Use of role analysis toward a theory of leadership in administration in higher education

Date

4-1965

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a theory of leadership in administration in higher education.

Ten related aspects of administrative leadership were studied: (1) Philosophical Orientation in Administration, (2) Administrative Values (3) Principles of Administration and Organization, (4) Administrative Process, (5) Administrative Structure, (6) Administrative Functions (7) Administrative Practices, (8) Leadership Behavior, (9) Group Dimensions, and (10) Job Satisfaction.

Fourty hypotheses concerning these aspects of administrative leadership were derived and tested statistically from the data gathered through questionnaires designed for comparison of college faculty members and administrators' opinions about the Department Chairman's role in the University of the Philippines.

The study supported the hypothesis that none of the respondents in this sample could be classified as purely democratic or authoritarian; rather all respondents agreed to some extent with two contrasting theories in administration. Regardless of their philosophical orientation they agreed in their perceptions as to the amount of administrative responsibility, authority and delegation which the chairman actually has and ought to have. There was, however, a higher consensus on role perception and preference among administrators than among professors.

All administrators and professors, either democratic, or authoritarian agreed closely on almost all the commonly accepted ten principles of organization and administration. They also perceived that the chairman has varying amounts of power for his seven administrative functions. The professors likewise tended to think that administrators have more power than the administrators think they have. The administrators as well as the professors preferred the chairman to have lower degree of power in all administrative functions than what the chairman actually has at present.

The chairman who perceived that they had low power for planning in comparison with the index power constructed on the basis of the mean values of actual administrative power, were scored low in consideration dimension. On the other hand the chairman who preferred to have low power than was ascribed in the index or power were scored high in consideration dimension.

There were more "democratic" than "authoritarian" respondents who agreed with proposed organizational set-up of the school. In the selection of administrative officers, however, the "democratic" did not indicate any preference for a more democratic way than the "authoritarian".

Both administrators and professors agreed that the chairman performs nearly all twenty-one administrative functions and considered these functions as obligatory. The professors did not place more obligation on the administrators to perform their functions than the professors were willing to attribute to them. The administrators had more uniform expectation and evaluation of their role performance than the professors.

The administrators and professors exhibited consensus as to who should be involved in eleven administrative practices and who are actually involved in carrying out these practices. They agreed also that the present administrative practices are less democratic that what they consider appropriate. It was noted that there was more consensus on the normative than on the behavioral aspects of these administrative practices.

The administrators rated themselves higher on consideration dimension than the professors, while the latter rated the chairman lower on initiative, structure dimension than the administrators. Administrators who rated themselves high or were rated high by professors on initiating structure dimension also scored high on consideration dimension. Both less democratic and democratic administrators were equally scored high on both dimensions of leadership behavior.

Individuals, regardless of their difference in philosophical orientation, who described their department as lower on control or higher on homogeneity, intimacy, participation, polarization, potency and viscidity of the department were more satisfied with their job.

In viewing and developing leadership theory in administration it is probably best to keep all concepts dealt with above. The sociological theory is more especially concerned with general principles that lead to an explanation and understanding of social relationship. Since administration and leadership deal with most complex problems and "role" has a wide variety of meanings and since any theory seems to deal with but a few variables, it was concluded that leadership in administration be empirically defined and its effects in human behavior investigated.

Leadership is not the property of an individual but a complex relationship among variables such as attitude, needs, personal characteristics of the followers, characteristics of the organization, the situation, and the traits and characteristics of the leader. These factors both within and without the person affect behavior. The end effect of the personal and impersonal behavior mediated through alienating factors are exhibited in the form of job satisfaction. If a person gets satisfaction from working with other people in dynamic, fluid situations such as those described above, he may be have an aptitude for administration. If, on the other hand, such activity and such situations wear him out and cause undue frustration and fear, he will undoubtedly shrink away from his responsibility as a leader.

Document Type

Dissertation

College

Graduate School (GS)

Adviser/Committee Chair

Gelia T. Castillo

Language

English

LC Subject

Leadership

Location

UPLB Main Library Special Collections Section (USCS)

Call Number

LG 995 1966 A16 L59

Notes

Doctor of Philosophy (Agricultural Education)

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS