211 nb/j/67531/metadc... · 211 nb/j the perceptions of junior high school principals, their...
Post on 13-Mar-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
211 NB/J
THE PERCEPTIONS OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS,
THEIR SPOUSES, AND THEIR BUILDING COUNSELORS
REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL SOURCES OF
STRESS FOR THE PRINCIPALS
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
by
Douglas Shouse, B.A., M.Ed,
Denton, Texas
December, 1984
0>
Shouse, Douglas W., The Perceptions of Junior High
School Principals, Their Spouses, and Their Building Coun-
selors Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the
Principals. Doctor of Education (Administrative Leadership),
December, 1984, 136 pp., 24 tables, bibliography, 43 titles.
The purpose of this study was to identify the percep-
tions held by junior high school principals, their spouses,
and school counselors regarding occupational stressors of
the junior high school principals in the State of Texas.
The occupational stressors center around five areas of
concern: (1) administrative constraints, (2) administrative
responsibilities, (3) interpersonal relations, (4) intra-
personal conflicts, and (5) role expectations.
A randomly selected sample of 300 junior high school
principals were sent questionnaires for themselves, their
spouses, and their school counselors. Descriptive statisti-
cal methods were employed to calculate means and standard
deviations of the principals', spouses', and counselors'
perceptions of the occupational stressors of the principals.
T-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to
analyze the data.
Among the selected findings from this study were the
following:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Hypotheses Background and Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Additional Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study
II. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE 1 4
Stress: Identification and Definition Stressors of the School Administrator Stress: Coping and Managing Summary
III. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 48
Population and Selection of Sample Instrumentation Data Collection Data Analysis
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 6 2
Summary
V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 108
Findings Conclusions Recommendations Recommendations for Further Research
APPENDICES 120
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 3 3
XXI
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Comparative Perceptions of the Junior High School Principals and Spouses Regarding Occupational Stressors of the Principals . . . 64
II. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference Between Principals and Spouses Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the Principal 66
III. Comparative Perceptions of the Junior High School Principals and Counselors Regarding Occupational Stressors of the Principals . 68
IV. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference Between Junior High Principals and Counselors Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the Principals 70
V. Comparative Perceptions of the Junior High School Principals' Spouses and Counselors Regarding Occupational Stressors of the Principals ^2
VI. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference Between Junior High School Principals' Spouses and Counselors Regarding Occupational Sources of Stress for the Principals 74
VII. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for Both Principals-Spouses and Principals-Counselors . . . 76
VIII. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for Both Spouses-Principals and Spouses-Counselors . . . . . . 78
IX. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for Both Counselors-Principals and Counselors-Spouses 79
iv
Table Page
X. Individual Stressors That Rendered a Significant Difference in the Analysis of the Data for All Groups, Principals-Spouses-Counselors
XI. Rank, Mean, and Standard Deviation for the Five Stressor Areas as Perceived by the
Q O Principals •
XII. Analysis of Variance on the Administrative Constraints Factor with the Other Four
8 4 Factors
XIII. Analysis of Variance on the Interpersonal Relations Factor with the Remaining Factors 84
XIV. Analysis of Variance on the Intrapersonal Conflicts Factor with the Remaining Factors
XV. Analysis of Variance on the Role Expectations Factor with the Remaining Factor . . . . . . . 85
XVI. Analysis of Variance on the Five Stressor Areas as Reported by the Principals
XVII. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by Age 88
XVIII. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by Size of School 90
XIX. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by School District Size . . . . . . .
XX. Comparative Perceptions of the Principals Regarding Occupational Stressors When Grouped by Years of Experience
XXI. Mean Score and Rank Order of Stressors as Reported by the Principals, Spouses, and Counselors . . . . . 95
v
Table Page
XXII. Health Status of the Principals 102
XXIII. Number of Hours Exercised per Week by the Principals 103
XXIV. Methods Principals Reported Useful in Coping with the Tensions and Pressures of Their Job 104
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Stress is a scientific concept which has suffered from
being too well known and too little understood (12) . Almost
everyone has an idea of what stress is; however, there is no
commonly accepted definition of the concept of stress (7).
"The century of fear" and "the age of anxiety" were both
labels that had been given to the Twentieth Century by as
early as 1947 (8). Each individual not only is beset by the
pressures of his or her own daily life but is privy to every
disaster in the country and the world through modern news
media and communication methods (8).
We cannot avoid stress. It is more than any single
entity. During every moment of our lives, there is some
demand for life-maintaining energy. Even while we sleep,
the heart, the respiratory apparatus, and many other organs
continue to function (13). Because of this, aging may be
attributed to the sum of all the stresses that the body has
endured during a lifetime (7). A newborn baby, while crying
and struggling, is under considerable stress but shows no
trace of aging, whereas a man of ninety sleeping quietly in
bed is unmistakably old (7). Complete freedom from stress
is death (13).
Selye (13) describes the secret of happiness as the
successful adjustment to the changing conditions of life,
and failure to adapt usually results in disease and unhappi-
ness. Stress has been defined as the sum of all the wear
and tear caused by any kind of vital reaction throughout the
body at any time (13). Mental tensions, frustration, the
sense of insecurity, and aimlessness are among the most
important stressors (13).
There seems to be very little knowledge concerning stress
in the lives of the public school administrator: more specif-
ically, the junior high school principal which is an area of
stressful situations that is virtually unstudied.
Literature and studies that are available concerning
administrator stress primarily center around self-perception
of stress related situations (8, 9, 15). No studies have
been done to reinforce the credibility of these perceptions.
In the case of a junior high school principal, the spouse and
the building counselor might reveal a valuable insight into
the stresses of the administrator. This leads to the
interesting concept of how the views of someone close to the
school administrator would compare to the self-evaluation of
the administrator. Does the school principal, his or her
spouse, and the building counselor, perceive the stressors
in the daily work environment to be the same?
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was to ascertain the perceptions
of junior high school principals, their spouses, and the
building counselors regarding stress producing situations in
the work of the principals.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to ascertain through the
perceptions of the junior high school principals, their
spouses, and the building counselors the stressful situations
that affect the principals' daily lives. This information
can now be passed on to professional organizations, the Texas
Education Agency, local districts, and any other group or
organization that is interested in the control of stress.
The long range purpose is for these interested groups
to utilize the information to provide inservice programs,
seminars, workshops, and whatever other activities that might
provide valuable coping strategies for the junior high school
principal. The purpose would be to help these administrators
better deal with the situations they perceive to be most
stressful.
Hypotheses
1. There will be no significant differences between the
perceptions of the junior high school principals and their
spouses regarding job related stress situations.
2. There will be no significant differences between
the perceptions of the junior high school principals and their
counselors regarding job related stress situations.
3. There will be no significant differences between the
perceptions of the principals' spouses and the building
counselors regarding job related stress situations in the
work of the principal.
4. There will be no significant differences in the
perceptions of junior high school principals between the five
subsets of the questionnaire; (a) administrative constraints,
(b) administrative responsibilities, (c) interpersonal rela-
tions, (d) intrapersonal conflict, and (e) role expectations.
5. There will be no significant differences between the
perceptions of junior high school principals in terms of
(a) age, (b) size of school, (c) size of school district, and
(d) total years of experience as a principal.
Background and Significance of the Study
Recent literature depicts a growing concern in regard
to stress and the public school administrator. Several
studies have been done in the area of self-perceived stress
factors in the daily work environment of principals (1, 3,
9, 11, 15)r however, the literature contains nothing in
the area of stress identification outside the realm of self
perception. Each of the referenced studies dealt with ques-
tionnaires designed for self examination.
Principals today are faced with more pressure, more
aggression, more change, and more conflict than ever before
(6). Stress is a normal condition of living in today's
complex society. According to a growing body of organiza-
tional literature, job related stress and its negative side
effects have become a major concern for today's urban school
principal (9). Principals, like their industrial counter-
parts, are concerning themselves more and more with finding
ways of managing the stress that is ever-present in their
work environment.
As stated by Kahn and French (17), individuals who
assume supervisory responsibility are more likely to
experience substantial role conflict and tension than either
of those above or below them in the organizational hierarchy.
A turbulent society, rapidly changing modes of living, rising
expectation, and the climate in many schools and school
districts have created this situation (14).
Washington (17) concluded from his study on "Stress and
the Urban School Principal" that it was advantageous to take
a psychological break, temporarily setting the problem aside
and getting involved in another activity. He offered this
as an effective stress control technique. The results of
Washington's study suggested a strong need for programs
to assist principals in developing skills for dealing with
job related stress.
6
The secret of 3n.ea.lth and happiness lies in successful
adjustment to the ever-changing conditions of life, and the
penalties for failure to adapt are disease and unhappiness
(13). Selye (13) identifies stress as the sum of all the
wear and tear caused by any kind of vital reaction through-
out the body at any one time. Mental tensions, frustrations,
the sense of insecurity, and aimlessness are among the most
important stressors (13). As psychosomatic studies have
shown, stressors are also very common causes of physical
disease such as tension, heart disease, bleeding ulcers,
atrophy, and enlargement of the adrenal glands (13). One
researcher reports that over half of all illness can be
traced to stress (10). Heart disease, high blood pressure,
colitis, asthma, sleep disorders, kidney disease, peptic
ulcers, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, anxiety, depression
and even cancer are some of the more common stress-linked
illnesses (10).
Fallon (5) proposes a "prime of life" approach to
living that maximizes self-fulfillment and minimizes stress
and burnout. He states that hypertension and heart problems
among principals is one of the highest of any of the profes-
sions. Confrontation, conflict, and compromise are constants
which principals face on a daily basis. Fallon (5) sug-
gests in his "prime of life" approach that principals should
develop multiple interest outside their work. They should
not make their work their lives. He suggests such things as
arts and crafts, collecting things, growing things, outdoor
activities, social service, travel, or any combination that
an individual has an interest to pursue (5).
Brown (2) refers to the principal's job as a potentially
stressful situation all the time. He identified sources of
distress for principals as interpersonal clashes, heavy
administrative responsibilities, time constraints, and con-
flicting role expectations.
A 1977 study of 1,200 Oregon administrators by Swent
(15) investigated the sources of stress for superintendents
and principals. This study indicated the number one stressor
to be the effort to comply with federal, state, and local
regulations and policies. Some of the other high stress
factors were related to excessive numbers of meetings,
paperwork requirements, gaining public approval and financial
support, dealing with parent-school conflicts, and teacher
evaluation. Swent noted that administrators must learn to
accept the fact that administration has its limitations.
Changes cannot be made overnight and some changes can never
be made. Knowing what can be done within a given amount of
time reduces the uncertainty of tasks and stressfulness of
the j ob.
As Washington (17) pointed out, administrators will
have to learn how to cope with the stressors in their lives.
The position of the principal was found to be a high risk
8
position in regard to heart disease (4). Education is no
longer a safe place to serve society. It is now a position
that is filled with stress.
Definition of Terms
In the study, a number of terms were of special
importance. They are defined below.
Counselor.—The person on the school campus that is
certified by the state to give guidance to students in the
areas of subjects they should take, career choices available,
and personal problems.
Junior high school.—Any public school identified in
t h e Texas Education Agency Directory as a junior high school.
Principal.—The top administrator of a public junior
high school.
Spouse.—A married person. The husband or wife of each
of the principals in this study.
Stress.~A problem or situation causing mental or
emotional tension or pressure. This definition was taken
from Swent in his study on stress (15).
Stress factors.—Those factors characteristic of each
situation that has potential for creating stress for the
principal of a public junior high school. These consisted
of the items listed in the questionnaire adopted for this
study (15).
Additional Definition of Terms
Form A.—The instrument used to gather data from the
principal in regard to specific stress situations in their
lives. It was designed by Boyd Swent of the University of
Oregon in a five-point Likert-type scale to identify job-
related stressful situations (Appendix A).
Form B.—The Swent questionnaire was adapted in termi-
nology only so as to make the wording appropriate for the
principal's spouse and building counselor to answer (Appendix
B) .
Administrative constraints.—One subset of the question-
naire used for this study was the administrative constraints.
The administrators' job in education does not generally allow
close control over their time. Having little control over
their time, administrators feel compelled to perform great
amounts of work at an unrelenting pace. Personal contacts
are continuous. Further constraints result from time demands
created by outside agencies. The questions pertaining to
administrative constraints are 1, 9, 12, 26, 27, 31, and 32
of Form A and Form B.
Administrative responsibilities.—The second subset of
the questionnaire used for this study was the administrators
responsibilities. There are certain tasks that the public
school administrator must perform. These tasks are basically
those management functions identified as planning, organizing,
staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.
10
The questions pertaining to administrative responsibilities
are 2, 14, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 35 of Form A and Form B.
Interpersonal relations.—A third subset df the ques-
tionnaire used for this study was the interpersonal relations.
These are relations resulting from contact with people both
inside and outside the school. For school administrators,
these people include parents, staff, student, community
members, and superiors. Many of these interpersonal rela-
tions result from the principal's actions as a disturbance
handler. This leads to an emotional situation as most parent-
student-administrator consultations are created out of nega-
tive situations. The questions pertaining to interpersonal
relations are 3, 7, 13, 20, 23, 33, and 34 of Form A and
Form B.
Intrapersonal conflict.—A fourth subset of the ques-
tionnaire used.for this study was intrapersonal conflicts.
Intrapersonal conflicts represent sources of stress result-
ing from the conflicting demands between job tasks and
individual beliefs or goals. The degree of discrepancy
between the event and the individual's interpretation deter-
mines the amount of stress created. The questions pertaining
to intrapersonal conflict are 4, 5, 10, 15, 17, 22, and 28
of Form A and Form B.
Role expectations.—The fifth subset of the question-
naire used for this study was role expectations. This may
include preferences about personal characteristics, what the
11
principal should do, what kind of person they should be,
what they should think or believe, and how they should relate
to others. Role expectations enable the principal to develop
more adequate coping skills. The questions pertaining to
role expectations are 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19, and 30 of Form A
and Form B.
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited to junior high school principals
in the State of Texas, their spouses, and their building
counselors. The study involved all the limitations recog-
nized in collecting data by mailed questionnaire. The study
was done during the late spring, near the end of school,
and this may impact the results of the questionnaire. The
number of stress factors was fairly comprehensive, but is
in no way to be considered a complete list of all stress
factors that confront a junior high school principal. All
returns from female principals were considered as additional
information and not included in the statistical analysis of
the data. After examining the sample of junior high princi-
pals used, it was determined that there was not a sufficient
number of females in the sample that, even with 100 percent
return, would render data sufficient to enable generalizable
conclusions to be drawn.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Baugh, Douglas Samuel, "Perceived Stress Among School Administrative Personnel," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1976.
2. Brown, G. Ronald and Patrick W. Carlton, "How to Conquer Stress When You Can and Cope with It When You Can't," National Elementary Principal, 59 (March, 1980), 37-39.
3. Cook, Gerald L., "Administrative Stress and Coping Behavior of Wyoming Public School Administrators," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1980.
4. Dale, Rosemary Louise, "Administrators, Stress, and Coronary Heart Disease," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1978.
5. Fallon, Berlie J., "The Third-World Escape from Stress and Burnout," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 28-30.
6. Gmelch, Walter H., "The Principal's Next Challenge:_ The Twentieth Century Art of Managing Stress," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 62 (February, 1978), 5-12.
7. Kutash, Irvin L. and others, Handbook on Stress and Anxiety, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.
8. Kutash, I. L. and L. B. Schlesinger, "Successful Psycho-logical Defense: Probing the Defendant's Mind," Journal of the New Jersey Bar Association, 79 (1977), 14-18.
9. Marshall, Gerald Lynn, "A Survey Study of the Percep-tions of Kansas School Administrators on Occupa-tional Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1980.
12
13
10. Salmon, Daniel A., "Paranoia: Perceptions of Public School Principals," Clearing House, 54 (December, 1980), 149-154.
11. Schuetz, Kenneth Edward, "Sources of Perceived Stress Experienced by Illinois Principals," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1980.
12. Selye, Hans, Stress in Health and Disease, Boston, Butterworths, 1976.
13. , The Stress of Life, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw Hill, 1976.
14. Shank, John K., "The Job at the Top; Beloved, Beleaguered, and Too Often Beheaded," Independent School, 1718, (October, 1979), 13-14.
15. Swent, Boyd James, "An Exploratory Study of the Percep-tions of Oregon School Administrators on Occupa-tional Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1978.
16. Texas Education Agency, Texas School Directory, Austin, Texas, 1982-83.
17. Washington, Kenneth R., "Stress: Is It a Major Problem for Urban School Principals?" Clearing House, 55 (May, 1982), 189-191.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE
While the studies of the principalship in the United
States are numerous, a limited number of studies of junior
high school principals have been done. None of these relate
to the perceptions of the principals, their spouses, and
their building counselors. More specifically, none directly
focus on the occupational stressors of the junior high school
principal in the State of Texas. Consequently, this chapter
focuses on selected literature and is divided into three
parts: Stress Identification and Definition, Stressors of
the School Administrator, and Stress-Coping and Managing.
Stress: Identification and Definition
The Intermediate Dictionary defines stress as "an over-
load on emotions, nerves, and self-control." A very general
definition at most and only one of many that can be found in
the literature. The Random House Dictionary defines stress
as "any stimulus, such as fear or pain, that disturbs or
interferes with the normal physiological mechanisms of the
organism." Engle (6, p. 74) defines stress both internally
and externally to be all processes, whether originating in
the external environment or within the person, which impose
14
15
a demand or requirement upon the organism. The definition
that seems most appropriate for this study is the definition
given by Boyd Swent which defines stress as a problem or
situation causing mental or emotional tension or pressure
(28).
A relationship between stressful life events and aging
was proposed by Selye who believes that the adaptational
demands made on an individual by stressful life events are a
causal factor in the aging process. Stressful life events
are occurrences that disrupt an individual's usual activi-
ties. They may be perceived as positive or negative and
they may require minor or extensive physical, psychological,
or emotional adaptation. They may be anticipated or
unanticipated and may or may not be under the individual's
control (4).
Cannon's (2) observations of the relationship between
the bodily changes of pain, hunger and the major emotions
provided a necessary link in the argument that stressful
life events can be harmful. He showed the association
between the emotional arousal and changes in basic physiologi-
cal processes but was not able to specify the circumstances
under which these physiological changes become pathological
conditions.
Selye (23, p. 36) made a useful distinction between a
stressor, which is defined as a stimulus, or life event,
16
that impinges on the individual and requires adaptation,
and stress, which is the generalized response caused by the
stressor. He defines stressors as physiological stimuli or
lack thereof and established the first experimental evidence
for the link between stress and disease. In working with
animals, he discovered that many substances and situations
produced similar physiological changes which eventually led
to death. Selye termed this process the biological stress
response and its effects were usually seen as enlargement of
the adrenal cortex, gastrointestinal ulcers, and involution
of the lymph nodes and thymus gland.
In further investigation of the stress response, Selye
hypothesized three distinct stages which he identified as
the General Adaptation Syndrome (25, p. 25). The initial
stage is alarm wherein the organism becomes aware of the
stressor and reacts in the fight or flight paradigm. In the
second stage, adaptation or resistance, the organism does
some adjusting to the stressor and continues to function as
normally as possible given the additional demands. If the
stress continues, the organism enters the third stage,
exhaustion, where it becomes unable to maintain vital
functions and eventually dies (25, p. 32).
Selye (25, p. 66) conceived of adaptation energy as a
fixed resource with each organism having a given amount at
birth to be used over its lifespan. Stress is seen as a
component of life to which the organism is constantly exposed.
17
Complete freedom from stress is death (23, p. 32). Selye
defines stressors as any stimuli that cause an adjustment
of the homeostatic system, regardless of whether they are
perceived as positive or negative. Distress is the term
used to describe the unpleasant connotations that an
individual may ascribe to the feelings that he or she
experiences while under stress (23). Activity associated
with stress may be pleasant or unpleasant? distress is
always disagreeable (23, p. 31).
Lazarus (16, p. 4) maintains that the term stress has
at least four different meanings in psychological research:
(a) the dangerous stimulus stressors that produce emotional
reactions; (b) the cognitive, behavioral, and physiological
changes that are produced by stressful stimuli; (2) an
intervening variable that mediates between stressful stimuli
and emotional responses; and (d) a collective term that
describes a broad area of study. Out of all this, Lazarus
noted that stress occurs where there are demands on the
person which tax or exceed his adjustive resources (16, p. 4),
Spielberger (27, p. 39) points out that the terms stress
and anxiety have been used interchangeably in much of the
literature. He concluded that stress can be defined by
transactions between the person and the environment in which
stressors are linked to anxiety reactions by the perception
of threat (27). May (19, p. 113) defined the relationship
18
between stress and anxiety as: Anxiety is how the individual
relates to stress, accepts it, and interprets it. Stress is
a halfway station on the way to anxiety. Anxiety is how we
handle stress. Anxiety, like stress, has been defined as a
stimulus, a response, and an intervening state of the
individual (10, p. 39). Spielberger (27, p. 29) proposed
that the term stress indicates the objective stimulus
properties of a situation and that the term threat refers to
the person's perception of a situation as being potentially
dangerous.
