An analysis of interdisciplinary research and theory relating to group dynamics is

undertaken in terms of implications for small school leadership. The transferability of

research and theory from sociology, psychology, and business management to
educational administration is demonstrated. Concepts are operationalized to generate
ideas that can be of use both to the practitioner and to the student of educational
administration. The analysis includes ideas based on a principal’s observational
experiences that should be useful to the researcher in developing theoretical constructs
for study.

IMPLICATIONS OF
GROUP DYNAMICS FOR
SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

JOHN E. IORIO
New York, New York

Cartwright and Zander (1960) state that during the late 1930s
group dynamics became an identifiable field of empirical
research and theory development in the social sciences. They
define this phenomenon as &dquo;a field of inquiry dedicated to
advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the laws of
their development, and their interrelations with individuals,
other groups, and larger institutions&dquo; (p. 9). The empiricist is
concerned with group dynamics and functions in an academic
area of expanding theoretical and conceptual development

through a series of actual and projected research endeavors. In

addition to expanding the body of knowledge, systematic
inquiry also is intended to be used by practitioners in
organizational settings to help improve the functioning of
groups, both in terms of productivity and social-emotional
relationships. The situationality of studies dealing with various
types of occupational, voluntary, and experimentally con-
structed relationships found in different types of groups and
SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR, Vol. 17 No. 3, August 1986 322-342
@1986 Sage Publications, Inc

322

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 323

social settings, cautions against generalizing empirical findings

as sources for universal group application. Indeed, even when

groups are of the same type, such as schools, the environments

of particular organizations within their own sets may contain
like variables of different contextual degree that may either
limit or aid the applicability of research in achieving improved
group effectiveness. For example, size, location, union orienta-
tion, and community pressure all can have an effect on
organizational group relationships.
This article will concern itself with some implications of
research dealing with group dynamics that can be related to the
leadership of small schools. Asch (1952: 502) refers thus to
the study of small groups:

That there is much to be understood about the functioning of

small groups can hardly be doubted. It is, for example, difficult
when near a group not to notice that it has a particular spirit
and individuality. One visits two neighboring schools and
immediately senses a great difference between them. The one may
have an atmosphere of peacefulness and industry, whereas the
other conveys the impression of tension and lack of order....
What strikes us about these contrasts is that they are often not
due to differences of membership. Frequently one can alter the
quality of a group and the level of its activities by introducing
changes in the relationship between the members or in the kind
of leadership. The same set of individuals can be organized in
quite different ways to produce quite different effects.

Stogdill’s (1981) accumulation of research also emphasizes

the situational aspects of leadership by relating the various
aspects of its direction to different group studies (pp. 419-434).
The research cited in his classic work has direct implications
for leadership in analyzing and directing group behavior. I will
attempt to analyze and make operational the results of a
number of prominent empirical studies referred to by Stogdill,
as well as other correlative research and analyses, and show
that-even now-they can be made applicable to small school
situations. In the process of accomplishing this primary

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

324

objective hope: (1) to show that, in spite of various

I also
constraints of situationality, there is a body of empirical
evidence that can be made transferable and operational from
one discipline to another; (2) to show that a behavioral

approach to identifying what is happening in various inter-

active processes between members of a group can enable a
school administrator to adjust his or her leadership styles in
order to produce greater group effectiveness and efficiency;
and (3) to advance ideas for theoretical conceptualizations
pertaining to small school leadership.
With the above factors in mind, a small school will be
considered to have about 350 children, a single administrator,
and 14 classroom teachers. The operational practices and
personal analyses that will be described will be related to my
experiences during the past eight years as the administrator of
a school with fewer than 300 children. Because some of the
ideas will have applicability to various situational similarities
in big schools, it is up to individual administrators to determine
their usefulness.

