DOCUMENT RESUME ED 095 639 EA 006 371 Hoy, Wayne K.; And ... · as conniving, manipulative, cold-blooded. means for arriving at selfish ends has com-pletely overshad9wed the need

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 095 639 EA 006 371

AUTHOR Hoy, Wayne K.; And OthersTITLE Machiavellianism in the School Setting:

Teacher-Principal Relations. Final Report.INSTITUTION Rutgers, The State Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Graduate School of Education.SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educational Research and

Development (DHEW /OE) , Washington, D.C. RegionalResearch Program.

BUREAU NO BR-2-B-090-FRPUB DATE Sep 73GRANT OEG-2-2-2B090NOTF 120p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$5.40 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Administrative Principles; *Administrator Attitudes;

*Administrator Role; *Authoritarianism; EducationalResearch; Elementary Schools; InterpersonalRelationship; Occupational Mobility; OrganizationalClimate; Politics; Power Structure; *Principals;Secondary Schools; *Teacher AdministratorRelationship; Teacher Attitudes

IDENTIFIERS *Machiavellianism

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research was to explore the

relationships between Machiavellian orientations of elementary andsecondary school principals and aspects of teacher-principalrelations. Data were collected from faculty members and principals in40 elementary and 40 secondary schools in New Jersey. A set ofhypotheses and research questions was tested using analysis ofvariance and correlational techniques. The Machiavellian orientationof principals was not significantly related to the prinicpal'sbehavior in terms of initiating structure, consideration,authoritarianism, emotional detachment; nor was it related toopenness (or closedness) of school climate, teacher loyalty to theprincipal, teacher loyalty to the school, or teachers' rating of theeffectiveness of the principal. Machiavellianism of principals,however, was found to be significantly related to job mobility.Contrary to the findings of the experimental research onMachiavellianism, the expected relationships between Machiavellianorientations of principals and teacher-principal interactions weregenerally not found in the school setting. (Author)

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONDOC Mk NT HAS BEEN REPRO

D. :,FD fsa.T,Y AS RECEIVED FROMPf 14SON O R CIR.ANZAT.ON ORIGIN

1 p(),N1, Og. vEW OR OPINIONSsTAI'f 0 DO NO' NE; E sSARiLY REPREsCNT 01 f ,AL NATIONAL eNsT IT U IF OFf T WOSI ION OR Pot ICY

Final ReportProject No. 28090

Grant No. OEG2.2-2B090

I I

LX14,rel

TEACHER-PRINCIPAL RELATIONS

MACHIAVELLIANISM IN THE SCHOOL SETTING:C1

Cr`

w

ofWayne K. Hoy

Lawrence KannerRobert Black

with

1 0

CD

OO

Department of Educational Administrationand Supervision

Graduate School of EducationRutgers University

New Brunswick, New Jersey

September, 1973

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of Education

National Center for Educational Researchand Development

Regional Research Program

CYre's

.1)Lr. Final Report

Project No. 2B090CD Grant No. OEG-22-2B090

L.L.J

MACHIAVELLIANISM IN THE SCHOOL SETTING:

TEACHER-PRINCIPAL RELATIONS

Wayne K. Hoywith

Robert BlackLawrence Kanner

Department of Educational Administrationand Supervision

Graduate School of EducationRutgers University

New Brunswick, New Jersey

September, 1973

The research reported herein was performed pursuant toa grant with the Office of Education, U.S. Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors under-taking such projects under Government sponsorship areencouraged to express freely their professional judgmentin the conduct of the project. Points of view oropinions do not, therefore, necessarily representofficial Office of Education position or policy.

U.S. DEPARTMLNT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationNational Center for Educational Research

and Development

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research described in this report would nothave been possible without the aid and cooperation ofa number of individuals. My colleagues in thisendeavor, Robert Black and Lawrence Kanner, made sig-nificant and expert contributions to the researchthroughout the project. They devoted much time andenergy to the collection, codification and analysis ofthe data.

Professor Keith Edwards, formerly of Johns HopkinsUniversity and now at the Rosemead Graduate School ofPsychology, provided expert advice in terms of certainstatistical procedures. Dr. Bernard Andrews and WilliamDolphin developed several computer scoring programswhich were used in the study. Valerie Frank helped inthe tedious task of editing and proofreading the finalreport, and Marion Keller performed the burdensome workof typing successive drafts of the final report.

The debt that is owed to the superintendents,principals and teachers who agreed to participate inthis project is gratefully acknowledged. The researchcould never have been undertaken in the first placewithout their close cooperation.

Wayne K. HoyProfessor of Educational

Administration and SupervisionRutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, New JerseySeptember, 1973

iv

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ChapterI. INTRODUCTION

Page

ii

iv

vii

1

Need and Purpose of the Study . 1Conceptual Reference 4

The Problem 7

Research Significance 11Scope and Limitations 12

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE,RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES 13

MachiavellianismLeadershipAuthoritarianismEmotional DetachmentLoyaltyOrganizational Climate: Open

to Closed 37Rationale and Hypotheses 40

1325313

34

III. METHODOLOGY 47

The Sample 47Research Instruments 49Data Collection 56Treatment of Data 57

g

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter PageIV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . 59

Testing the Hypotheses 59Further Analyses of the Hypotheses . 65A Search for Moderating Variables . 66Leadership "Effectiveness" andMachiavellianism: A Two-WayAnalysis 68

Machiavellianism and DemographicCharacteristics: SomeComparisons 71

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS . . 80

Summary of Findings 80Discussion and Questions 83Concluding Statement 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY 90

APPENDIX A - CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLSAND COMMUNITIES 99

APPENDIX B - OPERATIONAL MEASURES 103

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary Data and Analysis of VarianceData for the Relationship BetweenMachiavellianism of Elementaryand Secondary Schools 62

2. Correlation Coefficients BetweenMachiavellian Orientation and MajorVariables 64

3. Correlation Coefficients BetweenMachiavellian Orientation and MajorVariables with "Openness" of SchoolCM.mate as a Moderator 67

4. Mean Principal Mach Scores as Relatedto Initiating Structure andConsideration 70

5. Two-Way Analysis of Variance: TheRelationship of Initiating Structureand Consideration to Machiavellianism . 70

6. Correlation Coefficients BetweenMachiavellianism and SelectedDemographic Variables 71

7. Comparisons of Mach Scores forVarious Samples 73

8. Summary Data and Analysis of VarianceData for the Relationship BetweenMachiavellianism and Type of College --Liberal Arts or Teachers College . . 74

9. Summary Data and Analysis of VarianceData for the Relationship BetweenMachiavellianism and Type of College --Public or Private 75

10. Summary Data and Analysis of VarianceData for the Relationship BetweenMachiavellianism and Job Mobility . . . 76

vii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

11. Summary Data and Analysis of VarianceData for the Relationship BetweenMachiavellianism and Local-CosmopolitanOrientation 78

12. Summary Data and Analysis of VarianceData for the Relationship BetweenMachiavellianism and Type of Community . 79

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Administration is power. The administrator has athis disposal an elaborate and wide variety of organiza-tional procedures and mechanisms designed to inducemembers to comply with directives. Hard decisions haveto be made--decisions which have negative consequencesfor some of the members. The way administrators makethose decisions and use the formal authority of theorganization to guarantee performances which are inaccord with organizational specifications has been aclassic problem in organizational analysis.

Secondary and elementary school principals areadministrators charged with the responsibility of coor-dinating and integrating activities in public schools.In this administrative role, the school principal exer-cises power, authority, and leadership. He is in theposition of giving order to those activities in theschool that are designed to achieve the goals of theinstitution within the setting of the school system andwithin the broader context of the community at large.His power, in Russell'if terms, is seen as the productionof "intended effects." 1 The principal finds himself ina role in which he is primarily concerned with makingdecis.,)ns and/or establishing a framework and themachinery for decision-making and implementation. Thereseems to be little doubt that the school principalwields considerable power as he exercises his adminis-trative authority.

Need and Purpose of the Study

One of the earliest systematic analyses of admin-istration and power was Machiavelli's classic, ThePrince, first published in 1532. Lerner, writing inMiMtroduction to the Modern Library version of ThePrince, says of Machiavelli,

1Bertrand Russell, Power - A New Social Analysis(New York: Norton, 1938), p. 35.

1

. . . He had the clear-eyed capacity to dis-tinguish between man as he ought to be andman as he actually is - between the idealform of institutions and the prograwaticcondition under which they operate.4

The language of how things actually are is a languageof power, of how men are cajoled and compelled to dothe bidding of other men. The fact that many ofMachiavelli's keen and insightful observations havecontinued to live for nearly five hundred years is atestimonial to the effectiveness of tactics that aresound and based on a realistic knowledge of behavior.The difference between administrative behavior duringMachiavelli's time and today is largely one of degree,but feelings and needs for power and actions to control,the behavior of others follow remarkably similar paths.'

One does not read Machiavelli without thinking of,at least, a few administrators who stem to embodyMachiavelli's ideas on power and manipulation of otherpeople. Until fairly recently, however, the concept ofMachiavellianigm had received little systematic empiricalinvestigation. 3 In fact, there have been few, if any,empirical investigations focusing on Machiavellianismin public school administrators. Perhaps, the reasonfor this apparent void rests with the pejorative conno-tation of the term; it has come to denote the use ofcunning, opportunism, and dishonesty in interpersonalrelations. Calhoon speculates on the reasons for theneglect of the study and analysis of Machiavellian con-cepts in the modern organizational literature as follows:

2Max Lerner, "Introduction," in Niccolo Machiavelli,The Prince and The Discourses (New York: Modern Library,1950), p. xxxii.

3Daniel Griffiths, Administrative Theo (New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,ric., p. .

4Richard P. Calhoon, "Niccolo Machiavelli and theTwentieth Century Administrator," Academy of ManagementJournal, XII (June, 1969), pp. 206:710.

5Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis, Studiesin Machiavellianism (New York: The Free Presi,IM) .

2

Emphasis on "good practices" and "principles"of management on the one hand have tended toobscure the action of leaders that areunsavory but effective. On the other hand,the prevailing connotation of "Machiavellian"as conniving, manipulative, cold-bloodedmeans for arriving at selfish ends has com-pletely overshad9wed the need for and validityof his concepts.°

One might argue, though, that authoritarianism andMachiavellianism are essentially the same and thatauthoritarianism, as defined in The Authoritarian Per-aonalit and measured by various versions of the F-sca e, is probably one of the most frequently studiedvariables. However, the research evidence to datesupports neither the view that the concepts are thesame ngtr that they are significantly related to eachother./ Machiavellians are not necessarily authoritarianpersonalities. Indeed, one of the assumptions concerningthe Machiavellian is that he is essentially apoliticalin an ideological sense and views others in a cool,rather than a moralistic, judging fashion.

It is difficult to be objective about the termMachiavellianism; however, the concept does seem to bean important aspect of power relations in formal organi-zations. With respect to the problem of objectivity,Christie and Geis comment:

We have been plagued, however, by the problemof objectivity . . . Initially our image ofthe high Mach was a negative one, associatedwith shadowy and unsavory manipulations. How-ever, after watching subjects in laboratoryexperiments, we found ourselves having aperverse admiration for the high Mach'sability to out do others in experimentalsituations . . . This does not mean that ouradmiration was unqualified; it might betterbe described as selective . . . we certainlydo not have the same visceral reactions tothe term "Machiavellianism" that we hadearlier.8

6Calhoon, 2E. cit., p. 205.

7Chr:tAie and Geis, 2E. cit., pp. 38-49.

8Ibid., p. 339.

3

Despite the negative connotations of the term, there isreason to believe, as Calhoon points out, that modernorganizational leaders operate much more according tothe various teachings of Machiavelli than anyone mightcare to admit, As he so aptly stated, "Machiavellianconcepts and actions are much more germane to the 'guts'of interactions than social scientists and/ormanagement analysts care to recognize."' Further, heindicates that current analysts of behavior in manage-ment are coming to see that "systems" at one and andthe case studies of individual managers at the otherare inadequate and that journal articles and books onmanagement are, in increasing numbers, referring to thestrategies used in leadership.

In brief, Machiavellianism appears to be a potentialtheoretically significant concept mediating superior-subordinate relationships in the public school contextbut one for which there is little empirical study. Thepurpose of the present research is to begin to exploreMachiavellianism in public school administrators. Morespecifically, the investigation will focus on relation-ships between Machiavellianism of elementary andsecondary school principals and certain aspects ofteacher-principal interactions.

Conceptual Reference

In order to understand more clearly the descriptionsand propositions which will be explained in this study,it is necessary to define the basic concepts which willbe utilized in the analysis. Reference will be made toMachiavellianism, organizational climate, open climate,closed climate, initiating structure, consideration,authoritarianism, emotional detachment, loyalty to theinstitution, and loyalty to the principal. A workingdefinition for each of these terms, as they will be usedin this study, appears in the paragraphs which follow.Further expansion of the major concepts will occur inthe review of literature in the next chapter.

Machiavellianism

The central concept under investigation isMachiavellianism; it may be conceived in terms of a

9Calhoon, loc. cit.

4

hypothetical role mode1.1° This model would have thoseabstract characteristics which mark the Machiavellianas effective in controlling others. He might bereferred to as the "operator" or "manipulator" whowould have little emotional attachment to those withwhom he works, view others as objects to be manipulated,and want to influence rather than be influenced.Machiavellians also tend to be utilitarian in theiractions rather than moral and also tend to have anobjective view of reality. Further, they focus ongetting things done rather than on long range goals.In brief, the Machiavellian is characterized by arelative lack of affect in interpersonal relations, alack of concern with conventional morality, a lack ofgross psychopathology, and a low ideological commitment."High Machs" and "low Machs" will be used to designatethose imbued with high and low degrees of Machiavellianorientation.

Organizational Climatell

The organizational climate of a school may be con-strued as the organizational "personality" of a school,Figuratively, "personality" is to the individual whatclimate is to the school. More specifically, the cli-mate of a school refers to patterns of to ocher- teacherand teacher-administrator interactions. Organizationalclimates of educational organizations have been arrayedalong a continuum defined at one end by the open cli-mate and at the other by a closed climate. Concern inthis study will focus on these two contraating types ofclimate.

Open Climate

The model of the open climate is portrayed as anenergetic, lively organization which is moving towardits goals while, simultaneously, providing satisfactionfor the group members' social needs. Leadership acts

1 0Christieand Geis, 22.. cit., pp. 3-4.

11For a further discussion of organizational cli-mate, including open and closed climates, see Andrew W.Halpin and Don B. Croft, The Or anizational Climate ofSchools (Chicago: Midwest A nis ra ion en er,17IFFTE7 of Chicago, 1963).

5

emerge from both the teachers and the principal.Neither task-achievement nor social-needs satisfactionis overemphasiled, but in both instances satisfactionseems to be obtained easily and almost effortlessly.The basic characteristic of the open climate is the"authenticity" of behavior that occurs among theteachers and principal.

Closed Climate

The prototype of the closed climate is the schoolwhich is characterizeci by a high degree of apathy amongthe teachers and principal. Morale is low. Littlesatisfaction is obtained with respect to either task-achievement or social-needs. The behavior of teachersand the principal is primarily "inauthentic," and theorganization is stagnant.

Leadership Behavior12

Leadership behavior refers to the "behavior ofleaders," more specifically, in this study, the behaviorof elementary and secondary principals. Several dimen-sions of leader behavior will be considered in thisanalysis. They include initiating structure, considera-tion, authoritarianism, and emotional detachment.

Initiatinv Structure

Initiating structure refers to activities of theprincipal which define patterns of organization, deter-mine channels of communication, delineate appropriateprocedures, emphasize goal achievements, and stressthe effective operation of the organization.

Consideration

Behavior of principals which is indicative offriendship, trust, respect, warm and interpersonalrelations, and which is primarily concerned with sub-ordinate welfare and group maintenance is termedconsideration.

12For further discussion of leadership behaviorand initiating structure and consideration, see Andrew W.Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York:Macmillan Co., 1966), pp. 81-13G.

6

Authoritarianism

Although there are many definitions of the term"authoritarianisA," for the purpose of this study, thedefinition proposed by Blau and Scott served as ourreference. An authoritarian superior is one who hasstrong tendencies to be strict rather than lenient, tosupervise closely, to have a formal approach N teachers,and to stick closely to rules and procedures."

Emotional Detachment

As used in this study, the concept refers to theprincipal's ability to remain calm and rarely, even indifficult situations, lose his temper and "blow up" atsubordinates.14

Loyalty to the Institution

This variant of loyalty refers to the extent towhich teachers feel a commitment to the school in whichthey are working. It does not attempt to assess theextent of commitment to the school system as a wholebut refers to the identification with the school.

Loyalty to the Principal

Another variant of loyalty to be studied is loyaltyto the principal. Here, the emphasis is on the extentto which subordinates are committed to the principal',"that is, the degree to whic4che is 'liked,"accepted,''trusted,' and 'respected."."

The Problem

The role of the school principal is becomingincreasingly more complex. As teachers have becomebetter educated, more organized as a group, and moremilitant, the traditional role of the principal as the

13Peter Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organi-zation (San Francisco: Chandler Publishriiii7567, 1962),gi7iTS-149.

14 Ibid.

15Ibid., p. 144.

7

unquestioned leader in the school building has beenchallenged. Teachers demand more authority and voicein decision-making and policy formulation. Theimportance of healthy principal-teacher relations andthe growing significance of leadership in the informalorganization as well as in the formal structure of theschool provide most public school principals with amajor challenge.

Under these general conditiOns, what kind ofprincipals are successful in building rapport and soundinterpersonal relations with their faculties? Thesignificance of Machiavellian tactics in present daymanagement and administrative practices has been alludedto earlier. In addition, although the empiricalresearch on Machiavellianism in administrators has beenlargely neglected, the body of experimental research onMachiavellianism has indicated that those subjects whoagree with basic Machiavellian tactics, strategies,

16and ideas behave differently than those who do not.This research evidence has indicated that, in general,those with a high Machiavellian orientation, high Machs,manipulate more, win more, are persuaded less, and per-suade others more than low Machs. In addition, highMachs initiate and control the social structcre ofmixed-Mach groups. They tend to be preferred as partners,chosen and identified as leaders, judged as more per-suasive, and appear to direct and control both the toneand content of the interaction.

Finally, the experimental evidence to date suggeststhat high Machs are not more hostile, vicious, or vin-dictive when compared tb low Machs. Additionally, thelow Macho' more personal orientation tends to make themless effective as strategists in the course of inter-action by probably more sensitive to others as individualpersons. Againithese findings are those of the lab-oratory. Do the same kind of findings hold in the realworld? To what extent does a Machiavellian orientationmediate the behaviors of public school principals? Thespecific research questions which guided this study aresketched below.

16Most of the experimental research, however, hasused college students as subjects. For an excellentsummary of many of these studies see Christie and Geis,2E. cit.

17Ibid., p. 144.

8

What kind of leader behavior do Machiavellianschool rinci alii7cETEIETFFET(T5FETEOEFFEVialI onegenera rus of the study. Halpin's" work withinitiating structure and consideration as fundamentaldimensions of leader behavior afforded a useful per-spective for exploring the differences in behaviorbetween "high Machs" and "low Machs" in the schoolsetting. Given the initiating and control dispositionsof high Machs, it seems reasonable to expect them to behigh on initiating structure. However, research onleadership effectiveness suggests that the effectiveadministrator is highan both consideration andinitiating structure. Imo -what extent are Machiavellianprincipals described by their teachers as high on bothdimensions of leadership?

Although the evidence to date indicates that theauthorit4Nian personality and Machiavellianism are notrelated, there has been no similar exploration of therelationship between Machiavellianism and authoritarianadministrative behavior. Research does indicate thatauthoritarian principals are less successful than non-authoritarian ones.21 Given the explicit, cognitivedefinitions of the situation and the focus on strategiesof "winning" which imbue high Machs, it seems appropriateto examine the extent to which Machiavellian rinci alsare describariiiii77MVITITiiiiiTIEFOTItar an andnon-authoritarian.

A body of research is also beginning to emergewhich underscores the importance of emotional detachmentof superiors as they deal with subordinates. 2 The

18Halpin, 2E. cit., pp. 81-127.

19Andrew W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior ofSchool Superintendents (Columbus, Ohio: College of Edu-cation, The Ohio State University, 1956).

2 °Christie and Geis, 2E. cit., pp. 38-39.

