Citation
Power, Principals, and promotion

Material Information

Title:
Power, Principals, and promotion
Creator:
Elliott, Sandra Tarbell
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvi, 369 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Power (Social sciences) ( lcsh )
School principals -- Promotions ( lcsh )
School management and organization ( lcsh )
Sex differences in education ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 346-369).
Thesis:
Educational leadership and innovation
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sandra Tarbell Elliott.

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:
47058073 ( OCLC )
ocm47058073
Classification:
LD1190.E3 2000d .E54 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
POWER, PRINCIPALS, AND PROMOTION
by
Sandra Tarbell Elliott
B.A., University of Florida, 1976
M.Ed., University of Florida, 1977
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2000


2000 by Sandra Tarbell Elliott
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Sandra Tarbell Elliott
has been approved
by
KdL
Kelli Klebe

Date


Elliott, Sandra Tarbell (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Power, Principals, and Promotion
Thesis directed by Professor Rodney Muth
ABSTRACT
This study asked whether principals who have been promoted use power
bases and behaviors similarly to individuals who make promotion decisions. A
second question centered on similarities and differences in the use of power by men
and women in the sample population.
The study used French and Raven's (1959) power typology and Muth's
(1971) power continuum as its framework. The study uses self-reported data that
was gathered with a questionnaire that included a self-administered power scale.
The scale describes the types of power bases and behaviors used by principals and
senior educational administrators who make promotion decisions and by men and
women within each of the groups. It also describes the personal and professional
attributes of the principals and the decision-makers.
In general, more similarities in the use of power existed among those who
had been promoted and those who decided who got promoted. The promoted
principals were similar to the decision-makers in the use of all power types with the
exception of expert power. Non-promoted principals differed from their promoted
peers and the decision-makers in their use of legitimate power. The promoted
principals and the decision-makers also described themselves as using all forms of
power more frequently than the non-promoted principals use.


The promoted principals reported differences in the use of power, depending
upon gender. The women used significantly more influence and referent power than
their male colleagues did. The men used significantly more coercion and legitimate
power than their female colleagues. No difference between the genders was found
for the use of reward and expert power. Decision-makers also had gender
differences, with men reporting significantly more usage of coercion and authority
than women. However, no significant differences existed in the use of power
among the non-promoted sample.
The data suggest that the type of power used is an important factor in
making decisions about a promotion and that it is more important than gender. The
data also suggest that individuals wanting to advance who learn about the types of
power used by decision makers may increase their chances of promotion if they use
power in similar ways.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Rodney Muth


DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my family:
My husband, Ross, for his love and support while I spent years writing at
a computer
My sons, Sean and Bryan, for understanding, support, and independence
while mom was on a mission
My mother and father, Nina and Gus, for their belief in me and for
teaching me that any goal can be achieved if you work hard
My dear friends, who understood why I could not keep up a full social
life
Whenever I thought about giving up, I knew that I could not disappoint these very'
special people who waited years to call me, Doc.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to a number of people who kept me going during this
study. At the top of the list are Dr. Rodney Muth, advisor and sponsor. His
ongoing support, humor, and belief in my ability to finish this study while moving
up the corporate ladder helped make this study possible. Without the phone calls,
suggestions, ideas, and career advice, this dissertation would be sitting in a box and
would remain an unfinished part of my life.
In addition, I am indebted to Dr. Nadyne Guzman for her long-term support,
ideas, and willingness to serve on my committee; to Mike Finnerty for his continued
support, pithy comments, and remarks that one day he would not have to hear that I
was still working on the dissertation but that I was finished; and to my friends at the
Edison Project and Edison Schools for their encouragement and walking the road of
reform with me.


CONTENTS
Tables ................................................xiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................1
Theory/Research Base....................................5
Promotion Factors.................................6
Power as a Promotion Factor.......................8
Birds of a Feather...............................10
Problem Focus..........................................11
Theoretical Framework............................16
Questions..............................................17
Methodology............................................18
Sample.......................................-...19
The Survey.......................................20
Administrator Behavior Scale (ABS)............. 23
Data Analysis................................-...25
Summary................................................25
2. PRINCIPALS AND PROMOTION............................... 26
Background and Historical Trends...................-...27
School Administrators........................-...29
Vlll


Demographics........................................33
Definition of a Promotion...........................35
Typical Promotion Patterns..........................36
Career Advancement Theories................................38
Theories Emphasizing Men............................41
Theories Emphasizing Women..........................42
Time Changes All Things.............................47
Interactive Model of Career Advancement.............48
Individual Factors that Influence Promotion................50
Institutional and Structural Factors that Influence Promotion.91
Systemic and Cultural Factors.............................113
Promotions and Promotion Patterns for Administrators..........119
Career Paths for Educational Administrators .......119
Promotion..........................................121
Power as a Promotion Factor........................122
3. POWER AND ITS ASSESSMENT....................................125
Definitions of Social Power...............................126
Denotations of Power...............................127
Connotations of Power..............................133
The Concept of Power over Time............................136
IX


Early Thinkers
137
Modem Theories of Power...........................143
A Framework for the Analysis of Power...................149
Sources, Bases, and Conditions of Power...........150
The French and Raven Typology.....................161
How Leaders Use the Bases of Power................173
Assessing Power.........................................178
Development of Power..............................179
Power, Gender, and Promotion-Four Levels of Analysis. 180
Summary.................................................196
4. METHODOLGY.................................................199
Research Design.........................................200
Dependant Variables...............................202
Independent Variables.............................202
Research Hypothesis...............................203
Statistical Analysis..............................203
Population and the Sample...............................207
The Survey..............................................212
Revised Administrator Behavior Scale (ABS)..............214
Validity and Reliability of the Revised ABS.............217
X


I
I
i
!
1
i
i
i
i
t
\
i
The Pilot Study..........................................224
Data Collection..........................................226
Summary..................................................230
5. DESCRIPTION OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.......................232
Demographic Data.........................................234
Demographics.......................................234
Demographics-Position Occupancy...................243
Professional Aspirations.................................256
Professional Aspirations..........................257
Research Results.........................................273
Research Question 1...............................273
Findings..........................................275
Research Question 2...............................276
Findings..........................................277
Research Question 3...............................279
Findings..........................................279
Research Question 4...............................285
Findings..........................................286
Research Question 5...............................287
Findings..........................................289
XI


Research Question 6..........................294
Findings.....................................295
Research Question 7..........................301
Findings.....................................301
Research Question 8..........................304
Findings.....................................306
Summary.............................................307
6. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.......................310
Summary of Findings.................................311
Conclusions from the Findings.......................315
Implications........................................321
Implications for Individuals.................322
Implications for Decision-Makers.............325
Implications for Research....................331
Advice to Promotion Seekers.........................335
Summary.............................................336
APPENDIX
A. REVISED ADMINISTRATOR BEHAVIOR SCALE.................338
B. CORRESPONDENCE WITH STUDY PARTICIPANTS...............343
REFERENCES .....................................346


TABLES
Table
4.1 Administrator Power Bases and Behaviors.............................216
4.2 Reliability Estimates for Revised Administrator Behavior Scales (A).222
4.3 Reliability Estimates for Revised Administrator Behavior Scales (B).223
4.4. Survey Questionnaire Response Rate..................................229
5.1 Frequencies and Percentages for Demographic Variables for Principals and
Decision makers...............................................236
5.2 Frequencies and Percentages for Demographic Variables for Promoted and
Non-Promoted Principals.......................................239
5.3 Frequencies and Percentages for Principals and Decision makers by Gender
.....................................................................241
5.4 Frequencies and Percentages for Promoted and Non-Promoted Principals
by Gender..........................................................243
5.5 Frequencies and Percentages of Years Employed in Current and Other
Positions for Decision Makers and Principals.......................245
5.6 Frequencies and Percentages of Years Employed in Current and Other
Positions for Principals-Promoted and Non Promoted.................248
5.7 Frequencies and Percentages of Years Employed in Current and Other
Positions for Principals-Female and Male...........................250
xiii


5.8 Frequencies and Percentages of Years Employed in Current and Other
Positions for Decision Makers-Female and Male.....................252
5.9 Frequencies and Percentages of Years Employed in Current and Other
Positions for Promoted Principals-Female and Male.................254
5.10 Frequencies and Percentages of Years Employed in Current and Other
Positions for Non-Promoted Principals-Female and Male.............255
5.11 Frequencies and Percentages to Professional Aspiration Questions by All
Respondents ......................................................258
5.12 Frequencies and Percentages to Professional Aspiration Questions by
Principals and Decision Makers....................................261
5.13 Frequencies and Percentages to Professional Aspiration Questions by
Promoted and Non-Promoted Principals..............................263
5.14 Frequencies and Percentages to Professional Aspiration Questions-Male and
Female Principals.................................................265
5.15 Frequencies and Percentages to Professional Aspiration Questions-Male and
Female Decision Makers............................................266
5.16 Frequencies and Percentages to Professional Aspiration Questions-Male and
Female Promoted and Non-Promoted Principals..................267
5.17 Frequencies and Percentages for Years in Previous Position for Decision
Makers.......................................................271
XIV


5.18 Frequencies and Percentages for Years in Previous Position for
Principals.........................................................272
5.19 Means and Standard Deviations of Power Bases and Behaviors for Principals
and Decision Makers by Gender......................................274
5.20 Means and Standard Deviations of Power Bases and Behaviors for Principals
and Decision Makers................................................278
5.21 Rankings of Power Behaviors and Bases by Principals and Decision
Makers.............................................................279
5.22 Summary of One-Way ANOVA for Power Behaviors and Bases by
Promoted and non-Promoted Principals and Decision Makers...........281
5.23 Group Statistics- Means and Standard Deviations of Power Bases and
Behaviors for Principals and Decision Makers.......................283
5.24 Comparison of Means for Promoted and Non-Promoted Principals for Power
Behaviors and Bases................................................286
5.25 Summary of Multivariate Wilks' Tests of Significance for Independent
Variables..........................................................290
5.26 Power Behaviors and Bases F-tests for Promotion Groups and Decision
Makers.............................................................291
5.27 Gender F-tests.....................................................292
XV


5.28 Summary of Results for One-Way ANOVAs for Promoted, Non-Promoted,
and Decision Makers by Gender.....................................293
5.29 Interaction Effect for Promoted, Non-Promoted and Decision Makers by
Gender-F-tests....................................................293
5.30 Canonical Discriminant Functions for Power Behaviors and Bases by
Promotion Groups..................................................297
5.31 Results of Discriminant Function Analysis of Power Bases and
Behaviors.........................................................298
5.32 Canonical Discriminant Functions for Gender.......................299
5.33 Results of Discriminant Function Analysis of Power Bases and Behaviors
and Gender........................................................300
5.34 Percentages of First Choices for Promotion Rationales by Principals and
Decision Makers...................................................302
5.35 Percentages of Second Choices for Promotion Rationales by Principals and
Decision Makers...................................................303
5.36 Percentages of Third Choices for Promotion Rationales by Principals and
Decision Makers...................................................304
5.37 Summary of Comparison of Means for Gender and Professional Aspirations
and Mobility Study Variables......................................305
6.1 Summary of Statistically Different Power Subscale Scores..........313
XVI


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
To rise in an organization, to move up the ladder, to get a promotion, to be
tapped for the next higher positionthese are the dreams of many principals. These
dreams include acquiring positions titled Executive Director, Assistant or Associate
Superintendent. Deputy Superintendent, or Superintendent, positions which are
considered promotions from the principalship.
But promotions are not the result of dreams. The promotion of an individual
is the most common affirmation or reward for managerial success, and with it comes
the acquisition of additional power and resources in the organization. It is usually
the result of selection by a superior or group of superiors, a selection based on a
variety of individual and organizational factors for rewarding individuals or adding
to the leadership ranks of the organization. Individual factors that influence
promotion are job performance, skills, education, experience, commitment,
hierarchical position, attitudes, and an interest in being promoted (Cannings &
Montmarquette, 1991, Gallagher, 2000). Organizational factors include position
openings due to retirements, resignations, position deletions or additions, job
requirements, and growth.
1


It is widely documented that, although women make up the majority of
teachers and a sizable minority of the principals (Choy, Henke, Alt, Medrich, &
Bobbitt, 1993; Holloway, 2000; Shakeshaft, 1987), they are underrepresented in
senior management positions. This discrepancy in the number of women compared
to the number of men being promoted to senior management has not been attributed
to education, training, skills, or motivation (Sadker, Sadker, & Klein, 1991;
Shakeshaft, 1987).
If individual attributes or organizational factors do not explain the lack of
women in senior management, what does explain it? The answer may not lie with
what, but with whom. Organizations do not make decisions about who is promoted
and who is not, the organization's norms and culture influence the decision makers
within the organization. These individuals or decision makers operate according to
internal schema or mental models that, while influenced by the organization and
society, determine the fit between the employee and some desirable employee
prototype (Perry, Davis-Blake, & Kulik, 1994).
Based upon my experience, promotions are not just rewards for service and
performance; they also serve another purpose in my opinion, that of organizational
reproduction. For this study, organizational reproduction refers to the selection of
leaders who are perceived as being able to continue the assumed previously
successful practices of their predecessors as a means of guaranteeing the survival of
->


the organization. Individuals anthropomorphize the organizations they work for not
only in words but in their wish for the organization to remain viable, if for no other
reason than for their own continued employment.
With women and minorities moving into job positions that they have not
traditionally held, the potential pool of qualified applicants for senior management
positions has become much more diverse than in the past. This leaves current
superintendents and promotion decision makers with the challenge of assimilating a
more diverse work force into the high-status, high-skill senior and executive
management positions.
In addition, because women now make up a significant part of the
workplace, their recruitment, development, and advancement are becoming a
bottom-line issue related to organizational success. One of senior management's
primary purposes is to ensure the survival of an organization, in this case the school
system (Kanter, 1977). This necessitates the promotion of individuals who are
capable or perceived as being capable of maintaining the structural, cultural, and
performance integrity of the organization.
According to the theory of homosocial reproduction (Kanter, 1977), decision
makers or supervisors controlling promotion select individuals who have the same
attributes as themselves, thus ensuring continuity and predictability. Attributes
include individual factors such as performance, skills, and attitude. An individuals
j


ability to use power has also been identified as being important to being promoted
(Pfeffer, 1992). Power, rather than solely gender or other factors such as experience
or years in the position, may be the mechanism that acts as the link or mechanism
that connects how the promotion seeker is viewed to how the decision maker views
them.
The perceived needs and biases of the managers about factors that predict
success, such as socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, and communication styles
influence the decisions. If senior managers view themselves as successful, they will
look for individuals who emulate their model. The closer the match, the greater the
likelihood of success. Given that gender discrimination is the cumulative result of
the many individual decisions made by those in control of promotions, the study of
promotion must include not only the study of power as an individual attribute used
by those seeking promotions, but also the study of how power is used by those
making the decisions as well as any links that exist between the two groups and how
they are influenced by the environment around them (Perry et al., 1994). As
recently as 1996, Paulin and Mellor were able to document that gender and race
discrimination, while not as prevalent, were still evident in the promotion process.
Understanding the causes of the inequity in career movement is the first step
in examining and implementing solutions to the problem. An old saying,
knowledge is power, is an important one. Having information about who gets
4


promoted and how is important not only to understand your own interests but also
how to get what you want if it is a promotion that is being sought.
Theory/Research Base
The majority of educational leaders start in the ranks of teachers, most of
whom are female. In 1985, women constituted 83.5% of the elementary teachers
and 50.1% of the secondary teachers, but women made up only 16.9% of elementary
principals and 3.5% of secondary principals (Shakeshaft, 1987).
In a study done by the U.S. Department of Education (Choy et al., 1993),
women held 70.5% of the elementary teaching jobs in 1987-1988 and 71.9% in
1990-1991. They also increased their representation in the elementary principal
ranks from 16.9% in 1985 to 24.6% in 1987-1988 and to 30.0% in 1990-1991. But
the data also reveal that only 3% of the superintendents were female in 1990-1991.
By 1993, the most recent study available of all segments of educational
administration, women were holding 34.2% of the principal positions and 7.1% of
the superintendent positions, as well as 24.3% of the assistant superintendent
positions (Montenegro, 1993). According to Glass and Cooper (as cited in Ehara.
2000), the number of female superintendents has more than doubled since 1990 with
more than 14% of the superintendencies being held by women. Holloway (2000)
suggested that women are beginning to show an increase in career socialization
5


toward educational administration. In the past, women were not as likely to want to
leave the classroom, have female role models, or to hold advanced degrees in
educational administration.
Some might suggest that these data show that the gates have been opened for
women to move into the senior management positions, but the evidence can also be
viewed as showing that the improvement has been only modest. The numbers
provide further support for Shakeshafts (1987) statements about the under
representation of women in educational administration.
Promotion Factors
The pool for educational leaders is primarily female, but few women are
represented in the senior leadership ranks. According to Blau and Ferber (1987),
there is no question that the work women and men do and the rewards they receive
continue to be substantially different. There is, on the other hand, considerable
disagreement about the reasons why this is the case (p. 46).
The under representation of women in senior positions is not connected to
education, training, or skills (Sadker & Sadker et al., 1991) or to lack of ambition.
Women definitely want to be administrators and have the same opportunities for
promotion as men (Shakeshaft, 1987).
6


But males take a different view than females. Calabrese and Wallach (1989)
found in a survey of male and female principals and administrators that males, more
than the females, believed that women did not want to be administrators, that their
family obligations interfered, that they were emotionally unable to deal with
conflict, and that they were too sexual and too submissive. In addition, those same
males felt that discrimination was not a factor and that women were encouraged to
apply for administrative positions. Apparently, male decision makers believe it is
the fault of the female candidates, rather than the organization, for the low numbers
of women in senior management.
If objective factors such as education, age, training, and experience are
comparable between the genders, and decision makers see women as the cause of
their under representation, what factors might explain the disparity in the number of
females versus males in educational leadership positions? One possible explanation
is that gender differences in demonstrating power are viewed through the limited
schema or mental model of the supervisor (generally male) who controls promotions
(Perry et al., 1994).
Schemas commonly develop from repeated observations of similar events,
explicitly taught lessons, or from modifications to an existing schema as a result of
additional information (Perry et al., 1994). In the case of leadership in education,
repeated observations indicate that females do not occupy many of the senior
7


leadership positions, reinforcing the schemas of decision makers that females,
leadership, and power do not go together. Definitions of leadership in the
educational culture also support the idea that women do not evidence decisive and
managerial or male traits (Shakeshaft, 1987). This definition is then incorporated
into the decision makers' schema and affects who gets promoted.
Adler (1994) found in a study of male and female supervisors and policy
makers that males were more likely to be promoted to supervisor and policy-making
positions than female colleagues. Gender, however, did not affect the degree of
power and authority males and females had once they attained the position. The
factors causing unequal position access were left to future research.
Power as a Promotion Factor
An individual's exercise of power, or the ability to get things done on her/his
own or through others, has been identified as crucial to promotion (Gallese, 1991;
Pfeffer, 1992; Yukl & Falbe, 1991). According to Pfeffer (1992), Yukl and Falbe
(1991), and Mintzberg (1983), organizational behaviors such as promotion patterns
can be explained in part by understanding power and influence tactics. Motivating
subordinates to accomplish their jobs requires the effective use of various types of
power, ranging from position power to expert power. In addition, the effectiveness
8


of the supervisor depends upon how well subordinates comply with routine as well
as extraordinary requests.
Morrison (1992) describes power differences as more important in
determining promotion than gender or ethnic differences. For promotion to occur,
not only should skills and education be evident, but a match should exist between
the decision maker's power schema and the power behaviors evidenced by the
individual seeking promotion.
According to Ragins and Sundstrom (1989). power may develop over time
as one leams to exercise the various forms of power, especially expert power. As
individuals leam to recognize how their own power affects other individuals and
their goals, they become better at learning when and how to use different forms of
power. In addition, individuals can acquire power-referent, knowledge, or
authority as useful resources over time. This development of power over time may
affect the rate that careers advance as individuals acquire job skills, mentors, and
authority that provide observable proof to supervisors that they can handle more
power when promoted.
Women have tended to have less power in organizations (Kanter, 1977;
Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). In addition, women tend to demonstrate different
forms of power than men, according to Shakeshaft (1987) and Rosener (1990).
9


These differences may contribute to observable patterns that reinforce schemas for
not promoting women, as they do not validate the preferred models.
Studies have indicated that women and men differ in their use of power
(Adler, 1994; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Rosener, 1990). According to the theory
of homosocial reproduction (Kanter, 1977), decision makers are more apt to choose
candidates similar to themselves. The research done by Perry, Davis-Blake, and
Kulik (1994) supports the idea that a decision maker's internal schema functions as
the framework for making choices. The decision maker will look for factors that the
organization and her/his internal model identify as important to the job. If
exercising power to accomplish goals is a factor, then it will be considered in the
promotion criteria with skills, experience, and education.
Birds of a Feather
The primary purpose of a school system is to accomplish the goals that
make student achievement and the operation of the system possible. Principals
routinely demonstrate that they have the power or ability to accomplish goals
themselves or through others.
The majority of superintendents who observe these principals and control
which of them get promoted are male. This patriarchy tends to see the world
through an androcentric or male viewpoint. This causes male things," or traits and
10


values usually perceived as belonging to males, to be viewed as superior to female
traits and values, rather than simply different (Shakeshaft. 1987). When these male
attitudes and. statements are examined further, it becomes apparent that these views
are incorporated into the mental models of what it takes to be promoted, and those
models can vary for men and women (Perry et al., 1994).
If this is the case, then superintendents making decisions as to whom to
promote may also lean toward and select individuals who are most like themselves.
If men and women see themselves and are perceived as using power in different
ways according to gender, then male superintendents are likely to select power users
most like themselves. If they perceive that only males use power in the same way,
then males would be promoted more frequently. If they see power usage as being
basically the same across the genders, then a more equitable promotion spread may
exist between the genders. Promotions would be based on similarities to the
decision maker other than gender.
Problem Focus: Wasting Resources
Why should school systems be interested in better utilizing one of their
major resources, women? A good reason would be to obtain the best people for
leadership positions, to provide highly placed female role models for younger
women and students, and to attract the best graduates from colleges and universities,
11


thus leading to a more successful organization. Research can identify major issues
and provide options for addressing them, in this case helping organizations
understand how they choose leaders and not lose talented individuals because they
do not foresee promotion as a possibility. In addition, research can be used as a
source of knowledge for individuals aspiring to promotion into senior management
leadership positions.
This study assumes that principals are central to improving our schools. For
this reason, it is important that school systems have the best leadership in order to
have the vision and skills necessary for guiding our schools. While we know that
men and women can be equally effective as leaders (Morrison, 1992), the number of
women promoted to leadership positions does not match the numbers in the pool of
aspirants (Shakeshaft, 1987).
In addition, the lack of information about women in educational^
administration is a significant factor for learning more about educational
administration. A large number of studies focus on women and school leadership,
although not when compared to the number of studies involving men (Edson, 1988;
Grady & Wesson, 1994; Hallinger, 1993; Keels, 1996; Sadker, Sadker, & Klein,
1991; Shakeshaft, 1987; Whitaker & Lane, 1990).
Few studies identify the factors in school leadership that explain the
disparity between men and women in achieving senior leadership positions.
12


Research has also tended to stress the individual factors that have prevented women
from advancing (Cullen, 1990; Powell, 1993) rather than the commonalties between
individuals and the organizations they function in everyday. These organizations
are composed of individuals with the power to decide who receives the promotion
and who does not. One of the assumptions underlying this study is that, in spite of
some documented differences in leadership style and shared experiences, it is the
similarities between individuals, whether they are those seeking a promotion or
those deciding whom to promote, that draw people together.
The research that has studied primarily individual differences has also held
that lack of skill by the individual was the problem and acquisition of those skills
was the solution (Newman, 1993; Mitchell & Winn, 1993; Schein & Mueller, 1992;
Wentling, 1992). These individual-focused studies also address the stereotypes that
are then harbored by the persons making the promotion decisions, namely the
superintendents and senior management level personnel who assist in personnel
decisions. In this study, it is the demonstration of power that is conjectured to be a
key deciding factor in who gets the nod for advancement. This is not to say that
individual factors and an individuals ability to acquire additional skills is not
important but rather that those skills need to be compared to criteria currently being
used by those in control. Acquiring skills that are not valued or used by the decision
makers in their advancement processes would appear to be a waste of time.
13


Superintendents and/or the selection committees, which are composed of
senior staff, have the responsibility to select the most qualified person to fill
educational leadership positions. Understanding the perceptions of superintendents
and the senior staff members about the kinds of power that they value and view as
necessary for promotion should be of concern to any individual seeking
advancement. The possible differences that could be ascribed to the internal schema
of the promoter, to gender, and to the use of power itself should be examined
because power is identified as a key requirement for promotion (Morrison, 1992).
The gender of the superintendents and the types of power that they use or perceive
themselves to use may also affect the types of power that they value in a principal
who is seen as promotable.
In addition, Grady and OConnell (1993) asserted that, based upon their
findings in a study of issues surrounding women administrators in dissertations
published between 1957 and 1989, further study was needed to investigate what
strategies women can use to increase further their representation in educational
administration. According to them, this was needed due to the high numbers of
personnel retirements expected in the coming decades in K-12 educational
administration. Restine (1993) also asserted that because of the sheer number of
women in the teacher pool who could be candidates for promotion over time and the
surprisingly low number of women in administrative positions, it was accordingly
14


important to continue to gather information about a population that could have even
more of an affect on school leadership and change.
Finally, because women still face a substantial number of barriers in
attaining the senior positions that they desire, women must gain more skills in
diagnosing their own strengths and the needs of the organization in order to improve
their chances of success or, in this case, promotion.
This is a complex issue that combines the need to keep the individuals
ability to have some control over her/his future with the fact that some control is in
the hands of others who are influenced by their own individual preferences which
are in part derived from organizational and cultural pressures. For this reason, I
have chosen to study power, a variable that, according to other researchers and my
own knowledge, is seen as being a key force in the promotion process. What role, if
any, does power play in career advancement? Do the promoted principal and the
decision maker use common power behaviors and bases? Do individuals, not just
women, who are promoted, demonstrate certain commonalties in power usage, or is
promotion related to the power usage of those making the decisions in the
organization? If power does not appear to play a role, are there any other factors
that do appear to be under the control of the individual?
15


Theoretical Framework
For the purpose of this study, a synthesized power model developed by Muth
(1984) was adapted to provide the framework for assessing power use. This new
model was based upon French and Raven's (1959) five bases of social power-
reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert. In addition, information power
(Raven & Kruglanski, 1975), connection power (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982), and
the typology of power developed by Bacharach and Lawler (1980) were
incorporated into Muth's power continuum. This continuum allowed a full range of
power types to be studied: it placed coercion, the ability to compel compliance,
opposite influence, the use of persuasion to achieve compliance; and authority, the
voluntary compliance with a request, was placed between coercion and influence,
assuming the traits of either when manipulated statistically. Any of the types of
power could be used in a coercive, legitimate, or influential manner.
French and Raven (1959) defined the 5 bases of power as coercion, reward,
referent, expert, and legitimate. Coercive power is derived from the ability to
compel another through physical threat, force, or withdrawal of approval. Reward
power is the ability to provide tangible benefits such as raises, promotions, or
personal approval. Referent power relies upon others feeling a sense of
connectedness and complying for that reason. Expert power is predicated upon the
individual having knowledge or the access to knowledge that another wants, while
16


legitimate power is based upon an organizational structure that grants the right to
expect others to comply.
Although and despite the fact that problems exist with this five-base model,
it is the most widely used of the models for attempting to study power. It has been
used in more controlled experiments and field studies than other classification
systems, for that reason I chose it as a major component of my study and as the base
to review other research on power.
Muth's (1984) typology of pow'er is based upon the manner in which power
is used, coercively, authoritatively, or influentially. Coercive use refers to the
capacity to compel another through physical threat or force. Authority is the
legitimate capacity based upon organizational structure to affect another's behavior.
Influence is the capacity to persuade another to behave in a certain way without the
use of force or authority.
Questions
The questions addressed in this study are:
1. What types of power behaviors and bases do principals report themselves
using?
2. What types of power behaviors and bases do decision makers report
themselves using?
17


3. Do promoted and non-promoted principals report power behaviors and
bases similar to those reported by decision makers who make promotion decisions?
4. Do promoted and non-promoted principals report the same power
behaviors and bases?
5. Do males and females in and across the three groups report the same
power behaviors and bases?
6. Do gender and/or power behaviors and bases play a role in who gets
promoted?
7. Which promotion rationales do principals and decision makers rank as
most important for their own promotions?
8. What other factors or relationships appear to be related to promotion or
non-promotion?
Methodology
Survey research was the method best suited to discerning and comparing the
relationships among groups of people. It allowed me to use quantitative and
qualitative research methods to meet the needs of the study (Krathwohl, 1993).
Survey data can identify and provide information about possible cause and effect
relationships (Bickman &. Rog, 1998). Because this study sought to identify
possible relationships between the types of power used by principals seeking
18


promotion and the decision makers who make the promotion decisions a survey
method was the appropriate technique to use.
Principals who have been promoted and principals who sought promotion,
but were not promoted, were compared to the decision makers who were responsible
for promoting principals to positions higher up in the organizational hierarchy. A
survey that focused on their use of power along the power continuum was used to
gather information about their perceptions of their own power use and the reasons
for their promotion or non-promotion. For the purpose of this study, promotion was
defined as movement to positions with more responsibility and/or salary. Decision
makers were defined as those individuals who were identified as being primarily
responsible for the final decision to promote a principal.
This survey of principals and promotion decision makers elicited
information about who had sought promotions and the results of their attempts. It
also collected information about the self-identified reasons for the individuals
promotion and their use of power through completing a revised Administrator
Behavior Scale (Muth, 1971).
Sample
Surveys were mailed to principals and central office administrators with the
title of director and above in Colorado and Florida. Names were acquired from the
19


