase of the study. 
This second phase consisted of two instruments: a demographic assessment and 
a change behavior assessment* The first instrument, the Etemographic Syrvey 
Instrument , consisted of twenty questions with responses (see ^^endix B) ♦ The 
information sought was summarized under four general categories* These include 
Personal Information, Educational Information, School and School District Infor 
mation, and Change Information* Selection of the demographic questions was 
determined only after a careful examination of those categories utilized by 
other researchers such as Rogers. 

The second instrument, the Change Behavior Suirvey Instrument ^ was con- 
structed in an effort to gain insight into the seif-percei^*^ admi *istrative 
behaviors elementary school principals utilised in bringing about change in the 
elementary school setting, {See Appendix C) The instrument was constructaa 
using generalizations found primarily in ten texts and research reports* These 
sources dealt with the manner in which innovator s/change agents had previously 
behaved in accomplishing educational change,^ The fifty-three items focused on 
uhe principal's behavior as a change agent* A Likert Scale composed of ratings 
from one to nine, with anchor points of (1) zero degree, (5) moderate rlegree, 
and (9) great degree, was chosen for use in the survey instrument* Ix was also 

determined to group the items into the thre** main constituents that elementary 

t 

school principals relate to in their daily functions:, (1) behaviors utilized 
with central office administrators; (2) behaviors utilized with the school 
faculty; and (3) behaviors utilized with the school community* 

In an effort to gain further precision with the instrument's 'r^:=^ic format 
and contents the instrument was mailed to a panel of experts consisting qf ten 
profesisionals outside Northern Illinois University* They were individuals in 
the following professional roles: 



12 



1* Five professors of educational administration and/or super- 
vision 

' 2« A public school superintendent 
3* An elementary school principal , 
4« Two executives for professional associations 
5* An administrator in a university 
All ten persons returned the survey instrument with comments and suggestions. 
These suggestions were then utilized in constructing the final draft of the 
change behavior instrument* 

Pricji^to the distribution , of the instnamont to the study population, two 
additional steps were taken* First, the instrument was administered on a pre-^ 
and post-test (thr^e week interval) basis to a group {n = 15 useable question- 
naires) of scl;ool administration graduate students in a effort to achieve a 

y measure of reliability* An analysis of the findings revealed that only five of 

7 

the fifty-three items received a correlation of less than ^40* The^ items 

were modified and included because of their judged xjnportance. 

The second step prior to distribution to the study population involved 

the categorization of the bp*haviors included in the survey instrument* The 

behaviors were grouped into three major categories. The behavior categories 

and accompanying definitions ^e included below: 

1- Communication Behaviors: Communication refers to behavioral 
actions by the elementary school principal' which increase 
the understanding of and^^Joiowledge about what is happening 
in the organizatic . 

2* Consideration Behaviors: Consideration refers to behavioral 
acts by the principal which' are indicative of friendship, 
mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the relationship between 
the principal and his associates* 

3* Thrust Bohaviors: Thrust refers co task oriented behavioral 
acts by the principal characterized by his effort (s) in 
tr'^ing to "move the organization*" ^ 



X 



L3 



8 
i 



er|c 



10 

In an effort to achieve agreement on this categoiization, the items included in 
the survey instrument were placed by the authors using the above definitions in 
one of the three categories. This categorization was then examined by a com- 
mittee of professors (n = 6) and consensus was reached regarding the proper 
placement of each item. 

The data received from the elementary school principals and central office 
adtotinistrators were aria^yzed by two programs from the Statistical Package for 
tht Social Sciences (SPSS) , The programs utilized were the ONE-WAY ANALYSIS for 
the Change, Behavior Survey Instrument and CROSSTABS for the Demographic Instru- 
ment , 

DISCUSSION 

Behaviors Utilized ; A^rominent result of the study was that the eleTwe^i- 
tary school principals reported that th^ utilized the vast majority (49) of the 
fifty-three (53) change behaviors at moderate or comprehensive degrees in an 
effort to affect change. Regarding comnunicatiort^^behaviors, the elementary 
school principals did not distinguish among their constituents, i*e, , they com- 
municated to a large extent with faculty members, central office administrators, 
and school coimnUnity members* Fvr!;her, elementary school principals reported 
that they utilized consideration hehaviors, other than the behaviors of selecting 
confidants and socializing, to a high degree* The results of the consideration 
and communication beha^'ior items were not surprising given their preponderance 
in the current research literature. ^lumerous researchers have continually 
pointed out the importance of creating an atmosphere or climate where change 
can flourish. One such author, Tye, suggested that establishing an atmosphere 
of cooperation within the groups a system was of paramount importance, V'ithin 
this atmosphere, opportunities for interaction/ encouraging broad-based decision 

u 



11 



making, facilitating open conmunication and concerning oneself with interper- 
sonal relationships must be >^rovided for by the change agent. Still another 
noted author/ Miles, concluded that once people have established clear coinmuni- 
cation with each other, the old incorrect norm loses some of its force* 

