CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.2 The Social System

1.3 School as a Social System

1.4 Concept of Organizational Climate

1.5 The Present Study

 1.1 INTRODUCTION

Today India stands on the threshold of a mighty transformation.

The political, economic and the social climate in the country has changed

so much that education has been under pressure to change its character

in a conforming manner. The Education Commission (1964-66) has underscored

new functions of education for national development which have to serve

as an instrument of peaceful social "change on a grand scale", to pave for

material and human resource development to enrich and strengthen national

economy, and to provide a more solid and deeply rooted base for political

democracy to bring out emotional and national integration and to modernise

a primitive, traditional society into one based on science and technology.

These vested functions have been creating new pressures on the Indian educa­

tional system. In the wake of these pressures schools should be more effective

centres not only of teaching - learning, but of emotional and social integration

and of inculcation of a new value system which would be politically, economi­

cally and culturally more viable.

But this is found to be no easy task. Emergent administrative, financial

and even political problems are many and varied. The needs of the Indian

society have grown not only more complex, but the approaches and methods
to be used to meet them have also been found to be more inadequate. In
the natural zeal for introducing new curricular frameworks and contents,
the inner psychological life of schools which holds the crucial key to the

success of the new educational reforms seems to be lost sight of. And it

is likely to be most damaging while giving no thoughts to improve that inner

 2

life of schools which is holding the line of success of those reforms. It has

been found that there is little evidence of thinking about the "School” as

an "Organisation".

Modem social living is highly institutionalized, it means that each

individual is bound to live amidst consciously and purposively created organiza­

tion of some kind of other. All the basic and secondary needs ( viz. food,
clothing, shelter, education and the like) of him are supplied by different

organizations. A large part of his waking behaviour is organizational behaviour

- behaviour as a member or client of organizations. Observing an organization

means learning to interpret the behaviour of the people in terms of their

motives, their organizational roles, the ,influences that the organization exerts

on them. But the question is, 'what is an organization'?

Organization as a concept has been discussed by different authorities

like Herbert Spencer ( 1904 ), Henderson (1935), Roethlisberger and Dickson

(1939), Urwick (1943), Stogdill (1950), Getzel and Guba (1958), Lorsch (1965)

and Halpin (1966) etc. in different ways. Without going in details but by

summing up their definitions, the organization may be defined as a highly

complex social system composed of the most complex organizers - the human
beings interacting with each other and are interdependent ingredients of

the interaction phenomena where the interaction takes place between the

two dimensions namely the social and the psychological dimension of the

social system.
 3

Among the factors affecting the overall effectiveness of organization

are the behaviour patterns of its ingredients those emerges from their social

interactions within the organization. Two organizations may be operating

in a similar way using parallel equipments and possessing similar mastery

of technology ; the personnel may have common skills and professional back­

ground, still one organization may be found to be more innovative, efficient

and effective in achieving its goal. What is the reason behind it ?

If one wants to focuss one's attention on the organization itself

and try to understand its behaviour, then clearly one has to try to define,

describe and interpret the context in which it exists - the environment,

the climate or the personality of the organization itself.

It is a fact that all organizations are changing with the changing

world and they are changing fast. Environmental or climate studies provide
valuable informatiop/for identifying and implementing new measures relevant

to the need of the changing society. It is likely that climate study will supply
/
data that suggests what organizational programmes are desirable. Hence

the study of organizational climate may help in maximizing the utilization

of man-power and physical resources for creating a congenial atmosphere

of the organization for the people.

The concept of organizational climate is relatively new. In the

sixties, the administrative potentiality of organizational climate has come

to be realized by Indian researchers. In India, still in many organizations,

the term in its socio-psycholgical significance is little known and understood.