Colorado Department of Education and the Florida Department of Education,
following the technique of cluster sampling outlined in Jaeger (1988). This
technique consists of selecting a sample of administrators from the list of all
administrators in each district kept by the states, with only the largest districts being
chosen for sampling. The largest districts were used because their internal applicant
pool increased the probability that principals would have sought a promotion due to
retirements and increases in available positions due to growth in the district. Those
states were also chosen because I was residing in Colorado at the time of the survey
and had resided in Florida. I had maintained contacts with superintendents who
could provide references for respondents, if needed. In addition, both states were
experiencing rapid growth, which provided opportunities for promotion from the
principalship.
The Survey
The survey (Appendix A) was sent to the identified principals and
administrators in each selected district. The administrators group was defined as
those individuals with Superintendent or the equivalent of Executive Director as part
of their title as they were usually the individuals responsible for promotion
decisions. The surveys included an introductory letter (Appendix B) about the
study, explaining that data were being collected about professional aspirations and
20


mobility for educational administrators and the administrator behaviors they
evidence. It also informed the respondent that the numbers present in the upper
right-hand comer of the survey were for tracking purposes only and would not be
used to identify them. The letter did not indicate that a comparison would be done of
administrators and decision makers on their power behaviors and resources as that
may have predisposed them to answer in socially acceptable ways. Included with
the cover letter and the survey were an informed-consent form (Appendix B) and a
return-addressed, stamped envelope for sending the completed forms to me.
The survey asked questions about who had been promoted or had sought
promotion in the last three years and the titles of the decision makers that they felt
were primarily responsible for the promotion decision. They were also requested to
provide the names of those individuals, if they were comfortable doing so.
Respondents were expected to fall into one of several categories: individuals who
had been promoted, individuals who had sought promotion but were not promoted,
and individuals who had not sought promotion.
Demographic information was also collected because the administrator
characteristics of gender, ethnicity, experience, and time in their current district as
compared to coming from another district were projected to be significant in
determining promotion patterns (Landau, 1995; Stroh et al., 1992; Tonnsen &
Truesdale, 1993; Wentling, 1992). This information was examined for patterns of
21


I
i
I
i
t
1
!
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
!
i
i
I
|
i
I
j
j
{
j
i
!
i
j
i
i
j
I
i
i
i
i
!
t
I
i
i
promotion based upon gender, ethnicity, and years of service and internal versus
external hiring.
Information about how the principals and central office administrators
perceived themselves using power was collected through administering a revised
Administrator Behavior Scale. The administrators were also asked to indicate if
they were willing to participate in further studies about professional aspirations and
administrator behavior.
Confidentiality of subject names, rather than anonymity, was promised
because of the need to collect titles and hopefully names of the matching
superintendents or promotion decision makers for future research. In addition, they
were assured that data were to be released in aggregate rather than as individual data
to help protect confidentiality.
Information was also collected about the reasons that the respondents
thought that they were promoted. This consisted of a list of the commonly cited
reasons for promotion. Participants were asked to rank order the list of statements
based upon how well they thought the statement described the reason or reasons for
their most recent promotion. All individuals were also asked a question that
confirmed what they thought their role was in granting promotions to others.
i
22


Administrator Behavior Scale (ABS)
The ABS was originally developed by Muth (1971) to study power, conflict,
and consensus in high schools in the Chicago area. It measured respondents'
perceptions of their principals' influential, authoritative, and coercive power
behaviors. The statements were oriented to administrator behaviors that dealt with
organizationally defined duties (authority) and those that supported the idea of force
and persuasion (coercion and influence). Teachers responded to each item on a
Likert-type scale and indicated the degree to which their principal demonstrated the
behavior described in the statement.
For my study, I revised Muth's Administrator Behavior Scale by adding
additional items that measured which power bases the respondents used and
rephrased all items so they were in the first-person active. Revising the original
ABS was necessary because I could not find any existing instruments that allowed
me to identify how individuals perceived their own power bases (French & Raven,
1959) and the manner in which they used power (Muth, 1971).
The lack of instruments addressing my focus necessitated combining Muth's
Administrator Behavior Scale with items from scales developed by Hinkin and
Schriesheim (1989), Rahim (1988), and Hersey and Natemeyer (1979). I also added
items to the final scales. Because each of the source instruments used statements
written in the third person, the tense of each of the 47 resulting items was also
23


changed to first-person active in order to measure the degree to which the
respondents perceive themselves behaving as described.
The revised ABS (Appendix A) now' consists of 47 statements with a Likert-
type scale ranging from 1-never through 6-always. Items 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18,
20, 22, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37, 43, and 46 come directly from Muths (1971) ABS
with tense changes. These items measured the respondent's use of behaviors that
rely on coercion, authority, or influence.
Items 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 26, 28, 34, 36, 38, and 40-42, are substantial
revisions of items found in Rahim's (1988) Leader Power Inventory. Items 6, 25,
and 39 were drawn from the Hinkin and Schriesheim scales (1989). Items 17 and 31
were drawn from Hersey and Natemeyer (1979). I developed items 3, 21, 24, 29,
32, 44, 45, and 47 because I was unable to find statements that adequately addressed
the need for school-oriented statements using vocabulary that was familiar to public
school administrators. Study of the other instruments suggested the format and
manner of wording for my new items.
This revision allowed a minimum of 5 items for each of the 5 bases of
powercoercion, referent, reward, legitimate, and expert as well as a minimum of
5 items for each of the power behaviorscoercion, authority, and influence. This
prevented the problem generally found in single-item measures of being less reliable
than multi-item instruments (Nunnally, 1978).
24


Data Analysis
To answer the research questions about types of power behavior used by the
various groups, it was necessary to run a variety of tests, including MANOVA,
ANOVA, discriminant analysis, Pearson Product-Moment correlations, and t-tests
and determine standard deviations and means where significant differences were
found. Comparisons were then made between and within groups based on gender,
experience, and other demographic variables.
Summary
In summary, this study attempts to shed more light on factors that may
determine why some individuals are promoted and others are not. Information from
this study could help individuals who have the appropriate job skills to improve
their chances of being selected by recognizing what power behaviors and bases
decision makers are seeking. In addition, those who are making decisions about
promotions may understand better why they choose one individual over another. By
understanding the factors that influence them, they are less apt to discriminate
unconsciously against individuals for gender, age, ethnicity, and so forth.
25


CHAPTER 2
PRINCIPALS AND PROMOTION
The career path of principals is controlled by a complex interaction of
individual, societal, and organizational factors (Fagenson, 1993; Stroh, Brett, &
Reilly, 1992; Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, 1994). It is necessary' to describe and
understand these factors in order to examine the role that power plays in the process
of promotion and to develop a more complete explanation of whether or not power
has any role in the underrepresentation of women in senior administrative ranks.
In four sections, this chapter focuses on administrative career paths, career
advancement theories, promotion patterns, and the barriers and enhancements that
are associated with the process. The first section describes the historical trends that
have been documented in the career paths of educational administrators and their
demographics. Section two reviews the literature about career advancement
theories that attempt to explain who moves up the ladder of an organization and how
they get there. Theories that emphasize men and theories that emphasize women are
reviewed as well as the convergence of these theories. The individual, institutional,
and societal factors that affect the promotion process are also discussed. An
interactive model of career development that relies on the interplay of these three
factors is also reviewed. Also discussed are the role that the decision maker or
26


supervising individual who controls the promotion process plays and how the
theories of decision-making schemata are involved. Section three focuses on
promotion patterns in educational administration and the process called promotion.
Section four covers the role that power usage plays in promotion, especially as it
pertains to how power may be the link for organizational and societal influences to
affect the individual making decisions. As a whole, this chapter attempts to provide
explanations for why some principals are promoted and others are not.
Background and Historical Trends
During the past two decades, a dramatic change has occurred in the makeup
of the American workforce. Changing family structures, economic pressures,
workforce diversity, and technological advances have driven this change. Women
have found it necessary to enter the workforce in order to support themselves and
their children as the divorce rate has increased and as living costs have risen. As
these women have entered the workforce, they have also striven for career
advancement into executive, administrative, and management leadership roles
(Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990).
Not only do women now account for more than 50% of the workforce, but as
of August 1997 the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor, 1997)
reports that 56.9% of all women 16 years of age and older are currently employed.
27


In addition, women are entering the managerial and executive ranks in growing
numbers in all areas of career choice (Davidson & Burke, 1994.). Approximately
5.5 million women held management, administrative, or executive positions in the
United States in 1988 and 6.3 million in 1998 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000).
This was more than double the number in 1978 when women held 2.5 million
management jobs. Management and executive positions, along with technical
positions, are now the fastest growing occupations in the country (Bamford &
Pendleton, 1997; U.S. Department of Labor, 1987; 1997).
Women moved from holding 32.4% of lower and middle management jobs
in 1983 to holding 42% in 1993. However, the trend was not the same for moving
into the senior management positions. According to Lawlor (1994), women still
held only 5% of the top-level senior executive jobs. A recent study (Hamm-
Greenwalt, 2000) of executive management positions in U.S. technology companies
found that for the third quarter of 1999 just 57 of 961, or 6%, of the companies had
women CEOs. Only 42% had women in management positions.
The trend in education actually is duplicating and in some cases exceeding
that of the general population. Women still hold a large percentage of the entry-
level positions as teachers but are increasing their presence in middle- and senior-
management positions (Johnsrud, 1991; Ortiz, 1982; Shakeshaft, 1987; Whitaker &
Lane, 1990). According to Glass and Cooper (as cited in Ehara, 2000), the number
i
28


of female superintendents has more than doubled in the last decade with more than
14% of the superintendencies being held by women. This review of the literature
surrounding educational administration and management shows that women are still
underrepresented in management positions in a field that they dominate.
School Administration
For most of recent educational history, women have been underrepresented
in the senior levels of school administration. Statistical evidence and studies
document the role of women in education, the rise and fall in the numbers of women
in administration, the barriers that they encounter when attempting to advance their
careers, and the styles of leadership that they use (Edson, 1988; Grady & Wesson,
1994; Hallinger, 1993; Keels, 1996; Ortiz & Hendrick, 1987; Sadker, Sadker, &
Klein, 1991; Shakeshaft, 1987; Whitaker & Lane, 1990).
While women make up the majority of teachers, and most administrators
come from the ranks of teaching, women do not make up the majority of public
school administrators. To look at the history of women in school administration it is
necessary to look at the history of women in teaching (Shakeshaft, 1989).
The first teachers in America were males until around 1830 when the
economy offered them better paying jobs. With the decrease of men in the teacher
pool, women were recruited but at lower pay than their male predecessors. This
29


pattern continued until the close of the nineteenth century when women held over
two-thirds of all teaching positions (Blount, 1998). As women flooded into the
classrooms, men found fewer rewards in being teachers as boards could pay female
teachers one-third to one-half of mens salaries. Even though women were viewed
as natural teachers because their maternal instincts allowed a natural nurturing
found in the home to be extended to the school, Shakeshaft noted that women were
still given lower pay and status.
Men found that they had one of four courses to choose from: they could
leave teaching, teach in what was seen as a female job and therefore bring their
masculinity into question, join male teacher associations that were seeking to
upgrade their status in the profession, or move into the new, more male-appropriate
niche of administration. With scientific management theories and bureaucratization
stressing male dominance, administrative ranks became the area of advancement for
men, rather than women (Shakeshaft, 1987). The men who joined the new
profession of administration modeled their work and organizational design upon
such hierarchical social institutions as the military and industry, where role, status,
power, and authority were defined by position. School boards wanting to keep male
teachers promised them the chance of rapid advancement. Men rapidly became the
top layers of the hierarchy with women relegated to the bottom.
30


The pattern of male dominance in the administrative ranks changed for a
short time around the 1920s when over half of all principals were women (Restine,
1993; Sadker et al., 1991). This increase was not true, however, for
superintendencies or other senior-management positions. This large representation
of women in the principalship was due to women achieving the right to vote and
hold political office as well as increased numbers of college-educated women.
But after the 1920s, womens presence in the positions of teacher, principal,
board member, and superintendent declined. It is worth noting that data on women
in administration were reported infrequently and often much of the data was not
reported by gender (Ortiz, 1982; Shakeshaft, 1989). Jones and Montenegro (1982)
state that, while no formal statistics were kept for the four decades following the
1920s, they felt that they were able to explain the decrease of women in educational
administration. They cite as a factor the depression of the 1930s and the need to
hire married men with families to support. The displaced females were viewed as
having male family members or husbands who could support them; therefore, their
income was not crucial to their survival. In addition, feminist activity declined as
their organizations became less active with the Depression and the recent suffrage
successes.
Blount (1998) conjectured that the decrease was due to a deliberate
campaign by the predominantly male Department of Superintendencies to eliminate
31


elected superintendents and replace them with trained professionals. In addition,
while women could attend normal colleges and universities they were still rarely
admitted to professional universities. Blount also suggests that a social backlash
occurred against women who crossed traditional gender-role boundaries. With the
increase in womens political, social, and economic power, men who saw their
traditional power roles being threatened reacted negatively. With over 90% of
female teachers widowed or single, they were an easy target to be accused of being a
threat to society for not fulfilling their role of wife and mother. Purportedly
masculine women were seen as unsuitable to be around children and were not
hirable, while women who maintained their feminine demeanor were seen as
ineffectual and therefore not suitable for administration. Both view's kept women in
the teacher ranks and made upward advancement difficult.
World War II allowed another brief increase in womens administrative
presence that was curtailed after the war. The GI Bill paid for men returning from
the war to return to college, and women were again displaced to allow men to have
jobs that could support a family. In addition, with the postwar baby boom, women
who had w'anted to pursue career advancement found it difficult to mix family and
career (Blount, 1998).
It is not easy to substantiate the theories about the changes in the presence of
women in administrative positions over time. Based upon a search of the records it
32


became apparent that the percentages of males and females filling administrative
roles were not reported until the American Association of School Administrators
(AASA) began in the 1970s to report periodically on the percentage of women and
minorities in school administration. Data prior to 1970 is not available from AASA.
These figures document a slow but steady increase in the percentage of women
filling a variety of administrative positions.
Demographics
Despite the fact that most administrators come from the ranks of teachers
and the majority of teachers are women, the vast majority of educational
administrators are men (Sadker et al., 1991, p. 280). Starting in the 1970s, it
became possible to examine the numbers of women and look for trends in their
promotion patterns.
During the 1970s, AASA reported that approximately one-half percent of the
total superintendents were women (Jones & Montenegro, 1982). AASA also
reported the percentage of women superintendents as 0.6% in 1970-1971; 0.5% in
1974-1975; and 1.0% in 1979-1980. The percentage increased to 2.7% in 1985, and
in 1988 the percentage was 3.7% (Montenegro, 1993). In contrast, women in 1985
constituted 83.5% of the elementary teachers and 50.1% of the secondary teachers
33


but made up only 16.9% of elementary principals and 3.5% of secondary principals
(Shakeshaft, 1987).
In a study by the U.S. Department of Education (Choy et al., 1993), women
held 70.5% of the elementary teaching jobs in 1987-1988 and 71.9% in 1990-1991.
They also increased their representation in the elementary principal ranks from
16.9% in 1985 to 24.6% in 1987-1988 and to 30.0% in 1990-1991. This is a sizable
increase from 1973 when women held 20% of the elementary principalships, less
than 2% of the secondary principalships, and less than 1% of the superintendencies.
In 1993, when AASA obtained data from school districts across the country
on the numbers of women and minorities in educational administration, the
percentage of women superintendents had increased to 7.1%. Currently it is
documented that women hold 14% of the superintendencies in the nation (Ehara,
2000). This is an increase from 1990 when only 6% of the superintendencies were
held by women as reported in the AASA survey (Montenegro, 1993).
Women have also made modest gains in the other senior-management
positions of assistant, associate, and deputy superintendent positions. In 1980, the
percentage of women in these positions was 8%, 9% in 1982, 15% in 1985, and 22%
in 1988. By 1993, the percentage had increase to 24.3%. The number of women in
the principalship also showed a similar leap from 1982 to the latest survey in 1993.
In 1982, the percentage of women occupying the principalship was 16%, 21% in
34


1985, 24% in 1988, and 27% in 1990. By 1993, women filled 34.2% of the
principalships.
These same trends of increased representation also were present in such
positions as curriculum directors, personnel directors, supervisors, and similar level
educational administrators. These individuals are also a potential pool of applicants
for senior-management positions. Women constituted 40.9 % of the central office
positions (Montenegro, 1993). Although the trends have been for increased
representation, the percentage of women in the positions is still disproportional to
that of men.
Much the same situation exists when race is the factor being considered.
Data reported by race indicate that 1.5% of the superintendents in the survey were
African American, 1.5% were Hispanic, and 0.6% were from other minority groups.
Restine (1993) reported that minority women represented 0.4% of superintendents.
3.3% of assistant superintendents, and 6.4% of the principals in 1993. Restine's
(1993) study did not distinguish further among racial groups.
Definition of a Promotion
Career advancement or promotion has been defined by the rate of
advancement through a bureaucracy in a sequence of positions. Kanter (1989, p.
305) states that growth is equated with promotion to a position of higher rank that
35


brings with it greater benefits; progress means advancement within the hierarchy.
Kanter uses the term corpocratic to describe promotion practices. In the typical
corpocratic career, the elements of opportunity and advancement-responsibilities,
challenges, influence, training and development, and compensationare closely
linked to organizational rank.
Typical Promotion Patterns
The traditional career path of an orderly progression of promotions within an
individuals chosen profession has become outmoded (Goffee & Nicholson, 1994;
Powell & Mainiero, 1993). The criteria for hierarchical advancement were linked
to length of service, ability and performance; rewards came in the form of income,
status and security. Along with these was a sense of personal achievement which
accompanied promotion (Goffee & Nicholson, 1994, p. 82). This steady
progression within an organization is not as prevalent today as people change
careers on the average of every 7 years, people retire earlier, and industries change
so rapidly that an individuals skills become outmoded and the old criteria for
promotion no longer hold true. Instead, the concepts of career and promotion paths
are going through some rapid changes due to forces that are individual,
organizational, economic, and societal.
36


Societal or cultural forces are making it more permissible for women to enter
the workplace and changing the norm of a career being a lifelong association with
one profession or organization. Economic forces are demanding that qualified
workers quickly adapt to rapid changes in job markets with the need for workers
encouraging the recruitment of a much more diverse workforce, regardless of gender
or ethnic background. Organizations, such as technology firms, are growing and
changing so rapidly that traditional movement up a hierarchical ladder has instead
become three dimensional, up, lateral, and to spin offs. Individual forces reinforced
by cultural changes are allowing men and women to change professions, take time-
off, self-select out, and not be socially penalized for their decisions (Goffee &
Nicholson, 1994). The interplay of these forces has had an affect upon the career
progress of men and women and a general awareness of how the forces can bias
decision makers at promotion time (Cannings & Montmarquette, 1991).
Researchers, who are discussed in the following section, theorize that career
advancement or promotion can be based upon several factors, individual attributes,
organizational or structural factors, the individual or individuals making the
promotion decision, or an interaction of organization and individual factors.
37


Career Advancement Theories
The old stereotype of male and female career patterns had a man as the
primary breadwinner and his wife as the homemaker. The new stereotype has both
man and woman working and being breadwinners and sharing to a degree the chores
of the home. However, it is not currently possible to determine if this new
stereotype is accurate, as research does not yet indicate that the career patterns for
men and women are similar. According to Powell and Mainiero (1993), most
theories of career development have evolved based on the observations of how men
succeed or are prevented from advancing in their careers. Fewer studies have
examined female careers, much less compared them to male careers, therefore
making claims of similarity or dissimilarity speculative at best.
In addition, career advancement or promotion takes place primarily within
firms, making the collection of empirical data difficult. A small number of studies
have used empirical data (Behr & Juntenen, 1990; Cannings, 1988; Cannings &
Montmarquette, 1991; Killingsworth & Reimers, 1983; Olsen & Becker, 1983;
Paulin & Mellor, 1996). Most of these studies emphasized gender bias and
characterized gender as an exclusively individual characteristic; yet, gender may
also affect the promotion process in a cultural or institutionalized manner as it
influences the individuals making promotion decisions and the individual deciding
on whether to seek a promotion.
38


Robbins (1986) defined a career as a sequence of positions a person occupies
during the course of their lifetime. Any kind of work, paid or unpaid, which is
pursued over an extended period of time, may constitute a career.
According to Robbins, a career progresses through four stages: exploration,
establishment, mid-career, and late career. The exploration stage begins before the
individual enters the work force and usually ends as the individual chooses an area
of primary work interest. This is a time of self-exploration and an assessment of
available alternatives. The establishment stage includes being accepted by peers,
learning the job, and demonstrating tangible successes and failures. In the mid-
career stage, expertise is gained, often between the ages of 35 and 50. Late career is
generally a time of being a statesperson with the attached status and perquisites for
those who have succeeded; for others, it becomes preparation time before
retirement.
The fact is that careers for most individuals encompass large time spans from
a childs first thoughts of what he/she wants to be when he/she grows up to the
individuals retirement. Longitudinal studies are much more difficult to carry out
but are essential to determine whether or not male and female career patterns are the
same or different. Until the 1970s, the majority of career studies focused on men, in
part because few women were in management positions until the affirmative action
39


movement of the late 1960s. The bulk of the research since then has focused on
both genders ( Powell & Mainiero, 1993).
Most theories of career development and advancement discuss, even if only
briefly, gender differences. And most researchers argue that large differences exist
between the genders due to either personal, institutional, or societal factors
(Fagenson, 1990, 1993; Hersch & Viscusi, 1996; Perry, et al., 1994; Ragins &
Sundstrom; 1989; Shakeshaft, 1989).
Researchers have used these theories to hypothesize a wide variety of
reasons for why few women are in senior and executive management positions
worldwide. Some propose that women lack education, training, skills, and
experience that would qualify them for promotion to these positions. Others
hypothesize that societal bias and discrimination are the reasons, while still others
hypothesize that organizational factors such as policies and procedures are the
culprits making it difficult for women to advance (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein,
1989; McECeen & Burke, 1992; Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987; Morrison &
von Glinow, 1990). The reasons for underrepresentation also include educational
barriers, legal restrictions, and womens disinterest in pursuing what has been
viewed as a traditionally male career ladder (Adler & Izraeli, 1994).
The theories that are used to support these hypotheses have evolved over
time with explanations and conjectures that focused on mens careers and then on
40


womens careers. Lately, theories have begun to evolve that attempt to explain
career development for both genders.
Theories Emphasizing Men
Early career theories of the 20th century were based upon models using
male experiences. The prevailing theories of the time described . . a biographical
stereotype of successive phases of career entry, exploration, and experimentation;
early career building, mid-career growth and maintenance, later career evaluation
and consolidation (Goffee & Nicholson, 1994, p. 82). A large part of a mans
career was characterized as progressive, hierarchical movement with societal,
cultural, organizational, and individual factors used as qualifiers and explanations
for the movement within this model (Goffee & Nicholson, 1994; Hall, 1976;
Levinson, 1978; Schein, 1978; Super, 1980).
Ginzberg, Ginzberg, Axelrad, and Herma (1951) and Super (1957) were two
of the early researchers who attempted comprehensive theories of career
development and progression. Their studies were focused almost exclusively on
men with the female sample being small and non-representative (Ginzberg et al.,
1951) or were based purely upon speculation (Super, 1957). Despite their limited
samples, both researchers speculated that some women had career tracks but that
marriage was the primary goal for most women.
41


Female experiences in the work world were seen as anomalies. This was due
in part to the gender stereotypes of the time where a womans biological role of
childbearing was viewed as meaning that home and family were her career. Some
women might have careers, but they were a small minority who had chosen either to
forgo marriage and children or to delay them for a period of time (Ginzberg et al.,
1951; Super, 1957).
More recent theories have not been as gender stereotyped, but the theories
have still been based primarily on male patterns, with females being viewed as the
exception (Schein, 1978). Men were viewed as following a series of stages in their
career that were part of their biosocial cycle. Women were only mentioned as being
a part of the growth of dual-career families and their biosocial cycle was not
examined. Levinson (1978) referred to "the seasons of a mans life" in a book of the
same name and based his theory upon interview's with 40 men. In a later study,
women were referred to as following basically the same stages as men (Levinson,
1986).
Theories Emphasizing Women
In response to the concern that career theory was based primarily upon male
experiences, more recent researchers either have attempted to address the lack of a
female focus in current theories or have developed female-focused theories.
42


Bardwick(1980), for example, followed Levinsons model of male adult
development and identified the seasons of a womans life. She suggested that
women need their own model, as the emphasis that women put on relationships in
contrast to men precluded them from being described by Levinsons model. In
addition, holding relationships and family of primary importance means that women
use a broader range of criteria for evaluating their career choices than men.
Gilligan (1982) took the same route, developing a separate model for women
because they experienced life differently from men. She took Kohlbergs model of
moral development and suggested that women developed morally in a reverse
sequence from men. While men moved from separation and independence to
achievement and accomplishment, then to intimacy and connections with others, and
finally to viewing others as equal to self'; women reversed the pattern, moving
from being connected to others and seeing themselves as equal to the final stage of
separation and independence. In addition, in contrast to men, women were seen as
placing a higher value on interdependence and interconnectedness.
Astin (1984) presented a model of male and female career development that
focused on how socialization experiences and organizational constraints determined
what job opportunities men and women considered for careers. Because each sex
had different experiences, their career and adult development differed. Womens
socialization experiences influenced them to consider certain types of careersnurse,
43


teacher, or secretary, for example. The circumscribed opportunities they later
encountered further limited and shaped their expectations for success and movement
into their chosen career. Astin also suggests that, because men do not face the same
socialization experiences with the attached limitations to career choice and barriers,
they do not experience the same career and adult development as women.
Gutek and Larwood (1987), in contrast to Astin (1984), argued that theories
of career development had to be different for men and women because men and
women have different expectations for what jobs are appropriate for them. Women
also have different constraints due to gender stereotypes and their view of the
importance of family life; for women, family obligations consume more of their
time than they do for men. In addition, women have traditionally been more
accommodating of their husbands careers, often giving up their own career in order
for their husband to make career moves. Gutek and Larwood (1987) listed five
concerns that constrained womens choices and needed to be acknowledged for
women: career preparation; career opportunities available in society; the influence
of marriage, pregnancy, and children; timing; and age.
They also identified a successful career pattern for women as preparing in
adolescence to have a careernot a jobdiscovering that career opportunities are
available, starting their career at the same time as their male counterparts, remaining
committed to the career through marriage and children, and returning to the job as
44


quickly as possible when having children. However, even today, this pattern is not
the prevalent path for women. While, the current path for women is beginning to
approximate Gutek and Larwoods vision, the majority of women follow what can
still be called a more traditional path of holding jobs that are easily started and
ended, add to the household income, and can be interrupted for long periods while
raising children. When this woman reenters the workforce, it is with a loss of job
experience and current training, putting them at a disadvantage for promotion.
Gallos (1989) contended that career theories were usually built on male
models of success and work in which work and success are central to ones identity.
Womens career success is based upon complementing their other relationships
rather than replacing them with work. Gallos suggested that women were more
interested in lifetime accomplishments and a desire for fair treatment, rather than
affiliation to an organization and putting occupational progress first. This followed
a similar path that Bardwick (1980) took when developing a separate model of
moral development, with relationships and the family, rather than career, being the
defining element of a womans life.
Lee (1993) argued that a model that acknowledges the wide variety of
experiences women have and the importance of family is necessary. She proposed
six alternative models that described how women integrate work and family over
their lifespans. Some sequence work and family, one first then the other; others tty
45


to combine high commitment to both; still others choose a particular type of work or
family situation that makes combining the two easier (p. 68). But in the end,
women devoted themselves to both aspects of their lives, not just one.
Other justifications for separate theories for men and women exist. If one
judges womens career success on a traditional theory rooted in mens career
development, little weight is given to a womans desire to balance career and
family. Even if the different views of success axe influenced by socialization, it
makes the choices no less valid. In addition, gender and ethnic stereotypes have
been decreasing in our society, bringing into play other complex factors that
influence career development, including socialization, economic growth, family
status, and workplace opportunities (Powell & Mainiero, 1993).
It is important to appreciate and legitimize the different patterns that are
present in womens career patterns. But it is also important to ask if the same may
hold true for men in this day and age. Viewing careers for the individual from a
lifespan perspective, or from an individuals first thought of a career to retirement, is
critical to understanding career development for men and women. Early research
(Ginzberg, et al., 1951; Hall, 1976; Levinson, 1978; Super, 1957) assumed that men
held career as the primary definition of their lives and this view may no longer hold
true.
46


Time Changes All Things
Powell and Mainiero (1993) contend that in order to understand the status of
mens and womens career patterns it is necessary to find a theory or theories that
can explain the differences as well as the similarities between the sexes. Their
suggestion is to examine the various influences that can affect the career
development of a man or a woman. For them, two types of concerns influence
womens career development: concerns about work and concerns about family and
personal relationships. Powell and Mainiero view career development as a
continuum or a river of time, with the individual swimming between the banks of
career and relationships, sometimes closer to one shore or the other, sometimes
down the middle. Various factorspersonal, social, or organizationalthat are on
either shore can influence how close they are to success in career or personal
relationships. They suggest that their model allows men to experience the more
traditional male view of success, always being close to the shore of career success,
and it allows for a less traditional or modem view of male success in which career
and personal relationships are balanced in the same manner that women have been
doing all along.
Powell and Mainiero also contend that men determine career success based
upon more objective measures such as salary, job title, and position within the
organizational hierarchy; women, on the other hand, may focus more on subjective
47


factors such as how they are feeling about their careers. However, their model
allows men and women to place themselves along the continuum of balancing career
and relationships, success in careers, and success in relationships, depending upon
the individuals personal factors and the complex interaction of, for example,
organizational and social factors.
Their model also suggests that men and women may not have the same
career patterns. If a man or a woman sees less potential for their own career success
due to the personal or organizational factors, he or she can choose a different path
than a man or woman who does not see a limit on their potential career success.
However, .. .even if women see the same potential for career success as men, they
will be hindered in achieving it if such factors place greater career constraints on
them. As a result, womens career patterns, although governed by the same
processes, may be considerably different from those of men (p. 200).
Interactive Model of Career Advancement
Currently, instead of theories of career advancement that are based upon
male experiences being viewed as applying equally well to all groups, researchers
tend to identify the factors that can apply to all groups and only highlight
differences. This leads to a general model that, instead of being focused on one sex
or another, attempts to sort theories for sexual and racial differences in management
48


into three general groups. Each group is not independent, as interaction effects also
occur, but the interaction effects are specific to each situation. These theories are
grouped according to whether the factors are viewed as being related to the
individual, the institution, or to society.
First, some theories postulate that women are different from men and it is
these differences or deficiencies in the individual that are responsible for
underrepresentation in particular occupations. Womens attitudes, behaviours,
traits, and socialization handicap them in the masculine corporate environment
(Burke & McKeen, 1994, p. 65). Research, however, has provided little support for
this theory (Burke & McKeen, 1994; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990).
Second, some theories postulate that structural or institutional factorsthe
policies and practices implemented by the group in powerdetermine who is tapped
to join the group. These policies include lack of opportunity for challenging
assignments, lack of sponsors or mentors, lack of training, and so forth (Burke &
McKeen, 1994).
And third, some theories explain the differences as the result of widespread
discrimination by the majority population. These suggest that women are held back
from advancement by the biases and stereotypes men have of women (Kanter,
1977). These biases are either sanctioned by the labor market or rewarded by the
organization, regardless of the level of job performance.
49