In addition to the high utilization of communication and consideration 
behaviors, several thrust behaviors also received moderate to comprehensive 
usage. The thrust behaviors involving the change agent as a process helper, 
evaluator of faculty skillSf provider of resuurceSf knower of the innovation/ 
and director of a systematic plan were utilized to a high dfcjree* Again/ these 
behaviors were in congruence with the suggestions of the change literature, 
Novotney sucfqested that the change agent must intensify within the organization 
a desire and readiness not only to recognize a problem in the existing struc- 
ture, but also to make a united effort to bring about a change which will rem^ 
edy the difficulty. Further, Novotney stated that because most individuals 
have a basic need for structure, they want to know what is expected of them, 
how to proceed, and how much time they will be expected to devote to the innova- 
tion^ Regarding systematic plaiining with the faculty, Rogers and Shoeraaker 
set forth two generalizations regarding successful change agent behavior* 
They concluded that a change agent's success was positively related to his 

clients* orientation and the degree to which his program was compatible with 
12 

clients' needs. Novotney suggested further that a change agent must collect 
a detailed description of all fixed inputs which may help achieve the change 
desired^ Included in this analysis would be what various people can do and how 
they operate under various sets of circumstances. In this manner, the elemen- 
tary school principal can place individuals in situations which are most advan- 
tageous for the achievement of the stated objectives, 



er|c 



15 



It should also be stated that some change behavio4,'s received little 

repeated utilization by the elementary school principals involved in the study. 

Among these behaviors were two consideration behaviors associated with the 

selection of confidants among all constituents and socialization with central 

office administrators and school community members* In addition/ the thrust 

behaviors regarding manipulation of central office administrators and school 

community members, bypassing of central office administrators, avoidance of 

board policy, and refusing to become a faculty scapegoat also received a low 

degree of utilization, ^ese behaviors were in contrast to the recommendations 

of other researchers* One researcher, Wallace, suggested that as unsettling as 

it might be, an effective change agent must be an effective manipul :or* In 

addition, he indicated much of a change agent's time will be spent hand-holding, 

listening, supporting, peaces-making, planning, and evaluating to promote the 
14 

innovation* Moreover, Goldharamer, in describing principals of his beacons 

+ 

of brilliance schools, states! that they were superb tacticians. In addition, 

these principals '*knew the ropes, and didn't hesitate to manipulate people, 

re^urces, or policies to get the resources they needed for those programs, 

15 

even when it meant going over their superiors' heads*" 

Change Classi fication and demographic Data ; Itie results of the investi- 
gation strongly suggested that experienced elementary school principals were 
more likely to be classified as comprtihenslve change agents than beginning ele- 
mentary school principals. Table 3 contains information relating to the years 
of aCIministrative experience of the elementary school principal and change 
agent classification. Number of years of administrative experience was a sig- 
nificant difference (,01) inasmuch as only one elementary principal with less 
than five years of administrative experience was classified as a comprehensive 
change agent, whereas twenty^three elementary school principals with six or 





33 

more years of administrative experience ware so classified- The finding was 

substantiated in the literature by Tye, who stated that it was crucial that the 

administrator knows where he stands in relation to those with whom he works* 

Knowing oneself and attempting to make one's behavior consistent with what one 

believes is an in^ortaut place to begin organizing for planned change/ ac** 

cording to Tye*^^ Further^ Rogers and Shoemaker generalized that a change 

agent's success is positively related to his "credibility" in the eyes of his 

clients* This credibility will be established over a period of time as the 

17 

client and change agent develop a good working relationship* 

Table 3 

Chi Square Table Relate ^g the Years of Administrative 
Experience of tne Elementary School Principal 
and Change Agent Classification 





Years of 
Administrative 
Experience 


Comprehens ive 
Change Agent 


Moderate 
Change Agent 


Non -Change 
Agent 




Total 


n 


% 


n 


% 


n 


% 


N 


% 


1-5 
6-9 

10 and over. 


