Citation
The behavior-reward linkage in small decision-making groups

Material Information

Title:
The behavior-reward linkage in small decision-making groups
Creator:
White, Sara Davis
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 148 leaves : illustrations, forms ; 29 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Education and Human Development, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Educational administration, supervision, and curriculum development

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Group decision making -- Psychology ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, Educational Administration, Supervision, and Curriculum Development.
Statement of Responsibility:
bu Sara Davis White.

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:
28445729 ( OCLC )
ocm28445729
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1992d b .W44 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE BEHAVIOR-REWARD LINKAGE IN SMALL DECISION MAKING GROUPS bY
Sara Davis White
B.S., Southern Nazarene University, 1973 M.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1978
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Administration, Supervision, and Curriculum Development
1992


1992 by Sara Davis White All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by Sara Davis White
has been approved for the
Sharon Ford


White, Sara Davis (Ph.D., Educational
Administration, Supervision, and Curriculum Development)
The Behavior-Reward Linkage in Small Decision Making Groups
Thesis directed by Professor Michael Murphy
ABSTRACT
The link between behaviors and rewards has been established in the literature. The loop formed by rewards both following and reinforcing behaviors was the focus of this study. It is important to understand what behaviors result in high levels of rewards in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of meetings.
This study dealt with the meeting behaviors and perceived rewards of the members of 12 Site Based Governance committees in a large urban school district. These committees were mandated and given the responsibility of making decisions for their
schools.


Meeting behaviors were observed in two categories, task and interpersonal, and were rated using an observation instrument. Three meetings of each committee were observed. The 12 committees were subsequently placed in four distinct balanced cells according to their ratings to allow for comparisons of perceived rewards. Rewards were self-reported on a questionnaire.
This study utilized a nested factorial analysis of variance design in two stages. The first allowed only members to be random. Significance at this stage allowed the results to apply to the specific committees studied. The second stage allowed both members and committees to be random, allowing significant results to be generalizable to similar SBG committees.
Three hypotheses were proposed. The first and second stated that members of committees observed to have high levels of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors, respectively, would report greater levels of rewards than members of committees observed to have low levels of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors. The third hypothesis stated that there would be no interaction between task and
v


interpersonal behaviors, i.e., the association between levels of task behaviors and levels ofinterpersonal behaviors as gauged by rewards would be consistent.
The major findings included: high levels of task behaviors resulted in high levels of rewards, high levels of interpersonal behaviors resulted in high levels of rewards, and high levels of task behaviors interacted with interpersonal behaviors to a greater degree than low levels of task behaviors.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication.
Signed
vi


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It was my good fortune to be associated with supportive and talented folks at the University of Colorado at Denver. My thanks to the members of the faculty who served on my thesis committee: Michael Murphy, Alan Davis, Sharon Ford, Mitch Handelsman, and Michael Martin. Special thanks to Michael Murphy and Alan Davis for their guidance and expertise. I am also grateful for the camaraderie of my graduate study group including Cordia Booth, Darlene LeDoux, Barbara Nash, Peggy Schwartzkopf,
Jim stamper, and Armistead Webster. Their support as we shared successes and frustrations is greatly appreciated.
I want to thank Steve O'Brien, friend and computer expert, for his tireless and good natured efforts.
My parents and my sons, Jesse, Cody, Travis, and Noah, encouraged me every step of the way. My most heartfelt gratitude belongs to my husband, Dennis, for his love and patience, as well as his technical and clerical skills. His personal integrity and lifestyle of courage and faith continue to inspire and enrich me.
vii


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW.....................1
Importance of study..........................2
Conceptual Framework.........................4
Model for Study.............................10
Description of Study........................12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................16
Behavior-Reward Linkage.....................17
Classic Theories.........................17
Small Group Behaviors and Rewards...........21
Behaviors................................24
Rewards..................................32
Guetzkow and Collins' Model.................39
Overview.................................41
Obstacles................................42
Behaviors................................44
Group Productivity.......................45
Rewards................................ 46
Summary................................... 49
3 . METHODS......................................53
Hypotheses for Research..................... 53
Sample......................................55
viii


Instrumentation............................57
Meeting Effectiveness Instrument........57
Rewards Questionnaire...................67
Procedures.................................77
Design.....................................80
Data Analysis..............................83
Research Setting...........................86
Limitations................................87
4. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS....................90
Characteristics of Committees..............90
Results of Rewards Questionnaire..........105
Summary...................................112
5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION......114
Summary of Findings.......................115
Discussion of Findings in View of Methods.118
Discussion of Findings in View of Theory..121
Discussion of Findings as They Relate to
School Decentralization...................123
Conclusions............................. 125
Implications for Practice for SBG
Committees................................126
Suggestions for Further Study.............131
Overall Appraisal of Research.............13 3
ix


APPENDIX
136
A. Meeting Effectiveness Instrument.........136
B. Rewards Questionnaire....................139
C. Reliability Analysis.....................142
REFERENCES.....................................146
X


FIGURES
Figure
2.1. Bales's interaction process analysis.........30
2.2. Guetzkow and Collins' model of the
behavior-reward loop.........................40
3.1. Design of study............................ 80
4.1. Schools in task and interpersonal cells.....94
4.2. Stem and leaf diagram of
Rewards Questionnaire results...............106
4.3. Weighted reward means by
behavior category cells.....................108
4.4. Interaction of task and interpersonal
behaviors according to rewards..............110
xi


TABLES
Table
4.1. Task and interpersonal categories...........91
4.2. Participants and rewards by school..........107
4.3. Analysis of variance........................109
4.4. Analysis of variance (second stage).........112
xii


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The purpose of this study was to investigate the behavior-reward linkage as it applies to small decision making groups where membership is voluntary. Because of the time and energy involved in volunteer groups, and the lack of monetary benefits to members, understanding the derivation of rewards that leads to continued participation is important. This was an exploratory field study which examined the loop formed by behaviors leading to perceived rewards and rewards, in turn, reinforcing the behaviors they followed.
The groups studied were 12 Site Based Governance {SBG) committees in a large urban school district. These groups were established at each school in the district and were composed of elected volunteers from the ranks of teachers, parents, classified staff and community, along with the school principal. The SBG committees served in a limited governance role for the schools with defined responsibility and authority.
1


Behaviors in the study were limited to meeting behaviors and were classified as task and interpersonal in nature and scored through direct observation. Rewards were self-reported by committee members on a questionnaire.
Importance of Study
One of the most fundamental themes to have emerged in the growing concern for public school reform is local control, i.e., allowing decision making to rest with those directly involved in each school. As the move from centralized decision making to decentralized decision making grows, it is important to look at how this power shift manifests itself in the practical aspects of governing schools.
The Site Based Governance committees studied here have taken on responsibilities formerly embodied in the school board, district personnel and building principals. The success of the SBG committee efforts depends on their ability to sustain the momentum necessary to make decisions that suit the local schools' needs and promote their educational goals. Although the concept of
2


committee is not new, governing local public schools
by committee is. It is important to understand the
dynamics of such committees, in particular their
meeting behaviors and perceived rewards, in an
attempt to facilitate success.
Behaviors which lend themselves to effective
meetings are desirable. Establishing a link between
such behaviors and subsequent rewards is an
important step in understanding which behaviors lead
to rewards. With this knowledge, groups may be
assisted to achieve a level of functioning that
encourages member satisfaction, member commitment
and ultimately, more productive committees. Andrew
DuBrin (1978) has defined a work group as a group
formed by an organization to achieve specific tasks.
This definition applied to SBG committees.
According to DuBrin (1978, p.207),
An identification of the characteristics that differentiate between effective and less effective work groups would be of profound theoretical and practical significance. Identifying these properties would provide more knowledge about small group behavior and would also make for improved functioning of organizations.
Applying DuBrin's (1978) statement to SBG committees, this study attempted to identify the
3


meeting behaviors that differentiated effective from less effective meetings.
Conceptual Framework
Behaviors and rewards are linked throughout the literature on group process. This linkage has been established through the theories of behaviorism, as explained by B. F. Skinner (1976), cognitive learning theory, as proposed by Kurt Lewin (1951) and expectancy theory, proposed by V. H. Vroom (1964). All three theoretical orientations have reward as the central feature. Rewards follow, and then reinforce, behaviors.
Behaviorism, as represented by the thoughts of B. F. Skinner (1976), entails both classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning involves the direct link of stimulus and response. Operant conditioning adds the intermediary step of learning that accounts for the processing of the value of rewards. Behavior then stems from the rewards assessment.
Cognitive learning theory stresses the role of thought and interpretation to a greater degree than operant conditioning in behaviorism. Social
4


psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) emphasized the role of cognition in human processing of the environment, with subsequent behaviors following an assessment of rewards.
The behavior-reward linkage is indicated in Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory. A basic version of expectancy theory contains the generalization that people tend to expend more effort toward reaching goals when the probability of receiving a reward is high- Thus effort leads to goal attainment and rewards follow. These rewards, in turn, reinforce the behaviors from which they resulted-
Throughout the literature, behaviors of groups are categorized as either task behaviors or interpersonal behaviors. The writers making this distinction include Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Fisher (1974), Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983), Yukl (1984), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988). There are specific observable traits of both categories of behaviors manifested in committee meetings.
Task behaviors include issues surrounding agenda development and adherence. The procedures
5


for problem solving are included in task behaviors. The clarity and explicitness of decision making and agreement among committee members involve task behaviors. Interpersonal problems themselves are not task behaviors, but dealing with such problems is a task behavior. The motivation of the membership, as it stems from issues rather than self-orientation, is task related.
Interpersonal behaviors involve attitudes,
i.e., whether people seem positive, focused and free to discuss their feelings about the group. Issues of acceptance are interpersonal, as well as components of the overall climate of a group. The use of humor and friendliness among members, along with the engagement of members in what's going on in the meeting, are interpersonal in nature. The existence of factions and "under the table" agenda items are also interpersonal.
This study involved a specific set of criteria for looking at meeting behavior. It is important to have a clear understanding of the likely attributes an effective meeting of a high functioning SBG committee would have. According to Schmuck and Runkel (1988), an effective SBG meeting would have
6


an agenda developed by any/all of the members. The agenda would be adhered to, with the majority of the items covered within appropriate time frames.
Issues would be explored thoroughly with several solutions suggested. Members would question the origin of problems. According to Fisher (1974), discussions in an effective meeting would be aided by someone occasionally summarizing. Decisions would be explicit with clear designations of responsibilities. Decisions would be made by consensus. If disagreements occur they would be faced rather than avoided (Schmuck and Runkel,
1988). There would be agreement on who facilitates the meeting. Members would appear to be motivated by the issues rather than self-oriented needs (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965).
An effective meeting climate would be one of acceptance where members feel free to express opinions that would be listened to. Members would seem positive, focused, and engaged. Members would appear to like one another and be comfortable enough to use appropriate humor. There would be no apparent factions and no hidden agendas (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965).
7


SBG committees that held meetings with attributes described above would be considered high functioning. This study proposed that there is a link between effective meeting behaviors and the rewards perceived by committee members.
Rewards are stimuli which are valued. The authors used as references for the rewards portion of this study included Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Fisher (1974), DuBrin (1978), Yukl (1984), and Steers (1984), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988). These authors looked at rewards of group participation.
Rewards may be categorized as task and interpersonal, but the distinction can be vague.
This study did not attempt to separate the categories but rather considered rewards to be the consequences of behaviors as well as the reinforcers of behaviors. The kinds of rewards assessed in this study revolved around the themes of acceptance, success at task completion, the resolving of group problems, the quality of decisions, communication among members, and overall satisfaction with participation in the group. The following discussion of rewards was based on the literature concerning rewards related to group participation.
8


It is important to understand what the researcher considered rewarding and why. It would be rewarding to feel accepted as a valued member and to have this evidenced through smiles and compliments accompanied by the Knowledge that views and opinions are heard. It would be rewarding to like the other members and to agree on the choice of leadership (Steers, 1984). Being a member of a committee with the ability to complete tasks would be rewarding. Guet2kow and Collins (1965) stated that the larger the percentage of agenda completed in a meeting, the more participants are satisfied"(p.198). When problems among members arise, it would be rewarding to solve them satisfactorily in the absence of cliques (Yukl, 1984). It would be rewarding to have discussions and decisions made that are understandable and that often reflect a members own opinions. Having worthwhile goals and a sense of making a difference would be rewarding (Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, &
Kibler, 1983).
The behaviors and rewards in the preceding paragraphs are supported in the literature in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 operationalizes the behaviors
9


and rewards in the instruments used for quantifying the concepts.
Model for Study
This study sought to establish that certain levels of perceived rewards followed certain levels of meeting behaviors. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) research into group process led them to develop a model for group processes for decision making in a meeting setting which proposed that not only are rewards consequences of behaviors, but also that rewards influence the recurrence of the behaviors they follow. The model is illustrated and described in more detail in Chapter 2. What follows is a brief discussion of the model.
Basically, the model shows the relationships among four features present in decision making groups: obstacles, behaviors, productivity, and rewards. Obstacles, behaviors and rewards in the task environment are distinguished from obstacles, behaviors and rewards that are interpersonal in nature. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) represented sources of problems as obstacles. Task obstacles, which are stimuli external to the group, constitute
10


problems for the group. Interpersonal obstacles, which are stimuli created by actions, or the absence of actions, of other group members, also constitute problems for the group. At times obstacles in the task environment create problems in the interpersonal environment.
Group behaviors are separated into task and interpersonal behaviors. These behaviors determine output in the form of group productivity. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that both categories of behaviors are involved in productivity, with task behaviors directly affecting individual productivity. Interpersonal behaviors affect both individual productivity and what Guetzkow and Collins (1965) referred to as the "assembly effect." An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve something collectively which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts. The assembly effect bonus is productivity which exceeds the potential of the most capable member and also exceeds the efforts of the group members working separately.
11


Following obstacles, behaviors and productivity in the model is rewards. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that group productivity results in task rewards while interpersonal behaviors lead directly to interpersonal rewards. These two types of rewards, then linked together, make a loop back to behaviors. This concept of rewards following behaviors and then influencing the recurrence of the behaviors they followed was the focus of this study.
Description of Study
This study involved three hypotheses. All three dealt with the behavior-reward linkage illustrated in Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model.
1. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high task behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low task behaviors.
2. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high interpersonal behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low interpersonal behaviors.
12


3. There will be no interaction between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors.
Low and high levels of task behaviors will have the same effect on low and high levels of interpersonal behaviors when gauged by perceived rewards.
The hypotheses were tested in a causal-comparative design. Committees were categorized into two levels of task behaviors and two levels of interpersonal behaviors, and compared with respect to the dependent variable of member rewards.
Meeting behaviors were observed and rated by trained observers. Rewards were assessed through the use of a questionnaire.
The behaviors observed were those of 12 Site Based Governance committees during three of their regularly scheduled meetings. Observers rated task and interpersonal behaviors and each committee was subsequently placed in one of four cells according to behaviors. Each cell contained committees whose behavior functioning was determined to be similar. The cells were designated as low task-low interpersonal, low task-high interpersonal, high
13


task-low interpersonal, and high task-high interpersonal.
SBG committee members completed a rewards questionnaire. This questionnaire contained statements that allowed respondents to mark a scale of 1 to 5 to express their assessment of rewards received. The results of the questionnaires were compared using the cell designations from the behavior observations.
The data analysis of the study involved factorial nested analysis of variance, testing a main effect for each independent variable, and a two-way interaction between task behavior and interpersonal behavior. The analysis proceeded in two stages. The first analysis treated group as a fixed factor. The second analysis involved reanalyzing the data treating group as a random factor.
Prior to data collection the two instruments used, the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and the Rewards Questionnaire, were developed by the researcher. Observers were trained and school selection was tentatively planned. The data collection for this study took place over a four
14


month period. Schools were added or deleted during the four months of data collection according to the methods explained later in Chapter 3. Following the four months of data collection, the data were analyzed and the results are presented in Chapter 4. The conclusions drawn are in Chapter 5 along with a summary and discussion of findings. Implications for Site Based Governance committees are given and suggestions for further research are made.
15


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The theme of this study revolved around the linkage of behaviors and rewards. In the literature of social psychology and group process varying ways of thinking about behaviors and rewards are presented. This chapter presents classic, broad views of behaviors and rewards as well as more specific applications in group settings such as the ones examined in this study. By doing so, a wide range of schools of thought are available to the reader.
This literature review begins with a general look at how behaviors and rewards are linked. A more specific treatment of behaviors in small decision making groups, along with a discussion of the categorization of behaviors into task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors, follows. Rewards in the context of small groups and how they are viewed in this study are discussed. The remainder of the review deals with the model upon which this study was based.
16


Behavior-Reward Linkage
The concept of behavior-reward linkage is prevalent in this century in the literature of social psychology as evidenced by the attempts to explain the connection by Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Fisher (1974), Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983), Yukl (1984), Schmuck and Runkel (1988), and others. This section explores the classic theories of behaviorism, cognitive learning, and expectancy theory as means of predicting group behavior to provide a context for current views on the behavior-reward linkage. All three theories, along with more current literature in social psychology, have reward as a central feature.
Classic Theories
Behaviorism is a classic theory that deals with classical conditioning, also known as stimulus-response, and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning focuses on the process involved in the development of a stimulus-response bond between a conditioned stimulus and a conditioned response through the repeated linking of a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus. Pavlov's
17


experiments in the beginning of this century provide the premier example of classical conditioning. B.F. Skinner (1976) argued that classical conditioning focuses on reflexive behavior, or involuntary responses from stimuli, and therefore cannot explain more complex learning. He and others proposed operant conditioning as an alternative.
The major focus of operant conditioning is on the effects of reinforcements or rewards on desired behaviors. Operant conditioning emphasizes that individuals learn to respond to their environment according to the feedback they receive regarding their actions. In the Handbook of Social Psychology. Gardner Lindzey (1985) provided a rationale for looking at operant conditioning. He stated that since behavior is presumably a function of its consequences, it is important for organizations to diagnose the behavior-reward linkages and to manage the contingencies.
Behaviorism has been taken to task for its neglect of cognition. From this challenge came the cognitive learning theory. Bandura (1977) argued that while the reinforcement of certain simple forms of verbal and motor behavior might be possible
18


without any recognition on the part of the person being shaped, in general, the engagement of cognitive processes made the reinforcement process more effective. The extent to which cognitive concepts are necessary to understand behavior remains an important theoretical and empirical concern (Lindzey, 1985). Many of the tenets of behaviorism, such as the nature of behavior and the likelihood of reward, are the same for cognitive learning. Cognitive learning theory provides a link between the stimulus and the response.
Many theorists prefer a perspective that puts emphasis on inner processes (Gergen & Gergen, 1981). Cognitive learning stresses the effects of thought and interpretation on behavior. The cognitivists believe that a person's perception of the environment is the key influence on behavior.
Zajonc (1980) stated that cognition pervades social psychology, that social psychology has been cognitive for a very long time. Lindzey (1985) noted that there have been peaks and valleys in the emphasis on cognitive factors and that a cognitive revolution has been going on since 1960.
19


In the 1960's, V.H. Vroom (1964) developed expectancy theory. While behaviorism and cognitive learning theory link behaviors and rewards either directly or with intervening cognition, expectancy theory adds a dimension to the linkage. That dimension is motivation. Although Skinner (1976) is thought of as a behaviorist, he acknowledged motivation. He stated that one learns to be motivated toward those activities or behaviors which are reinforced by rewards or positive consequences. Motivation, according to skinner (1976), is a form of learned behavior. Whatever the derivation of motivation, Vroom (1964) expanded its importance as a key factor in his theory of the behavior-reward linkage. Expectancy theory could be considered a variation on cognitive theory which, as stated earlier, is an expansion of behaviorism (Mitchell, 1974).
Yukl (1984) puts expectancy theory into a practical perspective as he confirmed the behavior-reward linkage. His practical implications included: (1) organizations should develop appropriate procedures for evaluating members, (2) an incentive program of attractive rewards
20


contingent on superior behavior should be established, (3) undesirable (though sometimes inadvertent) outcomes related to superior behavior should be eliminated, (4) reward contingencies should be explained accurately, (5) members should be given high effort-to-performance expectancies through training and assistance, and (6) rewards should be carefully planned.
The three classic theories have shown in broad terms how behaviors lead to rewards and rewards influence the recurrence of behaviors. The next section deals more specifically with groups, group behavior, and perceived rewards of group participation.
Small Group Behaviors and Rewards
Behaviorism, cognitive learning theory, and expectancy theory deal with individuals. While individuals make up groups, groups take on a persona of their own by virtue of the effects individuals have on each other (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965). The majority of studies in the domain of organization theory have proceeded using the individual as the unit of analysis (Lindzey, 1985). While the unit of
21


analysis in this study was the individual, that dimension was expanded as the individuals were considered to be nested within groups (see Chapter 3 for details). Lindzey (1985, p.78) quoted Steiner in his lament: "Whatever happened to the group in social psychology?" Lindzey (1985, p.78) goes on to say that perhaps a "complementary pluralism of approaches with more attention to the dynamics of mutual interdependence" would be appropriate for research of the group. This section provides views of a number of writers concerning behaviors and rewards in a group setting. These
conceptualizations lend support to the ways in which behaviors and rewards were operationalized for use in this study.
Social psychologists view the group as a dynamic whole that is different from the sum of its parts and involving two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences, and is influenced by, each other person (Fisher, 1974). Groups form accidentally or by design for a myriad of reasons. This study dealt with small decision making groups.
22


Fisher (1974, p.128) stated that "A decision, ultimately the outcome of group interaction, is inevitably a choice made by group members from among alternative proposals available to them." The groups in this study reached decisions by consensus, the process of reaching a decision that is either agreed upon by all members or accepted by all (McKechnie, 1983). While the SBG committees, as decision making groups, fulfilled specific purposes, they functioned as small groups and fit the definitions that follow.
A group is a collection of people who interact regularly over a period of time and perceive themselves to be mutually dependent with respect to the attainment of one or more common goals (Yukl, 1984). Once a common goal is recognized, procedures for reaching the goal are formulated, task roles for each member are determined, norms are developed to regulate behavior, and a leader(s) begins to emerge.
Steers (1984) viewed groups as goal seeking systems in which individuals coordinate their efforts. He stated that groups have five relatively enduring qualities: group size, group norms, role
23


relationships, status relationships, and group cohesiveness.
Behaviors
A group seems to derive at least a portion of its definition from the behaviors it exhibits. Viewing a group as a system of behaviors may be difficult to grasp since a system of behaviors is not tangible. However, this study is about behaviors of a group, specifically those behaviors which occur when the group is involved in the meeting setting. Because small decision making groups use oral, face-to-face communication, their communicative behaviors may be observed (Fisher, 1974) .
The behaviors observed in this study were divided into two categories, task and interpersonal, as is seen often in the literature. The use of this categorization by Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) and Yukl (1984) follows.
Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) described task behaviors as task goals and interpersonal behaviors as maintenance goals. They
24


used the word goals to cover the reasons groups form and the pursuant behaviors of groups, as well as the major products or outcomes sought by groups.
Task goals involve all aspects of task, or that which the group does or perforins. The list of achievement goals, used by Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) interchangeably with task goals, includes: focusing the group, making meetings understandable, procedural planning, summarizing, making decisions, and carrying out decisions.
Group maintenance goals are related to climate of the group. Group maintenance refers to the kinds of relationships existing among the various members of the group. Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) stated that these goals dealing with social climate of groups are of primary importance in continuing groups, or groups that meet over extended periods of time. Group maintenance goals include fostering the desire to stay together and strengthening the group. To accomplish these two major goals, Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) suggested the following: encourage group members through support, compliment contributions, avoid unnecessary criticism, give everyone the
25


opportunity to speak, foster an interdependence of members, or "togetherness." Yukl (1984) discussed the two categories of behavior that he stressed are essential for the success and continuity of any group: task-oriented behavior and group maintenance behavior. The first category, task-oriented behavior, includes behavior that aids the group in selecting goals and making progress in attaining them. He stated that the specific types of task-oriented behaviors that occur in a group largely depend on the nature of the group. In a group working on decision making tasks, most of the task-oriented behavior will consist of exchange, analysis, and evaluation of information and ideas. Yukl (1984) suggested that some members will provide information while others interpret the information, offer opinions and suggest solutions. Eventually someone tests the progress toward agreement on a solution and presses for a decision.
The other category, group maintenance behavior, includes any behavior that aids in improving interpersonal relationships and maintains cohesiveness. Yukl (1984) stated that maintenance behavior is just as important as task behavior.
26