Fagenson (1990) postulated that the interaction of three factors must be
considered when examining representation as it is a combination of individual,
structural, and cultural factors that influence upward mobility in management for
women and minorities. The three sets consist of (a) gender as an internal trait, (b)
the employing organization as a structural opportunity, and (c) the practices and
beliefs of the institution. Riger and Galligan (1980) and Fagenson (1990) suggested
that the interaction of situational factors (in organizations and society) with
individual factors (race and sex) accounts for differential treatment.
Individual Factors that Influence Promotion
Individual variables or traits were among the first factors suggested as being
responsible for womens lack of representation in the management ranks. Womens
traits, behaviors, socialization, and attitudes were postulated to make them unable to
be managers. Women were felt to be unwilling to take risks, emotionally unstable,
or afraid to be successful ( Bowman, Worthy & Greyser, 1965; Riger & Galligan,
1980). The 1965 Harvard Business Review article by Bowman et al. illustrated how
the problems facing aspiring female executives were viewed three decades ago.
Sixty-five percent of the male executives and 18% of the female executives in the
survey were indifferent or unfavorable to the presence of women in management. It
was felt that management was a difficult area in which to succeed, and if women
50


failed it was because they were not capable and/or they did not really want to
succeed. Riger and Galligan found that by 1980 little had changed, but they also
found that studies of sex differences were yielding mixed results and advocated the
inclusion of situation-centered perspectives. They argued that psychological
research had focused almost exclusively on the individual as the cause of non-
promotion, failing to factor in the organization and society as affecting the ability to
be promoted.
Another body of thought surrounding management and leadership potential
consists of theories addressing how the specific behaviors used by managers can be
used to predict effectiveness. These theories focus on two types of managerial
behavior, task style and interpersonal style. Other theories focus on how the
manager, using an autocratic or democratic leadership style, makes decisions that
affect subordinates. Still other theories focus on whether a certain behavior is
appropriate for a specific situation. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) described
effective leaders as progressing from using high task/low interpersonal styles
through low task/low interpersonal styles as they dealt with subordinates who were
moving from low to high maturity.
Powell (1993) believes that the linkage between these theories and gender
stereotypes is obvious. Task-oriented behaviors and more autocratic leadership
styles are associated with the masculine stereotype. More interpersonal styles of
51


behavior that show consideration for the subordinate and the democratic leadership
style are associated with the feminine stereotype. But none of the theories suggest
that the masculine style is better. Rather, androgynous leadership, or a style that
combines behaviors that were previously viewed as belonging to one gender or the
other, has been the recommendation according to Powell. A major reason for the
focus on androgyny has been the perception that it combines the best of both
stereotypes and in fact allows leaders the ability to adapt to the situation. In
addition, with the resentment workers feel toward the autocratic style and the belief
that effective organizations are based upon teams and participative management, the
androgynous style has gained popularity.
Other studies have refuted these conjectures, finding little significant
difference between male and female managers (Howard & Bray, 1988). More
similarities than differences were found in the areas of personality', abilities, and
motivation factors. Differences for race were greater than differences for sex, but
weaknesses in one area were usually offset by strengths in another area.
Donnell and Hall (1980) studied approximately 2000 matched pairs of male
and female managers and found that they did not practice significantly different
styles of management. Dobbins and Platz (1986) did a meta-analytic review of 17
studies that examined sex differences in leadership. The review found that males
were rated more effective leaders, but only in lab settings. This was explained as
52


perhaps due to the biases the raters held which were expressed in the ratings. Male
and female leaders were found to be equally effective in initiating structures,
consideration, subordinate satisfaction, and job effectiveness.
Eagly and Karau (1991) further supported these findings in a meta-analysis
of emergent leadership for groups with no designated leader. They found that the
frequency of males emerging as the group leader was not as prevalent in (a) groups
that had been intact for longer periods of time, (b) real world groups as compared to
laboratory settings, and (c) recently published studies. Their analysis supported the
belief that changes were occurring in the emergence of female leaders and that their
findings fit with current management styles of work teams and a flatter, less rigid
hierarchy. They also suggested that the ability of men and women to work together
in groups had improved.
In addition, other researchers (Dipboye, 1987; Morrison et al., 1987; Noe,
1988; Powell, 1988; 1993; Riger & Galligan, 1980), have found that women and
men in management have more similarities than differences in aspirations, values,
and personality traits along with job-related skills and behaviors
Human capital theory attempts to explain the differences in women being
promoted to senior management by theorizing that advancement and rewards are a
result of individuals investing in themselves through education, effort, experiences,
hard work, and training (Newman, 1993). Paddock (1981), for example, found that
53


training served a different purpose for men than for women. Men used training as a
tool to obtain a position, often a higher paying position, while women used training
to retain a position and to improve their performance in the position they held. Blau
and Ferber (1987) stated that, if women wish to advance rather than seeking wage
increases, they would be better served to acquire new skills that would qualify them
for higher paying jobs.
The human capital approach attempts to explain the differences between the
sexes in earnings and occupations. It suggests that men are expected to be found in
jobs that require a lot of job education and training; in turn, these jobs return more
for their investment of time over an individuals life. Women tend to take jobs that
only need a general education and they opt out of the job periodically. In return,
they get less pay and less upward mobility (Blau & Ferber, 1987; Kelly, 1991).
Human capital theory assumes that the investment pays off equally for all groups,
but this has not been supported in all studies. Larwood & Gattiker (1987) and
Madden (1985) found that educational level did not account for all of the
discrepancies in pay level when comparing sex and race. According to
Newman(1993), the human capital approach does not adequately explain why so
few women are in the upper echelons of management. Paulin & Mellor (1996) also
stress that human capital theory erroneously conveys the message that the individual
possesses greater control over their own promotion than is the case.
54


However, some researchers hold a different view: men view the abilities of
women differently than women view their own abilities. Calabrese and Wallach
(1989), for instance, found in a survey of male and female principals and
administrators that males, more than the females, believed that women did not want
to be administrators, that their family obligations interfered, that they were
emotionally unable to deal with conflict, and that they were too sexual and too
submissive. In addition, those same males felt that discrimination was not a factor
and that women were encouraged to apply for administrative positions. Apparently,
male decision makers believe that it is the fault of the female candidates, rather than
the organization, for the low numbers of women in senior management.
Schein has documented this difference in how males and females view the
ability to fill management positions. Early work by Schein (1973, 1975) showed
that management positions were viewed by both genders as a traditionally male
occupation. These stereotypes have implications for personnel decision making as
he found that characteristics such as self-confidence, leadership ability, ambition,
objectivity, and being aggressive and forceful, were typically male characteristics.
These stereotypes then influence the decision makers. This view of males being
more apt to evidence the characteristics of successful managers was supported in
later research by Brenner, Tomkiewicz, and Schein (1989) and Schein and Mueller
(1992). By 1992, things had not changed substantially as both genders still


perceived that the characteristics required of a successful middle manager were
viewed as more commonly held by men in general than by women in general
(Schein & Mueller, 1992, p. 440).
However, studies since the mid 1980s have demonstrated that women no
longer stereotype the managerial position as being male and in fact believe that both
genders evidence some of the traits necessary for managerial success. The
continued view of the males, though, was cited as a possible factor why more males
than females are selected for promotion. Decision makers who hold stereotypical
views are more likely to see a male as a manager than a female and base their
promotion decision on that belief.
Carr-Ruffino (1993) acknowledged the effect of external barriers caused by
social and structural mechanisms, but continued to stress the importance of
individual control. She listed masculine strengths that women can develop and
feminine strengths that they can expand. Masculine strengths included learning how
to be powerful and forthright, becoming entrepreneurial, being task-oriented,
networking, behaving impersonally, and being able to handle destructive criticism.
Feminine strengths included expressing feelings, accepting vulnerability, acceptance
of failure, sharing feelings, and building support networks. She also discussed the
importance of planning a career path, setting goals, networking, taking risks, being
aware of external barriers and publicizing successes.
56


Mitchell and Winn (1989) found that the 34 teachers, counselors, and
women administrators that they interviewed had similar experiences with career
advancement as women described in the literature on career progress. They
identified certain factors that were important for moving up.
1. Being qualified. The necessary credentials in addition to a variety of
experiences and a successful teaching career enhanced promotion
possibilities.
2. Being visible. Assuming leadership roles on district committees,
extracurricular activities, educational associations and organizations.
Experiences and positions that were high visibility were important for
demonstrating successful skills and competencies.
3. Being a team player. Women needed to demonstrate the ability to work
with others in team situations regardless of gender. It was inappropriate
to trade on gender or expect differential treatment or privileges due to
being female. Teaming skills consisted of supporting team decisions,
demonstrating a willingness to compromise, and sharing credit for team
accomplishments with others. Also important was supporting another
when they were made the leader.
57


4. Being a worker. Women needed to work twice as hard as a man and
prove twice as much in order to succeed. Their own success would pave
the way for other women.
Promotion or career advancement has been associated with individual
characteristics. But research by Morrison et al. (1987) also suggests that women
have additional criteria to meet for success as compared to men, women needed to
have more assets and fewer liabilities than their male colleagues. Factors such as
gender, education, age, race, marital and family status, political savvy, and power
have all been identified as affecting an individuals career advancement. Other
factors such as training, leadership skills, ability to relocate, and working long hours
have also been cited (Ortiz, 1982; Restine, 1993; Wentling; 1992).
Gender and sex discrimination. Fagenson (1990) suggested that an
individuals sex and situation are the strongest determiners of whether the individual
perceives themselves in masculine or feminine terms. In turn, this perception can
cause individuals to limit themselves or think themselves incapable of success based
upon self-perception. This could cause women to internalize negative evaluations or
lack of concrete feedback as being caused by their attributes and therefore limit
themselves or to mm down risky assignments needed to prove their competence
because they view themselves as not apt to succeed (Fagenson, 1990; Mainiero,
1994).
58


Sex or gender discrimination was found to be a major barrier to promotion
for women in a study done by Wentling (1992). Women were found to be excluded
from meetings to which their male peers had been invited. This lack of presence
prevented them from acquiring information and participating in discussions. The
managers that were interviewed by Wentling also believed that they did not receive
as many promotions due to their gender, had to work harder to prove themselves,
were not taken seriously, were treated with less respect, were seen as ineligible for
certain jobs, and did not receive equal pay for equal work.
Derrington & Sharratt (1993) identified other forms of discrimination that
take place during recruitment and promotion. These practices include the following:
1. Recruitment of individuals takes place through word of mouth and the
good ole boys network.
2. Female applicants are asked illegal or discriminatory questions about
children and marital status.
3. Invalid predictors of job success, such as specific length of time in a
specific position, are required in order to be chosen.
4. Female applicants are expected to complete each step of the job ladder
but the same requirements are not made of the male applicants.
5. Female applicants are asked irrelevant questions about child care and or
how male subordinates may react to their gender.
59


6. Female applicants are classified first by their gender and viewed as a
female rather than a qualified applicant.
7. An aggressive manner is acceptable in male applicants but not in female
applicants.
In apparent contrast are the findings of Goktepe and Schneier (1989) and
Hegstrom and Griffith (1992) who found that the sex-role identity of the group
members appeared to affect the behavior of the individuals in the group. Sex-role
identity was defined as how the individual views themselves in relation to their
gender. An individual is bom male or female, but may have behaviors that are
stereotypically assigned to another gender (male or female), or no gender
(androgynous). When men and women are with familiar people, they tend to drop
stereotypical roles and sex differences diminish. This suggests that in familiar
settings with familiar people gender stereotyping is not as prevalent and does not
influence peers as much as in unfamiliar settings.
Also in contrast to those claiming significant differences due to gender was
Stroh, Brett, and Reilly (1992). In a study of career progression and transfers of
men and women in Fortune 500 companies, they found no significant difference in
promotion rates for men and women. In addition, no significant differences were
found in salary progression or geographic mobility. Only 2% of the variance was
attributed to gender.
60


Stroh et al. examined whether human capital theory or the explanation that
women are "inferior goods" and have not made an investment in themselves or their
own human capital explained the differences in career progress. They determined
that human capital theory did not account for sex differences in salary progression or
geographic mobility, although the block of variables associated with it did account
for some of the variance. Education was the only variable that predicted salary
differences, but no differences existed in the education levels of the men and
women.
They also examined family power theory as a possible explanation. Family
power theory, defined as a derivative of exchange theory, proposes that the family
member who provides the greatest percentage of family income has the greatest
power for making decisions about the family. This factor had a significant and
positive relationship with both salary progression and geographic mobility.
Self selection, or the theory that women by choice choose to slow their
career progress, resulting in lower salaries, slower career progress, and lower
mobility rates, also played a role in this study, as those who were willing to move
had a greater income and more affect on their income.
Stroh et al. suggests that "doing all the right stuff had a greater affect on
salary progression and geographic mobility than did sex (p. 257). Work force
experience, human capital, family power, and type of work were better predictors of
61


salary progression than were self-selection and gender. They surmised that women
who were ambitious for promotion must continue to do the "right stuff.
Powell (1993) attempted to explain the real differences in the male and
female presence in management as due to a combination of factors surrounding an
individuals gender. He asserted that few researchers would advocate the existence
of biologically based sex differences that would affect the capability of women
versus men to manage or lead effectively. Instead, an individuals' early socialization
experiences and the resulting expectations that are set up were seen as a contributing
factor to sex differences in management advancement.
Traditional gender stereotypes were thought to be detrimental to the
emergence of women as leaders; to be successful a woman had to possess masculine
characteristics (Fagenson, 1990; Goktepe & Schneier, 1989). Gender role,
specifically the demonstration of masculine traits, was more highly correlated with
leader emergence and a higher position in the organizational hierarchy. Kent and
Moss (1994) provided further support for this theory when they studied sex and
gender role effects on leader emergence. Gender role, particularly masculinity and
androgyny were positively and significantly related to both self-perceived leader
emergence and group-perceived leader emergence. Femininity and gender
designation were not significantly related.


Leadership. Most of the studies of sex differences in manager or leader
behavior have compared men and women on their leadership styles and attempted to
use these differences as an explanation for differential rates of advancement.
Dobbins and Platz (1986) and Eagly and Karau (1991) both examined the
leadership style of men and women on a task and interpersonal level. Task style
was defined as the extent to which a manager initiates work activity, organizes it,
and defines how it will be done. Interpersonal style was defined as the extent to
which the manager engages in activities that support or enhance the morale and
welfare of the people they are responsible for. Sex differences were found only
when the subjects were in a laboratory setting.
A later meta-analysis by Eagly, Makhijani, and Karaus (1995) revealed that
in laboratory studies a small tendency existed for female leaders to be evaluated less
favorably than male leaders, but only under specific circumstances. These included
using autocratic leadership styles, occupying a male-dominated leadership role, and
being evaluated by males. If female leaders used an interpersonal or democratic
leadership style, were evaluated by females, or occupied a leader role that was
balanced for sex ratio or predominantly female, they were evaluated equivalently to
male leaders. The researchers suggested that, at least in laboratory settings, gender
stereotyping could influence evaluations.
63


Another aspect of leadership style that has been examined is whether a
leader exhibits democratic versus autocratic leadership. Those evidencing a
democratic leadership style allowed subordinates to participate in decision making,
while those with a more autocratic leadership style tended to direct others rather
than involve them. Men, more than women, were higher in task orientation and
autocratic leadership. Women tended to exhibit a more democratic style across all
settings, laboratory and real world.
According to Powell (1993), a review of sex differences in leadership style
reveals a mixed pattern of results. Men and women are similar in their overall
effectiveness as leaders (p. 167). Differences in specific behaviors such as
influence strategies, response to poorly performing subordinates, and accessibility
could be the result of mens higher self-confidence as managers, not gender-related
behaviors. As women gained experience, they became more similar to their male
counterparts in their response to managerial situations.
What differences have been found in the research have appeared to either be
minimal and situation specific or to offset each other, allowing neither gender a
clear advantage. According to Powell (1993), women and men do not differ in
their effectiveness as leaders, although some situations favor men and others favor
women (p. 175). Instead of the differences being individually oriented,
stereotyping causes those around the individual to make certain assumptions based
64


upon what they think or believe to be true about the group the individual represents.
The stereotypes about the inferiority of women managers are not true.
Powell also cautioned that this does not mean that men and women are
interchangeable as leaders. The roles that men and women fulfill as leaders have
guidelines for behavior that are determined by organizational and societal norms. In
addition, leaders become socialized into their roles early in their careers, with clear
expectations for behavior and attitudes that are then used as criteria for selection.
He found that it was noteworthy that, despite the pressures to conform placed upon
leaders, especially women, definite tendencies exist for women to exhibit more
democratic styles of leadership.
The gender of key leaders, by their very visibility, may affect the creation of
the schemas that decision makers develop about what leadership styles are
indicators of future success and which gender evidences the desired style. Lord and
Maher (1991) noted that decision makers have leadership schemas about the
attributes of leaders and these schemas are used in the decision-making process.
Thus, leadership can affect the promotion seeker in an indirect way, through the
decision maker.
Work Motivation and Aspiration. Early studies of male and female work
motivation found that executive women were more motivated toward personal skills
and abilities and current job responsibilities than toward long-term career plans.
65


The women executives studied waited an average of 10 to 15 years to begin
planning for career advancement.
Later researchers support the idea that no difference can be found in work
motivation between the sexes; rather, more individual differences exist within a
group than differences between males and females as groups (Astin, 1984).
Although studies support the lack of differences, some studies suggest that the
perception of how motivated women are is different. Women do not have less
motivation; rather, they appear to view balancing career and family as necessitating
choices and trade-offs. With women attempting and often needing to devote more
time to family, the career is put on hold, not due to work motivation but rather
because of other higher-order demands.
Studies reviewed by Booker, Hinkle, and Womer (1983) focused on the
aspirational levels of men and women. They divided the studies into three groups:
(a) those studies that showed female students had lower career aspirations than male
students, (b) studies that indicated that female teachers had lower aspirations for
administrative positions than male teachers, and (c) those that showed that the
administrative aspirations of female teachers decreased as the responsibility
requirements of the position increased. They concluded that the low number of
female administrators in senior management positions was not due to lower
aspiration levels than males. Shakeshaft (1989) also confirmed that little evidence
66


supported the suggestion that the lack of women in administration is to due to lower
motivation levels. These studies support the idea that women follow the traditional
definition of career success: sequenced, continuous movements up a hierarchical
ladder.
Shakeshaft (1987) also presented two contrasting views of womens
aspirations in a further attempt to explain underrepresentation. The first suggests
that, although women aspire to advancement, the traditional definition of steady,
uninterrupted progress, does not fit womens experiences. For this reason, if a
womans career progress is judged by the traditional model, she does not appear to
aspire to higher positions. The other view argues that women aspire to advancement
but that social and organizational barriers prevent them from acting upon, overtly or
covertly, their aspirations.
Wentling (1992) makes the argument that it is not necessarily aspiration or
motivation that might slow down career advancement but rather poor skills for
laying out career strategies. Women often realized after years of employment in the
same job that they in fact were embarked on a career and advancement was a
possibility. At that point, the woman was often five to ten years behind a male
colleague in planning and preparation for the next career step.
Shakeshaft (1987) cites studies that men and women have different
motivations for entering teaching. She suggests that many men enter with the idea
67


that it is the first step to becoming an administrator, while women predominantly
enter teaching to teach. The aspirations of the women were different, they wanted to
work with children primarily. Shakeshaft also supported the idea that lack of
aspiration is more a reflection of the different realities women face due to their
family responsibilities and job opportunities than a true lack of motivation and
desire for advancement.
Although women have aspirations to move into administrative positions,
their perception is that the opportunity is not available. Schmidt (1992) refers to a
circular phenomenon where women do not aspire to administrative positions
because of the perception that they will not be hired. This perception is based upon
observing the small number of women in administrative positions.
Mertz and McNeely (1990) examined how women who became
superintendents or high school principals succeeded at acquiring those positions.
Twenty women were studied, and two patterns emerged that described why they
were successful. The first pattern was one of work hard, be loyal, and you will be
rewarded. The second pattern was one of work hard, work smart, and make it
happen. Most of the women cited the first pattern as being important to their
success. They had been loyal to their organization, worked hard, and did whatever
tire organization needed. All of the women also felt that they fit the second pattern;
they had succeeded due to hard work and had actively sought their own promotion.
68


Russell and Wright (1991) interviewed five minority women administrators
and studied variables related to status, organizational socialization, and career
mobility. They looked at a variety of variables: early work experience and work
history, values and attitudes toward mentoring, professionalism, power, views about
the role of race and gender in shaping employee experiences, and movement. They
found that the women chose education as a career more often because of limited
opportunities available to them at the time they were choosing what career to enter.
Their subsequent success was due to enthusiasm and being perceived by others as
energetic and creative.
Pavan and Robinson (1991) found that ten out of twelve female
administrators rejected the idea of becoming superintendents. The women felt that
the personal toll the job would take on their lives and the lack of contact with
students made it an undesirable career choice. Because these women had been
administrators, they had experienced the difficulty of balancing family and career
and felt that their quality of life suffered to the extent that their aspirations for
advancement were affected. Women aspiring to advancement often find that their
desire diminishes based upon the difficulties of balancing what they found to be
important against the demands of the job.
Anecdotal evidence I have gathered in talks with various female assistant
superintendents indicates that not only do they aspire to and think that advancement
69


is definitely possible, but that they view the benefits of advancement as not worth
the gain. Lack of access to students and loss of time with family or spouse due to
the requirements of the politics of the job were the main reasons cited (personal
communication, October, 2, 1997).
Education and experience. Morrison (1992) developed a framework for
organizing how work experiences affect successful career development. Her model
includes three elements that interact over time to influence career advancement. She
identified them as challenge, recognition, and support during the work experience.
These are necessary, as well, for the development of leadership. Challenge was
viewed as new situations and difficult goals that allowed managers to develop skills
that would be needed at the next higher career level. An individuals successful
response to challenges is also used as a test to see if the individual is ready for the
next level. Recognition included rewards and acknowledgment for achievement
such as promotions and salary increases. Support included acceptance and
understanding. Morrison believed that all three had to be proportionally present in
an individuals life in order for advancement to occur, and women usually have an
imbalance. This imbalance can cause women to become exhausted and experience
failure, leading them to abandon their jobs.
McKeen and Burke (1992) found that the most common education and
training experiences individuals were exposed to included orientation programs,
70


technical training, supervisory coaching, and receiving special assignments. But the
most effective experiences for career development and advancement were being
sponsored or mentored, and being involved in career planning. Women who
reported the most support from their organization, the most training, and the most
acceptance also reported the most job satisfactionbut not the most career
advancement.
Acquiring the proper educational credentials also has been identified as
important to career development (Wentling, (1992). Many of the women in the
study were aware that it was important to recognize their deficiencies and to be
willing to get training that would allow them to overcome perceived and actual
deficiencies. Mertz and McNeely (1990) and Mitchell and Winn (1989) also
reported that advanced educational training is positively related to career
advancement. However, Jacobs (1992) suggested that apparent increases in the
number of women in executive positions was not due to more training, as suggested
in the human capital theory, but rather that they were getting a better return on their
current abilities.
For women in educational administration, the acquisition of advanced
degrees is one factor that has changed. By the late 1980s, 50% or more of the
graduate students in educational administration were women (Marshall & Mitchell,
1989). Although the number of women had increased, it was still the Masters
71


degree that was the most commonly conferred. Edson (1988) found that many
women who wanted to improve their career opportunities returned to graduate
school. By the end of her longitudinal study, 17% of the women had earned
doctoral degrees as compared to 8% at the start of her study. The aspiring women
administrators believed that a doctorate would increase their chances of promotion
as it demonstrated their expertise and allowed them to compete more easily against
male aspirants.
If, as Helgeson (1995) and Powell (1993) assert, women are capable of
strong instructional leadership, then they must seek advanced educational
credentials in order to succeed in acquiring administrative positions. Wentling
(1992) also supports the belief that educational credentials are necessary in order to
be considered for advancement.
Job experience and demonstrated competency also have been identified as
important to career success (Wentling, 1992). Factors such as demonstrating
competency on the job, producing quality work, getting results, being accountable,
knowing the job, and performing consistently were cited as prerequisites to being
successful. In fact, women were described as needing to demonstrate competency
consistently and to do it continuously.
Not only was competency cited, but the willingness to take risks on the job,
was also noted by many of the women in the Wentling (1992) study. Many of them
72


indicated that they accepted assignments in unfamiliar areas of the business,
accepted increased responsibly, and took on jobs in normally male-dominated areas
in order to assume more risk and increase their chances of promotion. Wentling
cited Korn and Ferry as reporting that concern for results, desire for responsibilities,
ambition, persistence, and aggressiveness as five of the top seven traits enhancing
executive success.
In addition to the formal training and credentials that are available from
institutions of higher learning, leadership-training programs also are offered by the
organization. Leadership training in the form of seminars, workshops, or internships
was seen by Touchton and Davis (1991) as important to career advancement as it
allows individuals to gain experience in skills and activities that are found in
leadership positions. They gave five reasons why women should participate in
leadership training activities: (a) women may have skills in nurturing, but they may
need to acquire skills in handling relationships; (b) women continue to face
discrimination; (c) informal networks assist in advancement; (d) skills can be
acquired in how to be effective; (e) and skills can be acquired in handling or
juggling the many competing responsibilities women face, such as family and
career. Wentlings (1992) study also noted that many of the women stated that they
had received additional training in management, human relations, and other job-
related areas.
73


The same basic pattern of education and training holds for women seeking
advancement in educational administration. Tonnsen and Truesdale (1993) studied
leadership training programs that focused on women in educational administration at
several U.S. universities. They found five underlying themes in the leadership
training programs: (a) increasing the number of women administrators, (b) making
Boards of Education and superintendents aware of the need for more women
administrators, (c) developing graduate level training models that would address the
needs of women, (d) locating jobs for the participants, (e) and teaching the women
about organizational behavior, sex roles and socialization, leadership roles and
styles, personal skills and other needed skills for advancement. They also suggested
that institutions of higher learning should recruit more female and minority faculty
as the institutions had relatively few role models for students.
In addition to credentials and training, the number of years on the job or
work experience is related to career achievement. Women have usually entered the
ranks of educational administration much later on the average and in fewer numbers
than their male peers. Once in, they move at a slower pace (Ortiz, 1982; Shakeshaft,
1989). In Pavans (1987) study of school administrators, women spent an average
of ten years teaching, compared to eight years for men, before moving into
administration. Pavan (1995) and Fiore and Curtin (1997) found no changes 10
years later.
74


Pounder (1988) found that the mean total of years of professional experience
for male principals was 24.93, compared to the mean total years of experience for
females of 27.93. The difference was a statistically significant and explained some
of the salary variability between male and female principals.
Age. Age and hierarchical level also were positively related in a study done by
Johnsrud (1991). Advancement to higher positions was predicted by age for men
and women. Because experience usually is tied to age, it is not surprising and
certainly it is to be expected that the older the employee the more apt he or she is to
have been promoted.
Shakeshaft (1989) noted that the higher the administrative position, the older
the woman. In addition, female K-12 administrators were older than their female
counterparts in higher education. She noted that women administrators tended to be
in their mid to late 40s. Keels (1995) found in her study of women administrators in
South Carolina that the average age was between 45 and 54, which was in keeping
with Shakeshaft's earlier study (1989).
Race. Career development theories do not usually consider race as a major
factor, yet Thomas and Alderfer (1989) suggested that African American identity
development may alter the career development process and affect the effectiveness
of cross-race mentoring. In addition, Larwood and Gattiker (1987) suggested that a
75


dual career development model may be needed not only for sex but also for race due
to the effect of structural and societal factors.
Braddock and McPartland (1987) and Pettigrew and Martin (1987)
conjectured that in addition to barriers at the recruitment and job-entry stage a
barrier also occurs at the point of promotion. This barrier was no longer overt
bigotry but much more indirect and largely unrecognized by the decision makers.
They described this as a form of "triple jeopardy" with people of color facing
negative racial stereotypes, being the only representative of their racial group, or
being viewed as a token who got their position, not through competence but through
affirmative action. They felt that this triple jeopardy was especially prevalent at the
promotion stage rather than the initial job entry stages. They explained this as
possibly caused by being viewed as a threat by the dominant white jobholder group
or being the only individual from that group. They also found that high
performance by these groups can increase the probability that stereotypical views
are used to judge suitability for promotion.
Kraiger and Ford (1985) found in a meta-analysis of ratee race effects that
white raters assigned higher performance ratings to Caucasians than to African
Americans, but they found no difference in the criteria used to judge performance.
A contradicting study by Cox and Nkomo (1990) found no difference in
76


performance ratings but did find differences in the criteria used to judge
performance.
Landau (1995) suggests that the potential for biased stereotyping could be
greater for promotion decisions than for performance evaluations because promotion
decision makers typically have less information available with which to make a
decision. He or she must extrapolate from performance ratings or even less
information whether or not an individual has the skills and abilities to be successful
in a future position. Decision makers would look for signals of ability such as past
attainments and career velocity.
Fewer empirical studies have examined whether race and/or gender influence
promotion potential (Cox & Nkomo, 1990; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley,
1990; Markham, Harlan, & Hackett, 1987). Greenhaus et al. found that African
American managers received less favorable ratings of their promotability than white
managers, while Cox and Nkomo found no differences in promotability ratings
between the groups.
Landau (1995) in a review of research found studies of Hispanics and Asians
nearly nonexistent. In a study conducted to address this discrepancy, she found that
race and gender were significantly related to promotion-potential ratings after
controlling for age, education, tenure, salary, position, and satisfaction with career
support. However, the variable accounted for only 25 % of the variance. Landau
77


opined that other important variables had been omitted. She also noted that the
study had no control for actual job performance ratings and that the survey method
was not the ideal medium for individuals to admit problems. Landau also suggested
that future research needs to uncover what other factors are involved in determining
promotion potential.
When studying women in administration, it must be noted that most of them
are white. This statement is difficult to support because data are sparse that separate
out sex and race when reporting demographic data about educational administrators.
Montenegro (1993) has done the most recent compilation of data according to a
personal conversation with administrators at the American Association of School
Administrators (October, 6, 1997). Information was disaggregated by gender or
race for the administrative positions but not in combination of race and gender.
According to AASA surveys and reports, data on race were not always reported by
gender (Montenegro, 1993).
Data reported by race indicate that 1.5% of the superintendents in the survey
were African American, 1.5% were Hispanic, and 0.6% were from other minority
groups. Restine (1993) reported that minority women represented 0.4% of
superintendents, 3.3% of assistant superintendents, and 6.4% of the principals in
1993. Restines (1993) study did not distinguish further among the racial groups.
78


