Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol14.Issue2.2000:

(1)

Management styles grounded in interpersonal roles:

focus on heads of school in India

Indu Khetarpal

Principal, Salwan Public School, Gurgaon, India

R.C. Srivastava

Consultant, Educational Administration and Research, New Delhi, India

Keywords

Management styles, Management roles, Schools

Abstract

Research in educational settings has indicated,inter alia, that the organizer and administrator's personality (princi-pal's), ways of working, the nature of her/his interpersonal relationships and administrative practices or behavior are likely to be some of the important reasons behind the differential performance of schools. Perhaps, this is so because ``experience without wisdom'' can be a trap. Head-ships who reflect on their own interpersonal behavior create opportunities for components of the school (teachers, students, non-academics and parents) to realize their individual capabilities in the face of rapidly changing demands of growth and job satisfaction (e.g. reduced interpersonal conflicts). Every such stakeholder has an eye on the managerial capabilities of the principal of the school. Thus, more interpersonally skillful and gifted the leadership available in a school, the more performing the institution. Studying the effect of interpersonal

competence on organizational effectiveness, Argyris (1962) pointed out that a lack of interpersonal competence in executives (say, headships) leads to an increase in

conformity, mistrust, and dependence among his or her work group members. These kinds of responses reduce communication

effectiveness, increase defensive interpersonal norms, and increase

organizational rigidity ± all of which tend to reduce organizational performance. In order to become more effective, Argyris suggested that a headship should allowhis or her subordinates to challenge each other's ideas, to generate valid information, to encourage search behavior, and to increase internal commitment. Interpersonally incompetent headship creates an organizational climate in which their members act defensively to protect their own interests. In recent times, Graen and his associates have been more explicit in stressing the importance of interpersonal relationships between superiors and subordinates in the form of LMX (leader member exchange) theory. They

argue that the quality of these relationships determines the quality of working life of the subordinates. ``In-group'' stakeholders are on favorable terms with their organizational leaders and are better able to command organizational resources than ``out-group'' stakeholders who are on less favorable terms with their organizational leaders in their own organizations (Graenet al., 1977). All these studies and findings relate to settings different from those in India. The effect of interaction roles or interpersonal skills of heads of school on school performance remains an unexplored research area in India. Whether the findings hold good in Indian settings as well needs to be

investigated. A research investigation was planned accordingly.

Management styles

For the purpose of the investigation, an interpersonally skilled headship is one who has a wide variety of verbal factors and performs it well with the appropriate non-verbal cues. He or she can structure interactions effectively by organizing these verbal factors and non-verbal cues into purposeful sequences, which steer the interaction towards its objectives, and, can develop an approach to the interaction, which is appropriate to the objectives in question and the probable reactions of the stakeholders or important components of the school (teachers, students, non-academics and parents). Management style of an individual, the variable of the study under report, is the characteristic way in which the headship goes about his managerial tasks in a specific organization assessed over a longer period of time by those who work with him. Styles are a combination of what the individual brings with him or her into the organization (e.g. national culture, family or peer influence), the way the organizational culture (rules) is recognized, the way the individual actually exacts his or her role.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com

The International Journal of Educational Management 14/2 [2000] 74±83

#MCB University Press [ISSN 0951-354X]

Keywords

Management styles, Management roles, Schools

Abstract

(2)

Managerial style is the patterns of behavior which a manager, head of a school, adopts in order to plan, organize, motivate and control; it relates to the extent to which she/he (Fenwick and Murlis, 1994):

. listens;

. sets goals and standards;

. develops action plans (short and long-term);

. directs others clearly;

. gives feedback;

. rewards and punishes;

. develops teachers/other colleagues; and

. establishes personal relationships with colleagues.

There is no one right or wrong management style. The style depends on the task, people, and situation to be managed. Thus,

managerial style is a function of the: . individual headship's personal

characteristics (e.g. motives and values); . styles which the headship has seen used

by bosses, mentors and peer group; . values espoused in the organization of

``the right way'' to manage; and . specific management situations and

people with whom headship deals most.

In other words, managerial style is the ability to use pertinent knowledge and methods of working with people. It includes an understanding of general principles of ``human behavior'' particularly those that involve an innovative skill approach to leadership and the use of this understanding in day-to-day interaction with others in the work situation. Principals with human relations skills understand howtheir behavior affects not only others but themselves as well. They know how, both their own frame of reference and that of others, color what is perceived and assumed to be real; howattitudes, beliefs, opinions and values affect behavior and learning; and howneeds and aspirations shape an

individual's investment of her/his energies. Included in these skills is the ability of members at different levels in the organization to represent their needs and goals to each other so that each can

comprehend the problems faced by the other.