Many kinds of group maintenance behaviors are possible including providing encouragement and support, creating a climate of acceptance and expressing esteem and affection.
Because this study dealt with the observation of behavior, it is important to note various ways in which behaviors have been observed in previous studies by noted contributors to social psychology. The following four paragraphs deal with the observation of meeting behaviors as described by Homans (1958), Bennis and Shepherd (1961), Bales (1950), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988). Although some of their contributions are dated, they continue to hold prominence in the most recent edition of the Handbook of Social Psychology (1985), as well as current textbooks of the discipline.
Small group behavior has been studied from many theoretical perspectives. George Homans (1958) is noted for his work in the 1950's. His approach to understanding the social structure of small groups has endured and influenced more current social psychologists (DuBrin, 1978). Four basic elements underlie Homan's analysis of small group behavior: (1) activitythe operations people perform in
27


groups, (2) sentimentthe feelings and attitudes of group members, (3) interactionthe communications of group members, and (4) normsthe standards or values members uphold. Homans (1958) maintained that the four elements of small group behavior are mutually interdependent; that is, it is possible for activity to generate interaction which in turn influences sentiment. With sentiment comes the establishment and acceptance of norms.
Bennis and Shepherd (1961) characterized the behavior of groups through their model describing group development. Each phase in group development incorporates behaviors distinguishing the phase. Bennis and Shepherd (1961) derived their description from reports of nonparticipant observers and their experience teaching classes in group dynamics. The four phases include: (1) personally need-oriented, not group oriented, (2) maintenance of group task, (3) group-focused work with differing attacks, goal establishment, idea-testing, and (4) creative and integrative interpretation with immediate relevance to present problems of group task. Thus we see that group behaviors include those actions arising from self-orientation versus group orientation, all the
28


behaviors involved in sustaining and nurturing the group, the actual work of the group in decision making, and the methods of interpreting situations as new ideas are generated.
A familiar descriptive model of the group process is the three phase model of Bales (1950) called Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) (Fig.
2.1). The IPA classifies each communicative behavior performed by members during group interaction. The classes of behaviors include twelve different categories. The IPA separates the group's task and social-emotional dimensions by labeling three pairs of categories in each area.
The analysis indicates that members give and ask for orientation in the first phase, give and ask for opinions in the second phase, and give and ask for suggestions in the third phase.
29


Social Emotional Area: Positive Reactions
Task Area:
Attempted
Answers
Task Area: Questions
Social Emotional Area: Negative Reactions
1 Shows solidarity, raises others/ status, gives help, reward
2 Shows tension release, jokes, laughs, shows satisfaction
3 Agrees, shows passive acceptance, understands, concurs, complies
4 Gives suggestion, direction, implying autonomy for other
5 Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis, expresses feeling, wish
6 Gives orientation, information, repeats, clarifies, confirms
7 Asks for orientation, information, repetition, confirmation
8 Asks for opinion, evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling
9 Asks for suggestion, direction, possible ways of action___________
10 Disagrees, shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help
11 Shows tension, asks for help, withdraws out of field
12 Shows antagonism, deflates others' status, defends or asserts self
Fig. 2.1 Bales's Interaction Process Analysis
30


A recent conception of observable behaviors was presented by Schmuck and Runkel (1988). The behaviors they discussed all focus on stimulating creative thought, pooling ideas, viewing consequences of decisions, and producing bolder plans than individuals would condone. Meetings draw out and coordinate resources. Schmuck and Runkel (1988, pp.159-161) developed a Meetings Questionnaire that allows group members to assess their behavior. Behaviors on the questionnaire may be categorized to include problem solving, meeting agenda concerns, thoughtfulness and understandability of discussions, issues of open communication, member commitment to group objectives, existence of factions and hidden agendas, and general meeting climate.
The behaviors used in this study are a compilation of a number of writers' ideas. The specific behaviors observed in this study were derived primarily from the explicit behaviors referred to by Bales (1950), Schmuck and Runkel (1988), and Guetzkow & Collins (1965). Chapter 3 includes details of how the behaviors discussed by
31


these authors were operationalized for use in this study.
Rewards
As established earlier in the discussion of the behavior-reward linkage, rewards are considered positive consequences of behaviors. The importance of looking at rewards goes beyond the level of consequence. Rewards provide the catalyst for the repetition of behaviors as established in the behavior-reward linkage section. When positive behaviors are desired, the appropriate reward given, and the link between the two made clear, a loop is created. This loop illustrates the importance of rewards in the capacity of reinforcement of behaviors and is the main reason for their importance in this study. This section takes a general look at rewards, as well as consideration of rewards in the context of organizations. The loop formed by behaviors and rewards is examined more thoroughly in the section on Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model.
According to the ancient principle of hedonism, people try to maximize pleasure and avoid pain
32


(Yukl, 1984). Rewards may be considered pleasure and often appear in the social psychology literature under the term satisfaction. Satisfaction is the gratification of wants, needs, desires and the fulfillment necessary for contentment (McKechnie, 1983).
According to Maslow (1943), the satisfaction of needs is rewarding. Needs within the psychological realm apply most to this study. There seems to be agreement on six of these needs, the satisfaction of which would prove rewarding (Yukl, 1984). The six needs include: (1) need for achievement (attaining difficult goals, making unique contributions, solving problems), (2) need for affiliation (being liked, being accepted in a group, working with people who are friendly, maintaining harmonious relationships), (3) need for esteem (being respected, receiving praise, recognition for contributions, visibility in an organization), (4) need for independence (assuming responsibility, being free of authority control), (5) need for power (influencing change in attitudes and behaviors, gaining control over information, controlling activities), and (6) need for security (having
33


protection, avoiding hazards, feeling free of anxiety). These six needs are distinct, yet not entirely independent. The satisfaction of the needs, a rewarding experience, influences a person to remain on a given course. As stated in Chapter 1, it is vital to the success of SBG committees to sustain productive momentum. Therefore, it is important that members of the committees experience satisfaction with their participation.
DuBrin (1978) has observed that many people receive most of their work group satisfaction from group interaction. The psychological functions groups can fulfill for their members include: (1) an outlet for affiliation needs, (2) a source of emotional support, and (3) a means of coping with a common enemy.
Satisfaction of needs and wants as expressed by Yukl (1984) and the satisfaction of group interaction expressed by DuBrin (1978) provided a framework for how this study viewed rewards, while the specific rewards of group participation were derived mainly from the writings of Schmuck and Runkel (1988) and Guetzkow and Collins (1965), with support from other authors. Some of their views are
34


included in the following discussion of rewards.
The themes of acceptance, the quality of problem solving and decisions, communication among members and overall satisfaction with participation sum up rewards as they were assessed.
Acceptance, as a theme of rewards, relates to belonging. Tropman (1979) stated that members of groups need to feel that they are helpful participants and that their membership is valued.
It is rewarding for an individual to align with a group goal and to have opinions validated through group consensus. For most groups, group membership serves a function for the individual. Through membership the individual satisfies wants (Krech, Crutchfield, & Ballachey, 1962).
Expressing opinions, and having those opinions heard, deals with communication, another theme of rewards. Communication is probably the most talked about, yet least understood, phenomenon of group process. Fisher (1974) stated that communication is the crux of both the task and social dimensions of all groups. Fisher (1974, p.vii) goes on to state that "through communication human beings process information, test ideas, exchange opinions, and
35


achieve consensus on decisions." If communication is established with members free to express themselves, there will be satisfaction with participation. Fisher (1974) also contended that frequent and effective communicators in decision making groups generally feel valued, and therefore rewarded.
Another theme of group rewards dealt with decisions and the decision making process. The ability of a group to make a decision is satisfying. Tropman (1980) stated that if a group is set up to make decisions that everything done within the group should aim toward enhancing and facilitating the making of those decisions in order to fulfill the purpose of the group and the individuals who belong to the group. The making of decisions in an efficient manner is rewarding. A decision need not be approval of a course of action or a plan for action. Decisions may simply involve the tabling of an item. Coming to a decision gives a sense of accomplishment.
A similar sense of accomplishment comes from covering the majority of items on the agenda when groups meet. Without agenda integrity, participants
36


lack satisfaction and their interest in the group wanes (Tropman, 1980). The purpose of the agenda is to focus a group meeting. Burleson (1990) considered the agenda the main tool for assuring accomplishment and fostering a group's sense of success.
Overall satisfaction with group participation is perhaps the most illusive theme because it can vary with the individual. Steers (1984), Shaw (1976), and others have contributed some general conceptions.
The simple concept of liking the other individuals in a group is rewarding. Feeling a high degree of camaraderie and concern for one another leads to group cohesiveness (Steers, 1984).
According to Shaw (1976, p.197), "Members of highly cohesive groups are more energetic in group activities, ...they are happy when the group succeeds." The consequence of group cohesiveness is the satisfaction of group members.
Group cohesiveness is hindered if members sense that others in the group are there to fulfill self-oriented needs. Self-oriented need behavior in a group correlates negatively with member
37


satisfaction. Sensing that a group shares a common goal and that there is a united purpose free of factions increases satisfaction (Krech, Crutchfield, & Ballachey, 1962). Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that congruence of member motivation and lack of self-oriented needs will produce satisfaction.
Satisfaction is achieved not only from the sense that members share a common motivation, but also from the conviction that the purpose and activities of a group are worthwhile. When members feel that a task is important, their overall satisfaction with group interaction is higher. It can be expected that higher morale and higher quality decisions come from groups whose members are concerned about the outcomes of the group process (Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, & Kibler, 1983).
Experiencing satisfaction in a group setting contributes to the desire to remain in the group, affects the climate of the group, influences performance, and increases individual contributions to group effectiveness (Steers, 1984). The rewards of group participation discussed in this chapter are the consequences of effective behaviors as well
38


as the catalysts for the perpetuation of behaviors. Behaviors and rewards in the group setting have been explored. The loop formed by behaviors and rewards will now be illustrated through Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model.
Guetzkow and Collins' Model Guetzkow and Collins (1965) built a social psychology of group processes for decision making. Out of the compilation of studies they have produced a working model of decision making groups. This model shows the relationships among obstacles to decision making groups, group behaviors, group productivity and rewards (Fig. 2.2).
39


Source of Problem Group Behavior
Outputs
Rewards
4*
o
Fig. 2.2
Guetzkow and Collins' model of the behavior-reward loop


Overview
Obstacles, behaviors and rewards in the task environment are distinguished from obstacles, behaviors and rewards that are interpersonal in nature. The left column of the model represents sources of problems which Guetzkow and Collins (1965) term obstacles. Task obstacles, which are stimuli external to the group, constitute problems for the group and instigate behaviors.
Interpersonal obstacles, which are stimuli created by actions, or the absence of actions, of other group members, constitute problems for the group and instigate behaviors. At times obstacles in the task environment create problems or obstacles in the interpersonal environment as indicated by the directional arrow in the source of problems column.
The group behavior column again separates task and interpersonal behaviors. These behaviors determine output in the form of group productivity. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that both categories of behaviors are involved in productivity, with task behaviors directly affecting individual productivity. Interpersonal behaviors
41


affect both individual productivity and assembly effect. An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve something collectively which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts. The assembly effect bonus is productivity which exceeds the potential of the most capable member and also exceeds the efforts of the group members working separately.
The last column of the model contains rewards. Guet2kow and Collins (1965) stated that group productivity results in task rewards while interpersonal behaviors from column two lead directly to interpersonal rewards. These two types of rewards, then linked together, make a loop back to behaviors. The two kinds of obstacles define the problems the members face and their subsequent behaviors, while the rewards arising from productivity and interpersonal behaviors mold future behaviors.
Obstacles
A task obstacle is a particular aspect of the total task environment which can block group
42


productivity, thus leading to behaviors that may intervene to attempt to eliminate the obstacle. An obstacle can be considered the focus of group activity, the purpose for decision making. Task obstacles are those problems which arise from external forces. In general, group members usually understand task obstacles and are willing to deal with them.
Interpersonal obstacles are those problems created within the group. Human interaction inherently leads to obstacles that affect members individually. Interpersonal obstacles are more difficult for a group to define and deal with than task obstacles. Interpersonal obstacles may range from individual personalities to uncomfortable status relationships. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) contended that overcoming interpersonal obstacles contributes as much toward group productivity as overcoming task obstacles. Because groups sometime fail to recognize and acknowledge interpersonal obstacles, they may become major barriers to group productivity.
In the model it is shown that task obstacles lead to interpersonal obstacles. As the group
43


attempts to deal with task obstacles, interpersonal obstacles form as a result of the human interaction involved.
Behaviors
Behaviors in the model refer to actions of the group members as a result of obstacles. The focus on what instigates behavior serves to clarify the distinction between task and interpersonal. Task behaviors are those which deal with external forces and procedural functions. Interpersonal behaviors are those behaviors stimulated by internal forces, individual reactions to other group members,
Guetskow and Collins' (1965) treatment of behavior with reference to their model is rather limited. Within the context of the model they referred to obstacles as leading to behaviors and behaviors resulting in group productivity and rewards. They did little to delineate behaviors in terms other than those used to describe obstacles and rewards. The behaviors they referred to are those which occur during decision making meetings and are documented by observers. Because of their limited treatment of behaviors, this study relied
44


heavily on the behaviors as discussed earlier in this chapter. These behaviors fit into Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) categories and definitions of task and interpersonal behaviors.
Group Productivity
When individuals work in the presence of, and in conjunction with, others, a group is formed. The group differs from a collection of individuals working separately. Group productivity refers to the accomplishments, or lack of, achieved by the combined efforts of the members of a group. The productivity of a group is determined by the abilities of the members related to the task and the ways in which the members relate to one another.
Guetzkow and Collins (1965) have divided group productivity into two categories, individual productivity and assembly effect. Group productivity is the result of the combination of the sum of individual productivity and the assembly effect. Each member of a group brings abilities to the group and attains accomplishments for the group. Individual productivity is the result of both task and interpersonal behaviors.
45


When a group of individuals gather, they have the potential to produce more in assembly than they could separately. The assembly effect is the potential present in a group when the members not only demonstrate effective task behaviors, but also build interpersonal relationships effective enough to out perform the sum of individual efforts.
Rewards
Guetzkow and Collins (1965) defined rewards as stimuli which are valued by the person and which have been found to increase the probability of behaviors they follow. Rewards serve to mold, maintain and motivate group behaviors. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) conceptualized rewards, as they did obstacles and behaviors, into two broad categories, task and interpersonal. Task rewards are those rewards stimulated by group productivity. Interpersonal rewards are internal to the group and are produced by the behaviors of other group members. While distinguishing between the two categories, Guetzkow and Collins (1965) often stated that both types of rewards provide support for, and augment, each other. Certain rewards may also be
46


viewed as crossing over from task to interpersonal and vice versa. Sometimes there is an interdependence between the task reward and the interpersonal reward.
Task rewards occur when members believe they have been successful on group tasks. Examples include when a high percentage of agenda items are covered, when decisions are made in an orderly, efficient and rapid manner, and when meetings are not unduly long. Rewards occur when communication in the meeting makes what's going on understandable. When members agree with the decisions that are made and term them as "good," they feel rewarded.
Success in solving problems of an interpersonal nature is considered a task reward. When there is a congruence in member motivation and when there is a relative lack of self-oriented need behavior, members feel rewarded. The lack of cliques and consensus on leadership provide rewards.
Interpersonal rewards occur when members feel they are accepted by the group. The approval of the group, perhaps in the form of a smile, a nod, or a direct compliment, is rewarding. When members interact with people they like in the group we find
47


that rewards are intrinsic to such interaction. Communication as it relates to understandability was listed as a task reward. Communication can also be considered in the category of interpersonal rewards. The greater the number of open communication channels readily available, the greater the rewards will be. Members are rewarded when others simply listen to them. This study did not distinguish between task and interpersonal rewards, but rather combined the categories. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that it is a much simpler task to distinguish between task and interpersonal behaviors than between task and interpersonal rewards. As stated earlier, they also contended that the reward categories overlap and the line between them is often fuzzy at best. To explore the behavior-reward loop did not require rewards to be categorized.
j
Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) conception of rewards included the kinds of rewards discussed earlier in the chapter.
The loop formed by behaviors and rewards was the basic foundation of this study. The other elements of Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model,
48


though vital to the whole scheme of group process, will not be developed here.
Summary
Three classic perspectives have been provided in this chapter to explain the link between behaviors and rewards. Behaviorism emphasizes the direct link, as in stimulus-response in classical conditioning, and the more tempered link with learned responses in operant conditioning.
Cognitive learning theory emphasizes the learning aspect that occurs as people recognize that their behavior is shaped by the value they place on rewards. This recognition includes thought processes and interpretations of behaviors as well as rewards. Taking the human role even further, expectancy theory includes the concept of motivation. People are motivated out of an expectation that a reward or outcome they value will follow. All three of these theories link behaviors and rewards.
Taking the concepts of behaviors and rewards from classic theories dealing with individuals to more specific treatments within groups, Homans
49


(1958), Bennis and Shepherd (1961), Bales (1950), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988) provided ways of observing group behaviors. Rewards were equated with satisfaction as DuBrin (1978), Yukl (1984), Fisher (1974), Tropman (1979) and others described specific ways in which group participation could result in satisfaction and thereby be rewarding.
Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model of group process gives a basic way of thinking about the way behaviors and rewards influence each other as groups interact in the meeting setting. Expectancy theory, as an expansion of the stimulus-response of behaviorism, and an extension (by adding motivation) to the cognitive processes of cognitive learning theory, best describes Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) view of the behavior-reward linkage. The views of behaviors presented by the various authors are congruent with Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) view of behaviors. All of the rewards discussed in this literature review fall within Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) conception of what constitutes rewards as they mold, maintain and motivate group behavior.
The hypotheses in this study dealt directly with behaviors and rewards and how the level of
50


behaviors associated with the level of rewards. Through the classic theories the foundation was set for the relationship between behaviors and rewards. Through the various writers' thoughts presented in the section dealing with small groups, the relationship became more specific as group behaviors and rewards of participation were examined.
The literature presented showed that it is an accepted practice to differentiate between task and interpersonal behaviors when observing groups (Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, & Kibler, 1983; Yukl,
1984; Guetzkow & Collins, 1965). All three hypotheses use this distinction. Hypothesis 1 states that groups observed to function at high levels for task behavior will perceive greater rewards than groups observed to function at low levels for task behavior. Similarly, hypothesis 2 states that groups observed to function at high levels of interpersonal behavior will perceive greater rewards than groups observed to function at low levels of interpersonal behavior. This chapter has shown that such predictions are conceptually sound. Chapter 3 provides the specific ways in
51


which this study determined levels of functioning and measured perceived rewards.
The third hypothesis takes the distinction between task and interpersonal behaviors further by stating that not only are the categories distinguishable, but also that they are independent and do not interact with one another when gauged by perceived rewards. This twist within the behavior-reward linkage was a unique approach. The details of how the interaction, or lack thereof, was measured are presented in Chapter 3.
52