 4

It is, therefore, necessary to examine the concept of organizational climate in

A-',. '
depth and underscore its implication. Before that it should ,bear in /mind

that the present study proposes to deal with the organizational climate of

schools only. So the author would like to do this in the section that follows:

1.2 THE SOCIAL SYSTEM

The term 'social system' connotes the organization as a system of

interaction between two classes of pehnomena, one sociological and the

other psychological . Through this interaction the relationships as established

between the members of the organization represent its structure. This has

also been viewed by Getzels (1958). Following in the sociological tradition

of Parson Talcott (1956) who viewed the society as a system of interaction,

Getzels (1958) presented a model of social behaviour which elaborates Parsonian

social system theory. Getzel's postulates are : (1) Organizations are social
systems ; (2) each social system has two dimensions, nomothetic which defines

the roles and expectations that fulfil the goals of the system, ideographic

which relates to the individual, his personality and need dispositions ; (3)

both these dimensions are conditioned by the culture, its ethos and values

and environment, its resources and limitations ; (4) both these dimensions

interact and the interaction gives rise to a third dimension, the informal
group, its climate and norms ; (5) all these three dimensions result in the

behaviour observed in the social system.

Though the two classes of phenomena belonging to a social system

appear to be independent but in actual practice they are interactive. Firstly,

 5

s.s
there are institutions with certain personalities and dispositions inhabiting

the system. The social behviour found in this system may be considered

as a function of two major elements such as (i) institution, role and expectation

which together constitute the nomothetic or social dimension of activity

in a social system ; and (ii) individual personality and disposition, which

together constitute the ideographic or psychological dimension of activity

in a social system.

In brief, Getzels says that behaviour (B) is a function of Role (R)

and Personality (P) Le. B = f ( R x P )

Figure - 1

General Model Showing Social Behaviour

Nomothetic Dimension
( Sociological )
-Institution —->■ Role —> Expectation

Social Informal Climate. .Norms Leader Behaviour

System~ Organization'

''Individual---- >■ Personality Need Disposition

Ideographic Dimension
( Psycholoaical )

It is truism that society has created schools to satisfy some felt social needs
which may be regarded as the goals of the system. Discussing the model
in connection with school, the nomothetic dimension spells out the structure

needed to attain these goals. To make the institution effective, roles are
assiqned to its members. Role expectations are the rights and duties assigned
■fl.L
to a role. Thus the role of the "teacher" or the role of "principal" each carries
 6

with it certain expectations held by influential segments of the school commu­

nity such as professional teacher organizations, the principal, teachers them­

selves and perhaps, the school management or the department of education.

Obviously, these expectations sometimes conflict.

There is also a psychological dimension and its purpose is not necessarily

the attainment of school goals. Rather, its activities are geared to the satis­

faction of_ the particular personality needs of the individual occupying the
/•'(

roles of teacher or principal. A principal, for example, may have strong

need for dominance. If this need can be satisfied by actions that also fulfih

the expectations others have of his role as principal, then these actions

are efficient in meeting his needs and effective in meeting the need for
independence. Topically, his behaviour will be directed towards the satisfaction

of both organizational and personal goals. Ideally, both objectives may be

realized. On the other hand, the behaviour expected of a teacher by his

principal may not include adequate opportunities for self-expression or for

independent thought and aciton. In such a case, the teacher, in all probability,

will feel dissatisfied and his effectiveness and efficiency will decline.

On the other hand, an open-minded principal who is dominant but

able to perceive the needs of the others, may well be flexible enough to
permit and even encourage individual teachers to do their work^ in a variety
of ways. Given these conditions, the energy a teacher expends to satisfy
personal needs, shall simultaneously be effectively employed^/to achieve the

school's objectives as well.

 7

As such the school represents a social system in which teachers

and principals interact as organizational members. The social system model
treats organization as a system of mutually interdependent as well as indepen­

dent parts. Each part is assumed to have a role to which are associated

a set of behavioural expectations. The behaviour of each part is viewed in

relation to the behaviour of other parts, for a change in the action of the
one affects the action of the others. In this sense, the organizational outcome

may be regarded as a result of the interaction among its constituent parts.

Social system model is a way of looking at a social organization

as a whole. Because a system is simply defined as a complex of elements

in mutual interaction. System may be open or closed. An open system is

related to and exchanges matter with its environment, while a closed system

is not related to nor does it exchange matter with its environment. Further

a closed system is characterized by an increase in ehtropy - a measure of

ignorance, disorder, disorganization, randomness or chaos, while open systems

tend towards the steady state. Thus maximum entropy is zero organization

and zero entropy is maximum organization. All system^ except the smallest

have sub-systems, and all but the largest have supra-systems, which are
their environments.