The 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills

The term ``interpersonal relations'' was introduced by Sullivan (1953). Heider (1958) defined it as denoting relations between ``few'' usually ``two''. In organizational psychology, it stands for ``person-to-person'' relationships in a group (friendly as well as unfriendly relations). A principal's

consistent way of interacting with people and

situations is called his/her style. The habitual way of interacting with ``a few'' others is called his/her interpersonal style. As there are several dimensions of human and situational interactions (explained later as part of transactional analysis, which forms the theoretical base of quantifying variables used in the study), strategic students of measurement of such styles have constructed a number of variables based on the standardized tools or instruments, used or preferred by them for their measurement. In one such instrument, 12 specific

interpersonal styles were postulated. Being used as managerial style variables of the study, these are briefly described below.

Supportive

In this style, support is provided when needed. The managerial leaders with this style encourage their subordinates and provide the necessary conditions for

continuos improvement. They showpatience in learning about their problems and have empathy with them.

Rescuing

Such a style indicates a dependency

relationship in which the managerial leaders perceives his/her main role as rescuing the subordinate, who is seen as being incapable of taking care of himself/herself. Another characteristic of this style is that support is provided conditionally, contingent on deference to the provider. The general attitude is one of superiority; the person's support constantly reminds others of their dependence. Obviously, this style does not help other people to become independent and to act by themselves.

Normative

These managerial leaders are interested in developing proper norms of behavior for their subordinates and in helping them understand why some norms are more important than others. They not only help subordinates to solve a specific problem, but help them to develop ways of approaching a problem by raising questions about relevant values.

Prescriptive

Headships with this style are critical of others, they develop rules and regulations and impose them on others. Managerial leaders using this style make quick judgment and insist that certain norms be followed by all the subordinates. They give advice and prescribe solutions rather than help subordinates to work out alternative solutions to their problems.

Indu Khetarpal and R.C. Srivastava

Management styles grounded in interpersonal roles: focus on heads of school in India

(3)

Problem solving

In this style, a managerial leader is concerned with solving problems but does not see them as being merely confined to the task. For such persons, the problems have various dimensions. The locus of the leader is dealing with and finding out solutions to problems. In this process they solicit the help of and involvement of subordinates and participants.

Task obsessive

Headships with this style are more

concerned with the task. Matters not directly related to the task are ignored. They are not concerned with feelings and, in fact, fail to recognize them since they do not perceive them as related to the task. A task-obsessive person is insensitive to the emotional needs, personal problems and apprehensions of the participants.

Innovative

Innovators are enthusiastic about newideas and approaches and enthuse others too. They pay enough attention to nurturing their ideas so that they result in concrete action and become internalized in the system.

Bohemian

In this style the headship has lots of ideas and is impatient with current practices. The person is less concerned with how the new ideas work than with the ideas themselves. Such people are nonconformists and enjoy experimenting with new approaches, primarily for fun. They rarely allowone idea or practice to stabilize before going on to another.

Confronting

In this style, the managerial leader is concerned with the exploration of a problem. Perseverance is the main characteristic. Such persons confront the organization to get things done for their subordinates or clients. They are more concerned with confronting problems than with confronting other persons for the sake of confrontation. Such people are frank and open but also perceptive and sensitive. They respect the feelings of others.

Aggressive

The managerial leaders with this style are fighters. They may fight for their

subordinates, clients or participants, or for their ideas and suggestions, hoping that this will help them to achieve the desired results. Their aggressiveness, however, makes people avoid them and not take them seriously.

Resilient

In this style, the managerial leaders show creative adaptability ± learning from others, accepting other ideas, and changing their approach when required.

Sulking

Headships with this style keep their negative feelings to themselves, find it difficult to share them, and avoid meeting people if they have not been able to fulfill their part of the contract. Instead of confronting problems, a person with this style avoids them and feels bad about the situation, but does not express these feelings openly.

Transactional analysis

Two major concepts of transactional analysis as a theory of personality, viz. ego states and life positions, bearing a direct relevance on the study, particularly the 12 managerial styles listed above are briefly covered in this section. According to these concepts, the interpersonal style of an individual depends on the person's combination of six ego states with four life positions obtaining 24 influence styles (Pareek, 1997). The point raised is further illustrated schematically in Table I.