The relationship between race and promotion has received little attention in
research in educational administration. Johnsrud (1991) suggests and Montenegro
(1993) supports the idea that minority groups are very underrepresented in higher
levels of educational administration.
Marital and family status. The most often cited reason for women taking
longer to reach the same career level as men is their taking time off from the career
track to satisfy the demands of dual-career parenting (Powell & Mainiero, 1993).
When women take time off and have gaps in their employment record, their increase
in wages and career advancement usually suffers and is slower than for an equally
qualified man (Gattiker & Larwood, 1990). They also suggested that male and
female managers have different family demands as fewer female managers than
male managers are married or have children. This can be due to female managers
taking time off to take care of family or choosing not to have families. Male
managers are more often married and have a spouse who fills many of the needs for
the family, leaving males with more time to devote to their career.
The timing of having a family can also complicate a womans career
decision. Some choose to put one before the other and some choose to try to be
successful at career and family simultaneously. The biological clock causes a
significant difference between mens and womens career patterns. However, this
pattern does appear to be changing according to a recent article by Armour in the
79


Denver Post (December 14, 1997). In the article, a 1996 survey of executive women
by Catalyst, a non-profit research and advisory group specializing in womens
issues, found that more women were then finding ways to combine senior
management careers and family. The women were quoted as saying that the
juggling would be hard, but that it could be worked out, and that if it is not a
problem for men then it should not be viewed as selfish for women to have the same
expectations of career and family.
Three types of work-family conflict were identified that could affect career
progress. These were time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985). Time-based is defined as the limited time available when one is
juggling work and family; the day cannot be expanded beyond 24 hours. This is
more frequently found in families with children or where both spouses are career
oriented and not enough time is available to devote equitably to both. Strain-based
is defined as strain in one aspect of life, family, or career that spills over into another
and affects performance. Strain-based conflict is usually found when conflict
between spouses about roles or responsibility to the family. Behavior-based conflict
results from by having to act in one way for the family and in another way at work.
Any or all of these conflicts can affect job performance and an individuals
perception of the worth of the career. Too much of this conflict can cause an
individual to self-select out of the career or the family. These conflicts also support
80


the stereotype that women need to devote themselves to family and are too unstable
to handle a career.
Careers and family life intersect in the lives of current female administrators.
Current career patterns, however, may be altering enough that family obligations are
not as large a problem (Goffee & Nicholson, 1994). Women and men are more apt
to look for life partners who are willing to negotiate the family/private side of life by
either delaying having children or sharing responsibilities more than was done in the
past. This trend is not the norm, according to Guy (1993). Men in senior-level
positions still tend to live traditional family lives, while women live nontraditional
lives, carrying the majority of the responsibility for family obligations, with less
likelihood of being promoted to top-level positions.
Marital status may also affect promotion opportunities because of spousal
employment according to Hersch & Viscusi (1996). They predicted that women
who moved to further their husbands career could be restricted in their search for
the best job match as they could enter a job market with little or no available
opportunity at the time of their career move. This in turn could influence their job
skills and how their employer views their commitment to the job. However, they
found that women who quit their jobs to allow a spouse to do a career move did not
receive fewer promotions. In fact, they were promoted more frequently. Past
mobility for a spouse did not permanently inhibit upward job mobility, although it
81


did influence salary and average earnings were lower: . promotions contribute to
higher wage levels for men but have no significant effect on wage levels for
women" (p. 471). They did caution that their study was based upon individuals in
one firm and that severely limited the generalizability of their findings.
Shakeshaft (1989) found in a synthesis of 27 studies that 56% of all female
administrators were married. She also found that 65% of the women administrators
were parents. These multiple roles may cause conflict for many female
administrators as they attempt to balance career and family. The ability to find a
spouse willing to share roles and responsibilities is not a reality for many. The
inability to balance obligations of career and family may force some women to
reduce aspirations, have breaks in job service, and lessen overall commitments to a
job, thus affecting their promotability (Goffee & Nicholson, 1994).
Political savvy. According to Wentling (1992), many women believe that
they do not understand their organizations political structure well enough to
conform to organizational norms, know whom to approach for support, or read the
informal power structure. They believe this is because men established the political
system and control the networks, and therefore women are not admitted to the
group. Several of the women studied felt that they were unable to get projects
supported because they did not have access to information that was available in the
informal networking and they were not good at discriminating just who belonged to
82


that group. The women also described how they did not feel that they fit into the
organization and fitting in was essential to staying in and advancing in their chosen
career.
Fitting in to a male-dominated company or position was seen as crucial to
success, according to the views of Arlene Johnson (Wentling, 1992). Bad chemistry
and difficulties fitting in were the most common reasons for releasing female
executives.
Hard Work and Performance. According to Cannings and Montmarquette
(1991), performance has a strong influence upon the rate at which a manager moves
up the ladder and how well they maintain managerial momentum. Managerial
momentum was defined as the continuous process of upward mobility within an
organization. In a study of a Canadian firm, they attempted to determine if gender
made a difference in the rate of promotions. They assumed that performance is an
indicator of capability and motivation and that promotions are based upon a
meritocratic or performance-based system. They determined that an individuals
performance and desire for promotion was stronger in women, but this did not result
in more promotions, rather the number of promotion offers decreased, which the
researchers attributed to gender as the same effect did not hold for men. In contrast,
men appeared to receive more promotions, not due to performance and ambition, but
due to the development of informal networks. It was postulated, but not proven, that
83


when the female managers showed too much ambition it was viewed as pushy
behavior rather than as the behavior of an up-and-comer.
Aburdene and Naisbitt (1992) and Wentling (1992) agreed that women
managers or executives worked longer hours than their full-time male counterparts.
Average workweeks of 53 or more hours were commonly reported as was taking
work home and working on weekends. These women indicated that they had to be
willing to accept more responsibility, be more committed, have more dedication,
and work harder than men. One managers remarks in Wentlings 1992 study were
as follows:
Women need to work much harder to earn credibility, and that we need to
prove our ability to handle the next assignment beyond a shadow of a doubt,
while men have instant credibility and are presumed capable of handling the
next assignment unless they have blundered at the current level, (p. 48)
Powell (1993) examined the level of job commitment that men and women
show toward their careers and found no sex difference between the commitment of
men and women toward their jobs. Rather, an individuals commitment toward
her/his career was better explained by other variables. Age, education, and
possessing higher-order growth needs were more strongly linked to job commitment
than gender. Job satisfaction, meaningful work, and greater utilization of their skills
also were related positively.
However, some women found that as school administrators they spent less
time and energy on their job than as teachers (Shakeshaft, 1989). One secondary
84


Full Text

PAGE 1

.>$.3.5$?. $)"$;2@0 $)"$;2@@ )"3?) &# ?." 5)

PAGE 2

B=777" #)

PAGE 3

?." #" ) "C*D* 35" EE ?

PAGE 4

$+. ? $5), .%$.$. "." '3 "(%%)% )")%( &%" % ")F+;2<2,%"#"F +;2@;,%%( "%#%&-% "%)" %(" %%# -( #$%!#% %%# %-(%"% !!% -(#% -()# %&"

PAGE 5

%$# # %#"% # #"# %# %#% %!% ?-(# $%##"#" % /%)$#!% ###"% (## ##)%#)%" %"("" %%" "F #

PAGE 6

??3 %(""G H"$$)%"%# H"$'"$#$$ %% H"$C$ #"#)"%( H"$%%"( >)##)#$(%)"F %%"$?

PAGE 7

3E>5?C "%(### ? "$) / ##$$"""%)# (" >$ ##$$)$%#! %" $? "C*#-$ $%#)"D(" $"$("%) %%(#%D" .I#%(# %

PAGE 8

3 3/. ; ?3 ; "J' < 0 .%. : ;7 ;; %( ;0 K ;@ #" ;: ;2 )" =7 ')+', =6 ?" =< =< = .3.5?. A =0 '(#/ =@ =2 L

PAGE 9

?# 66 ?. 6< ".. 60 3) 6: *# 9; *#> 9= 3## 9@ )3) 9: ). <7 .2; "3 ;;6 ... ;;2 3. ;;2 . .%. ;2M .>? .< ?.% .0 ?.% .@ 3.% ;66 3.%) ;60

PAGE 10

"( ;6@ .% ;96 %(".% ;92 $'$3.% ;<7 )"#" ;0; /%5'.% ;@6 #.% ;@: ?).% ;@2 .%$C$.-5)" ;:7 ;20 9 /?5CN ;22 ?# =77 ?L =7= L =7= /" =76 =76 =7@ )" =;= )')+', =;9 L"")' =;@

PAGE 11

." ==9 ?3 ==0 =67 ?3.?C??3 =6= ?#? =69 ?# =69 ?#-." =96 =<0 =<@ =@6 K; =@6 # =@< K= =@0 # =@@ K6 =@2 # =@2 K9 =:< # =:0 K< =:@ # =:2 O

PAGE 12

K0 =29 # =2< K@ 67; # 67; K: 679 # 670 67@ 0 335?.53 6;7 "# 6;; 3# 6;< 6=; ) 6== ?-( 6=< 66; ).( 66< 660 ..?O L??'/L35 66: 3.?3>/?N.3. 696 3 690 O

PAGE 13

; '5 9 ;.%'') =;0 9 =")')+, === 9 6")')+', ==6 9 9 )"K ==2 < ;&.#?#L. ?( =60 < =&.#?#L. -.. =62 < 6&.#.?("C =9; < 9&.#.-.. "C =96 < <&.#N"3 .?(. =9< < 0&.#N"3 ..-.. =9: < @&.#N"3 ..=<7 6

PAGE 14

< :&.#N"3 .?(=<= < 2&.#N"3 ...=<9 < ;7&.#N"3 .-..=<< < ;;&.#.K" =<: < ;=&.#.K" .?( =0; < ;6&.#.K" .-.. =06 < ;9&.#.K. =0< < ;<&.#.K?( =00 < ;0&.#.K.-.. =0@ < ;@&.#N.).? ( =@; OL

PAGE 15

< ;:&.#N.). =@= < ;2?).%''). ?("C =@9 < =7?).%''). ?( =@: < =;(#.%')'".? ( =@2 < =="->"L.%')'" .-..?( =:; < =6C-?).%' ').?( =:6 < =93.-...% ')' =:0 < =<")>(F# L =27 < =0.%')'-.C? ( =2; < =@C=2= OL

PAGE 16

< =:"->"L.$-.$ ?("C =26 < =2.$-.?(" C-=26 < 673?.%')'" .C =2@ < 6;?".%' ') =2: < 6=3?C =22 < 66?".%'') C 677 < 69.#3.". ?( 67= < 6<.#3.". ?( 676 < 60.#3.". ?( 679 < 6@"3C. ""L 67< 0 ;""?.% 6;6 OL

PAGE 17

3/.; ?3 #*$)$#$ !#P" &#!)?$ ?"$$% ) %#$% &%#* "#$ )")#*%#)# (#* ) I$($$!$$ $$#+3#4 &$;22;$C#$=777, #* #$#$$I &$#%

PAGE 18

%"$#%(I" *"+3"$/($$$4 '$;226D/%"$=777D($;2:@,$" # "% ## $#$($)+($($4E$;22;D ($;2:@, )#*!( %#$%!M%"% %$%% #*(% %$#*F( %#* )(# $%"#* "$%"" "+."$?)-'($4E($;229, '"!$I%) D")"$#* "$#* %)#)" ##))

PAGE 19

#* )*#*"%( "%%#*)$ %" >%)#I") "$&# ) ) (%## )%(#-$#-(!) # $%%(# %($$)$)# -#* #F "))#*$ "+E$;2@@, )% )##$$ #"#* #"+E$;2@@,$ ()#)%) )$#"" )$($ )Q

PAGE 20

"%## +.$;22=, .%$"#! "$"( %()%%()% )# $$#$"$" #)%)$"% ()% $# ( C)#) ")"$" ""%) "(#$"%%" (#%"(!%%#% "")+." $;229, ";220$.%# $%)$%) #&") !## "#$ R(%#%$1 /)#%#

PAGE 21

%""% %#%"%## "J' I"($ % ;2:<$%:6
PAGE 22

% $%%("% )$)$)# ###%#) I%)#$) )%%#)" I)(Q+;2:@, I %$ "$%% I( #'+;2:@,$ TR&%(%%") I" $$ I#%"1+ 90, I% T T$#$(+(4( $;22;,( I >"%) +($;2:@, U U

PAGE 23

'()% 3>+;2:2, )"$ $)%%$ "#$"%"% $"%!) $ %%%# ") "$() $#*$% %# I)$#$#$! %#$(% $%#!" )M! ##%)%# )+#",% +." $;229, ")))$ !"#$!# +." $;229, $ )"" @

PAGE 24

$#($ $%## ? %)) #+($;2:@, (F%# +;229,")" (%(")"-(# # C$%)$# %"" #&% .%. )F!%$"##J %#$+C$;22;D .$;22=DN(4$;22;, #.+;22=,$N( +;22;,$*#+;2:6,$#*) !"#% )# I&))" %$##%!% $)

PAGE 25

)%%"%% !"& +;22=,% ## $ "()$!% (F%%))" )(# ##+;2:2, %")) !)%$"!% )#*%%%) #$"#%% % $)&%P$(%#$ "P) )%)" ))&I($$ ")))" %% >))%#*+E$;2@@D #4$;2:2, $% %$#(+;2:@,+;227,

PAGE 26

") #%$") )%% +$;229D#4$;2:2D$;227, #" +E$;2@@,$( ) "."$?)-'($ E(+;229,(F %((# (%( #*J"I !#%#$% %($!$ ""# ()" "")%"# I )# I"%) %# "% #)% V#$V ;7

PAGE 27

)")##$)% )$"+( ;2:@, > !$)% %($ )"%+." $;229, $(#% "%)%() %))#% %"##$("% () ")"%%"$ %&" "%## "#$&" !%# .% (# .G># >""*# I$%M#% $)#""# %$##)$ **

PAGE 28

##* "I )#$##* %")" $ (%#)## ")# $") ))("## >%(% %&")+$;22=,$ % +($;2:@, $(%W ## #%$ #%))#+$;2::D C"4>$;229D/#$;226DE$;220D($($4E$ ;22;D($;2:@D>(45$;227, %"! "%%)# ;=

PAGE 29

U )))% )#+3$;227D.%$;226,% U I T)#*")"" #* I T)%%%) % "#"$ U"!$ U X D%)$%"(# T #%$%# D") I((")%&( I%+%$;226D4>$;226D4$;22=D T>#$;22=, )-" U"(#$" U#)% "$%I I I ("#%#) ))Q"&( ("# U" &#()" ()%%

PAGE 30

J$% I I $)"& I I # I(%"))% "")(# I T) T$#$%! I %("&+$;22=, #"%") I )""%") I % D$C"Q3+;226,$ #"#% I I%;2<@;2:2$"%)#% T#% #$%# !#E-;= T +;226, T %%) #"%%)$%#" ;9

PAGE 31

#)) # "$% #"$%#( ##%##*) $$ !()Q "))J% %"%)% )#* $ )"%$)$#" %(%#$#(" >$ "$%")M? (%)M?)$I %$%$%#$ %#(# #*M%"$" )M ;<

PAGE 32

%( I"$"*%)" T ;+;2:9,%)%(#% % %)F+;2<2,)%P T%$)$#$$! $% +)4E#($;2@<,$%+/" '$;2:=,$ D T"#"%)"'5%+;2:7,% F% %# X%"G$"$ $)D"$ I)"%&$%%$ #%" "" D%)$#$ H)+;2<2,<%$%$ I$!$# 3)%)" #"$$%%) % T%")#$$ ) %# Y "# !% I))#(%#(%#%$% T U

PAGE 33

; U #%#*## !" #!%)-$ %"#"% "$I"" )%% F+;2:9,"#"%F%% $)"$)"$" 3) "#" #"#*F) ")%"% K &"G ; >"%)) #M = >"%)( )#M ;@

PAGE 34

6 ?-%) "(%(M 9 ?-% )M < ?# %)M 0 ?#J%)"%# M @ >(( %M : > -M #" )"%## ## %&) &)"+E%$;226, )"") +'(4#$;22:, '"#" %"%"(# ;:

PAGE 35

(%()" %& .%)%#$ %$%(%% ###*" )"%#%% #%% "$% )%"J" ? (%)%%#" )"( %# -)Q %##) ')+$;2@;, )"%% )3 %& ;2

PAGE 36

3??$ %#&#Z#+;2::, &# ("$%"## # #% "%)# )#% %%#3)" %% )$ $% !##%$%) )" )"+!,% #% )%&)!)? "%") )""+!', "$!#%#

PAGE 37

")" ) #-)"%(#"% % (%) ")%"%" % ))"%-+!', -$)# )"(&%# "(" %" "%& ))$"%# %!)#G)% $)%#%$ )%# ?#% #$"$!$ #%I# #+5$;22#$;22=, %!

PAGE 38

#$"$")) !# % ))#%%##) ') %( "%%# ) 3"I$""$% "# ( $" %%###) % #"% .%(( %%"# )%(& %"#%##

PAGE 39

')+', '%#")"+;2@;,"%$$ #3# F F$)$)% ) %)% #*"+", +, 5(-"#% ) T""$)F')"# I T%% "%-) )## '%""!#% "%))%%+4)$ ;2<2,%"%+$;2@;, (#"#F ')%)"/( +;2:2,$+;2::,$/""+;2@2, %$9@#% =6

PAGE 40

#-)#% )))# )'+!,%F9@%5("##;-)#0-%" ;$9$@$2$;=$;<$;0$;:$ =7$==$=6$=@$67$66$6<$6@$96$90"F+;2@;,' %# F) "$"$ =$<$:$;7$;;$;6$;9$;2$=0$=:$69$60$6:$97-9=$ )F+;2::,5.%)" 0$=<$ 62%%/(+;2:2, ;@6; %%/""+;2@2, )6$=;$=9$=2$ 6=$99$9<$9@%&" -#)"% "## %#"% )%<< %P$$%$#$!P% <%)P$"$ )#"#-# -+"$;2@:, =9

PAGE 41

?" %&"%)" )#$%")"$#L$ L$"$..-$)%#% 3%%%##$ !$#) "$"#" %") ")%)I() #"#*#%%) ((# $%(# "%"")) '" #$" "#)#$#$"$ =<

PAGE 42

3/.= .3.5?. "! )$$#*+#$;226D$'$4 I"$;22=D$5$43"$;229, "F T!%" T)!%% T "%)( I T$)$ D)$$ % T) # %)%) T!%)#*% U"# **% T )%%)# )$$ I T))" )% (

PAGE 43

)#)%"% -(#)) )%#"$" %%"(#* )(# %$) !%" '(#/ ?#%$#( %( 3##"$$ %()"$#)))# > )"%() ))#) %)%($")) )!)$)$# +4$;227, "%%<7S%($ #;22@'5+ ?5$;22@, <0 2S%;0"#"" =@

PAGE 44

$%##!)(#%# +?)4'($;229 !" < <%#$)$!) ;2::0 6;22:+ ?5$=777, %;2@:%%= < #I #!)$#% $%#%#"+'4 .$;22@D ?5$;2:@D;22@, >)#6= 9S%#I ;2:6#9=S;226 /%)$%)# # #5%+;229,$% "##")#-#+Z$;22;D*$;2:=D($;2:@D>(4G 5$;227, #C3+$=777,$ =:

PAGE 45

% ;9S#"% )% ##%% #" "$%) ) ) %$% $"%#) $""+$;2::DC"4>$ ;229D/#$;226DE$;220D*4/($;2:@D($($4 E$;22;D($;2:@D>(45$;227, >%(I"$ (#$%(I" ("% "("%#+($;2:2, %;:67% ""#I > $%%%" =2

PAGE 46

"%%) %-#+'$;22:, % $%%#" --Q )#%%)% R1%# !$(%% #)%" "G" )#$%%I# "&$I%(# #$)%$>#* #$)() $%+($;2:@, %I% %(#*# ""$%$$ %$"%" %#( ) ""%%# 67

PAGE 47

)(# ;2=7%)%%+$ ;226D( $;22;, %$%)$ -# # %%%)##) %#-% ';2=7$%Q$$ $ %#% %&"% "#+*$;2:=D($;2:2, Z#+;2:=, $%%(%# ;2=7Q$""%!% ";267 % %)% )#"%D$ %)) $)" #*)%?# U T '+;22:,I% #""?

PAGE 48

% $ %%R#)1"%" ) '##( #%%#> %Q$$%$%% %##)" >)27S %%#$"%"## "#% ." %%% $%%%% ')%F(% (%) >>%%Q) %% C'# %#$%%#%) I" $%%"$% %%F)!" +'$;22:, "# %))

PAGE 49

##) % +,#;2@7"#% ?;2@7) #%"#% #)") ?# R?( I"%$)I" 1+( $;22;$ =:7, #;2@7$ !%( ?#;2@7$!"%%+Z4#$;2:=, #%7 0S;2@7-;2@;D7
PAGE 50

";0 2S"6 )#-# $$" ;2:7$ #%%:S$2S;2:=$;
PAGE 51

;2:<$=9S;2::$=@S;227 '";226$%69 =S % $$)$) ) -# >97 2S +#$;226, #) $#% !%# ?";
PAGE 52

#%#D#)%" 1 ER1 $")P$ #$$#)$P" (#*( ".. "#% )Q+C4$;229D .%4$;226, R)%( #)$"D%$ #%%)% 1+C4$;229$ :=, #%#*)"# )#)"@"$$# ")Q( # $ ####)$ #*$$ 60

PAGE 53

(#% %(####% #* #& %(&("#I(%%( ##)%($## (# #*$#"$#%# ##") $$$ ) "#%#%#$($-$"*+C4 $;229, #%#%% (+3#4&$;22;, $%%#$* ))$)$ #*$))(# $#*)

PAGE 54

3) "%%( %" %%(##%## /%)$"% "$" % #.%+;226,$ )))))% ))# %) !$$ (#"") $)("% $(# )+'4Z$;227D3#$;2::D3#4 &$;22;DE#%4$;2:6D4'($;2:6D .4$;220, *# *#!)")D"$#" )(#)# %( 6:

PAGE 55

+;2:0,& # "(%($$% )!$" #$###G!$ $-$ !## )%(") "%( -! )) ##"$ #I$## [ #$!#$%#6<<7 5 #"#%& %)D$ )# Q#%J%%J#% )Q 5#" % ;2@7$I"$ %%%#) 62

PAGE 56

);207 ( #+.%4$;226, ))$)" "$# ##! %#$$ +#$;227$;226D/4L$;220D."$ $;229D#4 D;2:2D($;2:2, )"*%)" %"%%!)# %% %($#$($ !%&" "*$% "*#* (#%)+'$(%*$4$ ;2:2DE4'($;22=D$>$4LL$;2:@D4 )C%$;227, $#$%Q#% )%"+4*$;229, ")))) %!IQ 97

PAGE 57

%Q 5"$)#))! )# *# "=7"%# )#R # ")"$!$!D "#$-#%$) 1+C4$;229$ :=, #Q %*#)$)%$ $#*$)&! )%+C4$;229D/$;2@0D 5)$;2@:D$;2@:D$;2:7, C*#$C*#$!$/+;2<;,+;2<@,%% "%) )# %!)" %#-)+C*# $ ;2<;,%"+$;2<@, ? $%( #%"#% 9;

PAGE 58

!%(%% % #"%%Q# #%)%#"% %#)$"%"% ##"+C*# $ ;2<;D$;2<@, )#"$ )"$%#)% !+$;2@:, %)%%## %" >%"# #%-"% 5)+;2@:,VQV( ")%%97 "$ %%%#"#+5)$ ;2:0, *#> "%" !$)( ))9=

PAGE 59

'%(+;2:7,$!$%5)Q )R%Q 1## %%$% #"5)Q $#""% #)# C#+;2:=,($)#% "!" (E#Q )##%)") & >) )$"%$ ")%#&RFD%)$)# ##)&# $$%% ##) +;2:9,) %*!#* %I% '! !$) >Q *!"P$ 96

PAGE 60

$"$! !) ##$ *!%$ "!)% C(5%+;2:@,$+;2:9,$# )% %)!%I > )#")% "D%$"# $%)" #Q$#)#% () C(5%+;2:@,) %Q(%# %GD)"D #$#"$D#D# "%# )PIP)# )$#$# ##$#I 99

PAGE 61

&("%)# /%)$)"$ )% >$%## !C(5%Q)$I"%%% #I" $$#% # >%%($%I !#$#)# C+;2:2,%" %(%%(Q" >Q# #%%( C##%% $ #*## % '%(+;2:7,(%)# )$%"$$# #%Q 5+;226,#(%#%)" !%)"" !)%%#%(") R&%("$D" 9<

PAGE 62

#D"%( "(#%1+ 0:, '$ %)))$I I%! I#%Q"Q )$%##)%Q ))%!"*$ () $#") #"$##"! )$#*$#%$" $%(+.%4$;226, #* %Q '(" "# L%#) )$)Q#$ #)% +C*#$ $;2<;D/$;2@0D5)$;2@:D$;2<@, "))%"# U 90

PAGE 63

U 3## .%+;226, Q%Q"" !%%! ##!) )% $%" %Q)G%(" .%)%) )$%)%#%( $$ % LP$$#*P %" "##%! )%$%"#$ %)%% %) ## .% I)"$I$% #*"D%$$"I) 9@

PAGE 64

%"# /%)$ %%)## $$$# )Q!$!$ #* ##%") %% #*$ %% /%)$R )%$" %)## $%Q$##)" $""1+ =77, )3) 3"$) !#)%"#&"%#$ ""#"## #$#! $!# 9:

PAGE 65

## #$ $ ##%)%# )$$" $% ) R>Q$)$ $*)1 +'(4E$;229$ 0<, $%)$) "+'(4E$;229D4LC%$;227, $P "#%P% I# ("## #$($(#$+'(4 E$;229, $!% "I" ##%( )"")%+E$ ;2@@, "(%" #*$#)I 92

PAGE 66

#+;227, %!#)$ $%"# % +,#$+, "##*"$+, #C#+;2:7,#+;227,## +#*",% )+!, ). ))%#### %Q(#( >Q $)$*$%( # >%%#(($"$ +'%$>"4C"$;20
PAGE 67

%"%J""% #C#";2:7#$" !%"#!) -) "#"# !)")[ $##*"#" "### #%)"# ) %"# )$("" % #$#"$( %) /"'+;2:=, )####(J%" #%(J%""%%% )#%#" .%+;226,)(#%# ") (-) "%" <;

PAGE 68

)% "%" '## $#"$" )%)")%### $#.% I #"" "%" $%%(%" )#*)#$ #""#" )I$## %#+/%4'"$;2::, %"F$$ ) ?%#!$ %(%""# ?/+;2:7,!"=777 #"#" "# ?.*+;2:0,-")%;@ !! )% %)$"# %! <=

PAGE 69

T%%!# T%&")#$ $$I) I T#"E+;22;,#-" I T##%# U&"###%)+,# #$+,%# T"#$+," U #%## T #%#"%($# "##"%%(# I#) T$+?"$;2:@D $;2:@D$ T;2::D.%$;2::D;226D#4C#$;2:7,$)% T#)$)$ U"#%I-() /"!%# #"*#)% ))#)#$$!$ %($#+%$;226, .(+;2:;,$!$ <6

PAGE 70

#)% # I$#"#$%%# T)" U+;2:@,$%%)(#%# I I I$"%)&%(%&" U#"#I T!% !# ##! TI&I#D$I T)))Q >(I D"#"I" $ "#"%"+'4$;2:@DE"$;22;, T/")"&"#$ 5%4C(+;2:@, +;2:<,) ")%#! # I%+;226,$&"!%" U T%%# .4+;220, "")"#) T #)% Z T U <9 I

PAGE 71

/%)$)%G)% %"%)%% 3> +;2:2,$$)" $$)%% $"#$"% "%$"%! ) $% %%#") "$ ()$ #*$%%# %)% "# "%("+;2@6$;2@<,% #%)%"#" ")(# -$"$$ I)"$###)$%"" "( )%# )#% "'$(%*$+;2:2, +;22=, '";22=$##"#

PAGE 72

IR)&#% I )%""#"%#1 T+4$;22=$ 997, /%)$;2:7)% U#"##) T#)"# )%$#$%%" T ?(%" )%("# D U 3-+;226,(%#!" $ D) #%) D#"! ##% U U%#$#$#(-$ I%(#$)#"$#) #!##$#)"$ T$##$#%( ; U#$##$%(#$(#($# %!*# <0

PAGE 73

>+;2:2,69$$ %")%!% )%# %)# ; '#& ")" !# = '#) #$ !)$#* !%#)"% #( 6 '#" >"%( %## % #!)# # #(#$ #%#$# % %# %"% <@

PAGE 74

9 '#%( >%(% )% %%) %"% .)%) '" +;2:@,##% )$% )%# #$$#$$"$))"$% )#)Q) #$($"$%(## )+*$;2:=D$;226D>#D;22=, C! #+;227,## )Q!#%) )) $ ))() %*#)) ((#" )%("#) ")%)+#$;227D$ ;229, <:

PAGE 75

!#%I %"">#+;22=, >%! #%) ( )&## #%)%">#)") "#$%())$ %("$%%$%# I$)&"&%($ ?#4+;226, (# %#G ; )(#R%1 R#"Q1%( = (#"& 6 )I$# $& 9 !I & < ()& %"# <2

PAGE 76

0 "#)% & @ ##) #C(+;2:2, /#C+;22=,%!-"# ))# !"%%))%) # )$")) ""##+,$# +#", >%%$" "! ## #%#"#) # ###% $'$"+;22=, "# %<77$"# % $#% "###" )% # 07

