Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and role innovation of public school principals

Material Information

Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and role innovation of public school principals
Gill, Nola Catherine Hopkins
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xi, 144 leaves : ill., forms ; 29 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
School principals ( lcsh )
School principals -- Colorado ( lcsh )
School principals ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Colorado at Denver, 1992.
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education and Human Development, Administration, Curriculum, and Supervision.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nola Catherine Hopkins Gill.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
28440564 ( OCLC )


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


SOCIALIZATION TACTICS, SELF-EFFICACY, AND ROLE INNOVATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS by Nola Catherine Hopkins Gill B. A., Texas Tech University, 1976 :M. Ed., Colorado State University, 1980 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Administration, Curriculum, and Supervision I 1992 'I


. ,. This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Nola Catherine Hopkins Gill has been approved for the School of Education by Paul Hobson-Panico


Gill, Nola qttherine Hopkins, (Ph. D., Administration, Curriculum, and Supervisiop) Socialization: Tactics, Self-Efficacy, and Role Innovation of Public School Principals : Thesis directed by Professor Michael J. Murphy The role and effectiveness of the principal has been the focus of many educational reform efforts. The principal is viewed as the central figure in school Consideration must be given to how principals are prepared and socialized into this critical role. In 1979, VanMaanen and Schein theorized that there are socialization tactics which structure the experiences of individuals as they move into a new role and influence the role orientation of the newcomer. In 1986, Jones sought to determine empirically the effects of these socialization tactics on role orientation. He concluded that socialization tactics which were individualized jn their approach led to higher role innovation and that the self-efficacy of the individual moderated the effects of the socialization tactics on role innovation. This stUdy added to the research on socialization of individuals into their roles and their resultant responses to their roles. Extending this hypothesis from the business world into the field of education, newly-appointed principals in Colorado in 1991-92 were surveyed. It was


hypothesized that there is a relationship between socialization tactics and role innovation which is moderated by the principal's level of self-efficacy. I A mu.tiple regression analysis yielded a statistically significant relationship between one aspect of individualized socialization tactics and role innovation. Individualized socialization tactics which have random and ambiguous steps and time lines in acquiring knowledge and skill in the role of principalship were related to role innovation. Self-efficacy was not found to impact the hypothesized relationship. No other aspects of socialization were found to contribute to the role innovation of newly-appointed principals. The findi:qgs suggested that school districts are able to enhance the probability of innovation in principals by more individualized socialization processes which are not sequential or lock-step in nature. These results suggest that ambiguity and flexibility of the process enhances the probability that principals will be creative and take risks. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. 1 iv


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project of this magnitude is completed only with the support and encouragement of family and friends. I thank my son, David, who sacrificed the most to me uninterrupted time to work. He rubbed my back, kissed my cheek, and asked, "When wi11 you be finished, Mom?" He was my ultimate encouragement. I thank his father, Wayne, for a11owing me the flexibility and time to work long days and for giving David the attention he I' needed when I was not available. i My father. and mother taught me the value of education and instilled in me the qualio/ of perseverance which directed me through this study. I thank them and other members of my family for their moral support. I want to thank my personal friends who read and gave suggestions for Often they were the listeners and provided the shoulders I needed at the For their friendship and earing, I am grateful. I thank Michael J. Murphy, Dr. Paul Hobson-Panico, and Dr. Richard P. Koeppe for 'their expertise and patience in assisting me with this project. I I thank the many people who provided words of encouragement and went out of their way to assist me. I hold a place of gratitude in my heart.


CONTENTS ...................................... x Tables ...................................... xi CHAPTER 1. IN1RODUCI10N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Research Hypothesis ......................... 10 I Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Defirutlons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Structure of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. REVIEW OF RELATED UTERATURE . . . . . . 15 Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Organizational Socialization . . . . . . . . . . 18 Phases of Organizational Socialization . . . . . . 31 Socialization of Principals . . . . . . . . . . 34 Self-Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 : Role Orientation and Innovation . . . . . . . . 44 Su1111ri,ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


3. METI{ODS .............................. ... . 59 Research Hypothesis .......................... 60 Design Measures PoP:ulation Inst;rumentation Qemographic Infonnation 61 62 63 64 64 Self-Efficacy Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Socialization Tactics Items . . . . . . . . . . 66 Role Innovation Items Pilot Study Procedures 67 68 70 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Data Analysis Limitations of the Methods .................... 71 71 Summary 4. FINDINGS .................................. 73 74 Findings Concerning Instrumentation Factor Analysis Estimates of Reliability Data Analysis vii 75 75 83 84


Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 nescriptive Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Correlations with Independent and Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 88 Correlation Coefficients of Independent Yariables and Dependent Variables ............ 90 Multiple Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . . 91 Summary of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 So.cialization. Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 SelfEfficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Summary of Major Findings . . . . . . . . . 108 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPUCATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Sumrilary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 I I' mp u;:at1ons .............................. 117 Recolnrnendations for Future Research . . . . . 121 Sumniary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 APPENDICES Appendix A 124 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 viii


Appendix C Appendix D BlliUOGRAPHY ................................ ix 132 134 136


FIGURES Figure 1.1. Socialization tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Hypothesized relationships among variables . . . . . . . 11 2.1. Socialization tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.1. Hypothesized relationships among variables . . . . . . . 61 4.1. Socialization tactics as factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.2. Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 X


TABLES Table 4.1. Summary of Findings on Factor Variance ................... 76 4.2. Rotate9 Factor Loadings from Factor Analysis from the Tactic Scales ....................... 77-78 4.3. Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Scales of the Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.4. Summary of Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.5. Correlation Coefficients of the Demographic Variables with the Independent Variables (Passage, Context, Social Aspects, and Self-Efficacy) and the Dependent Variable (Role Innovation) ................................... 89 4.6. Correlation Coefficients for the Independent Variables (Passage, Context, Social Aspects, Self-Efficacy) and the Dependent Variable Innovation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.7. Multiple Regression Equation with All Variables Entered Simultaneously Using Factor Scores . . . . . . . 92 4.8. Multiple Regression Added at Each Step of the Role Equation Using Factor Scores ............. 94 xi


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The nation is expecting reform of education because of the widespread notion that the education of the past cannot prepare citizens for the future. The national : goals written by the National Governors' Association in October 1989 outline high expectations for educational institutions in the United States I I of America. Educational literature continues to emphasize the importance of the principal's role in educational reform efforts (Barth, 1976; Blumberg and Greenfield, 1980; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee, 1982; Greenfield, 1987; Spradling, 1989). Many reform efforts focus on the principal and how the principal's behavior or style facilitates improvement in schools. The current movement to site-based management further emphasizes that the leadership at the school level must be strong and capable. With these expectations for the principalship, onsideration must be given as to how principals are prepared to accept this challenge for leadership (Daresh, 1990). In several : states including Colorado, legislators are introducing laws which are designed to strengthen the preparation programs of school leaders. Mentor programs (Barnett, 1990; Daresh, 1990; Daresh and Playko, 1990), internships (Daresh, 1988; Richards and Fox, 1990), and intense training


requirements (Drury, 1989; Spradling, 1989) are being mandated to ensure that the prospective leaders in schools are able to tackle the significant problems in : education (Daresh, 1990). It is assumed that the socialization and induction processes of new principals have a positive effect on the leadership potential (Daresh, 1990). VanMaanen and Schein (1979) suggested that there are "tactics" which structure the experiences of individuals in transition and influence the role orientation of the newcomer. They purported that the organization can manipulate these tactics to provide the best experience for the newcomer or to facilitate the resulting response that the organization desires. Van Maaiten and Schein (1979) offered an analytical scheme that describes the :structural features of the process of organizational socialization. They stated that an indefinite number of tactics can be structured into six tactical dimensions as follow: 1. Collective versus Individual 2. F9rmal versus Informal 3. Sequential versus Random 4. Fixed versus Variable 5. Serial versus Disjunctive 6. Investiture versus Divestiture 2


Van and Schein (1979) believed that the newcomer's response to the tactics presented by the organization will be "custodial," "content innovative" or "role innovative" in nature. They defined this response ,, as the individual's organizational role orientation including what the person should do how it should be done. The newcomer must respond to the norms associated with the organization. Jones (1986) narrowed the role orientation to custodial or innovative. A custodial response means that the newcomer accepts the status quo without question. An innovative response means that the newcomer questions the status quo and attempts to redefine the role. Thus, the organization can promote or iDhibit the chance of an innovative or a custodial response within the organizati,onal role according to how newcomers are socialized into the organization' (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979). Uninspired custodianship, recalcitrance, and even organizational stagriation are often the direct result of how employees are processed into the organization. Role innovation and ultimately organizational revitalization, at the other extreme, can also be a direct result of how people were processed (p. 255). : Jones (1986) expanded VanMaanen and Schein's theory by classifying the ,tactics or processes differently and proposing that the collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture tacticS are institutionalized and that individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture tactics are individualized (Figure 1.1). He grouped the first two pairs, 3


collective/individual and formal/informal, stating that they deal with the context in which organizations provide information to newcomers. The next two pairs, sequential/random and fixed/variable, were related because they deal with content of the information given to newcomers via socialization. The third set of categories, serial/disjunctive and investiture/divestiture, address the social or interpersonal aspects of the socialization process. These three sets of categories within Jones' study (1986) factored into three separate constructs within his instrument. His empirical findings suggested that institutionalized tactics produce a custodial role orientation and individualized tactics produce an innovative role orientation. Figure 1.1. Socialization tactics. Institutionalized Individualized Collective Individual Context Formal Informal Sequential Random Content Fixed Variable Serial Disjunctive Social Aspects Investiture Divestiture In addition, Jones (1986) stated that a newcomer's sense of self-efficacy plays an impot:tant role as he or she faces the expectations of a new assignment. Self-efficacy is related to an individual's belief that he or she can 4


be successful and feelings of personal mastery (Jones, 1983a). A person's belief in his or her own effectiveness may affect their coping behavior in a new situatio? such as a new position (Jones, 1983a). Fuller, Wood, Rapoport, and Dornbusch (1982)identified efficacy as a significant construct when studying and organizational performance. They looked at the characteristis of organizational structure which may influence performance and organizational efficacy. Individuals seek organizational niches in which perceived efficacy is high. "An understanding of how efficacy operates within the individual and leads to action suggests what features of the organization influence exP.ectancy of obtaining valued outcomes from the setting" (Fuller, et al., p. 8). As Jones (1986) studied, the self-efficacy of an individual can moderate the. effects of the socialization tactics of the organization. Nicholson (1984) predicted role innovation as one possible outcome of a work or job transition in his theory of work role transitions. Nicholson (1984) defined role innovation as "changes in task objectives, methods, materials, scheduling, and in the interpersonal relationships integral to role performance" {p. 175). He stated that role innovation depended on role requirements, :induction and socialization processes, prior occupational socialization and individual motivational orientation (West and Farr, 1989). Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson (1984) gathered data on biographical variables, educational qualifications, occupation and organization, job characteristics, 5


work preferences, self-concepts, and role innovation through The Career Development Survey. They found that a combination of personality and work consistently predicted role innovation (West, 1987a). I Purpose of the Study Principal$ are key individuals in the reform efforts and leadership challenges o( education (Barth, 1976). The manner in which principals are socialized into the school organization determines how the principal will construct the new role (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). Van Maanen and Schein (1979) theorized that the manner in which newcomers are socialized into the role predicts if they will be "custodial" or "innovative" in their organizational role. They believed that socialization is fundamentally a cultural process depending on social interaction. socialization is the process by which an individual gains the knowledge, skills, values, and culture of an organizational role (VanMaanen and Schein, i979; Nelson 1986). Nelson (1986) noted that newcomers to the principalship are frequently unprepared to accept the range of problems, challenges, variety and ambiguity of the role. Principals learn the technical aspects of the job by trial and error and sparse course work in educational administration'(Nelson, 1986). They are not prepared for the psychological demands of the job which can only be gained through practical experience 6


and from more experienced administrators (Aldrich, 1984). VanMaanen and Schein (1979) contended that socialization will occur by some means. or another. "And, whether the tactics used are selected by design or by: accident, they are at least theoretically subject to rapid and complete change at the direction of the management of an organization" (p. 231). I This study assumed that school districts often do not plan for the socialization bf principals. Principals frequently accept the role of principalship 'without careful consideration or preparation for the outcome of the socialization process by either the newcomer or the organization (Roder and Pearlman, 1989). Even though the socialization process is instrumental in determining if the principal will be an innovator in the role (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979; West, 1987a), another construct, which Jones (1986) introduced, also affects how a principal is oriented to the role, the level of self-efficacy of the individual (Jones, 1986). As Jones (1986) stated, "Expectations about self-efficacy directly related to people's perceptions of their success in dealing with past situations and to their expectation about future success" (p. 267). Principals with a high level of efficacy differ from those with a low level in that they perceive their personal competence to be greater. Therefore, they may define their role as principal differently and the 7


socialization: processes may not affect them in the same manner (Jones, 1986). Role inriovation is "the introduction of significant new behaviors into a pre-existing role" (West, 1987a, p. 305). Change in organizations is believed to lead to progress in society (Nicholson and West, 1988). H managers can adjust to change easily and even explore and encourage change through role innovation, tlie consequence may be a better place to live and work (Nicholson and West, 1988). School districts can benefit from planning for the socialization processes of new principals when they are aware of the outcome that specific socialization processes may produce. Depending on the role orientation, .. custodial or innovative, desired by the school district for its principals, a district can design and execute its orientation processes to produce the outcome (Vart Maanen and Schein, 1979; West, 1987a). The efficacy of the individual principal may moderate the effects of the socialization processes (Jones, 1986) . If school districts seek principals with the leadership skills for the future, school districtS must encourage innovation in their principals. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) asserted that innovation can be nurtured in leaders by the manner in which they are socialized into their role. Jones ( 1986) stated that the newcomer's level of self-efficacy is also a determinant in the influence of 8


socialization tactics which lead to innovation. Therefore, the study of the relationship of socialization tactics and self-efficacy can assist school districts in creating opportunities to enhance the role innovation of their leaders. Statement of the Problem This study determined how specific socialization experiences relate to a new principal's role innovation within the organization (Jones, 1986). Individuals differ in their interpretation of socialization strategies according to their own bakgrounds, experiences, and levels of self-efficacy (Jones, 1983a). The effects of the socialization tactics used by a school district may be moderated the level of self-efficacy that the individual brings to the role. In Jones' !)tudy, completed in 1986, he investigated the relationship between the socialization tactics defined by VanMaanen and Schein {1979) and a series of role and personal outcomes. Jones also examined the effects of self-efficacy on custodial or innovative role orientation. A study in Britain measured the role innovation of managers and professionals by using a questionnaire,.:The Career Development Survey, designed by Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson {1984) and based on Nicholson's (1984) theory of work role transition (West, 1987a). This study :was based on Jones' study {1986) but gathered data within the 9


field of education with a different population, newly-appointed principals. Role innovation was measured using the revised section of The Career Development Survey (Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson, 1984). Newcomers to the principalship were inducted into the field of education previously unlike the population of full-time graduate school students in Jones' study (1986). Newly-assigned principals were initially promoted from the ranks of a teacher or assistant principal, therefore, some socialization had already occurred previously. This project examined how the socialization tactics of the school district related to the role innovation of newly-assigned principals, and it determined how the principal's level of self-efficacy influenced the effects of the socialization tactics. Research Hypothesis The hypothesis addressed in this study was based on two of the hypotheses of Jones' study in 1986. It was hypothesized that there is a relationship between socialization tactics and ro.le innovation which is moderated by the principal's level of self-efficacy. Figure 1.2 illustrates the hypothesized relationships among the variables. Institutionalized socialization tactics were associated with low role innovation. Individualized socialization tactics were associated with high role 10


innovation.. The principal's level of self-efficacy strengthened or weakened that relationship. For example, if the principal's level of self-efficacy is high, I the institutionalized socialization tactics will associate with higher role innovation.;. a. Each of the institutionalized socialization processes are associated with a lower role innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is low and a higher role innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is high. b. Each of the individualized socialization processes are associated with a higher role ';innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is high and a I lower role iimovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is low. Figure 1.2. Hypothesized relationships among variables. Soclaliz.ation Tactics Individual Individual Informal Random Variaple Disjun'ptive Divestiture Institutional Collective Formal Fixed Serial: Investiture ......................... 'High ....... . , . . . . , . . :High . . iSelf . , :Low , . . , . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : ...... :-, . Efficacy; . : ...... . . . . . . . . :......, . ........................ 11 High .......... Low


Methods This was designed to examine the relationships among the specific socialization= tactics experienced by a new principal, the principal's level of self-efficacy,. and the role innovation of the principal. Public school prfncipals new to the principalship in the Fall of 1991 in the state of Colorado comprised the population. The entire population was surveyed in a two-stage model. The self-efficacy instrument and the demographic data questionnaire were mailed in September 1991 as new principals we're beginning their new positions. At the end of the first semester of the new role (January 1992), data were collected about the tactics experienced and the role innovation of the new principal. The study relied on self .. reported measures. The were asked to provide descriptive information and respond to statements ;which determined their level of self-efficacy as they entered into the position. the second stage, they responded to statements about their socialization experiences in their new position and answered questions which determined their role innovation. The instruments used to measure self-efficacy and socialization tactics were by Jones in 1986. The role innovation section of The Career Development Survey was used to measure role innovation (Alban-Metcalfe 12


and 1984 ). The demographic information section was designed by this The questionnaires were sent through the mail to the selected their schools with a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. They were coded so that the Time 1 questionnaires could be matched the Time 2 questionnaires. The mailings were followed up with a phone call to the non-respondents two weeks later. The data were analyzed with The Statistical Package for the Social I Sciences V3.0). Definitions social learning which leads the individual to acquire the knowledge, skills, feelings, attitudes and desires of the group and accept them as his own in the role he performs (Clausen, 1968a). tactics--socialization processes which focus on the organization heed to the individual (Jones, 1986). These tactics are listed as collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture processes. IndiVidualized tactics--socialization processes which focus on the individual without concern for the convenience of the organization (Jones, 1986). These. tactics are labeled individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture processes. 13