1.3 SCHOOL AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM

Like any other social institution the school must have come into
existence to satisfy some felt social needs. Formerly, education was informal
 8

and experience-centred and it took place in the natural environment. Later^

home was the centre of education. The home and the community continued

to remain the educational environment of the child. With the growth of

the complexities of life, it was found that the physical and social environments,
as they were, could not serve as ideal settings for the harmonious develop­

ment of the child. The need for creating an ideal educational environment

was felt and organised educational institutions came into being. The building

with the classroom and furniture, the library, the laboratory, the workshop,

the teacher and the taught, the curriculum and the appliances, all combine

together so as to produce a whole, an integrated? educational environment

which is commonly called a school. The school is a replica of the society,

all though it has its distinctive characteristics which give it a special character

of its own.

A school system is a human organization within which a social service

is performed. The system is composed of a series of interdependent components

like formal organization, informal organization, people status, role-expectancy

patterns and the physical environment. How to administer this system is

also a social process which takes place within the context of a social system.

Structurally, the school administration is seen as the hierarchy of superordinate

subordinate relationships within the social system. Functionally, this hierarchy

of relationships is the locus for allocating and integrating roles and facilities

so as to achieve the goals of the system. And operationally, the administrative

process takes effect in situations involvingperson-to-person interaction.

 9

It is evident that the social system involves two classes of phenomena

that are both conceptually independent and phenomenally interactive : (i)

the institutions, with certain roles and expectations, that will fulfil the goals

of the system ,• and (ii) the individuals, with certain personalities and disposi­

tions inhabiting the system, whose observed interactions comprise of what

may be called as social behaviour. School can also be characterized in these

terms.

It is needless to point out that more than a group of individuals

who vary in quantity of education, sex, age, work experience, work expectations,

assignments, attitude, skills and values are needed to develop a school system.

Each individual in the school ( organization ) brings to his work certain needs

which he seeks to satisfy. If the needs of the individual and the demands

of the organization are compatible, problems do not arise. Unfortunately,

organizational expectations and individual needs are seldom completely compa­

tible. Causes of the disparity reside both in the individual and the system.

The personnel function in a school staff can be conceived of as

a major sub-system of the total school system. Within the personnel function

there is a network of interdependent processes, including manpower planning,

compensation, recruitment, selection, induction, development, security, and

justice. The way in which the total school system is designed and impelemented

from the sub-systems to the integrated whole, can affect the willingness

of system members to cooperate in achieving the organization's goals. So

the practising administrator must understand the impact of the total system

and its parts on the individual, as well as the response of the individual

to the system.
 10

It can be apprehended from what has been stated above that any

effort to design the personnel function in a school system must be based

upon an understanding of human behaviour.

Beside this, a school system is also made up of a number of sub-systems

le. instruction, supervision, leadership, administration etc. These sub-systems

'l
are again composed of a number of facilitating processes. Secondly,' major

part of the operation of a school system depends on interaction between

the sub-systems and within them. So a mechanistic view of personnel adminis­

tration may tend to exclude some vital consideration like the impact of

an organizational structure on people, the force of unions on personnel matters,

the effect of informal group on the formal organization, the design of position

and jobs which will contribute to human satisfaction and the effect of personnel

sub-processes on personnel performance and organizational achievement

have a significant bearing on how an organization actually functions. Now

here the administrator must realize that understanding how one component

of a school system functions is insufficient to enhance the betterment of

the organization because it is a system composed of the activities of human

/
beings. Here leadership has its important part to play. Leader has to play

the part of a catalyst stimulating the activities of all those who contribute

to the organization.

