The Study of Bureaucracy in Schools

Weber M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by Henderson A. M. Parsons T. . Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1947.

Hall R. H. “An Empirical Study of Bureaucratic Dimensions and Their Relation to Other Organizational Characteristics.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1961.

Mackay D. A. “An Empirical Study of Bureaucratic Dimensions and Their Relation to Other Characteristics of School Organizations.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1964.

Robinson N. “A Study of the Professional Role Orientation of Teachers and Principals and Their Relationship to Bureaucratic Characteristics of School Organizations.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1966.

Punch K. F. “Bureaucratic Structure in Schools and Its Relationship to Leader Behavior: An Empirical Study.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Toronto, 1967.

Anderson B. D. “School Bureaucratization and Student Alienation From School.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Toronto, 1970.

The inventory items are typical Likert type statements, which any teacher responds to by indicating how well, in his view, each statement describes the school. A five-point response scale is used, with the alternatives being very frequently or always true, often true, occasionally true, seldom true, very rarely or never true. Examples of specific items are (i) For student behaviour problems, the school has standard punishments for standard offences, regardless of the individual involved. (ii) Even small matters are referred to someone higher up for final answer. (iii) Relationships among staff members are formal and impersonal. (iv) Red tape is a problem in getting a job done in this school.

Guilford J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1956, 458.

As is usual in non-experimental research, complex problems are involved here in establishing causation. Although the research issues are not discussed in this paper, there are good grounds in the present findings for talking in terms of the influence of one variable on another.

What follows, with respect to both ‘causes’ and ‘effects’, is a brief synthesis of the findings of Mackay, op. cit., Robinson, op. cit., Punch, op. cit., and Anderson, op. cit..

'System orientation’ refers to leader behaviour directed at the needs of the school as a system, at getting the school's task done. ‘Person orientation’ refers to leader behaviour directed at the needs of staff members as persons, at maintaining the group as an interpersonal unit. See Brown A. F. Reactions to leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1967, 2, 62–73.

Mackay op. cit..

For example, the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. See Stogdill R. M. Coons A. E. Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957.

For an example of such ‘process’ research in a non-school organizational setting, see Blau P. M. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.