SOURCES OF RESEARCH

With the exception of Rasmussen and Zander’s ( 1954) study

that directly deals with secondary school teachers, the other
empirical findings to be analyzed will be concerned with
subjects outside the field of education. This fact notwith-
standing, the subsequent analyses will attempt to relate
findings from different disciplines such as sociology, psychol-
ogy, and business management to small school situations. If
this relationship can be theoretically demonstrated or can be
supported by evidence of operationality, then the objectives of
this article referred to in the previous section will have been
achieved. I hope that ideas will be generated that can be useful
both to the practitioner and to the student of educational
administration.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 325

EMERGENT VERSUS APPOINTED LEADERSHIP

Carter and associates (1951) dealt with groups, each com-

posed of four NROTC junior students who were alternatively
studied, first, in group sessions in which leadership ability was
measured as emerging from the interaction of the group; then,
second, under conditions in which one member of the group
was replaced with an appointed leader taken from another
group who had leadership ratings similar to those of the
removed &dquo;leader&dquo; member. Leaders who emerged in the
emergent situation were more &dquo;authoritarian&dquo; than were
leaders who were appointed. The latter, probably secure in the
nature of their authority, viewed their roles in terms of
coordinators of activities. Emergent leaders, who assumed
their position, did so by energetic action to prove impact in
order to get others to accept their leadership. The insecure
nature of this basis of authority may account for this result.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Naturally, the appointed nature of the principalship gives

the principal the security of the vested authority (Getzels, 1968:
135) derived from the role. This authority can provide for the
establishment of an immediate legitimate power base (French
and Raven, 1960: 615) in that staff members, by virtue of
defined role expectations (Owens, 1970: 72), acknowledge
that the principal has the right to influence them and that they
have an obligation to follow the directions of his or her
influence. The concepts of authority and power, however,
when related to legitimacy must not be confused with a
principal’s leadership ability. As Lasswell and Kaplan (1950)
advise, power is related to leadership to the extent that a leader
has the ability to get others to value his or her ideas sufficiently
to carry out orders: &dquo;To have power is to be taken into account
in others’ acts&dquo; (p. 77). When this interaction takes place, the
authority of the leader assumes an additional dimension.
Obedience is granted &dquo;because of some specific competence he

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

326

[or she] is seen to possess&dquo; (Getzels, 1968: 136). It is proposed

here that this position of entrusted authority derived through
the exercise of legitimate power established a preferred basis
for leadership.
In view of these statements, it might be better understood
why the appointed nature of a leadership position can lead
more easily to the role being perceived as one of coordination
rather than authoritarian. In terms of group size as an
additional factor, the research of Greene and Schriesheim
(1980), involving 123 work groups in business organizations,
found that supportive leadership exerted its greatest influence
in small groups. Hence, with fewer needs and wants to satisfy,
the principal of a small school is probably in a better position
to offer a broader base of support for his or her staff. This is not
to imply that this is always the case in actuality. It is merely
advanced that the opportunity for supportive leadership is
more readily available to a small school principal. How
individuals perceive and act out their roles is primarily the
result of preferences that are actually reflections of their
technical competencies (Getzels, 1968: 134).

GROUP DEVELOPMENT

The research of Kinder and Kilman (1976) dealt with 47

male and female college students and was concerned with the
impact of high and low structure on self-actualization, for
internal and external participants. Internals were classified as
those who perceived themselves in control of their reinforce-
ments, and externals as those who believed that their rein-
forcements were determined by factors outside themselves.
The study found that the optimum sequence of leader structure
for both internal and external persons was found to be one of
high leader structure early in treatment followed by less leader
structure during later stages of treatment.
Tuckman’s (1965) analysis of some 60 studies involving
experimental, training, and therapeutic groups saw four stages

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 327

in group development: (1) forming, characterized by orienta-

tion toward task; (2) storming, characterized by intragroup
conflict, status differentiation, and emotional response; (3)
norming, characterized by the development of group cohe-
sion, norms, and intermember exchange; and (4) performing,
marked by functional role interrelations and effective task
performance.
Bass and associates’ (1975) study focused on 407 subordi-
nates in two large advanced technology firms and industrial,
university, and city libraries. They referred to previous research
that demonstrated that consideration and structure were
significantly positively correlated and not empirically inde-
pendent, and proceeded to examine five leadership styles.
Their findings concluded that when consultation, participa-
tion, and delegation were present in a given situation, they
jointly produced higher job satisfaction and more informed
and fair-minded subordinates. Negotiation was most strongly
associated with short-range objectives. Direction was asso-
ciated with tight constraints, routine tasks with little discre-
tionary opportunity, authoritarian subordinates, and highly
structured within-systems relations. In addition, (1) delegation
was associated with complex tasks; (2) consultation was
unassociated with power and informational differences in
hierarchical roles; and (3) delegation was greater when subor-
dinates held greater information about task accomplishment
than did managers.
Kurokawa and Misumi’s (1975) study dealing with 2,580
groups of different sizes in Japanese industrial organizations
indicated that maintenance-type supervisors were frequently
found in small groups and performance-type supervisors in
large groups.
Turk et al.’s (1962) research, involving 20 male German
psychology students, found that:
(1) The more an individual perceives common group membership
with another, the more influence he expects will flow between
the two of them.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

328

(2) The greater the cohesion an individual expects between

himself and another, the more influence he expects will flow
between the two of them.