1 

12 
11 


4^0 
29*7 


17 
13 
11 


39*4 
29*7 


7 
8 
15 


28-0 
24*2 
40,5 


25 
33 
37 


26*3 
34*7 
38,9 


Total 


24 


25-3 


41 


43*2 


30 


31*6 


95 


100*0 




13,21 


(df = 


4) 


Significance 


= ,01 







The second important conclusion! which can be drawn from this portion of 
the study was that elementary school principal.'^ v^ho employed paid teacher aides 
were morft likely to be classified as comprehensive change agents that those who 
did not do so. The number of paid teacher aides was found to be significant 
(,01) inasmuch as over 40 percent of those elementary school principals w:-th 

17 



14 



three or less teacher aides were classified as non-change agents* In compari- 
son, 13*9 percent of the elementary school principals with four or more teacher 
aides were so classifieds Table 4 below contains the inform<ttion relating to 
the nuxaber of paid teacher aides in the elementary school (s) and the change 
agent classification* 

Table 4 

Chi Square Table Relating the Niunber of Paid 
Teacher Aides in the Elementary School (s> 
and Change Agent Classification 





Number of 
Paid Teacher 
Aides 


Comprehen s ive 
Change Agent 


Moderate 
Chanqe Aqent 


Non-Change 
Agent 




Total 


n 


% 


n 


% 


n 


% 


N 


% 


0-3 

4 or more 


12 
12 


20.7 
33.3 


22 
19 


37.9 
52.8 


24 
5 


41.4 
13.9 


58 
36 


61.7 
38.3 


Total 


24 


25.5 


41 


43.6 


29 


30.9 


94 


100.0 




7.95 


(df 


= 2) 


Significance = 


.01 





As Novotney determined! the change agent must ask the question! "What do 

18 

I have at my disposal to help achieve the chemge I seek?" One can hypothec- 
size that with today's growing teacher militancy, it may be essential to pro- 
vide human resources in the form of teacher aides as a means to bring about 
significant educational change* A teacher characterized as a rate-buster will 
almost certainly receive criticism from fellow employees in today's educational 
arenai and may be forced to conform to the expectation of the work group. This 
finding is in keeping with the well-known Hawthorne studies* 

Change Behavior and Demographic J>ata ; While a few demographic character- 
istics did indicate a relationship with some change behaviors i it can be 



18 



15 



concluded that factors other than demographic characteristics play a larger role 
in determining whether or not elementary school principals elected to initiate 
change in the elementary school educational setting. Such a finding, although 
somewhat surprising,, was nevertheless enlightening as it tends to support the 
assumption that something other than demographic statistics plays the cruci<il 
role in determining effective change agents. 

Change Classification and Change Behavior : First, it can be concluded 
frciu the study that elementary school principals were cognitively aware of the 
administrative behaviors necessary to implement change, regardless of their 
change agent classification by the committees of central office administrators- 
This finding was strongly evident in that only four of the fifty-three behavior 
items showed a statistically significant relationship with the change agent 
classification » Secondly, the investigation revealed that comprehensive change 
agents demonstrated a greater use of three important concepts; they weret 
(1) developing the innovation as a group endeavor (item 015); (2) rewarding the 
faculty through visible recognition (item 024) f and (3) systanatically evalu^ 
ating the innovation (item 021) • Table 5 contains information regarding the 
relationship between the behavior items with faculty members regarding consid*- 
eration (Items 015, 024) and thrust (items 021, 027) and change agent classifi** 
cation. It should be noted that the four significant differences were in rela- 
tion to the principals^ self-reported behavior toward faculty members* There 
were no significant differences bet\*een the cctnorehensive change principals* 
self-reported behavior and their relationship to central office administrators 
and community members- 

The finding that comprehensive change agents tUd in fact systematically 
evaluate the innovation is of special mention as this heh^vior is freqisently 
ignored in the change process Flanagan stated that evaluation of education 




I 



I 
I 
I 

I 
I 



16 

.^.change was one of the most neglected aspects of the change prograitip He further 
stated that it Is only throu9h such evaluation that a rational decision can be 
made regarding the continuance or discontinuance of an innovation, as well as 

developing essential plans for continuous improvement of an innovation which 

19 i 
will remain in operation* Further, in his strong advocacy for systematic 

evaluation, Novotney concluded that the "success or failure of a change imple- 

mentatiion process can be measured only in terms of the degree to which one has 

20 

or has not achieved the objectives originally sought*" 

Table 5 

A Summary of the Eour Significant Relationships Between the 
Behavior Items Regarding Consideration and Thrust with 
Faculty Members and Change Agent Classification 

Comprehensive Moderate Non-Change 
Behavior Change Agent Change Agent me^nt 



Item(s) Mean S*&* . no* Mean SpD. No* Mean S*D* No* Sig. 