Role innovation--the introduction of significant new behaviors into a I pre-existing role such as changes in task objectives, methods, materials, scheduling, the interpersonal relationships integral to role performance (West, 1987a; Nicholson, 1984). Self-efficacy--the individual's judgment of how well he can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations (Bandura, 1982) or the individual's perceived expectancy of obtaining valued outcomes through I personal effort (Fuller et al., 1982). Structure of the Study This study is organized in standard thesis format. The first chapter provides an introduction to the topic and gives the rationale and background '' of the problem. The second chapter reviews the literature and previous research. Chapter 3 describes the methods used to conduct the study. The data and summary of the findings are in chapter 4, and the conclusions and recommendations for further study are delineated in chapter 5 . I 14


CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATIJRE This chapter is organized by the three major constructs of this research project--socialization, self-efficacy, and role innovation. Several sections explicate the, socialization process. First, a general and broad explanation of the history and evolving definition of socialization is given. A review of the literature and models on the topic of socialization within an organization is provided next. The third section describes socialization in phases and is followed by the literature on the socialization of school principals. The second field, 'self-efficacy, is traced in the literature. Finally, the literature on role orientation or role innovation is described. Socialization The review of the literatlire on socialization provided several generalized definitions. This section traces the development of socialization as a construct and the refinement of its definition. One broad definition is the "development of the individual as a social being and participant in society" (Clausen, 1968a, p. 3). Socialization is a process of interaction between a person and others who wish to influence him, a process that entails many phases and changes. Some theorists stressed the learning accomplished by the individual; others


stressed the. societal influence on the individual which determined an acceptable range of behavior (Clausen, 1968a). consists of those patterns of action or aspects of action which inculcate in individuals the skills (including knowledge), motives and attitudes necessary for the performance of present or anticipated roles" (Aberle cited in Clausen, 1968a, p. 3). Clearly, individuals must fit their behavior into the acceptable range of society by acknowledging and conforming to the societal norms (Clausen, 1968a). Socialization efforts lead the new person to accept and commit to the norms of the society or the group of which he will become a member. The group's goal is to have its values become the values of the individual (Clausen, 1968a). Socialization is social learning which leads the individual to acquire the knowledge, skills, feelings, attitudes, and desires of the group and display them as his own in the role he performs (Clausen, 1968a). The tem1, socialization, was first used in the discipline of sociology in the mid-1890's a5 a social process and had a variety of meanings for the next few decades. In the late 1930's, the term gained more standardization of meaning; sociological literature has dealt continually with the process of socialization since that time (Clausen, 1968b). The discipline of psychology developed the concept of soCialization as a process of learning. Theories of learning and personality included socialization research since the 1930's. More recently, 16


anthropological studies have influenced the increase of interest in socialization 'I as the viewing of cultures as a whole including the enculturation of an individual into society. Other societal arenas have influenced the interest in the topic of socialization such as adult education, public welfare, social philosophy, and clinical psychiatry (Clausen, 1968b). Brim (1968) addressed socialization in terms of role acquisition and how one learns to perform the various roles in an individual's life--occupational, family, conununity. Brim noted that social institutions have developed formal assistance programs to help new members socialize to the group, and informal methods adults in socialization efforts most frequently. He categorizes socialization in occupations into two groups, entry and changes in or on the job (i.e., new work skills, new interpersonal relationships, and new aspirations) .. Entry refers to learning an occupation including the specific skills training involved. Most adults in their lifetime are required to learn new skills or lose their job because job tasks are changing rapidly. New work skills are required when adults change from one job or another including promotions, demotions, lateral moves or discharges. New work situations demand that new interpersonal relationships be learned. Many times career aspirations must be adjusted to the realities of the level of achievement (Brim, 1968). I Robert A Levine (1969) aligned the process of socialization with the I 17


disciplines Of cultural anthropology, personality psychology, and sociology. He stated that socialization is enculturation according to the anthropologists; it is I the acquisition of impulse control according to the psychologists; and, it is role training according to the sociologists. Because the early socialization efforts often are not compatible with later role demands, sociologists asserted that these two requirements must become more compatible to ensure survival and stability of society. Levine (1969) further developed the notion that these three views about socialization are not necessarily incompatible and suggested a more comprehensive view of the socialization process than previously understood. Organizational Socialization Socialization was defined as a lifelong process of learning norms and values of different and varied groups that an individual may join (Clausen, 1968a). There are phases in a person's life which are more intense in terms of socialization influences such as times when a person acquires a new role within an organization. Robert Presthus made the point clearly, The mechanisms that society employs to inculcate its value1s may also be seen at work within the organization. The organization, in a word, its members in a way similar to that of a society. (Denhardt, 1968, p. 443) VanMaanen (1976) defined organizational socialization as "the process by 18


which a person learns the values, norms and required behaviors which permit him to participate as a member of the organization" (p. 67). The purpose of the processes associated with socialization involves providing an individual with the knowledge, ability and motivation to play a defined role. The outcomes of the socialization process result from the organization's ability to select and utilize methods which communicate the relevant role behaviors and I the valued rewards of those behaviors (VanMaanen, 1976). Schein (1968), in defining organizational socialization as the process of "learning the ropes" (p. 2) within an organization, attested that it happens in school, wheQ one enters an organization for the first job, when one switches departments; within an organization, when one changes rank within an and when one leaves an organization and enters another. Organizations create a series of events which serve to undo old values so that the person will be ready to learn the new values of the new organization. This process was compared to Lewin's unfreezing, changing, and refreezing stages (Schein, 1968). The most important function of organizational socialization is to build commitment and loyalty to the organization (Schein, 1968). The study of organizational socialization focuses on the features of the social context and on the general properties of organizations which lead to different socialization outcomes (Wheeler, 1966). Wheeler categorized organizations by whether they are social or nonsocial and proposed a typology 19


of interpersonal settings which orients the recruit in defining the. situation. The variables which differentiate organizations include organizational goals and internal structure, recruits' patterns of movement through the organization, and the relation between the organization and the broader society. Wheeler (1966) set the stage for further study and theories of socialization. processes within an organization. Sociology persistently asserts the dichotomy of the work place between the collegial asp:ects and the administrative objectives (VanMaanen and Barley, 1984 ). Organizational theories investigate the administrative or rational end of the continuum while occupational communities encompass the communal or collegial aspects. Physical and social conditions of particular lines of work promote occupational communities which have unique work cultures, values, norms, perspectives, relationships, codes and rituals (VanMaanen and Barley, 1984). Occupational socialization encompasses all learning that must take place for an :adult to assume a work role including education and the knowledge and skills for a specific position (Moore, 1969). Occupational selection and performance, the internalization of occupational norms, and the modes of reinforcement are included in occupational socialization (Moore, 1969). Organizations are challenged to deal with the socialization of a newcomer as he learns a new role (Nelson, 1986). Schein (1968) noted that the process 20


of organizational socialization can be too easily overlooked but if not accomplished successfully can be detrimental to an individual's career. Furthermore, socialization processes can promote or inhibit organizations as well. The' speed and effectiveness of socialization determine employee loyalty, commitment, productivity, and turnover. The basic stability and effectiveness of organizations therefore depends upon their ability to socialize new members (Schein, 1968, p. 2). (1968) discovered that bureaucratic socialization involves the of the organization's values and is essential for the maintenance of the organization. A model of socialization processes was developed by Feldman (1976) which identified three stages of socialization, specified the activities at each stage apd detailed the personal and organizational contingencies that control an individual's movement through the stages. The study involved hospital who helped to develop, refine, and test the model. Four variables were identified as possible outcomes of the socialization satisfaction, mutual influence, internal work motivation, and '' job involvement. Feldman (1976) concluded that socialization programs do affect the general satisfaction and the feeling of autonomy and personal influence that workers have. Socialization processes do not seem to affect internal work motivation or job involvement (Feldman, 1976). In 1981, Feldman proposed a model which clarified the thinking about organizational 21


into a set of multiple simultaneous processes with a range of outcomes. He stated that altering the ways that new recruits are socialized is an effective organizational change strategy. Organizational socialization -results in identity change (Brim, 1966) and behavioral outcomes (Van Maanen, 1976; Schein, 1978; and Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). Schein (1971a) described a model of organization which assisted in understanding the transition of an individual into new organizational roles. The newcorrler has to encounter all three boundary passages. The first dimension functional referring to the various skills and tasks performed by those in a particular organizational role. The second dimension is hierarchical implying the context of the authority relationship with peers, subordinates, and superordinates. The third dimension is inclusionazy referring to time when the individual is included in the informal organization. Organizational socialization processes are unending throughout the career of an individual but are most apparent while the person is passing I through one of these boundaries. Schein (1971a) stated that a person's influence on the organization is called innovation and will occur. in the middle of a given stage, at the maximum distance from past or future boundary passages. Socialization processes involve the use of specific tactics to structure the experiences of individuals in transition from one role to another (Van 22


Maanen and Schein, 1979). Although an organization can select specific options to help newcomers learn their roles (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979), Nelson (1986) stated that organizational socialization processes are often taken for granted or ignored by an organization's decision makers. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) asserted that the culture of the organization provides for' the socialization of a newcomer either by accident or by design. Some c6mmon methods used by organizations for socialization include selective recruitment, sponsorship and apprenticeship, evaluation and feedback strategies, selective communication, transfer and promotion practices, moilitoring, the use of sanctions, and preservice and inservice training (Nelson, 1986). New members are encouraged to change by using three tactics: Providing rewards, withholding rewards or providing negative or doing nothing (Porter cited in Nelson, 1986). to VanMaanen and Schein (1979), the organization structures socialization 1processes in three conceptual ways to define the role for the I newcomer: A knowledge base, a strategy base, and a mission or purpose within the organization. 23


Van and Schein (1979) structured organizational socialization processes into six tactic& dimensions which are as follow: 1. Collective versus Individual 2. Formal versus Informal 3. Sequential versus Random 4. 'Fixed versus Variable 5 .. Serial versus Disjunctive 6. Investiture versus Divestiture. The individual/collective mode of organizational socialization refers to the tactics of either processing recruits singly and in isolation from one another or putting them through a relatively common set of experiences as a group. The formal/informal dimension refers to the degree to which recruits are segregated from regular organizational members and processed through a set of experiences designed explicitly for newcomers. Formal tactics include programs which require the recruit to go through a training period within the organization prior to formally assuming duties. The informal mode refers to tactics which do not distinguish the newcomer's role specifically and are not formally stru'ctured as training. Informal socialization processes refer to tactics which require the recruit to learn by trial and error (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979). Formal and informal socialization processes are closely related to the 24


collective artd individual dimension but can be different. Most collective processes are formal, but some are informal. Formal processes concentrate'more upon attitude than actions or skills (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979). The degree to which an organization specifies discrete and identifiable steps leading to the role being pursued by the recruit is the critical attribute involved in sequential/random socialization processes. Random socialization means that the sequence of steps leading to the role is unknown, ambiguous, or continually changing. The fixed/variable dimension refers to the existence of definite timetables according to. which recruits may gauge their progress through the induction period associated with a given role. A fixed socialization process provides the recruit with the precise time line for completing a given boundary passage. The serial/disjunctive dimension refers to the availability of role models by which reeruits learn how to proceed in the new role. This dimension commonly translates into the process by which the newcomer follows the actions of who assist the newcomer through the induction phase by providing information and feedback (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979). The last dimension discussed by VanMaanen and Schein (1979) concerns the confirmation and usefulness of personal characteristics of the recruit to the organization in the context of the role assigned. In situations where there 25


exists a congruence between personal characteristics of the recruit and perceived role requirements, an investiture process will result. In situations where the personal characteristics the recruit brings to the role and organization are undesirable for the role or organization, a divestiture process will result in which the organization will attempt to change personal characteristics of the newcomer. The tactics are defined as if they are found independent of each other, but, in reality, they are associated with one another with a cumulative, not necessarily compatible, impact on the recruit. VanMaanen and Schein (1979) further suggested that "strategic combinations of socialization tactics .. (p. 253) within an organization can promote from its recruits custodial, content-innovative, or role-innovative responses. VanMaanen and Schein (1979) stated that: there are particular forms of socialization that can enhance or retard the likelihood of an innovative or custodial response to an organizationally defined role no matter what the attributes of the being processed or how the particular environment is characterized within which the process occurs (p. 230). In a custodial response, the newcomer does not question the knowledge, strategies, or purposes associated with the role, but accepts the status quo (Schein, 1971b). A role response which develops improvement or changes in the knowledge base or practices of a role is referred to as content innovation. The mission Of the organization is not questioned, but the existing practices 26


are A response which seeks to redefine the entire role by attempting to change the mission associated with the role is termed role innovation .. Custodial responses and innovative responses are bipolar with the most extreni.e innovative response being role innovation. Less extreme, but as innovative in some cases, are those responses which are content innovative (Schein, 1971b ). VanMaanen and Schein (1979) concluded with three propositions which are stated as follows: 1. Sequntial, variable, serial and divestiture processes elicit a custodial response from a recruit; 2. Collective, formal, random, fixed, and disjunctive processes produce content innovation; and, 3. Roleinnovation, the extreme form of innovation, is most likely to occur through individual, informal, random, disjunctive and investiture socialization processes. i Jones (1986) further investigated the relationship between the socialization tactics defined by VanMaanen and Schein (1979) and a series of role and personal outcomes. He measured role orientation; high scores correlated to an innovative orientation, and low scores linked to a custodial orientation. :Additional role outcomes included role conflict and ambiguity which were measured by scales developed by Rizzo, House, and Urtzman 27


(1970). Per:sonal outcome variables included commitment and satisfaction. Commitment was measured using an abbreviated version of the scale by Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974). Satisfaction was measured by the Faces (Kunin, 1955) as an indicator of overall job satisfaction. Intention to quit was another personal outcome variable measured with a two-item scale. Jones used graduate students to determine their level of self-efficacy and, five months later, after they were newly employed, he determined the socialization tactics used. He concluded that reducing uncertainty is the major task of newcomers and organizations can influence the way newcomers respond to the situation by the methods of socialization used. He stated further that there exists a pattern of relationships supporting the notion that different socialization tactics result in different outcomes (Jones, 1986). Jones (1986) grouped content innovation and role innovation together into an innovative response to role orientation with the other end of the ; continuum 'being a custodial response. Jones (1986) classified the socialization tactics of Van Maanen and Schein (1979) in a different manner. Collective, f(;>rmal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture processes became institutiona,lized in his scheme. Individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive .and divestiture processes were individualized. He further grouped the pairs of tactics into three factors for his analysis. The first two, 28


collective/individual and formal/informal, were labeled Context. They describe contexts in which organizations provide information to \ newcomers., The second set, sequential/random and fixed/variable, -relate to the content of information provided to newcomers by way of the socialization process. The third set, serial/disjunctive and investiture/divestiture, were related beeause they describe the social or interpersonal aspects of the socialization process (Jones, 1986). Jones (1986) disagreed with VanMaanen and Schein about the response I of the newcomer to two of the socialization tactics. He said that fixed tactics might not to innovative responses but to custodial responses because the .. newcomer would not strive forward if they knew exactly the path of their future from the beginning. He argued that it seemed more likely that variable tactics would encourage an innovative response when the future was uncertain especially if the newcomer was rewarded with upward mobility for his dealing with uncertain situations. Likewise, the investiture and divestiture tactics might not to innovative and custodial responses, respectively, as Van Maanen and Schein proposed. Jones stated that divestiture might cause individuals to question definitions of the situation and stimulate an innovative role orientation. Furthermore, if a newcomer was confirmed in their own competency early stage in their career, it might result in custodial orientations resulting from self-fulfilling beliefs (Jones, 1986). 29