21Richard T. Rees and Wayne K. Hoy, "The Principaland Teacher Loyalty," Research Bullecin, Rutgers Uni-versity, Graduate School of Education tFall, 1971)Fpp. 4-8.

22Blau and Scott, 2E. cit., See also Wayne K. Hoyand Leonard B. Williams, "Loyalty to Immediate Superiorat Alternate Levels in Public Schools," EducationalAdministration Quarterly, VII (Spring, 15/1T, pp. -11.

9

research on the detachment of Machiavellians leads oneto predict that hi h Mach rinci als will have si nifi-cantly more emotions etac ment an e r low Maccounterparts.

What kind of faculty reactions do Machiavellianprincipals generatef TE-might be assumed that due tothe negative reactions many individuals have about"manipulating people," Machiavellian administratorsmight tend to alienate subordinates. On the other hand,there is evidence that, at least in experimental face-to-face situations, high Machs are preferred as partners,chosen and identified as leaders, and judged as morepersuasive than low Machs.23 With respect to facultyreaction, this research will focus on loyalty to theadministrator, loyalty to the school, openness of cli-mate, and a global rating of effectiveness.

Blau and Scott 24 maintain that a crucial aspect ofa superior's ability to exert influence is the loyaltyand support he commands among group members. In fact,it has been suggested that subordinate loyalty to theimmediate superior may be a necessary conditio forleadership effectiveness in a school setting. Towhat extent do Machiavellian rinci als command lo altrom their acu ies

Loyalty to the school organization is anothervariable which will be explored with respect to Machia-vellian administrators. A basic problem facing allorganizations is the need to integrate the needs of theindividual and the goals of the organization. Tighten-ing the links that bind one to an organization so thathe is dedicated to the organization and its goals isfunction4 to the effective operation of most organi-zations. To what extent are Machiavellian principalsable to rovide an atmosphere conducive to facultyloyalty to the school

23Christie and Geis, 2E. cit., pp. 304-313.

24Blau and Scott, 2E. cit., pp. 162-164.

25Hoy and Williams, 2E. cit., p. 11.

"Douglas T. Hall, (et. al.), "Personal Factorsin Organizational Identification," AdministrativeScience Quarterly, XV (June, 1970), pp. 176-178.

10

Another faculty variable to be examined withrespect to Machiavellians is school climate.2' Machia-vellians are expert at manipulating people, but to whatextent can they manipulate the climate of a schoar7----What is the relationdhi between Machiavellianism inprint pa s an e openness or c osedness of schoolclimates?

The final variable used to tap faculty reaction toMachiavellianism on administrators is the teachers'global rating of the principal's effectiveness. Whatis the relationship between teacher rating of priNET5a1effectiveness and Machiavellianism?

Two other research questions will also be analyzed:

--Is

NThWicaveangiiiriaiiiWCAIY41-14F/4651idatiprincipals?

--Is there a relationship between administrativeexperience and ac ave Ili ani sm?

The above questions are ones which provided theimpetus for this research. In the next chapter thesequestions will be refined and, where it seems appro-priate, specific research hypotheses developed.

Research Significance

This research is admittedly exploratory in nature.The study of Machlavellianism in public school admin-istrators is virtually non-existent; hence, this initialprobe may lack some of the theoretical rigor that onemight find in more frequently studied aspects of organi-zational behavior. Nonetheless, the concept of Machia-vellianism itself appears to be a theoreticallysignificant one which may have broader implications forleadership theory, exchange theory, and organizationalanalysis. The study may also provide practical as wellas theoretical value. For example, the knowledge pro-duced may furnish some clues in terms of developingstrategies; for opening the organizational climate ofschools and for improving principal-teacher relation-ships.

27Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and hasearch in Admin-

istration (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966), p. 206.

11

Scope and Limitations

The sample in this study was composed of fortyelementary and forty secondary schools in New Jersey.An attempt was made to secure a widely diverse samplein terms of school size, location, and socio-economiclevel of the region served. The characteristics ofthe schools in the sample are presented in Appendix A.

The hypotheseri of this study do not attempt toestablish an antecedent-consequence relation betweenthe variables. Although the variables are hypothesizedto be related to each other, the degree of casualrelationship is not clear. Generalizations supportedby the findings should be limited to the populationsampled or applied cautiously to similar population.

12

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE,RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES

The theory and research findings presented in thischapter deal with the major concepts explored in thepresent study. In addition, the theoretical rationaleof the study was developed, and the hypotheses andquestions which guided the study were presented.

Machiavellianism

Historical and Conceptual Perspectives

There is little one can say for certain about theearly years of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). Hisfather was a lawyer, and his boyhood apparently musthave been similar to that of most children living inthe city of Florence at the time.

He entered politics at the age of twenty-nine assecretary to the Florentine republic, a post he heldfor fourteen years. During that period, he was sent ondiplomatic missions that gave him a variety of personalacquaintances with people such as Cesare Borgia, LouisXII of France, and the Emperor Maximilian. After therestoration of the Medici in 1512, Machiavelli wasaccused of conspiracy and impri'oned. Following hisimprisonment, he spent the latter part of his life atSan Casciano devoting much of his time to study, towriting, and to seeking re-entry into public life; itwas during this period that he wrote The Prince andThe Discourses.

The Prince is, in essence, a handbook on war, power,manipulation, conqwst, and government. Its preceptsare pragmatic, based upon ruthless realism as revealedby experience and by history. The prescriptions andduplicity recommended throughout the book were directedto the end of a united Italy.

Machiavelli admired power. He believed in fight-ing evil with evil. To be effective, Machiavelliclaimed the prince must lie and cheat and even disavowhis religion whenever doing so was advantageous to thestate; however, none of these things should be done

13

needlessly. Thus, while Machiavelli is not the faith-ful friend of morality, he islet least not opposed toit unless it gets in his way.

The Discourses is a much more comprehensive bookthan The Prince. In it, Machiavelli sought to describehis whole system of politics. It is here that Machia-velli developed and elaborated upon such ideas asdemocratic republics, reliance on mass consent, theunity of the state, and the role of power and leadershipin achieving political stability. Nonetheless, when onespeaks of Machiavellianism, it is The Prince that'oneusually has in mind.

Machiavelli was a "bureaucrat." He wrote aboutpolitics because he had had first hand experience init; he was in a position that allowed him to become oneof the first modern analysts of power and administration.

His works stand out because they represent a revo-lution in political thinking. As Max Lerner says,

The humanists who had written books aboutprinces had written in the idealistic andscholastic medieval tradition; they wereridden by theology and metaphysics. Machia-velli rejected metaphysics, theology, idealism.The whole drift of his work is toward apolitical realism, unknown to the normalwriting of his time.

Machiavelli recognized the existence of powerpolitics and subjected it to systematic analysis. Hence,his name has, through time, become associated with, ifnot synonymous with, power and manipulation. He soughtto differentiate the realm of what ought to be fromwhat is, focusing his attention on the latter.

Machiavelli would probably applaud the widespreadapplication of his precepts of leadership in organi-zations today; however, the pejorative connotation of

1Burton A. Milligan, Three Renaissance Classics(New York: Charles Scribnerrs Sons, 1953), pp. iii-vii.

2Max Lerner, The Prince and The Discourses byNiccolo Machiavelli (New York: The Mo ern ',unary,1940), p. xxxi.

14

the term Machiavellianism has no doubt led to itsbeing "down played" in organizational analysis. AsPrezzolini remarked, "I think that the unpleasant butrealistic picture of politics that Machiavelli saw inhis reading of history and formulation into a scienceis the principal reason for the aversion in which heis generally held. No one likes to be told of short-comings."

Since the publication of The Prince in 1532, thename Machiavelli has come to signify the use of cunning,deceit, and blatant opportunism regarding interpersonalrelations. Traditionally, the "Machiavellian" isviewed as one who manipulates others for his own endsand purposes."'

Other conceptualizations of Machiavellian behaviorare abundant. As Calhoon states, "According to the1964 edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Machia-vellianism is characterized by shrewdnesp rather thanby interest in an individual's welfare." A definitionof a modern Machiavellian administrator is one whoemploys ". aggressive, manipulative, exploiting,and devious moves in order to achieve personal andorganizational objectives." Further, these moves areactuated in terms of their feasibility with secondaryconsideration to the feelings and needs of others.

In conceptualizing the construct Machiavellianism,Christie and his associates viewed the Machiavellianmanipulator or operator in terms of a hypothetical rolemodel. They identified the following four basicabstract characteristics that they hypothesized wouldbe necessary for the effective manipulation of others:

3Guiseppe Prezzolini, "The Kernel of Machiavelli,"The National Review, X (April 8, 1961), p. 217.4Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis, Studiesin Machiavellianism (New York: Academic Presi7-177T),p. 1.

5Richard P. Calhoon, "Niccolo Machiavelli and theTwentieth Century Administrator," Academy of ManagementJournal, XII (June, 1969), pp. 210-211.

6Ibid., p. 211.

15

1. A relative lack of affect in interpersonalrelationships. It was assumed that successin getting others to do what one wishes themto do would be improved by viewing them asobjects to be manipulated rather than personswith whom one has empathy.

2. A lack of concern with conventional morality.rt---)staiEed7waspchltt those who manipulatehave an utilitarian rather than a moral viewof their interactions with others.

3. A lack of gross psychopathology. It washypothesized that the manipulator would takean instrumentalist or rational view of others.This contact with the more objective aspectsof reality would be within the normal range.

4. Low ideological commitment. It was assumedDist successful manipulation was based upongetting things done rather than a focus uponlong-range ideological goals.?

Specific items used to construct an operationalmeasure for this hypothetical concept were gleanedprimarily from Machiavelli's The Prince and The Dis-courses. In sum, MachiavellierTEauecking=rier-personal affect, low in concern with conventionalmorality, devoid of gross psychopathology and have lowideological commitment. The present research used thepreceding conceptual role model of Machiavellianism.

Empirical Findings

There have been a number of empirical investi-gations examining the effects of Machiavellianismwithin a group situation. In a study relating Machia-vellianism to attitudes toward teammates in a cooperativerating task, Harris found that high Machs were moreindependent and more sensitive to manipulative traits

7Christie and Geis, 2E. cit., pp. 3-4.

8High Machs are persons who score relatively highon the Mach Scale, as developed by Richard Christieand his associates. Low Mitchel are persons who scorerelatively low on the Mach Scale.

16

in their teammates.9 Further, high Machs were morereserved and neutral in rating the performance oftheir teammates.

In a study of four-person groups, Geis found thathigh Machs were chosen as group leaders significantlymore frequently than low Machs." In addition, shereported that in groups where high Macho were leaders,the group made higher grades on their joint projectsthan individual members made on course exams.

Desfosses studied the effects of Machiavellianismon group productivity." His findings confirmed thehypothesis that high Mach groups are more productivethan low Mach groups.

Bochner's study of task structure in four-mangroups revealed that tasks significantly affect highMachs but do not significantly affect low Machs.12Further, he found that there are strong pre-dispositionaldifferences between high And low Machs in both inter-action and rating behaviors.

Hacker and Gaitz conducted a study of Machiavel-lianism in a teli-member mental health team.13 They

9Thomas M. Harris, " Machiavellianism Judgment Inde-pendence, and Attitudes Toward Teammates in a CooperativeRating Task" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity, 1966).

10Florence Geis, "Machiavellianism in a SemirealWorld," Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention ofthe American Psychological Association, In (1968), pp.407-408.

11Louis R. Des2.osses, "Some Effects of Machiavel-lianism and Change of Leaders on Group Productivity"(unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, 1971).

12Arthur P. Bochner, "A Multivariate Investigation

of Machiavellianism and Task Structure in Four-ManGroups" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, BowlingGreen State University, 1971).

Charles M. Gaitz and Sally L. Hacker, "Inter-action and Performance Correlates of Machiavellianism,"Sociological Quarterly, XI (Winter, 1970), pp. 94-102.

17

wanted to investigate the extent to which persons witha Machiavellian approach favored certain styles of inter-action. Results indicated that high Machs contributedmore to small group discussion, made more suggestions foraction, and made greater use of negative socio-emotionalinteraction. These techniques were effective in smallgroups but were less effective in larger group situations.

Uejio and Wrightsman, reporting on Machiavellianismas related to cooperative behavior, indicated a sig-nificant negative correlation between Mac0,scores andcooperation scores for Caucasian females.14

Summarizing these studies of Machiavellianism ina group setting, it appears that high Machs are chosenas leaders more often than low Machs. Further, beingmore task oriented, they exert a significantly greaterinfluence on group activities than low Machs.

Other studies of Machiavellianism have centeredaround its effects as a behavioral determinant in gamingand negotiating situations. Geis' study of Machia-vellianism in bargaining-coalition games showed thanhigh Mitphs won far more points in the games than lowMachs.." It was further demonstrated that the advantageof the high Mach over the low Mach was enhanced withthe increasing ambiguity in the situation.

In a study involving r.hildren and bluffing games,Nachamiet found that #tgh Macho won significantly moregames than low Machs.4° Wahlin's research dealing withMachiavellianism and mathematical games revealed thathigh Machs made significantly more competitive moves

1 4Clifford K. Uejio and Lawrence S. Wrightsman,"Ethnic-Group Differences in the Relationship of Trust-ing Attitudes to Cooperative Behavior," PsychologicalReports, XX (April, 1967), pp. 563-571.

15Florence L. Geis, ":,chiavellianism in a Three-Person Game" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Columbia University, 1964).

16Susan S. Nachamiet, " Machiavellianism inChildren: The Children's Mach Scale and the BluffingGame" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity, 1969).

18

than did the lows.17 Thus, it appears that high Machsare more competitive and win more in gaming situationsthan low Machs.

Some researchers have examined the relationshipof Machiavellianism to grade averages in college. Datagathered by Singer, in an attempt to determine ifMachiavellian attitudes are related to higher gradeaverages in college, revealed l# partial correlation ofMachiavellianism with grades." Interestingly, hefound that firut born children have higher mean scoreson the Mach scale, yet they have consistently lowerMach-grade point correlations. He speculated thatthese chilften do not have the skills of putting theirbeliefs into practice.

Burgoon discovered a significant positive relation-ship between Machiavellianism and success (as measuredby final grades) in communications courses.19 Ashypothesized, this relationship did not hold true inpublic speaking courses. Marks and Lindsay investigatedMachiavellian attitudes and found that there was areliable relationship between high Mach scores and highgrade point averages.20 These studies indicate thatthere is a positive relationship between high Machia-vellianism and high grade averages.

Machiavellianism has been viewed for its possibleeffects in role-playing situations. Jones, Davis, and

17William S. Wahlin, "Machiavellianism and Winningor Losing Mathematical Games" (unpublished Doctoraldissertation, Columbia University, 1967).

18Jerome E. Singer, "The Use of ManipulativeStrategies: Aachiavellianism and Attractiveness,"Sociometry, XXVII (June, 1964), pp. 128-150.

1 9Michael Burgoon, "The Relationship Between Will-ingness to Manipulate Others and Success in Two DifferentTypes of Basic Speech Communication Courses," SpeechTeacher, XX (September, 1971), pp. 178-183.

20CarlAttitudes:siderationspp. 228-236

"MachiavellianSome Measurement and Behavioral Con-

19

Gergen, in a study of role-playing variations, foundthat high Machu rated the role-consistent interviewersas more intelligent than those giving role-inconsistentresponses.21 Low Macho, on the other hand, showed thereverse pattern.

Epstein's study of persuasibility and Machiavel-lianism expanded earlier research in that low Machushowed greater opinion chansm in the role-playing con-dition than did high Machu. " High Machu, however,Changed more than low Machu following "factual" argu-ments.

Jones and Daugherty, in a study of politicalorientation and anticipated interactions, found thatthe higher Machu flattered the political stimulusperson less than ow Maths when competitive interactionwas anticipated." Further, they reported resultswhich indicated that, as predicted, the higher the sub-jects score on the Mach Scale, the more negative theevaluation of the political stimulus person when inter-action was anticipated. Oksenberg found that, con-sistent with prior research, high Machu were lessasyto persuade without justification than low Macho. '"

AIt would appear that high Machs are less affected ina role-playing situation. They change more following"factual" arguments.

21Keith E. Davis, Kenneth J. Gergen, and Edward E.

Jones, "Role Playing Variations and Their InformationalValue for Person Perception," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, LXIII (September, 1961)7/747770-7=-Mr7

22Gilda F. Epstein, "Machiavelli and The Devil's

Advocate," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,XI, No. 1 (1691, pp. 10-41.

23Edward E. Jones and Boice N. Daugherty, "Politi-cal Orientation and the Perceptual Effects of anAnticipated Reaction," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LIX (Novembii7-Z950 , pp. 340-3(9.

24Lois E. Oksenberg, "Machiavellianism and Organi-zation in Five Man Task-Oriented Groups" (unpublished

Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968).

20

In studying Machiavellianism and interpersonalbargaining, Lake concluded that while persons formimpressions in very similar ways, the expectationsthus created interact with one's Machiavellian orienta-tion in such a way as to produce quite differentbehavioral responses within a bargaining situation.25For example, he found that low Machs respond toaggression with defensive behavior whereas high Machstended to respond with counter-aggression.

Campbell, in a study of Machiavellianism in abargaining experience, reported that high Muhs activelycontrol structure in a manipulative manner." Further,high Machs were better able to establish crediblethreats than low Machs.

The effects of Machiavellianism on individualbehavior in situations involving elements of dissonancehave been examined. Epstein reported data regardingMachiavellianism and dissonance which revealed, as pre-dicted, that low Machs showed more opinion changefollowing role playing while high Machs showed moNopinion change in the non-role playing condition.

Bogart's study of cognitive dissonance demonstratedsignificant differences between high 410 low Machs'responses to cognitive inconsistency. High Machswere more successful in avoiding the inconsistentbehavior, which operationally defined dissonance, thanlow Machs.

25Dale G. Lake, "Impression Formation, Machiavel-

lianism and Interpersonal Bargaining" (unpublishedDoctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1967).

26Alan S. Campbell, "Machiavellianism, BargainingExperience and Bargaining Advantage: A Study of aConversational Game" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Columbia University, 1971).

2 7Gilda F. Epstein, "Machiavellianism, Dissonanceand the Devil's Advocate" (unpublished Doctoraldissertation, Columbia University, 1966).

28Karen Bogart, "Machiavellianiam and IndividualDifferences in Response to Cognitive Dissonance"(unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York University,1968) .

21

Hymoff, in an investigation of Machiavellianism inrelation to guilt and compliance, found that, as hypo-thesized, low MachsAxperienced a greater level of guiltregarding cheating." Furthermore, high Machs were moresuspicious and questioning regarding the purpose of theresearch than low Machs.

Jones, Gergen and Davis, in research concerned withreactions to being approved or disapproved as a person,found significant interaction between Mach scores andchangq§ in self-reports after initial negative feed-back. High Machs were relatively unaffected, whilelows changed significantly more in the direction ofgiving positive self-descriptions after having had anegative evaluation of their personality.

Feldman and Scheibe reported on the Oterminantsof dissent in a psychological experiment. In thestuy, dissent was defined as actually leaving an experi-ment before completing a designated task. Resultsshowed that those who dissented scored significantlyhigher on the "Machiavellian Tactis" scale than thenon-dissenters (the scale reflects the endorsement oflying, flattery, and deception in interpersonalbehavior).

When relating Machiavellianism to redressing dis-tributive injustice, Blumstein and Weinstein found thatlow Machs rewarded the worthy and punished the unde-serving about equally.32 However, high Machs oppor-tunistically took points from partners slow in claiming

29Ira H. Hymoff, "An Experimental Investigation of

the Relationship of Machiavellianism to Guilt and Com-pliance" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Maine, 1970).

30Edward E. Jones, Kenneth J. Gergen, and Keith E.Davis, "Some Determinants of Reactions to Being Approvedor Disapproved as a Person," Psychological Monographs:General and Applied, LXXVI, No. 2 (1962), pp. 1 -16.

31Robert S. Feldman and Karl E. Scheibe, "Deter-

minants of Dissent in a Psychological Experiment,"Journal of Personality, XL (September, 1971), pp. 331-348.

32Philip W. Blumstein and Eugene A. Weinstein, "The

Redress of Distributive Injustice," American Journal ofSociology, LXXIV (January, 1969), pp771517=491177----

22

them and tempered their demands with aggressivepartners. In other words, high Machs "play the game"while low Machs apply justice norms. In conclusion,it appears that high Machs do behave differently thanlow Machs in situations involving elements of dissonance.