PAGE 77

!%"! %V#V))) %!# "!"# ##"$#()% ) %")" $!) % "!"%"! %"$))!#"$" %)##"# %(#" # )%"###" $"%"% #$#%$%#$% "$""$%%%#) # ##V\### "###"!1+ =<@, >( !$$"%$"%(% 0;

PAGE 78

T"#%-# "% T%%V# T.%+;226,! U I## 9 : I)Q# /%%)! I T#"!%"% T)#)" $)F"* U!#!% > !#)$ I#"%# #%D% T+#$;227DC(4$;2:2, C$ U"$%#"% ###*" E F+;229,)"%"! ## C$"" U#""%)"#"-) ##-)# "# #%#" 0=

PAGE 79

5 !# ))%" !) ?.*+;2:0,#"E+;22;,! "%() (" %!%#%()"$#*$ %% "%! %###) %" !%" %I%"# -""#"$(I$E+;22<,) ""!) )"$" #"$"#-$ #)" "$%)"$% !"$"%)&)" ##$"#$# "#) 06

PAGE 80

"!% !) )# "%(#$ %%" )) $%$%#( >!" #$"% #.%+;226,$)%!" )! R%) )R+ ;0@, ?) #$"#$" Q#-#$#) %#!$" # >)) $%## )# #.%+;226,$R% )$#)) %1+ ;@<, #)"$ "#)( 09

PAGE 81

%"()#) ""%# .%% # %) #)"#* $*"$% !) /%%"$ $"%$!%! #("$")")"$" ()%" %#)" 5 +;22;,()R1 -(# $(%"$# ( >() "%( )!)%%)%( I%#0<

PAGE 82

%!)%)#;7;<"# #) 5%( )%!D$)!% #%#+$;2:9, #($## %)% >) )D$")%#"# >%##) "$$%() #)%"'($/($>+;2:6, )% ")#G +,%% $+,% )$+,% )" & "% #%% ) (+;2:2,)

PAGE 83

##(%% )) %% G&$) (+;2:@,%#)%%Q ## $#%)$"$ #$%Q! $ %Q#I#"$ # )%#%) #*)#$)" )"$ >#+;22=,(#" )#%%)( "## >*"" I"%()% $%%)" ##! (+;2:@,%) )## ##"% 0@

PAGE 84

#$%%" # %%$"% %(%" (( % "I() ) #%)))$ ") +;22=,R 1%%) "% )#%) *"+;227,!%%% #&# %"%%$%#%"" % %R%($"$"% % 1%R%($%($( 1%# ""#*$%($%) #* %"D "%()"#%

PAGE 85

>#+;22;,)%)"% )$#**$ "()")G"%(!%( "$)%#$$%$)% ##"!$) % )"%#% &%#)" #) .)+;22;,%) I# % I%()(% '% $"!"#" &"! )% >#) #%" #I ))#(%) ""() 02

PAGE 86

"$")%)% # 5(%" &I%+ $$=$;22@, +;22=,)%( #*#%%(!) / )) #$#$#%(! "$%$) 3#% )%%#%#)( %!#) )Q #)" !) #%(%#) # )" )Q)$%") %!! $#I E'(+;22=, #!)%!#$ @7

PAGE 87

#$)"#$)## )!))%# $#))# >% #*$#$ IP ) &# )+>#$+;22=, "% "%%%#* %###%%)) *"+;227,>+;2:2, )#)" ) /%)$Z+;22=,## %!)%#$## "$"%## %$&) ## '";2:7$<7S #%%+4$ ;2:2, #%$%Q @;

PAGE 88

#%" +;2::," %%%)# '"#"$;@S% #:S" #% )% !%"# $/#+;22<,.%+;226,$% #$"() &#) ># +;22=," ) Z!") +>#$;22=, # "I$#&"%($##$#$ (%#I$#"%&# $%%#" "" "%"$%#((I$ %""%>#+;22=," @=

PAGE 89

"#$ "$(I"( ># E"#$$ $$##)))# !) #) ##$-##" #* 5#$%($ %"?)+;22;,) %)#!() "#))%"% #)G+,%")(#$"" &(#D+,% D+,%()D+,( &%)D+,(&# I###"#%$" >#Q+;22=,""%" )##$$I@6

PAGE 90

#%(# ) +;226, ##% ) ) ")"# ##G+,#%$+,(# '%% $+,)##)#% %$+,#I$+,#% #*)$!*$ "$(() "## ##"" )"% #$"I %(!) >)" ()#% $")%+*$;2:=D($ ;2:2, .)Q+;2:@,"$%)# "#$#"$)# .)+;22<,3+;22@,#;7 @9

PAGE 91

T.+;2::,"! %=9 26$"! =@ 26 %"#! ")"% # #)%)""" Z+;22;, )#%"# % '!"#$# "!" ) (+;2:2,#)$ % $E-;=% # % 97 E+;22<,"% 3)##%%9<<9$%%(# %(F"+;2:2, 3)"I $"+;2:2,##" )")) -# $5%C(+;2:@,## @<

PAGE 92

)""! '(.+;2:@,.#%+;2:@, II-"# %#) #"#"#*"( "VI"V%# #)"$#")#$ #)%(%#$## ) "I"%") #I"# "! ""#)%"%I# #")# "# "#"")% I#" E#+;2:<,-" %###3 $"I# #""3!(+;227, @0

PAGE 93

#I# 5+;22<,##"# #) (""))%%( /!#) %)( ?(%(#" )" %)!%J# +3!4($;227DC$.$4>"$ ;227D($/$4/($;2:@, C #))#"% #$%3!("# %# 5+;22<,)%/ "! ""$ #%#"-# ##$$$"$$% /%)$)"=
PAGE 94

) "I#)" %) 5## )%))# >"#%$ % !%## #+;226,# )% +$0$;22@, %###"# )# #)"$%%"" #+#$;226, ?";
PAGE 95

%) Z+;22;,### +;226,"#)"# ) %(# #)(# ("-#+.%4$;226, >%()#"$ %#)"%&" &+C(45%$;227, "## #)"%# #) # (#("#) #)%" "$)#%) #)#"%Q "" #( #%Q%Q /%)$ ###" @2

PAGE 96

?).+?;9$;22@, $;220)"!)% "3"$-)"#*#%Q $%%#%" #" %%&"# I###%$%($ )%%) !" "%(-"% # %-$-$)-+C4 '$;2:<, -)% I###%("D"!"=9 &"%% #))&" $"$) -"% %"" ')")#%""%"%( "I)Q % )-" :7

PAGE 97

"%))" 3") 3$%)$"##"# #+C4$;229, > (%%##"J)" "#)##% $#C"+;226, -) )")$%%) )$"#I"""#$% (#-) "#/4L+;220, "% %)Q I"I(%) ") I (%")%I /%)$" %%&I%) )% $"%&" ""%I"$# :;

PAGE 98

")##%%G #%#))#%#) %V+ 9@;, ""%) )"#*"# (+;2:2,"=@<0S % 0#+;22=,$"%) "#*Q%# #*$(%%$ % ") "%($% # )%"%#I ")%) %(#"%##I%# :=

PAGE 99

# %%"" #*#%"#)# T ; #-"% $#)%Z+>#$;22=, '" #%# U!) ; />(. #3#& +;22;,$#%#) %%"# # %%"% #* "3$"# ") -" ")Q %#%$ $$% # $ )$$ )%( %$)$ :6

PAGE 100

%#%%)%" ))R-1 +;22=,>#+;22=,#% #!)%(#)#%(%(<6%"%(# %(%(#%( %" %#"$$)$ %( #Q(>#Q;22="% %G >%("$% )"!#"%$ %)"# !#"))$+ 9:, .%+;226,!)I% %%!% %%I $)Q% J%!") #$$ ##-#%%#"(I # Z$#%($#*( %)" T/%)$%" #"I+($;2:2, :9

PAGE 101

% (# UQ# "(%($ ##$%Q" -) .% )F!%$"## J%#$ +.$;22=DN(4$;22;DC$;22;, #.+;22=,$ N(+;22;,$*#+;2:6,$#*) !"#% )#I&) )"%$##%!% ))%%"% %!"& +;22=,% #! $ "()$!% (F%%))" )(# :<

PAGE 102

>))%#*+E$;2@@D # $;2:2, $% %+$;227D$$4$ D($;2:@, ") #%") (Q"% "!#)%) %# ##+;2:2,$%")) !)%$"!% )#*%%%) #$"#%% % $)&%P$(%#$ "P) )%)" ))&I($$ ")))" %% +)%% +#4$;2:2D$;229D$;227, % )%%#%%%

PAGE 103

+;229,")" (%(")"-(# # !$%)$#% "" #&% #$% $#$(+( $;22;, (G%%) +($;2:@, I) $#$#$!%#% (%$% #!") M!# #%)%# )+#",%" )#""+." $;229, "%R"1"% )") #$"$" #" #)$"")( :@

PAGE 104

$"#*(%# ##$#$$D "# #)+." $;229, # #"$#) #."$ +;229,$")%" $ "")) (")#"# )"# # $%")#"# "!# % $$ ))#"# !)) %##%) #." ##-(#) #%!(#

PAGE 105

%"##$ #%% "")) )$!"#$!# +." $)"" $#($ $%## ? %)R#1# +($;2:@, (F %# 3+;227,($#( %&%"#)( ) #%) "(R1%#&$% %#!# "." +;229,[ (F%((# F U(%(#*J :2

PAGE 106

"I !#%#$ %%($!$ R!$( %I (Q"I1+ @:2, #"+E$;2@@,$ () # ""#%" '$$ ($%) "##)%$ $")%(# "!#$"## # 5""$$")% $#! #( I%I (#"%% ###)% ")) E+;2:2,# %(")G 27

PAGE 107

; 5## = ?) 6 &(# 9 3$&#)# < .))$### 0 & @ .)%# : ( /%)$%! "# ")) ))"")# %(#" !!# ) >)#*$JD $!!%)) %(# E+;2@@,#R# 2;

PAGE 108

")##%( #*%(")V+ ;7, +;2:2,##%"# #*P"#+$#$#$ #*#+$"$%(!$%( ($ %#*#"$ %%#-I% "%-I )#""% ###-I 'I" $&#"%## "%##*% #"(" !# 5%C(+;2:@,% #%"(#)I "%) "##I+.%$ ;2::$;226, )I#*")" ##+E"$;22;, /*##"I "%$## 2=

PAGE 109

% L##%# I%##-)%% "%# %#C#Q+;2:7,)#*)# +;227,E+;2@@, )##%Q# #("% !%#* +;2:@,!%Q #*G+,)$+,()$+, $+,#%$+,%# ($+,"(# $%$ $)""## %##"# #%I"#$$"% )(#(#%( /%)$# #"##% Z+;22=,";<$777#" #*#"%) / EQ"#( 26

PAGE 110

#)"# /## %(##(# )"%###%# /%)$ %####" ### % !#$$%$I$ %(#($%(( %)##%##;22< +'*#48$;222, # ) )#+E$;2@@D5)$;2@:D $;2:@D>#$;22=, %#" %#* #&! !)1+>#$;22=$ 9:, / ##)#%G ; I( = ( 6 ) 9 29

PAGE 111

< ### 0 (%#( @ #) ("$ % ")+#$;227D $;2::D4$;2:2, E+;2@@, +;2:@, "") "")% /%)$ "#%) +;2::,$$!"G+,( %$+,($+,#)"% ()#$+,)+,#" %%$+,-! %( C"+;22;,#G %%() '" $#" #-"V+ =;:, 3-!%I "-%(!) %I% 2<

PAGE 112

"%# "%)!+4 $;2:2, I #%##"#3 T+;22;, "$%%)&$ T%(%() $ Z U##$%)#*$"% T)# I "#" \%(#" 3#&+;22;, D%""#%I T) $$%%( %()I#% I((%"% T.%(# #*%$##+;2:2, I+;226, '""% 9 ##%"%"" T I (# %##%# U U Y

PAGE 113

#$%")"! % '+;2:<,$%Q%Q#* %($%%#") %Q%( 'Q# (#*"$%% (" +;2:2, -##%) %# *#%%%% (" *G+,*$+,-# $+,$+, >% %%"$""# *# "# ## %#%#$ # ""?#+;226,$ (%#"( 2@

PAGE 114

9 #%#$#$$-#$ $ %)$)# "## %####" +?#4$;226$ 2, ; P&%) & # = .P?) ## .) 6 /#P?)## .))) ## 9 "(P#% ""#$ %# %%##*%( +'(4($;229, R%( 1+ @<, % C%#*)) ) /%)$# "" $ ""$ (#+E$;2:2, 2:

PAGE 115

%#*###" !#* )+4$;22=D/#$;227D>"$;22=, $#* C">+;229,$!$## )%"$ !"#" ")" .) )! )#) -"! )("# )# #)$" ))$%""%% ))+)4C($;2:7D .%$;226, $""?$3"$!+;2::, $%)%)% ("$$ $ %" #))" )Q 22

PAGE 116

#"$%)$) >(#( !#+% )),%#"## E+;2@@,"#%)"#! %( #) '#)!"& %! #$ #%) '%!(%# (%#) #):% 0
PAGE 117

##"$% )%")" %(# ()#)" %" ($)#") $"""& #"%(#+.%$;226, %" %"")%(%$ "$#%( "!")&$# $ $%(# !##$""") #%%")" )"%))$% )%#" $%) %"(%"%)%I #"% %#Q% ))$# +.%$;226, ;7;

PAGE 118

#%(#$#"# (%#! "")%# #(## % # ""%% # )$"%( )%) >$) ("+E$;2@@, E)$"$" % "R" I$%$## #$#(%$$ )$)Q) #"1+ =90, .%R"*1+ =9@,#*I#%% >) )#"% )"I")% ;7=

PAGE 119

3+;227,#$%EQ & +;2:@,$#) #%(" 3E%%# %#"$ $! %" ""%%#" #"$# $) )%# )##*) %"#+43"$;229, "#$#( )### (+;226,# )"#""### )) "#) #I# $) "I#$($ %I#%%"$ %)"$%%-)I% ;76

PAGE 120

%%#I# %! ##( ""#+;22=, )Q#%("# %%-#)" EQ+;2@@, (%# I""# "%$#%("(F %) () %I%$ #(" .%( %() (#$"(#$#*$ )" +E$;2:2, ?")%"# Q#QI+*#$;2:6, >( )"#" #+($;2:2, )#" %% ;79

PAGE 121

I *#+;2:2,N(+;2:2,### ")%(# #( $%% /)#$$%( #)#&*$ #$#$###*$# %#* #QI( $%)"# >$%)$#($ #)"(#"(# +*$;2:=, $R(1$% "%#) (#%#) )% #+;2:0,$#)$ #%) )$ %* ;7<

PAGE 122

#** ####I / +;2:9,!)#** ###%%" $###* "$"" """) !)%# $##* I#)##% ### !G$% )$)#%I)" .% .%)%#*% !%"#I I$)" I$")%# )#* #/.(+;2::,%+;226,$% )%" %#%#* >) "(%(!)I ;70

PAGE 123

?( *+;2:=,##) #)"%#* )) "%" /#*)$) ""#(" $%%%#% % )$)" )#(%#%% R3"I"!% (#*"1+.($;2:;$ ;2;, (#$ %"#*$%" ""+." $;229, '"$ $ I"I% !% $#* #I (# %$""$#))" ;7@

PAGE 124

####" #I %"#%( )%))% ( $(%" #"% $"#-" % #." +;229,$ #%% ) &" >#)"# $#%%"(% )# E+;2@@, ##$%%"$ %%+," # "!% %"# $%$ (&)%%%% ;7:

PAGE 125

$# 5+;22;,)## !" '" "# $&! %"#$$$% .)$ "#* ?)-'( .+;2:2,##* "" ) $%"#$%$"$$ I#"()I 5##$#*$" "#(# #*)) "#* "(F I%)D"$#"$ )#*+E$;2@@, #* %) ;72

PAGE 126

)"##)) #* )*#*"%( "%%#*)$ %"+.$;22=, #F")) #*$" )%)## $$#"#* # "+E$;2@@,$() #)%))$ #"" E##$" #$(")#% )%() # %#%$# #*### )# $$#$"$"$ ##)%) $"%()% $#( ;;7

PAGE 127

" >"$( ")"% %"% ? )"""( )+.%$;226, .%I#"$%%( $%(#" 3)( "# )%%%% ("%(#%" (% 3% ($%"% ()% -%% )% $#)"%$ "( %" %%%(""# "#"%()% )"(#$)QI %")% ?(##%% ;;;

PAGE 128

!#)Q$%! $" G"$$"($( $ I T"%%)J I I ()%" T T( (%&"# %%"(" T##%% )+#"E$;22;, >%%(% U I( ""()#I T#* >%"##" U)(-## I $#$ T"## )%R -#!""%# I T#1+.%$;226$ ;<@, >% %!)$# $%#%# ;;=

PAGE 129

"#%#D" %)$# "")#$% %F# "3 ") !!%#%# #))" R)($ )(("1+%$;226$ 606, $"#)% )#)# (")"'(' +;2:@,"$$-%() # !$% "% "# I$%#(% !)%# # %+;2:2,)"!"" %% ""$$C#!%Q ;;6

PAGE 130

&I#"%% %##R%$ %$"#%)D# TI))R+ @, I I $"F#%## U T!)$ "" I I (##$#$"*# )%!! # I ##%! U I %##%#%Q% T T#"## U I ""#"## "%%% I )&#+5%4C($;2:@D I5%$%I(%("$4$;2::, #Q #)%"% T%)%)"#)""% U(% "!% )%%# ;;9

PAGE 131

L%"#%)# ()$) #% #! $%")" $)+4$;2:2, R##1)%"#% $)%" %##+' $;2:2D 4$;22=, /+;2:6,!!"QQ(1 3"#%)#)%! #[ /##"# "#))##))" %%)& +;2:@,#"Q ("( ?()##* % 3 #)$$"#"$#" ." #""#$ ;;<

PAGE 132

%#"")#) ###" )("#%# ( #"% $### %" 3#&+;22;, Q"+;2:2,###"%" )##$%" )$)"RQ% #$1"#) R(1R!% )%%%(#I "%)Q IQ&( R+/$;2:6$ =@:, (#"(# #) "#% ) )%$ "+C)4.%$;2::D/$'($$4 ;;0

PAGE 133

$;2:2D)4C($;2:7D.%$;227, /%)$% #))"$" ## +;2::,%$!#"#")"\V"1)% "%! R1R1(% "() #!"%" $# """" "! $%%Q# )"#& #*$%)$")%%-) $#)%# #*"+4$;229, % ##)#$#$ ## I"!)) +$$%,!) #%%# ;;@

PAGE 134

#$$# #!)#* % ($$( ##)$$"$" % #+4$;229, /"(+;2:;,5"+;227, !%F( #)%*"$ "%)%( *% )"*! )" "#* )%)# "%) $#/"(+;2:;,$ %%$ *$%R# 1 ;;:

PAGE 135

$R#1 "$%( I"%% +*$;2:=D?#4$;226, #*)" %%"(( ( /#+;227,5"+;227,##%) #"# ... !%$ $%" 3. #C(+;2@0,( +;22;,$" %;207 # %#% ))%# ;;2

PAGE 136

"))# +?4($;22<, $ $#"" "#+*$;2=, $$"DD )DD %"" "$ "% #" 5)"%) > )"%% "%% %+>45$;227, #*" #*#)$#" >I"%# %#)$) %" *+;2:=,%%% ) ># ;=7

PAGE 137

!)" )#% ")T *Q# U;227 #+;226,$%69 =S T$=9 6S$"@ ;S T T"+=777,%%% I;9S$ I. .)%)" )$$ )#$#$ D$"$$!$%($$) "#%)#*+3#4 &$;22;D/%"$=777DE$;220D$;226DG?#4 I$;226D>#$;22=, ; I#$ #$$##I&$#% )# &# $##$)#$ U ; ;=;

PAGE 138

)$( +3#4&$;22;DC4 $;229D*$;2:=D>#$;22=, $$!# ")# %)(#))#) )%+-$;22<, .+;220,) )Q&$#*Q $#"Q(" (%#" %))$(#) )()#% .%. $%#) M&" )!)"% (" )$% &!"$# ;==

PAGE 139

C#+=777,Z+;22;,### )")") $!% "# % # )$" &#* "" %#*"$ )")#* RK)% !") &("#1+.($;2:;$ ;2=, .%#( )#)##)" ##+*4"$;227, ) %#)$ %&% #* $$$ ("#" ;=6

PAGE 140

!--$## )!% -!!# ?&"# IM""%#$% ##))## >) (" #%"") ;=9

PAGE 141

3/.6 .>? .>U3""$"%"$%" "%#" ?") #)%M>"M?(" #""%M%)# M?("%#M+Z%$;2:7$ 6, Z%Q!!%I"# %()%% % "# "R%1R% 1.% #R#%1 R% 1 #! #)% % %( '#%C$#(Q '$%%G#$&#$# ;=<

PAGE 142

R.%&$" R+N4E$;22=$ 6:;, I #)" "$ )$!%%($% &$%)Q) ###%%% "--"#*"!# )%%+'$;227D3##$;2:2DE$;2@@D >#$;227, +;2@;,R#%" #$"I%($ !)1+ =;, % #!%#* "" ?.% ###%")%$ ## %" "#"#"# ;=0

PAGE 143

# ")#" )+$;22:, ?% 5%#"$R%Q"%" V ##$ )# %($ 1+ <27$$;2:2, !?"+$;22:,%V $" V+ 022, %%)5 VVR$1%"#" # )"%"$$)$I) $$$$#"$ "#" #+;226,$R) "(##% 1 + !), .%)" "$$) )#R%1) "%)(# ;=@

PAGE 144

I )$#$#*) >+;29@, %"%! /%R"% T%"%$# I ; I%"1+ ;<=, +;26:,% R$1%'+;2<7,R" I" 1?Q+;2<@,$R%)'! I I#'#'%%1+ =7=,$ ; %"#* I") ? TQ%)' $%)$ T$!$%)) T$!$"$ H$$) R> T%))$#$# U#*#1+?$ 0, /# $$ %$ I($" R%)1+3%#$ ;20
PAGE 145

+;2:<$ ;@,$R%1R#" 1%"(% '+;2@:,$% "$%I$'+;209,$ $!# E"+;2<2,%!#% ))#))Q) '+;227, %Q)%'") /%)$' )%$%)' ') $!$)#)$' #(%#Q% '+;2@:,%)$%$# / %)#%G)$$)) % /#%?Q+;2<@,%(% ##%(D+,D+, %#**$+,%))% /R%%% %)%)) %"!%1+ ;@, /#% 'Q+;227,%# ?%#+;220,%V ;=2

PAGE 146

"##%"%"%% ; %!V+ <6, T ?%#Q%)Q$% #$#)$#*$$ ))#)##%J% '""# I$"##% #"%(%"% T%R")$ T##*$$ T )1+ <;$#4$;2:2 #%%# T E+;2:9,*#+;2:6,#$% ; N(+;22=$;229,%R 1$'+;227, T T#$#%%$ I%%$ I T% /#%" ; I"! $%%) M ] I%) I I%)$J U ;67

PAGE 147

+;226,% ### )# R#)"*# $#$#1+ @, # $%R)"#"% %$)1+ @, .%$ $"%)##$%) %"% R.%"" )%"1+ ;:, )##G% $""$&) +,$ "%) > #$! ""%#% %")!%#" %)%"%#%### "#!# %#%"# %% # ;6;

PAGE 148

#%#%$## #% %%# !###%%$# )%% "% $%)$!# %%)J%#)# "#!# %) %&"# (#%%""%)$% "$&# #"$% #+;226,$$ "$"" %)"% #$"$ > ;6=

PAGE 149

)$)%%## 3.% "%)% P#)) 3+;2@7,% R%% 1/%)##) $#%%##% R#) %)))$*$% )%*"*$$ V+ 99, #)%! #%$R%$% "1+, #" )#%R%$1%$)$#$ %"#*"") $%)#) %#)" %$""$ %!#)% E+;2@0,$ ;

PAGE 150

!$$!#$ %)# $""% )" #"$ !%%) %%# #%)"$" # E*.+;226,##Q %#;22=## L%$.'$ "%)%$# %"% .+;22=,)## %#*)#$% %#*Q" ( #(#%% )(#%%%$ )) #"$ )#)$)#%)%% $($ ;69

PAGE 151

#%$)$#) "$)%) 3 +;2@7,*)%V*$ $V"## #*)%"" #*#) #$Z%*+;2:7,##R#1 %#%#)# $E+;2:6,(%% ) ##$)$ "#*!%) %!#% %)# .+;2@9,)#(#% )) >!#% #*#$% %(####) ### %# *( % ;6<

PAGE 152

>%%# !$)% %%&" !)%% 3.%) ") )%)))% $" ))))%)% I(>3)*%% "Q% '"" *$)!% I("$"#"+#,$ #"$ >"$!(" ")$/$*$ % )!$"$ +$;226, .%!VQV "#" ;60

PAGE 153

"( %)))% %#"(%## )%% E#+;20:,)" %##%$.$$ #) %# % .$%%(%#%# $%% -(#$ ".$% $%)$%% $#%#"%% $ $%%#%# #)" $$%" % #%#%)% #E#+;20:,$%C%$ #% )Q+;902-;<=@,%#)# %J(%#% %(#I)"

PAGE 154

(+#$;2:7, / % )$"+;226,$%D$ ## / )"I$"% T D$%))# 3%" )D%))$ T$#%# $%#" )Q% I T%"# 9 %"#"#$%%& %%(%% 5(% %#$$% ;')%)% )%%% (#%I)$% )% %%" ;6:

PAGE 155

$"C($#% #+$;226, )Q$% )%%>% '"#3+;=;<,$%#")#% #"%###) /%##) .%%""%* %#+$;226, /+;<::-;0@2,#$ #%"## )$)"% / %%#$ % %$&" %# %%$%) )# #"$%# %$#$"& "%# # /)$%#$% ;62

PAGE 156

"R5)$1% ^ T U$)#%(# ; I ; T%))%$/#$$ I T))#))#"$ I5) )" #) ))$")%P U# $%) U#"" "%" < )#"#)%% U T#)+$;226, ; I##%#"%)$ T%# '#*%$ U#-#(% #)) /$%%%% )/%%#%" ) % $$ ;97

PAGE 157

) "%")/ %" ')/)%%#) $%* #*$%) '+;:@=-;2@7, #)$(# #* /%$ I#"%"+;26:, /) %$%"" I /)% $)$! % /%% %#%".%!$$ ) )"#"%) $%%% $%$%" ) #"$$ %""#* #* % "$% ;9;

PAGE 158

#*$ %"#)% %#D)" %%D(% !)" % /#*# %%! *+;:99-;277,)# )#"#"#)% %" #$*%Q ) .%)-$( %Q"-* #)% !)# *%"#"# /Q!#)" /)R%) % 1+#$;2:7$ 2, %%# )%)!?% $$ ;9=

PAGE 159

*Q%%" %%)%# $% "%( #%$ )(#%% #") #$R"%# #$"$1)%% % *F%(#"# %()"#" *$"$+#$;2:7, ($)$/$$*$ ")I"># $"#"$#"+'$;227D $;226D#$;2:7, ))# ($%))#" I.% #?%#+;220,$%I)%%%)"/;2<6% #;96

PAGE 160

" )%#" %%$$ $$D" #)% >"#" ")$")#$#)% #"# ?+;2<@,%N)% "/Q" -(#((# /Q .)% #$#$ %#)"# %") $"#""## %%% $# )"#"% .%" #!# #>#+;227,$# )%% .%R1 R"1# .%%#$% ;99

PAGE 161

)% !$)$(" %# .)R%)1R%1 !%% R.%1 "#$%R%)1") #)# +>#$;227, 5(Q+;2<2,)%$%"F" #$#%))% ) %"#D)%" "# 5(#%)#" %"# .%$$%"*$ V$V% C"+?%#$;220,##$%% I"$" ) ) C"#"%%% ## ;9<

PAGE 162

$%%)$ "%") ## >)##%" (% %#$V" VV'"V #$QX +?%#$;220$ ;0, (#! )")##) D-"+$;2:7, % ""# -"(5Q ") )(#) )(%(( %") %)"#$%! $ %#!%) ;90

PAGE 163

)) # #%% #$%%$ "###* #% # #(%#%( # $)QR%R" #"#%% +;27,RQ %)"#$%!%I )%!1+ ;<0, .% ))))) $)")% )) +;226,% #*" %%J% / )% %" %$)$ ;9@

PAGE 164

)) $")"(% )$$$"( Q%(#%+, $+, "!$ $+,) $%"(% %! .%$#$)%") .%"$)$"$!#" ##* #+$;226, .% $ "$%% )" (#% #"#)%$" ))$"#*) .%$!$"# #$ #"#)%)%#% ;9:

PAGE 165

)) 3#) $$+$;226, %(".% _(%%"*)"%"$ ###")$#$#*$" %()"G)$$ I#*$ !%) I + I%)%%)") ) I%%) I I)"%G%-!P T%P%$)$# !#%$ I T))##%% #%%% )#%#% /)#% % TCE+;2@7,%) $)!#* ;92

PAGE 166

$%%)(%# )!$)-%#% '%$%#% )Q%%)% ) $%)! )"$%#$)$ )")#) #" !%))%$" (""%% $# #%%%%$ T T")!)% T $'$3.% ; I %##%)"# #*#*%%)% %(#% T I##$$#*$ I $(#%%) T$I$*F)%% T < I%%$ G U ;<7

PAGE 167

.% .%)Q$ "$(%#) ")%%%&" #"%%)%"% )Q"$)$) +?$;2<@D*$;20;D3$;2@$;29@, %&(" #'+;227,$%%FR#$ $""$#$ 1+ ==:, %#"%))# ##*$"#)% # % )"#%# % .%"))Q #" !)% "%J%"#%" %%(F %#"%%%$ !% >%%M# ;<;

PAGE 168

"")% %-%+'$;227, )"T$%%)Q#)!" "# )Q)(%#% # "8+;2:0,)##)!" #*$" "I .+;2:;,#($" "%!#*$ )% "(#% )(%%%%#*( )#(%# .(%!%"$ #!%+4)$;2<2, )Q(%#(%# ") ("$##4 +;2:2,$)(" ;<=

PAGE 169

")%) #*% % #")%)".+;2:;,$ 3%#+;2<2,$N(+;2:;,)")% ) "% )"")) )& N(+;2:;,%%$ !$)$$" .% ##$$% )%"%%% % N(## $%## ##%#%& %%%#!" )&")") .+;2:;,%# ")) !%#) %")Q+;2<2, ;<6