CHAPTER 3
METHODS
This chapter details the methods used in this study to collect and analyze the data necessary to test the hypotheses. The chapter begins with the statement of the three hypotheses along with an explanation of the variables. The criteria for selecting groups and characteristics of the sample are discussed. In the instrumentation section, the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and the Rewards Questionnaire are explained and justified. The procedures for data collection are then described. Next the design of the study is illustrated along with an explanation of how specific elements fit the design. The data analysis section discusses the two stages of analysis employed in this study followed by a section on limitations.
Hypotheses for Research This study focused on three hypotheses. The first two hypotheses dealt with the main effect of the independent variables of task behavior and
53


interpersonal behavior on perceived rewards. The third hypothesis examined the possible interaction of the two independent variables as they related to the dependent variable of rewards.
1. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high task behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low task behaviors.
2. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high interpersonal behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low interpersonal behaviors.
3. There will be no interaction between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors.
Low and high levels of task behaviors will have the same effect on low and high levels of interpersonal behaviors when gauged by perceived rewards.
The independent variables in the hypotheses were two characteristics of SBG committee meetings, task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors. These two variables were measured through direct
54


observation. Group behaviors were scored on a five point scale on four indicators of task behavior and four indicators of interpersonal behavior. The instrument used, the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument (Appendix A), called for observation of the meeting agenda process, problem solving techniques, decision making, interpersonal issues, group motivation, group participation and overall meeting climate. The derivation and reliability of the instrument, along with a description of the observers, will be provided later in this chapter.
The dependent variable in this study was perceived rewards as measured by SBG committee members' scores on a self-report questionnaire instrument, the Rewards Questionnaire (Appendix B). According to the hypotheses, perceived rewards will be positively associated with the levels of task and interpersonal behaviors.
Sample
Twelve SBG committees from a large urban school district provided the subjects of this study. Each SBG committee included the principal, four teachers, three parents, a classified employee, and a business
55


representative from the community in addition to two students at the high school level. Committees could choose to have additional members. The SBG committees did not have full authority over all decisions. Their authority included, but was not limited to, scheduling of time within the work week, instructional delivery, school budget, instructional support, curriculum structure and implementation, community relations, and selection of faculty. The elected district school board retained control over decisions that required a central focus such as the school calendar, curriculum framework, construction, and transportation. The board defined the destination and each school charted its individual course.
The schools in the study were purposefully sampled to insure variation in task and interpersonal behaviors. An initial set of schools was identified from word-of-mouth assessments of how things were going with the SBG committees. Schools were added to the set by the researcher, to insure variation in levels of task and interpersonal functioning. In each case the researcher talked with people directly connected to the school or in
56


some way knowledgeable about the SBG committee functioning to confirm assessments of task and interpersonal behaviors. Finally committees in 13 schools were observed. Although only 12 were required by the study design, collecting data from an extra school allowed for the possibility that cells might be unbalanced when assignment data were analyzed. The decision process used to eliminate the extra school will be explained later in this chapter.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were used in this study. Both were created specifically for this study by the researcher based on the literature in Chapter 2.
Meeting Effectiveness Instrument
Meeting effectiveness was assessed using the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument designed for the study. The instrument allowed observers to assess meeting behavior in two categories, task and interpersonal. These two behavior categories were the independent variables in the study. Each behavior category subsumed four specific meeting
57


functions to be observed and rated. Each function was assessed on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being high. Trained observers rated each of the eight (four task and four interpersonal) functions separately on a scale.
The task behavior half of the instrument included the following four observable functions: agenda (development of, adherence to, percent of items covered, appropriate time frames); problem solving (extent of exploration of problems, suggestions for solutions, discussion summarized occasionally); decisions (explicit, implementation plan clear, consensus); and interpersonal problems (disagreements dealt with, agreement on leadership, members motivated by issues). The interpersonal behavior half of the instrument included the following four observable functions: attitudes (members positive and focused, group feels free to discuss causes of negative attitudes, members open with one another); acceptance (members feel opinions heard, members feel they are important contributors, everyone speaks); climate (smiles, humor, pleasantness, members engaged in meeting, members
58


appear to like one another); and factions (apparent cliques, "under the table" agendas).
In addition to the quantitative evaluation of the meetings, meeting agendas were collected and occasional narrative notes were taken. The results of the Meeting Effectiveness Instruments and the wadded notes are summarized for each school in Chapter 4 to give a more impressionistic account of how the committees functioned.
The individuals who served as observers in the study were fellow doctoral students who met twice a month to discuss, among other issues, the SBG committees. The gender composition of the observer group was five females and three males. Racially, the group included whites, blacks and Hispanics.
All of the observers were either teachers or adminstrators. They were trained in the use of the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and were familiar with the hypotheses of the study.
Interrater reliability was established for the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument. The trained panel of observers was given the opportunity to use the instrument on their own on several occasions to allow them to become familiar with its content. The
59


panel then viewed a videotape of an SBG meeting and rated it without conferring. The results of the individual observers were examined. There was 100% agreement in all eight observed functions of task and interpersonal behavior. On the scale of 1-5 agreement meant that all observers were within one number of each other, i.e., on individual items scores were 4-5, 3-4, 2-3, or 1-2. This kind of agreement established sufficient interrater reliability.
The following eight paragraphs provide references for the derivation of the items in the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument used to observe the SBG committees. As stated earlier, the main sources used to operationalize the concept of meeting effectiveness were Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Schmuck and Runkel (1988), and Bales (1950).
Although other authors provided support for the elements used, this discussion is limited to these three writers. The instrument gauged both task and interpersonal behavior categories as they relate to effective meetings, with four areas in each.
The first area of task behavior involves agenda issues. Schmuck and Runkel emphasized the
60


importance of the agenda as the main source of meeting discipline, as well as a tool of goal setting. They stated that many meeting conveners are unaccustomed to the use of any style other than a free-for-all style that invariably leads to a lack of productivity. The step-by-step style of an agenda is termed a must. They continued their agenda discussion with suggestions of how to create and use an agenda. They stressed the importance of input by all members, ways to avoid stray conversations, and leadership in limiting time spent on each item to allow the items listed to be covered. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.lll) strongly echoed agenda importance by emphasizing the need to only discuss one topic at a time and the increased possibility of consensus decisions when "simultaneously dabbling in two or three" items at a time was avoided.
The second area of task behavior involves problem solving. The thoroughness of discussions was viewed as a major contributor to effective meetings by all three of the major sources.
Guetzkow and Collins (1965) noted the differences between thorough and time consuming. They stated
61


that if discussions involved in problem solving are focused, they need not be unduly long. Bales (1950), in his Interaction Process Analysis instrument illustrated in Chapter 2, emphasized the skills which contribute to effective problem solving. His task behaviors involved giving and asking for suggestions, opinions, information, clarification, and possible ways of action. These behaviors were incorporated in the category though reference to problem exploration, suggestions for solutions, and questions of problem origin. Schmuck and Runkel (1988, p.155) noted that the "general inability to paraphrase other's points of view" as a stumbling block to effective problem solving. This reiterates the need for summarizing problem solving discussions from time to time.
Related to problem solving was the third area of task behavior, decision making. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) wrote about the processes of solving problems and making decisions in similar terms. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) made more of a distinction by indicating that decision making generally involves a plan of action. They suggested that previous decisions related to the current agenda be
62


briefly discussed in a meeting. The explicitness and clarity of decisions made in meetings make the decisions more viable. Since the purpose of decision making groups is to make decisions, the more viable those decisions, the more effective the meeting. Another point in the decision making area of task behavior of SBG committees was the observation of whether decisions appeared to be made by consensus. According to Schmuck and Runkel, consensus is different from a unanimous vote. Consensus on a decision "means that enough people are in favor for it to be carried out" and that those who remain doubtful understand the decision and will not stand in the way of its implementation (Schmuck & Runkel, 1988, p.241). Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that consensus is the optimum form of decision making for small groups.
The fourth area of task behavior concerns interpersonal problems. This area includes three observable meeting behaviors outlined by Guetzkow and Collins (1965). The strongest states that in effective meetings, when disagreements occur, they are dealt with rather than smoothed over or avoided. The behaviors that lead to resolution of
63


difficulties are considered task behaviors. Another behavior involves the motivation of members, whether issues or self-oriented needs are at the heart of behaviors. Schmuck and Runkel (1988, p.155) stated that "a feature of effective meetings is the degree to which members engaged in self-oriented. .. .behavior Agreement on who acts as chairperson of meetings is included in this area of task behavior. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that in his research, meetings tended to be more productive if there was agreement on leadership.
The first observable area of the interpersonal behavior category concerns attitudes of members. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) termed lack of focus and antagonism as disruptive and counterindicated for effective meetings. Therefore being positive and focused would contribute to the effectiveness of meetings. An attitude of openness was encouraged by Guetzkow and Collins (1965) and Schmuck and Runkel (1988) as a tool for continuing success of meetings and as a prevention of stagnation or prolonged negative attitudes.
The second area of the interpersonal behavior category involves acceptance. Bales (1950), in his
64


Interaction Process Analysis instrument, listed showing acceptance as a positive social-emotional aspect of meeting behavior. Schmuck and Runkel listed acceptance of members as a maintenance function that would improve meeting effectiveness. Ensuring that others have a chance to speak was also listed as a vital maintenance function. When members feel that their opinions have been heard, meetings tend to be more effective.
Overall climate was the subject of the third area of the interpersonal behavior category.
Climate includes the following observable elements: members smile frequently, members feel free to use humor, pleasantness of meeting, members' engagement, and members appear to like one another. Bales (1950) referred to joking and laughing as positive social-emotional elements that contribute to meetings. Schmuck and Runkel referred to apathetic participation, an opposite concept to engagement, as being disruptive to meeting progress. Part of their maintenance functions include "sensing group mood and being warm and responsive toward others"
(Schmuck & Runkle, 1988, p.155). Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.110) recognized the importance of
65


pleasantness when they wrote of a meeting that was a part of their research, "The overall pleasantness of the meeting, as seen by observers, created a climate conducive to agreement."
The fourth area of the interpersonal behavior category deals with disruptive elements of meetings, namely factions and hidden agendas. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) referred to the formation of cliques [factions] as being very disruptive to meeting processes. They said "incongruity of motivation and resultant conflict" lead to clique formation (Guet2kow & Collins, 1965, p.201). Schmuck and Runkel (1988) said that cliques manifest themselves in meetings in private conversations in pairs or subgroups that prove disruptive. They stated that a consultant, in an effort to improve meetings, should look for signs of hidden conflict that would be manifested in hidden agenda items, i.e., members saying one thing and meaning another, or implying feelings without overtly verbalizing. The absence of factions and hidden agendas would contribute to meeting effectiveness.
66


Rewards Questionnaire
The dependent variable, perceived rewards, was measured using a self-report Rewards Questionnaire. The instrument consisted of 18 items, each employing a 5-point bipolar scale, summed to yield a single score ranging from 18 to 90. Some of the items called for either an extreme response of no or yes, with no as 1 and yes as 5, or a more tempered answer of 2, 3 or 4. Some items used extreme descriptors such as never and always, giving a scale of 1 to 5 for responder latitude. Most questionnaire items were derived from Guetzkow and Collins9 (1965) theory of rewards, with additional items dealing with satisfaction, cohesiveness and commitment. The addition of these items served the purpose of specifically addressing the fact that, other than the principal, committee membership was voluntary in nature and required personal dedication of time and effort. Face validity for the Rewards Questionnaire has been established through references cited in this chapter and in Chapter 2.
Reliability for the Rewards Questionnaire was established through the use of an internal consistency approach using the SPSS program. The
67


reliability analysis was conducted using 20 initial items on the questionnaire and all 126 questionnaires administered. Cronbach's (19 51) coefficient alpha was .88. The analysis revealed two items that correlated less than .2 with the total score and did not contribute to reliability. These two items were deleted and the reliability analysis was determined again. The resulting coefficient alpha was .91 (Appendix C). The revised 18-item scale was used as the dependent variable in subsequent analyses.
The following paragraphs provide references for the derivation of the items in the Rewards Questionnaire used to gauge levels of perceived rewards. Items 4 and 18 did not contribute to reliability and were eliminated for the data analyses. They were supported by the literature, as were the other items. In Chapter 5 the researcher gives a plausible explanation as to why these two items did not correlate as strongly as the others.
Item 1 states, "This committee accepts me as a valued member" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) referred to an experiment in which
68


participants were convinced that their membership in a group was valued. They stated that these members indicated a greater level of enjoyment of participation in the experiment. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that the more a member feels the acceptance of the group, the greater the intrinsic satisfaction will be. Tropman (1979) echoed this finding when he wrote that members of groups are satisfied when they feel valued.
Item 2 asks that the sentence, "Our committee's ability to complete tasks is..." be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "unsuccessful" to "successful." Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.196) made the statement that "Success on the group task will produce satisfaction." Schmuck and Runkel (1988) repeatedly emphasized the importance of task completion to the satisfaction of group members. Tropman (1979) stated that coming to a decision, no mater how insignificant, is rewarding for groups.
Item 3 states, "My views are listened to" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that simply being listened to is rewarding and increases a member's feeling of power. This item relates to
69


item 1 in that being accepted as a valued member would more than likely result in being listened to.
i
Item 5 asks that the sentence, "Problems among ourselves are resolved..." be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "unsatisfactorily" to "satisfactorily." Schmuck and Runkel (1988, p.297) proposed that if problems or conflicts are legitimated, then compromises, trade-offs, and other negotiations can be conducted resulting in "anxieties diminished as outcomes are more clearly foreseen." The reduction of anxiety, according to the writers, adds to overall satisfaction. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.200) made the strong statement, "Success in solving problems of interpersonal relations will produce satisfaction."
Item 6 states, "Members show approval of me through smiles, compliments, etc." with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "never" to "often." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) considered smiles and compliments as factors of congeniality which they said produces satisfaction. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) advised organization development consultants to watch for signs of affection such as
70


smiles and to encourage these signs, as they tend to be rewarding.
Item 7 states, "We get to all our agenda items" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "never" to "always." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) reported from their research that the larger the percentage of agenda items completed in a meeting, the more satisfied the participants will be.
Schmuck and Runkel (1988) emphasized the importance of a meeting accomplishing its designated goals to help ensure member satisfaction. Tropman (1980) proposed that without agenda integrity, participants will lack satisfaction.
Item 8 states, "I am pleased with the committee's choice of leadership" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Steers (1984) found that members of groups feel rewarded if they like the choice of leadership. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.202) proposed that "Agreement on leadership will produce satisfaction."
Item 9 asks that the sentence, "Concerning decision made, I generally..." be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "disagree" to "agree." SBG committees had a policy of making decisions by
71


consensus which allowed for complete support to agreeing to no stand in the way of implementation concerning decisions. Therefore, this item was appropriate. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that in industry, voluntary organizations, and schools, research has shown that the satisfaction of members increases when they feel they have influenced decisions which mirror their views.
Item 10 states, "I like the people on this committee" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "none" to "all." Steers (1984) stated that simply liking the other members of a group increases rewards, Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that group members value interaction with members with whom they share interpersonal attraction. They went on to say, "Interaction with persons we like and persons who like us will produce satisfaction" (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965, p.203).
Item 11 states, "I communicate well with committee members" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." As discussed earlier, communication is a very broad and encompassing term. Bales (1950) based most of his group process work on the concepts of sending and
72


receiving communication. He stated that group success and member satisfaction depend on the group's ability to communicate. Fisher (1974) stated that consensus can only be reached through proper communication. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.199) stated that communication measures have a "positive relation to both problem-solving measures and to satisfaction.
Item 12 states, "There are cliques within our committee with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "none to "some." (In analyses, the value of the response choices was reversed to allow "none" to reflect positively.) Yukl (1984) found that it was disruptive to a group to have cliques evident, and that the disruption causes a lack of member satisfaction. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that cliques within a group lead to anxiety. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.201) stated, "There was a marked tendency for satisfaction to be lower in conferences where the leader was aware of a large number of cliques."
Item 13 states, "Our committee members share a common motivation" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "not at all" to "definitely."
73


Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) found that when members share a common goal they tend to experience more satisfaction. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that sharing a common motivation not only increases productivity, but also leads participants to be more satisfied.
Item 14 states, "Member of our committee exhibit self-oriented needs" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "never" to "often." (In analyses, the value of the response choice was reversed to allow "never" to reflect positively.) Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.89) stated that when participants display "self-centered needs, their group's effectiveness is often reduced" leading to decreased reward. They also stated that a "relative absence of strong self-oriented needs increased the likelihood for consensus" (p.lll). Speaking of "strong ego need" he said, "Dissatisfied groups showed significantly more of this sort of behavior than did the satisfied groups" (p.201).
Item 15 asks that the sentence, "Decisions are made..." be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "haphazardly" to "efficiently." Schmuck and Runkel
74


(1988, p.306) referred to the rewarding effects of "crisp decisions." By this they meant decisions that were made efficiently and yet with thorough consideration. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.199) spoke of the benefits of problem solving and decision making when he stated, "Members are more likely to be satisfied with meetings in which the problems are disposed of rapidly and completely."
Item 16 asks that the sentence, "Discussions in our meeting are..." be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "vague" to "understandable." The ability of members to understand what is said in a meeting adds to their satisfaction with the meeting. In one set of observed meetings, with members of the group later interviewed, Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.199) concluded that "The highest correlation is between the observer rating of 'understandability' of what was said in the meeting and satisfaction." Schmuck and Runkel (1988) compared opposing views about a proposed action with imagined dragons. They said that understanding the issues and clarity in the discussions cause the dragons to shrivel and vanish, allowing participants to be comfortable with the meeting.
75


Item 17 states, "My participation on this committee makes our school a better place for students" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) stated that having a worthwhile purpose and feeling that participation matters goes a long way toward a rewarding experience. Bales (1950) lamented that this sort of reward is often too far removed from the meeting-to-meeting existence of some groups. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that doing the things one cares about is a power need that, when fulfilled, provides satisfaction.
Item 19 states, "Overall I find satisfaction in my participation in the SBG process" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) began their chapter on participant satisfaction by stating that measuring satisfaction can be accomplished in a variety of ways with perhaps the best being to simply ask individuals if they are satisfied. It is possible for an individual to feel very rewarded in one area and not at all rewarded in another. This item asks for a general assessment. Schmuck and
76


Runkel (1988, p.438) stated, "Both in everyday conversation and in scientific studies, it is common to assess satisfaction by asking a direct question."
Item 20 asks that the sentence, "Our committee accomplishes goals that are..." be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "frivolous" to "worthwhile." Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that one of the basic needs that would be satisfying if fulfilled, is the achievement need. Accomplishing worthwhile goals would qualify as achievement and therefore be satisfying. Guet2kow and Collins (1965) proposed that when the participants felt that the problems being discussed were important they tended to be more satisfied with the meetings.
Procedures
Three meetings of each SBG committee were observed and rated over a four month period from December 1991 through March 1992. Some committees were observed in consecutive weekly meetings while others were observed at meetings spread over the full four month time frame. This disparity occurred in part due to the differences in the frequency of meeting times among schools.
77


The observers rated three meetings of each SBG committee in the study, with at least two observers per school. They used the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument to rate the meetings. Task behavior and interpersonal behavior scores were summed for the three observations. Designations of high and low for each independent variable were assigned by dividing the distribution of sums into two equal sized groups at the median. The committees were compared and ranked allowing for the high low designations to be necessarily relative. No committee received the median score on either variable, so no arbitrary designations of borderline cases as high or low were necessary.
Each SBG committee member was asked to complete the Rewards Questionnaire. The researcher presented the questionnaires at a regularly scheduled meeting to the SBG committees following a brief explanation identifying the proposed use of the information requested, the nature of this study, and the role of the researcher. Anonymity was assured. The committees were also told that the participating schools would not be identified. Members were asked to not identify themselves on the questionnaires.
78


They were asked to read the descriptors carefully and to be aware that 5 on the scale was not always positive.
The number of participants for each school ranged from 8 to 12. The high schools added two students to the standard number of 10 members. Several schools took the liberty of adding members to their committees. This accounts for the elementary and middle schools with more than the expected 10 responses. The schools with 8 or 9 responses had members absent during the meetings when the questionnaires were distributed. The researcher sent 21 questionnaires coded with the school number along with stamped, self-addressed envelopes to absent members. Of these, 11 were received by the researcher. Overall, the rates of response were: 4 committees 100%, 2 committees -92%, 4 committees 90%, 1 committee 83%, 2 committees 80%. The researcher made a point of instructing participants to check carefully for omitted items; all 126 questionnaires were 100% complete.
79


Design
A nested design was used. Members were nested within each committee and committees (schools) were nested within task behaviors (high and low) and interpersonal behaviors (high and low). A factor is considered nested in a second factor if each level of the nested factor appears in exactly one level of the second factor (Glass and Hopkins, 1984).
The results obtained from the Meeting Effectiveness Instruments formed the elements of the cells in the design diagram (shown in Fig. 3.1). Committees were assigned to cells according to observed task and interpersonal behaviors. The four cells included low task-low interpersonal (cell 1), low task-high interpersonal (cell 2), high task-low interpersonal (cell 3), and high task-high interpersonal (cell 4).
Interpersonal Behavior
Low High
Low
Task Behavior
High
Fig. 3.1 Design of Study
cell 1 cell 2
cell 3 cell 4
80


Schools were assigned to cells in the following way. Thirteen schools were initially observed in the study. This allowed the researcher the possibility of eliminating one during the course of analysis in order for the schools to fall into balanced cells of three schools each according to task and interpersonal behaviors. The Meeting Effectiveness Instrument contains four classifications for task behavior and four classifications for interpersonal behavior, with the lowest rating of 1 for each and the highest rating of 5 for each. An observation had a lowest possible score of 4 for task or interpersonal and a highest possible score of 20. The three observations were summed for each school and the medians for task and interpersonal were determined. Schools with task and interpersonal sums below the median were categorized as low task and low interpersonal. Schools with task and interpersonal sums above the median were categorized as high task and high interpersonal. Schools with both low task and low interpersonal were placed in cell 1. Schools with low task and high interpersonal were placed in cell 2. Schools with high task and low interpersonal
81


were placed in cell 3. Schools with high task and high interpersonal were placed in cell 4. With 13 schools, three fell into each of cells 2, 3 and 4. Four schools fell into cell 4. The decision about which school to eliminate in cell 4 was made after examining the sums. The eliminated school had sums for both task and interpersonal closest to the two medians. This process resulted in four balanced cells.
The design in Figure 3.1 was used for the testing of the hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were considered the main effects. Comparisons of the perceived rewards as reported on the Rewards Questionnaire were made among the cells. For hypothesis one, cells 1 and 2 were compared with cells 3 and 4. For hypothesis two, cells 1 and 3 were compared to cells 2 and 4. These comparisons allowed the researcher to determine if schools rated high for task perceived greater rewards than schools rated low for task, and if schools rated high for interpersonal perceived greater rewards than schools rated low for interpersonal.
The possibility of an interaction between task
82


behavior and interpersonal behavior, hypothesis three, was explored by comparing the cells in the diagram. The study looked at how rewards perceived by members of committees rated as high for task behavior compared to rewards perceived by members of committees rated low for task behavior when plotted for low interpersonal and then for high interpersonal. If the reward levels intersected then there was an interaction. If they tended to have similar direction then there was little interaction. Parallel lines meant that there was no interaction. Using the design diagram, the rewards of cells 1 and 2 were plotted and connected with a line and the rewards of cells 3 and 4 were plotted and connected with a line. If the lines were parallel, then hypothesis three would be supported.
Data Analysis
A nested factorial analysis of variance was used to test for a main effect for each independent variable (hypotheses 1 and 2), and a two-way interaction between task behavior and interpersonal behavior (hypothesis 3). SBG committee members comprised the unit of analysis, with members nested
83


in committees (SBG's) and committees nested in cells (intersections of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors). This study utilized the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MAMOVA). MANOVA is a part of the SPSS (Norusis, 1992) software for data management and analysis dealing with advanced statistics.
Two stages of analysis were utilized. The researcher patterned the two stages according to explanations given in Hopkins' (1982) seminal article, "The Unit of Analysis: Group Means Versus Individual Observations." This approach provides a two-stage solution to the problem of whether to use individual scores or group means as the unit of analysis in nested designs. In the first stage of analysis, committee was treated as a fixed factor, with only members allowed to be random. This allows generalization to a broader population of members, but not to other committees. Testing at this stage is common, but it ignores the influence the committee may have had on individual members apart from task and interpersonal characteristics. ..The task and interpersonal behaviors were experienced by members together on each committee, rather than to
84


each member in isolation. This first stage allows only the two characteristics of meeting behavior and the committee members to be sources of variation.
For this reason, a second stage of analysis was performed if the first stage achieved significance (alpha=.05). In this analysis, committees are random as well as members. This allows inference of results to committees "like these" as well as to members "like these." If significance was achieved in the first stage, then the researcher would proceed to the second stage.
The difference between the two stages is the expected mean square used as the error term. In the first stage, the mean square used was the one derived when committees remain fixed, i.e., the within cells mean square. In the second stage the appropriate error term for the F test was the mean square for committees nested in tasks and interpersonal, because the expected value for this term included all random variance components: the variance component for members and the variance component for committees.
In the first stage of analysis, it would be possible to have highly significant findings that
85


would be nongeneralizable. The second stage of analysis would be a more stringent test, allowing findings that would be less restrictive and also generalizable to other similar SBG committees. In balanced ANOVA designs, specifying random factors is important. The two stages employed in this study allowed the findings to have broader meaning.
Research Setting
This was the first year of existence for the SBG committees. They were concerned with many issues dealing with the establishment of norms and the "how to" of site based management, as well as the decisions over which they had been given authority. All of this was being done under the watchful eyes of the print and electronic media. To add to this pressure, many committee members perceived a lack of support from the ranks of the district central administration. Some members even believed that some administrators and school board members were intentionally subverting the process of decentralization.
86


Limitations
Behaviors of committee members may have been influenced by the presence of observers. It cannot be assumed that the other meetings, when an observer was not present, exhibited the same levels of task and interpersonal behaviors noted during the observed meetings. Although the meetings were public meetings and were often attended by nonmembers, the effects of having someone present with the known purpose of studying the group could have had effects not accounted for here.
Another limitation deals with the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument. In the interest of simplicity only eight items were used. Within each item there were descriptors of the attributes observers were to watch for when rating the committees. The observers assessed an item by thinking about four to six behaviors within each item and then giving the meeting an overall rating. This "globalism1' limits the use of the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument as a diagnostic tool because it does not provide the details of why a particular rating was given. For example, the item dealing with agenda may have been given a low
87


rating, but it cannot be said from the tool if the problems stem from the development of the agenda or the lack of adherence to it.
The choice of the individuals who acted as observers in data collection could pose a limitation. They were fellow doctoral students familiar with the hypotheses rather than blind observers. The possible loss of objectivity due to frequent discussions of the SBG committees may have skewed the observation results to some degree.
The sample selection was not random. The cell design calls for designation of six schools as high task functioning and six schools as low task functioning. It cannot be concluded that the median used to make this designation would also divide the over 100 schools in the district into half high functioning and half low functioning. It should be noted that the designations made in this study are relative only to the 12 committees observed and used in the data analysis. The findings and subsequent conclusions have limited application and may only be generalized to other SBG committees if the data prove significant in the second stage of analysis as
88


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE BEHAVIOR-REWARD LINKAGE IN SMALL DECISION MAKING GROUPS by Sara Davis White B.S., Southern Nazarene University, 1973 M.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1978 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Administration, supervision, and Curriculum Development 1992

PAGE 2

@ 1992 by Sara Davis White All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Sara Davis White has been approved for the hool of Education Sharon Ford

PAGE 4

White, Sara Davis (Ph.D., Educational Administration, supervision, and Curriculum Development) The Behavior-Reward Linkage in Small Decision Making Groups Thesis directed by Professor Michael Murphy ABSTRACT The link between behaviors and rewards has been established in the literature. The loop formed by rewards both following and reinforcing behaviors was the focus of this study. It is important to understand what behaviors result in high levels of rewards in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of meetings. This study dealt with the meeting behaviors and perceived rewards of the members of 12 Site Based Governance committees in a large urban school district. These committees were mandated and given the responsibility of making decisions for their schools.