In a study of the relationship of Machiavellianismto decisions involving risks, Rim reported that highMachs tended to be influencers in the group discussion,leading to a shift of the whole group in the riskydirection.33 Further, high Machs tended to make higherrisk decisions in their initial decisions than othersubjects.

Gemmill and Heisler reported on research done,con-oerning Machiavellianism in an industrial setting.J4Contrary to their hypotheses, the results showed thathigh Machs felt a greater job strain, less job satis-faction, and no significant level of upward mobility.

Fontana conducted a study of Machiavellianism andmanipulation among mental patients.35 He found thatMachiavellianism was consistently related to a "manipu-lator" reputation.

Braginsky's study of parent-child correlates ofMachiavellianism produced evidence which showed aninverse relationship between the responses of childrenand their parents.3b While this finding was contraryto expectations based on previous literature, she specu-lated that children of low Mach parents perceive the

33Y. Rim, "Machiavellianism and Decisions InvolvingRisk," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,V (1966), pp. 30-36.

34Gary R. Gemmill and W. J. Heisler, "Machiavel-lianism as a Factor in Managerial Job Strain, JobSatisfaction, and Upward Mobility," Academy of ManagementJournal, XV (March, 1972), pp. 51-62.

35Allan F. Fontana, "Machiavellianism and Manipu-lation in the Mental Patient Role," Journal of Per-sonality, XXXIX (June, 1971), pp. 25772;37------

36 Dorothea D. Braginsky, "Parent-Child Correlatesof Machiavellianism Manipulative Behavior," Psycho-logical Reports, XXVII (Decem,er, 1970), pp. 927-932.

23

world through the eyes of "failures." In modern society,where manipulation is likely to be instrumental to per-sonal achievement, these children learn from theirparents' unsuccessful experiences.

Christie and Geis provide the most comprehensivereview of the experimental research on Machiavellianism. 37They summarized thirty-eight studies of Machiavellianism,involving fifty experimental conditions, and indicatedthat the primary difference between individuals whoscore higher and lower on the Mach Scale is the highscorers' greater emotional detachment. Furthermore,they concluded:

High Machs manipulate more, win more, are per-suaded less, persuade others more, and other-wise differ significantly from low Machs aspredicted in situations in which subjectsinteract face to face with others, when thesituation provides latitude for improvisationand the subject must initiate responses as hecan or will, and in situations in which affec-tive involvement with details irrelevant towinning distracts low Machs. The weightof the experimental evidence indicates thathigh Machs are markedly less likely to bocomeemotionally involved with other people, withsensitive issues, or with saving face inembarrassing situations. . . . High Machsinitiate and control the social structure andmixed-Mach groups. They are preferred aspartners, chosen and identified as leaders,judged as more persuasive, and appear to directthe tone and content of interaction--and usuallyalso the outcome.38

In addition, Christie and Geis labeled the inter-personal stance of high Machs "the cool syndrome" andthat of lows "the soft touch;" that is, high Machs areresistant to social influence, have an orientation tocognition, and initiate and control structure whilelow Machs are susceptible to social influence, have anorientation to persons, and accept and follow structure.

37Christie and Geis, 22.. cit., pp. 285-314.

38Ibid., pp. 312-313.

24

In summary, the theory and empirical data citedin this review indicated that high Machs do, indeed,behave in significantly different ways than low Machs.This was particularly true in situations in which con-ditions of face-to-face interaction, latitude ofimprovisation, and irrelevant affect were present: thatis, in open-ended situations where individuals had arange of choice in strategy and content. Thus, theconcept of Machiavellianism appears to be a potentiallyimportant variable in studies of interpersonal rela-tionships in organization.

Leadership

Conceptual Perspective

Leadership has been a topic of continuing interestamong researchers in the field of administration.Attempts to define leadership have been almost asnumerous as the writers and researchers involved. Forexample, definitions of leadership such as the follow-ing are typical:

To lead is to engage in an act that initiatesa structure-in-interaction as part of the pro-cess of solving a mutual problem.39

Leadership is power based predominantly onpersonal characteristics, usually normativein nature.'"

The leader is the individual in the group giventhe task of directing and coordinating tt.sk-relevant group activities.'"

"John K. Hemphill, "Administration as Problem-solving," in Andrew W. Halpin (ed.), AdministrativeTheory in Education (New York: macminiE767,770),p.

4°Amitai Etzioni, A Com arative Analysis of Com-

plex Organizations (New Yor c : The Free Press, 1961),p. 116.

41Fred Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effective-

ness (New York: McGrawZRITIbreick Co., p. 8.

25

Leadership in organization involves the exer-cise of authority and the making of decisions.42

In addition, there have been distinctions betweenelected leaders and appointed leaders, formal leadersand informal leaders, and leaders and headmen. Despitethe phethora of definitions and differences in defini-tiongpthere are some basic threads of similarity andconsistency running through the theoretical and researchliterature on leadership. For instance, analysis ofleadership seems to imply that a leader will possesshigh influence potential, will use this influence todirect subordinates' behavior, and will direct subordi-nates' energies toward the accomplishment of the groupor organizational task.

Furthermore, most conceptualizations of leadershipare multidimensional; in fact, most seem to support atleast two distinct dimensions of leadership. Althoughthe labels that various theorists and researchers useare different, they tend to refer to similar aspects ofleader behavior: for example, autocratic and demo-craticr4i nomothetic and idiographic,44 task leader andsocial leader, 5 instrumental and expressive,'" systemoriented ana person oriented, 41 effectiveness and

42Robert Dubin, Human Relations in Administration(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1961),p. 348.

43Norman Maier and Allen Solem, "The Contribution

of a Discussion Leader to the Quality of Group Thinking:The Effective Use of Minority Opinions," in DorwinCartwright and Alvin Zander (eds.), Group namics(Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, Inc., p. 49.

44Jacob W. Getzels and Egon G. Guba, "SocialBehavior and the Administrative Process," School Review,LXV (Winter, 1957), pp. 423-441.

45Robert F. Bales, "In Conference," Harvard

Business Review, XXXII (March-April, 19543-77F7-41-49.

46Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Com-

plex Organizations (New York: The Free Press, 1961).

47Alan F. Brown, "Reactions to Leadership," Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, III (Winter, 1967r,--p. 68.

26

efficiency, 48 goal achievement and group maintenance,49initiating structure and consideration.'° All thesepairs of labels refer to the two basic dimensions ofleadership behavior that have been consistently identi-fied in the theoretical and research literature onleadership. The first dimension deals with behaviorwhich emphasizes the accomplishment of the task orpurpose of the group, and the second tends to focus onbehavior oriented toward close interpersonal, relationsand solidarity in the group and between the leader andfollowers. Bennis characterized the literature asfollows:

Organizational and group theories are . . .

honeycombed with this duality. For Chester I.Barnard, satisfying the requirements ofefficiency (personal relations) and effective-ness (productivity) is the prime task of theeffective manager. . Argyris refers tothe essential conflict between the restrictednature of formal organization andathe "self-actualization" of the individual.

The conceptual perspective employed in this study,one which is quite representative of these two broadareas of leader behavior, was Halpin's formulation ofleader behavior in terms of initiating structure andconsideration. Initiating structure refers:

to the leader's behavior in delineatingthe relationship between himself and membersof the work group, and in endeavoring toestablish well-defined patterns of organi-zation, channgls of communication, and methodsof procedure."

48Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvila-tiniversity Press, 1938).

49Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group

Dynamics (Evanston, III.: Row, Peterson, Inc., 1953).

50Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Admin-

istration (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966).

51Warren G. Dennis, Changing Organizations (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 65.

52Halpin, 92. cit., p. 86.

27

Consideration refers:

to behavior indicative of friendship,mutual trust, respect, and warmth in there:,ationship Wween the leader and membersof his staff.J

Further, Halpin speaks of the interactive natureof initiating structure and consideration with respectto goal achievement and group maintenance. He main-tains that:

if a leader is to be successful,he must contribute to both major groupobjectives of goal achievement and groupmaintenance. In Barnard's terms, he mustfacilitate cooperative group action that isboth effective and efficient. According tothe constructs that have been formulated,this means that the leader should be strongin Initiating Structure and should show highConsideration for the members of his workgroup.54

Empirical Findings

Early studies of leadership tended to concentrateon the traits of effective leaders. The main objectiveof these types of studies was to identify thosecharacteristics which distinguished leaders fromfollowers. However, Bird55 and Stogdi1158 found thatsuch an approach to the study of leadership oftenyielded contradictory results. Further, commenting onthis problem, Blanchard and Hersey stated:

Although early literature in educationaladministration and management seemed to

53Ibid.

54Ibid., P. 87.

55Charles Bird, Social Psychology (New York:

Appleton-Century, 1940), pp. 369-395"

56Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated

with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journalof Psycholoq, XXV (January, 1948), pp. 35-73.

28

suggest a single ideal or normative style,the preponderance of evidence from recentempirical studies clearly i,Adicates thatthere is no single all-purpose leadershipstyle. Successful leaders .are thosr. whocan adapt their leader behavior to meet gmdemands of their own unique environment.°1

Current approaches to the study of leadershipemphasize leader behavior and performance rather thantraits. One of the most productive research effortsinto leader behavior was the Ohio State UniversityLeadership Studies. A major product of those studies,and probably the most widely employed measure of leaderbehavior of school administrators, was the LeaderBehavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).

The Ohio State approach to the study of the leader-ship phenomenon is usually referred to as the"structural-functionalist" approach. The emphasis hereis not on a cluster of traits with universal applica-bility but upon the general functional requirements ofall organizations o which the leader's behavior mayexert some effects.28

There are two major advantages to studying leader-ship through the analysis of the behavior of leaders byuse of the LBDQ. First, the research deals directlywith observable phenomenon, and one need not make apriori assumptions about the identity of whatevercapacities undergird the phenomena. Second, the emphasisis on description rather than the more difficult taskof evaluation of behavior against specified performancecriteria.59

After extensive studies involving groups such aseducational administrators and aircraft commanders,

57Kenneth H. Blanchard and Paul Hersey, "A Leader-

ship Theory for Educational Administrators," Education,XC (April-May, 1970), p. 303.

58Keith E. Tronc, "Leadership Perceptions of the

Ambitious Educator," Journal of Educational Adminis-tration, VIII (October, 1D7p), pp. 145-168.

59Halpin, 2E. cit., p. 86.

29

Halpin developed five major conclusions to summarize thedata gained from the LBW studies. Three of these con-clusions are germane to this study:

(1) The evidence indicates that InitiatingStructure and Consideration are funda-mental dimensions of leader behavior,and that the Leader Behavior DescriptionQuestionnaire provides a practical anduseful technique for measuring thebehavior on these two dimensions.

(2) Changes in the attitudes of group memberstoward each other, and group character-istics such as harmony, intimacy, andprocedural clarity, are significantlyassociated with the leadership style ofthe leader.

(3) Effective leader behavior is associatedwith high performance on both dimensions.uu

Further evidence that effective leader behavior isassociated with high performance on both considerationand initiating structure has been widely reported. Ina laboratory experiment in Japan, Misumi and Shirakashifound that leaders who were both task-oriented and con-siderate in their behavior had the most productivegroups.61 Hemphill obtained the same results for therelation between the behavior of department chairmen ina college and faculty catings of how well the depart-ment was administered. 02

Patchen found that personal production norms (taskmotivation) of workers were highest when the leader

60Ibid., pp. 97-98.

61Jyuji Misumi and S. Shirakashi, "An ExperimentalStudy of the Effects of Supervisory Behavior on Pro-ductivity and Morale in a Hierarchical Organization,"Human Relations, XIX (1966), pp. 297-307.

62John K. Hemphill, "Leader Behavior Associatedwith the Administrative Reputations of College Depart-ments," in R. M. Stogdill and E. A. Coons (eds.),Leader Behavior: Its Descri tion and Measurement

o us, Ohio: ureau o hus ness Research, OhioState University, 1957).

30

encoumed proficiency as well as "going to bat" forthem." Additional support is gained from studies ofEverson," concerning school principals, and Halpin'sstudy of aircraft commanders."

In a study of principals' leadership styles andeffectiveness as perceived by teachers, Utz reported ageneral, positive linear-relationship between suchdimensions as consideration for teachers and productionand teachers' rating of the principals' effectiveness.66He concluded that the results demonstrate the feasi-bility of utilizing leadership evaluation schemesincorporating "task" and "social emotional" dimensionsin evaluating the performance of educational leaders.

In brief, it seems reasonable, therefore, to con-clude that initiating structure and consideration asmeasured by the LBDQ provide a useful framework to usein the study of leader behavior uf principals.

Authoritarianism

Blau, and Scott define the authoritarian superioras one who has strong tendencies to supervise closely,to be strict rather than lenient, to have a formal

63Martin Patchen, "Supervisory Methods and Group

Performance Norms," Administrative Science QuarterlVII (December, 1962), pp.

64Warren L. Everson, "Leadership Behavior of High

School Principals," National Association of SecondarySchool Principals BuTUFEETTITUrr (September, 1959),pp. 96-101.

65Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Effec-

tiveness of Aircraft Commanders," in R. M. Stogdill andA. E. Coons (eds.), Leader_Behay4prjItspescriptionand Measurement (ColUEB11,-Maio--Wa-Wa-MiiiiiiiTEWTECTI,-Wirstate University, 1957).

66Robert T. Utz, "Principal Leadership Styles and

Effertivaness as Perceived by Teachers," Proceedingsof the 56th Annual Meetin7 of the American EducationalResearch Association TApril, 1972), pp. 1-6.

31

approach to sub2;dinates, and to stick closely to rulesand procedures. As conceptualized in the presentresearch, authoritarianism is concerned with this kindof authoritaria behavior in elemertary school prin-cipals; authoritarianism does not refer to a personalitytype.

In general, studies conducted in olganizationalsettings have indicated that authoritarian administrativeor supervisory practices tend to lessen worker satis-faction and often hinder productivity. For example,Kahn and Katz found closeness of supervision wasinversely related to both productivity and saAsfaction,"Similar firoilings have been reported by Morse,u7 Day,"and Likert"' in a variety of industrial organizations.

The results of studies in the school setting arealso consistent with these findings. Haralick, in astudy of teacher responses to administrative actions,found that when a principal was perceived as being auto-cratic, the teachers tended to develop cohesiveness witheach other and little cohesiveness with the principal.72Hook also examined authoritarianism in an

67Peter Blau and Richard Scott, Formal Organiza-tions (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962),

"Robert L. Kahn and Daniel Katz, "LeadershipPractices in Relation to Productivity and Morale," inDorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (eds.), GroupDynamics (New York: Row, Peterson, and Co., 756),pp. 562-564.

69Nancy C. Morse, Satisfaction in a White Collar

Job (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of kichigiN7InTr.70Robert C. Day, "Some Effects of Combining Close,

Punitive, and Supportive Styles of Supervision,"Sociometry, XXXIV (December, 1971) , pp. 303-327.

71Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961).

72Joy G. Haralic%, "Teacher Accedtance of Admin-istrative Action," Journal of Ex erimIntal Education,XXXVII (Winter, 1961)7747731=1" .

32

educational setting and suggested that authoritarianismblocks roads of inquiry, encourages conformity, and dis-courages a group's involvement in the decision-makingprocess.73

Rees' study in secondary school setting revealedthat authoritarian principals had significantly lessloyal teachers than non-authoritarian principals.74Contrariwise, Blau and Scott studied service organi-zations and reported that supervisory authoritaKianismwas not negatively related to employee loyalty.They suggested that, perhaps, employee reaction toauthoritarianism might vary according to the nature ofthe work unit itself.

In summary, authoritarianism of superiors andresulting responses to such a leadership technique bysubordinates appear to be a relevant element in thestudy of organizational behavior.

Emotional Detachment

Emotional detachment, as defined by Blau and Scottand used in the present research, refers to a superior'sability to remain calm and rarely, even in difficultsituations, lose his temper.76 Previously cited litera-ture relating to leadership revealed that leaders whoare perceived as being effective exhibit positive inter-personal relationships within the organization.

In their study of social welfare agencies, Blauand Scott found that calm and detached supervises com-manded greater loyalty from their subordinates."Further, employees with calm supervisors tended to be

73Sidney Hook, "The Danger of Authoritarian Atti-

tudes in Teaching Today," School and Society, LXXIII(January, 1351) , pp. 33-39.

74Richard T. Rees, "Hierarchical Relationships inPublic Secondary Schools" (unpublished Doctoral disser-tation, Rutgers University, The State University ofNew Jersey, 1971), p. 90.

75Blau and Scott, 2E. cit., p. 153.

76Ibid., p. 49.

77Ipid., pp. 154-155.

33

more productive in terms of visits to clients. Argyrisalso found that employees defined a good supervisor asone "who nem becomes upset and yells at theemployees."" Likewise, Gouldner, in his study of agypsum plant, noted that a leader who did not maintainadequate social distance from his subordinates haddifficulty in realizing effective supervisory practices.79

Hoy and Williams, in a study involving elementaryschools, found that the more emotionally detache0 theprincipal was, the more loyal were his teachers.a Insupport of this data, Rees' study of secondary schoolsshowed that principals with high emotional detachmenthad significantly more loyal tgfchers than principalswith low emotional detachment."

It would appear, therefore, that the ability of asuperior to remain calm and detached, thus helping toretain his objectivity, seems to be a potentiallyimportant factor in a study of organizational behavior--one which has not been extensively explored.

Loyalty

The present research deals with the concept ofloyalty as it . sates both to an immediate superior andto the organization. Thus, loyalty has both a personaland an institutional dimension.

The organizational aspect of loyalty used in theresearch refers to teachers' loyalty to the school. Inthis context, loyalty is the degree of commitment and

7 8Chris Argyris, "The Individual and Organization:An Empirical Test," Administrative Science Quarterly,IV (September, 1959), p. 164.

79Alvin Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureauc-

racy (New York: The Free Press, 1954), pp. 45-55.

80Wayne K. Hoy and Leonard B. Williams, "Loyalty

to Immediate Superior at Alternate Levels in PublicSchools," Educational Administration Quarterly, VII(Spring, 1 P.

81Rees, 2E. cit., p. 89.

34

identification that teachers have with the particularschool,in which they are staff members.

It is, however, theoretically possible to be loyalto the school organization without having feelings ofloyalty towards the principal. Thus, the personalaspect of loyalty used in the present research refersto the extent to which teachers are personally committedto the principal.

Stewart, discussing the dimensions of workerloyalty delineated them to include loyalty to the group,the profession, and superiors.82 Straver's study ofattitudes towards organizational loyalty revealed thatthe supervisor plays a most critical part in achievingemployee loyalty.8J

Hebert studied the factors affecting an individual'sloyalty to an organization.84 He grouped his independentvariables into three categories: attitudinal, structural,and predispositional. Among the attitudinal variablesrelated to loyalty, he found the satisfaction a memberfelt with his position in the organization to be ofimportance. Of the predispositional variables, he foundthat emotional level related highly to loyalty.

Blau and Scott were among the first researchers tointroduce the concept of subordinate loyalty to an imme-diate supgrior as an integral aspect of organizationalanalysis." They define subordinate loyalty as theliking of, acceptance of, respect for, and trust in thesuperior as expressed by subordinates.

82Nathaniel Stewart, "A Realistic Look at Organi-zational Loyalty," The Management Review, L (January,1961), pp. 22-24.

8 3Will E. Strayer, "A Study of Attitudes TowardOrganizational Loyalty" (unpublished Doctoral disserta-tion, The George Washington University, 1971).

84Forrest T. Hebert, "Factors Affecting IndividualLoyalty to an Organization: The Legislative Organi-zation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Uni-versity of Iowa, 1971).

85Blau and Scott, 2E. cit., p. 144.

35

Murray and Corenblum enlarged upon what theyreferred to as-the affect-oriented conceptualizationof Blau and Scott." They identified two additionaldimensions of subordinate loyalty. The "cognitive"dimension referred to the unquestioned faith and trustwhich the subordinate had in the superior and the"behavioral" dimension which indicated a subordinate'swillingness to remain with or follow his superior.

In a study of subordinate loyalty in elementaryschools, Hoy and Williams revealed that the more emo-tionally detached the principal, the more loyal werehis teachers.87 However, no significant relationshipwas found between the hierarchical independence ofprincipals and teacher loyalty to the principal.