I Figure 2.1 illustrates Jones' resultant classification of the socialization tactics. Figure 2.1. Socialization tactics. Institutionalized Individualized Collective Individual Context Formal Informal : Sequential Random Content Fixed Variable Serial Disjunctive Socia] Aspects Investiture Divestiture Therefore, in his study, Jones (1986) hypothesized that all of the institutionalized socialization tactics produce custodial role orientations and 'that the individualized tactics produce innovative role orientation. He stated that the self;efficacy of the individual moderated that relationship. Nicholson (1984) presented a theory of work role transitions linking personal an4 organizational socialization outcomes with the characteristics of the person, the role, and the organization. One of the outcomes of work transitions is role innovation depending on role requirements, induction and processes, prior occupational socialization and individual motivational 'orientation (West and Farr, 1989). The principle of the theory is 30


that personal development and role development are modes of adjusting to a transition. Phases of Organizational Socialization Organizational socialization is viewed as occurring in stages or phases (Feldman, 1976; Van Maanen, 1976; Schein, 1978). Feldman (1976) developed a three-stage model--Getting In, Breaking In, and Settling In. The first stage, Getting In, occurs prior to the actual entry into the group to which individual aspires. Merton (1968) originally named the phase, "anticipatory socialization" (p. 319). The concept refers to the degree that the individual is, prepared prior to entry to occupy an organizational position. This socialization process results from all the learning experiences, expectations, values, skills, and judgements that the person has acquired about the new setting (Van: Maanen, 1984). Referring to Schein's boundaries (1971a) of organizational role. transitions, functional, hierarchical, and inclusionary, Van Maanen (1976) stated that anticipatory socialization becomes more important to the individual as he nears the boundary points. Schein (,1967) investigated the role of the professional school as a socializing institution relating to the anticipatory stage of socialization. He specifically focused on the attitudes and values that a student acquires and when and how they are acquired in the educational process. The attitudes 31


and values of a person may be the prerequisites for being granted an occupational role or for being promoted. The second phase, organizational entry, begins as an event when new members enter an organization (Wanous, 1977). The process of socialization may begin with the recruitment phase, but it continues after the hiring (Feldman, 1988). During the second phase of Feldman's 0976) model, Breaking In, individuals experience "entry shock" (p. 71) as they first join the organization. This phase generally lasts three or four months while individuals realize the scope of the new job and new organization. During this phase, socialization activities are most intense and obvious, the newcomer adjusts his attitudes, values, and work habits deliberately (Feldman, 1988). '' Louis (1980) described the individual's feeling during the entry phase as surprise characterized by disorientation, foreignness, and sensory overload. Surprise "represents a difference between an individual's anticipations and subsequent.experiences in the new setting" (Louis, 1980, p. 237). This experience has acquired the coined phrase, "reality shock" (Hughes cited in VanMaanen, 1976, p. 84). The reality of the situation is often different than the individu3.1 expects, and the individual experiences the shock or surprise when he discovers how dissimilar are the expectations and reality (Nicholson and West, 1988). Surprise is a common reaction even when managers are 32


transferring within the organization, but usually the surprise reaction is a negative one rather than positive. This phase is usually stressful and exciting to the newcomer (Nicholson and West, 1988). Newcomers, while in a state of anxiety during the transition, are motivated to reduce anxiety by learning the role requirements as quickly as possible (VanMaanen, 1976). The newcomer has a need to make sense of the experience he is having and relies on several inputs--past experiences, general personal characteristics including locus of control, cultural assumptions, and information: and interpretations from others (Louis, 1980). Louis stated further that entry practices which enhance newcomers' understandings of their experiences in and of new organizational settings will assist newcomers in adapting. VanMaanen (1976) determined that the ''breaking in" period when the individual enters the organization is the phase in which the organization is most with the individual. He cited several studies which indicate that early organizational experiences are the major influence on one's later organizationally relevant beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. During this phase, the new member is extremely receptive to influence. It is the organization's challenge to find the means to facilitate this process (VanMaanen, 1976). The stability. and productiveness of any organization depend on the manner in which newcomers learn to carry out their tasks (VanMaanen, 1976). Berlew 33


and Hall (1?66) found that the performance of managers was dependent upon the nature of their induction into the firm. In the Feldman's (1976) third stage, Settling In, the newcomer begins to adjust to the organization during the third or fourth month and concludes with this .. metamorphosis .. process in the sixth or seventh month (Feldman, 1988). During this phase, the individual becomes more compliant, identifies with the group and internalizes the culture of the organization (VanMaanen, 1976). The research literature dealt with the_ beginning and ending points of careers but neglected the joh changes and transitions of the journey (Nicholson and West, 1988). The cycle of work role transitions that Nicholson and West (1988) developed clearly depicts the four stages of change that the individual e'9'eriences when changing jobs. The first stage is the period of anticipation 'or preparation, the second phase is the encounter or 'reality shock' period, and the third phase is the adjustment phase which leads to the outcomes of role innovation and/or personal change. Role innovation is positively linked to work satisfaction and personal change. Finally, the individual e.xperiences a period of stabilization; a denouement, which often is the of the next cycle (Nicholson and West, 1988). Socialization of Principals The research on socialization of educational administrators began with 34


Stapley's stU;dy in 1958. Stapley (1958) sought to discover and analyze how individuals identified, trained, selected for, and oriented to elementary school prindpalships. He concluded that the most prevalent means of orienting new elementary school principals, in order of priority, is informal discussion with the superintendents, administrative meetings, and faculty meetings (Stapley, 1958). Bridges (1965) studied the influence of the bureaucratic role on the behavior of school principals. He found that principals with more experience conformed to the bureaucratic role expectations more than principals with less experience. The principal's personality exerts more influence in the early years of the principalship (Bridges, 1965). In 1966, :.Blood looked at the effect of teaching experience on the preparation of school principals (Augenstein, 1987). He was able to determine that teachers who aspire to be principals behave by "GASing" (Qetting the: Attention of ..Superiors)(p. 29). This GASing alienated the teacher from peers but afforded the teacher access to the principal's perspective of the work world. Blood's conclusion was that the teaching experience pf aspiring principals differed from other teachers because the reference gr'?ups for that teacher was outside the classroom (Augenstein, 1987). Bridges' was replicated in 1972 by McCabe who did not confirm 35


Bridges' findings of the influence of personality and bureaucracy on principal I behavior (J\ugenstein, 1987). Unlike Bridges, McCabe did not find that organizational size, grade level or experience influenced teachers' perceptions of their principals' organizational behavior (Augenstein, 1987). He did discover that time changes the teachers' perceptions of their principals' I organizational behavior. He postulated on the socialization process of I teachers who become principals concluding that principals make little change in their behavior over time because they have developed a picture of the I. role 1987). In 1973,; Wolcott completed an ethnographic study of a single principal. Central of(ice personnel and other principals were observed to be very important in the socialization process transmitting role expectations orally from one generation to the next (Wolcott, 1973). Wolcott (1973) determined that "principals serve their institutions and their society as monitors for , I continuity" (p. 321). He concluded that the principal serves to maintain transition arid continuity in a complex bureaucracy of society. 'I '' ,. Mascaro (1974) studied ''The Early On-the-Job Socialization of First-Year Elementary .School Principals" developing a descriptive and explanatory model. He focused on the conflicts between a first-year principal's concept of the role and its demands upon him. Principals enter the role expecting to be instructionat leaders and learn that the time demands of other pressing needs 36


cause them to redefme their role (Mascaro, 1974). In 197( Gussner set out to document, describe and analyze the process through which an individual was socialized into an administrative role. As participant observer, the researcher concluded that there are five stages in the process of socialization into an administrative role: Absorbing information, emerging personal concerns, establishing self assurance, role established, and a true contributor. Gussner (1974) experienced two forces during the process. The first force caused him to learn about and carry out the responsibilities of the new role undergoing internal changes simultaneously. The second force involved his :acceptance of the aspects of the role and his own personality in that role. When the administrator identified, defined, and carried out the daily routines and tasks expected of him and internally accepted the established role, socialization was completed. This process was accomplished in an orderly fashion: Step 1, acceptance of routines and duties, Step 2, acceptance of one-self as a human being, Step 3, acceptance of the organizational definition of the established role, and Step 4, acceptance and understanding of the positive and negative aspects of the established role (Gussner, 1974). Kelly and Metzcus (1975) investigated socialization of Catholic school principals comparing them to public school administrators. They conclu9ed that administrators in both types of schools share common work values. 37


A study of the organizational socialization of educational administrators was completed by Greenfield (1977a, 1977b). He concluded that the candidate behavior was a function of the extensiveness of the interpersonal repertoire which the candidate brought to the situation and the contextual properties of the situation itself. An explanatory framework for understanding the process included the concepts of anticipatory socialization, situational adjustment, interpersonal orientation, perspective, organizational space, GASing (Getting the Attention of Superiors), and socialization as role-learning (Greenfield, 1977b ). Women are the smaller proportion of elementary administrators. Sandorff (1981) identified the socialization factors of promotion for women and hypothesized some causes for the lack of representation of women among elementary administrators. A study was conducted by Alvy in 1984 to identify the major difficulties of new principals. Newcomer problems were categorized by major responsibility areas, component activities, and administrative processes. The two most difficult areas of responsibility for new principals were curriculum and instruction and professional personnel. Manipulation of and alienation from I the faculty, patience and flexibility concerning staff and community, time constraints, and development of a broader perspective characterize the socialization of principals (Alvy, 1984). 38


Greenfield (1985) proposed a theoretical framework for the study of preparation, practices and outcomes and discussed moral socialization of school administrators. Moral socialization outcomes are the attitudes, values and beliefs associated with satisfactory performance of the role. Technical socialization outcomes are the knowledge and behavior of skills associated with the Formal preparation programs are focused on technical socialization outcomes (Greenfield, 1985). Moral socialization occurs informally and is mediated by the culture of the school organization. '. I Greenfield concluded that socialization processes of learning the administrative role are extremely stable and foster a custodial response to the role. He stated that an innovative response is the exception. Socialization processes are pivot,al in maintaining or changing the culture of schools (Greenfield,: 1985). Kelleher (1982) described "A Bad Beginning as Principal" (p. 75). He stated that entry resulted in his being unable to discover the significant norms of the community in which he was a first-time principal. He made assumptions based on his past experience, applied it to the present situation, and suffered loss of his position as a result (Kelleher, 1982). Aldrich ( 1984) described his experience as a first year principal summarizing by saying that nothing in his background prepared him adequately for the problems he faced. Lane (1984) accented the point by 39


stating the :It is no secret that the major means of socialization available to educators is learning by doing" (p. 7). A study of first and second year principals classified the problems and issues as role clarification, limitations on technical expertise, and difficulties with socialization to the profession and/or to a particular school system (Daresh, 1986). The conclusions stated that principals need a better type of practicum to let them experience the world of administration prior to their first job, that specialized training needs to focus on law, school finance, teacher evaluation 'procedures, computer application and other practical issues, that new principals need more collegial support, and that principals need patient mentors to talk about job concerns (Daresh, 1986). In a recent article, Daresh (1990) further described some of the characteristics of effective mentors when establishing a mentorship program for school administrators. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the Principal Selection Guide (1987) stated that too often principals are not given sufficient support from their supervisors. Effective supervisors provided the support from other experienced principals that will help new principals adjust and succeed. A study was conducted to identify and describe the support that beginning principals receive during the selection and entry phases of their careers 40


(Parkay and Currie, 1989). Nine major sources of support were identified: district, peers, faculty /staff, administrative team, parents, family, community, students, and other (Parkay and Currie, 1989). A related study of beginning I principals sought to document and describe the school culture orientations (Roberts, 1989). The results indicated that beginning principals demonstrated weak cultur3.1 orientations and achievements in the areas of cultural linkages, loose and tight coupling, and leadership values (Roberts, 1989). Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy is an expectancy construct derived from several theoretical bases, locus of control by Rotter, attribution theory by Weiner, personal causation by deCharms, and intrinsic motivation by Deci (Douglas, 1991). Lewin and Vroom led early research efforts on motivation and the concept of expectancy which eventually developed into efficacy theory (Douglas, 1991). Vroom concluded that high individual motivation was caused by high value and high expectancy of achieving an objective. Lewin stated that the expectancy or difficulty of task success predicted the value placed on desired outcomes. Routine, less challenging tasks would have less value resulting in i decreased motivation and efficacy (Douglas, 1991). Rotter's (1966) theories and studies developed a strong foundation for the construct of self-efficacy. Rotter (1966) observed that an individual's success 41


on a task had different consequences depending on whether the person believed that the outcome resulted from chance or from his own skill. He developed and validated an instrument to determine the degree to which an individual perceives that a reward is contingent upon his own behavior (internal control) versus the degree to which he feels the reward is controlled by forces of himself and may occur independently of his own action (external control). Rotter (1966) hypothesized that this variable is significant in understariding learning processes in different situations and that consistent individual differences exist in the degree to which they are likely to attribute personal cot;ttrol to reward. If a person believes that a reward is contingent on his own behavior, then the occurrence of either a positive or negative reinforcemeht will strengthen or weaken potential for that behavior to recur in a similar (Rotter, 1966). Weiner used attribution theory to suggest that attributions illicit feelings that motivate future behavior with those feelings being a response to the individual's self-efficacy appraisal (Douglas, 1991). Personal causation, a basis of according to deCharms refers to the experience of originating one's actions and causing a: change in the environment (Douglas, 1991). Another concept related to efficacy is intrinsic motivation stating that external forces underinine an individual's intrinsic motivation and an individual's sense of personal as theorized by Deci in 1975 (Douglas, 1991). 42


Bandura (1977), building on Rotter's research, formulated a "self-efficacy construct wbich is concerned with judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations" (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). people judge their capability and their self-percepts of efficacy affect their motivation and behavior (Bandura, 1982). People avoid settings that they believe exceed their capabilities, but they undertake activities that they judge themselves capable of managing (Bandura, 1982). Bandura (1977) made a distinction between outcomes and efficacy expectation. Although locus of control is concerned with beliefs about action, personal efficacy is concerned the conviction that a person can successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy is a cognitive mechanism that affects individual behavior. According to Bandura (1977), indiViduals derive their self-efficacy beliefs from four sources of information: Performance accomplishment, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, emotional arousal. The most important source of self-efficacy 'I, perception is the actual accomplishments of the individual because they are based on mastery experiences. Perceived self-efficacy is strengthened by successful experiences (Bandura, 1982). Vicarious experiences, watching other perform tasks successfully raises expectations of personal success on the same tasks. Verbal persuasion is considered to be a weak method of changing efficacy beliefs. Emotional arousal indicates to the individual that he is 43


coping well. and is, therefore, capable of performance (Bandura, 1977) . I Fuller (1982) wrote about efficacy in terms of its effects in school organizations. They defined efficacy as "the individual's perceived expectancy of obtaining valued outcomes through personal effort" (p. 7). They posited that features of the organization influence expectancy of obtaining valued outcomes from the setting. Organizational antecedents to self-efficacy create an intermediate level of study focusing on the fundamental question: "How do organizafional interventions serve to enhance or threaten the individual efficacy of participants in the organization?" (p. 8). Individuals will find their niche where their efficacy is maximized (Bandura, 1982; Fuller et al., 1982). Organizations can be more creative in structuring a setting which utilizes a sense of competence (Fuller et al., 1982). Role Orientation and Innovation Organizational members work within the structure of an organization through roles or sets of behaviors that persons expect of occupants of a position (Graen, 1976). In a new role, the newcomer must go through a series of role-making processes in order to become a full participant in the organization. Those processes include acquisition of knowledge about the content, communication about his behavior in the role, accepting the expected pattern of behavior, and modifying the pattern over time. Graen (1976) 44


stated that there are two models of the processes of role-making in complex organizations: none of these models views the job as a complete and stable entity while the other model views the role as incomplete and dynamic .. (p. 1204). These two models may be analogous to Schein's (1971b) role orientations, custodial and innovative. In the fixed job model, roles are fixed, and people are required to fit themselves into these roles. The model assumed that job situations are unchanging over time and that people are stable over time in terms of the abilities and preferences they possess. In the i interpersonal role-making model, the behavior of the person in the organizational role is a function of role pressures, intrinsic satisfactions, and occupational identity (Graen, 1976). When placed in an organization, the individual attempts to integrate his organizational role and the personal belief systems. As early as 1956, Lieberman studied the relationships between attitudes and roles. tested the hypothesis that people who are placed in a role will tend to develop attitudes that are congruent with the expectations associated with that role. He made the distinction between the effects of roles on people's attitudes and the effects of roles on their actions. The questions arose as to whether a person's attitudes influence action or a person's actions influence attitudes. Lieberman (1956) could not draw a conclusion from the 45


data in his study, but the efficacy literature focused on the attitude influencing the actions .. Getzels ,and Guba (1957) theorized that the behavior of an individual in a social system is the result of the interaction of two dimensions of the system: nomothetic and idiographic. The nomothetic dimension focuses on the institution and its roles or set of expectations concerning how the individual should behave in that role. The idiographic dimension is the personal aspect which characterizes each individual with a unique set of needs that influence i his behavior (Kelly, 1986). No two people respond to a role in the same way because of the individual's personality and needs. In summary, the nomothetic dimension of a social system is the arrangement of roles which bear a set expectations for behavior (Kelly, 1986). The idiographic dimension includes personality and need-dispositions which render behavior unpredictable. In order to understand the behavior of an individual in an institution, the role expectations and the need-dispositions must be presented. The behavior arises from the interaction of these two sets of motives ( Getzels and Guba, 1957). In Katz and Kahn developed a theoretical model of factors involved in the taking: of organizational roles. Three classes of variables are represented in the model--organizational, personality, and interpersonal. First, a causal relationship is held between organizational variables, such as 46


organizational size and the amount of conflict, and the role expectations. The role expectao;tion leads to role-sending communication which leads to received role which leads to behavior in response to the role as received. To an extent, the role expectations held by members of the organization are determined by the broader organizational context, such as the technology of the organization, the structure, its policies, and its rewards and penalties (Katz and Kahn, 1966). The attributes and personality of the individual person contribute to his behavior. Therefore, the same role messages can be experienced differently by different people. Finally, the interpersonal relations are. similar to those of the individual person. The expectations depend to some degree on the quality of interpersonal relations between the supervisor and the newcomer (Katz and Kahn, 1966). Some research specifically addressed the relationship between role expectationS and role response. In 1958, Gross, Mason, and McEachern studied school boards and school superintendents demonstrating a significant relationship between the expectations and the perceptions and responses of the focal person (Katz and Kahn, 1966). Role-sending from the school board to the superintendent was related to high job satisfaction of the superintendent when the expectations of the board were consistent with his professional standards and with low job satisfaction when they were not. In 1964, Kahn et al. found ambiguity on the job resulted in low job satisfaction, 47