PAGE 5

Meeting behaviors were observed in two categories, task and interpersonal, and were rated using an observation instrument. Three meetings of each committee were observed. The 12 committees were subsequently placed in four distinct balanced cells according to their ratings to allow for comparisons of perceived rewards. Rewards were self-reported on a questionnaire. This study utilized a nested factorial analysis of variance design in two stages. The first allowed only members to be random. Significance at this stage allowed the results to apply to the specific committees studied. The second stage allowed both members and committees to be random, allowing significant results to be generalizable to similar SBG committees Three hypotheses were proposed. The first and second stated that members of committees observed to have high levels of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors, respectively, would report greater levels of rewards than members of committees observed to have low levels of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors. The third hypothesis stated that there would be no interaction between task and v

PAGE 6

interpersonal behaviors, i.e., the association between levels of task behaviors and levels ofinterpersonal behaviors as gauged by rewards would be consistent. The major findings included: high levels of task behaviors resulted in high levels of rewards, high levels of interpersonal behaviors resulted in high levels of rewards, and high levels of task behaviors interacted with interpersonal behaviors to a greater degree than low levels of task behaviors. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. vi

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It was my good fortune to be associated with supportive and talented folks at the University of Colorado at Denver. My thanks to the members of the faculty who served on my thesis committee: Michael Murphy, Alan Davis, Sharon Ford, Mitch Handelsman, and Michael Martin. Special thanks to Michael Murphy and Alan Davis for their guidance and expertise. I am also grateful for the camaraderie of my graduate study group including Cordia Booth, Darlene LeDoux, Barbara Nash, Peggy Schwartzkopf, Jim stamper, and Armistead Webster. Their support as we shared successes and frustrations is greatly appreciated. I want to thank Steve O'Brien, friend and computer expert, for his tireless and good natured efforts. My parents and my sons, Jesse, Cody, Travis, and Noah, encouraged me every step of the way. My most heartfelt gratitude belongs to my husband, Dennis, for his love and patience, as well as his technical and clerical skills. His personal integrity and lifestyle of courage and faith continue to inspire and enrich me. vii

PAGE 8

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .................... l Importance of Study ........................ 2 Conceptual Framework ..................... 4 Model for study ......................... 10 Description of Study ................. 12 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................... 16 Behavior-Reward Linkage ................... 17 Classic Theories ................... 17 Small Group Behaviors and Rewards .......... 21 Behaviors ............................... 24 Rewards .. 3 2 Guetzkow and Collins' Model .......... 39 Overview ................................ 41 Obstacles ............................... 42 Behaviors ............................... 44 Group Productivity .................... 45 Rewards ......... ........ 4 6 Summary ................................... 4 9 3. METHODS ............... 53 Hypotheses for Research .......... Sample ..................................... 55 viii

PAGE 9

Instrumentation ............................ 57 Meeting Effectiveness Instrument ....... 57 Rewards Questionnaire ................... 67 Procedures .......................... 77 Design ..................................... so Data Analysis .............................. 83 Research Setting ........................... 8 6 Limitations ................................ 87 4. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS .................. 90 Characteristics of Committees ............ 90 Results of Rewards Questionnaire ........ 105 summary ............................. 112 5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ...... 114 Summary of Findings ....................... 115 Discussion of Findings in View of Methods.118 Discussion of Findings in View of Theory .. 121 Discussion of Findings as They Relate to School Decentralization ...... 123 Conclusions ................. ............. 125 Implications for Practice for SBG Committees ................................ 12 6 Suggestions for Further Study ........ 131 overall Appraisal of Research ........... 133 ix

PAGE 10

APPENDIX ....................................... 13 6 A. Meeting Effectiveness Instrument ........ l36 B. Rewards Questionnaire ................ l39 c. Reliability Analysis .................... 142 REFERENCES ........... 14 6 X

PAGE 11

FIGURES Figure 2.1. Bales's interaction process analysis ...... 30 2.2. Guetzkow and Collins' model of the behavior-reward loop ........................ 40 3 .1. Design of study ............................. 80 4.1. Schools in task and interpersonal cells ..... 94 4.2. Stem and leaf diagram of Rewards Questionnaire results ........... 106 4.3. Weighted reward means by behavior category cells .................... 108 4.4. Interaction of task and interpersonal behaviors according to rewards ........... 110 xi

PAGE 12

Table 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. TABLES Task and interpersonal categories .......... 91 Participants and rewards by schoo1 ......... 107 Analysis of variance ...................... 109 Analysis of variance (second stage) ...... 112 xii

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The purpose of this study was to investigate the behavior-reward linkage as it applies to small decision making groups where membership is voluntary. Because of the time and energy involved in volunteer groups, and the lack of monetary benefits to members, understanding the derivation of rewards that leads to continued participation is important. This was an exploratory field study which examined the loop formed by behaviors leading to perceived rewards and rewards, in turn, reinforcing the behaviors they followed. The groups studied were 12 site Based Governance (SBG) committees in a large urban school district. These groups were established at each school in the district and were composed of elected volunteers from the ranks of teachers, parents, classified staff and community, along with the school principal. The SBG committees served in a limited governance role for the schools with defined responsibility and authority. 1

PAGE 14

Behaviors in the study were limited to meeting behaviors and were classified as task and interpersonal in nature and scored through direct observation. Rewards were self-reported by committee members on a questionnaire. Importance of Study One of the most fundamental themes to have emerged in the growing concern for public school reform is local control, i.e., allowing decision making to rest with those directly involved in each school. As the move from centralized decision making to decentralized decision making grows, it is important to look at how this power shift manifests itself in the practical aspects of governing schools. The Site Based Governance committees studied here have taken on responsibilities formerly embodied in the school board, district personnel and building principals. The success of the SBG committee efforts depends on their ability to sustain the momentum necessary to make decisions that suit the local schools' needs and promote their educational goals. Although the concept of 2

PAGE 15

committee is not new, governing local public schools by committee is. It is important to understand the dynamics of such committees, in particular their meeting behaviors and perceived rewards, in an attempt to facilitate success. Behaviors which lend themselves to effective meetings are desirable. Establishing a link between such behaviors and subsequent rewards is an important step in understanding which behaviors lead to rewards. With this knowledge, groups may be assisted to achieve a level of functioning that encourages member satisfaction, member commitment and ultimately, more productive committees. Andrew DuBrin (1978) has defined a work group as a group formed by an organization to achieve specific tasks. This definition applied to SBG committees. According to DuBrin (1978; p.207), An identification of the characteristics that differentiate between effective and less effective work groups would be of profound theoretical and practical significance. Identifying these properties would provide more knowledge about small group behavior and would also make for improved unctioning of organizations. Applying DuBrin's (1978) statement to SBG committees, this study attempted to identify the 3

PAGE 16

meeting behaviors that differentiated effective from less effective meetings. Conceptual Framework Behaviors and rewards are linked throughout the literature on group process. This linkage has been established through the theories of behaviorism, as explained by B. F. Skinner (1976), cognitive learning theory, as proposed by Kurt Lewin (1951) and expectancy theory, proposed by V. H. Vroom (1964). All three theoretical orientations have reward as the central feature. Rewards follow, and then reinforce, behaviors. Behaviorism, as represented by the thoughts of B. F. Skinner (1976), entails both classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning involves the direct link of stimulus and response. Operant conditioning adds the intermediary step of learning that accounts for the processing of the value of rewards. Behavior then stems from the rewards assessment. Cognitive learning theory stresses the role of thought and interpretation to a greater degree than operant conditioning in behaviorism. Social 4

PAGE 17

psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) emphasized the role of cognition in human processing of the environment, with subsequent behaviors following an assessment of rewards. The behavior-reward linkage is indicated in Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory. A basic version of expectancy theory contains the generalization that people tend to expend more effort toward reaching goals when the probability of receiving a reward is high. Thus effort leads to goal attainment and rewards follow. These rewards, in turn, reinforce the behaviors from which they resulted. Throughout the literature, behaviors of groups are categorized as either task behaviors or interpersonal behaviors. The writers making this distinction include Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Fisher (1974), Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983), Yukl (1984), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988). There are specific observable traits of both categories of behaviors manifested in committee meetings. Task behaviors include issues surrounding agenda development and adherence. The procedures 5

PAGE 18

for problem solving are included in task behaviors. The clarity and explicitness of decision making and agreement among committee members involve task behaviors. Interpersonal problems themselves are not task behaviors, but dealing with such problems is a task behavior. The motivation of the membership, as it stems from issues rather than self-orientation, is task related. Interpersonal behaviors involve attitudes, i.e., whether people seem positive, focused and free to discuss their feelings about the group. Issues of acceptance are interpersonal, as well as components of the overall climate of a group. The use of humor and friendliness among members, along with the engagement of members in what's going on in the meeting, are interpersonal in nature. The existence of factions and "under the table" agenda items are also interpersonal. This study involved a specific set of criteria for looking at meeting behavior. It is important to have a clear understanding of the likely attributes an effective meeting of a high functioning SBG committee would have. According to Schmuck and Runkel (1988), an effective SBG meeting would have 6

PAGE 19

an agenda developed by anyjall of the members. The agenda would be adhered to, with the majority of the items covered within appropriate time frames. Issues would be explored thoroughly with several solutions suggested. Members would question the origin of problems. According to Fisher (1974), discussions in an effective meeting would be aided by someone occasionally summarizing. Decisions would be explicit with clear designations of responsibilities. Decisions would be made by consensus. If disagreements occur they would be faced rather than avoided (Schmuck and Runkel, 1988). There would be agreement on who facilitates the meeting. Members would appear to be motivated by the issues rather than self-oriented needs (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965). An effective meeting climate would be one of acceptance where members feel free to express opinions that would be listened to. Members would seem positive, focused, and engaged. Members would appear to like one another and be comfortable enough to use appropriate humor. There would be no apparent factions and no hidden agendas (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965). 7

PAGE 20

SBG committees that held meetings with attributes described above would be considered high functioning. This study proposed that there is a link between effective meeting behaviors and the rewards perceived by committee members. Rewards are stimuli which are valued. The authors used as references for the rewards portion of this study included Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Fisher (1974), DuBrin (1978), Yukl (1984), and Steers (1984), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988). These authors looked at rewards of group participation. Rewards may be categorized as task and interpersonal, but the distinction can be vague. This study did not attempt to separate the categories but rather considered rewards to be the consequences of behaviors as well as the reinforcers of behaviors. The kinds of rewards assessed in this study revolved around the themes of acceptance, success at task completion, the resolving of group problems, the quality of decisions, communication among members, and overall satisfaction with participation in the group. The following discussion of rewards was based on the literature concerning rewards related to group participation. 8

PAGE 21

It is important to understand what the researcher considered rewarding and why. It would be rewarding to feel accepted as a valued member and to have this evidenced through smiles and compliments accompanied by the knowledge that views and opinions are heard. It would be rewarding to like the other members and to agree on the choice of leadership (Steers, 1984). Being a member of a committee with the ability to complete tasks would be rewarding. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that "the larger the percentage of agenda completed in a meeting, the more participants are satisfied11(p.198). When problems among members arise, it would be rewarding to solve them satisfactorily in the absence of cliques (Yukl, 1984). It would be rewarding to have discussions and decisions made that are understandable and that often reflect a member's own opinions. Having worthwhile goals and a sense of making a difference would be rewarding (Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, & Kibler, 1983). The behaviors and rewards in the preceding paragraphs are supported in the literature in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 operationalizes the behaviors 9

PAGE 22

and rewards in the instruments used for quantifying the concepts. Model for Study This study sought to establish that certain levels of perceived rewards followed certain levels of meeting behaviors. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) research into group process led them to develop a model for group processes for decision making in a meeting setting which proposed that not only are rewards consequences of behaviors, but also that rewards influence the recurrence of the behaviors they follow. The model is illustrated and described in more detail in Chapter 2. What follows is a brief discussion of the model. Basically, the model shows the relationships among four features present in decision making groups: obstacles, behaviors, productivity, and rewards. Obstacles, behaviors and rewards in the task environment are distinguished from obstacles, behaviors and rewards that are interpersonal in nature. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) represented sources of problems as obstacles. Task obstacles, which are stimuli external to the group, constitute 10

PAGE 23

problems for the group. Interpersonal obstacles, which are stimuli created by actions, or the absence of actions, of other group members, also constitute problems for the group. At times obstacles in the task environment create problems in the interpersonal environment. Group behaviors are separated into task and interpersonal behaviors. These behaviors determine output in the form of group productivity. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that both categories of behaviors are involved in productivity, with task behaviors directly affecting individual productivity. Interpersonal behaviors affect both individual productivity and what Guetzkow and Collins (1965) referred to as the "assembly effect." An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve something collectively which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts. The assembly effect bonus is productivity which exceeds the potential of the most capable member and also exceeds the efforts of the group members working separately. 11

PAGE 24

Following obstacles, behaviors and productivity in the model is rewards. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that group productivity results in task rewards while interpersonal behaviors lead directly to interpersonal rewards. These two types of rewards, then linked together, make a loop back to behaviors. This concept of rewards following behaviors and then influencing the recurrence of the behaviors they followed was the focus of this study. Description of Study This study involved three hypotheses. All three dealt with the behavior-reward linkage illustrated in Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model. 1. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high task behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low task behaviors. 2. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high interpersonal behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low interpersonal behaviors. 12

PAGE 25

3. There will be no interaction between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors. Low and high levels of task behaviors will have the same effect on low and high levels of interpersonal behaviors when gauged by perceived rewards. The hypotheses were tested in a causalcomparative design. Committees were categorized into two levels of task behaviors and two levels of interpersonal behaviors, and compared with respect to the dependent variable of member rewards. Meeting behaviors were observed and rated by trained observers. Rewards were assessed through the use of a questionnaire. The behaviors observed were those of 12 Site Based Governance committees during three of their regularly scheduled meetings. Observers rated task and interpersonal behaviors and each committee was subsequently placed in one of four cells according to behaviors. Each cell contained committees whose behavior functioning was determined to be similar. The cells were designated as low task-low interpersonal, low task-high interpersonal, high 13

PAGE 26

task-low interpersonal, and high task-high interpersonal. SBG committee members completed a rewards questionnaire. This questionnaire contained statements that allowed respondents to mark a scale of 1 to 5 to express their assessment of rewards received. The results of the questionnaires were compared using the cell designations from the behavior observations. The data analysis of the study involved factorial nested analysis of variance, testing a main effect for each independent variable, and a two-way interaction between task behavior and interpersonal behavior. The analysis proceeded in two stages. The first analysis treated group as a fixed factor. The second analysis involved reanalyzing the data treating group as a random factor. Prior to data collection the two instruments used, the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and the Rewards Questionnaire, were developed by the researcher. Observers were trained and school selection was tentatively planned. The data collection for this study took place over a four 14

PAGE 27

month period. Schools were added or deleted during the four months of data collection according to the methods explained later in Chapter 3. Following the four months of data collection, the data were analyzed and the results are presented in Chapter 4. The conclusions drawn are in Chapter 5 along with a summary and discussion of findings. Implications for Site Based Governance committees are given and suggestions for further research are made. 15

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The theme of this study revolved around the linkage of behaviors and rewards. In the literature of social psychology and group process varying ways of thinking about behaviors and rewards are presented. This chapter presents classic, broad views of behaviors and rewards as well as more specific applications in group settings such as the ones examined in this study. By doing so, a wide range of schools of thought are available to the reader. This literature review begins with a general look at how behaviors and rewards are linked. A more specific treatment of behaviors in small decision making groups, along with a discussion of the categorization of behaviors into task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors, follows. Rewards in the context of small groups and how they are viewed in this study are discussed. The remainder of tQe review deals with the model upon which this study was based. 16

PAGE 29

Behavior-Reward Linkage The concept of behavior-reward linkage is prevalent in this century in the literature of social psychology as evidenced by the attempts to explain the connection by Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Fisher (1974), Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983), Yukl (1984), Schmuck and Runkel (1988), and others. This section explores the classic theories of behaviorism, cognitive learning, and expectancy theory as means of predicting group behavior to provide a context for current views on the behavior-reward linkage. All three theories, along with more current literature in social psychology, have reward as a central feature. Classic Theories Behaviorism is a classic theory that deals with classical conditioning, also known as stimulusresponse, and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning focuses on the process involved in the development of a stimulus-response bond between a conditioned stimulus and a conditioned response through the repeated linking of a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus. Pavlov's 17

PAGE 30

experiments in the beginning of this century provide the premier example of classical conditioning. B.F. Skinner (1976) argued that classical conditioning focuses on reflexive behavior, or involuntary responses from_stimuli, and therefore cannot explain more complex learning. He and others proposed operant conditioning as an alternative. The major focus of operant conditioning is on the effects of reinforcements or rewards on desired Operant conditioning emphasizes that individuals learn to respond to their environment according to the feedback they receive regarding their actions. In the Handbook of Social Psychology, Gardner Lindzey (1985) provided a rationale for looking at operant conditioning. He stated that since behavior is presumably a function of its consequences, it is important for organizations to diagnose the behavior-reward linkages and to manage the contingencies. Behaviorism has been taken to task for its neglect of cognition. From this challenge came the cognitive learning theory. Bandura (1977) argued that while the reinforcement of certain simple forms of verbal and motor behavior might be possible 18

PAGE 31

without any recognition on the part of the person being shaped, in general, the engagement of cognitive processes made the reinforcement process more effective. The extent to which cognitive concepts are necessary to understand behavior remains an important theoretical and empirical concern (Lindzey, 1985). Many of the tenets of behaviorism, such as the nature of behavior and the likelihood of reward, are the same for cognitive learning. Cognitive learning theory provides a link between the stimulus and the response. Many theorists prefer a perspective that puts emphasis on inner processes (Gergen & Gergen, 1981). Cognitive learning stresses the effects of thought and interpretation on behavior. The cognitivists believe that a person's perception of the environment is the key influence on behavior. Zajonc (1980) stated that cognition pervades social psychology, that social psychology has been cognitive for a very long time. Lindzey (1985) noted that there have been peaks and valleys in the emphasis on cognitive factors and that a cognitive revolution has been going on since 1960. 19

PAGE 32

In the 1960's, V.H. Vroom (1964) developed expectancy theory. While behaviorism and cognitive learning theory link behaviors and rewards either directly or with intervening cognition, expectancy theory adds a dimension to the linkage. That dimension is motivation. Although Skinner (1976) is thought of as a behaviorist, he acknowledged motivation. He stated that one learns to be motivated toward those activities or behaviors which are reinforced by rewards or positive consequences. Motivation, according to Skinner (1976), is a form of learned behavior. Whatever the derivation of motivation, Vroom (1964) expanded its importance as a key factor in his theory of the behavior-reward linkage. Expectancy theory could be considered a variation on cognitive theory which, as stated earlier, is an expansion of behaviorism (Mitchell, 1974). Yukl (1984) puts expectancy theory into a practical perspective as he confirmed the behaviorreward linkage. His practical implications included: (1) organizations should develop appropriate procedures for evaluating members, (2) an incentive program of attractive rewards 20

PAGE 33

contingent on superior behavior should be established, (3) undesirable (though sometimes inadvertent) outcomes related to superior behavior should be eliminated, (4) reward contingencies should be explained accurately, (5) members should be given high effort-to-performance expectancies through training and assistance, and (6) rewards should be carefully planned. The three classic theories have shown in broad terms how behaviors lead to rewards and rewards influence the recurrence of behaviors. The next section deals more specifically with groups, group behavior, and perceived rewards of group participation. Small Group Behaviors and Rewards Behaviorism, cognitive learning theory, and expectancy theory deal with individuals. While individuals make up groups, groups take on a persona of their own by virtue of the effects individuals have on each other (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965). The majority of studies in the domain of organization theory have proceeded using the individual as the unit of analysis (Lindzey, 1985). While the unit of 21

PAGE 34

analysis in this study was the individual, that dimension was expanded as the individuals were considered to be nested within groups (see Chapter 3 for details). Lindzey (1985, p.78) quoted Steiner in his lament: "Whatever happened to the group in social psychology?" Lindzey (1985, p.78) goes on to say that perhaps a "complementary pluralism of approaches with more attention to the dynamics of mutual interdependence" would be appropriate for research of the group. This section provides views of a number of writers concerning behaviors and rewards in a group setting. These conceptualizations lend support to the ways in which behaviors and rewards were operationalized for use in this study. Social psychologists view the group as a dynamic whole that is different from the sum of its parts and involving two or more persons who are interacting with one another in sucn a manner that each person influences, and is influenced by, each other person (Fisher, 1974). Groups form accidentally or by design for a myriad of reasons. This study dealt with small decision making groups. 22

PAGE 35

Fisher (1974, p.128) stated that "A decision, ultimately the outcome of group interaction, is inevitably a choice made by group members from among alternative proposals available to them." The groups in this study reached decisions by consensus, the process of reaching a decision that is either agreed upon by all members or accepted by all (McKechnie, 1983). While the SBG committees, as decision making groups, fulfilled specific purposes, they functioned as small groups and fit the definitions that follow. A group is a collection of people who interact regularly over a period of time and perceive themselves to be mutually dependent with respect to the attainment of one or more common goals (Yukl, 1984). Once a common goal is recognized, procedures for reaching the goal are formulated, task roles for each member are determined, norms are developed to regulate behavior, and a leader(s) begins to emerge. Steers (1984) viewed groups as goal seeking systems in which individuals coordinate their efforts. He stated that groups have five relatively enduring qualities: group size, group norms, role 23