Rees and Hoy, studying hierarchical relationshipsin secondary school§A reported several findings relatedto teacher loyalty." They discovered that relationship-oriented principals did not have more loyal teachersthan task-oriented principals. They also found thatprincipals with high emotional detachment had signifi-cantly more loyal teachers than principals with lowemotional detachment. In addition, it was reportedthat, with hierarchically independent principals, thosewith a non-authoritarian approach had significantlymore loyal teachers than those with an authoritarianapproach.

In brief, the literature seems to indicate thatthe concepts of subordinate loyalty to immediatesuperior and loyalty to the organization are importantaspects of organizational life.

86V. V. Murray and Allan F. Corenblum, "Loyaltyto Immediate Superior at Alternate Hierarchical Levelsin a Bureaucracy," American Journal of Sociology, LXII(July, 1966), p. 70.

87Hoy and Williams, 2E. cit., p. 8.

88Richard T. Rees and Wayne K. Hoy, "The Principaland Teacher Loyalty," Research Bulletin, New JerseySchool Development Council, Rutgers Graduate School ofEducation, XVI, No 1 (Fall, 1971), pp. 4-8.

36

Organizational Climate: Open to Closed

Schools differ markedly in their "feel," tone, oratmosphere. The traditional way to analyze and measurethis "feel" is in terms of morale or esprit. However,more comprehensive ways to conceive of the atmosphereor climate of a school have been developed. Halpin andCroft have conceptualized and mapped the domain of theorganizational climate of schools.89 In a pioneeringstudy of the climate of seventy-one elementary schools,they developed the Organizational Climate DescriptionQuestionnaire (OCDQ) which maps eight major dimensionsof teacher-teacher and teacher-principal relations.From profiles of these school-climate dimensions, Halpinand Croft were able through factor-analytic techniquesto identify contrasting prototypic profiles, which theyarranged along a continuum defined at one end by anopen climate and, at the other, by a closed climate.

The open climate is depicted by a situation inwhich the members enjoy extremely high morale. Teacherswork well together without bickering and griping. Itis an energetic, lively organization which is movingtoward its goals while, simultaneously, providing satis-faction for the group members' social needs. Leadershipacts emerge from both the group and the leader. Groupmembers do not over-emphasize either task achievementor social needs satisfaction, but in both instancessatisfaction seems to be obtained easily and almosteffortlessly. The basic characteristic of the openclimate is the "authenticity" of the behavior thatoccurs among all the group members.

The closed climate is characterized by a highdegree of apathy among all organizational members. Theprincipal is ineffective in directing and controllingthe activities in the teachers; and he is not inclinedto look out for their personal welfare. The schoolseems stagnant; morale is low because satisfaction isobtained from neither task achievement nor fulfillmentof social needs. The main characteristic of the closedclimate is the "inauthenticity" of the behavior of allorganizational members.

Since the development of the OCDQ, there has beena plethora of climate studies. After an extensive

89Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Admin-istration (New York: Macmillan Co., 1960, pp. 131 249.

37

review of the research on the organizational climateof schools, Brown and House concluded that:

There can be little doubt that climate . .

is now established as a relevant conditionin the study of organizations. Probably asignificant proportion of the variance instudies of organizational dynamics could beaccounted for with climate scores.90

The following review of empirical work focuses pri-marily on more recent studies of organizational climateand characteristics of principals. Plaxton reportedcorrespondence between principal personality and theOCDQ sub-scales that describe the principal.91 Andersonfound a correspondence between principal personality andthe overall openness or closedness of school climate;open climate schools tended to have confident, self-secure, resourceful, and sociable principals while theclosed climate schools tended to b- Ryasive, submissive,conventional, and frustration prone./4

In a study of the leadership orientation of sec-ondary school principals and organizational climates oftheir schools, Hall concluded that the organizationalclimate of a school was significantly related tg,theleadership orientation of the school principal."Brickner's analysis of leader behavior and organizationalclimate in public schools demonstrated that leadership

90Alan F. Brown and John H.tional Component in Education,"Research, XXXVII (October, 1967)

91Robert Plaxton, "Principal Personality and SchoolOrganizational Climate," CSA Bulletin, IV (July, 1965),pp. 21-35.

92Donald P. Anderson, Organizational Climate ofElementary Schools (Minneapolis, Minn.: EducationalResearch and Development Council of tne Twin CitiesMetropolitan Area, Inc., 1964).

93James P. Hall, "Explorations Among Perceptionsof the Leadership Orientations of Secondary SchoolPrincipals and the Organizational Climates of SchoolsThey Administer" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,University of Houston, 1970).

House, "The Organiza-Review of Educationalp. 401.

38

behavior, as measured by the LBW, was significantlyrelat to organizational climate, as mapped by theOCLQ.'4

Casey :studied selected leadership factors in rela-tion to organizational climate in schools and foundthat the perception of teachers of the principal's totaleffectiveness was related to the more open climates.Research by French showed that openness of a school'sorganizational climate was significantly related to theprincipal's emphasis on human skills.96

McTaggert's study of job satisfaction and organi-zational climate in schools showed a significantlystrong relationship between perceived openness andteachers' job satisfaction.97 Nelson, in a study ofreinforcing behavior by principals and organizationalclimate of schools, revealed that teachers tended toperceive a relatively open climate when the principalwas perceived by the teachgp to reflect a high levelof reinforcement behavior."

94Charles E. Brickner, "An Analysis of Organiza-

tional Climate and Leader Behavior in a North DakotaSchool System" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, TheUniversity of North Dakota, 1971).

95James L. Casey, "A Study of Relationships Between

Organizational Climate and Selected Leadership Factorsin Administration" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Oklahoma State University, 1971).

96Denny G. French, "The Relationships Between

Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of OrganizationalClimate in Elementary Schools and Principals' Perceptionsof Administrative Skills" (unpublished Doctoral disserta-tion, 1971).

97Donald S. McTaggert, "Job Satisfaction and Organi-

zational Openness as Perceived by Elementary Teachers ina Florida School System" (unpublished Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Miami, 1971) .

98Robert H. Nelson, "Relationship Between Teacher

Perception of Reinforcing Behavior of the Principaland Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools"(unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,1971) .

39

Halpin's study of elementary schools showed thatthe profile for the open climate scores high on thesubtagts of Esprit and Thrust and low on Disengage-ment.99 These scores provide a good index for position-ing a given school climate along the open-closedcontinuum.

The theory and empirical data cited in this reviewprovide significant evidence of the usefulness of theOCDQ to measure the organizational climate of schoolsalong an open-closed dimension. The research resultsfurther showed a consistent pattern of relationshipsbetween the climate of schools and the personalitycharacteristics of principals.

Rationale and Hypotheses

It seems appropriate to begin the rationale for thehypotheses with a brief recapitualization of the Machia-vellian literature. The research evidence to datestrongly supports the conclusion that individuals whoscore higher and lower on the Mach Scales behave differ-ently. High Machs manipulate more than low Machs andare more successful in their manipulations; they winmore, are persuaded less, and persuade others more thanlow Machs. The weight of the research evidence alsoindicates that high Machs are markedly less likely tobecome personally or emotionally involved with otherpeople in dealing with sensitive issues or in difficultsituations; that is, interpersonal involvements tendnot to sidetrack high Machs from the task at hand. Theytend to focus on explicit, cognitive definitions of thesituation and strategies for succeeding. They alsoinitiate and control the social structure in small face-to-face groups. Furthermore, high Machs are more oftenpreferred as partners, chosen as leaders, judged asmore pervasive, and seem to direct and control the tone,substance, and, usually, the outcome of interaction.However, they do not appear to be more hot/le, vicious,or vindictive when compared to low Machs.4."

99Andrew W. Halpin, 1111911Y!LISALIAdmin-istration (New York: Macmar0.100 This characterization

that reached by Christie andthe experimental literature.2E. cit.

is essentially the same asGeis in their overview ofSee Christie and Geis,

40

This positive picture of high Machs needs to betempered somewhat though. There are situations in whichhigh and low Machs do not behave differently; that is,the situation apparently acts as a constraining orfacilitating factor when the Machiavellian engages inbehavior. Based on the experimental research, Christieand Geis identify three situational characteristicswhich thy believe are particularly relevant in thisregard.1" They include:

1. face-to-face interaction

2. latitude for improvisation

3. arousing irrelevant affect

In those situations in which these conditions areoperative, high Machs seem particularly effective. Theyfunction at their best in situations where they have anopportunity to observe and communicate with the peoplewith whom they are interacting, in situations where thestructure of the social interaction is open ended, andin situations where it is relatively easy to becomeemotionally and personally involved.

Another fact should be underscored concerning theoverwhelming number of Mach studies reviewed in thisreport. They were erperimental studies performed inthe laboratory, not field studies in the real world.Nonetheless, the picture of the high Mach which emergesis fascinating. Do high Machs perform similarly in theoutside world or more specifically in the arena of schooladministration?

It seems reasonable to assume that the public schoolprincipal is involved in a situation characterized bystructural looseness ;102 that is, he can avail himselfof the opportunity to observe, communicate, and interactdirectly with his professional staff. Furthermore, as

101Christie and Geis, 2E. cit., pp. 285-294.

102This was also the conclusion reached by Bidwellafter a comprehensive review of the organizational lit-erature and research on the school. See Charles Bidwell,"The School as a Formal Organization," in James G. March(ed.), Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNallyand Co., 1965), p. 976.

41

the "educational leader" of the school, there appearsto be ample opportunity for innovative behavior andimprovisation on his part. Finally, in the schoolmilieu the principal interacts with teachers, parents,and students; a context which appears to provide ahighly affective, complex situation. These are theconditions that in the laboratory provide a relativeadvantage for high Machs. If these conditions applyto the school principalship and if they operate simi-larly in the outside world, principals who are higherMachs should behave differently from those who are lowerMachs.

Halpin has indicated that the major dimensions ofleadership behavior are initiating structure and con-sideration.103 Furthermore, effective leader behaviortends to be,kssociated with high performance on bothdimensions."4 The personal characteristics of highand low Machs should provide a clue to predicting theirleadership behavior in the school context. High Machstend to focus on explicit, cognitive definitions of thesituation and strategies for succeeding. Additionally,they are quite skillful in initiating and controllingthe social structure in small groups; that is, theytend to direct and control the tone, substance, andusually the outcome of the interaction. Low Machs, onthe other hand, are more interested in people and acceptand follow structure; in fact, they tend to get "caughtup" with personal and emotional involvement in inter-actions with others. Therefore, the following hypothesiswas proposed:

H1The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal, the greater theteachers' perception of his initiatingstructure.

103Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Admin-istration (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966) , pp. 97-98.

104 Ibid., pp. 93-98. See also John K. Hemphill,"Leadership Behavior Associated with the AdministrativeReputation of College Departments," The Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, XLVI (November, 19-55) pp. 385-401; and Andrew W. Halpin, Leader Behavior of SchoolSuperintendents (Chicago: Midwest AdministrationCenter, University of Chicago, 1959).

42

The prediction with respect to considerate leaderbehavior seems not so clear cut. Low Machs arecharacterized by susceptibility to social influenceand a propensity to become very personally involvedwith people. In brief, they are people-oriented; hence,one might expect low Machs to exhibit highly con-siderate leader behavior. However, although high Machstend to be oriented toward cognitions and the task,they also appear quite sensitive to "reading thesituation" and developing strategies for "winning" andsucceeding. Given the fact that administrative effec-tiveness tends to be associated with both high con-sideration and high initiating structure, it would notbe inconsistent for high Machs to be also high in con-sideration, and, indeed, the research to date doesindicate that they are not more hostile, vicious orvindictive when compares to low Machs. In brief, itseems reasonable to suggest that both high and low Machsmay be perceived as exhibiting consideration in leader-ship behavior, albeit for quite different reasons;therefore, the following hypothesis was adduced:

H2 There will be no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientation ofthe school principal and teachers' per-ception of his consideration.

However, given the high Machs task-oriented stance,sensitivity to the situation, and ability to win more,persuade more, and manipulate more successfully thanlow Machs, it seemed reasonable to predict:

H3

The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal, the higher theeffectiveness rating from his teachers.

Although the weight of the evidence indicates little,if any, relationship between the M#9.4iavellian personalityand the Authoritarian personality,"' there is no suchevidence in terms of the relationship between the Machia-vellian per gonality and authoritarian administrative

105In nine samples between 1955 and 1956, therewas no significant correlation between the F and Machscales; however, in 1964 in a sample of college stu-dents a small but significant correlation (r = -.2)between the F-scale and Mach IV scale was found.

43

behavior. The research does indicates though, that highMachs are task-oriented; however, task-oriented behavioris not necessarily authoritarian behavior.106 Further-more, there is evidence that authoritarian principalbehavior in the school setting is an unsuccessful leaderbehavior strategy. 107 Given the sensitivity of highMachs to reading the situation and developing strategiesto succeed, it seems likely that they will try to avoidblatant authoritarian behavior, attempting to be task-oriented in a non-authoritarian, considerate way. LowMachs, of course, also seem likely to eschew anauthoritarian approach and focus on a considerate,people-oriented approach; therefore, it was hypothesized:

H4 There will be no significant relationship

between the Machiavellian orientation ofthe school principal and teachers' per-ceptiun of authoritarian leader behavior.

The concept of emotional detachment developed andused in this stwix is derived directly from the work ofBlau and Scott. Emotional detachment refers to theadministrator's ability to remain calm and not lose histemper in difficult situations. To ba sure this is asomewhat narrow conception of the concept, but, none-theless, one which seems important in the study ofsuperior-subordinate relationships. Based on the resultsof thirty-eight experimental studies on Machiavellianism,Christie and Geis concluded, "The primary differencebetween individuals who score higher and lower on theMach scales is the high scorers' greater emotional

106For an example see Vincent McNamara and

Frederick Enns, "Directive Leadership and StaffAcceptance of the Principal," Canadian Administrator,VI (November, 1966) , pp. 1-4.

107For example, see Richard Rees and Wayne K.Hoy, loc. cit. and Wayne K. Hoy and Richard Rees,"Subordinate Loyalty to Immediate Superior: ANeglected Concept in the Study of Educational Admin-istration," Sociology of Education (in press).

108B1au and Scott, sm. cit., p. 149.

44

detachment."1" While emotional detachment in thelatter case refers to a more general detachment interms of affective involvement, it seemed logical topredict the following:

H5 The greater the Machiavellian orientation

of a principal, the greater the teachers'perception of his emotional detachment.

Loyalty to one's immediate superior appears to bea significant concept in teacher-principal relationshipsin elementary and secondary schools. In a study of ele-mentary schools, Hoy and Williams concluded that teacherloyalty to the principal may be a necessary conditionfor effective principal leadership. 110 Furthermore,the results of a study of secondary schools by Hoy andRees led to the conclusion that the degree of teacherloyalty to the principal provided one index of theprincipal's success in schools.111 In both of thesestudies emotional detachment was significantly relatedto teacher loyalty; principals with high emotionaldetachment had significantly more loyal teachers thanprincipals with low emotional detachment. Given theapparent significance of teacher loyalty to the prin-cipal and the high Machs propensity for success andemotional detachment, the following hypothesis is pro-posed:

H6 The greater the Machiavellian orientationof the principal, the more loyalty hewill command from teachers.

The open organizational climate has been describedas a dynamic, lively organization which is moving towardits goals while simultaneously providing satisfaction forthe individuals' social Leeds. Leadership acts emergeeasily and appropriately as they are necessary. Teachersare neither preoccupied exclusively with task-achievementnor social-needs satisfaction; in fact, satisfactionderives from both task accomplishment and pleasantinterpersonal relationships. To the contrary, theclosed organizational climate is marked by ineffective-ness. Although some attempts are being made to move

109Christie and Geis, sm. cit., p. 311.

110Hoy and Williams, 92. cit., p. 10.

111Hoy and Rees, 22.. cit.

45

the organization, they are not taken seriously 1Ry theteachers; these attempts are met with apathy."4

In brief, the open climate is marked by a feelingof both task accomplishment and pleasant interpersonalrelationships which lead to a feeling of openness andauthenticity in interactions. Although low Mach prin-cipals might be successful in generating good inter-personal relationships, it seems questionable as to theextent which they will provide task-oriented leadership.High Machs, on the other hand, are politic. In additionto their task - oriented nature, they are successfulpoliticians (at least in the laboratory); they "tell-emwhat they wanna hear." Further, high Machr do notappear to be obviously manipulating; in fact, theyusually get others to help in such a way that, in theprocess, they are thanked for the opportunity .113 Con-sequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H7

The greater the Machiavellian orientationof the principal, the more open the teacherswill perceive the organizational climate ofthe school.

In addition to these seven hypotheses, severalother questions guided the empirical phase of theinvestigation.

Qi What is the relationship between the Machia-vellian orientation of the principal andteachers' loyalty to the school?

Q2 What is the relationship between the Machia-vellian orientation of the principal and hisadministrative experience?

Q3

Is there a significant difference between theMachiavellian orientation of elementary andsecondary principals?

112Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Admin-istration (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966), pp. 10=r70.

11 3Christie and Geis, op. cit., pp. 190-209, pp.303-309.

46

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In order to test the hypotheses and to explore theresearch questions posed in this study, data were col-lected from faculty members and principals in fortyelementary and forty secondary schools in New Jersey.The sample, the operational measures, and the proceduresfor the collection and analysis of data are describedin this chapter.

The Sample

Principals

The sample consisted of eighty public school prin-cipals from the state of New Jersey. Forty were ele-mentary school principals and forty were secondary schoolprincipals. Nearly all were men; only two principalswere women. All principals had been employed in thepresent district at least one year prior to the study;that is, all prinapirrUere in at least their secondyear in that particular school.

Initially, a list of 150 elementary and 150 sec-ondary principals was drawn randomly from a list of allelementary and secondary principals, respectively, inNew Jersey.1 Subsequently, it was decided to use schoolswhich were in reasonably close traveling distance (lessthan fifty miles) from Rutgers University. In addition,an attempt was also made to secure a sample of principalsacross a wide range of Machiavellian orientation scores.

Technically, the sample of eighty principals wassomewhat fortuitous rather than completely planned.Participation in the research imposed a minimum of threeconditions: (a) the principal's personal willingnessto serve as a subject, (b) a schedule of faculty

1We used the randomly selected schools to check therange of scores on our Machiavellian measure. For_ele-mentary principals the range was 80 to 116 with a X =97.27; for secondary principals the range was 80 to 118with X = 97.48.

47

activities which made it possible to ask a group ofteachers to meet either after or before school hours torespona to a questionnaire, and ;c) the consent of theprincipal, faculty, and often the superintendent tocollect data from the professional staff. Nevertheless,the schools sampled were not atypical of elementary andsecondary schools in New Jersey; they varied in termsof size and socio-economic level of the community, andthey included schools in urban, suburban, and ruralareas (the demographic characteristics of the schoolsare found in Appendix A). All eighty principals whoconsented to the study in their schools returned usablemeasures of their Machiavellian orientation.2

Faculty

In order to test the hypotheses of the study, itwas also necessary to collect data from the faculty ineach school. Two different strategies were used tocollect the data from the elementary and secondaryschool faculties. In the elementary schools, data werecollected from virtually all the teachers in each school.In the secondary schools, however, a random sample ofteachers from each school was drawn. It was decidedthat a minimum of ten per cent of the staff (but atleast eight respondents per school), randomly selectedfrom each school, would be asked to participate in thestudy and that only schools with al100 per cent returnwoula be included in the analysis.' Since previousresearch had indicated that average scores computed onthe basis of five to seven descriptions yielded stablescores that could be used as indices of leader behavior,a minimum of eight respondents per school seemed areasonable sample for each school.4

2Actually eighty-eight principals agreed to par-

ticipate, but incomplete responses from their facultiesprecluded the use of the data in the analysis of eightschools.

3Data were collected in forty-eight schools, butcomplete returns were only obtained in forty schools.

4Andrew W. Halpin, Leader Behavior of School Super-

intendents (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center,University of Chicago, 1959), p. 28.