low self-confidence, high tension and high sense of futility (Katz and Kahn, 1966). They further determined that roles which demand innovative problem-solving are characterized by conflict and tension (Katz and Kahn, 1966). In exairiining role responses, an individual can pursue three different types of careers: custodianship, content innovation, or role innovation (Schein, 1971b ). Custodianship refers to total acceptance of the currently existing I norms of the profession. Content innovation is characterized by acceptance of the traditional norms of the profession, but by a dissatisfaction with the existing of knowledge and skill underlying the profession. Role innovation is relatively rare in that it rejects the norms whiCh govern the practice of the profession. Schein (1971b) raised the question, "What kind of educational.and socialization process will increase role innovation in a profession?" (p. 523) .. He concluded that role innovation encompasses certain attitudes, values, and skills which can be developed during school and the I early career, phase. In another piece of literature, Schein (1971a) focused on the interplay between the organization and the individual. He stated that there are two processes: 1) the influence of the organization on the individual, and 2) the influence of the individual on the organization, innovation. The first process is initiated by the organization and demonstrates the power of the organization to induce change in the individual. The second 48


process is initiated by the individual and reflects his power to change the Schein (1971a) discussed these two processes as they coexist within an organization. Major writings on socialization include sections on learning the role and the behavior associated with role learning. Louis (1980) referred to organizational entry in which the socialization phase includes role-related learning anq cultural learning. Feldman (1981) discussed role definition in the encounter stage. In 1964, Katz suggested that the behavior outcomes of organizational socialization are 1) carry out role assignments dependably, 2) remain with the organization, and 3) innovate and cooperate spontaneously (Feldman, 1981). He stated that it is imperative for an organization to encourage actions. Lack of influence and overconformity to organizational norms were the most frequently cited indicators of ineffective socialization: (Feldman, 1981). Berlew and Hall (1966) proved that the amount of challenge a person faced in the first year on the job correlated with later performance. Schein (1971a, 1971b) drew attention to the possibility of organizational change through role-innovative behaviors. Nicholson (1984) extended this concept in theory of work-role transitions by predicting role innovation in ; organizations based on a knowledge of prior occupational socialization, motivational ,orientation, organizational induction/socialization processes and 49


role requirements (West, 1987b). Nicholson (1984) focused on work role transitions and how individuals adjust to the changes. His theory specified some of the principal variables which influence the adjustment including the individual differences which mediate or control organizational socialization processes outcomes. He aligned his model with Schein's (1971b) concept of custodianship and innovation. Nicholson (1984) argued that the outcomes of work role transitions will result in change in both the individual and the new role. extremes of outcomes of work role transitions were described: e:mloration, 'change i.iJ. both the individual and the new role; absorption, change in the individual primarily; determination, change in the role primarily; and, replication, neither the individual or the role is changed Determination and exploration were both aligned with role innovation of Schein (Nicholson, 1984). Nichoison (1984) asserted that these outcome modes can be predicted from knowledge of. the individual's personality characteristics, prior occupational socialization, present work role characteristics and the organizational culture. Work roles which have high levels of job discretion or freedom predispose toward role innovation, as do the individual differences of personality the individual's desire for control of the external environment. The characteristics of discretion and novelty of role demands play an important role in adjusting to a change with the ultimate outcome being role 50


innovation. The more opportunities that the newcomers have to alter the components of the role, the more discretion they have, the more innovative they will likewise, the more freedom the newcomers have to use prior knowledge, skills, and habits, personal development will be reduced (Nicholson,: 1984). West (1987a) further developed the concept of role innovation tracing it back to Bandura's .. creative modeling .. concept. Role innovation, the of significant new behaviors into a pre-existing role, occurs when none of the .previously observed behaviors has a sufficiently high anticipated profit. Bri111 saw role innovation as the transference of role behavior from one place to another (West, 1987a). Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson (1984) tested Nicholson's theory in a section of The Career Development Survey with 4000 managers and professionals. Fifteen months later, the survey was revised and administered to 1700 of the same population. West (1987a) described the two-stage longitudinal questionnaire research project which identified independent predictors of role innovation. The Career Development Survey (CDS-1) gathered data on biographical variables, educational qualifications, occupation and organiza:tion variables such as size, job characteristics, work preferences, and role innovation. The survey was administered a second time (CDS-2). Role innovation was measured by asking respondents the extent to 51


which they did their present jobs differently from the people who did the job before them on four dimensions: setting work targets/objectives; deciding the methods used to achieve work targets/objectives; deciding the order in which different parts of the job are done; choosing whom you deal with in order to carry out your work duties. In the second survey (CDS-2), two more dimensions were added: Initiating new procedures or information systems and developing innovative ways of accomplishing targets/objectives (West, 1987a). The resuits suggested that role innovation is a critical and widespread managerial mode of adjustment to transition. The study suggested that one of Nicholson's (1984) predictions was true, that high role innovation consistently occurred among those who perceive their work environments as giving them high levels discretion. The findings also provided support that a motivationM component, need for growth opportunities at work, is a predictor of role innovation as is role innovation in previous jobs (West, 1987a). West (1987a) reported that there was no gender differences in reported role innovation in either of the surveys. There was a significant relationship between age and role innovation, and educational background appeared to be weakly, but not systematically, related to reported role innovation independent !of age, sex and status in the organization. Self-reports of role innovation were predicted positively by age, dominance (self-concept), creativity (self-concept), and need for growth opportunities (work 52


preferences). The situational factors of perceived job discretion, reports of growth opportunities and high status positively predicted role innovation (West, 1987a). West (1987a) concluded that there exist variables which are required for. role innovation to occur such as personality attributes of confidence and dominance, motivational orientations of need for growth opportunities and desire for control, and previous experience of successful role innovation. There were also variables which are required to change in order to stimulate role innovation such as job discretion, work predictability, and challenge (West, 1987a). High role innovators reported greater post-transitiQn satisfaction than low role innovators. West (1987a) concluded that role innovation may be the most important way in which individuals effect change in organizational structures and social processes. Nicholson and West (1988) reported on CDS-1 role innovation by looking at individual, difference measures. Age, status, and managerial role type were all independently linked with innovation. Again, there was no systematic relationship between role innovation and either general educational qualifications or specific professional qualifications. A positive relationship existed between job discretion and role innovation. Smaller. organizations, not I the smallest, were most conducive to role innovation. In conclusion, reported levels of role innovation were predicted independently by age, status, dominance, creativity, and need for growth. Situational factors which predict 53


role innovation were jobs that are high in both discretion and status and in for growth, but low in predictability (Nicholson and West, 1988). The study of role orientation of educational administrators is sparse focusing on technical knowledge and skill. In a longitudinal study of the organiza:tional socialization of educational administrators, Greenfield (1977b) noted that candidates with an assertive perspective maximized their organizatim1al space by developing interpersonal relations to enhance their candidacy. When the period of candidacy is considered part of the process of role-learning, the candidate's interpersonal orientation must be viewed as a crucial determinant of the degree of fullness of administrative perspective attained. Candidates who developed the interpersonal relations component of their organiZational space appeared to achieve fuller administrative perspective than candidates who did not maximize this component (Greenfield, .t977b ). Greenfield (1985) explored moral socialization as a role-learning outcome which must qe satisfied by the newcomer to the administrative role. He defined moral socialization as the values, attitudes, and beliefs required for adequate perlormance in the role. The socialization processes of an administrative role are extremely stabie which foster a custodial response to the role; an innovative response is rare. Furthermore, the socialization processes usually serve to maintain and perpetuate the current administrator 54


sub-culture within schools. Greenfield (1985) suggested that when socialization processes and content are altered significantly, that the resulting response could be innovative rather than custodial. However, he was not optimistic that the current informal processes could be altered significantly. He suggestep that school districts need to influence moral socialization outcomes by articulating the values, attitudes and beliefs, by encouraging administrators to participate in leadership opportunities, by recognizing and rewarding local administrators who represent desirable role models, and by providing retraining for administrators to relearn the role. The emphasis should be placed on inculcating an innovative response from educational administrators (Greenfield, 1985). Summa:ry Although socialization is viewed as a process of learning, the acquisition of a role is the primary function of socialization processes in organizations. The most influential period of learning an organizational role is during the first few months on the job. Organizational entry, when the newcomer actually enters the organization or assumes a new role within the organization, generally lasts three or four months. Socialization activities are most intense and obvious during this time. During this phase, newcomers are motivated to learn the role quickly in order 55


' to reduce the stress. As a newcomer in an organization assumes the task of "learning the ropes," the organization communicates its values through a series of events and activities called organizational socialization. The successful socialization of a new member benefits the organization because the outcomes include satisfied employees and organizational stability. During. socialization, organizations can structure the experiences for the newcomer creating a predictable, desired. impact. Combinations of socialization tactics can promote innovative responses. An innovative role response means that the newcomer seeks to redefine the role by changing the mission of the role. Jones (1986) measured the effects of socialization tactics on role orientation and added a third variable, self-efficacy, which moderated the relationsqip obtained. Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson (1984) measured role innovation with The Career Development Survey as an outcome of transition into a new work role. Jones (1986) and West (1987a) presented empirical findings supporting the notion that different socialization tactics result in different outcomes. In the literature, role theory merges the concepts of role expectations within the organization with the personality of the individual. Individual differences mediate or control organizational socialization processes and outcomes. Messages about role expectations are received and experienced differently by different people based on the attributes, personality and 56


interpersonal relations of the individual. Job discretion, reports of growth opportunitie.s, and high status are the situational factors which have been found to predict role innovation. Variables required for role innovation to occur are: 1) personality attributes of confidence and dominance; 2) motivational:. orientations of need for growth opportunities and desire for control; 3) previous experience of successful role innovation. Age is a personal characteristic which often correlates to role innovation. Studies vary in relating educational qualifications to reported role innovation. Organizational variables, such as size, have been found to impact the role acquisition of members. Smaller organizations have been found to be the most conducive to role innovation. Role innovation can be enhanced by socialization processes. The self-efficacy. of the individual moderates the effects of socialization processes on the role outcome of the newcomer. The self-efficacy concept is concerned with the belief that a person can successfully execute actions needed to produce certain outcomes. Self-efficacy beliefs are derived from several I sources, the most important being the actual accomplishments of the individual they are based on mastery experiences. An individual's perception of his own efficacy is strengthened by successful experiences. Studies have dealt with organizational characteristics which may influence an individual's efficacy. 57


The research studies on role innovation, socialization processes and self-efficacy' has been conducted in the business sector or in higher education, not in the public education system. This study followed the research completed by Jones (1986) but using a different newly-assigned principals. It investigated the relationship between the socialization tactics experienced by newly-assigned principals in schools districts across the state of Colorado and their resultant level of role innovation. The intervening variable in this relationship was the level of self-efficacy of the new principal. A study of the effects of socialization tactics and the level of self-efficacy on public school principals' role innovation provides useful information to school districts in Colorado. We can be far more self-conscious about employing certain "people processing techniques" than we have been in the past. ... if we gain a greater and appreciation for the sometimes unintended consequences of a particular tactic, we can alter the strategy for the betterment of both the individual and the organization (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979, pp. 231-232). 58


CHAPTER 3 METHODS The of the nation's schools must be able to forge new roles and I to provide hew direction for education. The introduction of significant new behaviors into the pre-existing role or the role innovation of a principal can be increased. through the socialization processes used by a school district during the entry phase into the organization. The principal's level of self-efficacy, :his judgment of how well he can execute courses of action required to' deal with prospective situations, can modify the effects of the socialization :experience. This study was designed to measure how specific socialization experiences affect the newly-assigned principals' role innovation within the organization. Jones {1983a) stated that individuals differ in their interpretation of socialization strategies based on their backgrounds, experiences and level of Therefore, the effects of the socialization tactics used by a school district may be moderated by the level of self-efficacy that the individual br,ings to the role. Jones (19,83a) categorized the socialization tactics originally theorized by Van Maanen.and Schein (1979) into two groups, individualized and institutionalized. Individualized tactics focus on the newcomer without


concern for the convenience of the organization. Institutionalized tactics. focus on the organization without heed to the individual (Jones, 1983a). The researcb hypothesis of this study sought to determine the extent of the relationship 'of institutionalized and individualized socialization tactics and the level of the principal's role innovation. The hypothesis postulated differing associations dependent upon the new principal's level of self-efficacy. The research hypothesis of this study was derived from the hypotheses of Jones' study (1986). Research Hypothesis It was hyPothesized that there is a relationship between socialization processes and role innovation which is moderated by the principal's level of self-efficacy. Institutionalized socialization processes are associated with low role innovation. Individualized socialization processes are associated with high role innovation. The principal's level of self-efficacy strengthens or weakens that. relationship. a. Each of the institutionalized socialization processes are associated with lower role innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is low and a higher role innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is high. b. Each of the individualized socialization processes are associated with a higher role innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is high and a lower role innovation when the principal's level of self-efficacy is low. 60


The below illustrates the hypothesized relationships among the variables. Figure 3.1.: Hypothesized relationships among variables. Socialization Tactics: Individual Individual Informal Random Variable Disjunctive Divestiture Institutional Collective Formal, Sequential Fixed Serial: Investiture -, .. ,,, , ,, """",", .. """"" .,., .. ., 'High : -. . . . . :High . . !Self . . :Low . . . . . . :-. . . . ::. . Efficacy; :-. . . . =--. .............................. High Low The puipose of this chapter is to describe the method and procedures used to collect and analyze data relevant to the problem and the hypothesis. Research Desimt The study was a descriptive study. The survey design was selected for this research because it provided an effective and efficient means to collect data from newly-assigned principals across the state of Colorado. The 61


questionnaii:es used were self-administered and allowed the respondents to I reflect on their own experiences in their own environment. It is that surveys rely on subjective data--the perceptions of the I respondent.: Nicholson and West (1988) stated that subjective measures are appropriate .in this area of investigation because what the newcomer "perceives a.S real is real in its consequences. H we are concerned with I individual action and reaction, then how the world is seen by the actor at the centre of stage has causal.primacy" (p. 20). The firsti questionnaire included two sections mailed as the newly-assigned principals entered their new positions. The principals were asked to respond I to items in section one and, in the second section, eight items determined level of self-efficacy (Appendix A). The questions for the demographic:. section were written by this researcher and the self-efficacy questions used in this study were taken from Jones (1986). At the erid of the first semester, approximately five months on the job, the principals were asked to provide data on a second questionnaire derived from Jones (1986) :about the socialization tactics experienced during their entry phase B). In the same questionnaire, they were asked questions taken from Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson (1984) to determine their level of role in their new positions (Appendix B). Measures The dependent measure in this study was the role innovation of the new 62


principal. 'tbe independent measures were scales that described the pairs of institution&:ized or individualized socialization tactics that the newly-assigned principal experienced. The items from the questionnaire were grouped into three factors. The following independent measures were derived: Passage, Context, Aspects. Specific results from the factor analysis procedure are found iri chapter 4. The intervening variable was self-efficacy which affected the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable. According to the literature, information such as age, size of organization, gender, num,er of years in the profession, number of years as a principal, and level of education could have affected the relationships hypothesized. These demographiC variables were also studied. Population The entire population of 235 K-12 public school principals in the state of Colorado who had a new assignment for the 1991-92 school year were included in the study. The Colorado Department of Education collects the names of principals in each school in the state on an annual basis in September each year. Since this information was not available in time to facilitate this :study, a telephone call was placed to each school district in the ' state to gather the names of the newly-assigned principals for the 1991-92 school year. A list of 244 names was compiled, but nine were removed :1 . 63


because they explained that they were not newly-assigned in the Fall of 1991. Two had mime changes only, one was a reinstated principal after the newly-assigned one had been removed, one only opened a new school building, thlee were clerical errors, and two were still vacancies in the position. Instrumentation This study was conducted using two distinct questionnaires in two separate mailings five months apart. The first questionnaire included a demographic section of items written by this researcher and a self-efficacy section obtained from Jones. (1986) (Appendix A). The second questionnaire contained the section on socialization processes written by Jones (1986) and a section on role innovation written by Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson (1984) (Appendix B). Demographic Information I The demographic items were written by this researcher based on the I review of the literature in order to provide information on this population similar to obtained from other populationS in other studies (Appendix A). The research summarized in chapter 2 demonstrated relationships between some descriptive information and role orientation. Katz and Kahn (1966) and West (1987a) revealed that organizational size was associated with role innovation. West (1987a) determined that age, gender, number of years in 64


profession, and educational background could be related to role innovation. In his study, Bridges (1965) linked more experienced principals with custodial role In order to differentiate new principals from principals who were merely changing schools, the questions about first principalship and number of years as a principal were posed. Those newly-assigned principals who were promoted from within the organization would already have experienced some organizational socialization. Therefore, it was important to differentiate' which newly-assigned principals were inside candidates and which ones obtained the principalship from outside the district. Iri this study, the demographic information collected included the folloWing: 1) School district name (The size of the school district was obtained from the 1990-91 Colorado Department of Education Directory), 2) of years as an administrator, 3) number of years in the profession, 4) first principalship, 5) number of years as a principal, 6)' mside/outside candidacy, 7) education level of the principal, 8) age of principal, 9) gender, 65