PAGE 170

%"%%%$)" #)"$" .% +;20=,##% )$$ )Q%#* .%)% "##*+*#$;2:6, #*) +.$+;2:;, 3+;2@9,%% Q( ) #* !% % $%% #% # 3"#*Q % !% #*)) )% "Q$!$%% #%"%" ;<9

PAGE 171

Q#*) #*#* .%#!%")% #*%")+ 43$;2@9, $%%#* )%#%$ #N(+;2:;,'+;227, 5%% #%I +43$;2@9, %%)" )"$)")"$"" 5)"$ )")%#"#*$ %#J#*J% )%))#" % /+;227,%Q ")J%)% +, ")$+,#( ###$+,)!""# #!) ;<<

PAGE 172

)%")+;2<2,$ %)Q#*G#% "%)%) )% #*% ))"#"( #%%+$;2:0, %) (&%%" )# %(% "&%)" % )##* )# #*Q#+'$;227, % .%%$ %"+$ ;226, $""# )) $ $#$%)" %)%#( ##)#G %%$%%$% ;<0

PAGE 173

)%#%" # "I#%"## )$)$#* ##Q (#$ ##)$D%$ )% +;226,==%G ; ## = ##"P(##" # 6 (P#"(##* 9 "# < #P# 0 -#P))# ") @ #P#" ;<@

PAGE 174

: )#P#$# )% 2 #!P%))) %# ;7 #)#P#($$ % ;; #*#P## ;= ##P)#%"%% ;6 #*P## ;9 )"P) ;< &&P##;0 *P##" ;@ #P% ;: #% ;2 ##P## =7 P)#*) =; #"P##"$$ I == ##P"#)% (%%"(" ;<:

PAGE 175

)#* #GD$ )%;9$2$9$ ;0$=$;7% >$)%;<$;@$<$0$;=$ =7$;$6$;7 %$%"==$$;:$@$ ;;$;6$;2$;= ##)% R#%$) #$# #$#$!# 1+ 96, % % .%% ""$!) $))$ &+Z$;2:6, I.%) ("& %%)" ## +;2:2,%) "I"% "%)G% Q% ;<2

PAGE 176

")Q%$%!% %)%"#%% )% %)"% "%#* ")%)#% /%)$" #!)#%#(%# !%%"" % ")D"#") %))"! % %"#")"* %"%"%" "##%""G (#( !%"% #%%%() (%#! "##%#)) G$% %%)J ;07

PAGE 177

!%#$%Q) #*$F% % )!% )%%$% I +;20;,$$#%#)"$$ /" I )%) %$%)%" D %) )% T#)")% .+;2<;, T%$#$" Z T )"#" U G)+;2<2,)%&(" #%" #*% )G U U; !%-'QQ = %P'Q%$$ (# 6 %%PQ")%' ;0;

PAGE 178

9 3)%P'Q' %Q% < 5#%P*#*Q #Q)$'QQ# /(+;2:2,$.+;2@9,$+;2::,$ +;20:,%)"#" +;20:,$!$)!% )%$#$)%) #* .+;2@9,)Q &%)% ) #) )$!% )#" $ % +;2::,$%)$# / <:%!%) /%"% #%#%% (Q% ;0=

PAGE 179

T/(+;2:2,% Z T"#!)"#""# I "%#" #)<77 T) %G ; !%")$ (%#$! = %")# U I) 6 5#%"# T#" T9 %%")%# %)#% T< 3)%")# G# I% I I'+;227,)"$ ; TR !)#"%%$ T!%$%$ #V+ =6=, $)%%")# ;06

PAGE 180

%D"%#% %% %%"% "+'$;227D4'$;22<, )%$ #% %%$ #+;2::, !%% )# %% )#$I$%( $##$#!$" "$#$)(# #+N($;229, %")Q)$ #&$ $%%+N($;229, C"$ )%)#Q +E$;2:9, /'%+;2@<,) %% #) /%)$%"$) $ ;09

PAGE 181

C+;2@2,#" %#)) I ) *#"+;2:7, I%%) U I '+;227,##)%%% T%)$ U%")) T U" /## + U)Q%#Q )" U T) /%)$$#'$ I U% $%%)$# T"""" I !% #+;2::,$';<2@#) U!%$V(%#% V T))%$(%#$% T#!$#$% #E+;2@0,$!%#Q %(%#" $# !(%#% I ;0<

PAGE 182

#! !% %% $*#$(%% #% E#>+;2:7,""# #!(! %%!# #"55+;20;, +;2:9,3+;202, !%%"% !"")"%$ #) 3)% )%)%" %)+4)$;2<2, /%)$#Q #)$$" )+E$;2:9, #)# +;2<7,$!$") %"!)) ) !)"#*Q ;00

PAGE 183

#$)$)$#)% %%$) )% )"" )+;2<2,"" $)I$" "-F $##"$#" + :=,%)%+$;2::, 3"))$ $))#%) % >$$)($$I )% #%)"#" % #E+;2@0,.(+;2:<,$ %"$) ")%$ )"$"%$ #)$)"%)) ;0@

PAGE 184

#%+'$;227, /QC"! ##*% 5#% ;2<2$)#% ##G+,)#) T##!%$+,"# I!#"$+,##!"" T#%# #>#+;2@2,$% T)!##%% !#! U)"#%) '+;22<,#% I)")%##! ## # T)#*# T!#%) +'$;227, "!%% ) !"% U#)"))##)) ; #* 5"% ;0

PAGE 185

%)) %##$ U$%($#)%(#$% (%%(% ) #%) E+;2@0,#%GR#% %*)#% %$")$#)1+ ;;, $"#") #%$#($)%% #%") )## %$(%%+'$ ;227, "!(%#) (#%% '##% "#$L#+;2:0,#% "#) L# #%G+,#"(# ($$D+,# ;02

PAGE 186

"## D+,#%#(# D+,(""D+, #"(#&D+, #)J&D+#, #"")D+,#" %# % #N(+;229,$% )#"" #)%")#%% "$%#$ $%)"" %%$I#$ # '%))$ I##%! % %#) )##%$$#% %+4'$;22
PAGE 187

%% % )% #"% %$)"##$) !#%1+ ;;, U.(+;2:<,)" I %% I "%#% #'+;227,$) #!%%"!" I I % "% H% X %)"$%)'$ #")$(%J% U"I) I%%#"J T#(J) U U&%"" )+;2<2,$+/"4'$;2:=D)$;22=, I %G /%)$ "#)% ;@;

PAGE 188

% (#)Q% $+;2:9D;2:2,)"*% %"%)$# $##$%" $E("4+;22;,$$R #%-"$%")%$ !#)$%($ %! 1# %% Q$ T"R#1+$;2@;$ =2, / )%) %#)Q% R#Q "Q)1+$;2@;$ 66, /) %)" R"$% "$)1+$ ;2@;$ 6@, %%) ) ;@=

PAGE 189

/%5'.% .%)$($# )% )+$;2:9DQ'4/"$;2@@, )%"% "$%%"(#)""$)) #*#")%% 3+;2:<,%$ %)%%$%% )$)%Q "%%% "$%"" % %)%"" 5%#%$%! %%%# #.(+;2:<,$ -$-$(%#) ; % #* %# # ;@6

PAGE 190

;6")%$#( )%#)"$#%# !#%%Q % (#!#%; 0 %($(#%%G $6 6D%$9 ;D)$9 0 .($%)$ (#(#)) %#-$%)"$ $"# ?)Q%#% 5 +;2@@,;="$)# $#$)# / %)%+4)$;2<2," !% 5% %("%# /%"(% #%$% %%"# % !$!%" ;@9

PAGE 191

%!%$ !%%#( $I( U#I"$#!% T )%%""% I""(#-+/$;2:, I/F" I)%$#Q%$)$ U# T)E#(+;2@<,##%% "%%")&#" T ") ")"") U) E+;2@0$;2:9,E+;2:, T!"#%$(%##% U ($(")%$ E##"%)%# U)Q#Q$ U I("$%% T#% ;@<

PAGE 192

$#*$ %) #'+;227,$ ")%%"# "## $ #"$)% #)% "% # %)%%$!%"% !%%#") )%))% )+))$;2@7, .(+;2:<,)%% %" % >(#%$" ##"%%# >#%$% ) %) ;@0

PAGE 193

'+;227,$%)$)" )%)Q!%% Q$%#" C+;2@9,$+;20:,$N(+;22;, #%!%#)" Q%%( >+;2:0$ =:0,$'+;227,$*%% ##R#%!$ %# #%! ($) 15% %)#" #")#%) )Q;2<2%-!P %P%$)$# >% !)"#))$ # "$% "($"#$ )%("% %% #%$ ;@@

PAGE 194

)"% >%%$"! *%"# )## 5#%" 5%"%"$$ %% %% (*%$# $!##)$(##% #% %#"%#% )" !$. +;2:;,%%("* R %$+,%%) !%$+,# !%D+,("" %%%("1+ 0, %-$## ""Q%)% +$;2::, ;@:

PAGE 195

?).% )%))# #)Q$)# )+#4$;2:2, ) #$%)# ?# $)%! %###%(# $%)%I #% %""#% "% '+;2@:,"*#%#* )"##)% %#* )##+,#I ($+,#"#*+, % )) %%)# "F$)) %)$(# #D#*$D $!" ;@2

PAGE 196

* --%"##" %%%) ))# L+?!$;2:(%#%)# %#")#*# #)%% %&" ()! %$(%$ ;:7

PAGE 197

#)")$"D$ #*$$) ##4+;2:2,$! %)()I%" # # %&$%%"%) %)% # $#% $%&% ("!-" >" ("(% ""[ I$%I)# ) ""#-" >#*$"" "#)$# #$ -" "% > !$") )" ;:;

PAGE 198

""#+;2:2,) %)#(#$!-*$( #$$#" ")I#* #"%%"" "?)+;2@7, )"-"%( "$"%$"# ?) #"%##)$)$ I)$#& "%$%)$ %)$$"$ #%" "-! "-" )""#+Z$;2:<, )%%$%Z )$(%# #)%%%$ ###-"#% %%%+?!4%$;2@9D?$;2:
PAGE 199

%)%%" T#+;2:2,##!-"" T%) )%)) U %% "% T"%#%#*" T% ### T))""%#! %%%(# T I )$$"!#I %#%#* %""?)Q$Z+;22@, U%)#")##%" = I## /%#% I %)"#G%"%%" ] U)# %% I U$$$%) I !%""%" I T"%%% Z ` U U;:6

PAGE 200

#Z I T%%"$V!1 U"" -%# T% >IG%"$ %% .%(!" `%$+ @, #* )I#*$ I##%## U U T("I#$$ U T#$%%) I""(%# U !#*F%%( ""$%(% I)# $% #*%")()(% T$"#%#) D)+E$;2@@D5%4C($;2:@D.$;22=, T5()# )"%)%"#* I T)%+$;20=D.$;2:;, U "% U ;:9

PAGE 201

")%)#%" )" )#*%#(#I%)% # E+;2:6,$%#) )""II#*$ )%% # )%!)## (#)" "##*$E+;2@@, %%)%G+,P)# $"$Q# %QD+,P)# %#*D+,P)#" (%% >#+;2@2,)#%# "%(%"&$$ )"") "")) ;:<

PAGE 202

" K)%%6$6<2 =$=<9% >#%" #I"% "Q) "$/+;2:7,#*#" %% )")<$777 "$%%("%) "%( !"=
PAGE 203

)"%! ) % %$$%" .%)"#Q%% ")" ##%%% %+?!4%$;2@9D?$;2:

PAGE 204

#4+;2:2,#" $%#% >)#% $"%#%D #%G$"" % '#%*) )Q"## !% (% #*)Q%(%) #*%)% />+;2:=,%( !)% )## %(+'$;2:" !$%Q"% ;::

PAGE 205

%(#"% "#* '#)#!#% ") #$%#$"$)#*$ T)#% +/4>$;2:=, ?#) %() %F"I#%# $)$$# ) ) ))$%% #")% &!) (#$#"$" %%#) $"$$)# E"+;2:6,% U(#)% #% .%%% ;:2

PAGE 206

%%%" ?%""&! )# "!$% "#"$"%% % #($%%$ #"Q+Z$;2:<, Z ###%"# "%"%"#$#! $$$%"" %$%""%%$)%"" %) )")##%# %G+,%#"#% +,%"%)" 3+;2@<,##)#) )$%%") #)! "# .+;2:;, V ;27

PAGE 207

#%##)" #* 1 + :, U##%)" T%!%#% > I "% T%$##! T5+;2:<,# *")$"$#)" T$")# >$%)$) T T#*")$ T%#$%)$I)#%"+#"4Z$;227$ =66, Z+;2@0,"%%! )$#$!%% +;2::, I %(")#%"# I(#& %("#% Y(%#"%)! T#% "%" (#%!$%%!# )# ;2;

PAGE 208

/%)$Z+;2:<,%)" !%$#!(%# %$#$ "# )%$# +;2:2,!)")"! %" %+;220,"% !%&")% %" %% )## "#$* /-3+;220,#%%%# )%$ ")% > !%( &" E+;2@@,($##### (#* R"#$!$# #" ;2=

PAGE 209

")1+ ;22, E+;2::,%" %# %#+;2@=,%% ?/+;2::,%# ""=$777## )) #$" #!%##" 5%$$4'#+;2:7,$%)$ !)##% >% ("$%(#%%$ # ?!I+;2:@,$%)$# #)) $)$(%$ % #+;2:0,$%) "(%" ##* .% ##* )(&% ;26

PAGE 210

%)$%#)")% .%)% %"+;2@:, #%)#%&" (#%! %#"% #)&$&## #%% 3 #$)$!)%& %#*" )& %)(%! %D)&#%I$ #"3+;20@,$+;2:6," #F## %) .%-)) $$%!#) %%)%% #$>+;2@6,## %%#)%# %%)% ;29

PAGE 211

))$ %! ## +;2:2,#C#+;2:7,$%#) -$$)$## >" ##$##*$%% "+/4>$;2:=DE$;2@@, $+4'$;22
PAGE 212

$) )"#% # >!#% %$ %)& "%% "#%$"% $#!"$ !% )%%$ %%" ) %) ( "% ?$$$% #&% "+$;229,$%))% #*+E$;2@@D#4$;2:2," %#(+;2:@, ;20

PAGE 213

+;227, ") #%$") +F)4?$;2:9, )% %+$;229D#4$;2:2D$;227, # "+E$;2@@,$((" ) "."$?);6($E(+;229,(F %((# (%( #*J" I !#%#$% %($!$ %($ ##%%%"# )( "$ ""%" "$%I(" #%#) ))F"&( (% ;2@

PAGE 214

"#" &#() "()%% ))" & #((% "")(#) $ #$%!% ("&+$;22=, # "%"))" "%")% ;2:

PAGE 215

3/.9 /?5CN #""$#% I%%)"%) #!$%" )# %%$#&% #" ; >"%)) #M = >"%)( )#M 6 ?-%) "(%(M 9 ?-% )M < ?# %)M ;22

PAGE 216

?#J%)"%# M @ >(( %M > -M '%)!"$ %"#! "#% (%## $% )" ?# %#% $" $$%$" 3#;220;22@ $"!%% )

PAGE 217

)"%I)" ""##%# "*##)# )"#" U### II"&%-%" H"-&)"$#"% &)&)"" T T+E%$;226$4.($;22@, ; I ')"&%% I "(#%#$%"# I U ?#"%"" T(#$#$ I I#$%" '"% I ##)"#&(""$ U)"#"%+?$;2@:, )"$#?$") "# )# '"#" I%"%"(# =7;

PAGE 218

(%()"% & ?L .)" %%%") %)"& L %) %" )%#) %)% .%)#%%" )" $#%#$#$ "$)$""! I"))) )+E$;220D.4$;220D.%$;226,

PAGE 219

/" %#"%)% G .%")% %)%" (%( %"*#.(# +.,0 ;.% )"% *<:: "$)% I) % %% ?"$L$ L$=--$%" "%#) ?"%# I$-$-(F#" "%" > =76

PAGE 220

"! #$% $# ( +;220,"""% "##%#)# # 5" "$ *)=7 "(%" L %"L% )$% ) #%## )(")" +($;220, L$%)!* #) % ))$ # L% ) L "L =79

PAGE 221

L&"& 5( -!%# /%)$ ($ L# %%)" !" ))"$ U%) >#L$ WQ $" TGG
PAGE 222

3..-3 3+,%#% ))% ) #/%+;22=, L "" % %#)% L$L$-!%# "% ?"%# 3$$"# %%)+/%$;22=D($;220, /%)$ )%# #")" #" %# %) )%"!#)" =70

PAGE 223

! +3$;22:D E48($;2:2, /%)$""% %"% %% #3 ;7# )##$% )" %#35" ?";22<-;220 ?";220-;22@ -*# $;7 # #% )J ")"%)) %" =7@

PAGE 224

%%#3 ) %% )$ $% !##%$%)) ) "$%)% "J" >)%%& )" %#!*#* -&6"* % 92< #)"":7" ";=6" =:0 & %& %%#* )" $ )%#)"%" %%)%")" =7:

PAGE 225

/%)$)%")"" )(%# ?(%)%% #" !?) 3$.$#" )#))( )""() "&3=$% )""%)) #3$%"3# ?;;Z3"# ?;;% %%%"" %#) $ ?; %")" )" Z3"%# "%" -)" )%)(# ) =72

PAGE 226

*)) 3$ #$Z3"$;77$777D%$ #)677$777 /%)$ %))%#" )##P& %#%)P%)" S 33 "# )" %%)"% .(%)% "$$!) "$$## #% 3% "))))# !% # )!%#%" #* %% /%)$ =;7

PAGE 227

)"%I##%% $%I#)"" "!%)# 3%%)"&$ /%)$)#"# %3% ? "# $ b H$ U##$")" #$! "!);7 )%%#" I%%I##% % '$) T T%# "% U I%$% =;;

PAGE 228

)" ."-## "G)%)% %$%)! %$)%)% %"# %))%%%" % (#"# Q+;2@;,')+',% )"/(+;2:2,$+;2::,$/"" +;2@2, '% $9@#%# )#%) ))# ##)"%*G"$+, )%)")+?$;2@:DC)$;227D E%$;226,$+,)%") $+,)%)"")" )$<-$0@-&% =;=

PAGE 229

<+,$+, %)$+,$+,#$+, -&%%"#% "%"# $.$(&% #"$%"% #($) $')$%) ')+$;2@;,$%%9@-$)"%"!% 5(-"% %"% %" ##%#G)c;Dc=D "c6D-9D&"c
PAGE 230

&("%))% )""%)## %# ?# %#$ "$!$+# ,")% %-&% )(%"% "%&) )"%# % )"#"% %("%%# ) )')+', '%#")"+;2@;,"%$$ #3# F F$"$ %)%#*" =;9

PAGE 231

+", +, 5(-" #%) ""$)F')+'," #%%%# ) )##'% !#%"%) )%%+4)$;2<2,% "%+$;2@;, )"$"F ')%)"/(+;2:2,$ +;2::,$/""+;2@2,$" )' +!,9@%5(-"##;)# -%" ;$9$@$2$;=$;<$;0$;:$=7$==$=6$=@$67$66$6<$ 6@$96$90"F+;2@;,'% # F)" $"$ =$<$ $;7$;;$;6$;9$;2$=0$=:$69$60$6:$97-9=$% )F+;2::,5.%)" =;<

PAGE 232

$=<$62%%/(+;2:2, ;@6;%%/""+;2@2, ) 6$=;$=9$=2$6=$99$9<$9@% &"-#)" % ##%#"% )%<< %P$$%$#$!P% 9 ; .%'') .% ') K @ =@ 67 6@90 X ;<;:=6 6< 3 9 ;0 =< =: 66 629=X9< !< ;6;@;2 9; 96 6 6= 99 9@ 5# ;9 =0=2 69 606: % =9 6;97 X&29=%"3 "# <%)G$"$ )#"#-# -+"$;2@:, =;0

PAGE 233

9 ;%%))"# % %)% )%)' )&% !$"&@$=7$==$=@$67$6@$90 L"")' !##$F) ')+;2@;,%))"#! I# I#%#)#$ "$()"### )#$# #@;S "Q%"#Q "3Q% )"#D @<7 #"###$ #)" @06 %# $#.%36 =;@

PAGE 234

/""+;2@2,).%.. #*%#)+;2<2,"#"%% #$%% # %%%' .%. .%#")# # 3)"%#!I#% )" 02 "%=@ @7$%#$$%$#% <7 5.%)"+;2::,%# )Q%#F% % %)5(%###% 3)"%#"%# 3F :6 "% @@ 2;% %% )%( /(+;2:2,)% ) %)% )%%$)$#$$ =<-<-5( =;:

PAGE 235

#% 3)"))!"% I## "%#" %) @@ ')F)') &%##&$ T")"" %%# )" V%%%%$%%% #%%%V+3$;22:D($ 3#$($/#$;22;,%!#! I##& "% # +E%$;226,%"!# % #E%$# )')"$# '$%%$%I )")I#%%)$ =;2

PAGE 236

)" I#" )&%% ""I %-)")" &%"" E%+;226,$(-%( F& '")# )(#(& %%(#%%%##$% &)"$%%&( %#(+E%$;226, )"%!)"%" "$#)' )%#& $)' )"F""# 33%)" )" R "%"%)% ##%# +3(4#$;2:0$ ;6:, 3

PAGE 237

3&;#9@) )"% :@< #/$$$ '(+;22<,$"")##%7 $%#)##"# %#9 =%)" %) )%% <::%%&% &' %%"%'%"%% 3F "&)% +3!$;222DE48($;2:2, >)'%)# :@<# #"# )%I$) %"#% #$$!$" ==;

PAGE 238

9 = .%) d d ') <6= 9@ :@<7 <:= @ @760 <@: 9;9= 3 <:7 2 <=62 !<:9 @<0< <@= @ 002: 5# <0: @ @969 % <07 < <097 ?%"#$$% $%& %#)"# & "%! &2$R###%"##$1 "% >&2% 3Q%$ 0=;;% ) 9;9= &$6<$%! /%)$%%%# $%% $&9=$R#) %)$1""%$## 762: ;=72 >&9=%

PAGE 239

3Q%$ @=;:% ) <=62 %$#" )#% 9 6 .%) d ') <6= 9< 2792 "<:= @ @760 <@: < 0=;; 3 <:= @=;: !<:9 @<0< <@= @ 002: 5# <0: @ @969 %<07 < <097 9 6%#3Q %&29= 3 %) '$=%% &%' 36 &' 3# !3% &% ==6

PAGE 240

!#")") '$"%I# )")" /%)$ )"$(%# % %" ." "%()#) %#%)"+4$;2:@DE%$;226, .+E%$;226,#) )""%"" I ."I%#(%% ")"%(%"##) #(" 3%"%)#! %% ==9

PAGE 241

#)" "Q ))")" ;0#-)% ((##)" "%%#%( )" $%%(I3 $%")" "% &%%" %#$%""%$%""% %3 )%()% )") "%%%#&G ; ?)"" M = ?"%"M 6 /%(%&M 9 ?##)" %M < >M ==<

PAGE 242

>&"%M ")!%)"%) %%)"% # !"# ##" )"( #&%)%" )"$)%)" ?3 I %"G+,;220I;22@?"%")" U ##$+,;22<-;220 I35"?"%")" T##3$+, I T)"+."",) TF"%%&" U T#;220-;22@"%;22<-;220 """)% ;229$#$%" ==0

PAGE 243

# (##3%)" #9<=)"3"606 )"%#"Z3"$ 3 ")"%3 #-(# !)?# $<77)"%" @7%"## ?*%# #$-)$%)" )"Q# ")")"%"" #-)" 3 +E%$;226, #)" #)"%) )#### ==@

PAGE 244

%)% ")" %#))# )" "+!',!#&# QQ$")"+!,$ +!',$-$) % )"% )" ))% "*)Q "!%# ")" ) % #")## %-% 3"IQ$""$% $"$# ( $ ""###"

PAGE 245

##% !""$#"# (# $#% I3 ?"% ; I ";220$(## (# 9 9 )"K )" )" S 3. 606 0; 3 <7 6< @7 <77 =@9 <9 @7 <::= ) 2:6 <::07 9 9%&## T U #%)" !)" U#%! T I #)" )%)"%%%( #%+!',#)" ==2

PAGE 246

%#" >!%(3$ +0;S,)"6<+@7S, )"% $=@9+<9S, <:+:=S,)"% ) 92<26)""*) 07S >)"%$% ()" %))"3=@%) ))" % )" %#%%%% %( # "% "$F #')%) %[ #%)%)# % %)"#%)")" +;2@;,$/""+;2@2,$+;2::,$/( =67

PAGE 247

+;2:2, %)% %%&#) <& &%% "%%% ))')%3Q % %)"%% &%%I" "%)#% 2792 % ) <097#"% "$<::3$ )"." )"%"*#L$L$. .-3$?"=6;

PAGE 248

3/.< ?3.?C??3 $$*#" %")"+!, 3< )";<)#*9G+, +(#(#,D+, )+%),D+,+ ,D+,#+#$#$"$ #$", %)<::"# 3 <::# )"$92<+:9 ;:S,%26+;< :;S,% ( ""%(% $#*3% ($# "(###$"("

PAGE 249

#*3 % (" %"*#& %)## (%F(#) & ?)%$#! $)$&$-%"L$$L$".>)#$"%!# % ?#)##$#$ "!(%! 3<" )#)# %" %. ) &)" "" =66

PAGE 250

?#? %#& ##(% #%) )#$#$"$## ?# %#) ##($ ?(. # (< ; %<7 2S +=<=,#%9: @S+=9;,% %#%! %# (#$ 66 6S+6;,%$%0@ @S+0=,% < ; ))$% #"#%$ ( =69

PAGE 251

-#% % )$% )";226+#,##69 =S $)""(## % '#% # ($#%" #Q+;226,#@ ;SF+=777,# ;9S < ;%##( ##+90 2,%97-92##%<7-<2" (#!##96 9S+=;<, $0; ($ %67-62##$";; :S+;;,%07-02# # $!$)% (!# #(<7## > !%# =6<

PAGE 252

#<2 >"#$"$") (M < ; &.#?#L .?( 3 c92< ?( c26 S S C =<=<7 26; 66 6 =9; 9: @ 0=0@ @ ## 67-62;@6 9 97-92=6= 90 2 =9 =< : <7-<2 =;< 96 9 <00; < 07-02 ;:6 0 # ;6 39=::0 <:= ) 9 9 6 J. ;2 6 : /J5 =6 9 0 0 < % 7 9 /# ?# Q 60< @6 @ 97 96 7 ?;79 9@ <7 < =< < ; 0 < X&%&*# "" I3P:0
PAGE 253

%%#% %%### .@6 @S+60<,Q#$=;S+;79, $<7S+9@,( 96S+97,%Q# # % >(%#%( )$% #"#)#% ")(Q #$# %#$< ;S+,0
PAGE 254

##" %$# %! %%-I###" $("$#$% 3= /%)$### %)"I$ ")% %&"# %)$#) $#%&" < =$+<2 0S, +97 9,)" $"%06 2S##" 69 2S ##%#" +<; 6S,#97-92##+62 0S, 3##% =6:

PAGE 255

%("$ -%"3G:: ;S :9 0S)" #"%)" < = &.#?#L .-.. 3 .. c6;= -. -;02 S C ;:0<2 0 <2 69 2 ;=0 97 9 ;7: 06 2 ## 67-62 2 = 2 9 @ 97-92 ;07<; 6 0@ 62 0 <7-<2 ;=:9; 7@:90 = 07-02@ 0 < # < 6 7 3 =@< ;96 :9 0 ) 2 = 2 ; 2 J. @ < 2 /J5;6 9 = < 2 % 7 6 /# ?# Q=9<@: < 0< @ ?<< ;@ 09< =0 0 9 : @ ; &%&*# (< ; =62

PAGE 256

#"#%" %( @: #-+=0 0S, +;@ 0S,# T)%)##) ("!I $((" ) < 6("# ## < 6< =< ;" ### >(# #$(+0@ @S,"+66 6S, /%)$#$)"G9: @S <7 2S)" #)"##D %97-92 ##<7-<2## /%)$#(# #<7-<2##%% =97

PAGE 257

+##, ##(<7-<2##" #" < 6 &.#.?()C .X ?(XX C XXXXXX = <= S <7 2 =9; S 9: @ 6; S 66 6 0= S 0@ @ ## 67-62 = 9 9 0 ---97-92 ;=0<7 7;7< 96 0 6< <;6 <7-<2 ;709= ;;72 9< =;0<; 0 97 09 < 07-029 ;9 < : 0 < 2 ;9 < #0 <-" 3 :9 ; =;< :2 ==@ :@ ;<<;:: @ ) 6 @ = 2 @ I -9 0 < J. ;6 < = = < ---/J5 ;< 6 6 9;= 2 6 = % 7 9 -/# ?# Q @2 9 ;09 ;20; 6 I ?97 ;< 209 =0 0 6 @ 6< <0 < 9 :I;6 < ; 2 @ >#("#% 97-92##$"&# =9;

PAGE 258

#$)## "$"%(( #") ##$# ##+;< 2S, +=0 0S, %)#(%" 6: @S#<0 !###")" -#$)! ##% )#-# <2 0S 97 9S# ) -%69 2S06 2S .! %# =9=

PAGE 259

$#%#" < 9 &.#.e 3 .. -.. C X X XXXX S S S S ;:0 <2 0 ;=0 97 9T<2T69 2 ;7:06 2 ## 67-62 <= @ 9 6 = ; @@ 0 < 97-92 2:<= @ 0= 92 = =<9= 9 9; 6: 7 <7-<2 @< 97 6 <6 9= ; =@9< :<; 9@ = 07-02 <9 7 6 9 2: 6 # 6 = 9 3 ;07 ;;< 2; 6 9: :; 929 :@ 7 ) 6 9 : 7 2 <= @ ; @ 7 2 J. < = @ 9 6 @ /J5 < 2 9 < 0 % 7 < ; 2 /# ?# Q ;<< :6 6 27@; 9 62 @; 0< @ ? =0;9 7 =2 =6 7 ;6 6==2 0 <= @ @ < 0@;; 2 < 9 0 ?#-." I" =96