48

Research Instruments

The Machiavellianism Scale (Mach V)

The operational measure for Machiavellianism wasthe Mach V Scale devised by Christie. The Scale is atwenty-item, forced-choice questionnaire. Four earlierversions of the Mach Scale were Likert-type scales;however, the forced-choice format was used in the lastversion to minimize the effects of such possibleextraneous variables as response set and social desir-ability. Respondents are forced to choose, from a setof three responses for each item, the statement closestto his own feelings, omitting the third. The directionscall for the respondent to place a "+" in front of theitem they agree with most and a "-" in front of the itemthey disagree with most for each set of items. Examplesof items include:

1. A. Barnum was probably right when he saidthat there's at least one sucker bornevery minute.

B. Life is pretty dull unless one deliberatelystirs up some excitement.

C. Most people would be better off it theycontrol their emotions.

2. A. It is a good policy to act as if you aredoing the things you do because you haveno other choice.

B. The biggest difference between mostcriminals and other people is thatcriminals are stupid enough to get caught.

C. Even the most hardened and viciouscriminal hays spark of decency somewherewithin him.'

The instrument has a theoretical scoring range of 40 to160; the higher the score, the more Machiavellian theorientation of the subject.

ReliaOility of the Mach V for most samples is inthe .60's.0 Although the .60's are not overly impressive

5A complete copy of theis found in Richard Christiein Machiavellianism (New Yorkpp. 22-25.

6lbid., p. 27.

instrument, Mach Vand Florence Geis,: Academic Press,

49

Scale,Studies1970),

in terms of internal consistency, there is an abundanceof experimental data which indicate that the scale doesmake meaningful discriminations among individuals'behavior.7 Further, a large number of studies havesupported the construct validity of the scale.8

Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire (LBDQ)

The Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire (LBDQ)is composed of thirty short, descriptive statements ofthe way in which leaders behave. The instrument wasdeveloped at Ohio State University and has undergoneseveral revisions (See Appendix B). The form used inthis study measures two fundamental dimensions of leaderbehavior, initiating structure and consideration,identified through factor analysis by Halpin.' Eachdimension consists of fifteen Likert-type items.Responses are made on a five-point scale and are scoredfrom four (always behaves according to the description)to zero (never behaves according to the description);the higher the score on each dimension, the higher theconsideration and initiating structure scores. Inreference to the study, LBDQ scores were obtained fromthe teacher respondents, and mean LBDQ scores werecomputed for the principal in each school.

Reliability of the LBDQ, using the Spearman-Brownformula, has been consistently high in Halpin's studiesyielding split-halves of .82 and .86 on InitiatingStructure and .92 and .93 on Consideration." Inaddition, Halpinll has shown the LBDQ to have concurrent

7lbid., pp. 290-293.

8Ibid.

9Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Admin-istration (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966), p. 88.

10Ibid.; See also Halpin, Leader Behavior of School

Superiffraidents, sa. cit., p. 9.

11Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leadership Behavior andEffectiveness of Aircraft Commanders," in Ralph Stogdilland Alvin Coons (eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Descri tionsand Measurement (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio tae niversi y,BureauETTUirEess Research, 1957).

50

criterion validity, and in a more recent validity studyconducted under well-controlled laboratory conditions,Stogdill12 has also supported the validity of the LBDQsubtests.

Authoritarianism

To measure the level of authoritarian behavior ofprincipals as perceived by teachers, seven Likert-typeitems were included in the questionnaire. These itemswere adapted from Blau and Scott's13 measure ofauthoritarian supervision in their study of a socialwelfare agency and had been used by Rees and Hoy14 inthe study of leadership styles of secondary principals.Rees and Hoy reported an alpha coefficient of .70 as ameasure of internal consistency. In addition, theempirical findings of both Blau and Scott and Rees andHoy provided some support for the construct validityof the measure. However, since a check of the internalconsistency of the measure for the present sampleyielded an alpha less than .6 for the elementary prin-cipals, the scale was modified. Two items were deletedand three items were added as a result of a clusteranalysis of questionnaire items. The revised eight-item measure had an alpha coefficient of .71 for theelementary principals and .76 for the secondary prin-cipals. The items added included the following: "Herules with an iron hand;" "He refused to explain hisactions;" and "He speaks in a manner not to be ques-tioned." The item scores were summed; the higher thescore, the greater the authoritarianism of the principalas perceived by his teachers. The complete and revisedmeasure of authoritarianism is found in Appendix B.

12Ralph M. Stogdill, "Validity of Leader BehaviorDescriptions," Personnel Psychology, XXII (Summer,1969), p. 157.

13Peter M. Blau and Richard Scott, Formal Organi-

zations (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962),p. 149.

14Richard T. Rees and Wayne K. Hoy, "The Principaland Teacher Loyalty," Research Bulletin, New JerseySchool Development Council, Rutgers Graduate School ofEducation, XVI (Fall, 1971) , pp. 4-8.

51

Emotional Detachment

Emotional detachment was defined as a superior'sability to remain calm in response to difficult andtrying situations. In the present study, an index ofthe principal's emotional detachment was obtained fromteachers' responses to a single, Likert-type item, asused by Blau and Scott in their study of social welfareagencies (See Appendix B) .15 The item was scored fromzero to four, ranging from "When things don't gosmoothly he always loses his temper or gets exci*zed,"to "When things don't go smoothly, he never loses histemper or gets excited." Teacher responses were com-puted, and a school mean score for emotional detachmentwas obtained. The higher the score, the more emotionaldetachment a principal was perceived to exhibit.

Organizational Climate DescriptiveQuestionnaire (OCDQ) : Openness Index

In a significant and major research effort, Halpinand Croft attempted to map the domain of organizationalclimate; that is, to identify and describe itsjimen-sions and to measure them in a dependable way." Theresult of their work was the development of the OCDQ,a descriptive instrument composed of sixty-four, Likert-type items which are divided into eight subtests:Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit, Intimacy, Aloofness,Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration. Factoranalysis of the profiles of schools along these eightdimensions led to the identification of an "openness"factor. The openness factor is best measured by thescores high on the subtests of Esprit and Thrust andlow on Disengagement. Accordingly, an index of theopenness of the school climate can be computed as follows:

Openness Index = Esprit Score + Thrust Score -Disengagement Score

15Blau and Scott, loc. cit.

16Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, The Organiza-tional Climate of Schools (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

ucation, No. 543-8639, Final Report,1962).

52

Halpin and Croft define the three subtests underconsideration as follows:17

1. Esprit refers to "morale." The teachers feeltnat their social needs are being satir;fiedand that they are, at the same time, enjoyinga sense of accomplishment.

2. Thrust refers to behavior by the principalZUZWis characterized by his evident effortin trying to "move the organization.""Thrust" behavior is marked not by closesupervision but by the principal's attempt tomotivate the teachers through the examplewhich he personally sets. Apparently, becausehe does not ask the teachers to give of them-selves any more than he willingly gives ofhimself, his behavior, though starkly task-oriented, is, nonetheless, viewed favorablyby the teachers.

3. Disengagement refers to the teachers' tendenciesto be "not with it." This dimension describesa group which is "going through the motions,"a group that is "not in gear" with respect tothe task at hand. It corresponds to the moregeneral concept :)f anomie as first describedby Durkheim. In short, this subtest focusesupon the teachers' behavior in a task-orientedsituation.

Split-half coefficients of reliability, correctedby the Spearman-Brown fo,lula, for the three measureswere .75, .84 and .73 respectively. The validity of theOCDQ subtests has been supported in numerous studies.Perhaps, the most comprehensive of the validity studieswas completed by Andrews; he concluded:

that the subtests of the OrganizationalClimate Description Questionnaire providereasonably valid measures of importantaspects of the school principal's leadership,

17Ibici., pp. 29-32.

53

in the perspective of interaction with hisstaff.10

The usefulness of the openness score as an indexof the openness (or closedness) of the organizationalclimate qg a school has been demonstrated in severalstudies. In In addition, Hoy has supported the validityof using the openness index as a measure, particularlyfor larger secondary schools.20 The higher the scoreon the index, the more open staff members perceive theclimate of the school; that is, the more they describethe school as an energetic, lively organization whichis moving towards its goals but which is also providingsatisfaction for the individuals' social needs.

Loyalty to the Principal

A measure of loyalty to immediate superior wasbased on the responses to eight Likert -type statementsoriginally adapted by Hoy and Williams21 from a scale

18John H. M. Andrews, "School Organizational Cli-mate: Some Validity Studies," Canadian Education andResearch Digest, V (December, 1967M).3737reernoRobert J. Brown, Organizational Climate of ElementarySchools, Research Monograph No. 2 (Minneapolis: Educa-tional Research and Development Council of Twin Cities,1965).

19James Bruce Appleberry and Wayne K. Hoy, "The Pupil

Control Ideology of Professional Personnel in 'Open' and'Closed' Elementary Schools," Educational AdministrationQuarterly, V (Fall, 1969), pp. 74-85; and A. Ray Helsel,Herbert A. Aurbach, and Donald J. Willower, "Teachers'Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Expectationsof Successful Change," The Journal of Experimental Edu-cation, XXXVIII (Winter, 1969), pp. 1D-44.

20Wayne K. Hoy, "Some Further Notes on the OCDQ,"

Journal of Educational Administration, X (May, 1972),pp. 46-51.

21Wayne K. Hoy and Leonard B. Williams, "Loyaltyto Immediate Superior at Alternate Levels in PublicSchools," Educational Administration Quarterly, VII(Spring, 1,13

54

developed by Murray and Corenblum22 to measure loyaltyto one's immediate superior in a bureaucracy (SeeAppendix B). The eight items combine affective, cogni-tive, and behavioral aspects of loyalty to the principalin the one eight-item scale. The item scores weresummed, and a mean loyalty to the principal score wascalculated for each school; the higher the score, themore loyalty commanded by the principal. Reliabilityof the scale has been consistently high with alphas in

the .90 range.23

Loyalty to the School

A single item was utilized to determine the loyaltyof the teachers to the school. Teachers were asked torespond to the question, "How much loyalty do you feel

toward your school?" Responses were made on a fivepoint scale, scored from one (almost none at all) tofive (a very great deal). A score was obtained fromevery respondent, and a mean score was calculated foreach school.

Principal Effectiveness

A single item was used to determine the teachers'perception of the effectiveness of the school principal.Teachers were asked to respond to the statement, "Myprincipal provides effective leadership." Responseswere made on a five-statement scale scored from five(almost always) to one (almost never). The higher thescore, the more effective the principal was perceivedby his staff. Scores were obtained from all teacherparticipants, and a mean score was calculated for eachschool.

22V. V. Murray and Allan Corenblum, "Loyalty toImmediate Superior at Alternate Hierarchical Levels ina Bureaucracy," The American Journal of Sociology, LXII(July, 1966), pp. 77-85.

23Hoy and Williams, op. cit.; and Frederick Rho,"Patterns of Succession oUHih School Principals"(unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University,1972) .

55

Data Collection

Principal Data

The Mach V Scale was mailed to 300 principals alongwith a cover letter explaining that the researchers wereconducting a survey of social attitudes. After severalfollow-up letters, seventy-eight per cent of the prin-cipals returned usable Mach V Scales.

Next, a sample of ninety-two principals (forty-sixelementary and fifty-six secondary) was contacted bytelephone and informed that a researcher would like tocollect data from his staff to explore relationshipsbetween the principal's attitudes and behavior and theattitudes of the teachers. The principals were assuredthat the results would be strictly confidential andthat no individual or school would be named in thereport of the research. Eighty-six per cent of theprincipals contacted agreed to participate in the study(forty elementary and forty-eight secondary principals).Note should be made that often times it was necessaryfor the researcher to visit with the principal or senda sample of the questionnaire before final acceptancewas obtained. All principals responded to a demographicquestionnaire and a Mach V Scale if they had not alreadycompleted one.

Faculty Data

Previous experience led to the belief that collect-ing data from all the elementary staff in each schoolwas not only possible but that it was probably asefficient as any sampling technique. Elementary schoolsin New Jersey are relatively small when compared totheir secondary counterparts; hence, the logistics ofcollecting data from virtually all faculty members ineach school at a faculty meeting seemed feasible.Therefore, for the elementary schools, the teacherinstruments were compiled into a booklet consisting ofeighty-two items and administered personally by theresearcher at a faculty meeting. A general descriptionof the research and a firm reassurance of anonymitywere always given as part of the instructions. Theentire questionnaire was usually completed in less thanthirty minutes. In this fashion, data were collectedfrom 893 teachers in forty elementary schools.

56

The procedures used to collect data from thesecondary teachers were different. It was not possibleto collect dac.a from all secondary teachers in eachschool during faculty meetings; secondary principals"vetoed" the idea, although most were amenable to col-lecting data from a smaller sample of the faculty.Therefore, upon reporting to the school, the researcherrequested an alphabetized list of the professional,full-time staff excluding administrators and medicalpersonnel. Through the use of a table of randomnumbers, eight to fifteen teachers were chosen atrandom in each school (depending on school size). Theywere given the questionnaire booklet along with instruc-tions as to its purpose and how it sYluld be answered.Each staff member was urged to respond candidly, andit was made clear that the responses were confidentialand anonymous. In addition, they were given a plainbrown envelope with no identifying markings andinstructed that upon completion of the questionnaire,they were to place the questionnaire in the envelope,seal it, and return it to a designated secretary. Theresearcher returned to each school a week later andpicked up all the envelopes. In forty out of the forty-eight schools, responses were obtained from all subjects;385 teachers responded to the questionnaires.

Treatment of Data

Scoring the Instruments

Responses to the questionnaires were codified andkeypunched directly from the teachers' and principals'questionnaires onto IBM cards and then verified. Scoringof the various scales was accomplished by a series ofscoring programs developed for the IBM 360-67 computer.24The scoring programs yielded individual and schoolscores for each scale. Personal demographic data werealso collected from respondents and codified and scoredin the same way.

24Dr. Bernard Andrewsboth of Rutgers Universitydevelopment of the scoring

and Mr. William Dolphig.,, were instrumental in theprograms.

57

Data Analysis

The principals' Mach scores and mean scores forconsideration, initiating structure, authoritarianism,emotional detachment, openness of the climate, loyaltyto the principal, loyalty to the institution, andeffectiveness of the principal were analyzed. Pearsonproduct-moment correlations were employed to test themajor hypotheses of the study. Analysis of varianceprocedures were employed to investigate other relation-ships. Finally, multiple regression analysis was usedto explore for possible variables moderating the rela-tionship between Machiavellianism and aspects of leaderbehavior.

58

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The Mach V Scale was administered to forty ele-mentary and forty secondary school principals in NewJersey. Responses to a battery of instruments were alsosecured from teachers in the respective schools in anattempt to measure descriptions of the leader behavioroff ths principals as well as faculty reaction to theprincipals; 1,278 teachers responded to the researchinstruments.

The first section of this chapter contains a reportof the results of the empirical tests of the basichypotheses and questions which guided the study. Afurther analysis of the hypothesei and a search forpotential moderating variables is then described,followed by an analysis of Machiavellianism and leader"effectiveness." The chapter is concluded with ananalysis of relationships between Machiavellianism andselected demographic characteristics, with comparisonsof these results with other published findings.

Testing the Hypotheses

Product-moment correlation coefficients were com-puted to test the major hypotheses of the study. Thecommon practice of setting the probability of a Type Ierror at .05 was adopted in this study. One-tailedtests of significance were used to determine the levelof significance of hypotheses for which a theoreticalrationale was developed and the direction of the rela-tionship predicted. In addition, correlational andanalysis of variance techniques were used to exploreseveral related research questions.

H1

The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal, the greater theteachers' perception of his initiatingstructure.

Computation of a coefficient of correlation betweenthe principals' Machiavellian orientation scores andtheir mean initiating structure scores yielded an r =-.20 (p > .05) for all principals; therefore, the firsthypothesis was rejected. Indeed there was a slight

59

tendency, contrary to the hypothesis, for Machiavellianorientation to be inversely related to initiatingstructure; that is, the greater the Machiavellianorientation of the principal, the less his behaviorwas described as high on initiating structure by histeachers.

H2 There will be no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientation ofthe school principal and his teachers'perception of his consideration.

The second hypothesis was confirmed. For theeighty principals in the sample, there was no signifi-cant relationship between Machiavellian orientation ofthe principal and consideration in behavior as per-ceived by teachers (r = -.17, p > .05) .

H3

The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal, the higher hiseffectiveness rating from his teachers.

Contrary to the prediction, the effectiveness ratingof a principal was not significantly related to hisMachiavellian orientation (r = -.15, p s .05); hence,the hypothesis was rejected. In fact, once again, therelationship, although not strong, was in the directionopposite of the prediction. There was a slight tendencyfor Machiavellian orientation of the principal to beinversely related to effectiveness.

H4

There will be no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientation ofthe school principal and his teachers'perception of authoritarianism in hisbehavior.

The fourth hypothesis was confirmed. There wasvirtually no relationship (r = -.06, p > .05) betweenthe Machiavellian orientation of the principal andauthoritarianism in his leader behavior as perceivedby his teachers.

H5 The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a principal, the greater his teachers'perception of his emotional detachment.

H6

The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a principal, the more loyalty he willcommand from teachers.

60

H7

The greater the Machiavellian orientationof a principal, the more open the teacherswill perceive the organizational climateof his school.

None of these last three hypotheses was confirmed.Machiavellian orientation of the principal was notrelated to the principal's emotional detachment (r =.07, p > .05), teacher loyalty to the principal (r =-.06, p > .05), or the openness of the school climate(r = .01, p > .05). In fact, the striking feature ofthese findings was that virtually no relationshipexisted between the Machiavellian orientation of theprincipal and the respective variables. All thecorrelation coefficients were near zero--an indicationthat the scores were randomly paired.

In addition to these seven hypotheses, severalother questions guided the empirical phase of theinvestigation.

Q1 What is the relationship between theMachiavellian orientation of the principaland his teachers' loyalty to the school?

There was virtually no relationship between teacherloyalty to the school and the principal's Machiavellianorientation (r = -.09, p > .05).

Q2 What is the relationship between theMachiavellian orientation of the principaland his administrative experience?

Two correlation coefficients were computed toexplore this question; however, neither the principal'sadministrative experience in a particular school nortotal administrative experience was significantlyrelated to his Machiavellian orientation (r = .03 andr = .11 respectively, p > .05).

Q3 Is there a significant difference betweenthe Machiavellian orientations of ele-mentary and secondary principals?

In order to answer this question, the mean scoreson Machiavellian orientation for elementary and secondaryprincipals were computed and compared by analysis ofvariance. The mean Mach scores for the forty elementaryprincipals (X = 98.05) and the forty secondary principals

61

(Ft = 98.75) were very similar. The F-ratio of .12 wasnot statistically significant (See Table 1). Theresults of the initial pilot study where 150 elementaryand 150 secondary principals were randomly selectedwere the same; that is, no significant differencebetween the Mach scores of elementary and secondaryprincipals.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEDATA FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENMACHIAVELLIANISM OF ELEMENTARY

AND SECONDARY ECHOOLS

ElementarySchools

SecondarySchools

Number 40 40

Mean 98.05 98.75

Standard Deviation 8.80 8.84

Source df SS MS

Between Groups 1 9.80 9.80 .12 (ns)

Within Groups 78 6065.39 77.76

Total 79 6075.19

The surprising thing about the findings was the lackof relationship between Machiavellian orientation andany of the dependent variables. None of the variableswas significantly related to Machiavellian crientation.In testing the hypotheses, elementary and secondaryprincipals were combined. It was assumed that theschool principalship, in general, provided a contextin which high Machs would be able to "operate" effec-tively. Furthermore, there was no significant difference

62

between the Mach scores of elementary and secondaryprincipals; they were virtually the sme.

However, in order to control for school level, thehypotheses were also tested separately for elementaryprincipals and for secondary principals. One mightargue that the institutional contexts of the two kindsof schools were quite different and this might influencethe relationships. In the present sample, the elementaryschools had an average of twenty-one teachers and thesecondary schools had an average of eighty-five teachers.In addition, the secondary schools were more complex.The secondary principal had to deal with young adults,not children, and he was responsible for the supervisionof a multi-level organization with teachers assigned tovarious departmee,ts under their own department heads.Elementary schools were generally not departmentalized.

The results of the separate tests of the hypothesesfor elementary and secondary teachers alter the picturevery little. In general, there was no relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientation of the principaland either his leadership style as perceived by teachersor teachers' reaction to his leadership. There was oneexception. For secondary principals, the greater thedegree of Machiavellian orientation of principals, theless teachers described the principal as considerate iniileader behavior (r = -.36, p t .05). Although therelationship was not predicted, it was a moderate andsignificant one. The results of the tests of the rela-tionships between Machiavellian orientation and the majorvariables for elementary principals, for secondary prin-cipals, and for principals combined are summarized inTable 2.