1.4 CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

"Any one who visits more than a few schools notes quickly how schools
differ from each other in their 'feel'. In one school the teachers
and the principal are zestful and exude confidence in what they
 11

are doing. They find pleasure in working with each other; this pleasure
is transmitted to the students, who, thus, are given at least a fighting
chance to discover that school can be a happy experience. In a second,,
school the brooding discontent of the teachers is palpable; the principal»
< tries to hid^ his incompetence and his lack of sense of direction behind
a cloak of authority, and yet he wears this cloak poorly because
the attitude he displays to others vacillates randomly between the
obsequious and the officious. And the psychological sickness of such
a faculty spills over on the students who, in their own frustration,
feed back to the teachers a mood of despair. A third school is marked
by neither joy nor despair, but by hollow ritual. Here one gets the
feeling of watching an elaborate charade in which teachers, principal,
and students alike are acting out parts. The acting is smooth, even
glib, but it appears to have little meaning for the participants; in
a strange way the show doesn't seem to be 'for real'. And so, too
as one moves to other schools, one finds that each appears to have
a 'personality' of its own".
( Halp in, 1969 )

It is a truism that schools differ from each other in terms of their environment.

Every school has its own 'personality' in a sense that various aspects of

the school life give rise to a unique organization which is much more than

a mere totality of different aspects and this 'personality' can also be perceived

in other establishments. Such an organizational personality is^a.so complex'

system that it becomes almost impossible to conceive of the variables which

contribute to the making of a system.

The feeling that one experiences in any type of organization is defined

and described in various terms by theorists concerned with explanations

of phenomenon associated with complex organization. However, regardless

of the terminology they employ, these authorities tend to explain this

 12

particular phenomenon in terms of the interactions among various role partici­

pants in the organization. In other words, they believe that the distinct

climate, atmosphere, or personality perceived by person in a particular building

is a result of the manner in which the participants at each level of the organi­

zation interact vnth each other and with incumbents of other levels.

The feeling which results from the interaction of role participants

at the various hierarchical levels of the organization housed in a particular

building often is referred to now as the organizational climate.

Cornell used this terminology in 1955 when he referred to the organiza­

tional climate of a school as a delicate blending of interpretation by persons

in the organization of their jobs or roles in relationship to other and their

interpretations of the roles of others in the organization.

Argyris (1958) used the term organizational climate in a discussion

of research concerned with the behaviour of role participants in a bank.

He explained that the research on human behaviour iiy organization has to j

faced with the problem of ordering and conceptualizing a confusion of
ft*

simultaneously existing, multi-level, mutually intercting variables. These

A
variables were described as (1) formal organizational variables such as policies,
practices^ and fob description, (2) personality variables such as needs, abilities,

values, self-concept, and defenses inducing participants to behave in such

a way that they may express their personalities, and (3) informal variables

that have arisen out of the participants continuing struggle to adapt to the
formal organization so that the latter achieves its objectives while, simulta­
neously, the individuals obtain at least a minimal amount of self-expression.
 13

Argyris went on explaining that the three variables are not discrete, but

are mixed beyond classification and from a pattern in which each plays

a functional role feeding back and upon the others to maintain itself and

the pattern. He referred to this fourth level as a living complexity, and

defined it as "the climate of the organization".

Both Cornell ( 1955 ) and Argyris (1958) explained organizational

climate in terms of interaction among persons in the organization, and they

isolated and discussed briefly the variables which they believe to have an

effect on this interaction. This phenomenon of interaction can be thought

of as occurring in a system of interdependent forces each of which can be

analysed and set in the perspective of other forces.

The concept of Argyris which treats organization as personality

I is the concept of organizational climate^which embraces the milieu of personali-
i
| ties, principal and teachers, interacting within the sociological and psycholo­

gical framework of an institution such as the seocndary school. Climate

may be pictured as a personality sketch of a school, as personality describes

an individual, so climate defines the essence of an institution.

Organizational climate as a concept has been discussed by different

authorities in different ways. Gipp (1960) says,

aWhen the new observer comes into a group for the first time, he
is able to sense a feeling about the group^f which we might call
an atmosphere or a climate
 14

According to Lonsdale (1964),

CtOrganizational climate might be defined as the global assessment

of the interaction between the task-achievement dimension and the
■7 needfl -^satisfaction dimension within the organization, or in other
words, of the extent of the task needs integration. In general usage
the term has a psycho^-Cso'cial flavour which reflects more concern
with the needs^ satisfaction dimension thanwith the task - achievement
dimension but the meaning that gives relatively equal attention to
both is preferred".