PAGE 36

relationships, status relationships, and group cohesiveness. Behaviors A group seems to derive at least a portion of its definition from the behaviors it exhibits. Viewing a group as a system of behaviors may be difficult to grasp since a system of behaviors is not tangible. However, this study is about behaviors of a group, specifically those behaviors which occur when the group is involved in the meeting setting. Because small decision making groups use oral, face-to-face communication, their communicative behaviors may be observed (Fisher, 1974). The behaviors observed in this study were divided into two categories, task and interpersonal, as is seen often in the literature. The use of this categorization by Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) and Yukl (1984) follows. Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) described task behaviors as task goals and interpersonal behaviors as maintenance goals. They 24

PAGE 37

used the word goals to cover the reasons groups form and the pursuant behaviors of groups, as well as the major products or outcomes sought by groups. Task goals involve all aspects of task, or that which the group does or performs. The list of achievement goals, used by Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) interchangeably with task goals, includes: focusing the group, making meetings / understandable, procedural planning, summarizing, making decisions, and carrying out decisions. Group maintenance goals are related to of the group. Group maintenance refers to the kinds of relationships existing among the various members of the group. Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) stated that these goals dealing with social climate of groups are of primary importance in continuing groups, or groups that meet over extended periods of time. Group maintenance goals include fostering the desire to stay together and strengthening the group. To accomplish these two major goals, Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) suggested the following: encourage group members through support, compliment contributions, avoid unnecessary criticism, give everyone the 25

PAGE 38

opportunity to speak, foster an interdependence of members, or "togetherness." Yukl (1984) discussed the two categories of behavior that he stressed are essential for the success and continuity of any group: task-oriented behavior and group maintenance behavior. The first category, task-oriented behavior, includes behavior that aids the group in selecting goals and making progress in attaining them. He stated that the specific types of taskoriented behaviors that occur in a group largely depend on the nature of the group. In a group working on decision making tasks, most of the taskoriented behavior will consist of exchange, analysis, and evaluation of information and ideas. Yukl (1984) suggested that some members will provide information while others interpret the information, offer opinions and suggest solutions. Eventually someone tests the progress toward agreement on a solution and presses for a decision. The other category, group maintenance behavior, includes any behavior that aids in improving interpersonal relationships and maintains cohesiveness. Yukl (1984) stated that maintenance behavior is just as important as task behavior. 26

PAGE 39

Many kinds of group maintenance behaviors are possible including providing encouragement and support, creating a climate of acceptance and expressing esteem and affection. Because this study dealt with the observation of behavior, it is important to note various ways in which behaviors have been observed in previous studies by noted contributors to social psychology. The following four paragraphs deal with the observation of meeting behaviors as described by Homans (1958), Bennis and Shepherd (1961), Bales (1950), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988). Although some of their contributions are dated, they continue to hold prominence in the most recent edition of the Handbook of Social Psychology (1985), as well as current textbooks of the discipline. Small group behavior has been studied from many theoretical perspectives. George Homans (1958) is noted for his work in the 1950's. His approach to understanding the social structure of small groups has endured and influenced more current social psychologists (DuBrin, 1978). Four basic elements underlie Homan's analysis of small group behavior: (1) activity--the operations people perform in 27

PAGE 40

groups, (2) sentiment--the feelings and attitudes of group members, (3) interaction--the communications of group members, and (4) norms--the standards or values members uphold. Romans (1958) maintained that the four elements of small group behavior are mutually interdependent; that is, it is possible for activity to generate interaction which in turn influences sentiment. With sentiment comes the establishment and acceptance of norms. Bennis and Shepherd (1961) characterized the behavior of groups through their model describing group development. Each phase in group development incorporates behaviors distinguishing the phase. Bennis and Shepherd (1961) derived their description from reports of nonparticipant observers and their experience teaching classes in group dynamics. The four phases include: (1) personally need-oriented, not group oriented, (2) maintenance of group task, (3) group-focused work with differing attacks, goal establishment, idea-testing, and (4) creative and integrative interpretation with immediate relevance to present problems of group task. Thus we se.e that group behaviors include those actions arising from self-orientation versus group orientation, all the 28

PAGE 41

behaviors involved in sustaining and nurturing the group, the actual work of the group in decision making, and the methods of interpreting situations as new ideas are generated. A familiar descriptive model of the group process is the three phase model of Bales (1950) called Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) (Fig. 2.1). The IPA classifies each communicative behavior performed bymembers during group interaction. The classes of behaviors include twelve different categories. The IPA separates the group's task and social-emotional dimensions by labeling three pairs of categories in each area. The analysis indicates that members give and ask for orientation in the first phase, give and ask for opinions in the second phase, and give and ask for suggestions in the third phase. 29

PAGE 42

Social Emotional Area: Positive Reactions Task Area: Attempted Answers Task Area: Questions Social Emotional Area: Negative Reactions 1 Shows solidarit:t:, raises others' status, gives help, reward 2 Shows tension release, jokes, laughs, shows satisfaction 3 Agrees, shows passive acceptance, understands, concurs, complies 4 Gives suggestion, direction, imp-lying autonomy for other 5 Gives o:ginion, evaluation, analy-sis, expresses feeling, wish 6 Gives orientation, information, repeats, clarifies, confirms 7 Asks for orientation, information, repetition, confirmation 8 Asks for o:ginion, evaluation, analy-sis, expression of feeling 9 Asks for suggestion, direction, possible ways of action 10 Disagrees, shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help 11 Shows tension, asks for help, withdraws out of field 12 Shows antagonism, deflates others' status, defends or asserts self Fig. 2.1 Bales's Interaction Process Analysis 30

PAGE 43

A recent conception of observable behaviors was presented by Schmuck and Runkel (1988). The behaviors they discussed all focus on stimulating creative thought, pooling ideas, viewing consequences of decisions, and producing bolder plans than individuals would condone. Meetings draw out and coordinate resources. Schmuck and Runkel (1988, pp.159-161) developed a Meetings Questionnaire that allows group members to assess their behavior. Behaviors on the questionnaire may be categorized to include problem solving, meeting agenda concerns, thoughtfulness and understandability of discussions, issues of open communication, member commitment to group objectives, existence of factions and hidden agendas, and general meeting climate. The behaviors used in this study are a compilation of a number of writers' ideas. The specific behaviors observed in this study were derived primarily from the explicit behaviors referred to by Bales (1950), Schmuck and Runke.l (1988}, and Guetzkow & Collins (1965}. Chapter 3 includes details of how the behaviors discussed by 31

PAGE 44

these authors were operationalized for use in this study. Rewards As established earlier in the discussion of the behavior-reward linkage, rewards are considered positive consequences of behaviors. The importance of looking at rewards goes beyond the level of consequence. Rewards provide the catalyst for the repetition of behaviors as established in the behavior-reward linkage section. When positive behaviors are desired, the appropriate reward given, and the link between the two made clear, a loop is created. This loop illustrates the importance of rewards in the capacity of reinforcement of behaviors and is the main reason for their importance in this study. This section takes a general look at rewards, as well as consideration of rewards in the context of organizations. The loop formed by behaviors and rewards is examined more thoroughly in the section on Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model. According to the ancient principle of hedonism, people try to maximize pleasure and avoid pain 32

PAGE 45

(Yukl, 1984). Rewards may be considered pleasure and often appear in the social psychology literature under the term satisfaction. Satisfaction is the gratification of wants, needs, desires and the fulfillment necessary for contentment (McKechnie, 1983). According to Maslow (1943), the satisfaction of needs is rewarding. Needs within the psychological realm apply most to this study. There seems to be agreement on six of these needs, the satisfaction of which would prove rewarding (Yukl, 1984). The six needs include: (1) need for achievement (attaining difficult goals, making unique contributions, solving problems), (2) need for affiliation (being liked, being accepted in a group, working with people who are friendly, maintaining harmonious relationships), (3) need for esteem (being respected, receiving praise, recognition for contributions, visibility in an organization), (4) need for independence (assuming responsibility, being free of authority control), (5) need for power (influencing change in attitudes and gaining control over information, controlling activities), and (6) need for security (having 33

PAGE 46

protection, avoiding hazards, feeling free of anxiety). These six needs are distinct, yet not entirely independent. The satisfaction of the needs, a rewarding experience, influences a person to remain on a given course. As stated in Chapter 1, it is vital to the success of SBG committees to sustain productive momentum. Therefore, it is important that members of the committees experience satisfaction with their participation. DuBrin (1978) has observed that many people receive most of their work group satisfaction from group interaction. The psychological functions groups can fulfill for their members include: (1) an outlet for affiliation needs, (2) a source.of emotional support, and (3) a means of coping with a common enemy. Satisfaction of needs and wants as expressed by Yukl (1984) and the satisfaction of group interaction expressed by DuBrin (1978) provided a framework for how this study viewed rewards, while the specific rewards of group participation were derived mainly from the writings of Schmuck and Runkel {1988) and Guetzkow and Collins (1965), with support from other authors. Some of their views are 34

PAGE 47

included in the following discussion of rewards. The themes of acceptance, the quality of problem solving and decisions, communication among members and overall satisfaction with participation sum up rewards as they were assessed. Acceptance, as a theme of rewards, relates to belonging. Tropman (1979) stated that members of groups need to feel that they are helpful participants and that their membership is valued. It is rewarding for an individual to align with a group goal and to have opinions validated through group consensus. For most groups, group membership serves a function for the individual. Through membership the individual satisfies wants (Krech, Crutchfield, & Ballachey, 1962). Expressing opinions, and having those opinions heard, deals with communication, another theme of rewards. Communication is probably the most talked about, yet least understood, phenomenon of group process. Fisher (1974) stated that communication is the crux of both the task and social dimensions of all groups. Fisher (1974, p.vii) goes on to state that "through communication human beings process information, test ideas, exchange opinions, and 35

PAGE 48

achieve consensus on decisions." If communication is established with members free to express themselves, there will be satisfaction with participation. Fisher (1974) also contended that frequent and effective communicators in decision making groups generally feel valued, and therefore rewarded. Another theme of group rewards dealt with decisions and the decision making process. The ability of a group to make a decision is satisfying. Tropman (1980) stated that if a group is set up to make decisions that everything done within the group should aim toward enhancing and facilitating the making of those decisions in order to fulfill the purpose of the group and the individuals who belong to the group. The making of decisions in an efficient manner is rewarding. A decision need not be approval of a course of action or a plan for action. Decisions may simply involve the tabling of an item. Coming to a decision gives a sense of accomplishment. A similar sense of accomplishment comes covering the majority of items on the agenda when groups meet. Without agenda integrity, participants 36

PAGE 49

lack satisfaction and their interest in the group wanes (Tropman, 1980). The purpose of the agenda is to focus a group meeting. Burleson (1990) considered the agenda the main tool for assuring accomplishment and fostering a group's sense of success. Overall satisfaction with group participation is perhaps the most illusive theme because it can vary with the individual. steers (1984), Shaw (1976), and others have contributed some general conceptions. The simple concept of liking the other individuals in a group is rewarding. Feeling a high degree of camaraderie and concern for one another leads to group cohesiveness (Steers, 1984). According to Shaw (1976, p.l97), "Members of highly cohesive groups are more energetic in group activities, ... they are happy when the group succeeds." The consequence of group cohesiveness is the satisfaction of group members. Group cohesiveness is hindered if members sense that others in the group are there to fulfill_selforiented needs. Self-oriented need behavior in a group correlates negatively with member 37

PAGE 50

satisfaction. Sensing that a group shares a common goal and that there is a united purpose free of factions increases satisfaction (Krech, Crutchfield, & Ballachey, 1962). Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that congruence of member motivation and lack of self-oriented needs will produce satisfaction. Satisfaction is achieved not only from the sense that members share a common motivation, but also from the conviction that the purpose and activities of a group are worthwhile. When members feel that a task is important, their overall satisfaction with group interaction is higher. It can be expected that higher morale and higher quality decisions come from groups whose members are concerned about the outcomes of the group process (Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, & Kibler, 1983). Experiencing satisfaction in a group setting contributes to the desire to remain in the group, affects the climate of the group, influences performance, and increases individual contributions to group effectiveness (Steers, 1984). The rewards of group participation discussed in this chapter are the consequences of effective behaviors as well 38

PAGE 51

as the catalysts for the perpetuation of behaviors. Behaviors and rewards in the group setting have been explored. The loop formed by behaviors and rewards will now be illustrated through Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model. Guetzkow and Collins' Model Guetzkow and Collins (1965) built a social psychology of group processes for decision making. out of the compilation of studies they have produced a working model of decision making groups. This model shows the relationships among obstacles to decision making groups, group behaviors, group productivity and rewards (Fig. 2.2). 39

PAGE 52

0 Source of Problem Task Obstacles ... II Interpersonal Obstacles I Group Behavior Outputs Rewards Task Task J-'! Behaviors Individual Rewards Productivity j i Assembly Interpersonal .... Effect Behaviors Interpersonal -Rewards Group Productivity Fig. 2.2 Guetzkow and Collins' model of the behavior-reward loop

PAGE 53

Overview Obstacles, behaviors and rewards in the task environment are distinguished from obstacles, behaviors and rewards that are interpersonal in nature. The left column of the model represents sources of problems which Guetzkow and Collins (1965) term obstacles. Task obstacles, which are stimuli external to the group, constitute problems for the group and instigate behaviors. Interpersonal obstacles, which are stimuli created by actions, or the absence of actions, of other group members, constitute problems for the group and instigate behaviors. At times obstacles in the task environment create problems or obstacles in the interpersonal environment as indicated by the directional arrow in the source of problems column. The group behavior column again separates task and interpersonal behaviors. These behaviors determine output in the form of group productivity. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that both categories of behaviors are involved in productivity, with task behaviors directly affecting individual productivity. Interpersonal behaviors 41

PAGE 54

affect both individual productivity and assembly effect. An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve something collectively which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts. The assembly effect bonus is productivity which exceeds the potential of the most capable member and also exceeds the efforts of the group members working separately. The last column of the model contains rewards. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that group productivity results in task rewards while interpersonal behaviors from column two lead directly to interpersonal rewards. These two types of rewards, then linked together, make a loop back to behaviors. The two kinds of obstacles define the problems the members face and their subsequent behaviors, while the rewards arising from productivity and interpersonal behaviors mold future behaviors. Obstacles A task obstacle is a particular aspect of the total task environment which can block group 42

PAGE 55

productivity, thus leading to behaviors that may intervene to attempt to eliminate the obstacle. An obstacle can be considered the focus of group activity, the purpose for decision making. Task obstacles are those problems which arise from external forces. In general, group members usually understand task obstacles and are willing to deal with them. Interpersonal obstacles are those problems created within the group. Human interaction inherently leads to obstacles that affect members individually. Interpersonal obstacles are more difficult for a group to define and deal with than task obstacles. Interpersonal obstacles may range from individual personalities to uncomfortable status relationships. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) contended that overcoming interpersonal obstacles contributes as much toward group productivity as overcoming task obstacles. Because groups sometime fail to recognize and acknowledge interpersonal obstacles, they may become major barriers to group productivity. In the model it is shown that task obstacles lead to interpersonal obstacles. As the group 43

PAGE 56

attempts to deal with task obstacles, interpersonal obstacles form as a result of the human interaction involved. Behaviors Behaviors in the model refer to actions of the group members as a result of obstacles. The focus on what instigates behavior serves to clarify the distinction between task and interpersonal. Task behaviors are those which deal with external forces and procedural functions. Interpersonal behaviors are those behaviors stimulated by internal forces, individual reactions to other group members. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) treatment of behavior with reference to their model is rather limited. Within the context of the model they referred to obstacles as leading to behaviors and behaviors resulting in group productivity and rewards. They did little to delineate behaviors in terms other than those used to describe obstacles and rewards. The behaviors they referred to are those which occur during decision making meetings and are documented by observers. Because of their limited treatment of behaviors, this study relied 44

PAGE 57

heavily on the behaviors as discussed earlier in this chapter. These behaviors fit into Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) categories and definitions of task and interpersonal behaviors. Group Productivity When individuals work in the presence of, and in conjunction with, others, a group is formed. The group differs from a collection of individuals working separately. Group productivity refers to the accomplishments, or lack of, achieved by the combined efforts of the members of a group. The productivity of a group is determined by the abilities of the members related to the task and the ways in which the members relate to one another. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) have divided group productivity into two categories, individual productivity and assembly effect. Group productivity is the result of the cqmbination of the sum of individual productivity and the assembly effect. Each member of a group brings abilities to the group and attains accomplishments for the_group. Individual productivity is the result of both task and interpersonal behaviors. 45

PAGE 58

When a group of individuals gather, they have the potential to produce more in assembly than they could separately. The assembly effect is the potential present in a group when the members not only demonstrate effective task behaviors, but also build interpersonal relationships effective enough to out perform the sum of individual efforts. Rewards Guetzkow and Collins (1965) defined rewards as stimuli which are valued by the person and which have been found to increase the probability of behaviors they follow. Rewards serve to mold, maintain and motivate group behaviors. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) conceptualized rewards, as they did obstacles and behaviors, into two broad categories, task and interpersonal. Task rewards are those rewards stimulated by group productivity. Interpersonal rewards are internal to the group and are produced by the behaviors of other group members. While distinguishing between the two categories, Guetzkow and Collins (1965) often stated that both types of rewards provide support for, and augment, each other. Certain rewards may also be 46

PAGE 59

viewed as crossing over from task to interpersonal and vice versa. Sometimes there is an interdependence between the task reward and the interpersonal reward. Task rewards occur when members believe they have been successful on group tasks. Examples include when a high percentage of agenda items are covered, when decisions are made in an orderly, efficient and rapid manner, and when meetings are not unduly long. Rewards occur when communication in the meeting makes what's going on understandable. When members agree with the decisions that are made and term them as "good," they feel rewarded. Success in solving problems of an interpersonal nature is considered a task reward. When there is a congruence in member motivation and when there is a relative lack of self-oriented need behavior, members feel rewarded. The lack of cliques and consensus on leadership provide rewards. Interpersonal rewards occur when members feel they are accepted by the group. The approval of the group, perhaps in the form of a smile, a nod, __ or a direct compliment, is rewarding. When members interact with people they like in the group we find 47

PAGE 60

that rewards are intrinsic to such interaction. Communication as it relates to understandability was listed as a task reward. Communication can also be considered in the category of interpersonal rewards. The greater the number of open communication channels readily available, the greater the rewards will be. Members are rewarded when others simply listen to them. This study did not distinguish between task and interpersonal rewards, but rather combined the categories. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that it is a much simpler task to distinguish between task and interpersonal behaviors than between task and interpersonal rewards. As stated earlier, they also contended that the reward categories overlap and the line between them is often fuzzy at best. To explore the behavior-reward loop did not require rewards to be categorized. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) conception of rewards included the kinds of rewards discussed earlier in the chapter. The loop formed by behaviors and rewards was the basic foundation of this study. The other elements of Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model, 48

PAGE 61

though vital to the whole scheme of group process, will not be developed here. summary Three classic perspectives have been provided in this chapter to explain the link between behaviors and rewards. Behaviorism emphasizes the direct. link, as in stimulus-response in classical conditioning, and the more tempered link with learned responses in operant conditioning. Cognitive learning theory emphasizes the learning aspect that occurs as people recognize that their behavior is shaped by the value they place on rewards. This recognition includes thought processes and interpretations of behaviors as well as rewards. Taking the human role even further, expectancy theory includes the concept of motivation. People are motivated out of an expectation that a reward or outcome they value will follow. All three of these theories link behaviors and rewards. Taking the concepts of behaviors and rewa.rds from classic theories dealing with individuals to more specific treatments within groups, Romans 49

PAGE 62

(1958), Bennis and Shepherd (1961), Bales (1950), and Schmuck and Runkel (1988) provided ways of observing group behaviors. Rewards were equated with satisfaction as DuBrin (1978), Yukl (1984), Fisher (1974), Tropman (1979) and others described specific ways in which group participation could result in satisfaction and thereby be rewarding. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model of group process gives a basic way of thinking about the way behaviors and rewards influence each other as groups interact in the meeting setting. Expectancy theory, as an expansion of the stimulus-response of behaviorism, and an extension (by adding motivation) to the cognitive processes of cognitive learning theory, best describes Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) view of the behavior-reward linkage. The views of behaviors presented by the various authors are congruent with Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) view of behaviors. All of the rewards discussed in this literature review fall within Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) conception of what constitutes rewards as they mold, maintain and motivate group behavior. The hypotheses in this study dealt directly with behaviors and rewards and how the level of 50

PAGE 63

behaviors associated the level of rewards. Through the classic theories the foundation was set for the relationship between behaviors and rewards. Through the various writers' thoughts presented in the section dealing with small groups, the relationship became more specific as group behaviors and rewards of participation were examined. The literature presented showed that it is an accepted practice to differentiate between task and interpersonal behaviors when observing groups (Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, & Kibler, 1983; Yukl, 1984; Guetzkow & Collins, 1965). All three hypotheses use this distinction. Hypothesis 1 states that groups observed to function at high levels for task behavior will perceive greater rewards than groups observed to function at low levels for task behavior. Similarly, hypothesis 2 states that groups observed to function at high levels of interpersonal behavior will perceive greater rewards than groups observed to function at low levels of interpersonal behavior. This chapter has shown that such predictions are conceptually sound. Chapter 3 provides the specific ways in 51

PAGE 64

which this study determined levels of functioning and measured perceived rewards. The third hypothesis takes the distinction between task and interpersonal behaviors further by stating that not only are the categories distinguishable, but also that they are independent and do not interact with one another when gauged by perceived rewards. This twist within the behaviorreward linkage was a unique approach. The details of how the interaction, or lack thereof, was measured are presented in Chapter 3. 52

PAGE 65

CHAPTER 3 METHODS This chapter details the methods used in this study to collect and analyze the data necessary to test the hypotheses. The chapter begins with the statement of the three hypotheses along with an explanation of the variables. The criteria for selecting groups and characteristics of the sample are discussed. In the instrumentation section, the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and the Rewards Questionnaire are explained and justified. The procedures for data collection are then described. Next the design of the study is illustrated along with an explanation of how specific elements fit the design. The data analysis section discusses the two stages of analysis employed in this study followed by a section on limitations. Hypotheses for Research This study focused on three hypotheses. The first two hypotheses dealt with the main effect of the independent variables of task behavior and 53

PAGE 66

interpersonal behavior on perceived rewards. The third hypothesis examined the possible interaction of the two independent variables as they related to the dependent variable of rewards. 1. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high task behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low task behaviors. 2. Members of SBG committees characterized as having high interpersonal behaviors will report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low interpersonal behaviors. 3. There will be no interaction between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors. Low and high levels of task behaviors will have the same effect on low and high levels of interpersonal behaviors when gauged by perceived rewards. The independent variables in the hypotheses were two characteristics of SBG committee meetings, task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors. These two variables were measured through direct 54