Perhaps, one reason for the lack of consistent rela-tionships in the present findings was the assumption oflinearity which was made. There is some reason to believethat the relationships between Machiavellian orientationand patterns of behavior may be curvilinear for admin-istrators. In fact, Christie and Geis suggest that bothextremely high Machs and extremely low Machs might makeineffective administrators.

. . . anyone extremely low on Mach would makea poor administrator. He would be too likelyto become affectively involved. . . . Theproblem with extremely high-Mach administratorsis that their cool cognitive analysis of theneeds of the organization coupled with a

63

TABLE 2

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MACHIAVELLIANORIENTATION AND MAJOR VARIABLES

VariableAll

Principals(n=80)

ElementaryPrincipals

(n=40)

SecondaryPrincipals

(n=40)

InitiatingStructure -.20 -.24 -.15

Consideration -.17 .04 -.36*

Effectiveness -.15 -.01 -.26

Authoritarianism -.06 -.13 .02

EmotionalDetachment .07 .02 .14

PrincipalLoyalty -.06 .02 -.10

Openness .01 .06 .01

SchoolLoyalty -.09 .07 -.20

*p < .05

disregard for the individual needs of thosewithin it could quite easily lead to dis-affection and problems of morale which cancripple the organization.1

In order to test for the possible relationshipssuggested above to examine the assumption of linearity,the Mach scores of all eighty principals were rankordered and divided into six groups from extremely high

1Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Studies inMachiavellianism (New York: Academic Press, 1970),p. 357.

64

Machs to extremely low Machs. Then, analyses ofvariance were performed for each of the majordependent variables of the study. The results werethe same as the correlational analyses; there wereno significant relationships between Machiavellianorientation and initiating structure, consideration,effectiveness, authoritarianism, emotional detachment,principal loyalty, school loyalty, and openness.Furthermore, there was no significant deviation fromlinearity for any of the relationships; hence, theassumption of linearity was supported.

Further Analyses of the Hypotheses

The underlying assumption on which all the hypo-theses were built was that the school context provideda loosely structured situation in which the schoolprincipal engaged in face-to-face interaction with hisstaff, had ample opportunity to engage in innovativebehavior and improvisation, and was faced with a com-plex and highly affective situation. Further, it wasassumed that, in general, the exact role behaviors ofprincipals and teachers were not rigidly defined,that usually the exact means to achieve goals were notclearly predefined, and that the principal's roletypically was one where improvisation was necessary.These are conditions under which a Machiavellianorientation apparently makes a difference. However,the fact that the Machiavellian orientation of prin-cipals was related neither to principal behavior norto faculty reaction raises some question about thevalidity of this general set of assumptions.

Perhaps, there were major differences in the socialmilieu of the schools which moderated the hypothesizedrelationships. That is, certain patterns of principal-teacher interactions may produce a school climate whicheither facilitates or constrains the "acting out" ofMachiavellian orientations of principals. One indexof the social climate of the school was the measure ofopenness. Given the lack of relationship betweenMachiavellian orientation of principals and theirbehavior, it was decided to examine separately thehypothesized relations for "open" and "closed" ele-mentary and secondary schools. This procedure provideda test of the possible influence of organizational cli-mate as a moderating variable between Machiavellianorientation and aspects of principal biihavior.

65

Elementary schools were rank ordered in terms oftheir openness scores. Then the group was dichotomized;the twenty most "open" schoolF were designated as "open"in climate, and the twenty most "closed" schools weredesignated as "closed" climates. The same procedurewas used for the secondary schools. The climate of theschoolfin terms of openness, appeared not to be animportant moderating variable. In general, the rela-tionships between Machiavallianism and the majorvariables were not changed significantly. Most of thecorrelation coefficients were small and insignificant.In "open" elementary schools, there was a significantnegative correlation between authoritarianism andMachiavellianism--the greater the Mach score, the lessauthoritarian the principal. Furthermore, in all "open"schools, consideration was negatively related toMachiavellianism. The results are summarized in Table3.

A Search for Moderating Variables

In order to antilyze systematically the moderatinginfluence of other variables on the relationshipbetween Machiavellian orientation of the principal andhis leader behavior as described by teachers, a seriesof multiple regression analyses was performed. Age ofprincipal, administrative experience, school size,favorableness of the situation (Esprit-Disengagement),loyalty to the principal, and loyalty to the schoolwere tested as possible moderators with respect tothe relationship between Machiavellian orientation andaspects of behavior including initiating structure,consideration, authoritarianism, emotional detachment,and leader effectiveness.

The moderating effect was tested by using multipleregression techniques where the Mach score, moderatingvariable, and their cross-product were the three pre-dictors in each run. To test for a significant inter-action effect, the main effects must be controlledfirst; hence, the Mach score and moderating variablewere entered into the regression equation. Then .4 thecross-product term was added. The increase in 114caused by adding the cross-product term indicated thestrength of the interaction effect.2 The significance

2For further discussion see Herbert Wallberg,"Generalized Regression Models in Educational Research,"American Educational Research Journal, VIII (January,War; 131r=gr:------

66

TABLE 3

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MACHIAVELLIAN

ORIENTATION AND MAJOR VARIABLES WITH 'OPENTNESS"

OF SCHOOL CLIMATE AS A MODERATOR

Variable

"Open"

Elementary

Schools

(n=20)

"Closed"

Elementary

Schools

(n=20)

"Open"

"Closed"

Secondary

Secondary

Schools

Schools

(n=20)

(n=20)

All

"Open"

Schools

(n=40)

Ali

"Closed"

Schools

(n=40)

Initiating

Structure

-.28

-.21

-.22

-.09

-.15

-.24

Consideration

.22

-.05

-.34

-.43

-.36*

.04

Effectiveness

-.01

.00

-.11

-.39

-.26

-.01

Authoritarianism

-.55**

.09

-.26

.21

.02

-.13

Emotional

Detachment

.13

.05

.21

.11

14

.02

Principal

Loyalty

.13

-.02

.24

-.32

-.10

.02

School Loyalty

-.04

.18

-.15

-.24

-.20

.07

**p 4- .01

*p c .05

of the increase on R2 produced by adding the cross-product term was tested using the following F-ratio:

(12Y M I MXA -R2Y.M,P)F I

R2

Y.M,A,MXA

Where M = Mach Score and A = Potential ModeratingVariable

In all, ninety multiple regression analyses wereperformed--thirty for the elementary school principals,thirty for the secondary principals, and thirty for thecombined group of principals.3 There were no signifi-cant interaction effects for either the elementaryschool principals or for all school principals taken asa group. In this secondary schools, there was only sig-nificant interaction. Administrative experience servedto moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism ofthe principal and loyalty of the teacher to the principal.For principals with less experience, there was a corre-lation of -.46 between Machiavellianism and loyalty tothe principal; but for more experienced principals, thecorrelation was a positive .19. The difference betweenthese correlations was statistically significant. Insummary, however, the search for possible moderatingvariables was not highly productive.

Leadership "Effectiveness" andMachiavellianism: A Two-Way Analysis

One of the major differences in studying Machia-vellianism in the laboratory and in the world beyondthe walls of the laboratory is the lack of control ofstudies in the latter category. In the real world, thepotential number of uncontrolled variables and variablesinteracting with Machiavellianism is large. Given thelack of success in confirming straight-forward

3Given the six possible moderating variables andthe five aspects of principal behavior, thirty com-binations were possible for each group, ninety com-binations in all.

68

predictions concerning Machiavellianism, it wasdecided to attempt a more complex analysis in whichseveral variables and Machiavellianism were analyzedsimultaneously.

Halpin has indicated that the major dimensions ofleadership blehavior are initiating structure and con-sideration. Furthermore, several studies have sup-ported the conclusion that effective leader behaviortends to be associated with high performance on bothdimensions.' Therefore, it was decided to examinethe concurrent relationship between initiating structure,consideration, and Machiavellianism. In order to per-form this analysis, a two way analysis of variance wasperformed. The total sample of principals was dividedinto the following four quadrants: (1) those abovethe mean on both initiating structure and consideration,(2) those below the mean on both initiating structureand consideration, (3) those above the mean oninitiating structure but below the mean on considera-tion, and (4) those above the mean on considerationbut below the mean on initiating structure. Then,analysis of variance was performed by comparing theMach scores in these four quadrants. The analysisagain showed that neither initiating structure norconsideration by itself was significantly related toMachiavellianism; however, there was a significantinteraction of these variables with respect to Mach-iavellianism. Higher Machs tended to be in either thequadrant with high scores on both dimensions or lowscores on both dimensions; that is, in the quadrantsassociated with highly effective leadership or highlyineffective leadership: Lower Machs tended to be inthe "off" quadrants--quadrants high on one dimensionbut low on the other. These data are summarized inTables 4 and 5.

4Andrew W. Halpin, Theo and Research in Admin-istration (New York: Macmi an Company, 9 , pp.97-98.

5lbid., pp. 93-98. See also John K. Hemphill,"Leaders Flip Behavior Associated with the AdministrativeReputation of College Departments," The Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, XLVI (November, 1955), pp. 385 -401; and Andrew W. Halpin, Leader Behavior of SchoolSuperintendents (Chicago: Midwest AaMinistriElonCenter, University of Chicago, 1959).

69

TABLE 4

MEAN PRINCIPAL MACH SCORES AS RELATEDTO INITIATING STRUCTURE AND CONSIDERATION

ConsiderationInitiating

HighStructure

Low Total

High 98.74 (n=27) 96.22 (n=18) 97.73Low 96.27 (n=15) 101.50 (n=20) 99.26

Total 97.86 99.00

TABLE 5

TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: THE RELATIONSHIPOF INITIATING STRUCTURE AND CONSIDERATION

TO MACHIAVELLIANISM

Source of Degrees of FreedomVariation Num. Denom. Squares F P

InitiatingStructure(IS) 1 77 6029.49 .21 ns

Consideration(C) 1 77 6049.14 .46 ns

Interaction(ISXC) 1 76 6013.39 3.18 .05

70

Machiavellianism and DemographicCharacteristics: Some Comparisons

The data of the present study also provided a basisfor exploring relationships between Machiavellianorientations of principals and their age, administrativeexperience, teaching experience, and the size of theirschool in terms of numbers of teachers and pupils. Noneof these relationships, however, was statisticallysignificant (See Table 6).

TABLE 6

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MACHIAVELLIANISMAND SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

VariableAll

Principals(n=80)

ElementaryPrincipals

(n=40)

SecondaryPrincipals

(n=40)

Administre-iveExperience(Total) .03 .21 -.12

AdministrativeExperience(PresentSchool) .11 .12 .11

TeachingExperience .06 -.16 .18

Age .14 .03 -.04

Number ofPopils -.03 .03 -.12

Number ofTeachers -.02 .10 -.14

71

Christie and Geis provide a description andanalysis of demographic and social correlates of Mach-iavellianism in several samples.° They found that whencomparing a diverse sample of college students with arepresentative sample of non-institutionalized adults(Amalgam Survey of the National Public Opinion Center,1963), the college students clearly scored sub-stantially higher on Machiavellianism than the adultsin the NORC sample. Furthermore, Christie and Mertonhave reported that older persons who might be expectedto be highly manipulative, such as Washington lobbyistsor business executives, scored lower on the Mach itemsthan did college students.? A comparison of the Machscores on the principals in the present sample withother samples indicated that school principals did notscore lower on the Mach scale than any of the samplesreported by Christie and his associatf?s. See Table 7.Christie and Geis' notion that "older persons ingeneral score lower on Mach than do college students

." was not supported by the present data.

Several other questions were posed concerning therelationship between Machiavellianism and other demo-graphic characteristics.

Is Machiavellianism of the principal relatedto the kind of undergraduate college attended?

Is Machiavellianism of the principal relatedto job mobility?

Is Machiavellianism of the principal relatedto the community the principal works in?

1111

8Christie and Geis, 92. cit., pp. 314-338.

7Richard Christie andfor the Sociological StudyMedical Schools," in HelenITIEcoly_p_f_the Medical

Robert Merton, "Proceduresof the Values Climate ofGee and R. J. Glaser (eds.),Student (Evanston, Ill.:ica olleges, 1958).

8Christie and Geis, Ea. cit., p. 315.

72

TABLE 7

COMPARISONS OF MACH SCORES FOR VARIOUS SAMPLES

Sample Mach V Score

College 97.24

Adult NORC 92.26

Elementary Principals 98.05

Secondary Principals 98.75

All Principals 98.40

Christie and Geis have suggested that respongents

from teachers colleges have very low Mach scores.'

Hence, it was decided to compare the Mach scores of

principals who did their undergraduate work in teachers

colleges with those who were liberal arts graduates.

The mean Mach scores for the two groups were virtually

the same (R. = 98.88 and 98.41 respectively, F m .06).

Similarly, when graduates of public and private

colleges were compared, the results were also identical

(X = 98.36 and 98.44 respectively, F = .00). These

data are summarized in Tables 8 and 9.

In general, there have been few positive corre-

lations between social mobility and Mach scores; how-

ever, in the present study, we were interested in

Machiavellianism and job mobility. Several indices

were developed for job mobility. First, principals

were grouped in terms of the number of school systems

in which they had been employed during their career.

The mean Mach scores of the three groups of principals

were then examined by analysis of variance techniques.

There was a significant tendency for more mobileprincipals to be more Machiavellian. The data are

summarized in Table 10.

9Christie and Geis, a. cit., pp. 325-326.

73

TABLE 8

SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEDATA FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MACHIAVELLIANISM .AND TYPE OF COLLEGE --LIBERAL ARTS OR TEACHERS COLLEGE

LiberalArts

TeachersCollege

Number

Mean

Standard Deviation

44

98.41

9.35

34*

98.88

7.97

Source df SS MS

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

1

76

77

4.30

5854.15

5858.45

4.30

77.03

.07 (ns)

*Data were missing on some respondents; hence, thetotal number is not eighty.

74

TABLE 9

SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEDATA FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND TYPE OF COLLEGE --PUBLIC OR PRIVATE

Public Private

Number 44

Mean 98.36

Standard Deviation 9.29

36

98.44

8.21

Source df SS MS F

Between Groups 1 .13 .13 .00 (ns)

Within Groups 78 6075.06 77.89

Total 79 6075.19

75

TABLE 10

SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEDATA FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENMACHIAVELLIANISM AND ,OB MOBILITY

OneSchool

TwoSchools

Three orMore

Schools

Number

Mean

Standard Deviation

25

94.80

7.98

23

99.13

9.38

32

100.69

8.25

Source df SS MS

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

77

79

503.72

5571.48

6075.20

251.86

72.36

3.48*

*p t .05

A more refined index of jot. mobility was alsodevised. Principals were divided into two extremegroups--"locals" and "cosmopolitans." Locals weredefined as principals who had long tenure (more thanten years) in only one or two districts. Cosmo-politans were designated ar: those who had short tenure(a total of less than ten years) in three or moreschool districts. Analysis of variance indicated thatthe cosmopolitans were significantly more Machiavellianthan the locals a = 103.38 and 97.36 respectively,F = 4.23, p 4.05). These data are summarized inTable 11.

One final analysis was performed. Machiavellianismscores of principals working in different types ofcommunity contexts were compared. There were no sig-nificant differences in Mach scores between principalsemployed in urban centers, urban-suburban, and suburbanschools a = 96.36, 99.36, and 98.36 respectively,F = .44, n.s.) . See Table 12.

77

TABLE 11

SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEDATA FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND LOCAL-COSMOPOLITAN ORIENTATION

Local Cosmopolitan

Number 25 16

Mean 97.36 103.38

Standard Deviation 9.29 9.03

Source df SS MS

Between Groups 1 352.98 352.98 4.23*

Within Groups 39 3251.51 83.37

Total 40

*p ic .05

TABLE 12

SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEDATA FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND TYPE OF COMMUNITY

UrbanCenter

Urban-Suburban

Suburban

Number

Mean

Standard Deviation

11

96.36

11.89

25

99.36

9,6 7

44

98.36

7.39

Source df SS MS F

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

77

79

68.71

6006.47

6075.18

34.36

78.01

.44 (ns)

79

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS

The present research focused on the relationshipsamong Machiavellian orientations of principals, theleader behavior of principals, and characteristics ofthe faculty. In earlier chapters of this report, themajor concepts of the study were introduced along witha review of the pertinent literature and the theoreticalframework, hypotheses, and questions that guided theresearch. The procedures and methodology of data col-lection and analysis were also described. The purposeof this chapter is to summarize the findings, discusstheir implications, propose possible areas for furtherresearch, and draw conclusions.

Summary of Findings

Seven hypotheses and three research questions pro-vided the guide for the empirical phase of the study.The results of the tests for all principals are sum-marized below:

1. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the teachers'perception of his initiating structure.

2. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the teachers'perception of his consideration.

3. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiave-lian orientationof a school principal and ratings ofhis effectiveness by teachers.

4. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the teachers'perception of authoritarianism in hisbehavior.

80

5. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the teachers'perception of his emotional detachment.

6. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the amountof loyalty commanded from teachers.

7. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the teachers'perception of the openness in theorganizational climate of the school.

8. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof a school principal and the teachers'loyalty to the school.

9. There was no significant relationshipbetween the Machiavellian orientationof the principal and his administrativeexperience.

10. There was no significant difference betweenthe Machiavellian orientations of ele-mentary and secondary school principals.

The relationships were also tested separately forelementary school principals and for secondary schoolprincipals. The results were nearly the same; in fact,there was only one differene. For secondary principals,the greater the degree of Machiavellianism of principals,the less the teachers described the principal as con-siderate. Although the relationship was not predicted,it was a moderate and significant one (r = -.36, p.05).

Since so few significant relationships emergedbetween Machiavellianism and the major variables of thestudy, it was decided to examine the data for variableswhich might moderate the predicted relationships.Openness of the school climate was identified as subha variable. The relationships were tested in "open"and "closed" elementary and secondary schools. Ag&n,most of the correlation coefficienta were small andstatistically insignificant.

81

In order to search more systematically for moderat-ing variables, a series of multiple regression analyseswas performed. The moderating effect was tested byusing multiple regression techniques where the Machscore, potential moderating variable, and cross-productwere the three predictors in each run. To test for asignificant interaction effect, the main effects wereentered first into the regression equation, and thenthe cross-product term was added. A significant cross-product (interaction) effect indicated a moderatinginfluence. The fruits of this series of analyses werealso negligible. Only administrative experience servedto moderate the relationship between Machiavellianismof the principal and loyalty of the teacher to theprincipal. For principals with less experience, therewas a correlation of -.46 between Machiavellianism andteacher loyalty to the principal; but for more experi-enced principals, the correlation was a positive .19.The difference between these correlations was statisti-cally significant.

A two-way analysis of variance provided some evi-dence that the relationship between Machiavellianism,initiating structure, and consideration was a complexone. Although neither initiating structure nor con-sideration by itself was related to the principal'sMachiavellianism, together there was a significantinteraction of these variables with respect to Machia-vellianism. Higher Machs tended to be in either thequadrant with high scores on both dimensions or lowscores on both dimensions.

Finally, a series of analyses was performed explor-ing the relationships between Machiavellianism andselected demographic characteristics. Machiavellianismof principals was not significantly related to age,teaching experience, school size, type of undergraduateeducation, or to the type of community in which theprincipal was working. However, Machiavellianism ofthe principal was statistically related to job mobilityand an index of local-cosmopolitan orientation. Themore Machiavellian the orientation of the principal, themore job mobility he was found to exhibit. Furthermore,cosmopolitans were significantly more Machiavellian thanlocals:. Finally, the present sample of administrators,compared to other occupational groups, appeared to bequite Machiavellian.

82

Discussion and Questions

The most striking feature of the present findingswas the lack of consistent relationships between Machia-vellianism of principals and the other variables. Theexperimental research on Machiavellianism had indicatedthat high Machs and low Machs did behave differently inthe laboratory setting. A basic assumption of thisresearch was that there would be correspondence betweenbehaviors elicited in controlled laboratory settingsana those occurring under the control of forces in thereal world. Furthermore, it was assumed that the schoolsetting provided principals with relatively open-endedsituations characterized by face-to-face contact, muchlatitude for improvising behavior, and an effectivelycomplex situation. These are the conditions in thelaboratory which facilitate Machiavellian behavior.