Both Sullivan (1947) and Alan Brown (1965) conceived organizational climate

as cathectic patterns giving identity to sub-group and the interpersonal relation

in a living organization, whereas Halpin and Croft (1963) crisply stated persona­

lity is to the individual what organizational climate is to the organiza­

tion. Andrews (1965) defined it as "merely^as'"a somewhat blurred esprit

score" . Sinclair (1970) used "educational environment" as synonymous

to organizational climate. He stated that the term "educational environment"

refers to the condition} forces, and external stimuli that foster the development
/
of individual characteristics. Sargent (1967) reports :

Cf
Organizational climate is a concept which embraces the milieu of
personalities, principal and teachers interacting within the sociological
and psychological framework of an institution such as the public
high school".

Stern (1970) has developed the Heed-Press Model to conceptualize organiza­

tional climate. He refers to needs as "organizational tendencies which appear

to give unity and direction to a person's behaviour". The concept of environ­

mental press, according to Stern, provides an external situational counterpart

 IS

to internalized needs. The concept of press includes conditions that represent

impediments to a need as well as of those that give rise to organizational

climate.

Sharma (1973), the Indian pioneer says :

Organizational climate may be explained in terms of interaction

that takes place between organizational ingredients as they fulfil
their prescribed roles while satisfying their individual needs. Interaction
is a process where, upon contact, men influence each other,behaviour".

The term ’organizational climate’ should not be confounded with the nature

of organizational or structural infra-built up a school has. It is to be interpreted,

as observed earlier in terms of interaction among the persons in the organiza­

tion. Cornell (1955) and Argyris (1958) have interpreted organizational climate

in this way. Halpin (1963) seems to have followed the lead given by them

and others in conceptualizing organizational climate. The discussion available

in literature on organizations tends to emphasize the fact that organizational

climate is concerned with the behavioural role of participants in the organiza­

tion.

It is evident from the foregoing discussion that the organizational

climate is the resultant accumulated effect of the ways in which the principal

( head of the organization ) interacts with teachers ( ingredients ) and the

teachers interact among themselves and with the principal. As such the

organizational climate of schools is the product of the relationships between

the principal and his staff and among his teachers. This relationship engenders

interaction between the principal and his teachers and of teachers among
themselves. The interaction takes place within the psychological framework
 16

of the school. This framework has been found to be very useful by researchers

in diagnosing school personality or climate.

1.5 THE PRESENT STUDY

The present study is based on the organizational theory that views

a social organization as comprised of a number of interdependent and inter­

related parts. These parts in their operation interact and by this interaction

new entity is created. This entity may be termed as 'climate' or 'behaviour'

of the organization. Here? it is also postulated that the organizational climate

can be measured through a number of observable variables and can be represen­

ted on a continuum.

From 1968 to the present day a considerable number of studies have

been done in India on organizational climate based on the concept, theory

and the tool developed by Halpin and Croft. But school organizational climate

in West Bengal'hs not been studied at all. The present researcher gets impetus

firstly from Halpin and Croft (1963) and then from Sharma (1974). Sharma,

the Indian pioneer has developed a research tool commonly known as School

Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire or SOCDQ which is found

to be useful in studying the Indian school climate. He has also developed

a model profile for Indian school which may be viewed as description of
six different organizational climates. With the help of these model profiles

the researcher may diagnose the Indian school climate.

The present work will be an attempt to adopt the SOCDQ developed

by Sharma (197 3) for Bengali medium school. After the development of workable
 17

SOCDQ in Bengalithe organizational climate of Bengali medium secondary

schools of West Bengal would be identified and classified. After that^ school

climate will be correlated with important school, headmaster or headmistress,

teachers and students' characteristics. Furthermore, it would be of interesting

to know whether or not Sharma's SOCDQ developed for secondary schools

of Rajasthan does get its practical applicability in other states of India like

West Bengal. As such the present author has picked up the thread from Sharma

(1973) and the present study has been undertaken.