PAGE 260

."N3.? (. < <#&?<$? $ ?@ ?<(%""$ ? ("$?@(%""%" 3"# )" 3%# U$""") # $62 9S+;2<," 6"$%== =S+;;7,9-0 U" "#+;; @S,# I@-;7"+<:,;;-;<" $ T##;0" U=7"$)#9 0S=7-=6# T%%"")" T "-+=09, T#"" T";@ 9S+ ,;0-=7" !##%:
PAGE 261

!"#$"%"&%'(""%)*"&+,"&-./0+1"'%2$"%) ,"3%*"& ,"&%2$"%) ,"&%2$"%)4&)) ,"&-./0+1"'% (+&)+% )5"4&))&6 (%/0& 4"&+%(%/0& 4"&+% (%/0& 4"&+% .7"& .7"& .7"& 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 :;,"& ; ; < ; :,"& ; ; <:,"& ;; < ; < ; : ,"& < ; < ; < :,"& ; < ; =,"& ; -; > &&%* ;; ;> ; ;; 665"5*5%$."+ .&&%*&"&//"&)+ ;"'$")+%'?'$0&@5+5?"%+)@+7"'%%+)5"'&))

PAGE 262

# ## < <)($<= @S+92, 7-6"%!#$ ;< ;S+;9,$9-0" +2 @S, @-;7";9S+;6,;;-;< "$%)$(! ")" ($ <; 0S+9:,"=;--" )$!##$;= 2S+;=,$(% ;0-=7"# 9 6S+9,)%"$" S+;7 :, 9-0" ( "##" I"%"%" %) ""$I" $#6= 6S+67,()" +;0 ;S,;6+;9S," "=;f;0-=7")" =90

PAGE 263

(%##%) ( ')##(g@6 6S)#<7P )")")) < 0") (#< 0$)90 =S) "$97 9S"6" %$<: @S";0" "))%$ "$"") -$$) & %)%)# %")" N )"" %)$)#I"$<
PAGE 264

!"#$"%"&%'(""%)*"&+,"&-./0+1"'%2$"%)%')5"(+&)+%&+ C ,"3%*"&,"&%2$"%) (+&)+% ,"&%2$"%) 4&)) ,"&-./0+1"'% )5"4&))&66 (+.+)"' A+%: (+.+)"' (+.+)"' A+%: (+.+)"' (+.+)"' A+%: (+.+)"' 9 9 9 9 9 9 :;,"& < ;> ; ;; :,"& ; < ; <:,"& < : ,"& ; ;;< < :,"& ; < =,"&;> ; << &&%* ; < ; >; ;< 665"5*5%$."+ .&&%*&"&&/+01'$")+%'?'$0&@5+5?"%"?"@+7"'%%+)5"'&)

PAGE 265

-$$) &%)%)# %")" N )"" %)$)#I"$<
PAGE 266

0" < !"#$"%"&%'(""%)*"&+,"&-./0+1"' %2$"%)%')5"(+&)+%&+(%/0& :!".0"%'0" ,"3%*"& ,"&%2$"%) (+&)+% ,"&%2$"%) 4&)) ,"&-./0+1"'% )5"4&))&66 !".0" 0" !".0"0" !".0" 0" 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 :;,"& < ; < :,"& ; < ; <:,"& ; ; >; : ,"& ; < < ; :,"& < < < ; <; =,"& ; ; ; ; &&%* > >< ; ; ;

PAGE 267

< :%%) ( %%" "%#+ S% 66 2S,#;0"# #$%% 67fS#")" %!%"$% )%" I"(+<9S<7S ,)#=7f" ##))"## < :)$% %##&#" () < 2 < ;7&## "< :% #%# &"## =<;

PAGE 268

-h FAJ; 0" !"#$"%"&%'(""%)*"&+,"&-./0+1"' %2$"%)%')5"(+&)+%&+ 4"&+%.7"&:!".0"%'0" ,"3%*"& ,"&%2$"%) (+&)+% ,"&%2$"%) 4&)) ,"&-./0+1"'% )5"4&))& !".0" AB; 0" AB !".0" AB; 0" AB !".0" AB; 0" AB 9 9 89 9 9 8 9 :;,"& ; ; ;; :,"& <:,"& : ,"& :,"& : ;>:: ; < :: =,"& ::: : < ; ; < &&%* ;; :: ; ; C0"5*5%$."+.&&%*&"&&/+01'$")+%'?'$0&@5+5?"%"?"@+7"'%%+)5"'&)) DE!".0"AB;660"AB

PAGE 269

>(#%) #%"#+< ;:< ;2, %#)) ##%;7 "%#;0" % "V" "V "?## "$%") %#)"$"66 6S (% $:: =S%3 (:0
PAGE 270

0" !"#$"%"&%'(""%)*"&+,"& -./0+1"'%2$"%)%')5" (+&)+%&+(+.+)"'(%/0&:!".0"%'0" ,"3%*"& ,"&%2$"%) (+&)+% ,"&%2$"%) 4&)) ,"&-./0+1"'% )5"4&))&66 !".0"60"66!".0"0"!".0" 0" 9 8 9 898 9 8 9 8 9 :;,"& ;; ; ;< :,"&; ; < <:,"& ; ; < > ; : ,& < ;> ; ; < ; :,"& < < =,"& < < ; &&%* ; ; -< < 6!".0"&AB660"&AB

PAGE 271

0" !"#$"%"&%'(""%)*"&+,"&-./0+1"' %2$"%)%')5"(+&)+%&+ A+%:(+.+)"'(%/0&:!".0"%'0" ,"3%*"& ,"&%2$"%) (+&)+% ,"&%2$"%) 4&)) ,"&-./0+1"'% )5"4&))& !".0"6 0"66!".0"0" !".0" 0" 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 :;,"& < ;; ; < < < < :,"& ;< < <:,"& ;;; ; ; : ,"& ; ; ; :,"& :: ; =,"& < ;;; ; < &&%* ; : : ; 6!".0"AF 66 "AB

PAGE 272

I#I@"@7 2S# ;0" .$ %&;# ;#9 %&#)#) ;#9#$ ($#%($ &<# %#" %(%I" %"#" K %"%) %%%% %&#%=<0

PAGE 273

. .)'( "&)$( $%#"% K $V V %% %-# ?%%#&;-9 < ;; "& .&$% )%& #%& <::$: 6S+92,%)"(# "%)"$";7 9S+0;,% #( $;7<)# %"$ /%)$@0 9S+992,<::%# (% %#)" ?&<# %#)"! #.<$ $@%# "#)"%# =<@

PAGE 274

K $%)$%# %%))# -% #Q < ;; &.#. K -(#. N92 : 6 <;9 :@ 9 X =< 9 6 =-.6N N;7< ;@ 2 ;6< =6 7 X69:<2 ; 6-.56N N ;@ 6 ;9;=9 7 X69< <: @ 9-.#(. N 0; ;7 9 992 @0 9 @: ;6 6 c<:: X%(9"% VV$##VV %"")%#G !"-S+6;=,%R1%66 @S+;02,% =<:

PAGE 275

#$$""$#$ I %%)% ))% #"$ $ &%% -%")%( %(R %%VV%#$ %-# "%%VV% -# /%)$(#"$# %%$%#" )%))#) $# #" !#)(#% )%#& 3## #%)%($%)%" =<2

PAGE 276

#)" -%)" )%" %-# )) /%)$"!" #I(%#)" "%$")# %))# .?( < ;= (&;-9 &. %"%# #$($ & $92<%26%(? ($"(#$%@
PAGE 277

"MV=9 @S+=6,$<: ;S+<9,"% (&"% < ;= &.#. ?( c92< c26 ;-(# N9= : < @ 9=2 :0 @:< 2; 9 =99 : =.6 N N :2;: 7 ;0 ;@ = =6 =9 @ =29 <2 9<9 <: ; 6-. 56N N:7;0 = =6 @ ;=6 =9 :;:;2 9 =2=<2 7<6 <@ 7 9-.# (. N <0;; 6 << 9 602@9 < :7 @7 ;9 ; : @ 6$=6 @S+==,"% "%"$;2 9S+;:, <@S+<6,"%( &"% =0;

PAGE 278

K9(("( !" "< 9S+<,%"$% S+:7, %$: @S+ ,% .(F & #$)"%% ( !% &9D"%"( "%#(!" < ;6&# %"%& < ;6< ;=$%#" &%## # #!$%(#%% %%$ )#%") "%"(# #" < ;6$&6$"%" +;: 0S,)%)#% =0=

PAGE 279

"%%+2
PAGE 280

&##% (< ;9< ;< I %)%#&6)# )" %"% %\"Q"%=; 9S+<9,%# \"Q;7 :S+=0,#\" Q3I "%%%% %)## +$=777, %F(F$@7S #%(##" < ;9< ;<< ;= < ;6%" # /%)< ;9 (%"#< ;< ( >!# %(< ;9< ;<$ %#%) %#"! '%$# "##") =09

PAGE 281

%" %(%"#$( #"%#"%(#% < ;9 &.#.AAAAAAAK-. c=<= c=9; S S -(# N : @ : 6 =;: :0 < =72:0 @ 9 : < 7 =.6 N N <= 6@;< 9 <2 =6 9<<= ;9; <0 7;<= 06 ; 6-. 56N N<9 =; 9 =0 <2 =6 9 06 =0 ; ;62 << = ;<= 06 ; 9-.# (. N 6= ;= @ =6 2 < ;:9 @6 7 ;:9 @0 6 60 ;9 6 69;9 ; #" """ )#) =0<

PAGE 282

< ;< &.#. c6; c0= S 9 ;-(# N9 ;= 2 69 : =0:6 2 <2 2< = 6 = =.6 N N 2=2 7 @ ;; 6 =< : ;<=9 = ;9 << =9709 < 6-. 56N N 6< < ;@ @ ;2 9 ;2 9 ;9<< =62 0= 2 9-.# (. N 6 = 9 0 < =0 :6 2 <9 :@ ; 9 ;6 7 9 0 < < ;0)#" ))#)#" # ) (%#-" =00

PAGE 283

< ;0 &.#. .. -.. ;:0 S <2 0 ;=0 S 97 9 <2 S 69 2 ;7: S 06 2 ;-(# N ;0 @< 09 T ;09 ;;6:2 @ 92:6 ; 2; :9 6 6 = 9 : <9 0 =. 6N N 62 ;< 2 ;0 2;< ;6 2 99 =6 @=<;2 :;6 =< =6 ; ;76 << 6:; 09 660T0; 7 06 7 6-. 56 N N 97 =; <;:;9 6 ;: 0<9 0 96 =6;=: ;9=6 @69 6; < << 6:7 06 <69<@ 0 02 06 2 9-.# ( N =6 ;= 9 @< 0@;; 2;0 ;9 ;6@ @6 @;76 :; @99 @9 0@@ @; 6 =0 ;9 7;0 ;= @ ;6 0;<;6 2 #$ #) =0@

PAGE 284

>!#%<2 0S+;:0,%#") "97 9S+;=0, >!## $;:0%;=0% ;:0 $ S;0"%"(# :: =S;09"%"(# 6 =S %%& >(""$=;S 62%"%=6 @S99" #<9 :S;7=%& %$=; %#" %"$;< 2S=7 "#;2 :S+=<, 06
PAGE 285

%&$(#&9 ;9 6S;: &6" "%== =S=: 06 #-$<2%;7:% "-%%-% %#% ) <2-$ S+9,%)"(# :6 ;S+92,(# ;7 =S+ %& >(" %"$;0 2S+;7,"==S+;6, "-!+0;S, -;: 0S+;;, %")%"=6 @S +;9, <@ 0S+69,%&6 ># %$;; 2S+@,""%#( %@9 0S+99,;6 0S+ ,&9 =02

PAGE 286

K<$V"V$%( #)")"%) ")%%( I" )%#)" %"% ) %$)%% )"%!" (%" %(& &% "&%#@ I# < ;@< ;:K % "%)% %#%)# 3" 3%# %#) (%") %7-6"+=2S,$)9-0 "+=:S,$%)@-;7"+=9 @S, =@7

PAGE 287

)# "" S# &(+< ;: < ;2,%)"( =@ (6"=09-0"%;:0 < ;@ &.#N .).?( N.) &" c26 7-6N =@=2 7 9-0N =0 =: 7 @-;7N=6=9 @ ;;-;(##)"< ;:% """)$# %6@ 0S+;:0,#"%) 7-6")# ;=;+=9 9S,# )9-0"$;@ :S+ ,@-;7" ($-# =@;

PAGE 288

#;7"%@ 6S%## >#& $%(%"") $0@ @S06(% #67 ;S=:((VV#) < ;: &.#N N N.) &" S 7-6N ;:0 6@ 0 9-0N =9 9 @-;7N 60 ;@ : ;;-;("%))# $20 :S+27,("%$%" S )""%)) !#)"% %%&$"%" =@=

PAGE 289

))%% %")# &$#%#$)"(#& )"#% (%# % %!#)") %#" &%" #& K; >"%)"M #!$ ")%$V"V $ )#$))" )+E%$;226,% $) &)% )+?,%%" =@6

PAGE 290

"%&%'G)%''4"?)+%&+(+@"H&"&%'H"5?+& +(%/0&%'4"&+%7"&1I"%'" 3% 5# L ? ? ? ? ? ? ? c92< 9 26 92 6$@0 0@=$=9 <9 66 @; 9 6< <@ 9 92 <@ 6 <9 :7 c=<= < 7; 90 6 @9 09 =$=7 9< 9 69 @79 6: <6 9 <0 $<9 6 92 @< c=9; 9 :@ 99 6 @2 00= =: <9 9 69 0:9 66 << 9 99 <96 0= := .. -6;= 9 20 $9<6 @2 0@ =$=0 9:9 60 0@ 9 60 <69 <= 9: 6$0;$:7 -;:0 < 7; 9@ 6$@0$00 =$=; 9: 9 6< 029$6: <6 9 <@ 92 6 <6 @@ c;=0 9 :2 96 6$:9 02 = 66 $90 9 6: 0< 9 6< <69 96 9< 6$@9 $:= c;02 9 :@ <0 6$@7 00 = =;$<0 9 =< @09$6= 0= 9 99 @7 6 9= $@2 -<2 9 2: 9<6$00 <:= =7 609 =: @<9 6@ <99$<; 00 6 6: $0@ c;7: 9$:< 90 6 @0 0= = =6 06 9 =@ $00 9 66 <9 9$96 06 6 9: @2 ?( c26 9 :< <= 6 @9 0: = =0 90 9 69 $0@ 9 0; <<9$<6$<0 6 0: :2 c6; 9 :< 69 6 <6 $06 = ;= 9@9 6@ 0@ 9 <@ <79$07 <6 6 <= :0 -0= 9 :< 07 6 :9 02 = 66 99 9 66 0@9 06 <: 9 92$<: 6 @< $2;

PAGE 291

"!)&# I)! ?$ #+E%$;226, # #"%)" #$"-#$"# %#< ;2 )# )%)% #< ;2 3< ;2#%# !) %)%) -# ##)"+c92<,$P )P%(&"% )+c9 26, "$!& #"$%!)%6 @0 $"#$% %= =9 ."""# %)) + =@<

PAGE 292

Z 36$%("%)# ), .P"( %"%&P%% &"+c9 92, !%$%%Q )(%#(%#$%&" %%9 6< %%P")# P%%)"$% &"%%9 66 %%$ #P#*!%# #!"P--"# $$%%)P%% )6 <9= =9 "$-#% &" %%&"" % K= >"%)(#M =@0

PAGE 293

)%&;$ )$%& # < ;2$(# &"+c9 :<,"+c6 @9,+c= =0, %$!%+c9 0;,%&"$ %%!&"+c9 <6, %%( %9 69$#(%6 0: 3 %%#%% < ;2%"%) #% ($%# %! < =7))%) ( 3% )%%)#) ( $ %%--%" =@@

PAGE 294

#( I%%#a^ 7=< < =7 ?).%' P ------').?( ?( .%' ') ? # ) 9 26 92 9 :< <= :;; 6 @0 0@ 6 @9 @=: 3= =9 <7 = =0 90 X %9 66 @; 9 69 0@ ;20 !9 6< <@9 0; << ;:0 9 92 <@9 <6 <0 <@7 5#6 <9 :7 6 0 :2 27< < =;%%%)%(%; #&"<&" ) %"(#%(% 3 )#" 3%# )%)("&" ) $#%)$ $&" /%)$%## &"%%%&" ? =@:

PAGE 295

(#!%&"$% %&" < =; (#.%')'" 3G ) 3 G % I5# # ; = 6 <;6 =U;U9 ; = Z< = ;9 = 6< 6 _9 = 6< = =T;6 ; = :J I < = 6;; 9 ;= 6 <;6 = 9 ;= 6< ; 9 ; = 6 < 6 =9 ; = < 6 = ;T9 ? ( ; = 6< 6 T= ; 9 ; = 6< 6T= 9 ; = 6< 6 ; 9 K6 ?-%) "(%(M # < ==%"-%"L ##D$-$ =@2

PAGE 296

($%) # /%+;22=,$L%%% )"$!#"))$ %" )$%)$$ $( '"#L$%%" #$%#" #)$"#%% % "$)% #% L%%("Q/?+/"# ?,#) 7< ("F% %%%#"L% #%#" ("Q) >"%$"%5" $%(#%#"#+/%$ ;22=, < =="L%) #)$%) 3% )$%%-#) =:7

PAGE 297

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

PAGE 298

%)$%-#) )) 3# ))" %#$% #%# <@;#%)" I%#) 3& $"") I"")&% U) 3!$% %% #%%"#% # "" 7<)%"#/%$;22=DE%$ ;226D4($;220, < =6?)#" %) "< ==# < =6"#!%# !%P)(%#(%#%P #%P#*!%# #" =:=

PAGE 299

?(#"%#$ -$%"!% < =6 ?).%'') ...?( .. . ? ( .% ) ? ? ? ? 9 26 92 9 20 9< 9 :@ <09 :< <= "6 @0 0@6 @2 0@ 6 @7 6 @9 3= =9 <7 = =0 9: <0= =0 90 %9 66 @;9 60 0@ 9 =< @0 9 69 0@ !9 6< <@9 60 <69 6= 0=9 0; << 9 92 <@9 <= 9:9 99 @7 9 <6 <0 5#6 <9 :76 0; :7 6 9= @2 6 0: :2 (#"#+9 0;76, +c9 6090,-+c9 6;:9, '!%# !% ( !%"% /%)$( #"-#% ?(+c6 0@<0,+c6 0;=0,# #%&"-+c6 9;2@, =:6

PAGE 300

"("%#)! #"(& %)I "$# %%%" ))%% )" #% (#%$%-&"% ^ 7=<#% %%##)% <;< %"# 7<)$." % 7<@2 '%#$%--+^ 7=<,--%^ 7<$% % < == %"#% #"#$ #+c9 20, +c9 :@, '#$% $(")% =:9

PAGE 301

T%I$#%$") H% ##%") _)#%I $ T(" T!I /%)$ I)"%!P UP( I)#("& I T #(% #% K9 ?-% D)M T T%--%%" T#%#% )%#&%%% U T+/%$;22=, %--% U )^ 7=<%%%# =:<

PAGE 302

# -%%"# %%%) < =93% )$%-# $-) #)#^ 7=< < =9 3.-. ..%')' .% ') c6;= c;02 # ) 9 206: 9 :02: 79@ 6 @26; 6 @7;= ;92 3 = =<@< = =;79 66; % 9 6<279 =<6: 9 6090 9 6;:9 627 9 <;<; 9 96<2 ;9= 5# 6 0;=0 6 9;2@ X X^ 7=< < =9 #"##%+^ 7=<,)#% &" $ =:0

PAGE 303

"#)% -)#$!#$% # "%"% #)')% )"(I $# "#%%) ( ?(#% -%! "%"% )"#&" #$%"%#% "%"#%$$!#% K< ?#% )M &<$L$(+;220,$" L%)$% )# L %##)(" =:@

PAGE 304

)" L))#)L "#))$) )#%# $#"# $ L$%)" # (+;220, L"! # $($ >(F5# # "#"%) ##>(Q5$L. #)L% ) =O@%-I)")+L,% %)G#+$ -$(,#+, ?)%%)G$"$$ !$#$$% =::

PAGE 305

<::%<@= )$ "(.# %I-[ #);9%I# # < =<>(F5# 3)D#$ #$## 3%>(F5) !!)"# # #^ ) >>(Q$#I$-$($#$#" )"# # %$%% #)%%% # '%#% #$-( =:2

PAGE 306

< =0#< =:L% #%)%#%# < =< ")>(Q # L L >(F 5 L /" ? ?# ..?X 2=<;9 6 ;@;9 77 X C 20=0: 6 ;7 @ 77 <07 77 776X C! ..? 2:9@=7 0= ;9 77 :<= H3-$( H^ &&#) 3)!%)%)" %^ 7<)$# < =0#K6%# !%#(%"#!#% %%%( +,$%(##" !% #%( "#% =27

PAGE 307

< =@%#%%# )"#%(#% < =0 .%')'.C?( L/" /" # ; 66;0; =97 0<0@= 00<:7 9=<;2 ; <0<27 3 6=;;<;6@ ;;;@@ ;07<@ =9==< 00=:< <;0 9 ;7220;0= @092@= 7<92: =:@<@ @ ;907; X 0<@2: ;== 0:7;@ 6=:22 =;0@<; <;@:9 5#9 07=0@6<: 0==@9= 67;69 0660; 6 06=;; 7=@X =207; ;00 9;972 ;9:77 =297= <766: 07< % @609==0; =@996 60:=; 90;0= @2@0< 9<; X.^ 7< #%$""$$#$ % L%%# (#"#%) %#" -%"L%! %%#%# $($ < =: #%")$# %%$$#$ %%"% #+c= 66, =2;

PAGE 308

+c= =;, +c6 @9,#% +c6 <6, /%)$%#%+ c9 <@,+c< 7;,Gc9 96 c9 :2)" #-$# < =@ CL /" /" # = @<007=97 0<0@= = @<007 9=<;20 9:6=< X 3; 9<<@9 ;6@ ;;;@@; 9<<@9 =9==<0 77267 7;
PAGE 309

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

PAGE 310

" *$#%%% %"#%"%%# $ %%% #$$$( # "#% $" #%#$ %## % #($%%I("# $%$!$$#%D( ##"" %) K ?#J%)"%# M =29

PAGE 311

#(+;220,%#" $$-($ "## LL% "%% )#%#)% "%#@%) # .% $"$$%$!$$#% #%($$"%%###) %) 3! 66+;7S ),%#+(4$+;220, U# < 67"% #. 3$$"% = 3%#))) "%!% =2<

PAGE 312

#)!)# % .V#V U) % $ $))# T#$>(F53-& %# T## T)) "$7 T))$#" T# ;)$ # < 67%%%# :;S;77S$)"$%-#)" < 6;$!%%##$ < 6;%"" 3)%!%# T) #$$"$% T)##)= U U =20

PAGE 313

0" ; 2%+%04&.%%)!$%)+%&+(+@"H"5?+& !"%-*"% ?0$" (")+ ?%" 2$. (") 2%+% 0 K)" !"% L07&D M.' 25: &#$" G* < 6 ; ;< 6 7&)5"%+%0'&.%%)$%)+%&".%%*%)5"%01&& I

PAGE 314

%$!%#$$ "$%)%) # < 6; ?" .%'') 3% #) .) 0=09
PAGE 315

##%(%#+ ,!% ?()!%+c9 0;, +c9 60,-+c9 6=, )####$ $"$)## -%# +c6 9=,$"+c6 @7,$+c6 @7, ( %%+c9 :@, +c9 2@,(+c9 :<, < 6= 3?C # ) ) 3 3 3 >(Q 5 3& # 2<@9=2 =< 69; X 799 =706 X( #" < 6=%"% S)%#% >;77S%%%% )%#)% < 6= %$#%) =22

PAGE 316

< 66%% )"#%#'$# %#)" )##% #%" < 66 ?" .%'')C .) 0@09: 5#@:276 90967 >#+9 22, U+9 <0, 9 :@ D9 9< %) %#"##%+c6 09, %+c6 92, %"# ^ 7=<) %%(" #%#%# #% >#$%"%$ ## 677

PAGE 317

I %$;:0=<= $#%%# ')#%"# K@ >(( M # %)%% $"%((&" ))%"+3#4 &$;22;DC4$;229DE$;22#$;22=, < 69-< 60%%$ -$(( ## < 69%V(IV%&" "%""%% 6@ :SP92
PAGE 318

&"%%=067S# .#&")#( %2 2S#%"9 6S( ?(")#%2 9S 6 9S < 69 .#3. ".?-( .. . ? ( '( 97 =6@ :99 9 92 < # =0 6=@ 2=6 @ 67 ; 6 0 < 9 ')% 9 9< 9 6 7 # '( @ 6 < 6 < 9 ')6 9 6 : 2 9 '2 2 : 6 9 6 < 6<$)" 07S %($=@S %##*(# =7S #(%")%( 67=

PAGE 319

##* )"%)# %)# ($#%(#) ( )" < 6< "3. ".?-( .. ? ( '( =@ ;=: <=0 7 # ;2 : =7 @=6 @ !< 6 9 :< 69 6 9 ')%< @ 0 @ 9 ; 9 6 # 7 6 '( ;< 9 ;< 9 ;9 = ')0 < @ @ 9 @ ;< 9 ;: 6 6 = $%< 60$( $##!";2S) ( #$# #%# 676

PAGE 320

"$%(%% ##%"""% '(%&$%# < 60 "3. .. . ? ( '(;< = ;@ 7 ;< ; # ;< : ;0 @ ;6 0 ;= 2 9 : : 6< 9 ')% : 6 2 7 0 < # '(;: : ;: 0 =7 @;2 9 ');; 2 ;9 =;< ; ';7 2 ;; 2 ;= 2 ; 2 #*($-$ )!&" K >[ M 679

PAGE 321

0" ;< G$..1+2+./&+%+."%&+*"%'"%'(+"&&+%0 K&/)+%&%'+0)1G)$'1N0"& N0":&)$'1)".&!".0" "% AB; 0" "% AB;; :)0 &* K:G""7%*/+.+)+% ; K:O?"//0"'%)5"0&))5""1"& ; ; K;:O?"""%/+.+)"'%)5"0&))5""1"& ;6 K:(0%%%*)+&""7%"@/+&)+% < K<:,"&%/"?+$&/+&)+% 6 K:L510")/"?+$&/+&)+% 6 %0$"%"&$&0" < 6 K$)5+)1&$&0";< ; 2+"+%&$&0" 6 3"@'&$&0" ;;; < -P/")&$&0> 3"""%)&$&0" ;6 M"*).)"&$&0" ; ; 6 4:K*"*+$/ ;< ; 6 4;:-)5%)1 ; 4:O*5"&)'".'"*"" 6 4 :,&%$"%)/+&)+% > 6 4:,"&%$"%)'&)) < 4<:,"&"./0+1"'%+)5"'&))& ;;6 X 7=<

PAGE 322

# &%%! %")& &%(## %"!$ C %--&"% #!%%% )%# < 6@%-%^ 7=<## 7=<% %"+/%$ ;22=, )"$#% -# )" )) %# %))D) -)#-# %%% $V V$%##% 670

PAGE 323

%#"$ $)#" ##% )" %#")%# ( $&#%(&$%% !"% "% #% %%%"-% (+< ==< =9,% #"##% $($%) $"#"!% +, $ (#)! -+< =6, (%#% "#"% )&"67@

PAGE 324

$< =2%%% #% > ##%)#" %# #%#% >!##D$(D#$%% #%# .# %%##% >%%#%( "&"% !%%##( #%#%% #%)#%+< 6;< 6=, !%%(# #( +< 69, !(I #"%##& <7: +

PAGE 325

3"$%"$"!% #%%#%$% !%$%%"# -(## $# #"c ;09%( "$"(#%%% .%%"#% %. (%(%")# %)%!!% ?( !%&"%" % %")# $%(("I# "!( $% "%"#%% %%)"%" %%)% %# 672

PAGE 326

3/.0 335?.53 I3%(# -(#%%) %(+4$;22=D $;2@6$;2@
PAGE 327

"# >%% M#!## "#)% ')#)# #I))#* () #!"$# "%#(% (#!"% %%"% %)#" -(%%% # "+$=777,$";9S%$% "#%### $-%$ "--% .# +4$;229D?#4$;226,% )%%#" %#D ""(#" 6;;

PAGE 328

)$%"! +.)4$;22;D$;22=, %%(%)" (I+/4L$;220D.%4$ ;226D.4$;220,$" $$-( %#%-)# )-) )) "# ( )"##%#) "#+Z$;22=D.%$;226D>#$ ;22=, /%)$###% )"I+C43$=777D /-C%$=777D'5$;22@$=777, .%$ "#!"$" (%( )%%()% 0 ;)"" #% 3 6;=

PAGE 329

#%%%%)) ##"# % 0 ; )#" # .% ) # ?( ?( 5# > 5# > . 5# ( 3 ( .%#)%I#%" #Q$" .#%$"#%P" #"# +< ;2$< ==$< =6, ? ;;6

PAGE 330

(%% )!!% !%P)#(%# (P%"#%( #!%( %()$%%( .% "( ( %")%("#% %(#+$;22=, )'%) )%%$%%$%D #%" )%%#* 6;9

PAGE 331

3# #%) "$))%# %#+/%4'"$ ;2::, %"$ $) ?%# !$%(%""# ";220$.%# $%)$%) "!%# %"($ "%#( C% #%#( ?/+;2:7,!"=$777 #"#" "# ?.*+;2:0,-")%;@ !! )% %)$"# %! %%!# 6;<

PAGE 332

%&")#$ $$I) #"E +;22;,#-"# #%# "&"## #%)+,## $+,-%#"#$+, "#% ###% #"%($#" +=777, /-C%+=777, #-#! #)#) #)% #"+E$;2@@,$ () ."$?);6($E(+;229,##$(F %((# (%( #*J"I !# %#$% U6;0 I

PAGE 333

%($!$ R! $( %I(Q "I1+ @:2, $ (#)' (# $!%$ #) '$ (%! )%"%"+< =6, +;22=,% ## $ "()$! %(F%%))" )(# """G %(%# (##% %(F"(" 6;@

PAGE 334

###D )$"!D%(% %# )# "%"))%"()! %$I!)%)!% Z+;22=,";<$777#" #*#"%) / EQ"#(# #)"# /## %(##(# !)"%###%# %####" ##! /%)$"#" ")"%#%";22<-;22@$=;
PAGE 335