015 


8.50 


1.35 


24 


8.00 


1.75 


40 


7.21 


2.53 


29 


.05 


.024 


8.48 


1.38 


23 


7.24 


2.01 


41 


7.40 


2.25 


30 


.05 


021 


8.00 


1.77 


24 


6.27 


2.09 


41 


6.60 


2.25 


30 


.01 


027 


2.67 


2.33 


24 


4.22 


2.86 


41 


3.34 


2.27 


29 


.05 



Thirdly, it is noteworthy to mention the differences in the principals* 
behavior ^n relation to the behavior item (027, Table 5), manipulation of fac- 
ulty members* The data demonstrate that moderate change agents utilised this 

behavior significantly differently than comprehensive or non-change agent ele- 

21 

mentary school principals* Wallace noted manipulation of faculty in a study 
of adoption agents in 1974 as a necessary behavior for change agents to utilise 
in order to implement new programs* 



ERIC 



20 



17 



SUMMARY . 

In summary, the following seven statements with discussion are presented 
with respect to the findings and conclusions of this study: 

1» Elementary school principals recognized the need for effective com- 
munication with their constituents in an effort to bring about change in the 
educational setting. All of the behaviors in this category were highly rated 33y 
the principals. 

2* Elementary school principals were cognizant of the necessity for 
establi ' ing a good working relationship between themselves and their three 
important constituents (faculty, central office administratora, and school com* 
munity) ♦ This finding ^phasi2:es that. administrative theory and practice adopted 
over the past two decades permeates the self-reported behavior of practicing 
administrators at the elementeury school level, i*e*, elementeury school princi- 
pals identified as change agents report that they adhere to the principles of 
participatory management* Moreover, change agent elementary school principals 
reported greater utilization of two behaviors* They were: 

'a* The innovations were developed utilizing group processes* ^ 

b* El-^enteury school principals visibly recognized and rewarded fac- 
V members for their accomplishments* 

3* Elementeury school principals utilized a variety of thrust behaviors, 
defined as efforts to **move the organisation'* in bringing about change* It 
should be noted that persons identified as comprehensive change agents demon- 
strated the need for evaluating the innovation on a systematic basis* This was 
a distinguishing behavior from the performance of persons not viewed as chainge 
agents* 

4* Experienced elementary school principals (with more than five years 
experience) were more likely to be claussified as comprehensive change agents ^ 

21 



18 



than beginning elementary school principals. It may bft that establishing cred- 
ibility through time in the role plays tin iinportant function in the change pro- 
cess » 

5* Elementary school principals who en^loyed paid teacher aides were more 
likely to be classified as comprehensive change agents. It may be that this 
factor is (l) a means of assisting faculty members to accomplish change, (2) 
the impetus to attempt changes/ and probably (3) a reward for their efforts, 

6, Factors other than the demographic characteristics examined played a 
larger role in_determining Whether or not elementary school principals initiated 
change in the educational setting, 

7, Elementary school principals were cognitively aware of the administra* 
tive behaviors necessary to implement change, regardless of their change agent 
classification. They agreed with the ^literature on change behavior on a self- 
report basis. However/ it should be noted that only 25*3 percent of these per- 
sons were evaluated by central office administrators as ccmprehensive change 



agents * 




NOTES 



1* Robert G* Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools (Englewood Cliffs, New 
Jerseyt Prentice-Hall, Inc*, 1970), p* 119* 

2* Everett M* Rogers, Diffusion of innovation (New Vork» *rhe Free Press of 
Science, 1962), p* 41* 

3* Owens, p* 146* 

4* Matthew B* Miles, "Educational Innovation* The Nature o^ the Problem," 

Innovation in Edacation , ed* Matthew B* Miles <New Vork» Bureau of Publi" 
cations, Columbia University, 1964), p* 13* , 

5* Everett M* Rogers, "What Are Innovators Like?" CS iange Processed in the 
Public Schools (B^'.gene, Oregon t The Center for the i^vwoed Study of 
Educational Admlpistration, 1965), PP* 55^61* 

6* Ten primary sources were utilized in the construction of the instrument* 
A complete list of these sources can be' obtained from the authors upon 
request* 

7* It was concluded that While five of ;:he items received a correlation of 
less than *40 on the pre- and posttest, they should, nevertheless, remain 
a part of the instrument because of strong enphasis in the literature* 

