The use of diagnostic and feedback approaches in a management and leadership development program for Colorado school administrators

Material Information

The use of diagnostic and feedback approaches in a management and leadership development program for Colorado school administrators
Harter, Bruce
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
x, 200 leaves : forms ; 29 cm


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


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-200).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education and Human Development
General Note:
Leaf v missing.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Bruce Harter.

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:
22879568 ( OCLC )
LD1190.E3 1990d .H37 ( lcc )

Full Text
Bruce Harter
B.A., University of Michigan, 1970
M.A., Eastern Michigan University, 1975
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Bruce Harter:
has been approved for the
School of

Harter, Bruce (Ph.D., Education)
The Use of Diagnostic and Feedback Approaches in a
Management and Leadership Development Program
for Colorado School Administrators
Thesis directed by W. Michael Martin and Bob L.
This exploratory study examined the
application of a private-sector leadership
development approach to Colorado public school
administrators. The study addressed two major lines
of inquiry: 1) how do private sector managers and
educational administrators compare with regard to
management and leadership behaviors; and, 2) do
educational administrators demonstrate increased
competency as a result of a management and
leadership development process?
The initial issue was investigated by
comparing the collective results of approximately
500 school administrators with those of 500
private-sector managers on an 111 item diagnostic
test. Norms for the two samples were compared.

Increased competency was addressed in a
two-stage training process in which 76
administrators received and analyzed their
individual results and feedback from the diagnostic
instrument. They then developed action strategies
for remediation of liabilities identified by the
instrument. Seven to 12 months after the initial
diagnosis, participants again completed the
diagnostic test. Three to five colleagues completed
a similar diagnostic instrument with regard to the
Statistically significant differences
between private-sector managers and educational
administrators were found in five of 21
characteristics of management and leadership
identified in the study. Private-sector managers
were found to emphasize the characteristics of
Structuring, Feedback, and Control. Educational
administrators were found to place more emphasis on
Delegation, and People. Since the study found no
significant differences in 16 of the 21
characteristics, the conclusion was reached that

Tables ................................. lx
1. INTRODUCTION........................... 1
Background to the Study ............... 1
Statement of the Problem .............. 3
Significance of the Study ............. 5
Limitations of the Study .............. 6
Definitions ........................... 7
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... 13
Organization of Chapter II ........... 13
Leadership Theory .................... 13
Management and Leadership ............ 26
Public and Private Management ........ 30
Observer and Self Perception ......... 34
Effective Training ................... 40
Goal Directed Behavior as Management
Development ......................... 49
Task and Performance Commitment .... 51
Chapter Summary .................... 53
3. METHODOLOGY ............................ 57
Overview ............................. 57

3. (con't)
Instrumentation and Field
Procedure........................... 59
Procedures ......................... 77
Analysis of Research Questions ....... 80
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA......... .............. 87
Behavioral Comparisons .............. 88
Norms Comparison ..................... 98
Sample Population ................... 105
Observer Diagnosis .................. 109
Participant Evaluations ............. 113
Measurements of Develomental
Growth ............................ 125
Rural and Urban Evaluations ......... 136
RECOMMENDATIONS...................... 145
Summary ............................. 145
Summary of Findings ................. 148
Private vs. Public ................ 148
Observer Diagnosis ................ 156
Participant Evaluations .......... 158
Measurements of Developmental
Growth ......................... 161

5. (con't)
Rural vs. Urban Evaluations ....... 164
Conclusions ........................ 164
Implications and Recommendations ... 169
Private vs. Public .................. 169
Observer Diagnosis ................ 171
Participant Evaluations ........... 173
Measurements of Developmental
Growth ......................... 173
Rural vs. Urban ................... 174
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................... 175
B. SAMPLE LETTERS ........................ 180
C. EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS ................ 185
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 192

1. Roles of Educational Administrators .... 91
2. Roles of Private Sector Managers ....... 92
3. Functional Areas Educational
Administrators ........................ 94
4. Functional Areas Private Sector
Managers .............................. 95
5. Number of Employees in Educational
Organizations ......................... 96
6. Number of Employees in Private Sector
Organizations ......................... 96
7. Gender Comparison for Educational
Norming Sample ........................ 97
8. Gender Comparison for Private Sector
Norming Sample ........................ 97
9. Comparison of Norms Educational/
Private Sector on 21 Behavioral
Sets ................................. 101
10. Private Sector Scores on Educational
Norms ............................. 103
11. Education Scores on Private Sector
Norms ................................. 104
12. Educational Setting Study Sample .. 106
13. Administrative Level .................. 107
14. Number of Employees in Organization .. 108
15. Gender Study Sample ................. 109
16. Pearson Correlations of Observer and
Self Analysis for Educational and
Private Sector Managers ............. 112

17. Comparison of Evaluations of the MEA
Process by Private Sector Managers
and Educational Administrators ...... 117
18. Assessments of the MEA Process 7
to 12 Months after the Original
Training Seminar .................... 121
19. Summary of Assessments of the MEA
Process after the Follow-up
Diagnosis and Feedback Session ...... 124
20. Reported Degree of Completion of
First Action Plan ................... 128
21. Reported Degree of Completion of
Second Action Plan ................. 129
22. Example of Asset-Liability Continuum
Derivation .......................... 131
23. Comparison of Selected Liabilities
Before and After the Action
Planning Process ................... 133
24. Summary of Correlation Between
Measured Changes and Evaluation
of Change ........................... 135
25. Comparison of First Analysis
Evaluations of the MEA Process by
Rural and Urban Administrators ...... 139
26. Summary of Evaluations Comparing
Responses of Rural and Urban
Administrators 7 to 12 Months After
Their Initial Training Seminar ...... 141
27. Summary of Evaluations on MEA
Follow-up Process Comparing
Responses of Rural and Urban
Administrators ...................... 143

"Despite the number and visibility of
educational leaders, they have rather perplexingly
failed to attract greater interest on the part of
the researcher" (Immegart, 1988 p. 267). The intent
of this exploratory study was to investigate the
similarities and differences of educational and
private sector leaders by examining results of a
private sector management and leadership training
module as applied to educational administrators.
Background of the Study
In 1985 the Colorado legislature enacted the
"Quality Education Act of 1985," which provided two
million dollars to study and pilot processes and
programs for educational reform over a two year
period. One of the components of this legislation,
also known as the 2+2 Project, was training and

development activities for practicing educational
Training and development opportunities for
educational administrators include a wide variety of
classes from colleges and universities, seminars
from professional organizations, as well as
conferences. The traditional model, university
courses, is the most frequently used (Johnson, 1986,
p. 12). Other modes of training include the
institute, the academy, the competency based model,
networking, the collegial model, assessment centers
and various professional organizations that provide
training and development (Johnson, 1986, p. 13-21).
The vast majority of these experiences are
didactic in nature. Speakers, teachers, and
presenters lecture and share information about what
administrators can, could, or should do to improve
their effectiveness. Interactive classes,
simulations, and presentations provide activities
that reinforce learnings but have few if any
follow-up activities. With the exception of the
assessment centers, which are designed for
prospective administrators, the programs and classes

lack diagnostic feedback for the participant.
Administrators are not usually given the opportunity
to compare themselves to other administrators in any
systematic way and then to draw conclusions about
the effectiveness of their practices (Johnson, 1986,
p 36) .
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this exploratory study was to
examine the application of a private sector
management and leadership development approach with
Colorado public school administrators. The study
addressed two major lines of inquiry: 1) how do
private sector managers and educational
administrators compare with regard to management and
leadership behaviors; and, 2) do educational
administrators demonstrate increased competency as a
result of a management and leadership development
process? The research questions follow:
1. How do Colorado public school
administrators compare with private sector managers
with regard to management and leadership behaviors?

In what areas are the two groups similar and
different? Are there certain behaviors that are
more highly characteristic of educational
administrators than of private sector managers and
vice versa?
2. How do the observer (superior,
subordinate, and / or peer) assessments of
management and leadership behaviors differ between
private sector managers and Colorado public school
3. Do public school and private sector
administrators differ on their judgments as to the
accuracy, applicability and utility of the
Management Effectiveness Analysis? Do public school
administrators' judgments in this area change over
time, and if so, in what ways?
4a. To what extent do participants report
completion of their action strategies, plans
undertaken to address areas where the diagnostic
instrument indicated a liability?
4b. Does the diagnostic instrument indicate
change in the specific liability areas which the

participants selected to address in their action
4c. Is there a difference between the
self-report data of question #4a and the measured
data in question #4b?
5. Are there differences in the way in
which rural and urban administrators evaluate the
Significance of the Study
School administrators are the leaders of the
public educational system. TheiL? development is
crucial to the mission of education. Colorado law
requires only six semester hours of classes,
courses, and seminars every five years for
continuing certification. This study was important
because of the diagnostic / feedback approach offers
an alternative to didactic and interactive learning
for administrators. In the developmental process,
the participant's management assets and liabilities
became the subject matter of the program and the
outcome was an action plan to address identified

liabilities. Through this process, administrators
experienced a greater understanding of their role
and increased their competence in an area of need.
There is a scarcity of research about the
effects of developmental activities and programs for
educational administrators over time. This study
has contributed to the field by providing insights
about the Management Effectiveness Analysis (MEA) as
a developmental process over a 7 to 12 month period
of time.
Finally, this study is important because it
provides a comparison of educational and private
sector managers based on specific characteristics of
the administrative role. The training which was the
subject of this study was both systematic and had an
impact over time.
Limitations of the Study
The research sample for this study was
practicing school administrators in Colorado school
districts ranging in size from among the smallest to
the largest in the state. Because of time

limitations, the population was limited to 76
administrators, balanced approximately evenly among
the geographical regions of Colorado as designated
by the Colorado Department of Education.
Another limitation was the selection of
participants. Administrators who were participants
in this study were "volunteers" selected by their
districts. In some cases in smaller school
districts, the superintended "volunteered" the
entire administrative team. Other districts sought
out individuals who are eager to try something new.
While in still other cases, the project appeared to
be an opportunity to provide a developmental
experience for an administrator who was struggling.
Selection of the participants of the study was
outside the researcher's control. Therefore,
selection bias may be a limitation in generalizing
the results of the study.
Action strategies / plans: Written
statements of intent that participants developed as

part of the Management Effectiveness Analysis
training. Each participant chose to ameliorate two
liabilities identified by the Management
Effectiveness Analysis over which he/she felt he/she
agreed with the diagnosis, had control, and could
provide some extrinsic or intrinsic reward for
successful completion.
Assets: Positive managerial or leadership
characteristics which are identified by the
Management Effectiveness Analysis. Assets are
combinations of sets, or predisposition behaviors,
which private sector research has shown to be
advantageous to the manager or leader (Mahoney,
1983, p. 8) .
Competency: Underlying characteristic of a person
which results in effective and/or superior
performance on a job. It may be a motive, trait,
skill, aspect of one's self-image or societal role,
or a body of knowledge which he/she uses. The
characteristic may be apparent in many forms of
behavior, or a wide variety of different actions.
The critical attribute is that the competency

results in effective or superior job performance
(Boyatzis, 1982, p. 20).
Diagnosis: Refers to (1) the process of
classifying information relevant to an individual's
emotional or behavioral state and (2) the name
assigned the state, taken generally from a commonly
accepted classification system (Corsini, 1984,
p. 369). "The process of diagnosis is essentially
one of data collection, analysis, and validation.
The results of the diagnosis are then used by the
change agent and the client to determine what
general kinds of interventions are appropriate"
(Nadler, 1977, p. 18).
Effective: Performance of a job that is
assessed by looking at the attainment of output
objectives (i.e. results) or at the appropriate
execution of procedures and processes. (Boyatzis,
1982, p. 11).
Feedback: Feedback is a term borrowed from
electrical engineering that refers to a flow of
electrical impulses back to a source of those
pulses. In management and organizational jargon,
feedback has come to mean the return of information

to a source. Usually, the feedback includes an
interpretation of the information. The
interpretation often results in a person feeling
rewarded or punished. The interpretation is
necessary for the information to have meaning
(Boyatzis, 1982, p. 143).
Leadership: Inducing followers to act for
certain goals that represent the values and the
motivations, the wants and needs, the aspirations
and expectations, of both the leaders and followers
(Burns, 1978, p. 19).
Leadership Development Process: Training
involving learning about creating and communicating
a vision of the future, coaching subordinates,
facilitating their work, building networks and
coalitions of people in other departments, learning
how to deal with ambiguity and adapting to change
(London, 1985. p. 184).
Liabilities: Negative or undesirable
managerial or leadership characteristics which are
identified by the Management Effectiveness Analysis
Liabilities are combinations of Sets, or
predisposition behaviors, which private sector

research has shown to be disadvantageous to the
manager or leader (Mahoney, 1983, p. 8).
Management: The scientific art of attaining
intended organizational objectives by working
effectively with and through the human and material
resources of the organization (Cribbin, 1972, p. 2).
Functions of management include: setting of goals
and objectives; organizing, classifying and
analyzing actions; motivating and communicating with
subordinates and others in the organization;
measuring results; and developing people (Drucker,
1974, p. 16).
Management Development: The whole, complex
process by which individuals learn, grow, and
improve their abilities to perform professional
management tasks (Bennett, 1982, p. 38).
Management Training: Training provided
within or outside of the organization: to increase
the effectiveness of managers and professionals; to
increase the satisfaction of employees; to satisfy
the requirements of EEO/human rights programs; to
reduce or prevent managerial obsolescence
(Middlebrook, 1985, p. 27).

Observers: Peers, subordinates, and
supervisors chosen by by participants to complete
the Management Effectiveness Analysis questionnaire
about the participant in the study.
Predisposition Behaviors: Behaviors which
result when a manager / administrator is confronted
with a set of circumstances which are unfamiliar to
that individual from his/her managerial experience.
These behaviors provide predetermined means for
dealing with the current situation without
reformulation of the problem solving process.
Success: A favorable outcome, doing what
was desired or attempted (Ehrlich, 1980, p. 918).
Transfer of Training: Degree to which
managers effectively apply to their jobs the
knowledge and skills gained in the off-the-job
developmental process (Newstrom, 1986, p. 34).

Organization of Chapter 2
Since the purpose of this exploratory study
was to examine the effects of a management and
leadership training / development process, it is
necessary to briefly review the principal tenets of
leadership theory. The remainder of the chapter is
organized around the research questions with
sections examining the research relating to the
Leadership Theory
"Many organizations are paralyzed by
situations in which people appeal for direction,
feeling immobilized and disorganized by the sense
that they are not being led" (Smircich & Morgan,

1982, p. 257). The questions of what constitutes
leadership, how leadership manifests itself and how
leadership can be measured are ones that continue to
be debated widely (Heller & VanTil, 1982; Blake &
Mouton, 1982; Minor, 1982; Bennis, 1985; Hersey &
Blanchard, 1983; Wright & Taylor, 1983).
Bennis (1959) surveyed the leadership
literature and concluded: "Always, it seems, the
concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in
another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness
and complexity. So we have invented an endless
proliferation of terms to deal with it...and still
the concept is not sufficiently defined" (p. 259).
Definitions of leadership usually have as a common
denominator the assumption that it is a group
phenomenon involving the interaction between two or
more persons. In addition, most definitions of
leadership reflect the assumption that it involves
an influence process whereby intentional influence
is exerted by the leader over followers (Yukl, 1981,
p. 3). In research, the operational definition of
leadership will depend to a great extent on the
purpose of the researcher. The purpose may be to

identify leaders, to train them, to discover what
they do, to determine how they are selected, or to
compare effective and ineffective leaders. As Karmel
(1978) noted, "It is consequently very difficult to
settle on a single definition of leadership that is
general enough to accommodate these many meanings
and specific enough to serve as an
operationalization of the variable" (p. 476).
Like conceptions of leadership itself,
conceptions of leadership effectiveness differ from
author to author. One major distinction among
definitions of leadership effectiveness is the type
of consequence or outcome selected to be the
effectiveness criterion. The outcomes include such
diverse things as group performance, attainment of
group goals, group survival, group growth, group
preparedness, group capacity to deal with crises,
subordinate satisfaction with the leader,
subordinate commitment to group goals, the
psychological well-being and development of group
members, and the leader's retention of his status
and position in the group (Yukl, 1981, p. 5). The
selection of appropriate criteria of leader

effectiveness depends on the objectives and values
of the person making the evaluation. When there are
many alternative measures of effectiveness, it is
usually an arbitrary decision as to which is the
most relevant. "The different criteria are often
uncorrelated, and may even be negatively correlated"
(Yukl, 1981, p. 6).
Nearly all of the research on leadership can
be classified into one of the following four
approaches: (1) power-influence approach, (2) trait
approach, (3) behavior approach, and (4) situational
approach (Yukl, 1981, p. 7). The power influence
approach attempts to explain leader effectiveness in
terms of the source and amount of power available to
leaders and the manner in which leaders exercise
power over followers. A number of studies have been
conducted to compare the effects of using different
forms of power. Most of these studies have used
influence measures based on the power typology
proposed by French and Raven (1959) in which they
define the five bases of power: reward power,
coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, and
referent power (Yukl, 1981, p. 38).

The trait approach emphasizes the personal
qualities of leaders. Current literature on
leadership emphasizes the trait approach. Bennis
(1985), Bradford & Cohen (1984), and Cohen & Cohen
(1984), presented lists of traits and skills which
did not differ markedly from Stogdill's 1974 review
(p. 81) in which he suggested that the following
trait profile is characteristic of successful
The leader is characterized by strong drive for
responsibility and task completion, vigor and
persistence in pursuit of goals,
venturesomeness and originality in problem
solving, drive to exercise initiative in social
situations, self-confidence and sense of
personal identity, willingness to accept
consequences of decision and action, readiness
to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to
tolerate, frustration and delay, ability to
influence other persons' behavior, capacity to
structure social interaction systems to the
purpose at hand.
However, Stogdill (1974) stated that
recognition of the relevance of leader traits is not
a return to the original trait approach. "The old
assumption that leaders are born has been
discredited completely, and the premise that certain

leader traits are absolutely necessary for effective
leadership has never been substantiated in several
decades of trait research" (p. 72). Today there is
a more balanced viewpoint about traits. It is now
recognized that certain traits increase the
likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they
do not guarantee effectiveness and the relative
importance of different traits is dependent on the
nature of the leadership situation" (Yukl, 1981,
p. 70) .
Another approach that emphasizes the
personal qualities of leaders is the leadership
style approach. The goal and direction of many of
the early style studies were to find the "right" or
"best" style or to find the leadership style that
was most effective. These lines of inquiry have for
the most part been abandoned. It is now apparent
that effective or successful leaders demonstrate
style variability and thus score high on all style
dimensions employed in studies (Immegart, 1988,
p. 262).
The third approach to the study of
leadership is the examination of leader behavior and

comparisons of behavior patterns for effective and
ineffective leaders. The behavior approach
emphasizes what leaders do instead of their traits
or source of power (Yukl, 1981, p. 92). There is
little agreement in the literature from theory or
research about categories of leadership behavior.
"The more general a behavior category is, the more
likely it is relevant to many different kinds of
leaders, but the less useful it is for determining
what makes a leader effective in a particular
situation" (Yukl, 1981, p. 120).
The three broadest and most widely studied
dimensions of leadership behavior are leader
initiating structure, consideration and
participation (Bass, 1981, p. 358). House and Baetz
(1979), in a comprehensive review of the literature,
made the following empirical generalizations:
1. Task-oriented (initiating structure)
leadership is necessary for effective
performance in all working groups.
2. Acceptance of task-oriented leadership
requires that the task-oriented leader allows
others to respond by giving feedback, making
objectives, and questioning the task-oriented