10). level of school, and 11) size of school. Self-Efficacy Items Jones (1986) designed the self-efficacy scale based on Bandura's definition of self-efficacy including mastery of role and organizational requirements. The instrument included eight statements eliciting a Likert response pattern with seven response categories from "strongly disagree" to "strongly (Appendix A). Socialization Tactics Items The soCialization tactics items were written by Jones (1986) and documented the types of socialization tactics experienced by the principal (Appendix B). The six pairs of socialization tactics were operationally defined by Jones (1986) according to the descriptions br VanMaanen and Schein (1979). They are collective/individual, formal/informal, sequential/random, fixed/variable, serial/disjunctive, and investiture/divestiture. Jones ensured that each aspect of each tactic was included as an item in each scale. He stated the questions in an active, behavioral tone rather than an affective, evaluative tone in order to reduce common method variance. The Liken-scaled questionnaire had 30 declarative statements which were ', designed to the kinds of socialization tactics used (Appendix B). 66


There were seven response categories provided, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The items were factor analyzed to determine that the underlying factors identified by Jones (1986) applied to this population. The results of the factor analysis supported Jones' instrument as a reliable measure of the socialization tactics used.' Factor scores of the socialization tactics were used in the data analysis in o,rder to obtain a more precise estimate of the underlying factors. Role Innovation Items The role. innovation items in Appendix B were obtained from The Career Development Survey by Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson (1984). The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they did their present jobs differently from the people who did the job before them. The instructions: "Although you may have no clear idea of this, try to give your impression of how you approach your job compared with how other people have done or currently do this job in your organization." There were six dimensions of role innovation as follow: .. A) Setting work targets/objectives; B) Deciding the methods used to achieve objectives/targets; C) Deciding the order in which different parts of the job are done; D) Choosing whom you deal with in order to carry out your work :duties ' E) Initiating new procedures or information systems; and, 67


F) Developing innovative ways of accomplishing targets/objectives. Three possible responses were: "I do the job much the same as other people have done it", "I do the job somewhat differently than others have done it", "I do the job very differently than other have done it. Respondents were instructed to use the "don't know" (D/K) column if they had absolutely no idea how the job had been done previously. All in the questionnaires were reviewed for completeness, clarity of questions, and intent of questions by a selection of three principals from Cherry Creek School District, Englewood, Colorado, and three professors from University of Colorado at Denver and Boulder campuses. Their I. suggestions for improvement of the wording were incorporated into the questionnaire prior to the pilot project. Although the questionnaires had been designd and tested previously, phrase or term adaptations were made to the school organization with this population. Reliability coefficients were computed for each section of the questionnaires socialization tactics, self-efficacy and role innovation. The results are reported in chapter 4. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted in the Summer 1991 with newly-assigned principals for; the 1990-91 school year. A pilot study was conducted for two 68


reasons. First, in order to factor analyZe the items of the scales, a larger number of responses was required than could be obtained with only one year's population of new principals. The instruments were factor analyZed with the responses from both 1990-91 and 1991-92 populations combined. Second, any problems with the wording of the questions or the instructions could be corrected prior to the study. The pilot population was collected by comparing the principals' names in The Colorado Education Directory from 1989-90 with the names in the directory fro.m 1990-91. Schools whose principal had changed from 1989-90 to 1990-91 school years were included in the population. The demographic information and the self-efficacy items were mailed in June 1991. The socialization tactics items and the role innovation items were mailed in October 1991. The for the second survey were adjusted after the pilot project because principals thought that they were only to complete the survey if they were new principals. The revised instructions clarified that newly-assigned principals were those who were new to the principalship as well as experienced principals who had a new school assignment in the Fall 1991. 69


Procedures Data Collection The data :were collected from the population of newly-assigned principals through a process involving two distinct surveys and two separate mailings. The first mailing in September 1991 was completed as soon as information I was .about newly-assigned principal appointments at the beginning of the 1991-92 school year. It included a cover letter (Appendix C) stating the purpose of the survey and a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. The first questionnaire included questions to collect descriptive, demographic data and a instrument to determine the level of self-efficacy of the principal (Appendix A). The second mailing in January 1992 included a cover letter (Appendix D) and an instrument with two sections; the first section collected information about the socialization tactics used, and the second section included items to determine the role innovation of the principal (Appendix B). In both mailings, the principals were assured confidentiality in the cover letter (Appendices C and D) which increased the probability of accurate responses. A phone call was placed two weeks later to the non-respondents. They were asked if they received the questionnaire and materials. If they have not, another set of materials was mailed to them. The principals, who received the but had not returned them, were encouraged to complete and return the questionnaires as soon as possible. Principals who 70


had not responded after a month were mailed another questionnaire with a personal requesting their responses. Data Analysis The unit of analysis was the principal. Responses on the questionnaires were entered :into a microcomputer for statistical analysis. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+. V3.0) was used for all computer I processing The fmdings are reported in chapter 4. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the dependent, independent, I and interverting variables was the statistical procedure used. The multiple regression was used to explore the strength of the relationship between the independent of the underlying factors of the socialization tactics and the dependent variable, role innovation, with the intervening variable being self-efficacy. The responses of the principals from the written survey instruments were I analyzed for each of the items from the demographic information sheet as a precaution to determine if these items impacted the hypothesized relationships. level of self-efficacy of the principal was quantified as well as the role innovation of the principal. The responses were analyzed by determining the ; underlying factors from the six pairs of socialization tactics. Limitations of the Methods This study descriptive and, therefore, was limited by the constraints of 71


such a project. No causal relationship could be demonstrated, nor can the results be generalized to a different population at any time. It was a field-based stUdy. The selection of a population was limited to those principals in Colorado new to the position during thet991-92 school year. The selection of the population limited its representativeness. No valid generalizations could be made with this research design. As in all research designs involving surveys, this study depended on the respondents attaching the same meaning to the questions as the researcher intended. The instruments used were originally designed for business people not educators. : The respondents were limited by the numerical choices offered and could not ask for definition of meaning. Several attempts were made to clarify the meanings of the questions, but subjective interpretation of the questions on the instruments may have influenced the conclusions and implications ofthe study. Additionally, this research design did not allow for follow-up questioning, probing for information, or clarification of answers. The researcher did not have an opportunity to gather data with deeper or truer meanings or more in-depth understanding. Research designs with self-administered instruments have been scrutinized by organizatiomH researchers because common method variance might exaggerate the magnitude of the relationships. However, Nicholson and West (1988) contended that if a respondent had misgivings about responding honestly, they could resort to the simpler, quicker technique of not responding 72


to the questionnaire. The use of the two-stage research design helped to I reduce the extent of this problem because the respondents had to respond to both mailings. It is less likely that they would exaggerate their responses during both stages. Nicholson and West (1988) acknowledged that it is desirable for the results to be corroborated by independent observers. Using their role I innovation West (1987b) assessed the validity of the self-reported method and discovered that it was strongly related to the supervisors' ratings of job Although perceptual bias cannot be eliminated, this study provided that principals' self-reports are similar to the ratings of supervisors can be assumed to be closely associated with reality. Summary '! This has summarized the methods used in the study. Two mailed surveys were used to gather data from principals about the socialization tactics experienced, the level of self-efficacy and the level of role innovation. The method for selection of the population was outlined. The collection and analysis of data were described. Limitations of the methods were specified. 73


! 0 : CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS When individuals enter into the role of a public school principal, socialization processes occur which have lasting effects. This study was designed to m,easure how specific socialization experiences affect the newly-assigned principal's role innovation within a school district. In order to achieve a specific outcome, school districts can influence the socialization 0' tactics that experience, however, the effects of the socialization tactics used b}< a school district may be moderated by the level of self-efficacy that the brings to the role (Jones, 1986 ). Data were collected and analyzed to study the relationships among socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and the role innovation of newly-assigned public school in the state of Colorado during the 1991-92 school year. This presents the results in four sections followed by a discussion of findings. The first section discusses the results of the analyses of the. instruments. The second section presents the data analysis relating to the :hypothesis and to the demographic variables. The data analysis includes the regression analyses. A summary of the findings is followed by a third section, the discussion of the findings. The chapter concludes with a summary of the main findings related to the hypothesis.


Findings Concerning Instrumentation The survey instrument used in this study was comprised of four different scales, the demographic items, the socialization tactics items, the self-efficacy items, and the role innovation items. A factor analysis of the socialization tactics items was performed in order to summarize the pairs of socialization tactics into a smaller number of variables. This process examined the '' construct of Jones' instrument (1986) with the population of this study. Results of the 'factor analysis of the socialization tactics items are included in this section. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients were computed on each section of the instrument and are presented in this section, also. I Factor The thirty_ socialization tactics items taken from Jones' study (1986) were factor analyzed. The total number of 301 cases from the pilot project and the I study populations provided sufficient numbers for the factor analysis procedure. The optimum number of factors were deterlnined to be three factors which accounted for 46.5 percent of the variance in the items. The summary information on the variance explained by the three factors is presented in Table 4.1. 75


Table 4.1. Summary of Findings on Factor Variance. Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Passage, Factor 1 4.61839 23.1 23.1 Context, Factor 2 2.50027 12.5 35.6 Social Aspects, Factor 3 2.17343 10.9 46.5 Ten questions (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 23, 29, and 30) did not load uniquely on one factor and were deleted from the analysis. Table 4.2 gives the results of the factor lQadings with varimax rotation after these ten questions were eliminated. Twenty questions of the original thirty from Jones' (1986) items for socialization tactics comprised the three factors used in this study. Some of those questions were stated negatively and required reverse scoring. The factor analysis was corrected for the reversed scores. Therefore, a high score on each factor meant that the respondent experienced an I institutionalized socialization process in that factor; a low score meant that 'I the respondent experienced an individualized socialization process in that factor. 76


Table 4.2. Rotated Factor Loadings from Factor Analysis from the Socialization Tactic Scales. Factor 1. Passage Questions Loading 28. The way in which my progress through this organization will follow a timetable of events has been clearly commurucated to me. .68583 I 27. I have a:good knowledge of the time it will take me to go through the various stages of the training process in this .68135 18. The movement from role to role and function to function to build up experience and a track record is very apparent in this organization. .66640 17. Each stage of the training process has, and will expand and build upon the job knowledge gained during the preceding stages of the process. .66304 26. I can predict my future career path in this organization by observing: other people's experiences. .63353 20. The steps in the career ladder are clearly specified in this organization. .59705 16. There is a clear pattern in the way one role leads to another or one job assignment leads to another in this organization. .58305 22. I am a clear understanding of my role in this organization from observing my senior colleagues. Factor 2. Context Questions 1. In the last year, I have been extensively involved with other new principals in common, job-related training activities. 77 .52887 Loading .75577


Table 4.2. (contd.) 2. Other new principals have been instrumental in helping me to my job requirements. .66742 19. This orga_nization does not put new principals through an identifiable sequence of learning experiences. (reverse scored) .65903 '' 25. I have been generally left alone to discover what my role should be. in this organization. (reverse scored) .64160 3. This organization puts all new principals through the same set of learlring experiences. .58738 4. Most of my training has been carried out apart from other new principals. (reverse scored) .56631 24. I have little or no access to principals who have previously performed. my role in this organization. (reverse scored) .50444 Factor 3. Social Aspects Questions Loading 12. Almost all of my colleagues have been supportive of me personally. .75588 15. I feel that:experienced organizational members have held me at a di'stance until I conform to their expectations. (reverse scored) .73970 11. I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are very in this organization. .67925 14. My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me adjust to this organization. .64180 13. I have had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in this (reverse scored) .57176 78


o I Each factor of the socialization tactics instrument was named. Figure 4.1 illustrates how the six pairs of socialization tactics were collapsed into the three factors. As a result of the factor analysis procedure, the items from Jones' (1986) original questionnaire dealing with formal/informal (items 6-10) and serial/disjunctive (items 21-25) socialization tactics did not cluster as a unique factor :in this population. All of the formal/informal items were in the set of which were eliminated. Two of the serial/disjunctive questions (21 23) were eliminated; the remaining three of these questions (22, 24 and 25) clustered on two of the other factors (Table 4.2). In Jones' study (1986), formal and informal did not load on a unique dimension and were also. With these deletions, the comparison of the factor analysis of this1study and Jones' factor analysis resulted in a very similar three factor structure. Two of the. three factors of this study were labeled the same as two of Jones' (1986) factors based on comparable results of the factor analysis procedure. The o first factor of this study was renamed, passage, to describe its components mote clearly. Many of the same questions which comprised Jones' factor named content clustered into the passage factor in this study resulting in similar definitions of the three factors. The definitions of the three factors used in this study are presented in the following paragraphs. 79


Figure 4.1.: Socialization Tactics as Factors. Socialization Tactics ... Factors Institutional Indi'Didual Collective vs. Individual Passage Formal: vs. Informal Sequential vs. Random Context Fixed vs. Variable Serial vs. Disjunctive Social Aspects InvestitUre vs. Divestiture The first factor of this study was named Passage. The questions in the survey which gathered information about the variable, passage, stemmed from the sequenti/random and fixed/variable pairs of socialization tactics (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). This factor describes the degree to which the principal knoWs the identifiable steps leading to acquiring and learning the role of the principalship. For example, a person wishing to become a doctor has to go thi'ough a specified undergraduate program, medical school, an internship and residency, and board examinations before assuming the target role. the steps leading to the role are specified in a prescribed '' order, other times the steps leading to the role are unknown, ambiguous or continually changing. An example of this would be a general manager 80


position wherein the person may assume this role having been in a variety of roles previously. There may be stages, but there is not one prescribed path leading to general manager position. Another aspect of passage is whether or not the socialization steps have a fixed timetable and if the timetable has been communicated to the individual. Using the previous example, a doctor knows how much time will be required at each step the socialization process. This study hypothesized that the individualized socialization processes embedded in passage would relate to high role innovation. Those processes included random steps leading to the principalship and an unspecified, variable timetable associated with achieving the desired role of the principalship. The second factor was titled Context. This factor explained the context of how school districts provide information to its newly-assigned principals. It refers to the collective/individual socialization tactic (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). The tactic of taking a group of newly-assigned principals and putting them through, a common set of experiences together is identified. On the I questionnaire,. respondents are requested to relate if they were alone or apart from newly-assigned principals as they learned their new role. For example, some :companies bring their manager trainees together for intensive, month-long traihing before they allow them to assume their new positions. The opposite of the continuum of context is the "on-the-job" training or 81


"trial and eqor" concept. Without specific or group learning experiences, the newly-assigited principal must learn the job in isolation from other newlyassigned pnricipals. This study hypothesized that learning the job in an ': individualized manner without common learning experiences enhances the role innovation of the principal. The thitd factor was called Social Aspects and is associated with the investiture/divestiture socialization tactic of VanMaanen and Schein (1979). This tactic copcerns the degree to which the learning experiences are designed to either confirm or disconfirm the entering identity of the newly-assigned principal. In investiture processes, the organization uses and builds upon the skills, values, and attitudes of the principal. Respondents are asked to determine how supportive and helpful the other principals have been during their period. Divestiture processes seek to reshape the person and create new values and attitudes based on those desired by the school district. Exaqtples of divestiture processes can be observed in the military services. This study hypothesized that by not confirming the principal's personal expectations through divestiture socialiZation processes, role innovation maY, occur. The negative social experiences produce uneasiness and precipitate the questioning of situations offered by others, thus, stimulating responses. 82 I


Estimates Reliability The factors, passage, context, and social aspects, were entered as :I three independent variables in the statistical analyses. A Cronbach's alpha reliabiJity coefficient was computed on each of the following five scales to test the reliability of those items of the instrument: Passage, context, social aspects, self-efficacy and role innovation. The coefficients, the number of cases and the: number of survey iter:ils which comprised each scale are listed in Table 4.3. The highest alpha coefficient was found with the role innovation section with 194 cases and six items used in the procedure. With 194 cases, the factors produced alpha coefficients of 79 for variable passage I with eight survey items, .77 for variable context with seven survey items, and I; .77 for variable social aspects witli five survey items. These levels of reliability were considered acceptable. The lowest alpha coefficient was found with the eight self-efficacy items of .53 with 194 cases which was lower than the .71 that Jones (1986) found using the instrument. 83


Table. 4.3. Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Scales of the Surveys. Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Aspects I Self-Efficacy 'I Role Innovation ; #of Cases 194 194 194 193 194 Data Analysis #of Items 8 7 5 8 6 Alpha Coefficient .7901 .7727 .7699 .5314 .9313 Several steps were taken in the data analysis phase of the study. First, the demographic data are reported including descriptions of the population and the response rate. The correlation findings of the demographic items with the independent and dependent variables are presented. Second, the correlation coefficients of the independent and dependent variables are presented followed by the multiple regression analyses. The final section is a summary. In the da:ta, analysis, both factor scores (FS) and average scores (AS) were calculated. Factor scores were computed by the method specified in The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+ .V3.0>. Factor scores, by reduce the intercorrelations between the factors of passage, 84


context, and ,social aspects. Average scores provide another way to combine the scores of the questions for each factor. Average scores were computed by summing the:. available scores for each of the factors and dividing by the number of available scores. Average scores demonstrate the relationships among the factors that may need to be accounted for in the analysis. The use of factor scores minimizes any large intercorrelations between the . : independent variables which can affect the results of the multiple regression analysis. Factor scores maximize the statistical independence of the three factors while: they eliminate any intercorrelations that may actually exist. Population The entire population of 235 newly-assigned principals for 1991-92 in the state of Colorado were surveyed. The two different surveys were mailed five .months apart.: In the first stage, 215 surveys of the 235 were returned for an intermediate response rate of 91 percent. The 215 respondents of the first survey were mailed the second survey. Of those 215 who were mailed the second survey,, 195 responded. The actual response rate was 83 percent when 195 of the original 235 returned both surveys . I Demographic Data The demog,raphic data were collected to determine if any of the items impacted the relationships. Each demographic item was asked 85


based on previous research which demonstrated its impact on socialization processes, self-efficacy, or role innovation. The first section presents the descriptive data of the population. The second section presents the findings ; of the demographic items correlated with the independent variables of the socialization tactics (passage, context, and social aspects) and self-efficacy and the dependent variable, role innovation. Descriptive Data. Information on the population is presented in Table 4.4. The ordi1nal measures of school district enrollment, total years as an administrator, total years in education, total years as principal, age, and school building enrollment are reported with the mean, median, and range. Nominal data of first principalship, inside/outside candidate, level of education, gender, and school are presented by a percent of the classification for the population in this study. 86