8* Mapted in part from John K* H^ophill and Alvin B* Coons, ''Develqpment of 
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," Leader Behavior > its 
Description and Measureiaent , eds* Ralph M* Stog^ill and Alvin E* Coons 
(Columbus, ohiot The Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 
1957), p* 8j see also Andrew W* Halpin, ^'Leadership Behavior and Combat 
Perfom*ance of Airplane Commanders," Journal of Abnormal and Social 
Psychology , 49: 19-22, January, 1954J see also Ralph M* Stogdill, Handbook 
of Leadership) A Survey of Theory and Research (New Vork» The Free Press, 
1974), p* 143* ' 

9, **Kenneth A* Tye, 'The Elementary School Principal* Key to Educational 
Change," The Power to Change; Issues for the Innovative Educator , eds* 
Carmen M. Culver and Gary J, Hoban (New Vork; McGraw-Hill Book CoiDpany, 
1973), pp. 29-30* 

10* Matthew B* Miles, '"The Development of Innovative Climates in Educational 
Organizations,*' Journal for the Study ^of Change (published in Nijmegen, 
NetherTands) , lt28, 1972* 

11* Fr* Jerrold M* Novotney, "The Principal* The Key to Educational Change," 
The catholic School Journal , 68:72, February, 1968. 

12* Everett M* Rogers and F* Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations 
(New Vorkj The Free Press, 1971), pp* 237-245* 



20 



13* Jerrold Novotney, "How to Manage Change," School Board Journal , 155:25, 
December, 1967* 

14* Richard Wallace, Jr*, Each His Own Man: The Role of adoption Agents 
in the Implementation of Personalized Teacher Education (Austin, Texas: 
The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University 
of Texas, 1974), pp. 36-37* 

15. Keith Goldhammer and Gerald Becker, **What Makes a Good Elementary 
School Principal?" American Education , 6illf ;^ril, 1970* 

16* ^ Tye, pp* 26-27* 

17* Rogers and Shoemaker, pp* 237-245* 

IS* Novotney, "How to Manage Change,*' p* 25, 

19* John c* Flanagan, Administrative Behavior in implementing Educational Inno- 
vationSf U*s* Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Documents 
ED 123 182, February, 1968* 

20* Novotney, ''How to Manage Change," p* 26* 

21* Wallace* 



i 



APPENDICES 

A* Elementeury School Principal Rating Form 

B* Demographic Survey Instrument 

C* Change Behavior Survey Instrument 



4 



ELR^iENTARV SCliOOl. PRI«\CtPA!. J^VrfNC m^M 



ElcfHw^ntary School Principal's Naiic 
Sc:hool District * 



Please rate, by circling the, appropriate nutittjer on. (ho continuun, the extent 
to LliicI) tjie eler.intary school principal listed nbovc pcrfonT»eil iho follovi^in^; 
fiinctiop.5; br^r:7,ir-< about cbnnee in the element fir^' ."-f'^aO 



Uxtcnt of f-unctlon^ Perfomed 



Zero 
brtcnt 



i.ltUo 
Extent 



Some 
Extent 



CofLsider- 
able Extent 



(h im i 

Extent 



1, Diagnosed ti-e nsecl for char.:;eCs). 

2, Initiated inr.ovationCs) based 
6n the dinjnosis, 

3, Inplerentecl the necessary 
innovaticnfs)* ' 

Dispersed the innovationCs) 
"throughout the elerentar>" school. 

5* Sustained th3 ij.^plemented 
innovation's) . 

6- Continued to systenatically 
evaluate the innovationCs). 

7. Prescribed iTpro^/ anient s in 
the innovatiop-CO ^ 



2 
2 

2 
2 
2 
2 



3 
3 



3 
3 



V 



4 
4 



S 
S 
5 



Please list, if Tiny, the ifinovatLonCs) this Glenieiitory school pi'iiicipal has initiutod: 



26 

£J^C APPENDIX A 



D^ogrophic Information 



5cho9l District 

Please place a check M before the r spons^ which best describes you 
your present situation: 



or 



Sexi 



Lie 



Female 



Years of Non-Education Work 
'Experience (full-time): 



2. 



^1. 20-29 

2. 30-39 

I. 40-^9 

^4. SO- 59 

60-69 

6. 70-79 

Educazion (irighest degfee 
earned) : ' 



J* 
jt. 

_6. 

1, 



0 

1-2 

3-S ^ 

10-14 
IS- 20 - 
21 or more 



2. 
3. 

}: 

6. 



B.S. 

M.S. 
M.S> 

Ph. D. or Ed.Hgf^ 



Years of AdministTatiw 
Exoerience (full-time, any 
level) : 



J- 

J,. 

S. 