3. Socioemotionally (consideration) oriented
leadership is required in addition to
task-oriented leadership when groups are not
engaged in satisfying or ego-involving tasks.
4. Groups requiring both kinds of leadership
behavior will be more effective when these
leader behaviors are performed by one person
rather than divided among two or more
5. When the leadership roles are differentiated,
groups will be most effective if those
assuming the roles are mutually supportive
and least effective when they are in conflict
with each other.
6. When formally appointed leaders fail to
perform the leader behaviors required for
group success, an informal leader will emerge
and will perform the necessary leader
behaviors, provided success is desired by the
group members.
7. Participative leadership is most effective
when subordinates have sufficient competence
to contribute to the participative process.
8. Participative leadership will be most
effective under.conditions where tasks are
ego-involving, ambiguous, and non-routine.
9. When task demands are not ego-involving,
subordinates' predisposition to participate
moderates the degree to which the
participative process will be satisfying to
subordinates (p. 369).
In order to fill the conceptual void in
leadership theory, Yukl (1981) completed a four-year
program of research to identify meaningful and
measurable categories of leadership behavior. The
19 behavior categories in the taxonomy were:
performance emphasis, consideration, inspiration,
praise-recognition, structuring reward

contingencies, decision participation,
autonomy-delegation, role clarification, goal
setting, training-coaching, information
dissemination, problem-solving, planning,
coordinating, work facilitation, representation,
interaction facilitation, conflict management, and
criticism-discipline. Most of the categories are
components of more broadly defined categories found
in earlier research (Yukl, 1981, p. 127-128).
Behaviors which are systematically applied
can be thought of as skills. Wright and Taylor
(1985) argued persuasively for the importance of a
skills-based approach:
The concept of skill has been strangely
neglected in the study of leadership. Modern
leadership theories are almost invariably
behavioral. They describe what leaders do, and
what leaders should do in order to be more
effective in different leadership situations.
Nevertheless, the leader's behavior tends to be
described in very general terms, such as
leadership styles or patterns. Thus, leaders
or potential leaders are informed that in
different situations they should be democratic
or autocratic, considerate or authoritarian,
person-centered or task-oriented. None of
these theories, however, spell out in any
detail how to perform these activities. It
seems to be assumed that once leaders are aware
that they need to be, say, democratic in a

particular situation, they will know how to be
a democratic leader and what is more, be able
to perform this role well. Anyone who has
observed a well meaning, but incompetent,
democratic leader reduce a meeting to a
shambles and its participants to frustration
and despair, knows that this simply is not
true. It is not merely what leaders do, but
how well they do it which determines how
effective they are (p. 45).
Wright and Taylor (1985) found that the
"main implication of taking a skills approach to
leadership is that, like any other skills,
leadership skills can only be acquired through
practice with feedback and guidance" (p. 49). This
approach makes it possible to describe and provide
training in the core skills required in a wide
variety of managerial situations.
The situational approach is concerned with
identifying aspects of the situation that influence
a leader's behavior and determine whether it will be
effective. This theory of effective leadership
typically examines the moderating influence of
situational variables on the relationship between
leader behavior and its consequences.

Aspects of the situation found to be important
in situational research include: task
structure, interdependence of subordinate
tasks, technology, external workflow
dependencies, environmental uncertainty, leader
position power, level of management, span of
control, centralization, formalization and
subordinate characteristics such as need,
traits, expectations, and competence (Yukl,
1981, p. 273).
Fiedler's studies from 1967 to 1974
initiated the era of the situation or contingency
models in leadership research. Fielder hypothesized
"that group productivity was dependent on the match
in leadership orientation (task versus relationship
oriented) and situational favorableness (a mix of
person-trait, group, and situational variables). In
so doing, Fiedler confirmed the situational nature
of leadership and advanced the idea that leadership
effectiveness is likewise situational (Immegart,
1988, p. 264) .
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) described
situational leadership as based on an
interrelationship among (1) the amount of guidance
and direction (task behavior) given by the leader;
(2) the amount of socioemotional support
(relationship behavior) provided by the leader; and

(3) the readiness ("maturity") level that followers
exhibit in carrying out a specific task. While it
is recognized that all situational variables are
important, the emphasis in Hersey and Blanchard is
on the behavior of the leader in relation to
followers. According to situational leadership
theory, there is no one best way to influence
people. The leadership style a person should use
with individuals or groups depends on the maturity
level of the people the leader is attempting to
influence. Each of the four leadership styles,
telling, selling, participating, and delegating, is
a combination of task behavior and relationship
behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).
A derivation of the situational model is
path-goal theory. The theory consists of two
propositions. The first is that leader behavior is
acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to the
extent that they see it as either an immediate
source of satisfaction or as instrumental to future
satisfaction. The second is that leader behavior:
will be motivational to the extent that (1) it makes
satisfaction of subordinate needs contingent on

effective performance, and (2) it compliments the
environment of subordinates by providing coaching,
guidance, support, and rewards which are necessary
for effective performance and which may otherwise be
lacking in subordinates or in their environment
(House & Baetz, 1979, p. 386).
These two propositions suggest that the
leader's strategic functions are to enhance
subordinates' motivation to perform, their
(subordinates) satisfaction on the job, and the
acceptance of the leader. The strategic functions
of the leader consist of:
1. Recognizing and/or arousing subordinates'
needs for outcomes over which the leader
has some control;
2. Increasing personal payoffs to the
subordinates for goal attainment;
3. Making the path to those payoffs easier to
travel by coaching and direction;
4. Helping subordinates clarify expectancies;
5. Reducing frustration barriers; and
6. Increasing opportunities for personal
satisfaction, contingent on effective
performance (House & Baetz, 1979, p. 386).
A third focus following the contingency
model has its roots in operant conditioning.
Investigations have explored the effect of rewards

and punishments on reinforcing particular patterns
of behaviors in followers. Leadership, in this
view, relates to the leader's motivational activity
and the shaping of behavior by controlling
consequences. Investigations have demonstrated
consistent results for rewards (something that is
needed or desired by the follower), and inconsistent
results for punitive consequences (Immegart, 1988,
p. 266) .
Management and Leadership
Management and leadership are often defined
in a similar fashion. Hersey and Blanchard (1977)
define management as "working with and through
individuals and groups to accomplish organizational
goals" (p. 3). Later, in the same work, they define
leadership as the "process of influencing the
activities of an individual or a group in an effort
toward goal achievement in a given situation"
(p. 84). The critical difference is that leadership
can exist outside of management while management
cannot function effectively without a leadership

component. "Since everyone whose work involves the
direction and supervision of other people is in a
leadership position, all managers who supervise
people are leaders" (Fiedler, 1974, p. 6). Fiedler
went on to note that many leaders are non-managers.
"A man may have power and influence without having a
formal management position. While most managers are
indeed leaders, the leadership functions they
perform are only part of their managerial role"
(P- 6).
Managers are those individuals who have been
selected by an organization to further the ends of
the organization. "Managers plan, organize, staff,
direct, coordinate, gain cooperation from people,
exert controls, review and evaluate, budget, and
lead" (Cribbin, 1972, p. 3). Yet, managers' status
as leaders is dependent upon their behaviors or
legitimate power, rather than their formal status or
position power. "The manager is the leader of his
people when they allow him to influence their
thinking, their attitudes, and their behavior.
Influence implies that the manager is accepted by
his subordinates, is looked to for guidance and

direction, is perceived by them as capable of
helping them satisfy their needs and aims" (Cribbin,
1972, p. 10) .
Bennis (1989) has attempted to expand the
definition of leadership and create mutually
exclusive lists of functions for managers and
The manager administers; the leader innovates.
The manager is a copy; the leader is an
The manager maintains; the leader develops.
The manager focuses on systems and structure;
the leader focuses on people.
The manager relies on control; the leader
inspires trust.
The manager has a short-range view; the leader
has a long-range perspective.
The manager asks how and when; the leader asks
what and why.
The manager has his eye always on the bottom
line; the leader has his eye on the horizon.
The manager imitates; the leader originates.
The manager accepts the status quo; the leader
challenges it.
The manager is classic good soldier; the leader
is his own person.
The manager does things right; the leader does
the right thing (p 14) .
Yet, Bennis' distinctions are not congruent with
other definitions and functions of leadership and
management in the literature. Drucker (1974)

ascribed development of people, motivation and
communication as management functions. Mahoney
(1986) organized the functions of management to
include innovation, development of staff and
strategic planning as management rather than
leadership functions.
Researchers usually define leadership according
to their individual perspective and the aspect of
the phenomenon of most interest to them (Yukl, 1981,
p. 2). After a comprehensive review of the
leadership literature, Stogdill (1974) concluded
that "there are almost as many definitions of
leadership as there are persons who have attempted
to define the concept" (p. 259). Whereas Bennis
asserted an usually broad definition of leadership
and one in which he intentionally created a schism
between management and leadership, most other
authors in the literature took a view closer to
those in the definitions of leadership and
management in Chapter 1. Within the organizational
context, leadership is viewed as a critical, but
singular, component of management.