Most stressors in everyday life are mild and require
little in the way of physical or mental adaptation. These
are referred to as micro-stressors (22, p. 30). You usually
are barely aware of their existence; however, they do put
some demands on you. Repeated exposure to micro-stressors
can do considerable damage to your health (22). Some
examples of micro-stressors might be a constant noise inter-
ruption from a nearby airport, static on a radio station, a
meaningless repetitious job, and a dripping faucet. At the
other extreme are severe stressors, or macro-stressors (22,
p. 31). This might be intense pressure such as a death in
the family, a burning house, a move to a new town or a
narrow escape from an automobile accident. Macro-stressors
can cause wear and tear on your mind and body and may result
in antisocial behavior, especially if many such stressors are
clustered together in a short period of time (22).
19
Researchers are producing increasing amounts of evidence
that stress effects cause illnesses. However, they refer to
stress as what Selye actually called distress, that is when
the demands made upon the individual are too intense, too
uncertain, and too prolonged (23, p. 26). Selye maintains
that many psychosomatic derangements are due to stress (25).
The most common stress induced minor nervous derangements
are headaches, chronic fatigue, and bruxism. These neurotic
behaviors are often viewed as manifestations of maladjust-
ments to the stress of life (25, p. 173).
Vanderpol (29, p. 40) defined the primary symptoms of
stress as feelings of tension, anxiety, frustration, and
isolation; feelings of depression that may take the form of
restlessness, boredom, or burnout; and doubts about one's
adequacy and ability to perform. Other symptoms are noticably
shorter temper when dealing with difficult problems; over-
eating and overweight; and insomnia.
Physical symptoms may also occur. Sometimes these
symptoms are psychosomatic, but other times they require
extensive medical care, as in back problems, coronary artery
disease, and heart attacks, which often begin in times of
severe and protracted stress (29, p. 41). When the signs of
stress are experienced over a long period of time they must
be taken seriously. The individual may attempt to divert
the stress through alcoholism or drug abuse; workaholism;
marital discord resulting in extramarital affairs;
20
excessive blaming of others; hiding all feelings, and taking
on increasingly larger battles or burdens that may precipi-
tate a crisis (29, p. 41).
Spanoil and Caputo (3, p. 37) equate stress with burn-
out and with being worn out when they have given all they
have to give and lack the energy to put into their work.
Burnout is then defined as the inability to cope adequately
with the stress of one's work and personal life (3). Maslock
(3) described burnout as the physical, emotional, and
attitudinal exhaustion which results in a reduction in the
quality of work. Dunham (5, p. 40) has found two main types
of common symptoms of stress and burnout. The first is
frustration and is associated with headaches, stomach upsets,
sleep disturbances, hypertension, fatigue, and in prolonged
cases depressive illness. The second is anxiety and is
associated with feelings of inadequacy, loss of confidence,
confusion of thinking, and occasionally, panic. Dunham
maintains that absenteeism, changing jobs, and early retire-
ment are forms of withdrawal associated with situations
which become too stressful to tolerate.
Stress is seen as an event that depletes adaptive
resources; however, it is also known under certain circum-
stances to attenuate the negative effects of future stresses.
This process is known as the inoculation effect (24). In
rats, pre-treatment with stress under controlled conditions
produces better adaptation in future encounters with the same
21
stresses and in some cases, with other stressors as well.
Heart attacks in animals are more frequently triggered by
unaccustomed stress (24). Research on human populations
also provides some support for a stress inoculation theory.
Individuals with historically low levels of stress are more
likely to experience physiological symptoms following a
stressful life event than individuals who are accustomed to
moderate levels of stress (13).
While an inoculation effect may enhance an organism's
resistance to a stressor, there is a level of stress beyond
which an organism cannot fully adapt (2). Most research on
life events and outcomes indicates that as the number of
life events increases, the number of physiological and
emotional symptoms increase, and the level of functioning
declines (4). Holmes (12) has been associated with several
studies that have related life stress, emotional stress, and
object loss to illness.
Holmes and Rahe (12) conducted a study to rate the
magnitude of forty-three life events according to the
intensity and length of time necessary to adapt to each
event. The events were designed to be a representative
sample of events from key areas of life. They found that
positive life events required nearly equal amounts of life
adjustment as unpleasant events. They undertook a retro-
spective study in which they asked 200 physicians to list
22
all major health changes that they could recall for the
previous ten years. They received a total of eighty-eight
responses. Prior research had shown that two years was the
maximum period necessary for the consequences of life events
to become evident. A two-year limit was designated as the
criterion for temporal association between life events and
illnesses or health changes. This period was considered the
time during which a person was at risk following a cluster
of life events. Their research showed direct relationships
between the magnitude of life crises and the risk of health
changes. Mild crises had a 37 percent chance of being
associated with a health change, moderate crises a 51 percent
chance, and major crises a 70 percent chance (12) . Using
this information as background, Holmes and Rahe conducted
several prospective studies which resulted in very similar
percentages (13).
Rahe utilized 2,500 officers and enlisted Naval personnel
in a study using six-month periods as a base for predicting
health change. The 30 percent of the sample showing the
highest level of life events had nearly 90 percent more first
time illnesses than the lowest 30 percent. It was also
demonstrated that the magnitude of the life events was
positively related to the severity of the illness (13). Rahe
(13) concludes that the greater the magnitudes of life change
the higher the probability of illness. Also, there is a
23
strong positive correlation between magnitude of life change
and seriousness of the illness experienced.
Stress has no single cause and can be produced by any-
thing to which our organisms respond excessively or inappro-
priately. The interference of the fulfillment of our natural
drives leads to as much distress as the forced prolongation
of any activity. Intense levels of distress typically lead
to frustration, fatigue, and exhaustion which can progress
in more severe cases to mental or physical breakdown (23,
p. 29) .
Stressors of the School Administrator
School administrators, like their peers in the corporate
world, are susceptible to the hazards of executive stress and
burnout. According to Gmelch and Swent (9), the problems of
school administrators are quite similar to those faced by
managers in business and industry. The problem with being
a manager in any organization is that too many responsibili-
ties are accepted and evolve into overdemanding roles. For
public school principals these roles manifest themselves as
controller, motivator, persuader, disciplinarian, preserver
of the culture, specialist, firefighter, and parent surrogate.
When all of the cares and responsibilities with which a
principal must deal are accumulated, it is called tension
frustration, or stress (18).
24
In 1977, the National Association of Secondary School
Principals began to uncover the causes of principals' stress
when it reported that principals lacked time, an item lost
in administrative detail (9). Swent (28) conducted a study
to determine what school administrators in Oregon perceived
to be the sources of occupational stress. More than seventy
administrators kept stress logs to record the most stressful
event or series of events that occurred each day for a period
of one week.
From these sources, potentially stressful situations for
public school administrators can be classified in terms of
five general areas of administrative stress: constraints
intrinsic to administration, administrative responsibilities,
interpersonal relationships, intrapersonal conflict, and role
expectations (28). Administrative constraints deal with
stressors related to time, meetings, work load, and compliance
with federal, state, and organizational policies. Administra-
tive responsibility relates to tasks characteristic of nearly
all administrative positions and includes supervising,
evaluating, negotiating, and gaining public support for school
programs. Interpersonal relations include resolving differ-
ences between parents and school and between staff members,
and handling student discipline. Intrapersonal conflict
centers around conflicts between performance and one's
internal beliefs and expectations. Role expectations deal
25
with stress caused by a difference in the expectations of
self and the various publics with which administrators must
deal.
The results of this study showed the following to be
the top ten stressors as reported by the senior high school
principals in Oregon:
1. Complying with state, federal and organizational rules and policies;
2. Meetings taking up too much time; 3. Gaining public approval and financial support for
school programs; 4. Evaluating staff members' performance; 5. Resolving parent-school conflicts; 6. Completing reports and paperwork on time; 7. Participating in school activities outside normal
working hours; 8. Making decisions affecting the lives of individual
people I know; 9. Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls; and 10. Too heavy a workload, one that cannot possibly be
finished during the normal work day (28, pp. 62-65) .
The writings of Kahn (14) provide additional support for
the notion that it is the mid-management jobs that are the
most stressful. He maintains that the "maximum of conflict
and conflict experience" is associated with roles which demand
a high degree of creative problem solving and decision making.
Koff, Laffey, Olson, and Cichon (15) conducted a study
to assess the relative magnitude of stress induced by events
associated with the management of elementary and secondary
schools. The survey questionnaire was developed, pilot
tested, and administered to a national sample of administra-
tors drawn from the membership of the National Association of
26
Secondary School Principals and the National Association of
Elementary School Principals. The instrument was the
Administrative Events Stress Inventory, which contains forty-
eight stress-related events typically associated with
elementary and secondary school administration. The phrases
executive stress and executive burnout are often used to
describe the hazard of being a high—level administrator. A
factor analysis was performed and it suggested that the
forty-eight events fell into four general areas. Area one
was associated with the idea of helplessness and security.
These events include legal action against your school, lack
of books and supplies, overcrowded schools, and criticism in
the press. These are conditions over which the principal has
little power and few resources to change. They can be viewed
as hazards which must be accepted as part of the job. Area
two deals with routine management tasks with problems to be
solved. These challenges involve working with problems of
underachieving students, implementing board curriculum
policies, talking to parents, evaluating teachers, and main-
taining school records. Most principals anticipate these
tasks as part of their job, and receive training and resources
to manage them. Area three centers around teacher conflict.
The problems of directing and evaluating professional staff
are implied by dealing with unsatisfactory performance,
refusal to follow policies, and forced resignations. Area
four deals with student conflict.
27
Area three was listed by the respondents as being the
most stressful. This area dealt with teacher conflict.
Principals associated events with a threat to job security
and status as being highly stressful; and events with low
amounts of stress were routine, expected, and accepted
duties of principals in schools. Principals perceived con-
flicts between administrators and teachers as being more
stressful as one moves from high school to middle to elemen-
tary. Conflicts among students and student problems were
perceived as more stressful by high school than elementary
principals. There were no perceived differences among
elementary, middle, and high school administrators in aspects
of security and routine management of tasks (15).
A majority of the administrators in this study believed
that they had overcome much of the stress related to their
profession. They accepted the stresses as part of their job
and saw them as a challenge to face. Some administrators
cited the degree of organization as an important factor in
overcoming stress (15).
Vanderpol (29) has indicated that school administrators,
whether they are superintendents of large districts or
principals of small schools, all face stress at one time or
another in their jobs. Their ability, or failure, to cope
with stress may reverberate throughout an entire school
system affecting teachers as well as students. However,
principals often consider stress a fact of life, an
28
occupational hazard to be endured with no chance of identify
ing or changing its causes or effects. The result is usually
personal suffering and job ineffectiveness.
Vanderpol (29) classifies the stressors of the principal
into four major categories. The first is the changing role
of the principal. Once unquestioned authorities, principals
must now share decision making with their subordinates, yet
are still held personally accountable for the decisions.
Open meeting requirements put everyone on public display,
vulnerable to any person who has an ax to grind.