1-2 

3-S 

6-9 
10-14 
15-20 

21 01' jaore 



Nature and location of Position Held 
"rior to Present Principalship: ' 

J 1. Tr;acher Within Present 

District 

1, Teacher Within Another 

District 

^3. Assistant Principal Within" 

Present District 

4. Assistant^incipal Withijn 

^ Another District 

S. . Principal Within Present 

District. 

6. Principal Within Another 

District ^ 

7. Otjier (specify)^ • 

Number of Schools You Administer: 
1. 1 . 



1, 
4. 



3 

4 or more 



Yearr- of Teaching Experierre 
i,rull-tiine, an^ level): 



Student Population of School(s3 You 
Administer: 



_1. 

1. 

J- 
_4. 

S. 



_6. 
7. 



0 

1-2 

3-S 

6-9 
10-14 
lS-20 

21 or more 



27 



_2. 

J- 
_4. 

S. 
J>, 
J. 
J, 

9. 



1-199 
200-299 
300-399 
400-499 
SOO-599 
600-699 
700-799 
800-899 
900-999 



10, 1000 or more .(^pecify)_ 



APPENDIX B 



(Over) 



10. 



Student Tojiiilation of the 
School District: 



_1. 
2. 

_5. 

6. 



1-499 
500-999 
1000-1999 
2000-2999 
3000-3999 
4000 or rore 
-(specify) 



11. 



Nimber of Full-TLTie Teachers 
in School (s) Vou Adjiiijuster : 



1. 
2. 

4, 



1-9 
10-19 
20-29 
30-39 

40 or more 
(specify) 



12. 



Nisnber of Paid Teschcr Aides 
and/or Paraprofessionals 
(full-time equivalents) in 
School (s) You /ilnlnister: 

1. 0 



_2. 1-3 
J. 4-6 
_4. 7--9 
_5. 10:12 
6. 15-15 



7. 16 or jiiore 
(specify)_ 



13. 



Nurber of Volunteer Aides 
(full-time equix-alents) in 
School(s) You Admnister; 



JL. 
_2. 
_3. 

J- 
_5. 

6. 



0 

1-5* 

6-10 
11-19 " 
20-29 

30 or more 



14. 



15. 



16. 



17, 



18. 



19. 



20. 



Pupil/Teacher Ratio (excludinfi paid 
or voliinteer aides) in School (3) 
You Atln^Tiister * 



Tciehcr 



I. 

2. 

J- 

5* 



21-25 
26-.^0 
31 or more 



Im(nediate Supervisor in Present 
Po^sition: 

1 * Director o£ Elementary 

Education 

2, Assistant Superintendent 

for Personnel 

^3. Assistant Superintendent 

for Elementary Education 

^4* Superintendent 

Other (specify) 



Does the School (s) fbve an Established 
Parent- Advisory Comittec That 
iiegbiorly Meets With You? 

1. Yes 

2, N^o 

K£)T You Appointed to Your Present 
Position to Inplement Oiange? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

Do You View Your Present Role as 
a Oiange Agent? 

^1. Yes-' 

2, No 

Do You View Your Current Position 
As a Long-Term Professional 
Assignment? 

^1. Yes ^ 

2 . 

Do You View Your Position as 
Possessing Status? 

1. Yes 

2, }to 



ERJC 



28 



BEHAVIORS IITILIIED BV TME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRiNCITAL 

Directions : Please indicate to what degree you utilized tlu- following 
bersviors in working wiih your (1) facuit)', (2) central office aJrain- 
istrators, and C^) cor-nunity in bringing about change or innovation in 
your school by circling the appropriate number on the continuuni. 

Rating Scale; 1 lero degree of utilization 

S » moderate degree of utilization 
3 » grest d^^gree of utilisation 



EEHAVrCRS WITH THE FACULTY 

As 3-1 ole"?yitarv sch'"*ol ^>T::»c\!>a? in br^^g 
ing about cHanje^ I . . . 

X, provided in-service training for the 
faculty- 

I, s^ciaXi::ed vith the faculty. 

5. provided and maintained sy?teniatic plan- 
ning with the faculty regarding the 
innovation , 

4, eripathized with the faculty, 

5, knew the innovation ,noroughl/ prior to 
propels ing it to the e::tire faculty. 

6, developed effective coriniu^Tication chan- 
nels to keep the faculty informed, 

7, >»3s a scapegoat for the faculty, 

S, stinulated a spirit of high morale among 
the faculty. 

9. used outside consultants to assist in 
th* development of the xr^novation* 

10. educated the faculty on the importance 
cf school con::nunity acceptance of th 
innovation. 