Public vs. Private Management
Historically in America, two different
institutional approaches to management science
have developed: one in the private sector and
one in the public sector. This dual
development, however, has not gone
unchallenged. For perhaps two generations
scholars and practitioners have realized that
management can be viewed as a generic process,
with universal implications and with
application in any institutional setting,
whether a private firm or a public agency. The
historic "separate but equal" doctrine is being
challenged by a nascent integrationist movement
(Murray, 1975, p. 60).
The long standing perception of two separate
approaches continues to exist as a result of
traditional mistrust by public and private
practitioners and differences emphasized by schools
of business, education, and public administration.
But the actual similarities between a business firm
and a government organization are increasingly
apparent. In any complex organization, defining
purposes and objectives, planning, organizing,
selecting managers, managing and motivating people,
controlling and measuring results, and using a
variety of analytical, problem solving and
managerial techniques are essential (Genck, 1973,

p. 6). These elements are relevant in any complex
organization and are common aspects of a universal
or generic management process, whether in the
private or the public sector (Genck, 1973, p. 6).
One of the most cited differences between
public and private management is in the values of
profits vs. politics. The notion that profits are
the sole or main reason for the existence of private
business is itself misleading. Levitt (1973) has
argued that profits are an essential requirement for
existence; but the focus on profits as the single
objective distorts or minimizes other advantageous
activities such a products, services, employment,
and all the "hidden hand" effects of community and
social contribution. While profits are a "handy
measure," benefits do not always lend themselves to
a monetary judgment of effectiveness. To say that
profits are never the objective of the public is
equally misleading. Government projects are subject
to cost-benefit analysis and efficiency in
government is a by-word of administrators (p. 29).
A distinction of public sector management is
that the criteria of political decisions are based

on objectives of compromise, consensus, and
democratic participation, and that these are quite
different from private sector objectives of
efficiency, rationality, and profit or product
maximization (Murray, 1975, p. 62). But Levitt
(1973) argued that the culture of private
bureaucracies is basically the same as that of
public bureaucracies. The desire for personal power
and security is the same; responsiveness to outside
pressures is the same (p. 30).
The difference between public and private
motivation can be explained on the basis of several
fundamental differences between public and private
personnel policy. Public organizations generally
provide systems of appeals routes and grievance
procedures in order to protect employees from abuse
or unjust actions. Involvement in such proceedings
generally requires such an investment in time and
effort that few employers are willing to initiate
punitive actions (Savas & Ginsburg, 1973, p. 75).
"As a consequence, public organizations are often
unable to rid themselves of dead weight, and public
employees often feel free to resist directives and

pressure to increase productivity because they know
their jobs are not threatened when they fail to
comply (Baldwin, 1984, p. 80)." Private
organizations generally hold an important negative
incentive for motivating employees in that they can
threaten employees' job security (p. 80).
Balk (1974) found that public compensation
policies are often unrelated to the task.
Productive employees are not rewarded consistently
and paid visibly. Pay raises are often automatic
and promotions are frequently based on seniority.
Development of effective public incentive systems is
inhibited by inflexible compensation policies which
are mandated by law. Private organizations, on the
other hand, are able to maintain competitive
compensation policies (p. 322).
Other possible reasons for motivational
differences between public and private employees
include the differences in the nature of ownership,
public vs. private, the nature of goals, ambiguous
vs. concrete, and the nature of the markets,
monopolistic vs. competitive (Baldwin, 1984, p. 83).

Baldwin examined the motivational
differences in a literature review and concluded
that "the descriptive literature suggests fairly
strongly that private employees are more motivated
than public employees, while the findings of
empirical research tend to be inconsistent, but
marred by serious methodological shortcomings."
Yet, in his own study Baldwin found no differences
in the motivational levels of the two groups. He
speculated that generally perceived differences in
motivation level have more to do with the fact that
public employment is more open to public interaction
and scrutiny. As a consequence, the "shortcomings
of a few may often become an indictment of many"
(Baldwin, 1984, p. 86).
Observer vs. Self Perceptions
Literature on the self-assessment of
self-knowledge is filled with seeming
contradictions. One basic problem with
self-appraisal is a concept labeled leniency. A
preponderance of studies show that employees

consistently rate themselves higher than they are
rated by their supervisors or peers (Thornton, 1980,
p. 263). Meyer (1980) found that 40% of employees
rated themselves as "one of the best in the top
10%", whereas no more than one or two percent will
place themselves in the "below average" category.
While these lenient self-appraisals have been found
among employees of all types of jobs,
self-appraisals have been found to be particularly
lenient among professionals (p. 292). In one group
of higher level professional and managerial
employees, for example, over 80% placed themselves
in the "top 10 percent" category (Meyer, 1980,
p. 293).
Shrauger and Osberg (1981) found that
self-assessments for a wide variety of measures
including job performance were "at least as
predictive" of those measures as other assessments.
Shrauger and Osberg (1981) reported that the main
individual difference variable in investigations of
self-perception was self-consciousness. Two aspects
of self-consciousness have been distinguished, with
private self-consciousness referring to the tendency

to direct attention to one's own thoughts and
feelings and public self-consciousness reflecting
one's awareness of self as a social object. High
private self-consciousness has been related to
giving predictably valid self-reports, whereas high
public self-consciousness has been found to be
associated with giving more invalid self-reports.
Cognitive functioning also plays a part in the
accuracy of self-assessment. Educational level and
emotional adjustment are factors which contribute
positively to accuracy of self-appraisal (Shrauger &
Osberg, 1981, p. 344).
Aside from evaluating the cognitive
capacities of self-assessors, it is also necessary
to consider the extent to which they are aware of
themselves and attend to their own behavior
(Shrauger, 1981, p. 344). Studies on objective
self-awareness indicate that people frequently
direct attention to themselves as social objects and
that these states of self-focused attention heighten
awareness of their own standards and increase the
motivation to conform to those standards. Thus,
individuals induced to be more self-focused give

more accurate self-reports. Making judgments of
either past and future behavior or present feelings
under heightened self-focused attention enhances the
accuracy of self-reports (Shrauger, 1981, p. 344).
Mount (1984), on the other hand, has shown
that subordinate ratings are more highly correlated
with supervisor ratings than with self ratings
(p. 697). Holzbach (1978) found that peer ratings
and supervisor ratings did not differ appreciably
(p. 586). Kelly (1987) in a study of administrative
interns found no significant differences in any of
13 skill areas among several observers including
university professors, intern supervisors, site
supervisors, and self ratings (p. 72). The quality
of these ratings are influenced by the purposes for
which the ratings are used. Observer ratings,
particularly peer ratings, have been shown to be
more accurate when the observers were identifying
strengths and weaknesses rather than when used for
salary and promotional decisions (Mount, 1984,
p. 700). Another issue in observer ratings is the
frame of reference issue, particularly of
subordinates. It is unlikely that subordinates

understand the overall goals and responsibilities of
their superiors (Mount, 1984, p. 700).
Peer assessment is the process of having
members of a group judge the extent to which each of
their fellow group members has exhibited specific
traits, behaviors or achievements (Kane, 1978,
p. 555). In the above study, Kane (1978) used
behaviorally anchored scales for having peers rate
each other. In this type of scale, each interval
was accompanied by the description of an incident
exemplifying a corresponding behavior. In the
conclusion to the study, Kane (1978) wrote: "Peer
rating has been shown to be theoretically applicable
to virtually the whole spectrum of assessment
purposes, but the relatively weak empirical support
for its effectiveness probably limits it to serving
primarily a feedback role until the properties of
the measurement procedure it employs can be
strengthened" (p. 583).
In examining the validity of subordinate
appraisals, Bernardin (1986) found "higher
validities for subordinate appraisals than for
assessment center scores in predicting subsequent

managerial performance" (p. 427). Measurements were
taken on scales indicating agreement or
disagreement. The combined use of subordinate
appraisals with assessment center data was found to
be superior to either approach used independently
(Bernardin, 1986, p. 427).
A consistent problem in ratings is the halo
effect which is indicated by high intercategory
correlations or low intercategory variance (Cooper,
1981, p. 218). Originally named by Thorndike
(1920), the halo error can be seen as "suffusing
ratings of special features with a halo belonging to
the individual as whole" (p.27). Thorndike found
that when supervisors rated their subordinates the
intercategory correlations were all "higher than
reality," and "too high and too even" (p.27).
Cooper (1981) examined a number of studies designed
to reduce the halo effect and concluded: "The
modest returns from efforts to reduce illusory halo
have demonstrated how recalcitrant the phenomenon
is, in part because most methods deal with only a
limited range of sources" (1981, p. 236).