Nevertheless, most of the hypotheses of this studywere not supported; in fact, only two of the sevenhypotheses were supported, and these were the two pre-dicting "no relationship" with Machiavellianism. Whythe stark contrast between the present results and theexperimental findings? Perhaps, one or both of thepreceding assumptions are untenable.

The vast majority of research studies utilizingthe concept of Machiavellianism have been conducted withcollege students in controlled, laboratory settings.Christie and Geis themselves recognize the difficultyof attempting to generalize from the laboratory paradigmto the real world. There simply may not be enoughdetailed information about the relative degree and kindof faca-to-face contact, latitude for improvisation,ana arousal of irrelevant affect in fiel4 situations tobe precise in analyzing their influence. These condi-tions were assumed to be operative in large measure forthe principal in the school. When the anticipated rela-tionships were not confirmed, an attempt was made todifferentiate schools on the basis of school structuresmore and less likely to exhibit thesis conditions; there-fore, schools were dichotomized in terms of organizationalclimate into "open" and "closed" schools. However, theresults were basically the same; none of the hypothesespredicting a relationship with Machiavellianism was

1Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Studies inMachiavellianism (New York: Academic Press, 1970),p. 348.

83

confirmed. Furthermore, a systematic search for moderat-ing variables, ones which moderate the relationshipsbetween Machiavellianism and the dependent variables,was largely unproductive. These results suggest thatmost of the hypothesized relationships involving Machia-vellianism either do not exist in the school contextsstudied or they have been confounded by other uncontrolledvariables in the real world.

With respect to the latter point, Christie and Geishave noted:

. . . other variables exist in natural settingsand we do not know the relative importance ofthe interaction between known and unknownvariables. Interaction effects are strongerthan main effects iii. 'nary experiments. Thesame is undoubtedly true in the real world,and the problem of interpretation is con-founded when known variables interact withothers of unknown nature and strength.2

The two-way analysis of variance which was performedto explore the relationship among initiating structure,consideration, and Machiavellianism tends to substantiatethis conclusion. The analysis clearly showed that neitherinitiating structure nor consideration by itself waspl7nificantly related to Machiavellianism; however, there141, a significant interaction of these variables with

pert to Machiavellianism. Higher Machs tended tohave either higher scores on both leadership dimensions(initiating structure and consideration) or lower scoreson both dimensions. One interpretation or-these find-

that high Machs are either very successful orvery unsuccessful. What are the conditions w,Lich leadto "success" or "failure" for high Machs? Are theredifferent "types" of high Machs? These are two researchquestions which seem potentially significant.

Another factor which may have influenced the fimi-ings of this :.tudy was New Jersey Public Law 303, arelatively recent law which gives public employees(teachers) the right to negotiate the terms and condi-tions of their employment with their employers (Boardof Education). Perhaps, the advent of P.L. 303 hasaltered the kind and the degree of teacher-principal

2 Ibid., p. 344.

84

relations more significantly than was assumed in thepresent study. That is, the consequences of the lawmay have limited the latitude for action of publicschool principals by :structuring behavior patterns sothat there is relatively little opportunity for flexibleand innovative behavior by the principal. Indeed,Christie and Geis argue that the use of Machiavelliantactics enhances the exercise of legitimate power onlyif the rules of the social system are not so tightlystructured that there is little opportunity forimprovisation.3 The extent to which the law has pro-duced a more rigid structure in the state remains anopen question.

However, in any future attempt to explore Machia-vellian orientations of administrators as related toadministrative behavior, it would probably be advisableto include in the design specific operational indicesfor the three situational characteristics hypothesizedby Christie and Geis to be especially relevant for theimplementation of Machiavellian tactics; namely:

1. face-to-face interaction

2. latitude for improvisation

3. arousing irrelevant affect

In this way, one would be able to begin to test theextent to which the bureaucratic structure of a schoolmoderates the relationships between Machiavellianism ofthe principal and aspects of leader behavior. Morespecifically, in schools which are loosely structuredare high Mach principals able to operate successfully?Or, are schools, in gene;:al, too structured for theeffective implementation of Machiavellian tactics?

In addition to testing the hypotheses and researchquestions, a series of supplementary analyses providedsome interesting findings and delineated some furtherareas for research. Christie and Geis, in their analysisof Mach scores of various groups, have noted that olderpersons who might be expected to be highly manipulative,such as Washington lobbyists or business executives,scored lower on Mach items than college students and,further, that college students also scored higher on

3Ibia., p. 343.

85

Mach V items than a representative sample of non-institutionalized adults within the United States; infact, they concluded that the data ". supports thenotion that older persons in gegeral score lower onMach than do college students." The principals in thepresent sample, however, scored higher on the Mach Vscale than the sample of college students reported byChristie and Geis. This finding is especiallyintriguing since Christie and Geis also reported that"Elementary and secondary school teachers who havebeen tested score considerably lower than most otheroccupational groups; professionals tend to score high."5Since almost without exception school principals aredrawn from the ranks of elementary and secondaryteachers, several questions arise. Why are publicschool principals in the present sample so Machiavellian?Do they become increasingly more Machiavellian afterbecoming principal, or do they become principals becausethey are Machiavellian? The data of the present studysuggest that administrative experience is not signifi-cantly related to Machiavellianism. Since-TEhool super-intendents typically have been principals, how Machia-vellian are public school superintendents?

It has also been suggested that Mach V scores tendto be lowest among samples of respondents from church-related schools and from teachers colleges. However,in the present sample, there was no significant differ-ence between the Mach scores of principals who hadattended teachers colleges and those who had attendedliberal arts colleges. Similarly, and again contraryto other findings, ege of principals was not negativelyrelated to Machiavellianism. Perhaps, the reason forthese findings is related to the fact that New Jerseyis a highly urbanized state, and urbapization and Machia-vellianism are positively associated.°

Generally speaking, there were few significantrelationships between the demographic characteristicsof principals and Mach scores. The major exceptiondealt with several aspects of job mobility. Principalswho had been employed in a larger number of schooldistricts in their career tended to be significantly

4Ibid., p. 314.

5lbid., p. 354.

6Ibid., p. 326.

86

more Machiavellian than those employed in only a fewdistricts. Furthermore, those principals with long:enure in only one or two districts, "locals," tendedto be less Machiavellian than those principals withshorter tenure in many districts, "cosmopolitans." Thefindings raise several questions. Do principals whoare high Machs rove more frequently because they areupward mobiles (i.e. because they want to) or becausethey have to move?

Carlson's analysis of administrators suggested thatplace-bound administrators were more limited in theirinfillenc* on organizational change than career-boundadminiairators. To what extent is Machiavellianism ofprincipals related to change? Under what conditionsdo high and low Machs act as change agents? Are highMacho more effective change aspects than low Machs? Inbrief, the findings of this study raised more questionsthan they answered.

Concluding Statement

The primary purpose of this study was to explorethe relationships between Machiavellianism of elementaryand secondary school principals and aspects of teacher-principal interactions. Although there had been littlestudy of Machiavellianism in the public school setting,there was a substantial body of research on Machiavel-lianism studied in the controlled setting of thelaboratory. The evidence from that research stronglysupported the notion that individuals who scored higherand lower on the Mach Scales behave differently,especially in situations requiring improvisation andwhere role behaviors are not rigidly structured. Morespecifically, the experimental research evidence indi-cated that high Machs manipulate more, win more, arepersuaded less, and persuade others more than low Machs.High Machs are markedly less likely to become emo-tionally involved with other people, with sensitiveissues, or in different situations. They tend to focuson explicit, cognitive definitions of the situation andstrategies for succeeding. Furthermore, they are moreoften preferred as partners, chosen as leaders, judgedas more pervasive, and seem to direct and control thetone, substance, and usually the outcome of interaction;

87

however, they do not appear to be more hostile, vicious,or vindictive compared with low Machs.?

These findings in the experimental literature ledto a series of hypotheses and questions which guidedthe present research in the school context; however,the results of this study stand in contrast to the experi-mental results. In general, Machiavellian orientationof the principal was found not to be related to thevariety of aspects of teacher-principal relationsexplored in this investigation; in fact, the strikingfeature of the present results was the consistent lackof systematic relationship bt:tween Machiavellianism andthe dependent variables.

The findings of the study do not lead to any defini-tive conclusions on Machiavellianism of principals andteacher-principal relations. Rather, several hypotheticalexplanations might be offered. First, contrary to thefindings of the experimental research, the relationshipbetween Machiavellian orientations of principals, asmeasured by the Mach V Scale, and aspects of teacher-principal interactions may simply not exist in the schoolsetting. The school context, in general, may not producea situation conducive to the implementation of a Machia-vellian orientation. Furthermcre, high Machs in theexperimental studies achieved their success in a shorttime period, usually less than a few hours, and in smallgroup situations. Whether or not most high Machs havethe ability to adopt their tactics successfully over along period of time in an organizational context remainsan open question.

Another possible explanation of the findings seemsplausible. Although the present explorations did notlead to a situational variable which served as amoderator, it is possible that the careful developmentof indices to measure crucial aspects of the situation(face-to-face interaction, latitude for improvisation,and arouser of irrelevant affect) might provide for theidentification of a situational variable which doesmoderate the Machiavellian relationships. That is, inone type of situation the high Mach may be successfulwhile in other situations the low Mach may achievesuccess. Further, the relationships between Machiavellian

7Christie and Geis, 92. cit., pp. 285-313.

88

principals and aspects of teacher-principal interactionsmay be exceedingly complex in the real world. The inter-action effects of the variables may be stronger than themain effects. The interaction result with respect toconsideration, initiating structure, and Machiavellianismsupports this conjecture. It seems safe to concludethat only through further research will the answers tothese speculations emerge.

89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Periodicals

Andrews, John H. M. "School Organizational Climate:Some Validity Studies," Canadian Education andResearch Digest, V (December, 1965), 317-334.

Appleberry, James and Wayne K. Hoy. "The Pupil ControlIdeology of Professional Personnel in 'Open' and'Closed' Elementary Schools," Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly, V (Fall, 1969), 74-85.

Argyris, Chris. "The Individual and Organization: AnEmpirical Test," Administrative Science Quarterly,IV (September, 1959) , 145-167.

Bales, Robert F. "In Conference," Harvard BusinessReview, XXXII (March-April, 1954), 41-49.

Blanchard, Kenneth H. and Paul Hersey. "A LeadershipTheory for Educational Administrators," Education,XC (April-May, 1970), 303-310.

blumstein, Philip W. and Eugene A. Weinstein. "TheRedress of Distributive Injustice," American Journalof Sociology, LXXIV (January, 1969) 14013741117

braginsky, Dorothea D. "Parent-Child Correlates ofMachiavellianism and Manipulative Behavior,"Ps chological Reports, XXVII (December, 1970),

Brown, Alan F. "Reactions to Leadership," Educati,x.41Administration Quarterly, III (Winter,-In7r,-C::=6:..

Brown, AlanponentXXXVII

F. and John H. House.in Education," Review(October, 1967) ,

"The Organizational Com-of Educational Research,

Burgoon, Michael. "The Relationship Between Willingaessto Manipulate Others and Success in Two DifferentTypes of Basic Speech Communication Courses,"Speech Teacher, XX (September, :971), 178-183.

Calhoon, Richard P. "Niccolo Machiavelli and theTwentieth Century Administrator," Academy of Manage-ment Journal, XII (June, 1969) , 205-212.

90

Davis, Keith E., Kenneth J. Gergen, and Edward E. Jones."Role Playing Variations and Their InformationalValue for Person Perception," Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, LXIII ( September, 1961),302-316.

Day, Robert C. "Some Effects of Combining Close, Puni-tive, and Supportive Styles of Supervision,"Sociometry, XXXIV (December, 1971), 303-327.

Epstein, Gilda F. "Machiavelli and the Devil's Advocate,"Journal of Personalit and Social Ps cholog XI

Everson, Warren L. "Leadership Behavior of High SchoolPrincipals," National Association of SecondarySchool Principals' bulletin, XLIII (Septeiber,1059), 96-101.

Feldman, Robert S. and Karl E. Scheibe. "Determinantsof Dissent in a Psychological Experiment," Journalof Personality, XL (September, 1971) , 331-3TR-7--

Fontana, Allan F. "Machiavellianism and Manipulationin the Mental Patient Role," Journal of PersonalitXXXIX (June, 1971) , 252-263.

Gaitz, Charles M. and Sally L. Hacker. "Interactionand Performance Correlates of Machiavellianism,"Sociological Quarterly, XI (Winter, 1970) , 94-102.

Geis, Florence. "Machiavellianism in a Semireal World,"Proceedings of the Seventy-sixth Annual Conventionof the American Psychological Association, III(1968) , 407-408.

Gemmill, Gary R. and W. J. Heisler. "Machiavellianismas a Factor in Managerial Job Strain, Job Satis-faction, and Upward Mobility," Academy of ManagementJournal, XV (March, 1972), 51-62.

Getzels, Jacob W. and Egon G. Guba. "Social Behaviorand the Administrative Process," School Review,LXV (Winter, 1957) , 423-441.

Hall, Douglass, Benjamin Schneider, and Harold T. Nygren,"Personal Factors in Organizational Identification,"Administrative Science Quarterly, XV (June, 1970),1,6-190.

91

Haralick, Jay G. "Teacher Acceptance of AdministrativeAction," Journal of Experimental Education, XXXVII(Winter, 156-6),)9-47.

Helsel, Ray A., Herbert A. Aurbach, and Donald J.Willower. "Teachers' Perceptions of OrganizationalClimate and. Expectations of Successful Change,"The Journal of Ex rimental Education, XXXVIII(Winter, 11

9

Hemphill, John K. "Leadership Behavior Associated withthe Administrative Reputation of College Depart-ments," ILI:EISM14571gr14292121XE1221991t,XLVI (Nove er,

Hook, Sidney. "The Danger of Authoritarian Attitudesin Teaching Today," School and Society, LXXIII(January, 1951). 3339.

Hoy, Wayne K. "Some Further Notes on the OCDQ," TheJournal of Educational Administration, X (May,'1972), 46-51.

Hoy, Wayne K. and Richard Rees. "Subordinate Loyaltyto Immediate Superior: A Neglected Concept in theStudy of Educational Administration," Sociology ofEducation (in press).

Hoy, Wayne K. and Leonard B. Williams. "Loyalty toImmediate Superior at Alternate Levels in PublicSchools," Educational Administration QuarterlVII (Spring,

Jones, Edward and Boice Daugherty. "Political Orienta-tion and the Perceptual Effects of an AnticipatedReaction," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LIX (NovembiT1959), 340-349.

Jones, Edward, Kenneth J. Gergen and"Some Determinants of Reactionsor Disapproved as a Person," Psgraphs: General and Applied,1-16.

Keith E. Davis.to Being Approved

49g14V2Pc4Pardono-, O. 2) ,

Lindsay, Carl A. and Edmond Marks. "Machiavellian Atti-tudes: Some Measurement and Behavioral Con-siderations," Sociometa, XXIX (September, 1966),228 -236.

92

McNamara, Vincent and Frederick Enns. "DirectiveLeadership and Staff Acceptance of the Principal,"Canadian Administrator, VI (November, 1966), 1-4.

Misumi, Jyuji and Sanshiro Shirakashi. "An ExperimentalStudy of the Effects of Supervisory Behavior onProductivity and Morale in a Hierarchical Organi-zation," Human Relations, XIX (1966), 297-307.

Murray, V. V. and Allen F. Corenblum. "Loyalty to Imme-diate Superior at Alternate Hierarchical Levels ina Bureaucracy," American Journal of Sociology,LXII (July, 1966), 77-85.

Patchen, Martin. "Supervisory Methods and Group Per-formance Norms," Adminiatrative Science Quarterly,VII (December, 1962) , 215 -294.

Plaxton, Robert. "Principal Personality and SchoolOrganizational Climate," CSA Bulletin, IV (July,1i65), 21-35.

Prezzolini, Guiseppe. "The Kernel of Machiavelli," TheNational Review, X (April 8, 1961), 215-219.

Rees, Richard T. and Wayne K. Hoy. "The Principal andTeacher Loyalty," Research Bulletin - New JerseySchool Development-Muncil, XVI (FaIl, 1971), C-8.

Rim, Y. "Machiavellianism and Decisions InvolvingRisk," British Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, V 11966) , )0 -36.

Singer, Jerome E. "The Use of Manipulative Strategies:Machiavellianism and Attractiveness," Sociometry,XXVII (June, 1964), 128-150.

Stewart, Nathaniel. "A Realistic Look at OrganizationalLoyalty," The Management Review, L (January, 1961),19-24.

Stogdill, Ralph. "Leadership, Membership, and Organi-zations," Psychological Bulletin, XLVII (January,1950), 1-15.

Stogdill, Ralph. "Personal Factors Associated withLeadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journalof Psychology, XXV (January, 1948), 35-73.

93

Stogdill, Ralph. "Validity of Leader Behavior Des-criptions," Personnel Psychology, XXII (1969),153-158.

Tronc, Keith E. "Leadership Perceptions of the AmbitiousEducation," Journal of Educational Administration,VIII (October, 1970), 145-168.

Uejio, Clifford K. and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. "EthnicGroup Differences in the Relationship of TrustingAttitudes to Cooperative Behavior," PsychologicalReports, XX (April, 1967), 563-571.

Utz, Robert T. "Principal Leadership Styles and Effec-tiveness as Perceived by Teachers," Proceedingsof the Fifty-sixth Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, (April, 1972),1 -6.

Wallberg, Herbert. "Generalized Regression Models inEducational Research," American EducationalResearch Journal, VIII ItTrilYy,±vaz71,7-7T7-91.

Books

Anderson, Donald P. Organizational Climate of ElementarySchools. Minneapolis, Minn.: Educational Researchand Council, 1964.

Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive.Cambridge, mass:7-1arvaia University Press, 1938.

Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Bidwell, Charles E. and Egon Guba. AdministrativeRelationships. Chicago: Midwest AdministrationCenter, 1957.

Bird, Charles. Social Ps cholo . New York: Appleton,Century, an Cro ts, Inc., 940.

Blau, Peter M. and Richard Scott. Formal Or anizations.San Francisco: Chandler Publis hing Company,

Brown, Robert. Organizational Climate of ElementarySchools. Minneapolis, Minn.: Educational Researchand Development Council, 1965.

94

Carlson, Richard 0. Executive Succession and Organiza-tional Change. Chicago: Waversity of Chicago,Midwest Administration Center, 1962.

Cartwright, Dorwin and Alvin W. Zander (eds.). GroupDynamics: Research and Theory. New York: ow,Peterson and Company, 196D.

Christie, Richard and Florence L. Geis. Studies inPachiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970.

Coons, A]vin E. and Ralph Stogdill (eds.). LeaderBehavior: Its Descri tion and measuremin7--o us, O io: ureau of Business Research,

Ohio State University, 1957.

Dubin, Robert. Human Relations in Administration.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1961.

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of ComplexOrganizations. New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany, 1967.

Feidler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Gouldner, Alvin. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.New York: The Free Press, 1954.

Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York:Appleton, Century, and Crofts, Inc., 1959.

Halpin, Andrew W. The Leadership Behavior of SchoolSuperintendents. Columbus, Ohio: College ofEducation, The Ohio State University, 1956.

Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in Administration.New York: Macmillan Company, 1966.

Halpin, Andrew W. and Don B. Croft. The OrganizationalClimate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Adminis-EFTEIZiiZWITZTTHiversity of Chicago, 1963.

Jay, Antony. Management and Machiavelli. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967.

Lerner, Max. The Prince and The Discourses by NiccoloMachiavelli. New York: The Modern Library, T940.

95

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York:McGraw-Hill nak Company, 1961.

March, James. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago:Rand McNally and Company, 1965.

Milligan, Burton A. Three Renaissance Classics. NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1953.

Moment, David and Abraham Zaleznik. The Dynamics ofInterpervonal Behavior. New York: John Wileyand Sans, 1964.

Morse, Nancy C. Satisfaction in a White Collar Job.Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 19'53.

Patchen, Martin. Participation, Achievement, andInvolvement on the Job. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

19767--

Russell, Bertrand. Power -- A New Social Analysis.New York: Norton, 1938.

Stogdill, Ralph and Alvin Coons. Leader Behavior: ItsDescriptions and Measurement.--C6I4mbus, Ohio:Ohio State UniveriTETgiraiu of Business Research,1957.