Thibaut and Strickland’s (1956) study, six-man involving

group experiments, was designed the effect
to measure of
group pressures to conform on individuals who existed in
either of two psychological sets-&dquo;group set&dquo; or &dquo;task set.&dquo;The
former represented a state of mind that is associated with
achieving or maintaining group membership. The latter
referred to a state of mind seeking answers to questions rather
than a preoccupation with ensuring group membership. The
experiment found
(1) The greatest possible relationship of pressure to conformity
exists in &dquo;cohesive&dquo; groups with a &dquo;group set.&dquo;
(2) When &dquo;task set&dquo; members conform to pressure, they lose a
great degree of their formerly expressed confidence.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Size

This section will begin with the premise that the unique
nature of small schools lends itself to greater opportunities to
initiate structure and consideration in the system. The very fact
that we can consider the constituent makeup of a small school
as a small group gives it certain advantages in maximizing

(Simon, 1957: XXV), through decision making, the selections

and courses of action that will move the system toward a
position of zero entropy (Owens, 1970: 84) and result in
greatest organizational effectiveness. (These statements, nat-
urally, depend upon the technical competencies of the
principal.)
Hall (1982), in describing an ideal model of organizational
effectiveness, cites an example of a small automobile dealer-
ship that sells and services Saabs. He states that his example is

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 329

too atypical to be of much use in analyzing elements of

organizational effectiveness because &dquo;it is too small and
noncomplex&dquo; (p. 271 ), having no more than twenty employees:
The organizational goals are being met. It is able to acquire and
utilize sufficient resources to insure organizational survival. Its
personnel and clientele are satisfied. There is agreement among
participants, within the organization at different levels in the
organization and between members and nonmembers, on what
the organization is doing and how it is doing it. Finally, the
organization is apparently serving the best interests of the
community, since it provides a relatively fuel-efficient and safe
automobile [p. 270].

The position of this article is that the principal of a small

school is theoretically in better circumstances to move the
school toward obtaining the characteristics of Hall’s model
than is the leadership of big schools. If the factor of expertise is
equal, the size of the school becomes the controlling variable.
The main ideas of the research described will now be
examined in order to explain how a leader can utilize under-
standing of its findings to arrive at the state of organizational
health described in Hall’s atypical model.

Structuring
In schools of all sizes the process of group development does
not take place readily. In a small school it may be necessary for
a new principal to initiate long range plans for a period of at
least three years in order for the school to attain a state of
dynamic equilibrium. This homeostatic environment is charac-
terized by a structure that is knowledgeable and flexible, with
the ability to distinguish and choose proper avenues of change.
It maintains the system and at the same time supplies it with the
motivation to add new programs to the school (lorio, 1983:30).
Kinder and Kilman’s (1976) research suggests that high
leader structure should be stressed early in group development
and lessened during the final stages as the organization begins

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

330

to assume its individual identity. This identity is recognizable

in how the organization approaches and acomplishes its goals,
in how it obtains its resources, and in the behavioral reactions
of its leadership, personnel, and clientele. The length of time
that the structuring process takes will vary in administrative
and supervisory areas. This will depend upon the state of
organizational health that a new principal finds when he takes
over the leadership of a school.
It may be correct to say that administrative structuring
should be effectively established in no more than a two-year
period. Structuring of curriculum and cocurriculum areas
should be accomplished in no more than three or four years.
The reason for the length of the latter period is that it is
important to understand that impossible demands should not
be made on the time and energies of the teaching staff. There
should be no attempt to achieve short-range goals that cannot
reasonably be expected to be accomplished within a single year
(see Iorio, 1983: 29-30 for a more detailed analysis of this
structuring process). This approach is in line with Bass et al.’s
(1975) reference to research that recognizes structure and
consideration as positively correlated and not empirically
independent.
The most difficult period in the structuring process will
occur at what Tuckman (1965) characterizes as the forming
and storming stages. The dynamics of these phases of group
development actually take place concurrently. It is during the
forming sequence that a new supervisor presents the long and
short range goals of the school to the staff. If he or she has
failed to include the teachers in a prior assessment of the
direction that the school should take, a storming process can
ensue, marked by deep emotional conflict. The effects of this
stage, however, can be meaningfully reduced if the principal
has properly prepared staff in advance to receive the school’s
objectives. During an assessment period, he or she must have
the ability to incorporate a directed style of leadership with a
consultative, participative, and delegative approach. Negoti-
ation is also always available for immediate use. Effective use