Effective Training
The knowledge gained from management and
leadership theory and research has important
implications for practitioners. There are three
general approaches for improving management and
leadership abilities: (1) selection, (2) situational
engineering, and (3) training (Newstrom, 1986,
p. 24). Use of personnel selection to improve
management and leadership abilities is closely
associated with the trait approach and utilizes the
findings from the trait studies. Situational
engineering requires that the organization change to
fit the strength of the manager or administrator.
Training is the most widely used method for
improving management and leadership abilities and is
explored in detail in this study.
Training programs, however, have been
subject to the criticism of ineffectiveness. Many
management training programs fail to result in
significant, new, modified, or lasting behaviors on
the job despite the millions of dollars that are
spent annually (Jackson, 1985, p. 70). Dillon

(1976), in reviewing a Rand Corporation study,
reported a similarly unsatisfactory description of
the results of management development efforts.
Securing and maintaining the commitment, both
personally and organizationally, required for
lasting behavioral change is difficult at best
(p. 165).
Evaluation of training consists primarily of
tracking participant reaction (Snyder, 1980, p. 431)
or of efficiency measures with regard to measuring
the cost of the training against the amount of time
spent in training (Smith 1980, p. 72). Hall and
Hord (1983) suggested that staff development
professionals might gain valuable insight into the
effects of training if follow-up studies were
conducted. The increased demand for accountability
and effective management of schools has generated
interest in training program effectiveness (p. 11).
The critical attribute of all training is
the transfer of training from the class or seminar
to the workplace. The essential ingredients of
transfer include a presumption of prior learning or
knowledge and skills in an off-the-job or training

context. The skills or knowledge is then used or
applied on the job. The third critical ingredient
of transfer is some assessment of that use being
both effective and sustained over a reasonable
period of time (Newstrom, 1986, p. 34). Literature
on teacher training indicates that mastery of
teaching skills can be accomplished through the use
of a combination of three elements: the study of
the theory underlying the skill, the opportunity to
observe multiple demonstrations, and practice and
feedback either under simulated conditions or in the
classroom (Joyce & Showers, 1981, p. 163). Joyce
and Showers (1983) distinguished between horizontal
and vertical transfer. Horizontal transfer refers
to a condition in which a skill can be shifted
directly from the training situation in order to
solve problems. Vertical transfer refers to
conditions in which the new skill cannot be used to
solve problems unless it is adapted to fit the
condition of the workplace. In other words an
extension of learning is required before problems
can be solved effectively (p. 5).

Yet, for both educational and private sector
leaders, there is little emphasis placed on transfer
of training. Daresh (1985) found that the most
frequently used inservice model for educational
administrators was the short-term institute provided
by a professional association. Respondents
indicated a strong need for more long term training
and development programs (p. 42). Johnson (1986)
found that 73% of Colorado school districts used
lectures / speakers as the primary instructional
delivery method for administrator development
(p. 79). In the private sector, Middlebrook and
Rachel (1985) surveyed 101 companies and reported
"respondents to the survey indicated the lack of a
systematic approach to training and development
programs as being the number one problem in
industry" (p. 30).
Educational administrators bring a set of
management and leadership characteristics with them
when they enter a school system or when they change
units within the school system. Likewise, the
organization has its own set of needs and
philosophies about the way education works in that

particular district. Successful development of
practicing administrators occurs when individual
motivation for acquiring management and leadership
skills and organizational context interact in such a
way as to produce satisfactory achievement on the
part of both (London, 1985, p. 12-16).
Administrators do not leave their
personalities and motivations at the door when they
come to work. On the other hand, organizational
culture creates strong pressure to "fit in" within
the existing structure. Years of tradition and
organizational history have created a significant
inertia. The dilemma for the individual, then, is
how to realistically establish achievable goals and
successfully engage in a pattern of work
accomplishment and growth within a given
organizational culture. The dilemma for the
organization is how to orchestrate a myriad of
individual players, each with his/her own potential,
into a productive body of contributors that will
grow and sustain the organization now and in the
future (London, 1985, p. 12-16).

In 1954, Peter Drucker stated that the
manager is a dynamic, life-giving element in every
business organization (p. 10). It may have once
been generally believed that managers were born and
not made, but now there is increasing acceptance of
the idea that managerial knowledge, skills, and
abilities can be learned and improved (Campbell,
1970, p. 14). The broad general term for this
learning process is management development: the
whole, complex process by which individuals learn,
grow, and improve their abilities to perform
professional management tasks (Bennett, 1982,
p. 40). Components of this process usually take
three forms: management education, management
training, and planned and unplanned on-the-job
experiences (Wexley, 1986, p. 278). In a review of
training literature, Chenault (1987, p. 47)
summarized the pervading training options for
executives in the private sector from universities,
corporate programs, and commercial trainers. She
found the following characteristics of these
training options:

University Programs
A sequence of required courses
-in predetermined content areas
-based upon broader, longer-term
learner needs than oilier options
-as determined by department faculty
-and approved by university council
-almost exclusively representing
"hard" functions (finance,
computer technology)
-presented primarily by didactic
teaching methods
-in a classroom environment
-relying heavily upon case study,
theory, and abstract concepts
-presented in a teacher-centered
-that includes assignments and
class discussion.
Corporate Programs
A series of nonsequential seminars
-in short time periods and
-in content areas responding to
more inmediate needs of trainees
-as typically determined by
training officers
-with primary focus on technical
-presented by lecture, cassette,
film, and videotape
-in more learner-centered style
(sometimes self-study with
training manuals)
-more related to workplace
-usually on-site in various
-and provided primarily at an
undergraderate learning level.
Ocnmercial Training
A series of nosequential seminars
-in short time periods and
-in content areas responding to
more immediate needs of trainees
-as determined by market popularity
-offering both technical information
and "soft" content
-presented in lecture/speech format
with audiovisual aides and handouts
-in more leamer-oentered style than
business schools (sane audience
-but often featuring charismatic
presenters (trainer-centered)
-with content related to the workplace
-provided in various environments,
including hotel conference rooms
-end requiring travel to training.
Chenault (1987, p.47-48)

Effective training, according to Chenault's
1987 review of the literature and practice, is
characterized by longitudinal programs developed
collaboratively by participants, trainers and
corporations. Individualized and personal goals are
blended with organizational goals. The training
responds to both immediate and long-term needs of
executives, and utilizing interactive, collegial
study groups for learner-centered, self-directed
study. Participants are assisted by mentors or
consultants, who deal with connected, integrated
content over a one-or two-year period. The emphasis
is on creative independent thinking, and requires
excellence in both critical and experiential
learning, preparing executives for life-long
learning that includes environmental scanning and
analysis (p. 49).
In a 1986 dissertation on the State of
educational administration development programs in
Colorado, Johnson (1986) reviewed the practice and
research literature and found the following to be a
list of "best practices" for administrative

. Effective inservice involves clients in
collaborative decision making regarding
their own program.
. Effective inservice is based on
client-identified needs.
. Effective inservice provides intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards.
. Effective inservice affords participants the
opportunity to see skills and concepts
. Effective inservice provides participants
with different training experiences to
accomplish various objectives rather than
common activities required for all.
Johnson (1986) found that administrator
inservice training and development practices in
Colorado school districts did not reflect what the
literature and research recommended for optimal
training results. Her conclusion was "based on
citations in the review of the literature which
describe effective inservice practices and
components of successful training programs" (p. 80).
It is also based on the findings of her study which
indicated that most districts continue to provide
participants with undifferentiated training, limited
input, little feedback, and insufficient attention
to adult learning principles (p. 80).

Goal Directed Behavior as Management Development
An overwhelming number of research studies,
conducted in both laboratory and field settings,
have substantiated Locke's hypothesis (1968, p. 158)
that specific, difficult goals lead to higher levels
of task performance than either "do your best" or
easier goals (Locke, 1981, p. 125). In general,
goal setting entails specifying a level of
performance toward which the individual should work
(Fellner, 1984, p. 33). Garland (1982) in
replicating Locke's original research in this area,
again found that goal difficulty had not only a
significant affect on performance but also on
satisfaction, the more difficult the goal the better
the performance and the greater the satisfaction (
p. 247).
A goal is a stimulus that precedes behavior.
When the antecedent goal reliably accompanies a
reinforced response, it acquires control and
increases the possibility that it will cue the
individual to repeat the behavior. The attainment
of a goal can also function as a reinforcing

stimulus. If meeting the goal is paired frequently
with positive consequence or removal of negative
consequence, the goal can function as a conditioned
reinforcing stimulus (Fellner, 1984, p. 35). Goal
setting in a developmental situation requires that
the manager have some basis upon which to determine
a goal. Garland (1983) found that individuals were
more likely to meet personally determined goals than
assigned goals (p. 29).
In the educational literature, goal
directedness is a consistent theme in many lists of
highly effective behaviors derived from
correlational research. Selection Research
Incorporated (SRI) identified typical interview
responses of principals considered to be outstanding
by others (peers, superiors, subordinates) in the
development of the Administrator Perceiver, a system
designed to help employers make predictions about an
applicant's probable job success. Three of the 14
themes identified by SRI were "mission" and
"performance orientation" and "goal directedness"
(p. 12). In 1982 the American Association of School
Administrators published a list of recommended

competencies. Goal directedness was identified in
this list, as well.
Task and Performance Commitment
Once goals for personal development have
been set, it is usually incumbent on the individual
manager to follow through and complete the
activities that address the goals for behavioral
change (Marx, 1986, p. 54). Although there is a
significant amount of research on mandated
management by objective (MBO) development plans,
there is little information regarding voluntary
self-development programs and the likelihood of
permanent change (Pedler, 1982, p. 31).
Training experts estimate that less than 15%
of the skills learned in management development
programs remain one year after the training
(Newstrom 1986, p. 34). Marx (1986) suggested that
"most new training is sabotaged temporarily by
overwhelming environmental circumstances" (p. 55).
These would include the organizations "quick fix"
mentality, failure to achieve the critical mass

necessary for widespread support, absence of
personal payoff, absence of relevant job aids,
inadequate feedback and low expectations about
training outcomes (Newstrom, 1986, p. 36).
Newstroms survey (1986) of human resource
development professionals revealed the following
nine factors (in order of frequency) to be the most
significant impediments to transfer of training:
1. Lack of on-the-job reinforcement.
2. Interference from the immediate environment.
3. Non-supportive organizational climate.
4. Training program lacking practicality.
5. Irrelevance in training content.
6. Discomfort with change.
7. Separation from the trainer.
8. Poor delivery of training program.
9. Negative peer pressure (p. 36).
When the elements working against transfer of
training are reviewed, a low transfer rate is easily
predictable. Newstrom (1986) found that transfer
management consists of a variety of actions before,
during or after training by managers of staff,