% 1%R%($%($( 1%# ""#*$%($%) #* %"D" %()"#% #) ( +< 69, #.(+;2:<,$D -$-$(%#) % #* %# # ;6")%$# ()+$%$$#$ !,%#)"$#%#! #%%Q% "" (##! #% )%I%$# +;2:2,!)")"! 6;2

PAGE 336

%"% %+;220," %!%&" %" "%)# # /%)$" # ##"*$#% %%!%+< 6@, "#$* /-3+;220,#%%% #" $")% %!% (&" "#%*/-3 +;220, '""$%" )"#$"" "%)"%% )" #$# %$% #-$#" 6=7

PAGE 337

% /%)$#($"# %"% #"# '( )# %#% ($" #""& >""*# I$%M/%%"( M$"!)"% $%#"$## $) )) "#I )%( (#" %###%"# #)(# ("#(#"( <=;

PAGE 338

) .%#( )#)##)"## +*4"$;227, &#%%" ))#$J #%## #%"%$"! #$%)## )%#"#) !%##+E$ ;2@0D$;2::, #)!$" ))(( ) )#%% $"#$I)$$ # '#%##$(-(#$)) +.%$;226, .%"%#$ )" >#+;22=,&") )$"#$#%$# 6==

PAGE 339

%##)%(# / &"%)"(# I "%+,-#"I$+, T%(#$+,##!!) U#*$+,(#I#*) T $#%#"# U#$ )#(%(#%%"% I##"F "$ I T!%#$%# I(##%##* I I)%" T TE+;2:2,#%( ")G ; 5## = ?) 6 &(# I9 3$&#)# < .))$### T & ; 6=6

PAGE 340

@ .)%# ( "") &#)(#!% )"(# $-) #")"$ &#$# "($)# )( )#% #$%#%"($ % $&#)# ")%) $#&# +.($;2:;,%##)"## %")!) $###)% ")) "## ))( 6=9

PAGE 341

?( R3"I"!% T(#*"1+.($;2:;$ ;2;, F(#$%$ ( "" #*"#) U#* '"# T$)"("() T#)$% IE+;2@@,5% +;2::,#* I (I%(# ; T)#&" I #*$#$### (#I&"+'$;22:DC 3$=777D/-C%$=777, #*(#"# U")#%" '"# T"$I%($)"" #*# $) I U

PAGE 342

#% )%"(%# > $)%#"# %#&" #*%("( %( #*("% "%""#) #%))%) #%)$#)# %I)I) 3( ##)%# #%"+C$;229D $;220, R(1R!% )%%%(#I "%)Q IQ&( R+/$;2:6$ =@:, (#"(# 6=0

PAGE 343

#)"#% ) )%$ "+C)4.%$;2::D/$'($ $4$;2:2D)4C($;2:7D.%$;227, /%)$% #))"$ "## $R#1 "$%(I" %% +*$ ;2:=D?#4$;226, #*)" %%"((( /# +;227,5"+;227,##%)# "# &#""$" ## )%#*" #)") #)F&# "#"#) 6=@

PAGE 344

; "")"%(#+.%$;226, #%+?# 4$;226, #LC%+;227,$)& $ "$ "#* ) $)$#$" ""!"(% #* #$!$%&#% ) #$ ?-(## %)!%") 3 !(%#$! #### U# %()"# >#*%" $##$%+ $;2:@, $###%%6=:

PAGE 345

()-%$$ #+?"$;2:@, #) ##$-##" #* 5#$%($ $#?)+;22;,$ )%)#!() "#))%"% #)G+,%")(# ""&(#$+,% $+,%()$+,( &%)$+,(&# I###"#%$"I$ $)%# %%(!)$"#) I$%($## # )(# %%)""# 6=2

PAGE 346

#% ) Z +;22;,$%)$##*#" )** Z+;22;, G >*$" %(" ) #*Q) #%(%# ()D)Q) #$ %$!$+ #*# "%%"> +;2:2,G ; *#&" = I 6 )%##)%# & 9 .)#% #)" 667

PAGE 347

"$#)$)$ #*$"#($ %# '%)"D%### !%)%%% #"#!# )"%"(" & ")##* $$ %)( $"%)!# 5#%""!! )% '$ ())"!I)) % "%# %%(# +;22=,% #! $ 66;

PAGE 348

"()$!% (F%%))" )(# "%( %""%) )%( )%"% "(" %"%%)%" "))" $)%")# 5%"%%$ +?"$;2:@D4C%$;227, I#% &#$#$#$ #%$%#! #* (%%( &%%(! T%#* !--%" 66=

PAGE 349

#*" !"""" $"!$$#$ )%# "!### R1 #! #$! #$%)<7 %%=767$%)"$ ")&$ #$)#) %%)! )#"#*% "#>+4C%$;227D4 $;2:2, $-#%)) "" I#% ""%" %) )" )%-!" 666

PAGE 350

"#PI")* I#%"%) "%!# %#)#" % $)!%#% "#* %% "%"% #### "$3!+;22;,#)"" %"))" *"% # ")% "%#" "%#I %( "%(#) %% 669

PAGE 351

").( %(")% "%(%#%%) )## $(%"$""#%( %( '%(" !%$&#(%#(" & )#!" ) !%%%# #) $V(V% !#F $(%"#*$%% %#"%) ##*%" "( $(%%"%)%"%) %(&(#* &)#)%( $(%%I"%()" %")"" 66<

PAGE 352

% #%" )#"#)%" )" $)"I$% "##%#" !$)## #($"%$#" C(U "$%) %($% (!))"# "( "## %% #%# ##R### "###"!1+ =<@, >( !$$"%$"%(% "#%-# "% 660

PAGE 353

%%# ")%$ #&("I# #*##%) "% 66@

PAGE 354

..?O L??'/L35 ))? ("#"$!$ $" %-D)%"%"%" )"&$G $)"3?)$ J==:<#3$3#$3$:72;2+@;2,<==-7@70 &)G,.$', ')$3,.?,?# ?# &" "&$+$#-) .G5%&Q) ."#" N)"(#) = N))% 6" 6 N%%6" 9 N?"(!"M < "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0 ")%AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA@ %AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" : AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' ')G$"(% ") 3%&""" .%#("G L5?3355NK5N5>N U U;=69<0 $"!&" ) <6:

PAGE 355

; ##""% ; 69 < = "#)"" ; = 69 < 6 #(""; % = 69 < 9 #"%" ; = 69 < < "!%; = 69 < 0 ((%); = 69 < @ #"" ; = 69 < : %%) ; = 69 < 2 ###%"## ; = 69 < ;7 )#; % = 69 < ;; "%#) ; = 69 < ;= (; = 69< ;6 "%"##; "!) = 69< ;9 ( ; = 69 < ;< %% ; = 69< ;0 %#"; = 69 < ;@ "#"; (%#I# = 6 9 < ;: (%; %%( = 69 < ;2 ")#; = 6 9< "" "!

PAGE 356

=7 % =; #))% == ##I =6 %( 9 9 =9 ) $#$ =< #)# =0 (") =@ =: (%( =2 "# ( 67 (%I) 6; )%% 6= "# # 66 % 69 %" I 6< %(# 9 9 697

PAGE 357

60 ("# I 6@ (I 6: "! i%#) 62 (%(% % 97 F# 9; %)! 9= #)% ) 96 ( "! 99 ) %(" 9< %# #%" 90 ()"% # 9@ "#( 3 .G .(%#%%" +;#$=$ ,AAAAAAAA'(AAAAAAAA#*AAAAAAAA!AAAAAAAA"FAAAAAAAA')%AAAAAAAA/# 69;

PAGE 358

'( ') +!, 3= N))$%$# ? ?#G.)%## "$" ? C ?= #AAAAAAAAAAAAAA?6 33$-/.3J.335? L3/.3J5 33/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?9 3##")) '3/5FF ?3/ +O.5,AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?< NMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?0 N?M ?@ N"?JMA %"" "#!# $)"#"" "## "#"%( M$ ("(#& .) ) 69= Q &

PAGE 359

..?O' 3.?3>/?N.3. ? jA]j5A] j'A] j'A3"]$j'A]j'A83] ?jA]j5A]G )$")##I N$ (" ()" "#% N##() )"#"" "!%) ("%"+=7, "")## .)"$-$#-) N% "$"% )" # %" )#"# N "%))"%#" N%)"#" ")"&$ +@;2,<==-7@70 (""" "$ ? 3 .$)-" 696

PAGE 360

.%#""%# "###%" H%#" "$%!% F() H)"$%%(=7$ -$#-) H#)"% ""#)"# H""%$% "% ))) H$"%)" )$(" H"(##"(%# )$% "%(# H"%%""% %#%G #? ")"&" +@;2,<==-7@70 ")"& "#I$ .#$@=73?)'#$?)$3 $:7=@;+676,<<0-=@@7 "%"%@"$ "%""" (" AAAAAA3" <99

PAGE 361

." ?3#$ "")" Q ")" "( $)" $) "$ ? 3 69<

PAGE 362

3 $. $4$Z +;22=, #% %N(G / $ +;229, -%%(G )"( #&" 09+;,$6@-<< $ Z $4$? +;229, >%%!)M 'K" <2+;,$:2 -$' +;22<, )# % >#)%$;7+=,$6-: $ +;22@$?;9, !)#"$ %( ?).$ @; $/ +;2:9, #%(%Q)G"# %() 3#."#$;=$ ;;@-;=0 '$ $45%$ Z +;2:7, .%#*G "#"$## G Z"-' '$Z $4.$Z +;22@$, <7%-% >(#>$ 69-0: '%($Z +;2:7, Q%Q ? C C#+ ,$ >Q)G%"$$" $G )"#33#> '$E +;2@:, !-##*G "#)%$6$:7<-:;< '$' +;227, #Q(G"$$ #+6 %N(G. 690

PAGE 363

'$ $4Z$? 5 +;227, ."Q) "G"!$"#$ /$96+<,$9<<-@= '$> C $4$' +;2:<, 5G#(## % N(G/4% '($5 $4#$? Z + +;22:, /( ($3 G# '$ +;2<7, "% #)% ;< @67-@66 '$. +;209, !#% %FN(GZ>" '$ ? $4$ +;2:@, #%%( E E*$ / (%$45 ? + ,$>(#%G .$$+6@-0:, >#$?3G' '*#$ $48$? +;222$);;, 3"# #%F#<77 3"% #_-b$)G GJJ%%% "% #JJ;;;22 '$Z +;22:, ?G>" ;:@6-;22< "G)"%N( '($Z $/($? $4>$> +;2:6, ?% )MK"$ ;2+=,$09-:; '%$C > $>"$ $4C"$ +;20<$Z"-#, % !)M/)')%$ ;9-;0 '($Z / $4.$Z +;2:@,/% !&"G( Z$96$<-62 69@

PAGE 364

'$? Z +;2:<, Q%Q%(G" #* "#Z$6= 00=002 '$ 3 $(%*$Z $4$L +;2:2, %!"&#) "#Z$6=$00=-002 '5 +=777$"72D;22@$#;2, 5 )" _-b$)G GJJ #)G:7J% J 7= '($ Z $4E$3 +;229, 3)## % Z ?)4 Z '(+ ,$> #G3+ 0<-@2, 5G.3 '$Z +;2@:, 5 %N(G/4% 3$ 5 $4>$5 +;2:2, G"# % /#Z$@=+6,$;7<;;7 3#$E +;2::, #G*$ *$# 5)% 9=+;,$@@3#$E $4&$3 +;22;$Z", #G ## 5)%$99+=,$=;=-==: 3$Z 5 +;2:9, !) Z ."#"$02 99-92 3-$ +;226, %G)## ( '$3G>% 3%#$? +;20<, $$ Z C + ,$ /(#* 3#G" 3%#$? + +;2<2, % G)" #$3C?" 69:

PAGE 365

3 5 +;22:, 3#?" %N(>" 3"$ $/($ $$ $$ $4'$ +;226, #G$;227-2;+ 92$<7$;92$;<;, >#$?3G 3##$ +;2:2, %(% %".($3G# 3$. $4$5 +;202, )! )"## Z."#" 8A;<2-;06 3!$ $Z +;22;, .%#*" Z')$<$69-9@ 3!$ $4($ +;227, #%"( #)#* )%'(. "$;:+6,$;-62 3!$ +;222, #G3" ($3G # 3($5 $4#$Z $+;2:0, $5G/'Z)) 3$? +;227, 3G?%MZ' $2+9J<,$6<6-607 3$. 3 +;20@, !) Z ."#"$<;$@:-:; ?$ +;2<@, % .')$= =7;=;< ?)$ $4'($$+;229, >#G3 ?)4 '(+ ,$>#G 5G.3 692

PAGE 366

?)-'($ $4.$Z +;2:2, Z#G #* "#)%$;9 6:<-977 ?!$E $4%$ +;2@9, !!((G>(( Z ."."#" =2$:7-:< ?!$E $4I$' +;2:@, .##!G) #-) ."#)% 29 602-6:2 ?#$ 5 $4$C +;226, G # +3 ?) ?60=29; ?!$3 +;2:<, >!%#*G ) 5 5%$ / #$4' C( + ,$>%( L ;G)%+ =62-=<:, ')" /$3G# ?$? +;2@:, )"G# % N(GZ>"4 ?"$ 5 +;2:@, .#%# E E*$ / (%$45 ? + ,$>(#%G.$ $+ ;;:-;<6, >#$?3G' ?$C / $3"$ 5 $4!$? +;2::, )"%! #G"" Z ."#"$@6 <<;-<<: ?$C / $4.*$ Z +;2:0, !G/% "M"#Z$;;+;,$;;:-;=@ ?$ $4/$Z +;2::, %#G# # #*?"$:$07-@0 ?%#$E +;220, .% G)". 6<7

PAGE 367

?$. +;2:<, %%!)G# "#Z =: =6<-=62 ?$? $4($. +;22<, ># "G )"%N(. #"$ $4Z$' +;227, CG-" ."#'$;7:+=,$=66-=<0 #"$ / $4E$ Z +;22;, C#G[ Z."."#"$07 0:<-@;7 $ E +;2::, .# "G)"%N( $. +=777$9, >#$)#%$%" _: #b 3?"_-b )G/.JJ /G #?"GJ=777JS< $3 +;2::, ?)G!$#$ '#$NGL-'. *$ +;20;, )"!#* %N(G #$ +;227, %# Z '$2$;-: #$ +;227, .)! )Q!)#*%"G ) Z."#"$@< =79=;; #$ +;226, >#G$$# #)" %".($3G# $C > +;226, #*%G#* >$3G.# $43$ +;2@9, 5)# C)%$5G$ 6<;

PAGE 368

$ $43$ +;22@, .) G$;2:@-::;226-29 >#$?3G ?$ ) $ $43($Z +;2:0, "%(# Z." ."#"$<7$29-22 $ +;2:9, %))"% Z ."."#"$9@ :<6-:<2 $ $4#$3 +;22=, #""G .)##) Z." ."#"$06 6<0-60@ $ +;2:7, .%J(%#G)%%# ;2@=-;2@@+"3 C, '#G/) $Z +;2<0, "% ."#)% 06 ;:;-;29 $Z $Z $4)$' / +;2<2, % ? 3%#+ ,$%+ ;<7-;0@, $G $> $4'$3 / +;22<, #*) #%3$ ZG.-/ $. Z +;2:0, .%$$ 5 > .$5 5 .$E / $4 Z+ ,$(#* ')"/G# C$ 5 $45#$Z +;2:6, "G )#) ."#" K"$90 =6-67 C#$3 +=777, C#GF #%!) %N(GL(# 6<=

PAGE 369

C$5 +;22;, >"%F(# =:+9,$;:-== C$Z L +;2:2, !#%Q)G "$ $? /$4' 5% + ,$/("+ ;;7-;6=, GZ"' C($ $45%$5 +;227, .) /$96+:,$@76-@=0 C$C $4$/ Z +;2@9, "I#G I "#Z ;@ =;0-==9 C#$3 +;2:=, ) 3#$G/))". C*#$ $C*#$Z > $!$ $4/$Z 5 +;2<;, G#" %N(G3)" C$ $4$ +;229, 3) #-)# Z ?)4 5 '(+ ,$ >#G3 5G.3 C($Z $4$3 +;2:2, !$#$ ## Z."#" @9 ;0<-0@ C$' $4E$? +;2@7, % Z."#"$9@$9=-9< C"$ 5 $4Q3$. +;226, >E-;= G" Z 5$6$992-907 C"$ 5 $4>$5 / +;229$9-:, %% "# $%$5

PAGE 370

C)$5 $4.%$C +;2::, )#! Q) Z."#"$@6$ =7-=2 C$3 +;2@2, K-#" "#Z ==$==-9; C$Z / $4'$ Z +;2:<, %%( "#)%$;7$@0-:: C$Z / $.$ $4>"$> +;227, #*!$I)$ "#Z$66$09-:0 C$ $4($ +;2@0, !#$ I%N(GZ>" I C)$ +;227, )" > + ,$)%#"$L ;0 .$3G )% C($' $45%$5 +;2:@, G>Q C(45 5%+ ,$>Q ) %".($3G# C"$ +;22;, >G. ) .#. $$5 C"$ +;226, %$%(%G%Q ## .)%$<6+9,$ =:<-=2= /$Z Z $$ $$ 5 $4'($> 3 +;22<, ) "%#+9 #%3$ZG.-/ /$? +;2@0, 3#* ..$3GC" /#$C +;226, 3#))G3 )$G3 5 6<9

PAGE 371

/-C%$5 +=777$;<, '" >$ @;:= /$ $4$Z +;2:9, #*# #)%$92$;92-;09 /$ $4"($? +;2:;$", G##% $3G)".$ C) /$ $4>$3 5 +;2:=, !## ) >+ ,$>%( 'G/ /$Z $4.($. > +;2::, >$$G)% $$#* Z 4? *+ ,$>#%%+ ;@-6<, ($NG /#$Z 5 $4C$> +;22=, ?$!$# !$=@ =72-==7 /$Z $4L$> E +;220, C%# $6<+9,$90;-9@= /$ +;2:6, !%(#G( %45 5 3#+ ,$#*) L < C%$3GZ. /$ $'($3 $$ $4$ +;2:2, /"##M 3$%$# Z ."#"$@9+0,$26<-29= /#$ +;227, )#G>F%" % N(G?"3" /#$ +;22<, % %N(G?" /"$. $4'$E +;2:=, ##*)G *#+9 #%3$ZG.-/ 6<<

PAGE 372

/"$. $4"$> $+;2@2, .% $3G 35 /$ +;2:7, "%(G/%% C Z ?4 Z #+ ,$)G. # +L @$;7@-;90, G)" #$)"3$ /($ $4$3 +;2:2, ?)% )+;2<2,% Z."#" @9$<0;-<0@ /$' 5 $4'%$Z 3 +;2@<, F#) ) #*')/ ;9$;=6-;92 /$ $4$5 +;227, .%#*G ."# 9<+=,$;@2 /%"$Z / +=777, .%" 5 <@ +:,$:9-:< /$ Z +;2::, .%"!#* 5 5 3#4' %+ ,$#*')$;7 67<-6<@ /%$ $4'"$? > +;2::, #) %N(G C /%$? 3 +;22=, "#"+6 '$3G ?!". /$ $+;2<6, 3"%G"-( 3 /G)"3. $/ +;22=, /"G!%( K" 6@$9==-99@ )# ) 6<0

PAGE 373

$/ +;226, .%(%# "#)% ;: <0-:@ "$' $4'%$C +;22<, >!)GL) Z "4C '%+ ,$! + =;9, G!3!) $ $4$> +;2:@, /()+= ?#$3G? ))$Z +;2@7, "$$ #*# "#Z ;6$9=@-960 Z$Z +;22=, >Q"#G#$ "$)## ) K"$6@$=:=-67; Z$ +;2:<, ># %N(GL Z#$ + +;2::, 3" >#$?3G Z$ +;22@, #(G)##" .G)". Z$. +;2@0, >%G%") Z $6=+6,$22-;;7 Z$5 E +;22;, )G%# Z /#$0=+=,$;;2-;92 Z$ / $4#$O +;2:=, 3#G "% #$LG Z$ / $4#$O +;2::,> G# ;2:@-:: #$LG 6<@

PAGE 374

Z$C +;2:6, ) Z#$ 2$;<2-;@= Z%*$ +;2:7, .% #$G>" E$ +;2@@, %#* %N(G' '( E$ +;2:6, # %N(G4 E$ +;2:2, >#G## #"$#$;227Q %N(G E$ +;220, $$ %)% $)" 3$3 E"$ +;2:6, !#J#* !$2$;7@6-;722 E"$ +;22;, #"G>($$ %" .($3G# E$ 5 $4$ +;229, !# # "#Z$6@+<,$;66<-;690 E$C $48($ +;2:2, ?"#G" )#J %N(G> / E#%$ $4$3 > +;2:6, $(#$$" "G#" 5)%$ 6@+;,$2=-;7@ E$? +;2@0, % 3#G)"3#. 6<:

PAGE 375

E$? +;2:9, %#*# (+ ,$"#"+L<,$ ;@2-=;7, %".($3G# E$? $4$ +;2::, %"G% )$"$ ) K" 66$<=:-<9= E#$. $4>$/ +;2:7, ## # #*') /. 66$67@-6== E#$E $4$Z E +;2:<, -" # Z."#"$@7$<0-0< E$ 5 $+;2:2, 3#-#;227QG ##" $LG E%$? +;226, G # >.$NG5# E#$5 $4$ + ,+;20:, % 5G E("$ $4$ +;22;$, % .# $3# 5$Z +;22<, ##Q# Z#*') ;0 62;-977 5%$5 $4C($L +;2:@, % C(45 5%+ ,$>Q )+L <$;=2-;<0, %".($3G# 5%$5 $4C($' +;2:@, >(#%"%Q ) C(45 5%+ ,$>Q )+L <,$ ;70-;=@, %".($3G# 6<2

PAGE 376

5%$5 $%I(%("$ $4$ +;2::, >( G" C($ / #$45 5%+ ,$>%(G)%+L 6,$$=0<-=::, %".($3G# 5%$Z +;229$) !)! >(#>$ 62-9; 5$ ? +;226, >Q))" G) '3">$ 0<-@= 5)$? Z +;2@:, QQ %N(GZ E 5)$? Z +;2:0, ) ."# 9;$6-;6 5($Z +;2<2, "## %N(G?) 5$ +;2:<, $$%% #" %N(G'( 5$ 3 +;2@@, )G % )K" ==$;;9-;66 5$ 3 $4$E C +;22;, 5#G 5(# 'G%/" 5$ $45$ / +;20;, "%I# I"" Z."#"$<6$676-6;0 5"$E E +;227, >G)# ) >?# 3607@<6 $Z +;2:<, "G! 5 5%$ / #$4' C(+ >%(G)% ; @0-;;9 %".($3G# $5 +;229, C#)G!) % "#!))%$:+=,$<6-@: 607

PAGE 377

$5 +;229, (###G# %%!) #*?" ==+9,$9-== ($> $/$ 5 $4/($ Z +;2:@, ." #*G3& E %$4C $ + ,#W$Z.$ C%$3 $3 $4$' +;2:2$, >Q& ) .# 3$? +;2@7, %% Z =29@ 3$? +;2@<, .%G! %N(G)# E$3 $4'($Z +;22=, # #%G? > #)%$@$;0-=< $? +;20=, %%! #* )K"$@ 692-609 *$ $4"$ +;227$;0-=7, C(G% R1-) # '$ $ 4%#$ +;2@=, 5(#% "$6<$;27-=7= *#$/ +;2:6, .%#* #%3$ZG .-/ *#$/ +;2:2, *##G#% #* %N(G. $Z $4>$? ? +;2:2, > Z ."#"$;0+=,$<2-02 60;

PAGE 378

#$O +;226, >" # LG $3 + ;2:2 5%#" G/$ > $ +;22=, % GZ"-' $ $4LC%$ +;227, > # ."# 9< =77-=7: $ $>$ $LL$ L $433) 5 +;2:@, '(###G3% Q#M#$G->" %"$ +;2@:, !%#* )K"$=6$;6@-;<0 $ +;2@;, "%$$# $3C$3$ 3 $ +;2:9$#, %#)"% #* K"$=7+=,$=<-9= $ +;2:2, %#)"% #* Z 5 '+ G" $+ ;=9-;9;, %".($3G# $Z $4$. +;227, %;227G# =777 %N(G>% %$ +;226, 3)G?#( )%.$=6+9,$60;-6:9 #$ / $+;2:7, "#"% 5G. )$L $4C($' +;2:7, !) #)%$<$0@-=@0 60=

PAGE 379

$ $+;2::, >#G)%# "#)%$;6 0<-@: "$Z 3 $4'$ / +;229, .""+6 % N(GC%-/ F'$C 4/"$ +;2@@, ) "## Z."#" =2$<2-@; $3 $4'($' +;2:6, 5)%$60+9,$0=9-9; *$ +;2:=, 3G>$$ %N(G.# *$ $4/($> +;2:@, #*GIQ&" &"5$@+=,$;90-;07 Q)$3 $4?$ +;2:9, -# "" Z." ."#"$<6$<<-@7 $. +;2:@, 3""( $=0+;, 90-0@ .($ 3 +;2:;, ($> > 3$Z $4 3+ ," #G!+ ;:@-;2:, %N(G .$ +;2<;, %N(G. .$ +;2@9, #* #*')/. ;;$;2<-==; .$ $4$Z +;220, C$$% )6<+=,$=@0-2< 606

PAGE 380

.)$' $+;2:@$=7-=9, )# #$ >#$?3 .)$' $+;22<$;:-==, #"G/" #%M.# $$3 .)$' $4$ Z $+;22;$6-@, ## #$3#$5 ."$ 5 $?)-'($ $4E($3 +;229$, !##G"!#) "#)%$;2+9,$@:0-:=7 .#%$ $4$Z +;2:@, ##*!( Z$96$9;-@: .$Z +;2:;, .%#* 'G. .$Z +;22=, ##%%G.#* 'G/)'. .( $ $3 $+;2:<, )Q%G3&$"$## ."#'$2@ 6:@-9;; .$? C +;2::, J" G% K"$=9+;,$<-;2 .%$C +;2::, ># %".($3G# .%$C +;227, G?#M "#!)$9$0:-@< 609

PAGE 381

.%$C +;226, >$#+= A%".($ 3G# .%$C $4$5 $+;226, C#C .%+ ,$>#$+ ;:0-==9, %" .($3G# #$' $43$Z 5 +;22;, GC )## "#Z 69+9,$262-2<; #$' $4$ +;2:2, C%#*G #) ."#' ;7<+;,$<;-:: $ +;2::, )%)" ) ') =6$92;-<76 )$' / +;22=, %G )"" Z')." @+=,$=;@-=6< )$' $4E#($> +;2@<, 3% %N(G. $5 $4.($ +;22@, ?###)"G )# GZ"-' ($' +;226, !##%( Z '($+ ,$ )%#"G) ;2 + =9;-=@7,.G)% $5 +;226, >G# %" .($3G3%. #$ $4C#$. +;2:7, >#G! ## ."#$6<$27=-2;7 $ +;2:0, #*)G3$)$ #%3$ZG.-/ $Z +;227$)J?, >"% /)' )%$;;2-;=< 60<

PAGE 382

$Z $$? $4$C + ,5"G >Q C#$)"3$ )$0=# *$3 $4/-3$ +;220, C# /3 )$;9+9, <@-@7 %$ 3 +;220, )#"G"%Q! )%..$;0+;, ;2-67 $' +;26:, .% 5G4% $ Z $4>#$ 5 +;22;$Z=-<, *! "% #3""$ E#$ ($ $($? $4E$ +;22;, C" C C+ ,$)% +L ;@, >#$?3G $ / +;2@:, 3"G#)#* #$G->" $L +;2@6, %!"& # Z."#"$<@$2<-;77 $L +;2@<, %!"& ### Z ."#" 07$697-699 $L $4$ +;22=, !"&# G( Z#*')$ ;6+<,$962-9@@ $5 Z +;22=$, >P # .3 > 5$ 600

PAGE 383

($ $4($. +;229, (#*) # ./#$5G>). %$C +;2:2, !"%% )$ZG Z ($3 +;2:@, > %".($3G # ($3 +;2:2, ## K"$=<+9,$6=9-66@ $3 +;2:9, ?#")%#" %() /$6@$;7=2-;790 $ Z +;2:6, )$%#)G# #%I! .."#" 60$ @@<-@:2 $5 E $'$Z $4"$ / +;22=, #G #Q# Z ."#"$@@+6,$=<;-=07 $E +;20:, )"%(# Z ."#"$<=$;::-;29 $? +;2<@, "#" %N(G/ $? +;2:7, -) Z L')$=0$;:=-;20 "$' ? 48$ Z +;2:0, 3-% /3$;=$9=7-96; *#"$ ? +;2:7, %)G ZL') ;0 <2-@= ($' C $4$5 +;220, #)+6 % N(G/3 60@

PAGE 384

$ +;2<7, #-(# Z'$=6$666@ $. $43"$? +;229, %#Q)G ."#"G )%$96+;,$<-6; $. $5$ $43"$? +;229, /%"(M !%QQ#) "#Z 6@+9,$:22-26 $Z > $4E"$/ / +;2<2, "#"# % N(GZ>"4 $? $4$3 +;2:2, "G ""! $? /$ 4' 5%+ ,/(" 3#$G 3#)". $? + +;22:, !"#+) %N(G!)". ($ $3#$C E $($ 5 $/#$ +;22;, )"#"+< ,% N(G $ $4Q"$3 /$+;2:2, '"#G #"-" "#Z$6=+=,$97=-=6 ?5$>Q'+;2:2, ># +%(#%, >#$?3 G C).# L#$Z +;2:0, ."#)(##G .#$"#$ 3#G=7:-=;= >#$ +;227, %G .G)". 60:

PAGE 385

>$ +;29@, "#* + /4 .$ 4 %N(G. >#$ +;22=, >#G) '/*$6<+;,$9@-<9 >($E $45$E +;227$", %Q M$9@ ;0-=@ >$? C +;2@6, %) %N(G. >$> 3 $4#$ ? +;2@2, !"%(G !&" #)%$99$=6<-=<= >#$? / +;2@2, .%G$$ %N(G/4% N($C +;2:;, 5#* #%3$ZG./ N($C +;2:2, 5#* += #%3$ZG .-/ N($C +;229, 5#* #%3$ZG./ N($C $4$3 +;22;, % %% Z."#"$@0$9;0-9=6 602