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 331

must be made of Bass et al.’s (1975) five styles of leadership. Let

us look at how this can be accomplished.
Bridges (1978) tells us that the principal should be the one
who has a special sense of where the school is heading (p. 12).
Getzels (1968) assigns to the principal a technical competence
&dquo;to allocate and integrate the roles, personnel, and facilities
required for attaining the goals of the system&dquo; (p. 134). Lipman
(1964) gives him or her the responsibility to create a more
viable structure for the process of education to take place (p.
129). This is why he or she is-or should be-chosen for the
job. If we attribute to the principal the special competencies
that these writers describe, then he or she cannot possibly avoid
a leadership style that is directive. The skill of his or her

leadership will be measured, however, by the ability to

incorporate the other styles of leadership referred to with this
direction. If he or she can do this, the result will be the advent of
Tuckman’s (1965) norming and performing stages, which will
also bring to predominance what Kurokawa and Misumi
(1975) describe as a maintenance type of supervisory style.
For example, a principal can be directive in mandating that
the basic reading and mathematics series be the same through
the grades. He or she, however, incorporates participation by
delegating the selection of these texts to committees with
whom the principal consults and assumes what Tannenbaum
and Schmidt (1973) describe as a member role rather than an
authority role in the selection process (p. 170). This approach
allows for the flow of influence that Turk et al.’s (1962)
research indicates promotes common group membership and
cohesion. At the same time, those teachers who prefer their
own outside series are negotiated with in that they are invited
into the selection process. The presence of the principal as a
consultant assures that these teachers are not on the committee
to be subjective, but rather objective, in the selection of
materials. Pusic ( 1969) describes this negotiated process as one
of situational compromise (p. 271).
If these management styles are similarly utilized in formu-
lating other supervisory and administrative policies, when

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

332

immediate and long-term objectives are presented to the entire

staff, they will be met with a minimum of negative reaction.
There is one important consideration in this process that
must be mentioned; that is, the principal must be truly
competent. He or she should be well-groomed in curriculum
knowledge as well as administrative procedure, able to defend
directives, and willing to &dquo;challenge&dquo; the staff, to show, if
possible, a still better way to accomplish school goals. This
behavioral approach will allow those group members that
Thibaut and Strickland’s (1956) study define as a &dquo;task set&dquo; to
exercise their creativity generated by a state of mind that seeks
answers to questions. It should not be the intention of the
leader, as the study infers, to increase group pressure to a point
of risking the loss of confidence formerly expressed by creative
staff members. A principal, no matter how expert, cannot
afford to lose the contributions of the teachers’ creative
energies. If the school is to attain a homeostatic environment
that is flexible and knowledgeable, the leader must also possess
these personal attributes. If he or she is competent and visibly
demonstrates an openness to ideas, then he or she will
eventually earn the desired entrusted authority.
In the case of schools, the clientele and the community are
synonymous. The school’s P. T. A. should be made aware of
the long- and short-term goals of the school. Its input and aid
should be enlisted in securing these aims. When parents see
that the school is fulfilling its obligations and realize that it is
serving the best interests of the community, then agreement
with its direction becomes more manifest and cooperation
becomes part of the school’s external homeostatic environ-
ment.