management development personnel and the
participants, themselves, which involved preparation
and follow up (p.40) .
With the assessment center approach in which
participants are provided with diagnosis and
feedback regarding their strengths and weaknesses,
transfer of training is more likely to occur. In a
study of the National Association of Secondary
Schools Assessment Center in Colorado, Walden
(1985) found that 92% of the assessment center
participants planned to work on improvement plans at
the end of the Assessment Center process. In a
follow-up seven months later, she found that
supervisors had noted improvement in 75% of the
Chapter Summary
Research on leadership theory can generally
be classified into one of the four principal
approaches: power-influence, trait, behavior, and
situational. The power-influence approach examines
leadership in relationship to five kinds of power:

reward power, coercive legitimate power, expert
power, and referent power. The trait approach
explores leadership through the personal qualities
of the leader. The behavior approach emphasizes
what leaders do instead of their traits or source
power. The situational approach examines leadership
behavior in relationship to the contextual
Management and leadership are closely linked
in much of the literature. While many theorists and
researchers view leadership as part of the overall
management responsibilities, others see the two as
distinct functions. Within the context of formal
organizations, leadership is viewed as a critical,
but singular, component of management.
Complex organizations, whether they are
public or private, have similar structural
characteristics. This view is supported by
researchers and theorists who see the skills of
management and leadership as generic. Bureaucracies
are essentially the same whether they are public or
private. Conversely, the theme of politics vs.
profits dominates the discussion of those who see

two branches of management, public and private.
Public organizations generally provide grievance
procedures and appeals routes which have the effect
of protecting unproductive employees. Compensation
systems in the public arena are not necessarily
related to productivity.
The literature is also divided on the
question of observer vs. self-perception.
Self-evaluations tend to be overvalued, but observer
perceptions can be distorted by the "halo" effect.
Peer ratings are most accurate when peers are asked
to identify strengths and weaknesses.
Training is the most common approach for
improving management and leadership and management
abilities, but many training programs have been
subject to criticisms of ineffectiveness. Effective
training programs have adequate follow-up and
feedback, provide for transfer of the new skills to
the workplace, provide both intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards, and allow for a variety of experiences
based on individual needs.
The literature on goal directedness is in
general agreement: difficult goals lead to higher

levels of task performance than either "do your
best" or easier goals. Goal attainment becomes a
reinforcing stimulus to greater effort and
productivity. Yet, the lack of effective training
may prohibit a manager from attaining his/her
self-improvement goals.

This study was designed to examine the
application of a developmental process used with
Colorado public school administrators and as such
was primarily exploratory in nature and consisted of
two major questions: 1) how do private sector
managers and educational administrators compare with
regard to management and leadership behaviors; and,
2) do educational administrators demonstrate
increased competency as a result of a management and
leadership development process? One year prior to
the training study, the Management Effectiveness
Analysis questionnaire was completed by over 500
educational administrators primarily in Colorado.
These collective results were then compared to a
randomly selected group of 500 private sector

Participants in the longitudinal training
aspect included administrators from the following
school districts: Adams School District #14, Adams
County School District #50, Aurora, Boulder Valley,
Cherry Creek, Colorado Springs School District #11,
Moffett County, Denver School District #1, Eagle
County, East Yuma, Fort Collins, Fort Morgan,
Greeley, Haxton, Julesburg, Kim, LaJunta, Littleton,
Montrose, Northeast Board of Cooperative Educational
Services, Thompson, West Yuma, Wray, and Southeast
Board of Cooperative Educational Services. Sites
were chosen to provide the broadest possible
application across the state in accordance with the
provisions of the Colorado Department of Educations
2+2 Project. Four rural sites were selected so
that the training would be available in each
quadrant of the state: Montrose, for the southwest;
Craig for the northwest'; LaJunta for the southeast;
and Yuma for the northeast. Three front range sites
provided access to the training for administrators
in school districts from Fort Collins to Colorado

Seventy-six administrators participated in
this study. Selection of the administrators was a
function of each school district. In the smaller
school districts, the superintendent selected
participants. In larger districts, an administrator
in charge of staff development selected the
participants. The only selection criteria
communicated to the superintendents and staff
developers in charge of the selection process was to
provide a cross section of administrators relative
to the balance between elementary, secondary, and
central office administrators from throughout the
Instrumentation and Field Procedures
The Management Effectiveness Analysis (MEA)
program was selected by the administrative
development committee of the Colorado Department of
Education's 2 + 2 Project and approved by the State
Board of Education. (The complete proposal is
provided in Appendix A). The Management
Effectiveness Analysis is a diagnostic / feedback

process of development produced and copyrighted by
Management Research Group of Portland, Maine. Based
on responses to a 111 item questionnaire, the MEA
process identifies predisposition behaviors for 21
characteristics of management and leadership. The
analysis of the instrument is scaled and normed so
that the feedback that each participant receives
compares the participant to the norming population
(Mahoney, 1985, p. 3).
The underlying question that led to
initiation of the Management Effectiveness Analysis
project was one of assessment. On what basis do
people in management and leadership positions
determine or assess their needs for developmental
activities? How do they choose from the myriad of
classes, courses, seminars, workshops, and
conferences? Typical assessment approaches include
personal interest or bias, recommendation from
colleagues, requirements identified in the leader's
formative evaluation, and current trends. Although
the notion of diagnostic assessment is hardly new in
management literature, the use of diagnostic
assessments was relatively uncommon for educational

administrators in 1985. Johnson's 1986 dissertation
on the status of administrative inservice education
in Colorado did not mention the use of diagnostic
instruments in planning for inservice education. In
her review, only the academy model and assessment
center provide any assessment and both have limited
use (Johnson, 1986, p. 13).
The Management Effectiveness Analysis was
selected for this project because it best met the
criteria of the 2 + 2 Project. Those included:
1. originality of instrument and approach;
2. partnership with the private sector;
3. applicability to the entire state;
4. cooperative involvement of many districts
and BOCES;
5. likelihood of acceptance by administrators;
6. commitment of local districts;
7. replication probability; and
8. probability of success.
Many assessment / feedback processes
available on the market today, both for education
and in the private sector, are rendered less
effective by the psychometric qualities of the

assessment process, the lack of an effective
training process, the failure to provide comparative
data relative to other leaders in education, and the
lack of a follow-up process. The crucial element in
the assessment process is whether behavioral change
occurs and remains over time.
Theory indicates that change is a process
rather than an isolated learning at the cognitive
level. Change is also a neutral term that does not
necessarily imply increased effectiveness.
Management and leadership effectiveness usually
implies creating a work climate which contributes in
a positive way to the motivation and growth of staff
so that their efforts focus on measures of
performance such as productivity through people.
Because of this link between leadership behavior,
staff motivation and organizational effectiveness,
the development of administrators is a critically
important responsibility for any organization. In
education, as in the private sector, it is
surprising how much of this critical development is
addressed haphazardly and unsystematically (Johnson,
1986, p. 80).

A development process should be based on the
premise that in order to help administrators
improve, they first must understand their
developmental needs. Development must start with an
objective assessment or diagnosis of strengths and
developmental needs and provide feedback on those
elements in a non-threatening and helpful way. The
feedback, however, must go beyond a simple
description of how an individual leads and manages;
it must also present a variety of potential
strategies designed to bring about positive change
in those elements found to be in need of
development. Finally, the process must recognize
need for follow-up, reinforcement, and re-diagnosis
in the change process (Mahoney, 1983, p. 2).
The Management Effectiveness Analysis (MEA)
is a unique product with regard to its measurement
techniques and is less subject to the areas of bias
discussed in Chapter 2. Of the measures available
at the time of selection, it was the only one normed
for educational administrators. A question that
this study addressed was one of differences between
educational and private sector administrators.

Separate norms on the MEA for the two groups allowed
this question to be addressed.
A brief review of other assessment and
developmental processes illustrates why the
Management Effectiveness Analysis was selected for
this pilot study. The only diagnostic / feedback /
developmental process which is specific to the
education profession is the Educational
Administrator Effectiveness Profile (EAEP). Like
the Management Effectiveness Analysis, the EAEP was
originally developed for private industry and then
modified for education by the Danforth Foundation.
It offers diagnosis by self and observer, an
in-depth discussion of management and leadership
characteristics, detailed developmental suggestions
and a written contract for change. The EAEP is the
only process that addresses instructional leadership
as supervision of instruction. This, however,
limits the use of the process to school site
Like the other instruments investigated for
selection, the EAEP has significant psychometric
problems. Both the "self" and "observer"

instruments are based on seven point scales ranging
from "Almost Never" to "Always". The extremes of
the scales are consistently socially desirable /
undesirable. For example, statement one reads, "To
what extent do I fail to assure goals and objective
are developed." The socially desirable response is
"Almost Never." In scoring, responses are given a
number corresponding to social desirability from 7
(most effective) to 1 (least effective). For the
feedback, mean scores in each of the 11 categories
are provided without any normative comparisons. The
EAEP is particularly subject to rating leniency
which was discussed in Chapter II.
The EAEP uses a nearly identical instrument
including the same scales with, subordinates, peers,
or supervisors. Three to five "others" complete the
instrument. Feedback is again provided by finding
the mean for each of the 11 leadership
characteristics. This presents two psychometric
difficulties: propensity for scores distorted by the
halo effect, and the problems associated with
consistency of mean scores among the "others"
ratings (discussed in Chapter II). Although the