1). denionstrated patience with faculty 
neribers who failed to change. 

acted as a process-helper for the faculty 
throughout the innovation . 

15, developed credibility in the eyes of 
the faculty. 

11. evaluated the knowledge and skitis of 
each faculty membei;, ^ 

15. developed the innovation as a group 
endeavor, 

16. provided the necessarv linkage desired 
by the faculty to resources (material5^ 
technology^ and people). 

17. used py veto power to overrule undesir- 
able faculty decisions. 

IS. exerted care in faculty interpersonal 
relations. 



Degree? of Utiliza tion 

Zero Moderate Great 

7 5 f> 
7 8 



8 0^ 
8 

8 9 

8 3 
8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 D 

8 D 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 
8 3 
8 9 



1 2 


5 


4 


5 


6 


I I 


5 


4 


S 


6 


1 I 


5 


4 


S 


6 


1 Z 


5 


4 


S 


6 


1 I 


^ 


4 


s 


6 


1 I 


5 




5 


6 


1 2 


5 


4 


S 


6 


1 2 


5 


4 


s 


6 


1 I 


5 


4 


5 




1 7. 


^ 


4 


S 


6 


1 2 


5 


4 


5 


6 


1 Z 


3 


4 


5 


6 


1 I 


5 


4 


S 


0 


1 2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


1 2 


5 


4 


5 


6 


1 I 




4 


5 


6 


1 I 


5 


4 


5 


6 


1 Z 


5 


4 


5 


6 



ERIC 



APPENDIX C 



29 



(Ov^er) 



Zero Ho derate Great 



19. 



20. 



21. 



22. 



23. 



2^, 



2S, 



26. 



interacted with faculty groups regardins 
the progress of the innovation* 

<^eter;nined ny appropriate level of 
faculty intervention . 

evalnated the i; novation a systematic 
basis with the fr^.rulty. 

chose confidants a^oj\^ the faculty 
Carefully. 

\ orked throygh >.nown faculty decision^ 
makers . 

provided visibility and recogaition 
tor faculty nenbers regarding note- 
worthy accomplishments . 

acied a solution- giver for the faculty 
throughout the innovation. 

accepted ideas from the faculty regarding 
innovations • 



27^ manipulated faculty nembers. 



2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 



2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 



4 5 6 

4 S 6 

4 5 6 

4 5 6 

4 5 6 

4 5 6 

4 5 6 

4 S 6 



7 S 9 

7 8 9 

7 B 9 

7 8 9 

/ 8 9 

7 8 9 

7 8 9 

7 B 9 



BEH AVIORS WITH C£ NTR;\L OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS 

As an elementary school principal in bring* 
ing about change > 1 . ' . . 

28. assured central office administrators that 
the innovation '-fas i:i their.best intcresti 

29. socialized with c^Mzral office adminis- 
trator.'^-, 

30. manipulated central office administrators, 

31. developed effective coinmunication channels 
to keep central office administrators 

inf ori«ed, 

52. chose confidants among central o£fiCe 
adninistrators carefully. 

33. .avoii^ed board of education policies that 

hindered implementation of t}*e innovation. 

34. was empathetic with the position of 
Central office adminis trators* 

35. coinmiinicated with central office adminis- 
trators in terms of their values and norms. 

36. used central office administrators to 
persuade the faculty of the - importance 
of the innovation- 

37. developed credibility in the eyes of 
central office administrators, 

38. by-passed lower lev^tl central office 
administrators and dealt directly 
with the sup'^rlntenddnt. 

59^ communicated in an open and direct manner 
with vciitral office administratq^s* 

40. by-passed the superintendent and dealt 
directly with the board of edhcation* 



2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 



5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

S 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 

5 6 



8 9 

S 9 

B 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

S 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 

8 9 



|er|c 



30 



BEHAVJO^S 'i^ITn IHl SCHOOL COIMUNITY 



As 3:\ tlenen^^T-y school principal in bring- 
ing ^oo'Jt change, I - - i 

41, cftvelcped effective coTiaiunication 
chanr.els ta keep school co:nmunity 
r.er:bers inforned, 

43, scscialized with school community 
n;^2ibfrrs - 

43, cevslDped long-range, systematic plans 
to ins^j^e general public understanding 
of ihe ir.novationi 

44< developed Credibility in the eyes of 
school cc'i:Dunity meiobers, 

repliec ^ronptly and courteously to 
kll in<ijirie5 from parents and other 
school C5-:n:unity nembftrs, 