Operationalism and Maintenance

Christner and Hemphill (1955), in studying the effect of
consideration and structure initiated by B-29 commanders,
found that those commanders who scored high on both
consideration and initiating structure tended to develop more

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 333

favorable crew attitudes as compared with commanders who

were less considerate and less inclined to initiate structure. The
former’s crew showed an increase in the amount of conver-
sation pertaining to duty, mutual confidence, friendship, and
in willingness to go to combat.
Schriesheim et al.’s (1981) analysis of research presented a
rational model that relates supportive or relations-oriented
leadership behavior with instrumental or task-oriented leader-
ship behavior to promote group drive and cohesiveness
(p. 420). In other words, consideration and structure are
positively related in promoting healthy group structures.
Stogdill’s (1972) examination of 100 studies dealing with
group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness found that produc-
tivity and cohesiveness tended to be positively related under
conditions of high group drive that is self-motivated, or
perceived to be so. He concluded that organizations are
sustained by systems of these three interacting variables that
exhibit stability over time. Occasional disruptions due to
internal and external events can cause temporary imbalance in
the system of relationships between these variables. However,
a healthy organization has the capacity to adjust to situations
and to bring cohesiveness and productivity back into balance.
Effective managers appear to obtain the balance of these
factors, intuitively.
Udell’s (1967) study of the effect of span of control involved
interviews with chief executives of 67 marketing and sales
manufacturing companies. He found a direct relationship of
the span of control with subordinate years of experience and
the degree of dissimilarity of jobs. The span increased with the
years of experience of the subordinates and decreased with a
dissimilarity of jobs.
House and Miner (1969) merged the literature of manage-
ment and behavioral science and found that a span of control
from eight to ten was most often appropriate at the highest
policy-making levels of an organization in which greater
resources for diversified problem solving appear to be needed.
Carlson’s (1960) study measured the effect of clique struc-

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

334

ture on the satisfaction of members in 72 decision-making

conferences of management personnel in industrial, business,
and federal and local government organizations. He reported
that cliques were negatively related to the satisfaction of
members and disruptive in decision-making groups.
Porter and Lawler (1964) had 1,913 managers representing
all levels of management in all sizes and types of companies,
both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing, respond to a
Maslow-type classification of needs questionnaire to deter-
mine whether perceived needs satisfactions were greater in flat
or tall organizations. A tall type of structure seemed especially

advantageous in producing security and social needs, whereas

a flat structure was superior in influencing self-actualization
satisfactions. For esteem and autonomy, the type of structure
seemed to have relatively little effect.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

After a new principal has led the staff through a period of

redefinition of purpose and has developed their understand-
ings to a point at which they are in consonance with his or her
vision for the school (Bridges, 1978: 12), then the staff
operationalizes the goals of the school that both parties have
mutually accepted as rational (Iorio, 1983: 29). Tuckman’s
(1965) norming and performing stages then become functional.
As the chief architect and supervisor of the structuring of
administrative and supervisory programs, the principal grad-
ually increases consideration in the system and brings the
organization toward a position of maximum effectiveness and
efficiency (Barnard, 1938, p. 56). Whereas formerly planning
and decision-making activities were primary concerns, the
principal’s member role now assumes a supportive nature in
terms of offering advice and supplying resources. As Kuro-
kawa and Misumi’s (1975) study indicates, he or she moves
toward a maintenance style of leadership. Simultaneously,
teachers are gaining a greater respect and understanding of the

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 335

implemented programs. They become more expert in adjusting

the programs to meet the needs of their children. Evidence of
behaviors referred to in Christner and Hemphill’s (1955) study
become evident. Teachers increase the amount of their conver-
sations pertaining to work. They show a mutual respect for the
professionalism of the group. The staff is willing to exert its full
energies in accomplishing the primary mission of the school to
educate its children. The consideration and structure referred
to by Schriesheim et al. (1981) are built in the system and
promote healthy group relationships. The system assumes a
recognizable state described by Stogdill (1972) as one character-
ized by cohesiveness and productivity under conditions of high
group drive that is self-motivated. The staff realizes that the
principal is able to solve the problems of the system and keep it
in balance. He or she has attained a position of entrusted
authority.