EAEP identifies strategies for improvement, there is
no training process or provision for follow-up.
The Wilson Battery of Multi-Level Management
and Organization Surveys has been used with
educators but has not been redesigned or normed for
educators. It provides both assessment and
developmental implications and is intended to have
follow-up seminars or sessions including on-the-job
reinforcement for positive behavioral change. A
normative base is developed within each organization
large enough for norm development. Like the EAEP,
the Wilson uses a seven point Likert scale from
"Never Observed" to "Always Observed." The nature
of the feedback is evaluative and the questionnaire
contains scales of social desirability. Both "self"
and "other" diagnostics are available.
Developmental plans are implied but not specified.
The Performance Pathfinder System is similar
to other Performax Corporation diagnostic
instruments in that feedback is provided at the time
of the training program. There is a normative
comparison with all managers who have taken the
instrument but not for educators as a group. There

is no opportunity for "observer" feedback. Whether
or not there is long term follow-up is a function of
the Performax consultant. The questionnaire
solicits information about participant's perception
of the organization rather than of leadership
characteristics or situations. It is based on a
four point scale from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly
Several other less sophisticated models and
processes were also investigated. Syber Vision
Systems developed a study / development guide to
accompany Bennis' book, Leaders: The Strategies for
Taking Charge (1985). The assessment is a
self-rating questionnaire on which the participant
ranks him/herself on a seven point scale from
ineffective to effective for each statement. The
participant marks a number from 1 to 7, for example,
about whether he/she has a "weak sense of purpose"
or a "strong sense of purpose." Based on the
participants total points, and without a normative
base, the program proscribes a level of
developmental need. Activities are to be undertaken
in coordination with an audio-tape program.

Cohen's Top Executive Performance (1985)
provides a series of self-rating scales on the
characteristics of leaders. Like the Syber Vision
product, Cohen's process assigns an evaluation of
performance without a normative base. Developmental
activities are indicated but not included.
The Management Effectiveness Analysis was
chosen because it met the criteria established by
the 2+2 Project. The MEA also avoids the
potential defects of social desirability, halo
effect, and leniency found in the others. On the
questionnaire the participant decides what is "most"
like him/herself and what is "next" most like
him/herself. The choices are based on socially
equated responses to a stem statement. It is not
possible to determine "right" answers because one
response is not more socially desirable than the
others. On the 111 item participant questionnaire
(and on the 55 item observer questionnaire), the
participant reveals the degree of emphasis he/she
places on each of the 21 management and leadership
characteristics. Each characteristic is compared to

all the others and the scoring program provides the
comparison to the normative population.
The Management Effectiveness Analysis
questionnaire is designed to measure 21
pre-disposition behaviors within six broad functions
of management. These behaviors result when a
manager / administrator is confronted with a set of
circumstances which are unfamiliar to him/her.
These behaviors provide predetermined means for
dealing with the current situation without
reformulation of the problem solving process.
Pre-disposition behavior can be described as a
mental framework which administrators use in
understanding and responding to the events around
them. A pre-disposition behavior or set is a
tendency to view situations and respond to them in a
way that is consistent from one situation to the
next. The following three examples illustrate the
concept of a pre-disposition behavior:
-Faced with a new problem, one person may
respond by looking to the past for precedents, while
another may try to create a solution which has never
been used before.

-Some people take a problem and consider it
from all angles before taking action, while others
jump right into the middle and start working as they
go along.
-Some administrators usually seek the views
of staff members before acting, while others rarely
do (Mahoney, 1985, p. 2).
Each of the above examples represents two
contrasting administrative pre-disposition behaviors
or sets which are typical ways for people to respond
to a situation. These pre-disposition behaviors are
also called sets because they are so fixed in the
minds of the administrators that they think of them
as normal or natural.
A brief definition of the 21 pre-disposition
behaviors or sets and the broad management functions
within which they reside and which they were
measured by the MEA questionnaire follow:
EVALUATION FUNCTION: The sets within this function
measure the means by which managers and
administrators assess problems and appraise
opportunities. To do this the leader must have
reliable, timely sources of information which are

organized in a useful, relevant fashion. The
manager must be able to analyze that information in
ways that relate to available resources.
Conservative Set: using experiences of self or
others from the past to evaluate problems of the
Innovative Set: evaluating problems as
opportunities to try something new.
Technical Set: using facts, data, and logic to
evaluate problems in an in-depth manner.
DECISION-MAKING FUNCTION: These sets measure the
process by which managers and administrators make
decisions, regardless of the content.
Directive Set: making decisions in an authoritative
Democratic Set: making decisions by involving
staff .
Strategic Set: examining the long-range
implications of decisions and looking for
contingencies .
IMPLEMENTATION FUNCTION: The sets in this function
measure the means by which the work gets done. It

is the energizing portion of the management /
administrative role.
Tactical Set: an approach to implementation which
emphasizes tangible results from direct
administrative involvement.
Structuring Set: an implementation strategy which
stresses order, methods, standards and
Delegation Set: a form of implementation in which
the administrator determines which tasks or projects
will be done by staff members.
Communication Set: measures the degree to which the
administrator clarifies his/her expectations for
staff performance.
Team Set: a form of implementation in which the
administrator uses teams to get the work done.
Individualist Set: an implementation strategy which
places the emphasis on each staff member's
contribution to the success of the organization.
LEADERSHIP FUNCTION: These sets measure the means
by which the manager / administrator activates
others to achieve the objectives of the

Management Focus Set: an aptitude measure of desire
for and comfort in the leadership role.
Production Set: leadership orientation which
emphasizes reaching near term goals and objectives
by maintaining high standards and staff
People Set: leadership orientation which measures
the degree to which the administrator evidences
concern for people.
Excitement Set: a leadership orientation which
emphasizes high intensity and personal enthusiasm as
an approach to motivation.
Restraint Set: leadership orientation which
emphasizes the low-key, non-dramatic approach to
FOLLOW THROUGH FUNCTION: The two sets in this
function measure the degree to which a manager /
administrator checks to see that delegated
assignments have been completed and provides staff
with knowledge of results.
Control Set: a follow-through function
characterized by a systematic effort to insure that

delegated assignments are completed properly and in
a timely manner.
Feedback Set: follow-through behavior which conveys
knowledge of results to staff.
PUBLIC RELATIONS FUNCTION: The first five functions
examine a manager / administrator's relationships
with staff. The public relations function measures
the manager / administrators's approach to the
larger organization.
Persuasive Set: a public relations function
oriented toward influencing others over whom the
administrator has no direct line authority.
Cooperation Set: a measure of goal congruence
between the individual administrator and the larger
organization (Mahoney, 1985, pp. 4-33).
Mahoney and Rand (1985) report research on
the Management Effectiveness Analysis questionnaire
with regard to the following factors: dispersion,
intercorrelations of scales, reliability, accuracy,
validity and evaluation. There is great dispersion
or variation among the mean scores for each of the
sets which increases estimates of reliability and
validity. The intercorrelations of the behaviorial

measures show that 103 of the 210 possible
correlations range from -0.10 to +0.10 while another
88 range from -0.21 to +0.21. This is an indication
of the independence of the behaviors measured.
Test/re-test reliability for the instrument averages
+0.85. Correlations between self and observer
perceptions average +0.52 and are significant at the
p < .01 level. Validation of the Management
Effectiveness Analysis was accomplished through 11
studies over 10 years. Evaluation research has
shown that 82% of the managers in the study agreed
that they had increased their managerial competency
as a result of the Management Effectiveness Analysis
(pp. 4-15).
The first stage in the Management
Effectiveness Analysis process is self-diagnosis but
not self-evaluation as used by the other instruments
reviewed. This is a crucial distinction.
Self-evaluation data tend to be trapped by leniency
errors. Self-diagnosis is a self-administered
psychologically objective test. "An objective test
is defined as one in which the subject reacts to a
given situation and instruction without knowing upon

what aspect of the response the real subjective
measurement will be made. Objective tests are thus
not as subject as questionnaires to deliberate or
unconscious misrepresentation of the self"
(Cattell, 1986, p. 286).
In the second phase of the MEA process, a
psychometrically identical questionnaire was
provided to three to five observers who may be
peers, subordinates or supervisors of the
administrator being assessed. The MEA provided
diagnostic feedback at the time of the two-day
training session as the questionnaire was completed
approximately three weeks before the training.
Developmental needs are addressed in the session and
25% of the training process is spent in action
planning on two specifically identified liabilities.
The participants determined which liabilities to
address in the action plans by examining all of
their potential liabilities identified by the MEA
and then applying a predetermined set of criteria
for choosing those two which promised the best
chance for success. One criterion was that the
participant had to believe that the liability was

truly characteristic of his/her behavior. If the
participant did not accept a liability as identified
in the feedback, he/she selected another. Second,
the participant needed to have control over the
variables around which the liability centered.
Finally, participants were directed to address only
those liabilities that, if successfully changed,
would bring a reward, extrinsic or intrinsic.
Prior to the proposal being accepted by
2 + 2, the project directors contacted district
superintendents from throughout the state to
determine interest in the MEA program. Seven school
district training sites were set: Montrose, Adams
County, LaJunta, Boulder, Yuma, Craig, and Cherry
Creek. Dates were established and other school
districts within the geographic region were invited
to participate in the MEA process. Letters
confirming the dates and times of the training were
sent to the contact person at each training site.