However, 24 styles may be too extensive for some situations. As James (1975) and Avary (1980) have suggested, two dimensions (OK and not OK) can be combined with the various life positions. Combining the six ego states (two parent, one adult and three child) with the two life positions (OK and not OK), one can, to contain the number, work with 12 styles, defined above as variables of the study and further illustrated schematically in Table II.

The study

The objectives

The study was designed to find out whether principals of senior secondary schools in Delhi had any preference for each of the 12 management styles grounded in their interpersonal skills towards the four main components of the school (teachers, students, non-academics and parents). That is, the purpose was to find whether heads in question had any preference for each of the styles on four sets of 12 managerial styles listed below; operationally the purpose was to gain confidence in the fact that the statistical results found were ``normal in nature'' and were on the ``expected'' lines, both in their distributions of series on the styles as well as in their comparison: . 12 management styles (teachers);

. 12 management styles (students),

. 12 management styles (non-academics); and

. 12 management styles (parents).

Choice of four main components of the school, namely, teachers, students, non-academics, parents, were intentionally built Indu Khetarpal and

R.C. Srivastava

(4)

into the design of the study. This was done because research shows that school administrators spend 80 percent of their workday in brief, fragmented, and diverse encounters with students, teachers, parents, office staff, and the public (Peterson, 1982). Deskwork takes up only 12 percent of their time and phone calls 8 percent (Manasse, 1984, 1985). Principals tend not to spend much time in planning meetings or ``reflective'' activities. They seem to be almost always interacting with people and having to make fast decisions. Their interactions do not relate to instruction but focus on managerial tasks such as discipline, parental concerns, covering classes, getting supplies, etc. (Deal and Celotti, 1980; Weick, 1982). While they spend some time in planning, the bulk of their time is spent in interpersonal interactions with a variety of individuals generally on issues not related to the technical core of schooling, i.e. curriculum and instruction (Duigham, 1980; Hannaway and Sproull, 1978; Pitner and Ogawa, 1980). Further, one of the differences noted between performing and non-performing schools was that performing schools ``sawthemselves as accountable to their clients ± students and parents'' (Hillet al., 1990) whereas non-performing schools ``sawthemselves accountable to the bureaucracy and outside auditors and compliance monitors''. Today, anyone trying to restructure the

organizations for high performance will need to direct efforts from the center of a network

of human relationships, rather than from the top of the organizational pyramid.

The study design

The study design basically covered the four points listed belowand explained thereafter: 1 Measuring Instrument for 12 managerial

styles: standardizing SPIRHOS. 2 Sample.

3 Administration of instruments: collection of data.

4 Statistical treatment of data.

Measuring Instrument for 12 managerial styles: standardizing SPIRHOS

Based on interpersonal skills of heads of school, 12 managerial styles were scaled by using an adapted version of the already well-known and standardized instrument called SPIRO-M (the styles profile of interaction roles in organizations) standardized for Indian industrial organizations by Pareek (1997). The said version was christened SPIRHOS (the styles profile of interaction roles for heads of school). As in the case of SPIRO-M, SPIRHOS was also based on the framework of two basic concepts ± individual's ego states and the existential or life positions (James, 1975; Avary, 1980). The components ± teachers, students, non-academics and parents were used in framing the adapted instrument, SPIRHOS. The instrument contained 36 statements (four times, one for each of the four components ± teachers, students, non-academics and parents) for self-rating on a five-point scale. Although the instrument is self-administered, the facilitator needs to read the instructions with the participants to make certain that they have no queries for the said four components.

Table I

Transactional analysis as a theory of personalities

Life positions

Ego-states Basic need

I'm not OK You're not OK

I'm OK You're not OK

I'm OK You're OK

I'm not OK You're OK

Parent

Regulating Love, care Traditional Prescriptive Normative Indifferent

Nuturing Power Overindulgent Rescuing Supportive Ingratiating

Adult Child

Rationality Cynical Task obsessive Problem solving Overwhelming

Adaptive Approval Sulking Complaining Resilient Dependent

Reactive Safety Withdrawn Aggressive Confronting Intropunitive

Creative Creativity Humorous Bohemian Innovative Satirical

Table II

Variables of two dimensions combined with various life positions

Styles in two life positions

Ego-states OK Not OK

Nuturing parent Supportive Rescuing

Regulating parent Normative Prescriptive

Adult Problem solving Task obsessive

Creative child Innovative Bohemian

Reactive child Confronting Aggressive

Adaptive child Resilient Sulking

(5)

Sample

Sample for the study was purposively drawn from principals of south-west district of the national capital territory of Delhi belonging to the government, government-aided and private schools. Usable data was received from 98 schools (out of the 110 visited). Thus, the sample size for the study was 98 heads of school.