A second cause of stress among principals is special
education legislation, both state and federal. These laws,
and a series of ever-changing regulations, make schools
responsible for providing education for all children. This
is a responsibility that no other public organization is
required to equal. Because their actions could come under
fire in a courtroom, school administrators have had to become
quasi-lawyers.
A third factor contributing to stress is teacher layoffs,
or reductions in force, as a result of reduced enrollments.
The necessity of choosing which teachers shall stay and
which shall go places principals in an adversary role with
the teaching staff. Principals must now write more critical
evaluations of their faculty members. This creates a great
deal of tension. Although this may not be verbalized, it
interferes with the normal processes of education.
29
The fourth area is the fact that school administrators
must confront the realities of their own life stage. School
administrators must question their job satisfaction in the
face of a declining institution, and one in which decreasing
budgets and high inflation are the order of the day.
The Herlihys (11) report that the professional life of
a principal is becoming less satisfying for many. In some
areas the resignation rate has risen, an indication that the
rewards are not worth the pressures. A large number are
returning to teaching, staff administration, early retirement,
or new careers. The Herlihy study reported that 82 percent
of the principals responding said that the principalship did
offer the opportunity to fulfill one's capabilities; however,
only one-third of the principals said they planned to stay
in the principalship. This study reports that the crucial
factor which causes principals to leave the principalship is
loneliness (11, p. 8). The conclusion gained from examining
the data on how principals handled stress and the extent to
which they shared problems with others is that the principal-
ship is a lonely position with few opportunities to relieve
stress by discussing problems with people who might be help-
ful.
When principals look to the mechanisms available for
coping with stress, they must make a decision, fight or
flight. The Herlihys offer four suggestions to those who
wish to fight as opposed to flight. The first suggestion
30
is to reaffirm one's values. One must have a clear set of
values and sense of direction. A principal's role calls upon
the principal to think about what is being done, to act, and
to take responsibility for those decisions. The principal
must determine his or her actions on the basis of a clearly
formulated set of values. The second suggestion is to stay
in touch with a sense of humor. Humor enables one to
transcend oneself and take a larger perspective. The third
suggestion is to accept and acknowledge existential loneli—
ness. For those in leadership positions, each must stand
alone in moments of decision. The final suggestion is to
seek out and maintain a mutual support group comprised of
persons with whom one can share professional frustrations
and problems (11).
In a study by Washington (30), a stress questionnaire
designed to elicit qualitative responses was sent to sixty
principals in a large urban Canadian city. The principals
clearly viewed their jobs as having a great capacity for
producing stress. They listed, in order of importance, the
following problem areas: (1) central administration demands,
(2) supervision of teachers, (3) relationships with parents,
(4) government regulations, (5) student problems, and (6)
instructional problems.
The results of the study indicated the following sug-
gestions. (1) Principals need to take strategic psychologi-
cal breaks. They need to set the problem aside and get
31
involved in another activity. (2) Principals need to be
better prepared to deal with stress through their graduate
work. (3) Principals need to develop skills for dealing
with job related stress. To do nothing is to accept the
ripple effect of principal stress and its inevitable
dysfunctions (30) .
Shank (26, p. 13) supports the idea that being the head
of a school is a lonely business. Heavy personal stress
arises from the special nature of the principal's job, the
special problems of carrying it out, and the standards used
to judge performance on the job.. Shank (26) identifies four
sets of circumstances that help to explain the special
isolation and anxiety of the principal's job. First is the
extra pressure created by the principal's basic values. The
principal, while continually struggling to raise people's
expectations for themselves, is often frustrated and dis-
appointed. The school principal is likely to be a thinker
who believes that ideas are of concern in and of themselves
and the identification of motivation cannot be abbreviated.
A second factor identified by Shank (26) is the uncer-
tainty that results from lack of preparation for the job.
The key factors for success in the job are largely unrelated
to prior experience. This includes such skills as personnel
hiring and firing; political skills of balancing constituencies
that never really seem to be in agreement, motivational skills
32
of keeping large numbers of sensitive people happy; and
financial skills associated with budgeting, cost control,
financial analysis and planning.
A third factor is the extra pressure from the many con-
stituencies who sincerely consider themselves to be the
predominent force in the school., This includes trustees,
teachers, parents, influential alumni, and patrons.
The fourth factor in the job of the school principal is
the extra uncertainty caused by the fundamentally fuzzy
nature of a school's mission or basic purpose, which in turn
leads to lack of clarity in the expectations for the princi-
pal. A school principal never really knows what to maximize.
According to Shank (26), the school principal's job is both
rewarding and intensely punishing. It is a lonely business.
The negative impact of excessive stress on administra-
tors poses a most urgent health problem as the national
disease patterns shift from infections to tension-linked
causes. The Giammatteos (7), in the monograph of the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, describe
three attitudes of principals that often cause stress.
These attitudes are apathy, capitulation, and worry.
Apathy is a high level of pent-up hostility. It is a
defense, a barrier against future hurt or disappointment.
Capitulation is rooted in failure to believe in one's
ability to make decisions. The fear is that one will get
into trouble or make a wrong decision, so one capitulates.
33
Apathy and the feeling we must capitulate lead to worry.
Worry develops from lack of predictability. One can not
predict the central office, the teachers' association, the
advisory committee, and at times, yourself. Most of the
worries are not real but perceived by the administrators
(7, p. 56).
Attitudes are not values, they are feelings or emotions
with regard to fact. They become ways to respond to events.
Attitudes control how you see your world. As controllers,
they create much stress (7).
Stress: Coping and Managing
The search for coping methods usually begins with con-
sulting the experts in the field. There are no simple
solutions to the problems created by being under stress.
The real ability to cope is a very personal matter. What
works best for many may not be the answer for all.
Gmelch (8) offers the following methods to help princi-
pals manage stress.
1. Learn to cope with stress through managing time. Setting aside time daily for the organization and planning of tasks helps to substitute the fragmented administrative life with periods for contemplative thought and rational problem solving.
2. Manage by objectives, not by the obvious. Establish-ing clear, detailed objectives helps to eradicate many of the ambiguities of the principalship and eliminates confusion by giving a definite sense of direction.
3. Build mini-vacations into the day. Breaking the daily routine with a midday walk to clear the mind, a change in lunch schedules, a chat on the phone with spouse and children, and a stroll through a nearby library or museum are healthy means of
34
breaking the eight-to-five stress cycle. 4. Re-educate the school in the art of coping. In
assisting people to accept and carry out the challenges of education, principals must accept the responsibility for minimizing the incidents of stress on others and training them to cope with the tensions of the job.
5. Know the limitations of administration. Knowing what can be done in a set amount of time reduces the uncertainty of tasks and the stressfulness of the j ob.
6. Establish and update life goals. Delinquency in self-management contributes to the fact that half of all working people are unhappy with their careers (8, pp. 9-11).
Brown and Carlton (1) point out that due to the nature
of the job, the principal operates in a potentially stressful
situation all the time. Sources of distress for principals
include interpersonal clashes, heavy administrative respon-
sibilities, time constraints, and conflicting role expecta-
tions. School executives can not always tailor their "stress
environments" so it is important that they learn techniques
for coping with the problem. They offer the following tech-
niques for stress reduction.
1. Watch what you eat—good nutrition is a key to stress reduction.
2. Exercise vigorously to maintain health and relieve tension.
3. Be aware of your personal stress limits. 4. Make the best of your time. 5. Reserve some personal time for nonprofessional
activities. 6. Regularize your environment.
7. Use the "relaxation response" (1, pp. 38-39).
School principals must take charge of their own stress-
control program. They must continue to serve education
while at the same time avoiding excessive worry.
35
Gmelch and Swent, working from their group work in 1977
(9), and Swent's study in 1978 (28), concluded that no amount
of research can ever provide one answer for all principals'
stress management problems. They also conclude that stress
management problems is a personal matter with no simple
solutions. They offer four areas where training and improve-
ment will assist the school administrator in stress manage-
ment (9, pp. 18-19).
The first area is management of administrative activities,
They had determined that five of the top ten stressors dealt
with the control of time. To be effective, principals must
analyze where their time is spent. The recommendation is a
time log kept twice a week for several weeks. This should
then be used to distinguish tasks as either high payoff or
low payoff activities. Gmelch and Swent (9, p. 18) refer to
these activities as hipos and lopos. Hipos should get
immediate attention and lopos should be relegated to the
bottom of the list.
The second area is interpersonal influence. This means
working with people. Three of the top ten stressors were
located in this area: staff evaluations, parent-school con-
flicts, and gaining approval for programs. The ability to
work well with others has a significant positive effect on
organizational and individual health. Resolving conflict,
improving communication skills, building trust, and being
36
able to supportively confront parents and staff are important
skills to reduce the stress from interpersonal conflict (9).
The third area is improving community relations. Gain-
ing public approval for school progtams ranks with the most
stressful situations principals face. Principals must pay
more attention to the public they serve and recognize that
there is no substitute for good public relations. Principals
should make their successful programs visible to the com-
munity and not be afraid to market their successes (9).
The fourth area is coping with rules and regulations.
Not only do principals have to be cognizant of the flow of
rules and regulations, but they must also be aware of the
degree to which building organizational rules affect their
staff members. Rules should be issued to facilitate the
goals of education and not perpetuate the bureaucratization
of schools (9).
Koff, Laffey, Olson, and Cichon (15) summarized from
the responses they received from school administrators that
less stress would be perceived in administration if job
expectations were made to coincide more closely with actual
occurrences. Good organization and planning were character-
istics that were cited by administrators as enabling them to
cope better with the stressful situations that occur.
Administrators also highlighted the support of co-workers,
staff, and community as contributing to lack of stress.
37
Vanderpol (29, p. 40) points out that people coping
with stress must avoid the "sandpit syndrome." He clarifies
by saying, "the sandpit is deep; trying to get out of it by
scratching the walls only pulls more sand off the walls,
leading one no closer to escape." Administrators often
assume they alone can solve a problem and that asking help
of others is a sign of weakness. It is important for
administrators to hire a strong support staff to share and
delegate important tasks. Vanderpol (29) lists another
important administrative skill as setting realistic limits
on what can and cannot be solved, and in what time period.
The principal should let parent groups, teachers, or school
boards solve their own disagreements, rather than accepting
the responsibility themselves.
School administrators, in an effort to decrease self-
imposed stress, should utilize professional support groups
of six to twelve peers. These groups meet and share
experiences and common feelings and issues. Support groups
can particularly help decrease self-imposed stress (29).
Shank (26), from his study, offers the following sug-
gestions as possible solutions to stress problems. The
first of his suggestions is that a principal must seek a
realistic balance between what is possible and what is
desirable. A fact of life is that the world is filled with
partial successes. Another suggestion is that principals
must have time to be with other principals. They must have
38
a source to seek sharing for their knowledge and understand-
ing. Principals should engage in routine inservice and work-
shops in an effort to be informed and stay informed (.26,
p. 17).