46* c^r<tinuaily evaluated the school 
ccn:3uni^>* relations plan(s)^ 

47< chose confidants anon:! the school 
co::-iunity carefully- 

45. ::a;-::ained a steady flow of informative 
co„,riLni^a:ion through a variety of 
nedia to ihs school coinmunity* 

49< develops:; ir<^erest and support for the 
irnovation ip, the i;chooI comriunity- 

SO* provided recognition for school com* 
r!-r,ity r^^ribers who contributed to the 
ir*nov3t ion - 

Sl< r.anlpiJiat^'d school co;nmunity members* 

S2* cn'oura^ed parents to confer with 

fic'jlty ind adrainistrators regarding 
th? innovation* 

S3* L^ili^ed comunity action committees to 
assist in various phases of th<t 
irr.ovatiDn , 



Zero Modern tc Great 



2 3 4 S 6 



2 3 



2 S 



2' 3 



2 3 



4 5 6 



4 5 6 



4 5 6 



4 S 6 



2 3 4 S 6 



2 S 

2 5 

2 3 

2 3 

2 ^ 

2 3 

2 3 



4 S 6 

4 5 6 

4 S 6 

4 5 6 

4 5 6 

4 S 6 

4 S 6 



8 n 

8 9 

8 9 

t 9 

K 0 

a 9 

8 9 

8 9 

a 9 

$ 9 

8 9 

e 9 



ERIC 



3i 



I 



PAEI/CBAH PROGRAM STAFF 



REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 



Johnson and Sloan's study is a useful addition to the literature in an 
area where more and better research is badly needed. Although there is wide- 
spread agreement on the importance of school principals as change agents, much 
reiaains to be known about the factors that contribute to effective change agent 
behavior* 

Efforts of the authors to include a large sample of principals in the study 
are to be commended* A particularly significant contribution of the study is the 
Change Behavior Survey Instrument which was the result of a careful developnent 
process* Also interesting was the use of central office administrators for 
rating the change behavior of principals/ but this process also introduced some 
problems into the study* 

Since the classification of principals into three categories of change 
agents was so important to other aspects, it would have been helpful to have 
more information on how much knowledge the central office administrators had 
about the change agent behavior of the principals they rated* Were their ratings 
of the principals in the 1-5 year class as valid as those of the principals in 
the other two classes? This question is prompted by the placement of 68 percent 
of the 1-5 year principals in the Moderate category* fpliis "middle'-ground" 
placement of such a large percent of those principals suggests it may have been 
the result of not knowing as much about their behavior as about other principals' * 
Berhaps this concern would have been alleviated had the authors commented on the 
reliability of the system administrator ratings^ 

It is true that experienced principals were more often classified as com'' 
prehensive change agents than beginning principals* However/ a higher proportion 



ERIC 



28 




29 



of principals with extensive experience were classified as non^^chari^e agents 
than were classified as cou^rehensive change agents. In the group of principals 
with ten or more years of e)^erience, eleven were rated as comprehensive change 
agents f while fifteen were rated as non-change agents. Years of experience 
would appear to be a very risky variable for choosing principals who will be 
good change agents. 

The fifty-three items included in the Change liehavlor Survey Instrument 
represent a very useful collection of possible principal behaviors. In the eyes 
of these reviewers^ this carefully developed listing of salient principal be- 
haviors, a list that has potential for use in many ways/ is one of the key con- 
tributions of the study. The findings from this section lead to a number of 
questions that might be considered in future research. Is it common for all 
principals/ regardless of their change agent role/perf oxmance # to be so alike 
in their self-described administrative behavior? If this is true, then it may 
be that principal self-perceptions are not very useful, at least in regards to 
areas represented on the Change Behavior Survey Inst3rment , On the other hand^ 
is it possible that the three concepts that did differentiate comprehensive 
principals ar sufficiently powerful to be reliable indicators of canprehensive 
change agent behavior? 

It would have been very useful to have teacher ratings of their principal 
on the survey instrument to compare with principal self^'perceptions • This data 
would have made it possible to better determine if the principals in the study 
were actually utilizing the behaviors they claimed to be using* AlsOf it would 
have strengthened the study had the system administrators been asked to rate 
the principals in the three areas where principals rated themselves — behaviors 
with faculty, with central office administrators/ and with community. This would 
have made it possible for direct comparison of principal se^ 5-perceptions in 
the three areas with independent ratings of others* 



33 



30 



While the Johnson and Sloan study has not resulted in information that 
has day--tO"day utility for practitioners, they have laid the foundation and pro- 
vided some instruments that should help future research*