Administration of instruments: collection of data

The school principals were contacted by the investigator personally. Of the 110 schools visited, 98 schools responded and extended all help to give information for the research study. Data collection was completed in eight months. Three to four visits per school was scheduled and, as far as possible, the schedule was strictly adhered to.

Statistical treatment of data Statistical treatment of data included obtaining frequency distributions, means and SDs of variables delimited for the study. These provided an average picture of the variables facilitating the gaining of

confidence in the fact that the results found were ``normal in nature'' and were on the ``expected'' lines, both in their distributions as well as in their comparison, on four sets of 12 management styles.

Results and their interpretation

Table III gives analyzed data on each of the 12 managerial styles used by principals of 98 schools, followed by a graphical presentation on the same data (Figures 1-4).

Findings

The objective of the study was to find out whether principals of senior secondary schools had any preference for each of the 12 management styles grounded in their interpersonal skills when they interacted with any of the four main components of the school. The expected level worked out after careful consideration of the Indian ethos, were as follows on each of the four components (Table IV).

The findings (observed values) on the means show(Table V) the following trends (based on quantitative values in Table III) which can also be easily discerned from the figurative presentation of the results, based on the mean values on all the 12 management styles.

Schematic tabulation of results (enjoining results in Table V and Table VI) given (Table VI) enabled the investigator to gain

confidence in the fact of whether the statistical results found were ``normal in nature'' and were on the ``expected'' lines or not, both in their distribution as well as in their comparison, on four sets of 12

management styles; as the differences were ``too pronounced '' tests of significance were not considered necessary.

Based on the tabulated results given, one could drawthe following conclusions on the main findings of the study:

1 The interpersonal transactions of heads of Indian schools forming the sample with the teachers were not effective on Bohemian, aggressive and sulking styles. This meant that the heads had lots of ideas and were impatient with current

practices. They were less concerned with

Table III

Analyzed data on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills used by principles for the four components of the school: means and SDs on teachers, students, non-academics and parentsa

12 managerial Teachers Students Non-academics Parents

styles Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

S1: Supportive 13.6 1.6 13.5 1.7 12.3 2.4 12.4 2.5

S2: Rescuing 6.9 2.4 6.8 2.3 6.8 2.2 7.4 4.6

S3: Normative 12.2 2.5 11.9 2.2 11.1 2.3 11.0 2.4

S4: Prescriptive 8.0 2.7 8.2 2.7 7.8 2.4 7.5 2.5

S5: Problem solving 13.1 2.0 13.1 2.0 12.2 2.5 12.2 2.4

S6: Task obsessive 8.5 2.7 7.8 2.5 7.3 2.5 7.4 2.6

S7: Innovative 12.5 2.0 12.3 2.0 11.6 2.2 11.8 2.4

S8: Bohemian 11.8 2.9 12.2 2.5 11.2 2.9 11.1 2.9

S9: Confronting 11.0 2.4 11.10 2.3 10.0 2.6 10.0 2.6

S10: Aggressive 11.6 2.2 11.9 2.2 10.9 2.5 10.8 2.3

S11: Resilient 12.9 2.7 12.7 2.5 11.7 2.8 11.8 3.0

S12: Sulking 11.1 2.4 10.9 2.6 10.1 2.7 10.1 2.8

Notes:adata without figures beyond one decimal point

(6)

Figure 1

Graphical presentation on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills used by principals for teachers

Figure 2

Graphical presentation on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills used by principals for students

(7)

Figure 3

Graphical presentation on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills used by principals for the non-academics

Figure 4

Graphical presentation on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills used by principals for the parents

(8)

how the new ideas could work than with the ideas themselves. They enjoyed experimenting with new approaches, primarily for fun but rarely allowed one idea or practice to stabilize before going on to another. Wanting to be the best they experimented with the ideas of the so called ``best school'', irrespective of the ideas in their particular situation. These heads seem to have ``lots of ideas'' only and were impatient with current

practices. They were less concerned with

howthe newideas work than the ideas themselves. They liked change, but for change sake and not necessarily the one which led to performance. They burdened the teachers with unnecessary work and framed such policies which did not facilitate teachers' accomplishment. Such ineffective skills most probably generate serious coordination problems at the implementation stage. The headships fought for their stakeholders, or for their ideas and suggestions, hoping that this

Table IV

Expected level of interaction (developed/underdeveloped) used by principals on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills for the four components of school: teachers, students, non-academics and parentsa

12

mangerial styles Teachers Students Non-academics Parents

S1: Supportive Developed Developed Developed Developed

S2: Rescuing Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S3: Normative Developed Underdeveloped Developed Underdeveloped

S4: Prescriptive Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S5: Problem solving Developed Underdeveloped Developed Developed

S6: Task obsessive Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S7: Innovative Developed Developed Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S8: Bohemian Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S9: Confronting Developed Developed Underdeveloped Developed

S10: Aggressive Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S11: Resilient: Developed Developed Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S12: Sulking Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

Notes: aIn these interpretations ``developed'' stood for a mean score of more than 7.5 (50 percent in a raw score range of 1-15) which in turn gave the connotation of prinicipals being effective and ``underdeveloped'' stood for a mean score of 7.5 or less (50 percent in a raw score range of 1-15) which in turn gave the connotation of prinicipals being ineffective

Table V

Observed level of interaction (developed/underdeveloped) used by principals on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills for the four components of school: teachers, students, non-academics and parentsa

12

mangerial styles Teachers Students Non-academics Parents

S1: Supportive Developed Developed Developed Developed

S2: Rescuing Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S3: Normative Developed Developed Developed Developed

S4: Prescriptive Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S5: Problem solving Developed Developed Developed Developed

S6: Task obsessive Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped Underdeveloped

S7: Innovative Developed Developed Developed Developed

S8: Bohemian Developed Developed Developed Developed

S9: Confronting Developed Developed Developed Developed

S10: Aggressive Developed Developed Developed Developed

S11: Resilient: Developed Developed Developed Developed

S12: Sulking Developed Developed Developed Developed

(9)

will help them to achieve the desired results. However, their aggressiveness made people avoid them and not take them seriously. They kept their negative feelings to themselves, found it difficult to share them, and avoided meeting people if they had not been able to fulfill their part of the contract. Instead of confronting problems, they avoided them and sulked.

The manner in which principals use their power had a profound effect on their schools. Power behaviour is the key component of leadership and as such had considerable impact on staff and on the school's operation. Through the

principal's negative use of influence and authority, teachers were not empowered to play a key role in school decision making and other processes. The headship felt it diminished his power. Such headships used power as a zero sum commodity. It was power relationship and not a colleague relationship. Their attitude was ``childlike'' in behavior. 2 The interpersonal transactions of heads of

Indian schools forming the sample with the students were not effective on normative, problem-solving, Bohemian, aggressive and sulking styles. The manner in which the heads were interacting with the teachers, were also interacting with the students in almost the same mode. However, when it comes to students, they were also found ineffective on two more management styles, namely, normative and problem solving. This further meant that these

heads were over-interested in developing proper norms of behaviour for their students and in helping them understand why some norms are more important than others. They were over-enthusiastic in helping students to solve specific problems and to develop ways of approaching a problem by raising questions about relevant values. These could be taken as signs of ``bossing around'' and not leaving such interactions for teachers who were responsible for giving direct leadership to the students. With the problem-solving style also, the locus of the heads was directly dealing with and finding out solutions to students' problems. In this process they also solicited the direct help of and

involvement of students belittling the real role of the teachers in relation to the students.

3 When it comes to non-academic staff, like helpers, attendants, school bus drivers, gardeners, etc., the interpersonal transactions of heads of Indian schools forming the sample with them were not effective on all of the six styles falling under the concept of ``child'' in the personality theory of transactional analysis, namely, innovative, Bohemian, confronting, aggressive, resilient and sulking styles. In summary form, it meant that as professionals the heads in

questions were less professional in their approach towards this staff in the form of being intolerant with them. This did not augur well because ``the strength of a

Table VI

Comaprison between expected and observed level of interaction (developed/underdeveloped) used by principals on each of the 12 managerial styles grounded in interpersonal skills for the four components of school: teachers, students, non-academics and parentsa

Twelve Teachers Students Non-academics Parents

managerial styles Expected Observed Expected Observed Expected Observed Expected Observed

S1: Supportive ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

S2: Rescuing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

S3: Normative ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕

S4: Prescriptive ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕

S5: Problem solving ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

S6: Task obsessive ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

S7: Innovative ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕

S8: Bohemian ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕

S9: Confronting ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✔

S10: Aggressive ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕

S11: Resilient: ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕

S12: Sulking ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕ ✔ ✕

(10)

teamwork lies in the strength of

relationship with the weakest link in the team''. Creativity does not always lie in the status. Sometimes ``small minds'' can also think big things like lotus bloom above the slime.

4 The interpersonal transactions of heads of Indian schools forming the sample with the parents were not found effective on normative, prescriptive, innovative, Bohemian, aggressive, resilient and sulking styles. The first thing worth noting in this case (as compared to the other three components, namely,

teachers, students and non-academic staff) was that the heads in question were found ineffective in the maximum number of management styles while dealing with parents (seven out of 12). This meant that parent-principal interaction was of ``low level''. When one looked into the Indian ethos, this perhaps smacked of snobbish values on the part of the principals, who mostly referred the parents to the teachers, in discussing problems of parent's wards.

5 Results on comparison of the use of management styles of heads of school across the four components of the school, namely, teachers, students, non-academic staff and parents, also reveal some interesting trends. Taking only some ``extreme'' findings (on Bohemian, aggressive and sulking), one finds that the heads of school uniformly ineffectively interact ``childish'' with teachers,

students, non-academic staff and parents. It speaks of an approach of power

relationship between the principal and all the important ``others'' in the school. It also underestimates the potential of the teachers and others in running the system. This speaks of non-professionalism in their approach.

References

Argyris, C. (1962),Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness, Irwin-Dorsey, Homewood, IL.

Avary, B. (1980), ``Ego states: manifestation of psychic organs'',Transactional Analysis Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4.

Deal, T.E. and Celotti, L.D. (1980), ``Howmuch influence do and can educational

administrators have on classrooms?'',Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 617, pp. 471-3.

Duigham, P. (1980), ``Administrative behavior of school superintendents: a descriptive study'',

Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 181, pp. 5-26.

Fenwick, L. and Murlis, H. (1994),Managing Performance, Resource book compiled by BBC

Training Videos, BBC Enterprises Ltd, London.

Graen, G., Cashman, J.F., Ginsburg, S. and Schiemann, W. (1977), ``Effects of linking-pin quality on the quality of working life of lower participants'',Administrative Science Quarterly, September.

Hallinger, P. (1992), ``Changing norms of principal leadership in the United States'',Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30 No. 3. Hallinger, P., Bickman, L. and Davis, K. (1990),

``School context, principal leadership and student achievement'',Elementary School Journal.

Heck, P., Larson, T. and Marcoulides, G. (1990), ``Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model'',Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26.

Heider, F. (1958),The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, John Wiley, NewYork, NY. Hannaway, J. and Sproull, L. (1978), ``Who's

running the show? Coordination and control of instruction in educational organizations'',

Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 279 pp. 1-4. Hill, P., Foster G. and Gendler, T. (1990),High Schools with Character, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

James, M. (1975),The OK Boss, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Manasse, A.L. (1984), ``Principals as leaders of high-performing systems'',Educational Leadership, Vol. 415, pp. 42-6.

Manasse, A.L. (1985), ``Improving conditions for principal effectiveness: policy implications of research'',Elementary School Journal, Vol. 853, pp. 439-63.

Murphy, J. (1990), ``The reform of school administration: pressures and calls for change'', in Murphy, J. (Ed.),The Reform Of American Public Education in the 1980s: Themes and Cases, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA. Pareek, U. (1997),Training Instruments for

Human Resources Development, Tata McGraw Hill, NewDelhi.

Peterson, K. (1982), ``Making sense of principal's work'',Australian Administrator, Vol. 33, pp. 1-4.

Pitner, N. and Ogawa R. (1980), ``Organizational leadership: the case of the superintendent'',

Educational Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 172, pp. 45-66.

Sullivan, H.S. (1953), ``The interpersonal theory of psychiatry'' in Perky, H.S. and Gawal, M.L. (Eds),Psychiatry, W.W. Norton and Company Inc., NewYork, NY.

Weick, K. (1982), ``Administering education in loosely coupled schools'',Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 63, pp. 673-76.