The Giammatteos take a rather in-depth look at both
stress reduction and stress management in the 1980 monograph
published by the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (7). They offer suggestions on stress reduction
both on and off the job. The primary suggestion is through
physical relaxation (7, p. 39). This can be such things as
gardening, a game of basketball, a discussion with an old
friend, a party, or an evening of tennis.
Another method of stress reduction is through mental
relaxation (7, p. 46). This is based on visualization and
guided imagery. This makes use of that part of the brain
called the hypothalamus, which controls a number of the
body's functions. The hypothalamus collects information by
way of touching, seeing, hearing, and other senses and uses
the data to cause the body to react in an appropriate manner.
The thoughts that occupy our minds are the thoughts that
guide our actions. Therefore, mental relaxation is a key.
It is basically a control of your mind that allows you to
control your body reactions by the thoughts that you think.
The Giammatteos (7) declare that stress management is
rooted in the thesis that the human mind and body have great
natural ability for self-adjustment and repair. To manage
39
stress reactions and to reduce damage incurred during past
stress situations, a person must be able to release sudden
tensions, to assey a situation objectively and without
anxiety, to stay relaxed when appropriate, and to disassociate
from a stressor mentally and physically (7).
Coping is defined by Lazarus (16) as a two-part process:
problem solving and regulation of emotional distress. Problem
solving involves changing the situation for the better, if
possible, either by altering one's actions or by changing the
environment. Regulating emotions involves managing the
sematic and subjective components of stress-related emotions
so that they do not interfere with moral or functioning. It
is noted that these modes occasionally interfere with each
other as in the case where denial of a problem precludes
effective action; however, for the most part, they work con-
gruently (16).
Neugarten (20) has looked at coping in a more general
sense and classified people according to their coping styles.
He applied these concepts to aging by looking at successful
and unsuccessful coping strategies in the elderly. Fifty
people between the ages of seventy and ninety-nine were
studied and four classifications of coping styles were
identified: integrated, armored-defended, passive-dependent
and unintegrated, The people in the first two categories
were more satisfied with their lives and were therefore con-
sidered "successful" while the latter two groups were
40
dissatisfied and "unsuccessful." The conclusion drawn from
this research is that personalities and coping styles do not
change with age, but they do become more rigid (20). The
elderly are less able to implement flexible coping strategies
and tend to become increasingly consistent with themselves
in maintaining more rigid approaches to problem solving and
adaptation. Neugarten (20) also suggests that it is not so
much the occurrence of a life event that precipitates a
crisis but the timing of the event.
Selye (23), in his studies, suggests several ways of
dealing with stress. These include removing unnecessary
stressors from our lives, not allowing certain neutral events
to become stressors, developing a proficiency in dealing with
conditions that we do not want to or cannot avoid, and seek-
ing relaxation or diversion from the demand. In addition,
administrators must learn to recognize overstress, when we
have exceeded the limits of our adaptability; or understress,
when we suffer from lack of self-realization. Our goal
should be to strike a balance between the equally destruc-
tive forces of hypo- and hyperstress, to find as much
eustress as possible and to minimize distress (23). We
cannot hide from every unpleasant experience; in order to
achieve our purposes, we must often put up with unhappiness,
at least for a time.
Schofer (22) maintains that stress is endemic to modern
life. To live is to encounter stress. Selye, to whom the
41
literature has often referred as a pioneer in stress research,
refers to Schofer as having shown a remarkable understanding
of stress as it has presented itself in all its manifesta-
tions to people. Selye stated that Schofer has drawn from
the extensive literature on the subject of stress and has
been able to clarify a common misconception that stress is
always bad (22, foreword). Schofer has taken a twofold
approach to the process of managing and coping with stress.
His approach is to first learn to manage the stressors in
your life and then to develop a stress filter for yourself
(22, p. 55).
Schofer identifies eleven managing techniques as
follows.
1. Become more aware of the nature of stressors in one's daily life. Understanding and anticipating stressors can strengthen one in advance, help to reduce their harmful impact, and assist one in controlling them.
2. Take personal responsibility for one's pace of life and for major life changes. The individual is responsible for how fast or how slowly one lives or how many changes one brings upon oneself in a year's time.
3. Know one's comfort zone. People vary in the range of stimulation that is comfortable, healthy, and productive of growth. Everyone needs to discover how much stimulation is right for them.
4. Find a fit between one's own needs, one's comfort zone, and the demands of one's environment. If a person needs to live slowly, then one should not become a corporate executive. A bad fit can lead to continuing tension. A good fit can minimize stress-related problems.
5. Know how rapidly and how much one's comfort zone can change. One's comfort zone is not set for all time. Flexibility is essential.
42
6. Anticipate the probable stressful effects of major life changes.
7. Avoid clustering too many major life changes. Correct spacing of major life changes is vital to intelligent management of stress.
8. Manage daily life so one has optional lead time, afterburn time, and time for unfinished business. Control one's time, insofar as possible, to fit one's own needs and style.
9. Establish clear priorities and values so one can select opportunities and challenges wisely in a world of overchoice. Clear values can provide guide-lines, for specific decisions.
10. Select activities and challenges that are meaningful to one and avoid meaningless ones whenever possible. Develop sensitivity to one's talents, deep interests, and personal preferences.
11. Take enough risks so one is challenged, but not so many one is overwhelmed (22, pp. 149-152).
Schofer (22) maintains that no matter how well an
individual manages their pace of daily life and their major
life changes, they will encounter many stressors. The harm-
ful effects of these stressors can be minimized by developing
a good stress filter. Schofer offers eight steps in develop-
ing a good stress filter.
1. Maintain a foundation of sound health and fitness. 2. Become more aware of yourself and others around you. 3. Take responsibility for your feelings, thoughts, and
actions. 4. Find ways to develop inner strength. 5. Find ways to express feelings. Feelings from the
distant past and feelings that emerge in everyday living can block an individual's energy if they are not expressed.
6. Maintain patience toward imperfection and tolerance of adversity.
7. Keep a strong, stable support group of family and friends.
8. Create and maintain personal stability zones (22, pp. 155-160).
Schofer (22) maintains that these eight steps toward
building a good stress filter work best in combination. A
43
good stress filter must be combined with intelligent manage-
ment of pace of life and major life changes. The reverse is
also true. An individual must apply the principal of gradual-
ism so they will not be overwhelmed by overchoice (22).
Lemley (17) offers support to the suggestions of Schofer
and refers to school administrators as people who have come
to their positions nurtured in an intellectual, educational,
and social environment characterized by sudden and disruptive
change. He advocates that controlling stress may well begin
by exercising some degree of control over the little things
in the environment that, left unattended, function as
significant stressors. Lemley offers a very basic approach
to administrators for coping with stress that contains the
following ten points:
1. Keep yourself healthy and looking good. 2. Keep your desk looking good. 3. Keep your office attractive. 4. Do not be a slave to routine. 5. Do not procrastinate. 6. Resist the urge to be constantly busy. 7. Learn to be passive and tranquil at times. 8. Do not labor under a feeling of guilt. 9. Avoid mean and stupid people.
10. Avoid worry (17, pp. 21-23).
Lemley concludes by saying that you can reduce stress
in your life and the negative effects it has on you, but
not by someone else's absolute remedy. An individual must
do something positive, something willful, something con-
structive (17, p. 23).
44
Summary
The concept of stress is very old. The literature and
research are rich with psychological and physical ideas that
should help reduce stress; yet, the concept of stress is
vague and a common definition does not exist. Perhaps Selye
expressed the situation best when he said, "Stress is not
something to be avoided. Indeed, it cannot be avoided, since
during every moment of our lives some demand for life main-
taining energy exists. Complete freedom from stress is
death (9, p. 32). Stress is a normal condition of living
in today's society.
The negative impact of excessive stress on administra-
tors poses a most urgent health problem as the national
disease patterns shift from infections to tension-linked
causes (10, p. 59). Life requires constant adaptation to
changing circumstances. Ho society has ever been free of
stress. A stress-free society is a false hope (12, p. 143).
Stress is intrinsic in life itself. Everyone must accept
some degree of stress; however, you can learn to manage
stress so it works for you rather than against you. For
this reason, administrators must become aware of means in
which they can cope with the particular stressors which may
impact their lives the most.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Brown, G. Ronald and Patrick W. Carlton, "How to Conquer Stress When You Can and Cope with It When You Can't," National Elementary Principal, 59 (March, 1980), 37-39.
2. Cannon, W. B., Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage, New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1929.
3. Cunningham, William G., "Teacher Burnout—Solutions for the 1980's: A Review of the Literature," The Urban Review, 15 (Fall, 1983), 1.
4. Dohrenwend, B. S. and B. P. Dohrenwend, "A Brief Histori-cal Introduction to Research on Stressful Life Events," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, pp. 1-7.
5. Dunham, J., "Stress Situations and Responses," Stress in Schools, Hemel Hempstead, England, NAS, 1976, pp. 39-46.
6. Engel, G., "Sudden and Rapid Death During Psychological Stress: Folklore or Folk Wisdom," Annals of Internal Medicine, 74 (1971), 771-782.
7. Giammatteo, Michael C. and Dolores M. Giammatteo, "Executive Weil-Being," Stress and Administrators, Reston, Virginia, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, pp. 1-59.
8. Gmelch, Walter H., "The Principal's Next Challenge: The Twentieth Century Art of Managing Stress," National Association of Secondary School Principal's Bulletin, 62 (February, 1978), 5-12.
9. Gmelch, Walter H. and Boyd Swent, "Stress and the Princi-palship: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Growth," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 16-19.
10. Goldberger, Leo and Shlomo Breznitz, Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.
45
46
11. Herlihy, Barbara and Dennis Herlihy, "The Loneliness of Educational Leadership," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 64 (February, 1980), 7-12.
12. Holmes, T. H. and M. Masuda, "Life Change and Illness Susceptibility," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, 45-72.
13. Holmes, T. H. and R. H. Rahe, "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale," Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11 (1967), 213-217.
14. Kahn, R. A., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.
15. Koff, Robert H. and others, "Coping with Conflict— Executive Stress and the School Administrator," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 1-9.
16. Lazarus, Richard S., P sychologica1 Stress and the Coping Process, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1966.
17. Lemley, Raymond E., "Stress Control—Where Does One Begin? An "Up Close and Personal' Look," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 20-24.
18. Manera, Elizabeth and Robert E. Wright, "Knowing the Difference Between Stress and Challenge," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 10-15.
19. May, R., The Meaning of Anxiety, New York, Norton, 1977.
20. Neugarten, B. L., "Personality and Aging," Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977, pp. 141-152.
21. Salmen, Daniel A., "Paranoia: Perceptions of Public School Principals," C l e a r i n g House, 54 (December, 1980), 149-154.
22. Schofer, Walt, Stress, Distress and Growth, California, International Dialogue Press, 1978.
23. Selye, Hans, Stress Without Distress, J. B. Lippincott Company, New York, 1974.
47
24,
25,
26
27,
28,
Selye, Hans, The Art o Charles C. Thomas,
The Stress of Life, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956,
ob Shank, John K., "The J and Too Often Behei {October, 1979), l|
Spielberger, C. D. , An: and Research, New York, Academic Press, 1971,
Swent, Boyd James, "An tions of Oregon Sc Sources of Stress, College of Educaticf>: Oregon, 1978.
Exploratory Study of the Percep-l|iool Administrators on Occupational unpublished doctoral dissertation, n, University of Oregon, Eugene,
29,
30,
Vanderpol, Maurice, "S Principal, 60 (Marcfe
cphool Administrators Under Stress," h, 1981), 39-41.
Washington, Kenneth R. for Urban School Vic (May, 1982), 189-1$
: Predictive Medicine, Illinois, 1967.
at the Top: Beloved Beleagured, ded," Independent School, 39 -14, 17-18.
iety: Current Trends in Theory
"Stress: Is It a Major Problem incipals," Clearing House, 55 1.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The first section of this chapter deals with the popula-
tion of the study and the sample that was studied. The
second section describes the instrument used and the adapta-
tions of the instruments that were made for this research.
The third section explains the methods and procedures used
to gather the data reported in Chapter IV. The final section
discusses the statistical treatment used in the reporting of
the data.
The methodology of this study was a survey research.
The research was done in the context of an exploratory study.
A field study is a scientific inquiry designed to identify
the relations and interactions among sociological, phychologi-
cal, and educational variables in social structures (2). The
researcher looks at an institutional situation and then
investigates the relations among the attitudes, values,
perceptions and behaviors of individuals in the situation.
Kerlinger (2) contends that the purpose of an exploratory
field study is to discover relations among variables and to
lay ground work for later, more systematic testing of
hypotheses.
48
49
Population and Selection of Sample
The population for this study was all of the junior high
school principals in the State of Texas. The junior high
school principal was any principal listed in the Texas Educa-
tion Agency Directory as a junior high school principal. The
directory contained the names of 564 junior high school
principals. The Texas Education Agency Directory contains
the listing of all public schools that are members of the
minimum foundation program in the state (5). This includes
any school that receives financial support from the State of
Texas.
Three hundred principals were randomly selected from
the 564 listed. These 300 principals constituted the sample
that was used in this study. The 300 participants were
selected by assigning numbers to the 564 principals listed
in the Texas Education Agency Directory, and then placing
the numbers in a box and drawing numbers until a sample of
300 had been established. Each number drawn was placed back
in the box prior to the next drawing to insure that each
number drawn had the same probability for being drawn. This
procedure was continued until the sample was completed.
A sufficiently large sample was used in an effort to
obtain significant results. In drawing inferences about the
characteristics of populations from sample statistics, the
sample should be drawn at random from the population (1).
50
A random sample is one in which every member of the popula-
tion has an equal probability of being included (1).
Instrumentation
There were three questionnaires used in this study.
Each principal was asked to complete two of the question-
naires. One questionnaire (Appendix C) contained questions
pertaining to demographic information concerning the principal
and the other questionnaire (Form A, Appendix A) contained
questions concerning the principal's perception of occupa-
tional sources of stress. The third questionnaire (Form B,
Appendix B) was adapted in terminology only from Form A.
Form B contained the same questions as Form A, adapted in
terminology only, so the spouse and the counselor could give
their perceptions of the occupational sources of stress for
the principal.
The questionnaires for the principal were accompanied by
a letter of introduction and explanation, as were the ques-
tionnaires for the spouse and the counselor. The letters
explained the purpose of the study and the questionnaires
(Appendices D, E, F).
The questionnaire for this study was developed by Swent
(4) in his study of the perceptions of Oregon School Adminis-
trators on occupational sources of stress. Form A is a
Likert-type scale of thirty-five items designed to elicit
perceptions of administrators toward those situations that
51
were troublesome in the performance of their job. The
following procedure was utilized in the development of the
original questionnaire by Swent (4) . Forty school adminis-
trators were asked to keep a log of all job related stress-
ful situations that occurred during a week of their lives.
They were also asked to list any other sources of stress
that they could have encountered but did not occur during
the week they kept the log. A survey of administrative
literature was conducted in an effort to identify any other
situations which have posed problems for school administra-
tors. All these situations were combined and identified as
stress factors (4, p. 23).
The stress factors were then categorized into five sub-
sets, with each subset containing seven items to insure that
each subset was similarly weighted. The five subsets were
(a) administrative constraints, (b) administrative responsi-
bilities, (c) interpersonal relations, (d) intrapersonal
conflicts, and (e) role expectations. After the categoriz-
ing was completed, the stress-related factors were all written
in the form of questions. The questions were then placed in
the form of a questionnaire capable of being scored by the
benefit of a Likert-type scale. The questionnaire was then
field tested with a group of twenty-five school administrators.
After the initial testing, the questionnaire was then revised
and tested with a second group of twenty administrators. The
final questionnaire with its five subsets containing their
52
respective questions was then formulated (4, p. 23). The
final questionnaire is illustrated in Appendix A.
An adapted version of the original Swent questionnaire
(Form B) was designed to be completed by the spouse of the
administrator and the building counselor. The adaptation
was performed by the author of this study. After the adapta-
tion, the resulting questionnaire was presented to a panel of
experts for the purpose of establishing appropriateness and
readability. The panel of experts consisted of two univer-
sity professors, two junior high school principals, and a
public school superintendent. The adaptation was in termi-
nology only, so that the questionnaire would read appro-
priately for the spouse and counselor to answer instead of
the original wording for the principal's self report. The
Likert-type scale was retained for scoring purposes. The
adapted questionnaire is shown in Appendix B.
The Swent questionnaire was chosen for this study after
an extensive search for an appropriate instrument. Spiel-
berger's Stair-Trait Anxiety Inventory was considered and
ultimately rejected in lieu of Swent's questionnaire.
Spielberger's inventory was a general inventory not designed
for any particular group. It also suggested a pre-test and
post-test format for best reporting results. These two
factors, along with the fact that Swent"s questionnaire was
designed specifically for school administrators, were the
53
primary determinants in the final decision to use Swent's
questionnaire.
The biographical questionnaire contained questions
designed to collect personal and situational information
about the administrator. It included age, sex, size of
school, size of school district, total years of experience
as a principal, current health status, classification as a
full- or part-time administrator, and number of hours of
physical exercise per week. These items were identified as
possible variables related to stress that a principal might
experience (4).
The age subsets were under forty and forty and over.
The sex was a male or female distinction. The size of
school was divided into two categories, 270 to 999 and 1,000
and over. The school district size was determined by average
daily attendance (ADA) and then divided into three categories.
The three categories were determined by University Inter-
scholastic League divisions. The top three sizes were used,
and they were 270 to 644, 645 to 1,309, and 1,310 and over.
The top three sizes were determined as pertinent for this
study because the Texas School Directory did not list dis-
tricts smaller than 270 ADA as having junior high schools.
Total years of experience as a principal was divided
into three groups. The groups were one to five, six to
fifteen, and sixteen and over. The three groups were
54
determined as the beginning years in the position, the
middle range years and long-term service.
Current physical health was based on self-reporting
categories using a five-point scale on a continuum ranging
from excellent to poor health. Excellent was listed as
five and poor was listed as one.
Hours of physical exercise per week was divided into
the following time periods: less than one, one to three,
four to six, seven to nine, ten to twelve, and thirteen and
over. The principal was also asked to indicate whether his
position was a full- or part-time position.
For the purpose of general information, the final
question was an open-ended question that asked the principal
to identify methods that had personally been found to be
successful in dealing with tension and job pressures. This
information was used for considering further conclusions and
recommendations. The biographical questionnaire is illustrated
in Appendix C.
Each of the thirty-five factors in Form A and Form B
was answered by the respondent as not applicable, never
bothers me, rarely bothers me, occasionally bothers me, or
frequently bothers me. The term, not applicable, was
included so that the respondents could more accurately respond
to their responsibilities without feeling a forced choice.
Since its development, in 1978, the Swent questionnaire
has been used in a number of studies. One of these was
55
conducted by Marshall (3) at Kansas State University.
Marshall reported the results of this study in his disserta-
tion. The dissertation, "A Survey Study of the Perceptions
of Kansas School Administrators on Occupational Sources of
Stress," reported the calculation of an alpha coefficient to
determine the internal consistency of the items on the survey.
The reliability coefficients ranged from a high of .74 to a
low of .50 (3).
Data Collection
On May 11, 1984, the sample of 300 principals taken from
the Texas School Directory (5) list of junior high school
principals was sent a letter of introduction and explanation
along with the questionnaires for themselves, their spouses,
and their counselors. The spouse's questionnaire and the
counselor's questionnaire were in a separate envelope with a
letter (Appendices E and F) of introduction and explanation.
The spouses and counselors were asked to seal their envelopes
after responding for the purpose of trying to secure
independently prepared responses.
For the purpose of this study, it was determined that a
minimum of 120 returns was acceptable. However, in an effort
to insure that a maximum number of returns were received, two
separate follow-up mailings were conducted. Two weeks after
the initial mailing of the questionnaire to the sample of
administrators, the first follow-up mailing was mailed.
56
After ten days, three and one-half weeks after the original
mailing, a second and final follow-up mailing was mailed.
The original sample size of 300 was chosen to help
insure an acceptable number of returns. A return of 120
questionnaires was needed to render data acceptable for
generalizing to the population studied. Every effort was
made to obtain a maximum return of the questionnaires.
The Texas Education Agency Computer Service produced
address labels for all the principals included in the popula-
tion. Three sets of labels were acquired. One set was used
in the original mail out, and one set was used for each of
the follow-up mailings. The questionnaires (Forms A and B),
the biographical questionnaire, and the letters of intro-
duction are illustrated in Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F,
respectively.
Of the 300 questionnaires mailed, 166 were returned. To
be accepted for analysis, the returns had to be 100 percent
complete. A return was rejected for analysis for any of the
following reasons: (1) the principal responding was female,
(2) some questions were not answered; there were blanks left
on the questionnaire, (3) the principal's response was not
accompanied by a response from the spouse and the counselor,
(4) the principal was not a full-time administrator, and (5)
the return was received too late to be included in the
analysis.
57
Of the 166 returns, thirty-three were found to be
invalid. Thirteen returns contained no response from the
spouse. Nine contained no response from the counselor.
There were eight returns that did not have a response from
either the spouse or the counselor. Two returns contained
all three questionnaires, but none of them were answered.