PAGE 67

observation. Group behaviors were scored on a five point scale on four indicators of task behavior and four indicators of interpersonal behavior. The instrument used, the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument (Appendix A), called for observation of the meeting agenda process, problem solving techniques, decision making, interpersonal issues, group motivation, group participation and overall meeting climate. The derivation and reliability of the instrument, along with a description of the observers, will be provided later in this chapter. The dependent variable in this study was perceived rewards as measured by SBG committee members' scores on a self-report questionnaire instrument, the Rewards Questionnaire (Appendix B). According to the hypotheses, perceived rewards will be positively associated with the levels of task and interpersonal behaviors. Sample Twelve SBG committees from a large urban school district provided the subjects of this study. Each SBG committee included the principal, four teachers, three parents, a classified employee, and a business 55

PAGE 68

representative from the community in addition to two students at the high school level. Committees could choose to have additional members. The SBG committees did not have full authority over all decisions. Their authority included, but was not limiteq to, scheduling of time within the work week, instructional delivery, school budget, instructional support, curriculum structure and implementation, community relations, and selection of faculty. The elected district school board retained control over decisions that required a central focus such as the school calendar, curriculum framework, construction, and transportation. The board defined the destination and each school charted its individual course. The schools in the study were purposefully sampled to insure variation in task and interpersonal behaviors. An initial set of schools was identified from word-of-mouth assessments of how things were going with the SBG committees. Schools were added to the set by the researcher, to insure variation in levels of task and interpersonal_ functioning. In each case the researcher talked with people directly connected to the school or in 56

PAGE 69

some way knowledgeable about the SBG committee functioning to confirm assessments of task and interpersonal behaviors. Finally committees in 13 schools were observed. Although only 12 were required by the study design, collecting data from an extra school allowed for the possibility that cells might be unbalanced when assignment data were analyzed. The decision process used to eliminate the extra school will be explained later in this chapter. Instrumentation Two instruments were used in this study. Both were created specifically for this study by the researcher based on the literature in Chapter 2. Meeting Effectiveness Instrument Meeting effectiveness was assessed using the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument designed for the study. The instrument allowed observers to assess meeting behavior in two categories, task and interpersonal. These two behavior categories __ were the independent variables in the study. Each behavior category subsumed four specific meeting 57

PAGE 70

functions to be observed and rated. Each function was assessed on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being high. Trained observers rated each of the eight (four task and four interpersonal) functions separately on a scale. The task behavior half of the instrument included the following four observable functions: agenda (development of, adherence to, percent of items covered, appropriate time frames); problem solving (extent of exploration of problems, suggestions for solutions, discussion summarized occasionally); decisions (explicit, implementation plan clear, consensus); and interpersonal problems (disagreements dealt with, agreement on leadership, members motivated by issues). The interpersonal behavior half of the instrument included the following four observable functions: attitudes (members positive and focused, group feels free to discuss causes of negative attitudes, members open with one another); acceptance (members feel opinions heard, members feel they are important contributors, everyone speaks); climate (smiles, humor, pleasantness, members engaged in meeting, members 58

PAGE 71

appear to like one another); and factions (apparent cliques, "under the table" agendas). In addition to the quantitative evaluation of the meetings, meeting agendas were collected and occasional narrative notes were taken. The results of the Meeting Instruments and the ;added notes are summarized for each school in Chapter 4 to give a more impressionistic account of how the committees functioned. The individuals who served as observers in the study were fellow doctoral students who met twice a month to discuss, among other issues, the SBG committees. The gender composition of the observer group was five females and three males. the group included whites, blacks and Hispanics. All of the observers were either teachers or adminstrators. They were trained in the use of the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and were familiar with the hypotheses of the study. Interrater reliability was established for the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument. The trained panel of observers was given the opportunity to use the instrument on their own on several occasions to allow them to become familiar with its content. The 59

PAGE 72

panel then viewed a videotape of an SBG meeting and rated it without conferring. The results of the individual observers were examined. There was 100% agreement in all eight observed functions of task and interpersonal behavior. On the scale of 1-5 agreement meant that all observers were within one number of each other, i.e., on individual items scores were 4-5, 3-4, 2-3, or 1-2. This kind of agreement established sufficient interrater reliability. The following eight paragraphs provide references for the derivation of the items in the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument used to observe the SBG committees. As stated earlier, the main sources used to operationalize the concept of meeting effectiveness were Guetzkow and Collins (1965), Schmuck and Runkel (1988), and Bales (1950). Although other authors provided support for the elements .used, this discussion is limited to these three writers. The instrument gauged both task and interpersonal behavior categories as they relate to effective meetings, with four areas in each. The first area of task behavior involves agenda issues. Schmuck and Runkel emphasized the 60

PAGE 73

importance of the agenda as the main source of meeting discipline, as well as a tool of goal setting. They stated that many meeting conveners are unaccustomed to the use of any style other than a free-for-all style that invariably leads to a lack of productivity. The step-by-step style of an agenda is termed a must. They continued their agenda discussion with suggestions of how to create and use an agenda. They stressed the importance of input by all members, ways to avoid stray conversations, and leadership in limiting time spent on each item to allow the items listed to be covered. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.l11) strongly echoed agenda importance by emphasizing the need to only discuss one topic at a time and the increased possibility of consensus decisions when "simultaneously dabbling in two or three" items at a time was avoided. The second area of task behavior involves problem solving. The thoroughness of discussions was viewed as a major contributor to effective meetings by all three of the major sources. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) noted the differences between thorough and time consuming. They stated 61

PAGE 74

that if discussions involved in problem solving are focused, they need not be unduly long. Bales (1950), in his Interaction Process Analysis instrument illustrated in Chapter 2, emphasized the skills which contribute to effective problem solving. His task behaviors involved giving and asking for suggestions, opinions, information, clarification, and possible ways of action. These behaviors were incorporated in the category though reference to problem suggestions for solutions, and questions of problem origin. Schmuck and Runkel (1988, p.155) noted that the "general inability to paraphrase other's points of view" as a stumbling block to effective problem solving. This reiterates the need for summarizing problem solving discussions from time to time. Related to problem solving was the third area of task behavior, decision making. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) wrote about the processes of solving problems and making decisions in similar terms. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) made more of a distinction by indicating that decision making generally involves a plan of action. They suggested that previous decisions related to the current agenda be 62

PAGE 75

briefly discussed in a meeting. The explicitness and clarity of decisions made in meetings make the decisions more viable. Since the purpose of decision making groups is to make decisions, the more viable those decisions, the more effective the meeting. Another point in the decision making area of task behavior of SBG committees was the observation of whether decisions appeared to be made by consensus. According to Schmuck and Runkel, consensus is different from a unanimous vote. Consensus on a decision "means that enough people are in favor for it to be carried out" and that those who remain doubtful understand the decision and will not stand in the way of its implementation (Schmuck & Runkel, 1988, p.241). Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that consensus is the optimum form of decision making for small groups. The fourth area of task behavior concerns interpersonal problems. This area includes three observable meeting behaviors outlined by Guetzkow and Collins (1965). The strongest states that in effective meetings, when disagreements occur, .. they are dealt with rather than smoothed over or avoided. The behaviors that lead to resolution of 63

PAGE 76

difficulties are considered task behaviors. Another behavior involves the motivation of members, whether issues or self-oriented needs are at the heart of behaviors. Schmuck and Runkel (1988, p.155) stated that "a feature of effective meetings is the degree to which members engaged in self-oriented ... behavior." Agreement on who acts as chairperson of meetings is included in this area of task behavior. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that in his research, meetings tended to be more productive if there was agreement on leadership. The first observable area of the interpersonal behavior category concerns attitudes of members. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) termed lack of focus and antagonism as disruptive and counterindicated for effective meetings. Therefore being positive and focused would contribute to the effectiveness of meetings. An attitude of openness was encouraged by Guetzkow and Collins (1965) and Schmuck and Runkel (1988) as a tool for continuing success of meetings and as a prevention of stagnation or prolonged negative attitudes. The second area of the interpersonal behavior category involves acceptance. Bales (1950), in his 64

PAGE 77

Interaction Process Analysis instrument, listed showing acceptance as a positive social-emotional aspect of meeting behavior. Schmuck and Runkel listed acceptance of members as a maintenance function that would improve meeting effectiveness. Ensuring that others have a chance to speak was also listed as a vital maintenance function. When members feel that their opinions have been heard, meetings tend to be more effective. overall climate was the subject of the third area of the interpersonal behavior category. Climate includes the following observable elements: members smile frequently, members feel free to use humor, pleasantness of meeting, members' engagement, and members appear to like one another. Bales (1950) referred to joking and laughing as positive social-emotional elements that contribute to meetings. Schmuck and Runkel referred to apathetic participation, an opposite concept to engagement, as being disruptive to meeting progress. Part of their maintenance functions include "sensing group mood and being warm and responsive toward others" (Schmuck & Runkle, 1988, p.155). Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.110) recognized the importance of 65

PAGE 78

pleasantness when they wrote of a meeting that was a part of their research, "The overall pleasantness of the meeting, as seen by observers, created a climate conducive to agreement." The fourth area of the interpersonal behavior category deals with disruptive elements of meetings, namely factions and hidden agendas. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) referred to the formation of cliques [factions] as being very disruptive to meeting processes. They said "incongruity of motivation and resultant conflict" lead to clique formation (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965, p.201). Schmuck and Runkel (1988) said that cliques manifest themselves in meetings in private conversations in pairs or subgroups that prove disruptive. They stated that a consultant, in an effort to improve meetings, should look for signs of hidden conflict that would be manifested in hidden agenda items, i.e., members saying one thing and meaning another, or implying feelings without overtly verbalizing. The absence of factions and hidden agendas would contribute to meeting effectiveness. 66

PAGE 79

Rewards Questionnaire The dependent variable, perceived rewards, was measured using a self-report Rewards Questionnaire. The instrument consisted of 18 items, each employing a 5-point bipolar scale, summed to yield a single score ranging from 18 to 90. Some of the items called for either an extreme response of no or yes, with no as 1 and yes as 5, or a more tempered answer of 2, 3 or 4. Some items used extreme descriptors such as never and always, giving a scale of 1 to 5 for responder latitude. Most questionnaire items were derived from Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) theory of rewards, with additional items dealing with satisfaction, cohesiveness and commitment. The addition of these items served the purpose of specifically addressing the fact that, other than the principal, committee membership was voluntary in nature and required personal dedication of time and effort. Face validity for the Rewards Questionnaire has been established through references cited in this chapter and in Chapter 2. Reliability for the Rewards was established through the use of an internal consistency approach using the SPSS program. The 67

PAGE 80

reliability analysis was conducted using 20 initial items on the questionnaire and all 126 questionnaires administered. Cronbach's (1951) coefficient alpha was .88. The analysis revealed two items that correlated less than .2 with the total score and did not contribute to reliability. These two items were deleted and the reliability analysis was determined again. The resulting coefficient alpha was .91 (Appendix C). The revised 18-item scale was used as the dependent variable in subsequent analyses. The following paragraphs provide references for the derivation of the items in the Rewards Questionnaire used to gauge levels of perceived rewards. Items 4 and 18 did not contribute to reliability and were eliminated for the data analyses. They were supported by the literature, as were the other items. In Chapter 5 the researcher gives a plausible explanation as to why these two items did not correlate as strongly as the others. Item 1 states, "This committee accepts me as a valued member" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) referred to an experiment in which 68

PAGE 81

participants were convinced that their membership in a group was valued. They stated that these members indicated a greater level of enjoyment of participation in the experiment. Guetzkow and Collins {1965) stated that the more a member feels the acceptance of the group, the greater the intrinsic satisfaction will be. Tropman {1979) echoed this finding when he wrote that members of groups are satisfied when they feel valued. Item 2 asks that the sentence, "Our committee's ability to complete tasks is ... be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "unsuccessful" to "successful." Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.196) made the statement that "Success on the group task will produce satisfaction." Schmuck and Runkel (1988) repeatedly emphasized the importance of task completion to the satisfaction of group members. Tropman (1979) stated that coming to a decision, no mater how insignificant, is rewarding for groups. Item 3 states, "My views are listened to" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Guetzkow and Collins {1965) proposed that simply being listened to is rewarding and increases a member's feeling of power. This item relates to 69

PAGE 82

item 1 in that being accepted as a valued member would more than likely result in being listened to. I Item 5 asks that the sentence, "Problems among ourselves are resolved ... be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "unsatisfactorily" to "satisfactorily." Schmuck and Runkel (1988, p.297) proposed that if problems or conflicts are legitimated, then compromises, trade-offs, and other negotiations can be conducted resulting in "anxieties diminished as outcomes are more clearly foreseen." The reduction of anxiety, according to the writers, adds to overall satisfaction. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.200) made the strong statement, "Success in solving problems of interpersonal relations will produce satisfaction." Item 6 states, "Members show approval of me through smiles, compliments, etc." with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "never" to "often." Guetzkow and Collins considered smiles and compliments as factors of congeniality which they said produces satisfaction. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) advised organization development consultants to watch for signs of affection such as 70

PAGE 83

smiles and to encourage these signs, as they tend to be rewarding. Item 7 states, "We get to all our agenda items" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "never" to "always." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) reported from their research that the larger the percentage of agenda items completed in a meeting, the more satisfied the participants will be. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) emphasized the importance of a meeting accomplishing its designated goals to help ensure member satisfaction. Tropman (1980) proposed that without agenda integrity, participants will lack satisfaction. Item 8 states, "I am pleased with the committee's choice of leadership" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Steers (1984) found that members of groups feel rewarded if they like the choice of leadership. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.202) proposed that "Agreement on leadership will produce satisfaction." Item 9 asks that the sentence, "Concerning decision made, I generally ... be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "disagree" to "agree." SBG committees had a policy of making decisions by 71

PAGE 84

consensus which allowed for complete support to agreeing to no stand in the way of implementation concerning decisions. Therefore, this item was appropriate. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that in industry, voluntary organizations, and schools, research has shown that the satisfaction of members increases when they feel they have influenced decisions which mirror their views. Item 10 states, "I like the people on this committee" with the response choices on a scale of to 5 from "none" to "all." Steers (1984) stated that simply liking the other members of a group 1 increases rewards. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that group members value interaction with members with whom they share interpersonal attraction. They went on to say, "Interaction with persons we like and persons who like us will produce satisfaction" (Guetzkow & Collins, 1965, p.203). Item 11 states, "I communicate well with committee members" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." As discussed earlier, communication is a very broad and encompassing term. Bales (1950) based most of his group process work on the concepts of sending and 72

PAGE 85

receiving communication. He stated that group success and member satisfaction depend on the group's ability to communicate. Fisher (1974) stated that consensus can only be reached through proper communication. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.199) stated that communication measures have a "positive relation to both problem-solving measures and to satisfaction." Item 12 states, "There are cliques within our committee" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "none" to "some." (In analyses, the value of the response choices was reversed to allow "none" to reflect positively.) Yukl (1984) found that it was disruptive to a group to have cliques evident, and that the disruption causes a lack of member satisfaction. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that cliques within a group lead to anxiety. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.201) stated, "There was a marked tendency for satisfaction to_be lower in conferences where the leader was aware of a large number of cliques." Item 13 states, "Our committee members share a common motivation" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "not at all" to "definitely." 73

PAGE 86

Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) found that when members share a common goal they tend to experience more satisfaction. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) stated that sharing a common motivation not only increases productivity, but also leads participants to be more satisfied. Item 14 states, "Member of our committee exhibit self-oriented needs" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "never" to "often." (In analyses, the value of the response choice was reversed to allow "never" to reflect positively.) Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.89) stated that when participants display ''self-centered needs, their group's effectiveness is often reduced" leading to decreased reward. They also stated that a "relative absence of strong self-oriented needs increased the likelihood for consensus" (p.11l). Speaking of "strong ego need" he said, "Dissatisfied groups showed significantly more of this sort of behavior than did the satisfied groups" (p.201). Item 15 asks that the sentence, "Decisions are made ... be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "haphazardly" to "efficiently." Schmuck and Runkel 74

PAGE 87

(1988, p.306) referred to the rewarding effects of "crisp decisions." By this they meant decisions that were made efficiently and yet with thorough consideration. Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.199) spoke of the benefits of problem solving and decision making when he stated, "Members are more likely to be satisfied with meetings in which the problems are disposed of rapidly and completely." Item 16 asks that the "Discussions in our meeting are . be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "vague" to "understandable." The ability of members to understand what is said in a meeting adds to their satisfaction with the meeting. In one set of observed meetings, with members of the group later interviewed, Guetzkow and Collins (1965, p.199) concluded that "The highest correlation is between the observer rating of 'understandability' of what was said in the meeting and satisfaction." Schmuck and Runkel (1988) compared opposing views about a proposed action with imagined dragons. They said that understanding the issues and clarity in the discussions cause the dragons to shrivel vanish, allowing participants to be comfortable with the meeting. 75

PAGE 88

Item 17 states, "My participation on this committee makes our school a better place for students" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Barker, Wahlera, Cegala, and Kibler (1983) stated that having a worthwhile purpose and feeling that participation matters goes a long way toward a rewarding experience. Bales (1950) lamented that this sort of reward is often too far removed from the meeting-to-meeting existence of some groups. Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that doing the things one cares about is a power need that, when fulfilled, provides satisfaction. Item 19 states, "Overall I find satisfaction in my participation in the SBG process" with the response choices on a scale of 1 to 5 from "no" to "yes." Guetzkow and Collins (1965) began their chapter on participant satisfaction by stating that measuring satisfaction can be accomplished in a variety of ways with perhaps the best being to simply ask individuals if they are satisfied. It is possible for an individual to feel very rewarded in one area and not at all rewarded in another. This item asks for a general assessment. Schmuck and 76

PAGE 89

Runkel (1988, p.438) stated, "Both in everyday conversation and in scientific studies, it is common to assess satisfaction by asking a direct question." Item 20 asks that the sentence, "Our committee accomplishes goals that are ... be completed on a scale of 1 to 5 from "frivolous" to "worthwhile." Schmuck and Runkel (1988) stated that one of the basic needs that would be satisfying if fulfilled, is the achievement need. Accomplishing worthwhile goals would qualify as achievement and therefore be satisfying. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) proposed that when the participants felt that the problems being discussed were important they tended to be more satisfied with the meetings. Procedures Three meetings of each SBG committee were observed and rated over a four month period from December 1991 through March 1992. Some committees were observed in consecutive weekly meetings while others were observed at meetings spread over the full four month time frame. This disparity oqcurred in part due to the differences in the frequency of meeting times among schools. 77

PAGE 90

The observers rated three meetings of each SBG committee in the study, with at least two observers per school. They used the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument to rate the meetings. Task behavior and interpersonal behavior scores were summed for the three observations. Designations of high and low for each independent variable were assigned by dividing the distribution of sums into two equal sized groups at the median. The committees were compared and ranked allowing for the high -low designations to be necessarily relative. No committee received the median score on either variable, so no arbitrary designations of borderline cases as high or low were necessary. Each SBG committee member was asked to complete the Rewards Questionnaire. The researcher presented the questionnaires at a regularly scheduled meeting to the SBG committees following a brief explanation identifying the proposed use of the information requested, the nature of this study, and the role of the researcher. Anonymity was assured. The committees were also told that the participating schools would not be identified. Members were asked to not identify themselves on the questionnaires. 78

PAGE 91

They were asked to read the descriptors carefully and to be aware that 5 on the scale was not always positive. The number of participants for each school ranged from 8 to 12. The high schools added two students to the standard number of 10 members. Several schools took the liberty of adding members to their committees. This accounts for the elementary and middle with more than the expected 10 responses. The schools with 8 or 9 responses had members absent during the meetings when the questionnaires were distributed. The researcher sent 21 questionnaires coded with the school number along with stamped, self-addressed envelopes to absent members. Of these, 11 were received by the researcher. overall, the rates of response were: 4 committees 100%, 2 committees 92%, 4 committees 90%, 1 committee 83%, 2 committees 80%. The researcher made a point of instructing participants to check carefully for omitted items; all 126 questionnaires were 100% complete. 79

PAGE 92

Design A nested design was used. Members were nested within each committee and committees (schools) were nested within task behaviors (high and low) and interpersonal behaviors (high and low). A factor is considered nested in a second factor if each level of the nested factor appears in exactly one level of the second factor (Glass and Hopkins, 1984). The results obtained from the Meeting Effectiveness Instruments formed the elements of the cells in the design diagram (shown in Fig. 3.1). Committees were assigned to cells according to observed task and interpersonal behaviors. The four cells included low task-low interpersonal (cell 1), low task-high interpersonal (cell 2), high task-low interpersonal (cell 3), and high task-high interpersonal (cell 4). Interpersonal Behavior Low High Low cell 1 cell 2 Task Behavior High cell 3 cell 4 Fig. 3.1 Design of Study 80

PAGE 93

Schools were assigned to cells in the following way. Thirteen schools were initially observed in the study. This allowed the researcher the possibility of eliminating one during the course of analysis in order for the schools to fall into balanced cells of three schools each according to task and interpersonal behaviors. The Meeting Effectiveness Instrument contains four classifications for task behavior and four classifications for interpersonal behavior, with the lowest rating of 1 for each and the highest rating of 5 for each. An-observation had a lowest possible score of 4 for task or interpersonal and a highest possible score of 20. The three observations were summed for each school and the medians for task and interpersonal were determined. Schools with task and interpersonal sums below the median were categorized as low task and low interpersonal. Schools with task and interpersonal sums above the median were categorized as high task and high interpersonal. Schools with both low task and low interpersonal were placed in cell 1. Schools with low task and high interpersonal were placed in cell 2. Schools with high task and low interpersonal 81

PAGE 94

were placed in cell 3. Schools with high task and high interpersonal were placed in cell 4. With 13 schools, three fell into each of cells 2, 3 and 4. Four schools fell into cell 4. The decision about which school to eliminate in cell 4 was made after examining the sums. The eliminated school had sums for both task and interpersonal closest to the two medians. This process resulted in four balanced cells. The design in Figure 3.1 was used for the testing of the hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were considered the main effects. Comparisons of the perceived rewards as reported on the Rewards Questionnaire were made among the cells. For hypothesis one, cells 1 and 2 were compared .with cells 3 and 4. For hypothesis two, cells 1 and 3 were compared to cells 2 and 4. These comparisons allowed the researcher to determine if schools rated high for task perceived greater rewards than schools rated low for task, and if schools rated high for interpersonal perceived greater rewards than schools rated low for interpersonal. The possibility of an interaction between task 82

PAGE 95

behavior and interpersonal behavior, hypothesis three, was explored by comparing the cells in the diagram. The study looked at how rewards perceived by members of committees rated as high for task behavior compared to rewards perceived by members of committees rated low for task behavior when plotted for low interpersonal and then for high interpersonal. If the reward levels intersected then there was an interaction. If they tended to have similar direction then there was little interaction. Parallel lines meant that there was no interaction. Using the design diagram, the rewards of cells 1 and 2 were plotted and connected with a line and the rewards of cells 3 and 4 were plotted and connected with a line. If the lines were parallel, then hypothesis three would be supported. Data Analysis A nested factorial analysis of variance was used to test for a main effect for each independent variable (hypotheses 1 and 2), and a two-way interaction between task behavior and interper,sonal behavior (hypothesis 3). SBG committee members comprised the unit of analysis, with members nested 83