Table 4.4. Summary of Demographic Data. School District Enrollment Total Years as An Administrator Total Years In Education Total Years As Principal Age School Building Enrollment First Principalship Inside/Outside Candidate Level of Education Gender School Level 18,597.0 8.1 19.2 4.5 43.9 469.2 87 Median 4,541.0 6.0 19.0 2.0 44.0 380.0 Range 39-75164 00-30 04-35 00-27 28-70 35-2100 Percent Yes 50 No 49 No Answer 1 Inside 55 Outside 44 No Answer 1 Masters 79 Doctorate 13 Education Specialist 6 Other 2 Female 36 Male 63 No Answer 1 Elementary 53 Middle 16 Senior 16 Other 15


with Independent and Dependent Variables. A matrix that shows the correlations between the demographic items and the independent and dependent variables was produced. The results of this procedure are presented in :Table 4.5. The following significant relationships were found between the demographic items and the independent variables, passage, context, social aspects and self-efficacy and the dependent variable, role innovation. None of the demographic items correlated significantly with the 'I dependent role innovation. School district size correlated with the variable, context. School districts :' with higher enrollments are associated with more collective socialization processes of the newly-appointed principals. The level of education of the principal correlated with the passage I variable. A relationship was found between newly-assigned principals with higher levels:of education and random and variable (individualized) socialization p'rocesses. The schbol level description, elementary; middle, high, or other school, correlated witb the context variable. In progressing from elementary to middle to senior high to other kinds of schools, more individual socialization processes occur. 88

PAGE 100

00 \C) Table 4.5. Correlation Coefficients of the Demographic Variables with the Independent Variables (Passage, Context, Social Aspects, and Self-Efficacy) and the Dependent Variable (Role Innovation). School District Enrollment Total Years As An Administrator Total Years In Education First Principalship Total Years As A Principal Inside/Outside Candidacy Level of Education Age Gender School Description School Building Enrollment n=180 Passage+ Context+ Social Aspects + SelfEfficacy Role .0122 .3013 .0559 .0671 .0973 .0165 .0922 .1120 .1523 .1274 .1710 .1263 .0711 .1214 .0501 .0850 .1820 .0263 .1933 -.1151 .0972 .0502 .0491 .0404 .0676 -.1151 .0795 .0310 .2602 .0006 .0003 .0830 .1355 Two-tailed significance: p>.01 p>.001 +Average Scores Innovation .0126 .0668 .1057 .0448 .0033 .0183 .0199 .0345 .0471 .0522 .0604 .0716 .1902 .0770 .1176 .0139 .0717 .0476 .0051 .0295 .0326 .0372

PAGE 101

Correlation Coefficients of Independent Variables and Dependent Variable The first step in examining the relationship of the several independent variables collectively on the dependent variable is to consider the relationship of each of the independent variables individually with the dependent variable. were investigated between each of the independent variables, passage, context, social aspects, and self-efficacy individually with the dependent variable, role innovation. The correlation matrix in Table 4.6 shows the among the independent variables. The analy.sis resulted in two statistically significant correlations. The passage and role innovation correlation and the context and role innovation correlation were used to determine which variables and in what order they should be entered into the subsequent multiple regression equation. The correlation between passage and role innovation is demonstrated with both the factor scores and the average scores. The correlation between context and role innovation is only revealed when using average scores. The use of average scores indicates a high correlation between the variables passage and context. This correlation is eliminated with the factor scores. I 90

PAGE 102

Table 4.6. Correlation Coefficients for the Independent Variables (Passage, Context, Social Aspects, Self-Efficacy) and the Dependent Variable (Role Innovation). Passage Context Social SelfRole Passage I FS 1.0000 -.0184 AS 1.0000 .3563** Context FS 1.0000 AS 1.0000 Social Aspects SelfEfficacy Role Innovation : : OneTailed Significance: I: Multiple Regression Analyses Aspects Efficacy Innovation .0181 .2336** .0318 .3022** FS 1.0000 AS 1.0000 *p>.01 **p>.001 -.0713 -.2749** .0128 -.2903** -.0603 -.1298 -.0409 -.1830* .0221 -.0391 .0181 -.0614 1.0000 -.0555 1.0000 FS-Factor score AS-Average score In this study, the variables of the socialization tactics were hypothesized to relate to the role innovation of newly-assigned principals, and self-efficacy was hypothesized t9 be an intervening independent variable. Because the independent variables collectively may better estimate the dependent variable, ',. role innovation, than any one of the independent variables singularly, the I ' three socialization tactics factors; passage, context, and social aspects, in addition to self-efficacy, were regressed on role innovation. Because self-efficacy and the socialization tactics were believed to interact, an 91

PAGE 103

interaction variable (passage X self-efficacy) was forced into the multiple regression equation. Passage had the strongest relationship with role innovation and was chosen as the variable to check for an interaction effect with self-efficacy. All of the tables show that there was no significant effect of adding this interaction variable to the equation. The first :multiple regression analysis entered all of the five variables simultaneously: Passage, context, social aspects, self-efficacy, and the interaction variable. Factor scores were used in this analysis and the results are shown in Table 4.7. The multiple correlation coefficient (Multiple R) with all five independent variables was .31. The proportion of the dependent variable variance (R Square) explained by all five independent variables is .095 or 9.5 percent. The computer adjusted the R square to more closely reflect the of this and other populations; the adjusted R square is .071 or 7.1 percent of variance explained. Table 4.7. Multiple Regression Equation with All Variables Eritered Simultaneously Using Factor Scores. Multiple R 1 R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Errbr I 'I 'I F = 3.91913 Sig F = .0021 92 .30798 .09485 .07065 7.06455

PAGE 104

When a ;stepwise multiple regression procedure was used, only the variable, passage, entered into the equation within the default specification of p > .05. All computations indicated that the passage variable was the only statistically :significant variable in predicting role innovation accounting for 7.8 percent of the variance with a multiple correlation of .28. Another method was used, the hierarchical method, using the average scores of the socialization variables, passage, context, and social aspects. This method allowed the researcher to force the variables into the equation past the default limits to observe how they add to the prediction equation. The results of the .hierarchical method of the multiple regression analysis are found in Table 4.8. The variable, passage, accounted for 7.9 percent of the variance with a significant F value of .0001. When the variable, context, was added to the. equation, the R square change was only .016 indicating that this variable added little unique information about the dependent variable, role innovation. Each variable added subsequently showed minute changes in R square. 93

PAGE 105

Table 4.8. u1tiple Regression Added at Each Step of the Role Innovation'Equation Using Factor Scores. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Variable I Passage Context I Social Aspects Interaction of Self-Efficacy Total RSg .07851 .09421 .09472 .09482 .09485 RSq Change .07851 .01570 .00051 .00010 .00003 Summazy of the Findings F Change Sig F Change 16.27411 .0001 3.29296 .0712 .10599 .7451 .02148 .8836 .00531 .9420 It was hypothesized in this study that there is a relationship between socialization tactics and role innovation which is moderated by the principal's level of self-efficacy. The study .found that one of the independent measures, passage, was statistically significant in predicting role innovation. Context resulted in a significant cm-felation with role innovation when average scores rather than factor scores used. However, in the multiple regression equation when the effect of passage was removed, the correlation between context and role 94

PAGE 106

innovation was not significant. Neither context nor any of the other variables unique information in the relationship found between passage and role innovation. The analyses of this study found no significant relationship between self-efficacy :and any of the variables including the dependent variable, role innovation, even when the interaction between self-efficacy and passage was isolated. 11Je findings confirmed that individual socialization tactics (random '' and variable) which comprised passage are related to role innovation. The other relationships hypothesized were not confirmed. The original hypothesis is shown in Figure 12. With the same format, the figure has been revised according to .the findings of this study and is shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2. Summary of Findings. lndivid.ual Individual Informal Random ' Variable Disjun'ctive Divestiture Institutional Collective Formal' Sequential Fixed Serial lnvesti.ture I Self Efficacy I 95

PAGE 107

Discussion of Findings The fmdings reported in the first section of chapter 4 will be discussed more in depth in this section as they relate to the hypothesis and will be compared the findings of Jones (1986). This portion of the chapter provides more explanation about the socialization tactics variables and the self-efficacy as they relate to the findings of this study. Socialization Tactics The hypothesis of this study which was derived from Jones' (1986) study was only partially upheld. One measure of the socialization tactics, passage, correlated significantly with role innovation. Passage measured the degree to which the principal can identify the steps of socialization leading to the principal role. If the steps leading to the role are specified in a prescribed order, the "passage" is institutionalized. H the steps leading to the role are unknown, undear or continually changing, the process is termed individualized. Passage described whether or not the socialization steps build upon each other in a sequential fashion and if the steps have. a timetable associated them that is communicated to the new principal. The results of this study demonstrated that role innovation was more likely to occur .. when the socialization processes depicted by passage, (i.e. sequential/random and fiXed/variable) were individualized. The individualized processes of passage were the random and variable 96

PAGE 108

socialization tactics. According to VanMaanen and Schein (1979), Recruits who encounter various socialization experiences in a random: fashion may find themselves exposed to a wide and diverse variety of views and perceptions of the target role which would it more likely than is true of sequential socialization to lead to innovative orientations. (p. 244) However, VanMaanen and Schein (1979) also said that fixed socialization processes were more likely to produce innovative responses because "a variable situation leads to maximum anxiety and this anxiety operates as a strong motivator toward conformity" (p. 246). Jones' (1986) results confirmed Van Maanen : and Schein's theory on the first point concerning random socialization were inconsistent with the theory concerning fixed socialization processes. According to Jones (1986), It seems more likely that when the future is uncertain, variable tactics will encourage innovative responses, especially in organizations in which newcomers' abilities to deal competently with uncertain situations govern upward mobility. (p. 265) I In Jones' study, more innovative role orientations were associated with both random variable individualized processes. This study supported Jones' (1986) proposition in that random and variable individualized socialization processes which comprised the passage variable correlated with high role innovation. In fact, in this study, these individualized processes, I labeled passage, were the only processes shown to be related to role innovation. No were found between role innovation and institutionalized 97

PAGE 109

socialization processes; Jones (1986) found none either. As in this study, Jones found the same correlation between random and variable socialization tactics (pass4ge) and role innovation to be the strongest correlation. Jones' (1986) second strongest correlation was found between the individualized socialization processes of the social aspects (divestiture and disjunctive) and I role innovation. His third, positive correlation with role innovation was found using the socialization processes, individual and informal, of the context. factor. In this study, none of the other individualized tactics were found to be 'associated with role innovation. It is important to consider the socialization scales, the population, the field of educ":tion, the timing of administration of the scale, the situation and I the environment when contemplating why passage related to role innovation. The socialization tactics scales were altered from Jones' study (1986). The factor analysis procedure eliminated ten items from the data analysis. The subsequent calculations were altered and differed from Jones as a result of these The fact that the aspects of the hypothesis concerning context, social. aspects, and self-efficacy were not confirmed could be as a result of the modifications of the scales. Passage accounted for most of the variance, but context and social aspectS shared some of the variance as evidenced by the interrcorrelations. SocializatiQn tactics may be largely unidentifiable as separate and unique 98

PAGE 110

processes for newly-assigned principals. According to Van Maanen and Schein (1979), socialization happens whether or not it is deliberate or planned. However, for public school principals if may be so obscure that they cannot identify its qualities in a study such as this design. When analyzing passage and role innovation, there may be underlying factors between the two variables which were not studied. It seems that both constructs deal with high levels of ambiguity and people who score high on passage and. role innovation may be people who can deal effectively with the gray areas of'social situations without frustration. These constructs may include people who can read social situations with ease and are perceptive and intuitive. : Passage is difficult to interpret within the world of education. Educational institutions do not specify when a person might enter a new role unlike the army or certain businesses. Educators are able to move into new roles as they demonstrate readiness, interest, willingness, and ability. One aspect of passage which parallels the educational structure includes the routine of 'certification procedures. As certification and endorsements are completed, eQilcators have access to different roles within the educational structure. For example, teachers acquire certification for the principalship then apply foJ;" a new role. Nonetheless, having the certification does not ensure that a teacher will be given the opportunity to move into a new role. 99

PAGE 111

Passage includes an aspect of time. The degree to which the steps of the I I socialization process involve a predetermined, prescribed timetable is referred to as a fixed :socialization process. In education, the time line for assuming each subsequent new role is variable. For example, a principal may. have been an principal for one or several years prior to assuming the principalship: In a fixed setting, such as for medical doctors, the residency program is preset for one year, and residents are aware of the time line from the beginning of the program. The ambiguity in education demonstrates the variable of its socialization processes. The educational structure gives newly-assigned principals few clues as to when they can expect to complete a phase of socialization or move. into a new role. Educators develop their own time lines with little direction from the organization demonstrating an individualized aspect of socialization. The responses of principals may have been affected by the timing of the administration of the socialization tactics scales. Because of the uniqueness of school years, principals' workload is annualized. People entering a new role in business may be completing most of the phases of socialization in a quarterly or semi-annual cycle, three to six months. However, the newly-assigned principals in this study had only completed half of a cycle when the questionnaire. were administered. Within the principal role, the annual cycle includes tasks such as faculty and student orientations in the fall, grading and 100

PAGE 112

teacher in the early winter, registration and schedule building in late winter,. and closing of school in the spring. As the year progresses, student and parent pressures build following the initial, quiet, welcoming period when the new principal entered the role. Because the socialization tactics scales were administered in January, the respondents had not experienced the complete cycle of the year, perhaps affecting how they responded to : the items. The enVironment of each school building and school district and the situation of each newly-assigned principal in this study was unique. It is possible that the individuality of each principal's situation contributed to the lack of a relationship found in context and social aspects with role innovation. The socialization tactics scales may not have been specific to educators in the context arid social aspects. Although the reliability coefficients were : acceptable, some of the items were difficult to apply to the field of education. For example; item 19 in the context factor, ''This organization does not put new through an identifiable sequence of learriing experiences," does not capture socialization usually occurs for newly-assigned principals. They may not have been able to respond to this question adequately because I '1earning experiences" are vague terms. Applying their own interpretations, respondents could refer to the degree or certification program from a university or the induction activities prescribed by the school district. 101

PAGE 113

Context was comprised primarily of items included in collective and individual s9.cialization tactics. VanMaanen and Schein (1979) acknowledged that "individual socialization is most likely to produce the I specific desired by the socialization agent" (p. 236). They further stated that the socialization agent has the control over the recruit in the individual mode, but the outcome may not be innovative if the agent does not desire innovation on the part of the recruit. This definition from Van Maanen and Schein (1979) implied that the strength of the individual socialization process may vary with different populations, at different times, in different places, and with different socialization agents. Within the framework of context, role innovation was not predetermined as the only outcome of the individualized socialization tactic. If school districts want principals who are custodial, they may derive the result best by using tactics and arranging for the newly-assigned principal to be mentored by a custodial socialization agent. Context is so situational to school districts and individual socialization agents that it is not a stable contributor to role innovation. In this study, context was found to correlate with role innovation on its own but not when the effects of passage were removed. Investiture. and divestiture socialization tactics of social aspects did not correlate with role innovation in this study. It was hypothesized that 102

PAGE 114

individualized socialization processes of divestiture would correlate with role innovation. Divestiture processes are usually found at the entry into a profession and require the newcomer to be stripped of previous knowledge and relationships. The field of education and, specifically, the principalship have some basic characteristics that may have precluded this construct from entering into the prediction of role innovation. Divestiture tactics do not operate in the field of education or in the administration ranks. Principals tend to be placed in their schools based on their strengths and the needs of the school community. School districts seek principals with qualities and experiences that they can use to lead the school. They want principals to rely on their past experiences not divest themselves of them. As Stated in chapter 1, some socialization has already occurred for newly-assigned principals in the field of education as they were teachers prior to accepting this new role. In education, principals are not expected to pass a "test of worthiness" (VanMaanen and Schein, p. 252) in order to be accepted into the new role of the principalship. Social aspects refers to the relative reinforcement of the principal's strengths and unique abilities that are brought to the new role. The role of the principal is so diverse and complex that it may be impossible to remold the person in order to control the principal's values. Principals have already been socialized, perhaps heavily, into the field of education. They may 103