There was only one response from a female principal. The
128 remaining valid responses were coded for analysis. After
the valid responses were coded and filed for analysis, five
valid responses were received but were too late to be
included in the analysis.
The identity and replies of each respondent was held
in strictest confidence. The identities were not important
for the analysis, and the replies were coded in such a manner
that all personal information could be held in confidence.
Each member of the sample was offered a copy of the study in
an effort to increase participation.
Data Analysis
Hypothesis one was analyzed by determining the total
mean for Form A and the total mean for the spouses' responses
to Form B. Analysis of variance was used to determine if a
significant difference existed between the total means. A
significant difference was accepted to the .05 level.
Hypothesis two was analyzed by determining the total
mean for Form A and the total mean for the building counselors'
58
responses to Form B. Analysis of variance was used to
determine if a significant difference existed between the
total means. A significant difference was accepted to the
.05 level.
Hypothesis three was analyzed by determining the total
mean for the spouses' responses to Form B and the total mean
for the building counselors' responses to Form B. Analysis
of variance was used to determine if a significant difference
existed between the total means. A significant difference
was accepted to the .05 level.
Hypothesis four was analyzed by using the total mean of
each of the five subsets contained in Form A. The five sub-
sets and the questions contained in each were (a) administra-
tive constraints (questions 1, 9, 12, 26, 27, 31, 32); (b)
administrative responsibilities (questions 2, 4, 21, 24, 25,
29, 35); (c) interpersonal relations (questions 3, 7, 13, 20,
23, 33, 34); (d) intrapersonal conflict (questions 4, 5, 10,
15, 17, 22, 28); and (e) role expectations (questions 6, 8,
11, 16, 18, 19, 30). Analysis of variance was used to deter-
mine if a significant difference existed between the total
means of each variable. The level of acceptance was to the
.05 level.
Hypothesis five was analyzed by computing the total
means of Form A when grouped according to the variables of
age, size of school, size of school district, and total years
of experience as a principal. Analysis of variance was used
59
to determine if significant difference existed between the
total means of the variables. The level of acceptance was
to the .05 level.
Additional demographic information was collected in the
area of health, status as full- or part-time administrator,
physical exercise, and an open-ended question in the area
of coping with stress. This was utilized as additional
information and considered when drawing conclusions and
making recommendations.
Summary
This chapter presents the methodology of the study. It
includes population and selection of sample, instrumentation,
data collection, and data analysis.
Three questionnaires were used with principals, spouses,
and counselors in junior high schools in Texas. The Biograph-
ical Questionnaire and Form A (occupational stressor inventory)
were used with principals and Form B (adapted occupational
stressor inventory) was used with spouses and the counselors.
The population sample of this study was composed of
randomly selected junior high school principals, their spouses,
and counselors in the State of Texas. There were 300 randomly
selected junior high school principals. The questionnaires
were mailed to the selected principals with complete instruc-
tions for completing the questionnaires. A return envelope
60
was sent with the questionnaires. Every effort was made to
get a maximum number of returns.
Once the data were collected, a computerized program
was used to analyze the data. Means and standard deviations
of principals', spouses', and counselors'perceptions were
calculated. T-tests and analysis of variance were used to
determine the perceptions of the principals, spouses, and
counselors regarding occupational stressors of the principals,
The results are presented in Chapter IV.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ferguson, George A., Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, 5th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981.
2. Kerlinger, Fred W., Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.
3. Marshall, Gerald Lynn, "A Survey Study of the Percep-tions of Kansas School Administrators on Occupa-tional Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1980.
4. Swent, Boyd James, "An Exploratory Study of the Percep-tions of Oregon School Administrators on Occupational Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1978.
5. Texas Education Agency, Texas School Directory, Austin, Texas, 1983-1983.
61
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this study was to ascertain through the
perceptions of the junior high school principals, their
spouses, and the building counselors the stressful situations
that affect the principals' daily lives. These perceptions
were attained through the use of the Swent questionnaire
(Appendix A) along with additional information drawn from a
demographic questionnaire (Appendix C). This information
was then utilized to compile data sufficient to answer the
following questions.
1. Was there a significant difference between the per-
ceptions of the junior high school principals and their
spouses regarding job related stress situations?
2. Was there a significant difference between the per-
ceptions of the junior high school principals and their
building counselors regarding job related stress situations?
3. Was there a significant difference between the per-
ceptions of the principals' spouses and the building
counselors regarding job related stress situations in the
work of the principals?
4. Was there a significant difference in the percep-
tions of junior high school principals among the five subsets
62
63
of the questionnaire; (a) administrative constraints, (b)
administrative responsibilities, (c) interpersonal relations,
(d) intrapersonal conflict, and (e) role expectations?
5. Was there a significant difference between the per-
ceptions of junior high school principals when grouped in
terms of age, size of school, size of school district, and
total years of experience as a principal?
The population sample studied was composed of 300
junior high principals randomly selected from all the junior
high principals in the State of Texas. In all comparisons,
a difference was accepted as significant only if it was equal
to or smaller than .05. Table I presents information regard-
ing the comparison of the perceptions of the principals and
their spouses in regard to job related stressors in the daily
work of the principal.
In order to determine the perceptions of the principals,
their spouses, and the principals' building counselors, a
simple analysis of variance (t-test) was employed to test
Hypothesis I, II, and III. A .05 level of significance was
established for testing the data. Hypothesis I, stated
below, was tested.
Hypothesis I.—There will be no significant differences
between the perceptions of the junior high school principals
and their spouses regarding job related stress situations.
Table I reports the group mean and standard deviation
for the principals and their spouses. There were 128 members
64
in each group and the possible group mean ranged from a low
of 35 to a high of 175. The group mean for principals was
107.132 and the group mean for spouses was 105.578. The
higher the mean score, the greater the perceived level of
stress reported. The standard deviation for principals was
13.764 and the standard deviation for the spouses was 17.145,
TABLE I
COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPOUSES REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL
STRESSORS OF THE PRINCIPAL
Group Number of Cases
Group Mean
Standard Deviation
t Value
2-Tail Probability
Principals 128 107.13 13.764 O
00 • .424 Spouses 128 105.58 17.145
Significant at .05 level.
Table I also reports the comparative analysis of the
two groups. A t value of .80 was obtained. The degrees
of freedom were 254. Since the two-tail probability (p =
.42 4) was in excess of the established .05 significance
level, the difference was judged not significant. The t-
test failed to disclose a significant difference between the
perceptions of the principals and their spouses in regard
to occupational stressors in the daily lives of the princi-
pals; therefore, the answer to question one is "no." Con-
sequently, Hypothesis I was retained.
65
Even though the total group perceptions did not prove
to be significantly different, the principals had a larger
group mean than their spouses (X = 107.132 to X = 105.578).
The standard deviations showed the spouses to have a wider
range of scores than the principals (d = 17.145 to 13.764).
Although there was no significant difference between the
total perceptions of the two groups, there were ten of the
thirty-five occupational stressors listed on the Swent ques-
tionnaire that did render significant differences between the
two groups. Table II displays each of the occupational
stressors that rendered a significant difference between the
principals and their spouses.
Table II reports the means for the principals and their
spouses for each of the items rendering a significant differ-
ence. The items have been listed in rank order of the
calculated t value.
Table II also shows the comparative analysis of the
two groups for each item. The range of the t values for
the ten items showing a significant difference was from
4.59 to 1.96. "Administering the teachers contract"
(stressor 29) and "feeling not fully qualified for the job"
(stressor 4) showed a significant difference of .001.
"Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people
(stressor 2) was third with a significance level of .002.
"Being involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24) was
next at .007. "Evaluating staff member performance"
66
!3 W W 03 & 03 EH W W P̂ PQ Eh
03 pa O fe 3 O ryi S 03 w w
q CM H p a o
03 EH JZ; J
U !3 H O En H H EH 3 < 0 PH H p
H 03 U H O
C O w
Q 0 m W IS < PCh H EH w q
Q & 55 < W 0 & W
P4 frj rtj 03 I I I M EH 03
D 03 o p£ CM 0 03 03 01 Q W SS & «3 EH 0} 0}
1-3 h3 rfj < Pu 13 H P U H 13 > H H Pn D P^ IS H
•H ^ d o EH U I PM CM
CD 2
-P H fd >
to CD d CO fd 3 CD 0 2 Ou m
CO I—I <d &
•H O CD d a
"H H PM
g CD -p
!H <D A g
5S
o o
•9< rH O O
* CM O O
*
o o
•K * * * ro CM ro <£>
i—I CM CM ro
o O o o * * * *
* o in o
* o m o
59
75
00 o .7
1
.50
.30
.29
• •
ro ro CM CM CM CM
o rH
CM
r-0h
VD Ch
00 ro <J\ in CM «3»
l> ro ro m OS
o V0 o o\ ro o *
CM CM ro t—1 ro ro
i n i—I o o ro r - i—I ro o i n • * - « »
ro ro CM CM
O CM KD O ^ rH
CM CM
in r-r o »
ro
ch O \o
rH cs ro r o uo o\
i n CPs r ^ o o
kD CO i n CM ro vp *
ro #
ro r o ro CM CM
•Q > i 0 cn
t n CD H * m *» t n CD rH u d rH 3 >1 a) •H
MH g o
•P 0 0 CD
-P 0 fd 0 a . 0 «H CD d *d -P a > i
a o a g <d CD o m rd ^ g rd ^
-P H 0
tr» fd 0 -P 'cd • d •H t n co ^ CD 4^ C ^ -P *H CD O -H CO
MH -P cd co fd t n - H CO u -H -P Ch rH •H -P >
•H id a a H CD rH £S •H 0 (D jC a) t i 1 g u O i - P CD PM << 03
CD J2 CO 4-> CO
CD d o •H 0
u «d 04 CD > tJ» rH d 0 -H > d a -H
•H fd " tn
tP M d to
-H ,£* CD PQ
CO rH CO CD (d CD u M 0 I d CD C/3 d d +3 -H
CD 13 CD <d CD fd ^ CO M CO CD i—1 u ^ -H U CD -P MH 3 CD «d £ CO CD MH d JH CO CO MH 5H d j a MH CD Jh d MH fd -P 0 g •H T3 CD rH CD 0 •H 0 CO Cu CD CD fd +J -H • d rQ 3 to u g •p fd d -P +> * m CD fd
CD Cfl -P 0 CD (d CD rH U m > CO "H rH O > 0 d rQ MH rH t n 4J -H rH 0 0 TJ 0 fd o d & fd co - d 0 & d - m -P CD CO o -P N CD CO a CO o Jh fd CO o CD g •H *H -H 0 g CD CO fd >1
d u fd ^ d o g g u <d a> g Cn cd \ fd "H CD 0 CD rH ft d g o d t n t n *H g o 0 r d o o m
•H $H -P CD d n 0 4-» -P c o o -P 0 CD •H 0 CU t n U
t n ^ J 3 w
fd MH t n § > i d CD t n ^ J CO 3 SH d -P h r d »d •H , d d -P &> a) a)
rH 0 -H CD a d d -P •H -H £ Xi -"J fd Oj > i j Q g fd id •H 0 > i £ •H -P -P > 0 U M a) w EH a & EH ffl
o CM
CM CM
in CM
r - !> CM
CM ro o CO
rH CD >
CD
in o
+3 cd -p
d td o
•H MH •Hi d t n
•rH CO *
67
(stressor 25) had a significance level of .013. "Trying
to resolve differences among students" ranked sixth with
a level of .022. "Complying with state, federal, and
organizational rules and policies" (stressor 27) was seventh
at .023. "Writing memos, letters, and other communications
(stressor 12) and "trying to resolve differences with the
school board" (stressor 13) were eighth and ninth at .036
and .05 respectively. The last stressor showing a significant
difference between the principals and their spouses was
"being unclear on the scope and responsibilities of their
job" (stressor 30) with a level of .05.