PAGE 96

in committees (SBG's) and committees nested in cells (intersections of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors). This study utilized the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). MANOVA is a part of the SPSS (Norusis, 1992) software for data management and analysis dealing with advanced statistics. Two stages of analysis were utilized. The researcher patterned the two stages according to explanations given in Hopkins' (1982) seminal article, "The Unit of Analysis: Group Means Versus Individual Observations." This approach provides a two-stage solution to the problem of whether to use individual scores or group means as the unit of analysis in nested designs. In the first stage of analysis, committee was treated as a fixed factor, with only members allowed to be random. This allows generalization to a broader population of members, but not to other committees. Testing at this stage is common, but it ignores the influence the committee may have had on individual members apart from task and interpersonal characteristics. The task and interpersonal behaviors were experienced by members together on each committee, rather than to 84

PAGE 97

each member in isolation. This first stage allows only the two characteristics of meeting behavior and the committee members to be sources of variation. For this reason, a second stage of analysis was performed if the first stage achieved significance (alpha=.05). In this analysis, committees are random as well as members. This allows inference of results to committees "like these" as well as to members "like these." If significance was achieved in the first stage, then the researcher would proceed to the second stage. The difference between the two stages is the expected mean square used as the error term. In the first stage, the mean square used was the one derived when committees remain fixed, i.e., the within cells mean square. In the second stage the appropriate error term for the F test was the mean square for committees nested in tasks and interpersonal, because the expected value for this term included all random variance components: the variance component for members and the variance component for committees. In the first stage of analysis, it would be possible to have highly significant findings that 85

PAGE 98

would be nongeneralizable. The second stage of analysis would be a more stringent test, allowing findings that would be less restrictive and also generalizable to other similar SBG committees. In balanced ANOVA designs, specifying random factors is important. The two stages employed in this study allowed the findings to have broader meaning. Research Setting This was the first year of existence for the SBG committees. They were concerned with many issues dealing with the establishment of norms and the "how to" of site based management, as well as the decisions over which they had been given authority. All of this was being done under the watchful eyes of the print and electronic media. To add to this pressure, many committee members perceived a lack of support from the ranks of the district central administration. Some members even believed that some administrators and school board members were intentionally subverting the process of decentralization. 86

PAGE 99

Limitations Behaviors of committee members may have been influenced by the presence of observers. It cannot be assumed that the other meetings, when an observer was not present, exhibited the same levels of task and interpersonal behaviors noted during the observed meetings. Although the meetings were public meetings and were often attended by nonmembers, the effects of having someone present with the known purpose of studying the group could have had effects not accounted for here. Another limitation deals with the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument. In the interest of simplicity only eight items were used. Within each item there were descriptors of the attributes observers were to watch for when rating the committees. The observers assessed an item by thinking about four to six behaviors within each item and then giving the meeting an overall rating. This "globalism" limits the use of the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument as a diagnostic tool because it does not provide the details of why a particular rating was given. For example, the item dealing with agenda may have been given a low 87

PAGE 100

rating, but it cannot be said from the tool if the problems stem from the development of the agenda or the lack of adherence to it. The choice of the individuals who acted as observers in data collection could pose a limitation. They were fellow doctoral students familiar with the hypotheses rather than blind observers. The possible loss of objectivity due to frequent discussions of the SBG committees may have skewed the observation results to some degree. The sample selection was not random. The cell design calls for designation of six schools as high task functioning and six schools as low task functioning. It cannot be concluded that the median used to make this designation would also divide the over 100 schools in the district into half high functioning and half low functioning. It should be noted that the designations made in this study are relative only to the 12 committees observed and used in the data analysis. The findings and subsequent conclusions have limited application and may only be generalized to other SBG committees if the data prove significant in the second stage of analysis as 88

PAGE 101

explained in the "Data Analysis" section of this chapter. This study did not involve a judgement of quality concerning the decisions and/or productivity of committees. The relationship researched was between meeting behaviors and perceived rewards, basic issues of process rather than content. From significant findings, strong relationships may be inferred that involve task behaviors, interpersonal behaviors and rewards, but nothing may be inferred about the quality of what was accomplished through high levels of behaviors. 89

PAGE 102

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS Two sets of data were collected in this study. One set was the data from the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument. Observers rated each SBG committee using four items for task behavior and four items for interpersonal behavior. The results of the observations are given in the section entitled "Characteristics of Committees." The second set of data was collected from the Rewards Questionnaire. Organizing this data according to observed behavior categories, the three hypotheses given in Chapter 3 were tested simultaneously. The results of this testing are given in the section entitled "Results of Rewards Questionnaire." Characteristics of Committees The SBG committees in the study were determined to be in the category of high or low for task .. 90

PAGE 103

behaviors and high or low for interpersonal behaviors through direct observation using the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument (see Table 4.1). School Level Task Interpersonal Task Interpersonal Category Category Rating Rating A middle low low 37 37 B elementary low low 42 38 c elementary low low 40 37 D elementary low high 41 58 E middle low high 38 48 F high school low high 42 49 G elementary high low 49 44 H middle high low 51 41 I elementary high low 47 46 I J I elementary I high I high I 47 I 51 I I K I middle I high I high I 53 I 56 I I L I elementary I high I high I 56 I 57 I Table 4.1 Task and interpersonal categories The instrument scores were summed and the medians for task and interpersonal were used as the dividing points between high and low. As explained in Chapter 3, there were three observations of each 91

PAGE 104

committee. There were four items for task and four items for interpersonal for each observation. Each item was rated on a scale of 1 to 5. The highest possible sum for task or interpersonal was 60 and the lowest was 12. The committees whose sums exceeded the median for task were designated as high for task and the committees whose sums exceeded the median for interpersonal were designated as high for interpersonal. These committees displayed characteristics more aligned with the explanation of what comprises an effective meeting introduced in Chapter 1, and further elaborated in the literature review discussion of behavior, than the committees whose sums fell below the median. Guetzkow and Collins (1965) and Bales (1950) provided the practical basis for the items selected to differentiate the high functioning committees from the low functioning committees. It should be noted that both the task and the interpersonal medians, as well as the range of the committee scores, indicate that all 12 committees functioned near or above what might have been considered average (with 60 as highest possible and 92

PAGE 105

12 as lowest possible, a sum of about 36 seemed a logical middle point). On the scale of 1 to 5, only one committee received a score of 1 for any item by any observer and very few scores of 2 were given. This indicated that all committees demonstrated behaviors that at least allowed meetings to proceed and, in the view of the observers, to function from adequately to optimally. Therefore the ratings of high and low occurred within the frame of what the observers considered mid-range (average) functioning to excellent functioning versus using the full range of very poor to excellent. The median score for task behavior was 44.5. The six committees whose scores were above the median were designated as high for task. These committees demonstrated more efficient use of the agenda, they approached problem solving and decision making in depth and with clarity, and they dealt with disagreements and issues of motivation in ways that were appropriate. The median score for interpersonal behavior was 47. The six committees whose scores were above the median were designated as high for interpersonal. These committees demonstrated more positive, open 93

PAGE 106

and focused attitudes, a sense of acceptance of members, a pleasant climate, and showed little evidence of factions or "under the table" agendas. Using the results of Table 4.1, the 12 schools were placed in cells in Figure 4.1. The schools whose committees were rated low for both task behavior and interpersonal behavior fell into cell 1. The schools whose committees were rated low for task and high for interpersonal fell into cell 2. The schools whose committees were rated high for task and low for interpersonal fell into cell 3. The schools whose committees were rated high for both task and interpersonal were placed in cell 4. Interpersonal Behavior Low High cell 1 cell 2 A D Low B E c F Task Behavior cell 3 cell 4 G J H K I L Fig. 4.1 Schools in task and interpersonal cells 94

PAGE 107

The following 12 paragraphs include information about each school and SBG committee. The level of the school, the frequency of meetings and who chaired the meetings (some committees chose to use the word facilitate for chair) will be given along with summary information from the observations. The presence of the principal will be noted along with observations of the principal's role in the meeting. Although the principal was not a focus of this study, the presence or absence of the principal was repeatedly referred to by observers as being an integral part of the meeting function. Information concerning the principal is provided here and will be referred to again in Chapter 5. School A is a middle school. Their SBG committee held weekly late afternoon meetings. The committee was chaired by a teacher who volunteered after the parent who was chosen initially by the committee asked to be removed from the position. School A was rated low for both task and interpersonal. Observers noted that limiting the time frame of discussions and "subject hopping" were problems for this committee as well as occasional obvious dissatisfaction with the chairperson. One 95

PAGE 108

of the three observations indicated that three of the eight members present did not add to the discussions during a two hour meeting in any way. There also appeared to be "under the table" agenda items that never surfaced for discussion. During one meeting some members expressed dissatisfaction with the frequency of the meetings compared with the lack of accomplishment. The principal was present for only one of the three observations and was not a major contributor to the discussions. The committee members seemed more congenial when the principal was there. School B is an elementary school. Their SBG committee held evening meetings twice a month. The committee was chaired by a parent who was chosen by the committee. School B was rated as low for both task and interpersonal, with their task score higher than their interpersonal score. This committee tackled somewhat more major issues than others. Most of their discussions involved decisions that would ultimately be costly in time and dollars. The discussions would often be impassioned, with one of the three observed meetings involving the chairperson asking for someone else to take over 96

PAGE 109

facilitating the meeting three times in three hours. Two of the meetings observed had written agendas with a number of the items left uncovered. The third meeting had an agenda on the chalkboard that was a source of dispute from the beginning. When obvious interpersonal disagreements surfaced, they were not dealt with. The observers could see basic conflicts between the teachers and the parents, but rather than discussing the basis for the conflict, the hostility was expressed through item issues. One observer noted that during a meeting teachers would talk among themselves disparagingly about the parents while the parents would do the same about the teachers. This committee had very vocal parent members who seemed to differ with the teachers in terms of how quickly restructuring decisions could be implemented. They felt that teachers were not willing to work hard enough to implement change. The teachers felt the parents had unreasonable expectations. The principal attended all three of the observed meetings and commented often during the discussions. However, the principal did not get involved in the more heated discussions. 97

PAGE 110

School c is an elementary school. Their SBG committee held evening meetings twice a month. The committee rotated the position of facilitator among the members. School c was rated low for both task and interpersonal. Rotating facilitators seemed to give a feeling of shared leadership, but may also account for occasional problems with the agenda and the flow of the discussions. The observers noted underlying interpersonal problems that were not dealt with directly. It was observed that there were "under the table" agenda issues and occasional antagonisms. There was an incident involving racism accusations that led to a negative climate. School C received almost all scores of 3 and no score of 5 on the 1-5 scale for the three observations. The principal was present during all three observed meetings. Although it was not in an official capacity within the meeting, the principal was the person who often summarized and kept the discussions more on track, and provided a stabilizing factor during the meetings. School D is an elementary school. Their committee held evening meetings twice a month. The committee rotated the position of facilitator among 98

PAGE 111

the members. School D was rated low for task and high for interpersonal. In fact, School D had the highest interpersonal rating of all 12 committees. This group was cordial and pleasant with one another on a consistent basis. There was only one meeting when this committee received two 4's rather than all S's for interpersonal. School D was observed to spend a great deal of time on relatively minor types of issues. When decisions were made they were not explicit as to the details of implementation. The principal was present at two of the three meetings and was a major contributor to the discussions. The members were accepting of that role. School E is a middle school. Their committee held evening meetings twice a month. The meetings were chaired by a teacher chosen by the committee. School E was rated low for task and. high for interpersonal, although the rating for interpersonal was the lowest in the high category. This committee had difficulty staying within reasonable time frames in their discussions. There were several incidents that indicated that previous decisions had not been explicit enough to avoid misconceptions among the members. They had trouble keeping minutes that 99

PAGE 112

reflected their decisions. School E's interpersonal ratings were almost all 4's indicating good relationships. At one meeting an observer sensed some "under the table" issues, but not to a significant degree. The principal was present for one of the observed meetings and was called upon often to give information. The presence of the principal seemed to be pleasing to the members. School F is a high school. Their committee held evening meetings twice a month and frequently held additional meetings as their workload demanded. The committee chose the principal to chair the meetings. School F was rated low for task and high for interpersonal. Although the committee had a written agenda each meeting, they often altered the order of items discussed and never got to all the planned items. Some decisions were made while a member was openly hesitant to agree. While rated as low for task, School F's task score was the highest in the low category. Decisions were made and the members were focused. Every member contributed to the meetings. The student members were vocal _and their opinions were respected. The meetings were very "business-like" and at times the climate seemed 100

PAGE 113

stiff. The principal was present at all three observed meetings and was forceful, and at times overbearing, in the role of facilitator. School G is an elementary school. Their committee held meetings twice a month, alternating afternoon and morning. The meetings were chaired by a teacher chosen by the committee. School G was rated high for task and low for interpersonal. Two of the observations indicated that disagreements were smoothed over rather than .faced. However, the written agendas were adhered to and clear decisions were made. The principal was present at all three observed meetings and the observers indicated that presence to be problematic in terms of interpersonal behavior. The principal often interjected opinions that were unpopular or uncalled for, as noted by the expressions on the faces of the members. Although the principal seemed to understand this, the behavior continued and led to low ratings. The other members would often give "knowing" looks to one another while the principal spoke. The chairperson of this committee attempted to the discussions on track and often what was being said. 101

PAGE 114

School H is a middle school. Their committees held afternoon and evening meetings three times a month. The meetings were chaired by a teacher chosen by the committee. School H was rated as high for task and low for interpersonal. The high rating for task seemed to be largely due to the chairperson's ability to keep discussions within reasonable time frames and to move through the agenda quite efficiently. This committee received ratings of all 4's and 5's for task. Interpersonal ratings were all J's and 4's with no behaviors below acceptable levels. The personalities on this committee (especially teachers) were very strong and verbal. The members were definitely engaged in the meetings, but the climate was often harsh. There was some indication of factions within the group. The principal was present for all three observed meetings and was asked often for information and opinions. The principal's presence seemed to be appreciated by the members. School I is an elementary school. Their committee held afternoon meetings twice a month. The meetings were co-chaired by the principal and a teacher chosen by the committee. School I was rated 102

PAGE 115

high for task and low for interpersonal. It should be noted that their rating for interpersonal was the highest in the low category and their rating for task was the lowest in the high category. This placed School I in the position of being closest to both medians. This school had more experience in site based management than most of the other committees and conducted their meetings adequately. Their agenda tended to be sketchy and items were often added during the meetings. There were two meetings during which one committee member did not contribute to the discussion. The principal was present at all three observed meetings and overshadowed the teacher chosen to co-chair. It was observed that the principal's opinions were sometimes forced upon the committee as they attempted to make decisions. The principal was observed saying that certain items merely required a determination by that office. School J is an elementary school. Their committee held afternoon meetings twice a month. The committee rotated the job of facilitator. School J was rated high for both task and interpersonal. They received almost all 4's for 103

PAGE 116

task on the 1 to 5 scale. Their agenda was sketchy and some subject hopping occurred. All the members contributed in each meeting and their was no evidence of factions. Members were very pleasant toward one another. The principal was present for all three observed meetings. The principal was not overbearing and gave information often. School K is a middle school. Their committee held afternoon meetings twice a month. The meetings were chaired by a teacher chosen by the committee. School K was rated high for both task and interpersonal. The only observed problem for task was in the agenda category. The discussions, though lively, were often long and not all the agenda items were covered. There was more laughter at School K's meetings than at any others. The members obviously enjoyed each other and worked well together. The principal was present for all three observations and added to the congenial nature of the meetings. The principal contributed much information and fewer opinions. School L is an elementary school. Their committee held evening meetings twice a month and often added additional meetings as needed. The 104

PAGE 117

committee chose the principal to facilitate the meetings. School L was rated as high for both task and interpersonal. This committee was observed to make many decisions of substance. The decisions were reached following thorough discussions and plans for implementation were detailed. The members were observed as being intensely involved and very motivated. The two parent members of the committee seemed to take the lead in volunteering time and effort to carry out decisions. The principal, as facilitator and information giver, played a prominent role in the meetings. This role appeared to be both accepted and appreciated. The principal often stated support for the concept of site based governance. Results of Rewards Questionnaire This study focused on 12 SBG committees with a total of 115 participants. The smallest number of participants per committee was 8 and the largest was 12. Although middle schools typically had only 10 members, School H exercised the right to add members bringing its total to 12. The distribution of 105

PAGE 118

reward scores was negatively skewed as shown in the stem and leaf frequency diagram in Figure 4.2. 4 4.5599 7 5.0122233 5 5.67788 13 6.0001111222334 23 6.55556667777788889999999 14 7.01112223344444 18 7.556667777788888999 19 8.0000000011122333334 12 8.555666777888 Figure 4.2 Stem and leaf diagram of rewards questionnaire results With the 20 item questionnaire reduced to 18 items due to the removal of the two items to increase the reliability of the instrument (as explained in Chapter 3), the highest possible individual reward score was 90. The lowest possible individual score was 18 on the scale of 1 to 5. There were two individuals whose perceived reward scores were 45 (the low extreme) and three individuals whose scores were 88 (the high extreme). Table 4.2 shows the number of participants for each school committee, the mean reward by group, the median reward by group and each committee's standard 106

PAGE 119

deviation. Also given are the total number of participants and the overall mean, median and standard deviation. School Level A middle B elementary c elementary D elementary E middle F high school G elementary H middle I elementary J elementary K middle L elementary number of participants 8 9 11 10 9 10 9 12 10 8 10 9 total 115 mean reward by group 61.88 64.11 66.64 75.30 63.89 63.00 70.44 70.75 74.30 74.50 83.50 83.78 overall 70.95 median reward by group 64.00 64.00 65.00 78.00 67.00 64.00 71.00 70.50 76.50 74.50 83.50 85.00 overall 72.00 standard deviation 9.73 9.24 7.15 10.88 10.17 8.18 10.94 9.57 8.60 4.81 3.41 3.07 overall 10.79 Table 4.2 Participants and rewards by school The weighted means of the three schools in each of the behavior category cells is shown in Figure 4.3. Cell 1 represents the committees rated as low for both task and interpersonal. Cell 1 had a 107

PAGE 120

weighted mean of 64.46. Cell 2 represents the committees rated as low for task and high for interpersonal. Cell 2 had a weighted mean of 67.52. Cell 3 represents the committees rated as high for task and low for interpersonal. Interpersonal Behavior Low High cell 1 cell 2 Low 64.46 67.52 Task Behavior cell 3 cell 4 High 71.81 80.93 Fig. 4.3 Weighted reward means by behavior category cells Cell 3 had a weighted mean of 71.81. Cell 4 represents the committees rated as high for both task and interpersonal. Cell 4 had a weighted mean of 80.93. 108

PAGE 121

The analysis of data proceeded at two levels. The first level treated committees as a fixed factor. Here, the within cells mean square (71.13) was the error term for testing the main effects. This test yielded a significant effect for both the task category (p<.01) and for the interpersonal category (p<.05) as shown in Table 4.3. ss DF HS F p Task 3075.12 1 3075.12 43.24 .001 Category Interpersonal 1013.02 1 1013.02 14.24 .01 Category Interaction of 220.27 1 220.27 3.10 .081 Interpersonal/Task Committees nested 1596.97 8 199.62 2.81 .007 within interaction Constant 572281.83 1 572281.83 8046.09 .000 Within Cells 7325.93 103 71.13 Table 4.3 Analysis of variance 109

PAGE 122

As shown in Figure 4.4, high task performance had a greater effect on rewards when plotted for low interpersonal and then for high interpersonal than low task performance when similarly plotted. 86 84 82 80 78 76 Weighted 74 Reward 72 Means 70 68 66 64 62 60 Figure 4.4 Low Interpersonal Behavior High Task Behavior Low Task Behavior High Interpersonal Behavior Interaction of task and interpersonal behaviors according to rewards 110

PAGE 123

Although the interaction between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors was not statistically significant at p=.05, none-the-less it was significant at p=.10 and approached significance at p=.05. Furthermore, Figure 4.4 demonstrates nonparallel lines as would be the case in an interaction. [On the basis of these two concurrent findings, the decision is made to reject hypothesis 3.] As described in Chapter 3, the data were reanalyzed treating committee as a random factor to consider if findings could be generalized across the domain, the population of other SBG committees. This analysis involved using the mean square for committees nested within the interaction of the task category and the interpersonal category as the error term for testing the significance of the two main effects. There was no need to retest hypothesis three because the interaction was not significant using the less stringent initial test. The results of the reanalysis of the data are shown in Table 4.4. The main effect of the task category found to be significant at p<.01. The main effect of the interpersonal category was not significant at p<.05. 111

PAGE 124

ss DF F Task 3075.12 1 3075.12 15.40* Category Interpersonal 1013.02 1 1013.02 Category 5.07** Committees nested 1596.97 8 199.62 within interaction *p<.01 **p<.10 Table 4.4 Analysis of variance (second stage) Summary This chapter has detailed the results of the data analysis leading to the support or rejection of the three hypotheses upon which this study was built. The first hypothesis stated that members of SBG committees characterized as having high task behaviors would report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low task behaviors. This hypothesis was shown to be tenable to a significant degree in both the first and second levels of analysis. This finding allowed the results to not only apply to the particular committees studied, but also to be generalizable to other SBG committees of similar nature. 112

PAGE 125

The second hypothesis stated that members of SBG committees characterized as having high interpersonal behaviors would report greater rewards than members of SBG committees characterized as having low interpersonal behaviors. This hypothesis was shown to be tenable in the first level of analysis, but fell somewhat short of significance in the second level of analysis. These results concerning the association of interpersonal behavior and reported rewards may not be generalized to the domain of committees. The third hypothesis stated that there would be no interaction between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors and that the association between perceived rewards and level of task behavior would be consistent for SBG committees that were high and also low with respect to interpersonal behaviors. As noted earlier in this chapter, the decision was made to reject hypothesis 3 113

PAGE 126

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken in an attempt to better understand Site Based Governance committees in an urban school district recently making the change from centralized decision making to decentralized decision making. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model of group process for decision making groups served as the conceptual framework for this study. This model incorporated elements of behaviorism by showing that rewards follow behaviors and then reinforce the behaviors they follow. It is important to understand this loop as it applies to the functioning of small decision making groups. Groups such as the SBG committees depend on volunteer membership. Understanding what leads to rewards and satisfaction with the process is important in an effort to sustain committee functioning. This study involved 12 SBG committees that were purposefully sampled to insure divergent levels of functioning. The members of all 12 committees were 114

PAGE 127

willing to participate, i.e., be observed during three meetings and complete questionnaires concerning perceived rewards. The committees were observed and rated on a scale from low to high functioning in terms of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors by trained observers using an 8 item observation instrument. The committees self-reported rewards on a 20 item questionnaire. The data from these instruments were analyzed using ANOVA. The following discussions summarize the findings of the study and view them in consideration with methods, theory, and the school reform issue of decentralization. Conclusions are drawn, implications for practice are given, recommendations for further study are made and an overall appraisal of the research is presented. Summary of Findings All 12 committees functioned overall at levels in the mid to high range for both task and interpersonal behaviors. The observers considered a rating of 3 on the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument to be average functioning. Very few ratings of less 115

PAGE 128

than 3 for any item were given by any observer for any committee. This finding indicates that the committees' behaviors were at least at levels that allowed them to continue to exist and function. The first hypothesis of the study which stated that members of committees characterized as having high task behaviors would report greater levels of rewards than members of committees characterized as having low task behaviors was shown to be tenable. There was a positive relationship between levels of task behaviors and levels of perceived rewards. This hypothesis was shown to be significant for the groups studied as well as significant in a second more stringent stage of analysis allowing inferences to similar SBG committees. The second hypothesis which stated that members of committees characterized as having high interpersonal behaviors would report greater levels of rewards than members of committees characterized as having low interpersonal behaviors was shown to be tenable. There was a positive relationship between levels of interpersonal behaviors and_.levels of perceived rewards. This hypothesis was not significant in the second stage of analysis. 116

PAGE 129

Therefore, the findings apply only to the 12 committees studied. If task and interpersonal behaviors had independent effects, and their effects did not interact, one would expect that the levels of rewards would rise the same amount from low interpersonal to high interpersonal for the low task groups and the high task groups. This was not the case. This study found that the rise in reward levels for the groups observed to be low in task was less from low interpersonal to high interpersonal, than the rise for the groups observed to be high in task. In other words, combining high task and high interpersonal behaviors resulted in a more elevated level of rewards than would have been predicted had low and high levels of task behaviors consistently affected rewards. SBG committees with high levels of interpersonal behaviors experienced very high levels of rewards when the positive relationships were accompanied by effective behaviors in the task domain. 117

PAGE 130

Discussion of Findings in View of Methods The Meeting Effectiveness Instrument scale called for a 1 to mean poor functioning and a 5 to mean excellent functioning. Committees rarely received a rating on any subscale lower than 3. The observers considered a rating of 3 to indicate average functioning. Although the hypotheses in the cell design call for high and low designations, perhaps a more accurate way to view the findings would be in a relative sense of high and lower rather than strictly high and low. Some of the strength of the results of the study may have been partially enhanced by the fact that the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument calls for the observation of some of the same things that appear as items deemed to be rewarding on the Rewards Questionnaire. Because of this, some of the power of the findings may be artifact, i.e., brought about by the overlap. The amount of the possible enhancement cannot be accurately determined. The internal consistency of the Rewards Questionnaire allows for confidence in the results with or without the overlap items. 118

PAGE 131

Also stated as a limitation in Chapter 3 was the fact that blind observers were not used. The observers were familiar with the hypotheses and frequently discussed the schools being studied. Because they were aware of the purpose of the results of the observation tool, their judgements may have lost some degree of objectivity. The fact that the sample selection was not random prevents the generalization of the findings. The method of selection was aimed at purposefully using schools with divergent levels of functioning, so that high and low designations of both behaviors and rewards would be possible. This study involved three observations of each committee spread over varying time spans from six weeks to four months. Because of this it is not possible to determine if the committees with low behavior scores got worse due to reward reinforcement and those with high scores improved meeting performance for the same reason. That is, it was not possible using this design to inquire about how rewards affected subsequent meeting behaviors. Thus this study does not speak to the relationship of behaviors and rewards over time. 119

PAGE 132

The elimination of items 4 and 18 from the Rewards Questionnaire results enhanced the internal consistency of the instrument. If conducting a similar study, the researcher would refine the Rewards Questionnaire by eliminating the two items that did not contribute to reliability. Item 4 stated "Our meetings are too long." This item invariably caused some members to chuckle as they completed the Rewards Questionnaire. It seemed to be the general feeling that most SBG meetings were long, but the committees did not appear to be deterred as evidenced by the fact that the committees continued to meet. Many members responded that the-meetings were always long, but that a lot was accomplished. Item 18 stated, I am willing to continue my membership on this committee for a second term." Respondents occasionally wrote comments concerning parts of the Rewards Questionnaire. Item 18 received more comments than any other. Most of the comments were in explanation of why members said they were not willing to continue membership. In every case the comments were apologetic and described circumstances such as children moving on to another school (parents) and 120

PAGE 133

feelings of extreme overwork (teachers). No one commented that the SBG process or committee circumstances were forcing them to limit their membership. Discussion of Findings in View of Theory The findings of this study were consistent with previous research and theory that held that behaviors and rewards were positively related. Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) model is a useful tool in understanding how SBG committees function in relation to behaviors and rewards. It is not clear from the literature what Guetzkow and Collins (1965) meant by "group productivity." However, in this study no attempt was made to operationalize and measure Guetzkow and Collins' (1965) concept of productivity. Thus this study deals only with process and not with content. Conclusions may be drawn about the committees "doing things right," but not about committees "doing the right things." The prediction that rewards follow behaviors was shown to be true with little given to the quality or long term effects of the decisions that were made. SBG committees that received high 121

PAGE 134

ratings for task and interpersonal behaviors received those ratings because they conducted their meetings according to what constitutes effective meeting process, i.e., those determinants that are quantifiable. As predicted, these groups perceived higher rewards than groups whose meetings were observed to lack attributes of effective meetings. It is possible that groups rated high for behaviors and that reported subsequent high levels of rewards did not make complex, substantive decisions or implement meaningful goals. It is also possible that groups that exhibited chaotic, conflictual meetings leaving members perceiving few short term rewards actually grappled with and solved major dilemmas over time. It is not clear if the weakness expressed here is due to the theory or to the way in which it was interpreted and applied. In any event content was not an issue. The question of how long the loop involving behaviors and rewards would sustain committees that fail to accomplish substantive goals is not answered either by the theory or by this research. Perhaps expanding the "group productivity" piece between behaviors and rewards in 122

PAGE 135

the model to include ways of measuring the complexity and quality of decisions would make the model more useful by including content with process. Discussion of Findings as They Relate to School Decentralization In order for a major reform such as decentralization to be implemented in a school district there are many components that must be in place to make it work. In the district involved in this study, one of those components was the formation of committees composed of volunteers that would make governance decisions and implement those decisions on behalf of the local schools. These committees functioned in a meeting setting. In order to sustain the committees, it is important to understand what leads to reward levels that keep the volunteers involved. The theory and the research in this study point to meeting quality as the precursor of rewards from participation. As the urban district in this study moved toward decentralization and the formation of the SBG committees, the need was recognized for training in group process as evidenced by the provisions made 123

PAGE 136

for consultants to briefly work with committee members as stated earlier in this chapter. The findings in this study could be used as building blocks for future research and as indicators of what might be considered worthwhile for the improvement of functioning. The findings here may be applied to the 12 committees studied, or about 10% of the schools in the district. Whether the predictions in the theories concerning high levels of task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors relating positively with high levels of rewards hold true for the entire district might be ascertained by a similar study utilizing a random sample. If the predictions do hold true, a look at behaviors and rewards similar to the ones included in the Meeting Effectiveness Instrument and the Rewards Questionnaire may prove valuable in assisting committees in the improvement of their meeting behaviors. 124

PAGE 137

Conclusions It may be concluded from the findings of this study that meeting behaviors and rewards to participants are associated for the committees studied here. The higher the level of behavior, the more rewarded the committee members will feel. Better meetings and high levels of rewards go together. This study has shown that it is possible to determine meeting effectiveness in terms of both task and interpersonal behaviors through observation. It may be concluded that in committees that exhibit agenda integrity, acceptable methods of problem solving, explicit decision making, and skill for solving interpersonal problems, members experience higher levels of rewards in response to these attributes. When agendas are haphazard or nonexistent, when only shallow problem solving techniques are employed, when decisions are unclear or when a committee fails to recognize or solve interpersonal problems, members will not feel very rewarded by their participation on the committee. Likewise it may be concluded that in committees 125

PAGE 138

where members are focused and open with one another, where there is an air of acceptance and members are pleasant and open without cliques or hidden agendas, members will sense high levels of interpersonal behaviors and respond by feeling satisfied and rewarded by their participation. In the absence of these positive behaviors, members will experience few rewards. Task and interpersonal behaviors matter to SBG committee members.in terms of rewards perceived. It may be concluded that if improvement of committee functioning is the goal, the SBG committees studied must target task and interpersonal behaviors and do what is necessary to improve functioning levels. Increased rewards will follow and reinforce the improved behaviors. Implications for Practice for SBG Committees The creation of the site Based Governance committees took the urban school district by storm. This bold experiment in district wide local school governance was both exhilarating and disruptive. After observing the SBG process for four months, the researcher came away with a sense of awe and respect 126

PAGE 139

for the men and women who gave up their personal time to serve on the committees. The amount of responsibility and the tremendous number of items to be considered were overwhelming. With this in view, the importance of discovering what really matters to these folks and what keeps them coming back meeting after meeting cannot be overstated. This study was among the first to systematically look at the SBG process. Contrary to the old adage that questions which came first, the chicken or the egg, one does not need to question which part of the behavior-reward link to focus upon when improvement is the goal. The theories and research cited in Chapter 2 point to this link of rewards as consequences of behaviors. The findings of this study serve as a further confirmation of the phenomenon. Therefore, the target should be the behavior of the group -in need of improvement. This target can be set with the assurance that reward levels will rise as levels of behavior rise. The results of this study have practical implications for the improvement of _the functioning of the SBG committees studied. 127

PAGE 140

Interpersonal behaviors revolve around how people relate to one another. Barth (1990) placed a great deal of emphasis on the value of human interaction, and goes so far as to say that the success of an organization such as a school depends on the quality of the interactions. Public education, by virtue of its intent to serve children, is a nurturing endeavor with a sense of mission and social usefulness. Principals, teachers, parents, and concerned community members -the people who made up SBG committees -are likely to think of themselves as role models and attempt to act accordingly. It was not surprising that the committee members in this study perceived higher rewards when their behaviors were observed to be high for interpersonal versus low for interpersonal. These were people whose lives are not lived in isolation, but rather are actively involved with others. John Goodlad (1984) concluded that involvement leads school personnel to a willingness to join others (parents, community members) in efforts to improve schools. Because the levels of interpersonal behaviors in the study were followed by similar levels of perceived rewards, committees 128

PAGE 141

functioning at low levels of interpersonal behaviors would be wise to do what is necessary to improve interpersonal behaviors because of their significance in increasing levels of rewards. The relationship between task behaviors and rewards was shown to be highly significant. This is not an unexpected finding when the charge of the SBG committees is considered. These groups were formed with the purpose of giving local schools a greater voice in determining their modes of operation. They were concerned with "getting things done" which involves the elements used to rate task behavior. Agenda related issues involve making plans for discussion, while problem solving and decision making are action oriented. This research found that high levels of task behaviors lead to greater levels of rewards than low levels of task behaviors for the committees studied. Due to task behaviors and rewards being shown to be significant in the second stage of analysis, the finding concerning task behaviors can be inferred to similar SBG committees. In terms of practice, it can be that with committee sustainment as a goal, it would be wise for the committees studied here as well as 129

PAGE 142

similar committees to pay close attention to task behaviors. Committees with high task ratings should make the effort necessary to continue functioning at a high level. Committees with low task ratings should do what is necessary to improve their task behaviors exhibited in meetings. Granted, it is a valuable experience to "learn by doing," however the expense of that lesson was deemed too high in some cases by the researcher. The researcher and the other observers watched group after group struggle with the same issues, and in most cases come to the same conclusions, and use a lot of valuable time in the process. There were struggles with relatively minor issues and it was difficult to remain a nonparticipant observer when just a few examples of what other committees were doing would have made short work of otherwise lengthy discussions. It is recommended that ways be explored to encourage communication among the SBG committees. It is the fear of the researcher that the rewards perceived and reported in this study will not be adequate to sustain the SBG committees and encourage their productivity. The school district 130

PAGE 143

and the community must explore ways of increasing the satisfaction of the hard working members to assure their future participation. Suggestions for Further Study In Chapter 4 the impact of school leadership, in the form of the building principal, was alluded to as each school was discussed. As the SBG committees were observed, the role of the principal could not be ignored. Until recently some of the decisions made by the committees fell into the power arena of the principal. This major shift in authority, an understandably arduous undertaking, was still taking place at the time of the research. As well as a shift in the practical sense, a shift in the mental and emotional acceptance of the change was evident. The mere presence of the principal at meetings seemed to at times enhance, and at other times inhibit, the functioning of the committees. The researcher recommends a study of the phenomenon of principal influence on committees. Another area of concern was the often conflicts between teachers as a faction and parents as a faction. Indepth interviews might reveal 131

PAGE 144

underlying causes of dissention. It is possible that time spent simply sharing basic views outside the realm of immediate decisions would help reveal that motivations are very similar, i.e., quality education for children. More understanding of views and perspectives could reduce the adversarial dispositions occasionally seen in this study. The limitation discussed earlier concerning the relationship of group functioning levels to quality of productivity defines a real need in the realm of group process. Is it possible to have high functioning groups that rarely tackle substantive issues? Could seemingly chaotic groups make real contributions through their conflict? Is it for members of groups to perceive rewards from participation in order to make contributions to their schools? How would a researcher systematically classify decisions and actions as substantive versus trivial? Are all decisions relative to the individual schools or are there some absolutes? It would be extremely valuable for research studies to attempt to answer these similar questions. 132

PAGE 145

Overall Appraisal of Research The limitations of this study have been delineated. The findings have been critically examined in view of methods, theory, and decentralization. Because of the limits posed by the theory addressing process and not content of meeting efforts and the circumstances of the actual research, a conservative approach is needed in assessing the overall contribution of this study to the understanding of SBG committees. While admittedly limited, a strong case may still be made for the value of this research. The findings that resulted in significant effects for hypotheses 1 and 2 were quite strong. Because of the strength of the findings, initial data are now in place to show that the theories linking behaviors and rewards are consistent with what has been learned about the SBG committees studied. The newness of the phenomenon calling for the establishment of the SBG committees makes the whole scenario fertile ground for further research. The importance of such research has been stated a number of times within this study and the research 133

PAGE 146

presented here is a valuable building block for further study. More is now known about the behaviors, both task and interpersonal, and the perceived rewards of the members of 12 of the SBG committees in the district. While the bulk of the findings may only be considered meaningful for the 12 committees studied, the finding that shows task behaviors to be positively related to rewards may be used to make inferences about other similar SBG committees due to significance using stringent analysis testing. Here are the things that can be said from the research. Committees that exhibit high levels of task behaviors in their meetings will perceive higher levels of rewards than committees that exhibit lower levels of task behaviors. This is true of the 12 SBG committees studied and may be inferred to be true of similar committees in the district. Of the 12 SBG committees studied, those exhibiting high levels of interpersonal behaviors will perceive higher levels of rewards than those committees exhibiting lower levels of behaviors. There is an indication that task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors do not have 134

PAGE 147

independent effects on perceived rewards, but rather have an interdependence or interaction in the ways they affect the perceived rewards of the committees studied here. The researcher began this study with the intention of learning about how SBG committees function, i.e., what their meetings look like in terms of behaviors and what would lead to rewards that would sustain their existence. This study has contributed knowledge and insight with respect to its intended purpose. 135

PAGE 148

APPENDIX A Meeting Effectiveness Instrument School _______________ Date Observer ____________ Meetings that are highly effective in terms of the task environment have characteristics that may be observed dealing with main areas of behavior. 1. Agenda -developed with the input of any/all of the members -adhered to -mostjall of the items are considered -little "subject hopping" -discussion of items is limited to appropriate time frames High 5 4 3 2. Problem solving -problems are explored 2 -several solutions are suggested 1 Low -people question the origin of the problem -someone summarizes from time to time High ______ Low 136

PAGE 149

3. Decisions -decisions are explicit -it is clear who should carry out decision -previous decisions are briefly discussed -decisions made appear to reflect consensus High 5 4 3 2 1 Low 4. Interpersonal problems -when disagreements occur, they are dealt with rather than smoothed over or avoided -agreement on who acts as chairperson andjor facilitator -members of the committee appear to be motivated by the issues rather than selforiented needs High 5 4 3 2 1 Low Meetings that are highly effective in terms of interpersonal relationships have characteristics that may be observed dealing with main areas of behaviors. 1. Attitudes -people seem positive and focused rather than antagonistic and scattered -group feels free to discuss the underlying causes of negative attitudes 137

PAGE 150

2. 3. 4. -members are not afraid to be open with one another High Low Acceptance -members feel that their opinions have been heard -members feel they are accepted as important contributors -everyone speaks at some point in the meeting High 5 4 3 2 1 Low Climate -members smile frequently -members feel free to use humor -overall "feel" of the meeting is pleasant -members are engaged in what is going on -members appear to like one another High 5 4 3 2 1 Low Factions -no apparent factions or cliques -"under the table" agenda items are not evident High ______ Low 138

PAGE 151

APPENDIX B Rewards Questionnaire Please answer the items according to your own opinions about your SBG Committee meetings. Circle the number on the scale that corresponds to your opinion. 1. This committee accepts me as a valued member. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 2. Our committee's ability to complete tasks is ... unsuccessful 1 2 3 4 5 successful 3 My views are listened to. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 4. Our meetings are too long. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 5. Problems among ourselves are resolved unsatisfactorily 1 2 3 4 5 satisfactorily 6. Members show approval of me through smiles, compliments, etc. Never 1 2 3 4 5 Often 7. We get to all our agenda items. Never 1 2 3 4 5 _Always 139

PAGE 152

8. I am pleased with the committee's choice of leadership. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 9. Concerning decisions made, I generally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 agree 10. I like the people on this committee. None 1 2 3 4 5 All 11. I communicate well with committee members. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 12. There are cliques within our committee. None 1 2 3 4 5 Some 13. Our committee members share a common motivation. Not at all-=1 ______ _______ 14. Members of our committee exhibit self-oriented needs. Never 1 2 3 4 5 Often 15. Decisions are made haphazardly-=1 ____ 16. Discussions in our meetings are ____ 17. My participation on this committee makes our school a better place for students. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 140

PAGE 153

18. I am willing to continue my membership on this committee for a second term. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 19. Overall I find satisfaction in my participation in the SBG process. No 1 2 3 4 5 Yes 20. Our committee accomplishes goals that are Frivolous 1 2 3 4 5 Worthwhile Note: Items 4 and 18 were eliminated for data analysis as explained in Chapter 3. 141

PAGE 154

Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 APPENDIX C Reliability Analysis (all 20 items) Scale mean if item deleted 73.3254 74.0794 73.4762 74.6270 73.7460 73.7302 74.4444 73.4524 73.6032 73.2460 73.5159 74.3016 73.7778 74.8016 73.7937 73.7063 73.6508 142 Alpha if item deleted .8756 .8714 .8726 .8931 .8739 .8761 .8808 .8728 .8749 .8760 .8731 .8770 .8735 .8770 .8723 .8729 .8740

PAGE 155

Q18 Q19 Q20 Alpha = .8816 74.0476 73.6587 73.7381 .8945 .8675 .8706 Standardized item alpha = .9013 143

PAGE 156

Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q19 APPENDIX C cont. Reliability Analysis (2 items deleted) Scale mean if item deleted 66.5556 67.3095 66.7063 66.9762 66.9603 67.6746 66.6825 66.8333 66.4762 66.7460 67.5317 67.0079 68.0317 67.0238 66.9365 66.8810 66.8889 144 Alpha if item deleted .9037 .9009 .9012 .9016 .9039 .9112 .9021 .9033 .9042 .9020 .9067 .9014 .9063 .9010 .9013 .9038 .8982

PAGE 157

Q20 66.9683 .8997 Alpha = .9078 Standard item alpha = .9135 145

PAGE 158

REFERENCES Bales, Robe:t F. (1950). Interaction process analys1s: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barker, Larry L., Wahlera, Kathy J., Cegala, Donald J., & Kibler, Robert J. (1983). Groups in process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barth, Roland. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Bennis, Warren G. & Shepherd, Herbert A ( 19 61) The planning change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wlnston. ( 1990 ) Effective meetings: The Burleson, Clyde., N. York: John Wiley & sons, gomplete gulde. ew Inc. alpha and

PAGE 159

ld & collins, BarrY B b aaro of rou rocesses for s Jonn WileY and ) as aomanso George of 597s2) unit of p. observationS GrouP means Research J:ourna"Lo 1,2.( 5-606 &merican Educa -. S & pavid 'dual in Rrec"' ' ;v> gerton 18 y' ld tneor in social Rurt aarper & ---5 of. soc'-al o . Gardner (dd.)d( Bouse f s enola pr e . r 9 4:3 ) 'b tneorY o A B \, 50 370-396 S cb.OlO ,cal Jl,ev>e Jean L dictional:" and b ectancY of JO T R preferenceS and satisfaction effort' A cnolO ical Bullet>.no ys S1. 1053-1077 _, 5 yC lUS advanced .. J (1992) 1. c NorusiSo 'o s?SSo n. . The t 5 R & ? ( t . waveland presS 1L . 147

PAGE 160

Shaw, M. E. (1976). dynamics: The psychology of small group behav1.or (2nd ed. ) . New York: McGraw-Hill Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. .York: Random House. -Staw, Barry M. (Ed.). (1991). Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Steers, Richard. (1984). Introduction to organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Foresman and Co. Tropman, John E. (1980). Effective meetings. London: Sage Publications. New New Scott, Tropman, John E .. (1979). The essentials of committee management. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Yukl, Gary A. (1984). Organizational behavior and personnel psychology (rev.ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). and thinkin9: Preferences need no 1.nferences. Amer1.can Psychologist, 35, 151-175. 148

PAGE 161

Guetzkow, Harold, & Collins, Barry E. (1965). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Homans, George. exchange. 606. (1958, May). Social behavior as American Journal of Sociology, 597-Hopkins, Kenneth D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. American Education Research Journal, 19(1), 5-18. Krech, David, Crutchfield, Richard S. & Ballachey, Egerton L. (1962). Individual in society. New York: McGraw Hill. Lewin, Kurt. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper & Row Lindzey, Gardner (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. McKechnie, Jean L. (Ed.). (1983). Webster's new universal unabridged dictionary. New York: Simon and Schuster. Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preferences, and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077. Norusis, Marija J. (1992). SPSS/PC plus advanced statistics 4.0. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Schmuck, R. & Runkel, P. (1988). The handbook of organization development in schools. Prqspect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. 147

PAGE 162

Shaw, M. E. (1976). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Random House. Staw, Barry M. (Ed.). (1991). Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Steers, Richard. (1984). Introduction to organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co. Tropman, John E. (1980). Effective meetings. London: Sage Publications. Tropman, John E. (1979). The essentials of committee management. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Vroom, v. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Yukl, Gary A. (1984). Organizational behavior and personnel psychology (rev.ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175. 148

PAGE 163

REFERENCES Bales, Robert F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barker, Larry L., Wahlera, Kathy J., Cegala, Donald J., & Kibler, Robert J. (1983). Groups in process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barth, Roland. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publications. Bennis, Warren G., & Shepherd, Herbert A. (1961). The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Burleson, Clyde. (1990). Effective meetings: The complete guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, \ 16, 297-334. "\ \Br.in, Andrew. (1978). Fundamentals of organizational behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc. F. Aubrey. (1974). Small group decision '"making. New York: McGraw-Hill. J. & Gergen, Mary M. (1981). Social psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace ovanovich, Inc . \ Glass, V. & Hopkins, Kenneth D. (1984). Statllstical methods in education and '-Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Irrc--. -. Goodlad, John I. ('J.984) ."' A place called school. New York: Book co . ',-146