PAGE 115

require a5sistance with the technical aspects of the role if they are a new principal or clarification about the culture of the district if they are an '' experienced principal. Nonetheless, because they must be able to do all of the complex tasks with competency, it is assumed that newly-assigned principals must seek out positive social support from other principals in order to survive. In a new school assignment, it is expected and accepted that the newly-assigned principal will seek assistance when needed. It is doubtful that formal or collective programs would meet most of the needs of newly-assigned principals. need the immediate assistance when a specific situation arises. In education, other principals accommodate and provide the reinforcement that new principals need when it is requested of them. This social interaction would happen whether or not the new principal displayed role innovation. In conclusion, the socialization processes of education may be different from the socialization processes in business, even the wide variety of businesses Jones studied (1986). The field of education is situational because each school district is locally controlled. It seems that despite many efforts at effective socialization processes in education, role innovation may only be slightly influenced if at all. In this study, it was found that the individualized socialization processes of '' passage contribute significantly to role innovation. Socialization processes 104

PAGE 116

which are unSpecified, without sequential steps and ftxed timetables increase the possibility that the principal will respond to the role in an innovative manner. The uncertainty of the process allows and encourages newly-assigned principals to: Qeal competently and creatively with situations in their new position. Self-Efficacy: It was hypothesized in this study that self-efficacy would moderate the .found among the socialization tactics and role innovation. The findings did not support this hypothesis; no relationship was found with self-efficacy and any of the variables. In addition, when combined with the strongest predictor, passage, it still produced no effect in the relationship that was found between passage and role innovation. Several factors contributed to the reason that self-efficacy did not moderate the effects on role innovation: the instrument, the situations of newly-assigned principals, and the time of administering the scale. The self-efficacy instrument itself played a large part in the lack of any quantifiable effect. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was only .53. Jones (1986) found the self-efficacy scale to have a reliability coefficient of .71 with his Although the scale demonstrated reliability in Jones' study, it may not be suitable for a population of educators. The low reliability illustrates that the items in the scale were an inconsistent measurement. For 105

PAGE 117

example, item four, "I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my new job; need know is practical experience," could have invited a variety of interpretations from the respondents. Several principals niade notes in the margin of questionnaire to explain their responses more fully This quantitative measurement of self-efficacy may not be sufficiently sensitive to distinguish the complexity of self-efficacy within the field of education. It may be necessary :to use qualitative methods to measure self-efficacy in principals. The population of newly-assigned principals included principals from a wide variety of school districts and situations which may have influenced the effect of self-efficacy. The environment of each school is a variable that was not accounted for in this measurement. Principals were in different environments: when they responded to the self-efficacy items as evidenced in the demographic data obtained (Table 4.4). Furthermore, new positions with many uncertainties cause new principals to be tentative and unsure because each new must be researched. They do not have the situational history to respond confidently. This tentativeness may impact the self-efficacy measurement of newly-assigned principals. It is important to note the time of year that the instrument was administered. The work of a principal follows a school year in a cyclical fashion. The beginning of the school year is a hectic, difficult time for all principals those who are new in their assignments. It may have 106

PAGE 118

been impossible for them to make judgements such as was requested in the items. For example, item two, "I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to work in organization," might have been answered differently at a different time of the year. Therefore, the timing of the questionnaire, September 1991, may have influenced the reliability of the self-efficacy instrument. : In conclusion, the measurement of self-efficacy of a principal may have been influenced by the reliability of the scale, the situational environment of the principal,: and the timing of the administration of the questionnaire. There were po significant correlations found between self-efficacy and any of the demographic variables of this population. There were no significant differences how new and experienced principals responded to the self-efficacy items. The hypothesized relationship that self-efficacy would moderate the relationship between socialization tactics and role innovation was not found to be accurate with this population. Consideration of demographics, situation, timing, environment and the scale for the population of newly-assigned principals makes it possible to conclude that self-efficacy does not impact the relationship with role innovation in the field of education within the time line designed. 107

PAGE 119

Summazy of Major Findings Following are the niajor findings in this study: who acquired the principalship role in an individualized manner random, ambiguous steps and time lines reported higher role innovation. I Self-efficacy did not moderate the hypothesized relationships of the :' socialization tactics and role innovation in newly-assigned principals; and, None of the demographic variables correlated significantly with role innovation. I ': ': 108

PAGE 120

CHAPTERS SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPUCATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter summarizes the study and explains the methods and findings. I A discussion of the findings as they relate to previous research is included, and implications and recommendations for further research are presented. The chapter concludes with a summary statement. Summary of the Study Principals are key figures in the reform efforts and school improvement challenges in the nation. Because the principal's role and effectiveness are ,. critical, school districts must give attention to the manner in which principals are socialized into their positions. According to VanMaanen and Schein (1979), the socialization process determines how the principal will respond to the new role; in a custodial or an innovative manner. Socialization is an inevitable process whether the tactics are planned or happen by accident. School districts can design socialization tactics to achieve the desired outcome, innovative or eustodialleaders. However, the self-efficacy of the individual moderates the effects of the socialization process on the role innovation of the individual (Jones, 1986). Individuals with high or low levels of self-efficacy

PAGE 121

define their 'roles differently, and the socialization processes may be more or less influential. l This study extended the theory and research of Van Maanen and Schein (1979) and Jones (1986) into the field of education. It added to the research on socialization of individuals into their role and their resultant response to the role. The research design involved two surveys mailed at two different times. Data on the principal's level of self-efficacy and demographic information were collected in September 1991 as newly-assigned principals began their new positions. Five months later, data were collected from principals regarding the socialization tactics experienced and their role innovation. Multiple regression analyses of the independent variables, the intervening variable, and the dependent variable were performed. There were three independent measures, passage, context, and social aspects. Self-efficacy was / entered into the multiple regression equation as an independent variable. The depende,rit variable was role innovation. The findings of this study demonstrated that passage correlated significantly role innovation. Passage, as a socialization process, described whether or not the principal knew the identifiable steps leading to the principalship and if those steps had a timetable associated with them. The data revealed that if the steps and time lines leading to the principalship 110

PAGE 122

were obsCll;re, unclear, or continually changing then the probability of role innovation for newly-assigned principals was enhanced. The newly-assigned principals in this study who experienced passage as an individualized process reported higher role innovation. None of the other socialization processes, individualized or institutionalized, were found to relate to role innovation. The data presented no association between role innovation and self-efficacy even when self-efficacy and passage were combined into one variable. Demographic items were collected based on the literature review in chapter 2. No relationships were found among the demographic variables and the measures of study which would suggest that the demographic data would affect the h)'Pothesis. I' Conclusions who experience socialization processes which are random and have flexibility and variety are more likely to adapt to the role of principal in an When the individual principal's needs are addressed in I the socialization phase, more meaningful results take place. Principals have choices concerning which aspects of the job to focus on primarily and when. For example, principals may decide that instruction needs to be improved and take a refresher course in teacher evaluation and remediating the marginal I teacher. They may observe or consult with a strong instructional leader in the 111

PAGE 123

field and then request some feedback and tutoring on their own skills. All of I these strategies for socialization in the principal's role are left to the discretion of the principal. There is no one, prescribed, right way to learn what skills or knowledge are needed. The process is random and variable for principals, and they have input into the process. Furthermore, when the future of principals within the organization is not predetermined, principals develop in what happens in schools. If principals know that they will only be at the school for a short time before assuming another role, creativity innovation are not likely to occur. However, when principals do not know how long they will be at the school and when their future will be judged by the innovation demonstrated there, they will produce more dramatic results. Principals can influence schools within the appropriate I setting. Their influence is defined as role innovation. Socialization processes at the entry phase of newly-assigned principals were not strong determinants of their role innovation. Newly-assigned principals may be too focused on the tasks of their positions to be able to identify socialization processes specifically. Furthermore, the socialization processes may be too obscure and ambiguous for the newly-assigned principals I to identify. As a result, socialization is a process that may be too difficult for newly-assigned principals to define as they were requested to do in this study. Socialization at the entry phase may be insignificant in comparison with 112

PAGE 124

the socializa.tion that takes place throughout a career in education. The passage characteris'tics of randomness, ambiguity, and variety may describe the whole field' of education. Newly-assigned principals who had been socialized into the field of education as teachers could easily recognize these characteristics within the socialization process. These qualities may not have been identified as a result of acquiring the new role of principal since they are embedded in the educational field itself. Results 'of this study may have been different from Jones' study (1986) because the newly-assigned principals were not new to the profession or the field of they each brought unique experiences to the unique situations. In Jones' study (1986), the sample population included graduate students who had never been in the work force. All entered the new positions with approximately the same experience base. Because newly-assigned principals have moved into the principalship with a pre-disposed view of the role, role innovation may or may not occur. As teachers move into principal roles, much of the socialization process has already traruipired even though they have not assumed the position. McCabe (cited in Augenstein, 1987) found that prinCipals make few changes in their role behavior over time because they have developed a picture of the role of the principalwhile they were a teacher. I SituationaJ, differences may attribute to the reason that role innovation 113

PAGE 125

was not related to all of the socialization processes. Principals in this study were unique. in the situation in their roles because of prior experiences and the sequence of the steps leading to the position. New principals experienced I the socialization phase differently because of the situation and their own prior experiences causing them to respond to the role differently. In the literature, Schein (197la) discussed the differences in the manner that individuals enter into new roles. He distinguishes three boundary passages when individuals enter a new organization--functional, inclusionary, and hierarchical. Similarly, in this study. newly-assigned principals encountered all three boundaries to some degree; however, situational differences occurred. Some experienced principals already possessed the knowledge, skills, and tasks required for a I functional boundary passage. Some inside candidacy principals in smaller districts possibly had informal networks in place for the inclusionary boundary passage. Most new principals were dealing with hierarchical boundary issues such as authority relationships. Each principal was the only principal in that particular school and was required to define situations in isolation from other principals. Previous principals may or may not have been available to assist new principals in interpreting their situations. In any case, it was necessary for new principals: to comprehend most situations in terms of their own involvement in the situations. Greenfield (1977a, 1977b) determined that the 114

PAGE 126

principal's role behavior was a function of the extensiveness of the repertoire which the candidate brought to the situation and the contextual properties of the situation itself. He pointed out that the culture of schools was strong enough to maintain and perpetuate the current administrator sub-culture in the school (Greenfield, 1985). He stated that socialization' processes were extremely stable fostering a custodial response. He was not optimistic that informal processes could be altered significantly. Most principals want to be accepted and quickly pass through the inclusionary boundary. Role innovation places newly-assigned principals in jeopardy of not being accepted within the sub-culture of the administrators, and they risk exclusion. For new principals, the personal risk may be too great to withstand exclusionary responses from colleagues. The timing of this study may have affected the results. Role innovation in principals may be more apparent after a longer amount of time in the new position. Schein (1971a) stated that socialization is the organization's influence on the individual and role innovation is the individual's influence on the organization. He further asserted that a person's influence on the organization, his innovation, will occur when role changes are not imminent. Individuals who have just moved into a new role are concentrating on learning the technical aspects of the job and are not taking many risks. The fact that principals work in an annual cycle implies that 115

PAGE 127

. socialization was still in progress. Businesses usually work on a quarterly basis so that a person would have completed a cycle in the five months of Jones' (1986) study. In this study, the newly-assigned principal was still in the middle of first year and still learning about the new situation when role innovation data were collected. VanMaanen (1976) determined that when individuals enter a new organization, they are more susceptible to influences from the organization. Role innovation follows only after the intense entry phase. The instruments used in this study may not have been appropriate for the population .. Because the principals had already experience some socialization into the field' of education, some of the questions from Jones' (1986) may not have been as. applicable. As stated previously, the self-efficacy questionnaire was not a consistent measure with this population. The questions surrounding the measures of the study cause limitations to the conclusions drawn. Because socialization processes are not often apparent in a systematic manner school districts, there may be such a low level of activity for principals that the processes are difficult to identify or measure. As discussed previously, the scales may not have been sensitive enough to distinguish the socialization processes for the respondents. Furthermore, the individual choices and situations at each school within each school district resulted in significant variations in the identification of 116

PAGE 128

socialization processes that could not be taken into account within the study or within field of education. In general, socialization processes in education may be difficult to measure because of the qualities of the field of education. All educators are socialized into education beginning with their own experiences in school. Their own socialization processes begin early and continue throughout their career. It may be impractical to isolate a section of time and be able to measure accurately the socialization processes that occur. The contributors to role innovation in principals is still largely unexplained. If socialization processes do not strongly relate to role innovation, the question remains concerning what leads principals to become innovative in their roles. Implications Several implications can be derived from the conclusions of this study: 1. It waS not determined from this study whether or not school districts desire innovative principals. School districts need to decide what kind of principals they want. If role innovation is not a specific or strong outcome of socialization tactics as suggested by the results of this study, what are the outcomes for the organization from the socialization phase? The socialization process should be identified and specified for newly-assigned principals with 117

PAGE 129

specific goals designed for the process. The entry period in organizational socialization is an extremely intense time in which the organization has the I maximum opportunity to influence the newcomer (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979; Feldm,an, 1976; Schein, 1968; Schein, 1971a). The field of education needs to examine how this time is spent in order to provide the optimum opportunities to inculcate the desired values and attitudes. Socialization is a process not an event and a means by which school districts can effect change (Brim, 1966). 2. School districts that decide that they want innovative principals need to align their actions with the stated value of innovation. As Greenfield (1985) suggested, school districts must articulate their desired values, encourage administrators to participate in leadership opportunities, recognize and reward innovative behaviors, and provide retraining for administrators to relearn the role. It is critical that school districts choose innovative mentors for new principals. Custodial mentors will not be able to cultivate innovation in the new principal1 School districts must place emphasis on inculcating innovative responses from principals. Opportunities for principals to gain leadership experiences which focus on innovation will need to be planned and participation encouraged, if not expected, as part of the culture. Site-based I decision making is leading school districts toward accepting more innovation in their leaders. 118

PAGE 130

3. For the most part, socialization processes of newly-assigned principals have been ignored. The findings of this study suggest that newly-assigned principals require a definite plan for entry into their position. Passage implies that the plan needs to be definite and descriptive but flexible, adjustable, and individualized for each newly-assigned principal in order to enhance role innovation. 4. School districts which desire innovative principals need to examine ways for principals to be socialized in an individualized manner. More emphasis should be placed on individuals and their needs. The needs of the newlyassigned prfu.cipal should be considered in designing the schedule and steps to learning the new role. Mentorships and other similar strategies which address the individual needs of new principals in a random and variable manner are more effective in socializing principals resulting in higher role innovation. paresh (1986) concurred that newly-assigned principals need more support including patient mentors to talk about job concerns. 5. School districts which do not want principals to act in an innovative manner should provide entry activities which are identical for each newlyassigned principal and are sequential and lock-step in nature. All principals should be given the same program on the same time line. Institutionalized processes may perpetuate the bureaucracy and encourage custodial responses in principals. School districts should review their institutionalized socialization 119

PAGE 131

processes in light of the findings of this study and Jones' (1986) study. 6. The local school district needs to recognize and accept its responsibility for socialization of principals. The socialization processes in education seem to be situational and difficult to generalize to all individuals in all school districts. Socialization tactics may not be designed and implemented in a prescriptive manner but should be individualized to the situation. Each school district should determine the outcomes it desires from the socialization process and design the program to meet those expectations considering the needs and experiences of the newly-assigned principals. Each district needs to I study its requirements for socialization before a plan is laid out. 7. If districts want innovative principals, the screening, hiring and selection processes should reflect this value. Districts should recognize that principals who are socialized into the principalship in a random and flexible manner may be more innovative in their role. 8. Although Jones' (1986) study supported the hypothesis that self-efficacy moderated the relationships among the socialization tactics and role innovation, self-efficacy in education may require more time to measure than was designed in this study. Self-efficacy may be subm:dinated in the early stages of entry into a new principalship. It may be measured more accurately after the first full year on the job. 120

PAGE 132

Recommendations for Future Research From study, individualized socialization processes were found to contribute to role innovation in newly-assigned principals. No institutionalized socialization processes were related to role innovation. Self-efficacy was not an influential factor in associating socialization tactics and role innovation. Several areas for further study have been determined as a result of the findings of this study. 1. is a need for interpretive research to map the socialization processes of principals in schools. Previous research does not provide in depth knowledge of the socialization processes of public school principals (Nelson, 1986). Aspects of the process need to be identified and specified through research conducted over time with much detail. 2. It was not clear in this study that the newly-assigned principals recognized what was happening to them during the entry phase. A qualitative study is called for to determine if they could perceive the processes of socialization that they were experiencing. Theoretically, socialization is an unending process, but for the participant, it is important to be able to identify the stages, tasks or events of the process in order to determine the outcomes of the processes . 3. The wide variety and types of socialization processes in educational leadership roles need to be explored. 121

PAGE 133

4. It would be prudent to study the personality of respondents who scored high on role. innovation and were involved in individualized socialization processes of' passage. There may be underlying factors of these two constructs which were not examined in this study. 5. A study should be conducted to gather data on the various methods whereby school districts encourage or discourage role innovation in their principals. 6. A study should be conducted to determine the correlation between specific qualities of a principal and role innovation. 7. This study should be repeated within longer time frame. The self-efficacy of the principal may not moderate the relationship of the socialization process and role innovation until after the majority of the socialization phase has been completed. Collecting the self-efficacy data after the first full .year or during the second year of the principalship may provide different results with respect to self-efficacy's influence on role innovation. 8. Self-efficacy as a measurement in the field of education requires further study. 9. A study should be conducted to examine how principals gain information which enhance their self-efficacy if socialization processes do not contribute to it as this study concluded. 122