Unpublished Materials

Aho, Frederick. "Patterns of Succession in High SchoolPrincipals." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Rutgers University, The State University of NewJersey, 1972.

Uochner, Arthur P. "A Multivariate Investigation ofMachiavellianism and Task StructLre in Four-ManGroups." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Bowling Green State University, 1971.

Bogart, Karen. "Machiavellianism and Individual Differ-ences in Response to Cognitive Dissonance."Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York Uni-versity, 1968.

96

Brickner, Charles E. "An Analysis of Organizational Cli-mate and Leader Behavior in a North Dakota SchoolSystem." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, TheUniversity of North Dakota, 1971.

Campbell, Alan S. "Machiavellianism, Bargaining Experi-ence and Bargaining Advantage: A Study of a Con-versational Game." Unpublished Doctoral disserta-tion, Columbia University, 1971.

Casey, James L. "A Study of Relationships BetweenOrganizational Climate and Selected LeadershipFactors in Administration." Unpublished Doctoraldissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1971.

Desfosses, Louis R. "Some Effects of Machiavellianismand Change of Leaders on Group Productivity."Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, 1971.

Epstein, Gilda F. "Machiavellianism, Dissonance andthe Devil's Advocate." Unpublished Doctoraldissertation, Columbia University, 1966.

French, Denny G. "The Relationships Between Teachers'and Principals' Perceptions of OrganizationalClimate in Elementary Schools and Principals'Perceptions of Administrative Skills." UnpublishedDoctorrl dissertation, Purdue University, 1971.

Geis, Florence L. "Machiavellianism in a Three-PersonGame." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Columbia University, 1964.

Hall, James P. "Explorations Among Perceptions of theLeadership Orientations of Secondary School Prin-cipals and the Organizational Climates of SchoolsThey Administer." Unpublished Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Houston, 1970.

Halpin, Andrew W. and Don B. Croft. The OrganizationalClimate of Schools. U. Office of Education,Final Report, No. SAE 543-8639, 1962.

Harris, Thomas M. "Machiavellianism, Judgment Inde-pendence, and Attitudes Towards Teammates in aCooperative Rating Task." Unpublished Doctoraldissertation, Columbia University, 1966.

97

Hebert, Forrest T. "Factors Affecting Individual Loyaltyto an Organization: The Legislative Organization."Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Universityof Iowa, 1971.

Hymoff, Ira H. "An Experimental Investigation of theRelationship of Machiavellianism to Guilt andCompliance." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,University of Maine, 1970.

Lake, Dale G. "Impression Formation, Machiavellianismand Interpersonal Bargaining." UnpublishedDoctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1967.

MacTaggert, Donald S. "Job Satisfaction and Organiza-tional Openness as Perceived by Elementary Teachersin a Florida Schonl. System." Unpublished Doctoraldissertation, University of Miami, 1971.

Nachamiet, Susan L. "Machiavellianism in Children: TheChildren's Mach Scale and the Bluffing Game."Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity, 1969.

Nelson, Robert. H. "Relationship Between Teacher Per-ception of Reinforcing Behavior of the Principaland Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools."Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, PurdueUniversity, 1971.

Oksenberg, Lois E. "Machiavellianism and Organizationin Five Man Task-Oriented Groups." UnpublishedDoctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968.

Rees, Richard T. "Hierarchical Relationships in PublicSecondary Schools." Unpublished Doctoral disser-tation, Rutgers University, The State Universityof New Jersey, 1971.

Strayer, Will E. "A Study of Attitudes Toward Organi-zational Loyalty." Unpublished Doctoral disser-tation, The George Washington University, 1971,

Wahlin, William S. "Machiavellianism and Winning orLosing Mathematical Games." Unpublished Doctoraldissertation, Columbia University, 1967.

98

APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS

AND COMMUNITIES

School

Number

Professional

Staff

Size

Character

of

Community

Population

Density

(per sq. mi.)4

Population

Change

in

Percent,

(1960-1970)''

Equalized

Valuation,

Per Pupil`

121

S2012.0

50.0

$54,845

213

S3978.6

10.5

56,502

322

S3026.9

8.8

82,031

420

S3941.7

34.7

51,402

517

U-S

8364.8

7.4

53,208

18

S2421.6

20.5

45,072

713

S3978.6

10.5

56,502

813

S1834.1

18.9

76,855

920

S2012.0

50.0

54,845

10

30

S5897.4

3.1

92,401

11

29

U-C

17,771.3

-5.7

28.358

12

25

S-R

168.4

12.6

86,150

13

26

S2421.6

20.5

45,072

14

22

S5897.4

3.1

92,401

15

21

S1079.2

12.1

78,140

16

34

U-C

7278.5

5.1

52,504

17

20

U-S

8364.8

7.4

53,206

18

22

U-S

6995.0

10.1

47,536

19

22

S3941.7

34.7

51,402

20

16

U-S

6285.6

4.9

59,223

21

12

U-S

10,982.3

13.8

47,218

22

28

U-C

7278.5

5.1

52,504

School

Number

Professional

Staff

Size

Character

of

Community1

Population

Density

1

(per sq. mi.)A'

Population

Change

in Percentl

(1960-1970)

Equalized

Valuation,

Per Pupil`

23

17

U-S

2307.0

9.9

$95,439

24

14

S2358.5

43.0

59,722

25

25

S5590.0

3.7

51,151

26

16

S5590.0

3.7

51,151

27

19

S2012.0

50.0

54,845

28

20

S1070.2

12.1

78,140

29

26

U-C

7810.3

3.4

35,031

30

30

U-C

7810.3

3.4

35,031

31

25

S3612.8

9.6

54,384

32

14

S2130.7

13.3

105,659

33

25

S-R

342.8

105.1

41,838

34

16

S-R

342.8

36.8

42,327

35

25

S2742.1

22.1

79,994

36

15

U-S

3936.7

-0.2

77,310

37

20

U-C

7278.5

5.1

52,504

38

14

S2130.7

13.3

105,659

39

20

U-S

8364.8

7.4

53,208

40

23

S2412.6

20.5

45,072

41

87

S2130.7

13.3

105,659

42

134

U-S

7165.1

4.3

59,135

43

52

U-S

7165.1

4.3

59,135

44

77

U-S

7165.1

4.3

59,135

45

74

U-S

7265.8

25.6

59,722

46

67

S2130.7

13.3

105,659

47

72

S2159.9

30.3

55,195

48

50

S2159.9

30.3

55,195

49

55

U-S

7178.8

0.6

62,163

-

School

Number

Professional

Staff

Site

Character

of

Communityl

Population

Density

(per sq. mi.)1

Population

Change

in Percent,

(1960-1970)'

Equalized

Valuation,

Per Pupil"

50

62

U-S

7178.8

0.6

$62,163

51

58

S2268.0

115.6

49,431

52

122

S2268.0

115.6

49,431

53

90

S2268.0

115.6

49,431

54

43

S3o12.8

3.6

54,384

55

100

S2215.5

54.3

51,163

56

45

S3612.8

9.6

54,384

57

50

U-S

12,800.0

12.5

48,312

58

61

U-S

5898.0

5.5

66,342

59

126

U-S

9666.7

6.6

46,905

60

95

S942.0

76.6

82,770

61

126

S1926.9

83.1

47,861

62

150

U-C

21,336.8

0.6

46,904

63

50

U-S

4669.0

8.5

54,793

64

76

U-S

4669.0

8.5

54,793

65

65

U-S

9635.0

0.3

55,332

66

101

U-S

4283.3

25.5

5G,242

67

130

S1831.8

98.1

59,885

68

70

U-C

7278.5

5.1

52,504

69

87

U -S

8013.3

-3.0

65,783

70

60

U-S

9635.0

0.3

55,332

71

125

U-S

4041.4

0.3

76,242

72

157

U-C

17,771.3

-5.7

28,358

73

82

U-C

40,932.1

19.8

24,295

74

150

S5897.4

3.1

92,401

75

64

S-R

210.1

63.9

63,738

School

Professional

Number

Staff

Size

Character

of

Community

Population

Density

(per sq. mi.)'

Population

Change

in Percentl

(1960-1970)

Equalized

Valuation,

Per Pupil`

76

55

U-S

7238.4

3.5

$84,113

77

52

U-S

5827.8

8.2

51,411

78

151

S1539.0

71.1

36,183

79

52

S1390.9

65.3

78,562

80

82

U-C

7278.5

5.1

52,504

1Source:

New Jersey Municipal

Profiles

Jersey Department

of Community Affairs,

PT-6,

(Character Code

- S=Suburban, U-S=Urban

S-R=Suburban Rural.)

- Intensity of Urbanization, New

January, 1972.

Suburban, U-C-Urban

Center,

2Source:

Twenty-first Annual

Report of the Commissionerof Education,

New Jersey State

Department of Education,

1971-72.

APPENDIX B

OPERATIONAL MEASURES

I. Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire'

Directions:1 - READ each item carefully.2 - THINK about how often your principal engages in the

behavior descebed by the item.3 - DECIDE whether he (A) _always (B) often (C) occa-

sionally (D) seldom or (E) never acts 'as describedby tne item.

4 - DRAW A CIRCLE around ONE of the five letters (A B CE) following the item to indicate the answer you

have selected. Astalways Buoften C=occasionallyDieseldom E=never

.A. Initiating Structure

1. He makes his attitude clear to thestaff.

2. He rules with an iron hand.

3. *He works without a plan.

4. He assigns staff members toparticular tasks.

5. He tries out his new ideas withthe staff.

6. He maintains definite standards ofperformance.

7. He criticizes poor work.

8. He makes sure that his part in theschool is understood by bothteachers and students.

ABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDE

ABCDE1Developed at the Center for Business and EconomicResearch, Division of Research, College of Adminis-trative Science, Ohio State University.*Score is reversed.

103

9. He sees to it that staff membersare working to capacity.

10. He sees to it that the work of staffmembers is coordinated.

11. He asks that staff members followstandard rules and regulations.

12. He lets staff members know whatis expected of them.

13. He encourages the use of uniformprocedures.

14. He emphasizes the meeting of dead-lines.

15. He speaks in a manner not to bequestioned.

ABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDE

B.

1.

Consideration

He does little things to make itpleasant to be a member of thestaff. ABCDE

2. He puts suggestions made by thestaff into operation. ABCDE

3. He is friendly and approachable. ABCDE4. He is willing to make changes. ABCDE5. He treats all staff members as

his equals. ABCDE6. He looks out for the personal wel-

fare of the individual staffmembers. ABCDE

7. He refuses to explain his actions. ABCDE8. He is easy to understand. ABCDE9. He does personal favors for staff

members. ABCDE

104

10. He gets staff approval on importantmatters before going ahead. ABCDE

11.*He keeps to himself. A B C D E

12.*He acts without consulting the staff. A B C D E

13. He makes staff members feel at easewhen talking with them. A B C D E

4.*He is slow to accept new ideas. A B C D E

15. He finds time to listen to staffmembers. A B C D E

II. Authoritarianism

Directions:1 - READ each item carefully.2 - THINK about how often your principal engages in the

behavior described by the item.3 - DECIDE whether he (A) always (B) often (C) occa-

sionally (D) seldom or (E) never acts describedby the item.

4 - DRAW A CIRCLE around ONE of the five letters (A BC D E) selected. A =always B=oftenDoseldom En/lever.

C =occasionally

1. He rules with an iron hand. A B C D E

2. He is strict as opposed to lenient. A B C D E

3. He supervises closely rather thanletting subordinates work on theirown. A B C D E

4. He refuses to explain his actions. A B C D E

5. He has an approach to studentswhich does not indicate a pro-fessional orientation. ABCDE

6. He has an authoritarian approach. A B C D E

7. *He is friendly in his relationshipwith subordinates. A B C D E

8. He speaks in a manner not to bequestioned. A B C D E

105

III. Emotional Detachment

Directions:1 - READ the item carefully.2 - THINK about how often your principal engages in the

behavior described by the item.3 - DECIDE whether he (A) always (B) often (C) occa-

sionally (D) seldom or (E) never acts as describedby the item.

4 - DRAW A CIRCLE around ONE of the five letters (A B CD E) selected. A=always B=often C=occasionallyD= seldom E=never

1. *When things don't go smoothly, heis likely to lose his temper orget excited,

IV. Organizational Climate Dimensions2

AB C DE

Directions:Following are some statements about the school setting.Please indicate the extent to which each statementcharacterizes your school or principal by circling theappropriate response.

A.

RO = RARELY OCCURSSO = SOMETIMES OCCURS0 = OFTEN OCCURSVO = VERY FREQUENTLY OCCURS

Disengagement

1. Teachers seek special favors fromthe principal. RO SO 0 VO

2. The mannerisms of the teachers atthis school are annoying. RO SO 0 VO

3. Teachers socialize together insmall select groups. RO SO 0 VO

4. Teachers talk about leaving theschool system. RO SO 0 VO

5. Teachers ask nonsensical questionsin faculty meetings. RO SO 0 VO

2Andrew W. Halpin andtional Climate of Schoolscation, No. SAE 317=8639,

Don B. Croft, The Organiza-(United States Offici6TTdu-Final Report, 1962).

106

6. Teachers exert group pressure onnon-conforming faculty members. RO SO 0 VO

7. Teachers at this school stay bythemselves. RO SO 0 VO

S. There is a minority group ofteachers who always oppose themajority. RO SO 0 VO

9. Teachers interrupt other facultymembers who are talking at staffmeetings. RO SO 0 VO

10. Teachers ramble when they talkin faculty meetings. RO SO 0 VO

B. Thrust

1. The principal tells teachers of newideas he has run across. RD SO 0 VO

2. The principal is easy to understand. RD SO 0 VO

3. The principal goes out of his wayto help teachers. RO SO 0 VO

4. The principal is in the buildingbefore teachers arrive. RD SO 0 VO

5. The principal explains his reasonfor criticism to teachers. RO SO 0 VO

6. The principal uses constructivecriticism. RD SO 0 VO

7. The principal is well prepared whenhe speaks at school functions. RO SO 0 VO

8. The principal sets an example byworking hard himself. RO SO 0 VO

9. The principal looks out for thepersonal welfare of the teachers. RD SO 0 VO

C. Esprit

1. Extra books are available forclassroom use. RD SO 0 VO

107

2. The morale of teachers is high.

3. Teachers in the school show muchschool spirit.

4. There is considerable laughterwhen teachers gather informally.

5. Custodial service is availablewhen needed.

6. The teachers accomplish their workwith great vim, vigor, and pleasure.

7. In faculty meetings, there is thefeeling of "let's get things done."

8. Most of the teachers here acceptthe faults of their colleagues.

9. School supplies are readily avail-able for use in the classroom.

10. Teachers spend time after schoolwith students who have individualproblems.

V. Loyalty to the Principal3

RO SO 0 VO

RID SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

RO SO 0 VO

Directions:Check the one answer in each group which best describesyour feeling about the situation described.

1. *If you had a chance to teach for the same pay inanother school under the direction of another prin-cipal, how would you feel about moving?

a. I would very much prefer to move.----b. I would slightly prefer to move.

c. It would make no difference to me.d. I would slightly prefer to remain where I am.e. I would very much prefer to remain where

I am.

3Wayne K. Hoy and Leonard B. Williams, "Loyalty toImmediate Superior at Alternate Levels in PublicSchools," Educational Administration Quarterly, VII, 2(Spring, 1971), pp. 3-5_.

108

2. *About how often is your principal responsible forthe mistakes in your work unit?

a. Very often.----b. Quite often.

c. Occasionally.d. Very rarely.-Ie. Never.

3. *Generally speaking, how much confidence and trustdo you have in your principal?

a. Almost none.----b. Not much.

c. Some.----d. Quite a lot.

e. Complete.

4. Principals at times must make decisions which seemto be against the current interests of their sub-ordinates. When this happens to you as a teacher,how much trust do you have that your principal'sdecision is in your interest in the long run?

a. Complete trust.----b. A considerable amount of trust.

c. Some trust.d. Only a little trust.e. No trust at all.

5. If your principal transferred and only you and youalone among the staff were given a chance to go withhim (doing the same work for the same pay) how wouldyou feel about making the move?

a. I would very much feel like making the move.-b. I would feel a little lie making the move.

c. I would not care one way or the other.----d. I would feel a little like not moving with

him.e. I would feel very much like not moving with

him.

6. Is your principal the kind of person you reallylike working for?

a. Yes, he (she) really is that kind of person.----b. Yes, he (she) is in many ways.

c. He (she) is in some ways and not in others.d. No, he (she) is not in many ways.e. No, he (she) really is not.

109

7. *All in all how satisfied are you with your principal?a. Very dissatisfied with my principal.

----b. A little dissatisfied.c. Fairly satisfied.d. Quite satisfied.e. Very satisfied with my principal.

8. *How much loyalty do you feel toward your principal?a. Almost none at all.

----b. A little.c. Some.d. Quite a bit.e. A very great deal.

VI. Loyalty to the School

Directions:Check tha one answer which best describes your feelingabout the situation described.

1. How much loyalty do you feel toward your school?a. Almost none at all.

----b. A little.c. Some.d. Quite a bit.

----e. A very great deal.

VII. Leadership Effectiveness

Directions:Check the one answer which best describes your feelingabout the situation described.

1. My principal provides effective leadership. . . .

a. Almost always.----b. Most of the time.

c. Some of the time.d. Seldom.e. Almost never.

110

TEACHER'S INFORMATION SHEET

Instructions:

Please complete this form by checking the appropriatespaces and filling in blanks where indicated. Do notwrite your name anywhere on this form.

111.-= 'Sex ( ) Male ( ) Female

2 - Marital Status: ( ) Single ( ) Married( ) Widowed ( ) Divorced

3 - Age: ( ) under 25 ( ) 25-34 ( ) 35-44( ) 45-50 ( ) over 50

4 - Education: ( ) Baccalaureate( ) Graduate work (no advanced degree)( ) Master's Degree( ) Graduate work beyond the Master's

(no advanced degree)( ) Sixth Year Degree (Specialist)( ) Presently matriculated in a

Doctoral Program

5 - How many years have you taughtprincipal (include the present

6 - Total number of years teachingthe present year)

under the presentyear)

experience (include

7 - Number of years of teaching experience in thisdistrict (include the present year)

8 - Number of years of teaching experience in thisschool (include the present year)

9 - What is your district's collective bargaining agent?( ) NJEA local affiliate ( ) Independent( ) AFT local affiliate ( ) None

10 - Undergraduate Education (Please check ALL appro-priate spaces)

( ) A Teachers' College( ) A Liberal Arts College( ) A Public College (state or municipal)( ) A Private College( ) A College located in New Jersey( ) A College located outside of New Jersey

111

PRINCIPAL'S INFORMATION SHEET

Directions:

Listed below are some questions related to you as anindividual, or to your school. Please check the appro-priate space or fill in the blanks where indicated.Go not write your name anywhere on this form. Thankyou.

1 - Sex

2 -Age

Male ( ) Female ( )

Under 30 ( ) 30-40 ( 41-50 ( )

51 or older ( )

3 - Years as principal (include this year) includingother schools

4 - Years as principal of this school (include thisyear)

5 - Years in teaching prior to becoming principal

6 - In how many school systems have you been employedeither as teacher or administrator?

7 - Haw many children were there in your family?(Include yourself)

8 - How many were boys?

9 - Are you the oldest child in your family?Yes ( ) No ( )

10 - Undergraduate education (please check those thatapply)

I attended college inNew Jersey ( ) Some other state ( )

a foreign country ( )

My undergraduate college wasA state or other public college ( )

A private college ( )

The college was primarily aLiberal Arts College ( )

Teacher Education ( )

112

11 - My highest earned degree is (please check one)MA or MS ( ) Ph.D. ( )

MS in ED. ( ) Ed.D. ( )

Educ. Special. ( ) All but the dissertationtoward the doctorate ( )

12 - Your school is classified as . . . elementary ( )

secondary ( )

13 - Grade level organizationK-4 ( ) 7-9 ( )

K-5 ( ) 9-12 ( )

K-6 ( ) la-12 )

K-8 ( ) 7-12 ( )

1-6 ( ) Other (please specify)

14 - School size (number of pupils)

15 - School size (number of professional staff)

16 - How would you describe the community in which yourschool is located?

Inner City ( )

Primarily urban ( )

Suburban ( )

Primarily rural ( )

113