Advantages
There are certain advantages for small schools that research
relates to small groups. The situationality of these occurrences
can help its leadership in successfully guiding an organization

through the stages of development and operationality to one of

maintenance. Small schools have similarities of circumstance
described in Udell’s (1967) study. They do not have a great
number of dissimilar specialities that could negatively affect
the span of control. This includes the supervision of support
personnel. Also, the number of probationary teachers in a
small school is never that great that an inordinate amount of
supervisory time has to be spent in their training. The model of
small school composition allows us to apply House and
Miner’s (1969) findings to the entire staff. The latter can be
considered to be of an appropriate size to make important
decisions concerning school programs. For example, the staff
may decide not to implement the many suggestions from
headquarters to participate in specific ethnic recognition

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

336

activities. Instead, once a year during Brotherhood Week, they

may choose to have all the children report in some manner on
their individual ethnic heritages.The work of the children is
then shared throughout the school.
The nature of small group in which member consensus is
arrived at through free and open discussion allows both a
&dquo;group set&dquo; and a &dquo;task set&dquo; mentality to exist. If individuals
are allowed to retain their &dquo;task set&dquo; drives and express their

preferences freely and openly and know that they will be

listened to, then an informed decision arrived at by the group is
usually accepted. Preferred alternatives are put aside and a
&dquo;group set&dquo; behavior becomes operational-at least for this
decision.
There are two factors present in small schools that aid in the
development of a communication process characterized by a
free flow of information and ideas in a healthy environment.
First, the principal actually has the opportunity to eliminate
the negative effects of clique structure that Carlson’s (1960)
study indicates reduces member satisfaction with the organiza-
tional process and is disruptive in decision-making groups. He
or she is in a position, as Brown (1961) advocates, to truly
individualize supervisory practices (p. 282). The smallness of
the staff provides the time to do so. If all teachers are treated
with the same fairness and consideration and provided with a
structure that unambiguously defines their responsibilities and
proves effective in practice, then role conflicts are avoided.
The principal is in a position to see to it that every teacher
has the resources needed to carry out his or her assignments.
Personal communication between the principal and every staff
member can take place daily. Needs and wants can be
constantly negotiated. There is an opportunity for each to gain
personal insights into the character of the other. One realizes
that the other can provide support for the self-actualization of
his or her own needs. A bond of respect and concern for each
other’s professional and social-emotional requirements de-
velops. If this state of human relationships is present, cliques
will not appear.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 337

Second, a small school is a noncomplex organization with a

flat structure. It has no complex hierarchical levels of differen-
tiation that extend either vertically or horizontally. The
principal is the sole manager. There is no spatial dispersion of
activities that cannot be brought to his or her immediate
attention for input or action. The nature of subordinate
horizontal differentiation is such that every teacher is a
professional who can be given the responsibility and authority
to carry out the duties of his or her role. In a flat structure
characterized by the unambiguity and reciprocal consideration
(Iorio, 1983: 30) that this article has been advocating, the
opportunities for everyone to achieve the self-actualization
needs referred to in Porter and Lawler’s (1964) research
become greater.

Hall’s Atypical Model

Small schools have the potential to move toward Hall’s
atypical model of organizational effectiveness. They are noncom-
plex and lack hierarchical levels of differentiation of authority.
Opportunities for social exchanges (Boles and Davenport,
1975: 153), in which individuals can communicate with each
other in order to satisfy their need dispositions (Getzels, 1968:
70), are more easily available.
The size of the group increases the opportunity for both
independent thought and the acceptance of group norms to
coexist in a healthy environmental setting characterized by a
respect for ideas. This provides for a mutual acceptance of
rational objectives. Rasmussen and Zander’s (1954) study
indicates that teachers who perceived themselves as &dquo;good
teachers&dquo; are genuinely interested in belonging to groups that
they consider reflect ideal teaching practices and attitudes; the
attractiveness of these ideals influences their own desire to maintain
these standards and remain with the group. Hence, group
norms have a direct influence on their wanting to maintain ideal

teaching levels.
The institutional nature of the school assures its place in
society. In keeping with Hall’s model, the public nature of its

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

338

being assures it of sufficient resources to ensure its organiza-

tional survival.
The interaction with the community gives the school an
indication of how it is serving the former’s best interests. The
school is forced to evaluate its purposes and to initiate
meaningful changes that keep its internal and external environ-
ments in balance.
The smallness of the school effects an increase in the
percentage of parental involvement in the life of the school.
With greater parental influence, the school is continually
aware of its accountability. This can help create a dynamic,

healthy relationship, if the principal has the ability to explain

the direction of the school and its accomplishments. A
symbiotic relationship develops that binds the school and
community together into a social collectivity with a common
purpose of providing for the best possible education of their
children.