The Management Effectiveness Analysis
process requires that the diagnostic questionnaire
be completed by the participants prior to the
training so that participants receive their feedback
at the time of the initial training seminar.
Questionnaires were mailed to each contact person in
the participating district who then determined the
participants for that district. The questionnaires
were then returned to the project directors who
mailed them to Management Research Group in
Portland, Maine for anaylsis and processing.
There were two main reasons for the above
distribution and scoring process: time spent
completing the questionnaires and the computer
scoring procedures. Participants vary greatly in
the amount of time they spend on the questionnaire.
Although the average time was about 30 to 40
minutes, some participates take as little as 20
minutes while others take as much as 90 minutes.
Due to the complexity of the questionnaire and its
multi-level analysis, it must be analyzed by a
computer process. This scoring process is the

proprietary information of the Management Research
Each of the 2+2 Project training seminars
was two full days, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Since it
is difficult to become more effective as a leader
without a thorough understanding of the leadership
role, the training seminars allocated time for
participants to gain a deeper understanding of
management and leadership. Participants received
their feedback in small segments throughout the two
days to allow individuals time to process the
feedback. During the last half of the second day,
participants wrote a minimum of two action plans to
address developmental needs.
In the second year of the project, the
initial participants were invited to participate in
training seminars which were held 7 to 12 months
later at the same sites. The participants completed
the self-administered diagnostic instrument and
distributed an observer instrument to three to five
subordinates, peers, and superordinates who in the
participant's judgment had the best opportunity to
observe the participant. The second training

session was a single day in length. Participants
received data generated from both sets of
instruments, evaluated the degree to which they had
accomplished their action plans, and developed two
new action plans.
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question #1: How do Colorado
public school administrators compare with private
sector managers with regard to management and
leadership behaviors? In what areas are the two
groups similar and different? Are there certain
behaviors that are more highly characteristic of
educational administrators than of private sector
managers and vice versa?
The norms of the private sector managers who
have taken the Management Effectiveness Analysis
questionnaire were compared to the total population
of educational administrators who took the
questionnaire on each of the 21 pre-disposition
behaviors. For the purposes of this study the
scores for 500 private sector managers, who took the

MEA questionnaire during the same period of time as
the educational population, were randomly selected
for comparison with those of the 506 educational
administrators in the educational norming pool.
The specific question then became: Are there certain
behaviors that are more highly characteristic of
educational administrators than of private sector
managers and vice versa?
The "t" test is a common statistical test
used to compare differences between two sample
means. This allows for the null hypothesis, which
holds that the two samples resulted from random
sampling of a common, normally distributed parent
population. The "t" test shows whether the two
groups are (or are not) statistically different. In
this study two-tailed "t" tests were used to
determine whether or not there were significant
differences between Colorado administrators in the
study group compared to the norming population of
individuals in private sector management positions
with regard to the 21 study behaviors.
Research Question #2: How do the observer
(superior, subordinate, and/or peer) assessments of

management and leadership behaviors differ between
private sector managers and Colorado public school
Private sector research (Mahoney, 1985,
p. 7), indicates that the correlations between
observer and self data on the Management
Effectiveness Analysis behavioral characteristics
average r = .52. Pearson correlation coefficients
have been calculated with regard to the study sample
of educational administrators. A table of
correlations for each of the 21 pre-disposition
behavior sets has been presented and compared to the
private sector sets.
Research Question #3: Do public school and
private sector administrators differ on their
judgments as to the accuracy, applicability and
utility of the Management Effectiveness Analysis?
Do public school administrators' judgments in this
area change over time, and if so, in what ways?
Participant reaction was assessed at the
time of the initial training seminar with a
five-point Likert scale, from "Strongly Agree" to
"Strongly Disagree." The eight-statement

questionnaire measured participant reaction to the
profile of behaviors, identification of assets and
liabilities, the accuracy of feedback data, the
identification of developmental needs, the design
and presentation of the profile, the degree to which
participants believed they would accomplish their
action plans, and whether or not they believed that
they could increased their overall managerial
effectiveness as a result of the Management
Effectiveness Analysis process. Frequency and
percentage data are presented and comparisons
between public and private sector results have been
Participants responded to additional
corresponding statements on a Likert scale seven to
12 months after their initial MEA experience. They
also responded to statements about whether their
perceptions of the accuracy of the data they
received changed over the intervening months.
Reports from private sector researchers indicated
that participant perception about the accuracy of
the feedback data increased over time (Mahoney,
P. 8) .

Research Question #4a: To what extent do
participants report completion of their action
strategies, plans undertaken to address areas where
the diagnostic instrument indicated a liability ?
Research Question #4b: Does the diagnostic
instrument indicate change in the specific liability
areas which the participants selected to address in
their action plans?
Research Question #4c: Is there a
difference between the self-report data of question
#4a and the measured data in question #4b?
At the end of the follow-up training,
participants completed an evaluation instrument on
which they reported the degree to which they had
completed their action plans. For each action plan
participants indicated completion in quartiles, 0%
to 25%, 25% to 50%, 50% to 75% and 75% to 100%.
Since the action plans were derived from liabilities
identified by the Management Effectiveness Analysis,
a concomitant measure of the degree to which the
liabilities were addressed was the change score from
the first to the second diagnostic for that
particular liability-asset scale. It was

anticipated that where a participant had a high
degree of task commitment and follow-through with
his/her two action plans and completed them both,
the diagnostic instrument would show that
improvement did occur. In the case of the
administrator who, for whatever reason, did not
follow-through in implementing his/her action plans,
the diagnostic would show that no change had
The t-score was computed to examine whether
the differences between the pre and post scores for
the identified liabilities were significant.
Correlations between self and observer data on the
specific liabilities addressed in the action plans
are presented to determine a relationship between
the responses of the observers and the data from the
Research Question #5: Are there
differences in the way in which rural and urban
administrators evaluate the process?
The rationale for this research question was
derived from Johnson's 1986 study in which she found
that urban school districts were likely to have

staff development programs for administrators. She
also found the rural districts relied most heavily
on the inservice opportunities offered through BOCES
or state organizations. Further, she found that
many districts with fewer than 300 students had no
staff development opportunities at all for
administrators (p. 73-75). If urban administrators
have access to a greater number of activities
including experience with diagnostic instruments, it
would seem that they would more readily accept the
data as accurate, applicable and useful. If
perceptions of accuracy change over time, then at
the time of the follow-up analysis, these
differences should diminish. This was measured using
contingency analysis and chi-square tests on the
evaluative survey data.

The purpose of this exploratory study was
to examine the application of a private sector
management and leadership development approach with
Colorado public school administrators. The study
addressed two major lines of inquiry: 1) how do
private sector managers and educational
administrators compare with regard to management and
leadership behaviors; and, 2) do educational
administrators demonstrate increased competency as a
result of a management and leadership development
To respond to these questions, data were
collected from two study groups. Research Question
#1, the comparison of educational and private sector
managers, was addressed from a norms comparison
study of 500 Colorado educational administrators and
500 private sector managers. Data for each of the
other research questions were gathered from a study

of 76 Colorado educational administrators who were
involved with the Colorado Department of Education's
2 + 2 Project.
Presentation of findings was organized
around the research questions.
Behavioral Comparisons
Research Question #1: How do Colorado
public school administrators compare with private
sector managers with regard to management and
leadership behaviors? In what areas are the two
groups similar and different? Are there certain
behaviors that are more highly characteristic of
educational administrators than of private sector
managers and vice versa?
The sample of private sector managers and
administrators was derived from the data base of the
Management Research Group, Portland, Maine, the firm
which created the Management Effectiveness Analysis.
Since the data base contains in excess of 25,000
profiles of private sector managers, a randomly

selected sample of 500 managers who completed the
profile during 1986 and 1987 was drawn.
The sample of educational administrators
was obtained in Colorado during 1986 and 1987 and
had a total of 506 administrators. Ninety-one
percent were employed in public schools. The
remaining 9% were employed in private schools,
intermediate organizations (BOCES), support
organizations and colleges or universities.
All of the demographic data in Tables 1
through 8 were generated through the participant
questionnaire and were thus, self-reported. The
intent of its presentation here was to illustrate
both the comparability of the two populations of
educational and private sector managers, as well as
to demonstrate some differences.
Tables 1 and 2 show a comparison of the
roles of the two sample populations, with Table 1
delineating the roles educational administrators
and, Table 2 showing the roles of the private sector
managers. There was comparability in the positions
even with the two sets of job titles. The
superintendent's position represents the same

organizational level as president/CEO. The
positions below the level of superintendent and
president are relatively comparable in relation to
the top position in the respective organizations.
The deputy or assistant superintendent is comparable
to the senior or executive vice-president in that
both are second level positions. Similar
considerations apply for the other positions.
Although there are differences in comparing
the samples by role, the vast majority of each
sample was employed in middle level roles. In the
educational sample directors and building-level
administrators made up 76% of the sample and the two
corresponding positions in the private sector,
division head and department managers, comprise 82%
of the sample. While the upper two levels for
educational administrators made up 14% of the
sample, these same two levels made up 11% of the
private sector sample.
Within the norming population for
educational administrators, 5% of the sample were
superintendents, 9% were deputy or assistant
superintendents, 24% were directors or coordinators,

52% listed themselves as principals or assistant
principals, 7% were supervisors, and another 4% were
other administrators. This breakdown is displayed
in Table 1.
Table 1. Roles of Educational Administrators.
Position n Percent
Superintendent 22 5%
Deputy/Ass't Supt. 40 9%
Director/Coordinator 105 24%
Principal/Ass't Principal 234 52%
Supervisor 29 7%
Other 16 3%
Total 446 100%
For the private sector sample, 4% were
presidents of companies or chief executive officers
(CEO), 7% identified themselves as senior or
executive vice presidents (VP), 42% were division
heads or vice presidents below the executive level,
40% were department or unit managers, 3% were
supervisors or foremen, and managers who designated
a different title made up the other five percent.