PAGE 134

Summazy processes are not being used for the benefit of principals, school districts, or education. They are currently allowed to happen in a haphazard manner resulting in a wasted opportunity to effect change for the district and education. If role innovation is the desired role response for educational leaders, school districts must seek methods which will lead to this outcome. Strategies which enhance role innovation and which were investigated in this study included socialization tactics used with public school principals as they learn their roles. This study also examined the self-efficacy of principals to determine if it had an effect on the desired outcome, role innovation. This study found that one aspect of socialization tactics contributed to I role innovation. None of the other aspects of socialization or self-efficacy were associated with role innovation in public school principals in the '' population of the study. It behooves school districts to continue to search for strategies to enhance role innovation in its school leaders. If the nation and education are to improve education successfully, the leaders of schools must become change facilitators and innovators, not custodians for the archaic institution of the past. 123

PAGE 135


PAGE 136

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION 1. Name of school district ___________ 2. Total years as an administrator ............... 3. Total number of years in education ........... 4. This is ,the first principalship of niy career . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No 5. Total years as a principal ................... 6. When you received this principalship, were you promoted from inside the district or were you hired from outside? ... Inside Outside I 7. The highest level of education which you have completed . . . Master's -Doctorate Educational Specialist Other 8. Age in years ............................. 9. Gender: ............................. Female Male 10. School description .............. Elementary Middle or junior Senior Other 11. Approximate enrollment in your school ....... 125

PAGE 137

PERSONAL PERCEPTIONS For each statement, please circle the one number that best reflects your agreement or disagreement. 1. 2. My new job is well within the scope of my Strongly Disagree abilities ............................. I do not anticipate any problems in adjusting to wolk in this organization ........................ Strongly Agree 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I feel I am overqualified for the job I am doing.......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my new job; alii need now is practical experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my future colleagues. . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. My experiences and accomplishments Increase my confidence that I am able to perform successfully in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I could have handled a more challenging job than the one I am doing. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Professionally speaking, my new job exactly satisfied my expectations of myself. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thank you. Please return in addressed, stamped envelope to: Nola Gill Campus Middle School 4785 s. Dayton Englewood, CO 80 111 126

PAGE 138


PAGE 139

PRINCIPAL INDUCTION Principals: I would greatly appreciate your timely response to the second portion of this research project. It will only take a few minutes. Please note: The term "newly assigned principal" includes principals new to the principalship and experienced principals who had a new school assignment this fall 1991. For each statement, please circle the one number that best reflects your agreement or disagreement about your experiences in your new position. 1. In the last year, I have been extensively involved with other newly-assigned principals in common, job-Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree related training activities. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Other newly-assigned principals have been instrumental in helping me to understand my job requirements. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. This organization puts aU newly-assigned principals through the same set of learning experiences. . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Most of my training has been carried out apart from other newly-assigned prindpals.. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. There is .a sense of "being in the same boat" amongst newly-assigned principals in this organization ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I have been through a set of training experiences which are specifically designed to give newly-assigned principals a thorough knowledge of job-related skills .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. During my training for this job, I was normally physically apart from regular organizational members ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I did not perform any of my normal job responsibilities until I was thoroughly familiar with district procedures and work methods ................................ 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 GO ON TO NEXT PAGE us

PAGE 140

9. 10. Strongly Disagree Much of my job knowledge has been acquired infonnally on a trial and error basis ... 1 2 I have been very aware that I am seen as '1eaming the ropes"' in this organization. .................... 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 6 7 6 7 11. I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are very important in this organization .................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Almost all of my colleagues have been supportive of me personally ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 have had to change my attitudes and values to be .accepted in this organization .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me adjust to this organization ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. I feel that experienced organizational members have held me at a distance until I conform to their expectations .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. There is a clear pattern in the way one role leads to another or one job assignment leads to another in this 2 organization. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 4 5 6 7 17. Each stage of the training process has, and will, expand and build upon the job knowledge gained during the preceding stages of the process. . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. The movement from role to role and function to function to build up experience and a track record is very apparent in this organization .......... 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 19. This organization does not put newly-assigned principals through an identifiable sequence of learning experiences .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GO ON lONEXT PAGE U9

PAGE 141

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 20. The steps in the career ladder are clearly specified in this organization ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Experienced organizational members see advising or training new principals as one of their main job responsibilities in this organization .................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. I am gaining a clear understanding of my role in this from observing my senior colleagues ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I have received little guidance from experienced organizational members as to how I should perform my job ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. I have little or no access to principals who have previously performed my role in this organization ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. I have been generally left alone _to discover what my role should be in this organization ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. I can predict my future career path in this organization by observing other people's experiences. . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. I have a good knowledge of the time it will take me to go thro:ugh the various stages of the training process in this organization ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. The way in which my progress through this organization will follow a fixed timetable of events has been clearly communicated to me ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. I have little idea when to expect a new job assignment or training exercise in this organization. . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GO ON 10 NEXT PAGE 130

PAGE 142

Strongly Disagree 30. Most of my knowledge of what may happen to me in the future comes informally, through the grapevine, rather Strongly Agree than through regular organizational channels. . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please indicate in what ways you do your job differently from the person who did the job before you. Although you may not have a clear idea of this, try to give your impression of how you approach your job compared with how other people have done or currently do this job in your organization. Only use the Don't Know column if you have absolutely no idea how the job has been done. I do the job I do the job much the 1omewhat ume as other differently people have than others done it have done it A Setting work targets/objectives 1 2 B. Deciding 'the methods used to achieve objectives/targets. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 2 c Deciding the order in which different parts of the job are done .................. 1 2 D Choosing whom you deal with in order to cany out your work duties.. .. .. .. .. .. 1 2 E Initiating new pnxedun!S or inionnation systems ...................... 1 2 F Developing innovative ways of acxomplishing targets/objectives .. 1 2 Thank you. Please return jn addressed, stamped envelope to; 131 Nola Gill Campus Middle School 4785 S. Dayton Englewood, CO 80111 I do the job very differently than others have done it 3 3 3 3 3 3 Don't Know 8 8 8 8 8 8

PAGE 143


PAGE 144

Campus Middle School 4785 South Dayton Street Englewood, Colorado 80111 (303) no-1150 Nola Gill, Principal September 1991 Dear Principal: J.) ChenyCreek Schools Declicaled 10 Excellence I am conducting a survey as part of my research for the Doctoral degree at the University of Colorado at Denver. The topic is socialization during the initial phase of a new appointment as principal of a public school. Would you :take a few minutes of your time and complete the enclosed questionnaire? I am asking all newly-appointed principals in the Fall1991 to participate in this project. Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope. If I have not received your return by September 25, I will call you. I assure you that all information collected in this survey will be kept confidential. I will use the numbering code at the top of the page to record the returns only. This study is designed in two stages. I will be sending another questionnaire to you in January which will gather additional information. When you re.ceive that survey, I would appreciate it if you would send it in as soon as you can. If you have questions about the study, please call me at 770-1150 or Dr. Michael Murphy at 556-2190. School districts may be able to use the information from this study to assist in socializing newly-appointed principals. I will send you a copy of the general findings of the study when it is completed. Thank for helping me in this way. Sincerely, Nola H. Gill 133

PAGE 145


PAGE 146

Campus Middle School 4785 South Street Englewood, Colorado 80111 (303) no-115o Nola Gill, Principal January 1992 Dear Principal: J.) Cherry Creek Schools Dedicated to Excellence This fall you kindly completed the flrst section of a survey on principal induction. I thank you for participating in this project which is part of research for the doctoral degree at The University of Colorado at Denver. Would you:take a few minutes to complete the second portion of this project on the enclosed questionnaire? All newly-assigned principals in the Fall1991 were asked to participate in this project. Please note! In this project "newly-assigned" means either new to the principalship or experienced principals who have a new school assignment this fall. Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope. I will call you if I have not received your reply by January 25. All information collected will be kept confidential. I will use. the number code at the top of the questionnaire to match this portion to the one you previously returned. Thank you for completing and returning the enclosed questionnaire promptly. If you have questions about the study, please call me at 770-1150 or Dr. Michael Murphy at 556-2190. I will send you a copy of the general findings of the study when it is completed. Again, thank you for your valuable assistance with this research project. Sincerely, 71,/.j;_t Nola H. Gill Principal 135

PAGE 147

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alban-MetcBJfe, B., and Nicholson, N. (1984). The career development of male and female british managers. London: British Institute of Management. Aldrich, Bruce H. (1984). All decisions great and small. In John J. Lane {Ed.), Themaking of a principal (pp.75-86). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas fublisher. Alvy, H.B. (1984). The problems of new principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1979A Augenstein, John Joseph. (1987). An exploration of the informal socialization of beginning Ohio Catholic elementary school principals (Doctoral dissertatimi, Kent State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts Internatiofl:al, 49, 04A. Bandura, Albert. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In David A Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization themy and research (pp. 213-2'62). Chicago: Rand McNally. Bandura, Albert. (1977). Social learning themy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc. Bandura, Albert. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122-147. Barnett, Bruce. (1990). The. mentor-intern relationship: Making the most of learning from experience. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (526), 17-24. Barth, Roland. (1976). A principal and his school. The National Elementazy Principal, 56, 9-21. Barth, Roland. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Inc., Publishers. Berlew, D. E., and Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on performance. Administrative Science Ouarterly,Jl, 207-223.

PAGE 148

Blumberg, A, and Greenfield, W. (1980). The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., and Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, JB, 34-64. Bridges, E. M. (1965). Bureaucratic role and socialization: The influence of experience on the elementary school principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1 (2), 19-28. Brim, Orville G., Jr. (1966). In Brim, Orville G., and Wheeler, Stanton (Eds.), Socialization after childhood: Two essays (pp. 3-49). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Brim, Orviile G., Jr. (1968). Adult socialization. In John A. Clausen (Ed.), Socialization and society (pp. 182-226). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Buchanan, .Bruce. (1974). Building organizational conlmitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546. Clausen, John A (1968a). Socialization as a concept and as a field of study. In John A. Clausen (Ed.), Socialization and society (pp. 3-17). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Clausen, John A (1968b). A historical and comparative view of socialization theory and research. In John A Clausen (Ed.), Socialization and society (pp. 19-72). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Daresh, John C. (1984). The making of a principal. In John J. Lane (Ed.), The making of a principal (pp. 31-46). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Daresh, Johri C. (1986, October). Coming on board: Characteristics of the beginning principalship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid western Educational Research Association, Chicago. Daresh, John C. (1988). Collegial Support: A lifeline for the beginning principal. NASSP Bulletin, 72 (511), 84-87. Daresh, John C. (1990). Formation: The missing ingredient in administrator preparation. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (526), 1-5. 137

PAGE 149

Daresh, John C., and Playko, Marsha A (1990). Mentor programs: Focus on the beginning principal. NASSP Bulletin, 73, 73-77. Denhardt, Robert B. (1968). Bureaucratic socialization and organizational accommodation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 441-450. Douglas, (1991). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Drury, William R. (1989). Reforming administrator training: Here we go again! The School Administrator, 46 (10), 16-17. Dunham, Randall B., and Herman, Jeanne B. (1975). Development of female faces scale for measuring job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 629-631. I Feldman, Daniel Charles. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Science Quarterly, 21, 433-450. Feldman, Daniel Charles. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management 309-318. Feldman, Daniel C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Freeman, Lawrence D. (1984). Managing the making ofprincipals: The state's role. In John J. Lane (Ed.), The making of a principal (pp. 15-30). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapoport, T., & Dornbusch, S. (1982). The organizational context of individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research, (1), 7-30. Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the process. The School Review, 65, 423-441. Graen, George. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally. Greenfield, W. D., Jr. (1977a). Administrative candidacy: A process of new 138

PAGE 150

role I. The Journal of Educational Administration, 15, 30-48. Greenfield,:W. D., Jr. (1977b}. Administrative candidacy: A process of new role learning--Part 2. The Journal of Educational Administration, 15, 170-193. Greenfield, William D., Jr. (1985). The moral socialization of school administrators: Informal role learning outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21 (4}, : Greenfield, William D., ed. (1987). Instructional leadership: Concepts. issues. and controversies. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Gussner, W;. P. (1974). The socialization of a school administrator (Doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 1910A Jones, Gareth R. (1983a). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, ,8, 464-474. Jones, R. (1983b). Organizational socialization as information processing activity: A life history analysis. Human Organization, 42, 314-320.': Jones, Gareth R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organization. Academy of Management Journal, 29 (2), 262-279 . : :' Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. (1966). The social psychology of New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Kelleher, Paul. (1982). A bad beginning as principal. In Barry Jentz (Ed.}, Entty 75-86). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Kelly, Eugepe W. (1986). Perceptions of administrative role conflict between supervision and evaluation of instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver, CO. I Kelly, Thomas W., and Metzcus, Richard H. (1975). Occupational socialization and work values of parochial and public school administrators: A comparative analysis. Notre Dame Journal of Education, .Q (1}, 36-42. 139

PAGE 151

Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In David A Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization themy and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally and Company. Kunin, TheQdore. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. PersonnetPsychology, .,B, 65-78. Lake, Dale G. (1982). Afterword. In Barry Jentz (Ed.), Entzy (pp. 219-221) .. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Lane, John J. (1984). From the classroom to the office, making the transition. In John (Ed.), The making of a principal (pp. 3-14). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Levine, Robert A (1969). Culture, personality, and socialization: An evolutionary view. In David A Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization themy and research (pp. 503-541). Chicago: Rand McNally and Company. Lieberman, Ann, and Miller, Lynne. (1984). Teachers. their world and their work. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lieberman, Seymour. (1956). The effects of changes in role on the attitudes of role occupants. Human Relations, !l, 385-402. Lortie, Dan C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, ll...: The University of Chicago Press. Louis, Meryl Reis .. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience .in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-249. Mascaro, F.G. (1974). The early on-the-job socialization of first-year elementary school principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside, 1973) Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 7492A Merton, Robert K. (1968). Social themy and social structure. New York: The Free Press. Miklos, EdWin. (1988). Administrator selection, career patterns, succession, and socialization. In Norman J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on 140

PAGE 152

educational administration (pp. 5376). New York: Longman, Inc. Miskel, C., & Cosgrove, D. (1985). Leader succession in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 55, 87-105. Moore, Wilbert E. (1969). Occupational socialization. In D. A Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theocy and research (pp 1075-1088). Chicago: Rand McNally. Nelson, Robert Andrew. (1986). The organizational socialization of public school administrator (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1986) Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 11A Nicholson, Nigel. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172-191. Nicholson, Nigel, and West, Michael A (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parkay, Forrest W., and Currie, Gaylon. (1989, March). Sources of su1mort for first-time high school principals during selection and entzy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA Porter, Lyman W., Steers, Richard M., Mowday, RichardT., and Boulian, Paul V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover amongst psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609. Principal Selection Guide. (1987). Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Department of Education), Washington, DC. Richards, James, and Fox, Anne. (1990). The internship-a meaningful experience for new administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 74, 526, 26-28. Rizzo, John R., House, Robert J., and Lirtzman, Sidney I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Roberts, Jo. (1989, March). Cultural orientations of first-time high school principals during selection and entzy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA 141

PAGE 153

Roder, Lawrence, and Pearlman, David. (1989). Starting on the right foot--A blueprint for incoming principals. NASSP Bulletin, 73 (519), 69-77. Rotter, Julian B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of: reinforcement. Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1), 1-28. Sandorff, P.:I. (1981). Women administrators in public elementaty education: Factors for successful entry (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3368A Schein, Edgar H. (1967). Attitude change during management education. Administrative Science Quarterly, .11, 601-628. Schein, Edgar H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management 1-16. Schein, Edgar H. (1971a). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,], 401-426. Schein, Edgar H. (1971b). Occupational socialization in the professions: The case of role innovation. The Journal of Psychiatric Research, .,B, 521-530. Schein, Edgar H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizatio.nal needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schein, Edgar H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Smith, M. Brewster. (1968). Competence and socialization. In John A Clausen (Ed.), Socialization and society (pp. 271-320). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Spradling, Richard L. (1989). We can make principalship induction less traumatic. NASSP Bulletin, 73 (520), 68-75. Stapley, Howard A, Jr., (1958). A study of the identification, local pre-service training, selection, and orientation of elementary school principals in selected Indiana schools (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1958). Dissertation Abstracts International, 19, 10006. Steller, Arthur W. (1984). Chart a course for selecting new principals. 142

PAGE 154

Updating School Board Policies, 15 (5), 1-3. VanMaanen, John. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work. organization and society (pp. 67-130). Chicago: Rand McNally. VanMaanen, John. (1980). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. In W. C. Hamner (Ed.), Organizational shock (pp. 33-48), New York: John Wiley & Sons. VanMaanen, John. (1984). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization. In James L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization (pp. 211-247). New York: New York University Press. VanMaanen, John, and Barley, Stephen R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, ., 287-365. VanMaanen, John, and Kunda, Gideon. (1989). "Real feeling": Emotional expression and organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103. VanMaanen, John, and Schein, Edgar H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, j, 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wanous, Jolin P. (1977). Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 601-618. Weinstein, Eugene A. (1969). The development of interpersonal competence. In David A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753-775). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. A. (1987a). Role innovation in the world of work. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 305-315. West, Michael A. (1987b). A measure of role innovation at work. British Journal of Psychology, 26, 83-85. West, Michael A., and Farr, James L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 15-30. 143

PAGE 155

Wheeler, Stanton. (1966). The structure of formally organized socialization settings. Jn Brim, Orville G., and Wheeler, Stanton (Eds.), Socialization after childhood: Two essays (pp. 51-113). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Wolcott, Harry F. (1973). The man in the principal's office: An ethnography. New York: Rinehart and Winston. 144