Situationality
The final research study to be analyzed has been chosen to
illustrate that the concept of situationality is truly one that
must be viewed as the way in which something is placed in
relationship to its surroundings. To think of it as a narrowly
limiting concept denies its actual range of utility in terms of its
general applicability. This is not to imply that situationality
can be positively applied to all circumstances. The view here is
one of a realization that its application might extend further
than one might generally reason to be possible.
Goode and Fowler’s (1949) study indicated that, in a small
nonunion feeder auto-manufacturing plant, an acceptable rate
of productivity was accomplished in spite of the low overall
company morale and disharmony present in informal social
relationships. The causes of these dissatisfactions were related
to poor labor relation policies and low wages. The reason for
the success in productivity was attributable to the need of key
personnel to secure their jobs and the low degree of special-
ization and training required to accomplish operative goals.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 339

Key personnel could be easily replaced, if necessary, and it was

mainly because of their economic survival needs that produc-
tivity goals were met. The study suggests that, even with
disharmony or low morale, the organizational demands of
small plants can be met if four conditions are present: (1) The
goals are simple and are clearly defined; (2) the skills for
attaining these goals are well known and possessed by the
individuals in the group; (3) the functional roles are made
clear; and (4) the external pressures toward conformity are
strong.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SMALL GROUP LEADERSHIP

What is interesting about the four conditions presented in

this study is that their intent can be redefined and made
applicable to small organizations in which specialization,
consideration, structure, and high morale are the rule, not the
exception (e.g., small school situations). A clarification of
school goals provides direction and removes indecisiveness of
action in terms of organizational expectations. Teachers have
the professional and specialized skills to attain these goals.
Class assignments remove role ambiguity and provide a
functional environment for skills application. External environ-
mental pressures are applied through community and parental
expectations. Internal pressures can be applied through struc-
tural arrangements, such as departmentalization of instruc-
tion. The combination of these environmental pressures can
provide a strong basis for conformity. All this can be accom-
plished in an atmosphere of consideration in which satisfaction
and high morale are the rule, not the exception.

CONCLUSION

Postman and Weingarten (1973) observe that a school

should be

small enough so supervision (and just about everything else)

can be a personal-a human-problem, not a logistics prob-

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

340

lem.... No one really knows what the maximum size of a

humanized school is, but in various experiments around the
country, the figure that keeps coming up is somewhere around
250 [p. 37].

This article has dealt with the situationality of research that can
be applied to small schools. It has tried to indicate advantages
that can accrue to such schools. Most schools, however, are not
small. How is it possible to transfer some of the advantages
described to larger schools?
The situationality of big schools, ironically, demands an
increase in organizational complexity. These schools cannot be
made smaller in size, but their effective operations can be
assured by providing their systems with adequate spans of
control. A position paper by Schwimmer and associates (1982)
calls for an increase in and effective use of supervisory,
administrative, and support personnel that will have a meaning-
ful influence on the humanization process in big schools. They
present four models for restructuring elementary schools
according to size that can result in greater organizational
effectiveness. The crucial factor in their models is still the
competency of leadership. This leadership dimension extends
to all levels of differentiation in the organization. If the proper
selection of supervisors can be assured, the restructuring
processes as proposed will have meaning.
Finally, it is hoped that some of the ideas advanced in this
article have generated concepts for theoretical construction
pertaining to small school leadership and that they will have
meaning for both the practitioner and student of educational
administration.

REFERENCES

ASCH, S. E. (1952) Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

BARNARD, C. I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.
Press.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

 341

BASS, B. M., E. R. VALENZI, D. L. FARROW, and R. S. SOLOMON (1975)

"Management styles associated with organizational task, personal, and interper-
sonal contingencies." J. of Applied Psychology 60: 720-729.
BOLES, H. W. and J. A. DAVENPORT (1975) Introduction to Educational Leadership.
New York: Harper & Row.
BRIDGES, E. M. (1978) "The principalship as a career," pp. 1-21 in D. A. Erickson
and T. L. Reller (eds.) The principal in Metropolitan Schools. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
BROWN A. F. (1968) "The differential effect of stress-inducing supervision on
classroom teaching behavior," pp. 270-282 in J. W. Getzels, J. M. Lipham, and
R. F. Campbell (eds.) Educational Administration as a Social Process. New York:
Harper & Row.
CARLSON, E. R. (1960) "Clique structure and member satisfaction in groups."
Sociometry 23: 327-337.
CARTER, L., W. HAYTHORN, B. SHRIVER, and J. LAZETTA (1951) "The
behavior of leaders and other group members."J. of Abnormal Social Psychology
46: 589-595.
CARTWRIGHT, D. and A. ZANDER (1960) Group Dynamics. Chicago: Row
Peterson.
CHRISTNER, C. A. and J. K. HEMPHILL (1955) "Leader behavior of B-29
commanders and changes in crew attitudes toward the crew." Sociometry 18:
82-87.
FRENCH, J. R. and R. RAVEN (1960) "The bases of social power," pp. 607-623 in D.
Cartwright and A. Zander (eds.) Group Dynamics. Chicago: Row Peterson.
GETZELS, J. W., J. M. LIPHAM, and R. F. CAMPBELL (1968) Educational
Administration as a Social Process. New York: Harper & Row.
GOODE, W. J. and I. FOWLER (1949) "Incentive factors in a low morale plant."
Amer. Soc. Rev. 14: 618-624.
GREENE, C. N. and C. A. SCHRIESHEIM (1980) "Leader group interactions: a

longitudinal field investigation." J. of Applied Psychology 65: 50-54.

HALL, R. (1982) Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
HOUSE, R. J. and J. B. MINER (1969) "Merging management and behavior theory:
the interaction between span of control and group size." Admin. Sci. Q. 14:
451-464.
IORIO, J. (1983) "A definition of small school leadership." The New York Supervisor
37: 25-32.
KINDER, B. N. and P. R. KILMAN (1976) "The impact of differential shifts in leader
structure on the outcome of internal and external group participants." J. of Clinical
Psychology 32: 857-863.
KUROKAWA, M. and J. MISUMI (1975) "The effects of the size of working groups
upon subordinates’ perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership functions." Japa-
nese J. of Experimental Social Psychology 15: 62-73.

LASSWELL, H. D. and A. KAPLAN (1950) Power and Society. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press.
LIPMAN, J. M. (1964) "Leadership and administration," pp. 119-141 in D. E.
Griffiths (ed.) Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015

342

OWENS, R. G. (1970) Organizational Behavior in Schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.
PORTER, L. W. and E. E. LAWLER (1964) "The effects of ’tall’ versus ’flat’
organization structures on managerial job satisfactions." Personnel Psychology
17: 135-148.
POSTMAN, N. and C. WEINGARTNER (1973) How to Recognize a Good School.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
PUSIC, E. (1969) "The political community and the future of welfare social self-
management," pp. 270-281 in F. Carver and T. Sergiovanni (eds.) Organizations
and Human Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
RASMUSSEN, G. and A. ZANDER (1954) "Group membership and self-evalu-
ation." Human Relations 7: 239-251.
SCHRIESHEIM, C. A., R. T. MOWDAY, and R. M. STOGDILL (1981) "Crucial
dimensions of leader-group interactions," p. 420 in R. Stogdill (ed.) Stogdill’s
Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
SCHWIMMER, R., J. BAILEY, E. FORD, and J. MEHLMAN (1982) "Restruc-
turing the elementary school: a position paper." The New York Supervisor 36:
17-19.
SIMON, H. A. (1957) Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan .
STOGDILL, R. (1972) "Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness." Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Relations 8: 26-43.
———(ed.) (1981) Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
TANNENBAUM, R. and W. SCHMIDT (1973) "HBR classic." Harvard Business
Rev. 51: 166-178.
THIBAUT, J. W. and L. H. STRICKLAND (1956) "Psychological set and
conformity." J. of Personality 25: 115-129.
TUCKMAN, B. W. (1965) "Developmental sequence in small groups." Psych. Bull.
63: 384-399.
TURK, H., E. L. HARTLEY, and D. SHAW (1962) "The expectation of social
influence." The J. of Social Psychology 58: 23-29.
UDELL, J. G. (1967) "An empirical test of hypotheses relating to span of control."
Admin. Sci. Q. 12: 420-439.

John E. Iorio s career in the New York Public School System as a teacher and
administrator spans two decades. Since 1979, he has served as Principal of P. S.
128 in District 24, Queens, New York. He is the author of a National
Endowment for the Humanities grant awarded to District 24 for the &dquo;Philos-
ophy for Children&dquo;program in 1981. Mr. lorio has a B.S. in political science
from Manhattan College, an M.S. in elementary education from Brooklyn
College, and a Professional Diploma in supervision and administration from
Fordham University.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 28, 2015