A simple analysis of variance (t-test) was employed to
test null hypothesis XI in order to determine the perceptions
of the principals and their building counselors regarding
occupational sources of stress in the daily work of the
principals. A .05 level of significance was established for
testing the data. Hypothesis II was stated previously in
Chapter I as follows below.
Hypothesis II.——There will be no significant difference
between the perceptions of the junior high school principals
and their counselors regarding job related stress situations.
Table III reports the group mean and standard deviation
for the principals and their building counselors. There were
128 members in each group and the possible group mean ranged
from a low of 35 to a high of 175. The group mean for
principals was 107.132 and the group mean for the counselors
68
was 106.898. The higher the mean score, the greater the
level of stress that is perceived. The standard deviation
for principals was 13.764, and the standard deviation for
the counselors was 18.611.
TABLE III
COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND COUNSELORS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS
OF THE PRINCIPAL
Group Number of
Cases
Group Mean
Standard Deviation
t Value
2-Tail Probability
Principals 128 107.132 13.764 .11 .909
Counselors 128 106.898 18.611
1 T r 1 Significant at
Table III also shows the comparative analysis of the two
groups. A t value of .11 was obtained. The degrees of free-
dom were 254. Since the two-tail probability (p = .909) was
in excess of the established .05 significance level, the
difference was judged not significant. The-t test failed to
provide a significant difference between the perceptions of
the principals and their building counselors in regard to
occupational stressors in the daily lives of the principals;
therefore, the answer to question two is "no." Consequently,
Hypothesis II was retained.
Even though the total group perceptions did not prove
to be significantly different, the principals had a larger
69
group mean than their building counselors (X - 107.132 to
106.898). The standard deviations showed the counselors to
have a wider range of scores than the principals (sd 18.611
to 13.764). Although there was no significant difference
between the total perceptions of the two groups, there were
nine of the thirty-five occupational stressors that did
render significant differences between the two groups. Table
IV displays each of the occupational stressors that rendered
a significant difference between the principals and their
counselors.
Table IV reports the means for the principals and their
building counselors for each of the items rendering a sig
nificant difference. The items have been listed in rank
order of the calculated t value.
Table IV also reports the comparative analysis of the
two groups for each item. The range of the t values for the
nine items showing a significant difference was from -4.63
to -2.24. "Being involved in the bargaining process"
(stressor 24) and "administering the teacher's contract"
(stressor 29) both showed a significant level of .001. "Pre-
paring and allocating budget resources" (stressor 21) was
third with a level of significance of .003. "Feeling the
progress of my job is not what it should be (stressor 28)
and "imposing excessively high expectations on myself"
(stressor 10) both rendered a significant level of .007.
"Trying to resolve differences with the school board"
70
> H pa h3 < Eh
13 m
EH w a PQ S3 H
W P W ° ^ 6 £3 W O PM & w H ps a is
CO H & P4 O PU
EH W W co as 13 Eh D G
Pq a H
w Pm fa H Q
§ a H
S3 O H GO
a
I
ps o Pm
<
CO CO pa
CO PS P3 EH *H co
pcS P-t H pLl a o
. 13 pa h co Ph ps Pa
PM U EH PS £tS |Z) ffl O " EH O
ffi CO O pd CO fdj
pa Q 13
o CO
S3 O
O CO K CO O H pa h eh PS US c EH PM co PS D o o
^ H U C 53 O D D P h3 H > H Q 53
H ,Q fd O EH JH I
CM
0 3
+> H aj >
to u o t—i CD to d s o a
d fd CD
CM 00 r- ro o 00 CTi vo d fd CD
G\ CO r- r- 00 o in 00 d fd CD CM in r H cn CM vo CM 00 00
S * • ft # • « • ft • S
CM CM 00 CM 00 CM CM 00 00
to t—i fd a a •H cd O CD
d s •H H PM
g CD -P H
M CD r£ e s 13
O O
* i—1 O o
* 00 o o
4c
r-o o
* o o o
* 00 o o
* H r—{ o
* <stf
CM
O
•K VD CM O
0 0 0 0 CM C h VD r-V£> o r- r- in « CM
ft ft
0 0 0 0 CM CM CM CM CM
CM «
CM i
(Ts CM <0 l > V£> in O i—i VD O O 0 0 C h 0 0 o V0 0 0
KD i—1 0 0 CM in 0 0 KD o * ft * ft * * * • *
i—! CM CM 0 0 0 0 CM CM 0 0 0 0
to
CD a )
a )
03 0 O > t 0 CD a ) g
a i H "1 \ X J i to
U w CD r H •» d o u
CD t n CO t n ^ H 0 > 1 to 4 ^ 0 CD
4 3 a CD - P • H r H CD U g u 0 a - P >
O • H X I CD M-4 M CD d 0
CD fd t n to UH fd - P CD Si CD MH
Si tO <D m 0 - P CD > i > i • H 0 0 H g r H X I 0 > 1
+ 3 to 4-> o u fd Si H £ ^ , Q a CD r H 4-3 4 J
CD 0 w Q*£l 0 ) a g • H to • H
PS o CD i—1 CD ^ n d > d CD r H g fd £ i n
- H 0 Si H U CD H • r l 0 > 0 fd r C d 0
u 4-> fd ^ X ! - P ^ to r H 0 *44 H to fd si T S PL, - P O O to to 0 si H 0 cd • H g - p
CD PL,
t n *ns o a O CD d to o - p 4 J CD 4-3 4 J CD
> t n a w + 3 0 0 CD tO 4-3 to a fd fd T S fd
t—! a • H fd CD fd co U X - H U cd T 3 d to
0 • H U r d ' H 0 CD « P CD J d CD t n fd 4 J t n CD
> £ CD o t r> fd 0 Si 4-3 - H d g o d >
d 4 J fd C - P t n - P 4 J - P M-4 • H M t n 4 J - H fd
• H fd to n • H CD t n 0 r H a o t ^ * H - P 0 d - p 4 3
t n • H + 3 M t n £ * r o p* • H CD t n , n d r H fd *44 • H CD 0
t n M d d fd 1 3 • H 0 to Qi a - p - H fd 0 U ^ r H - H 0
d fd • H 0 P . H > i ^ 3 0 X • H - H r H 0 r H Q) d , 3 H X !
• H £ l e o CD r Q CD g CO 04 CD CD t * 1 fd & • H fd 4 H £ CD • d M CD e CD > . d
PQ < P^ PM H EH PM p a
CM (Ts CM
r H CM
00 CM
00 m CM
V£>
1—I cd > <D
i n
o
-P fd
-P d cd o
14-1 • H
d
-H CO *
71
(stressor 13) was sixth at .008. "Feeling that I am not
fully qualified to handle my job" (stressor 4) had a signifi-
cance level of .011. "Evaluating staff members performance
(stressor 25) and "thinking that I will not be able to satisfy
the demands of those with authority over me" (stressor 6)
were eighth and ninth with significance levels of .024 and
.026, respectively.
A simple analysis of variance (t-test) was employed to
test null Hypothesis III in order to determine the percep-
tions of the principals' spouses and the principals' build-
ing counselors regarding occupational sources of stress in
the daily work of the principals. A .05 significance level
was established for testing the data. Hypothesis III was
stated previously in Chapter I as follows.
Hypothesis III.—There will be no significant difference
between the perceptions of the principals' spouses and the
building counselors regarding job related stress situations
in the work of the principals.
Table V reports the group mean and standard deviation
for the principals' spouses and the building counselors.
There were 128 members in each group and the possible group
mean ranged from a low of 35 to a high of 175. The group
mean for spouses was 105.578 and the group mean for the
counselors was 106.898. The higher the mean score, the
greater the stress that is perceived. The standard deviation
72
for the spouses was 17.145 and the standard deviation for the
counselors was 18.611.
TABLE V
COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALS' SPOUSES AND COUNSELORS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS
OF THE PRINCIPAL
Group Number of
Cases
Group Mean
Standard Deviation
t Value
2-Tail Probability
Spouses 128 105.578 17.145 -.59 .556
Counselors 128 106.898 18.611
Table V also shows the comparative analysis of the two
groups. A t value of -.59 was obtained. The degrees of
freedom was 254. Since the two-tail probability (p — .556)
was in excess of the established .05 significance level, tne
difference was judged not significant. The t—test did not
provide a significant difference between the perceptions of
the principals' spouses and the building counselors in
regard to occupational stressors in the daily lives of the
principals; therefore, the answer to question three is no.
Consequently, Hypothesis III was retained.
Even though the total group perceptions did not prove
to be significantly different, the counselors had a larger
group mean (X = 106.898 to X = 105.578) and thus perceived
a higher level of stress in the work of the principals than
73
the spouses perceived. The standard deviations showed that
both the spouses (sd = 17.145) and the counselors (sd =
18.611) experienced a wide range of scores. Although there
was no significant difference between the total groups, there
were three of the individual stressors that did render sig-
nificant differences between the two groups. Table VI dis
plays each of the occupational stressors that showed a
significant difference between the two groups.
Table VI reports the group means for the principals'
spouses and the building counselors for each item rendering
a significant difference. The items have been listed in rank
order of the calculated t value.
Table VI also reports the comparative analysis of the
two groups for each item. The range of the t values for the
three items showing a significant difference was from -2.49
to 2.00. "Preparing and allocating budget resources"
(stressor 21) showed a significant level of .013. "Being
involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24) was second
with a significant level of .039. "Imposing excessively
high standards on myself" (stressor 10) was the third item,
with a significance level of .046.
As reported in Table I, there was no significant differ-
ence between the total perceptions of the principals and
their spouses. This allowed Hypothesis I to be retained.
As reported in Table III, there was no significant difference
between the total perceptions of the principals and their
74
53 W
H > w Hi PQ <
EH W W CO PS pa o O J ss w m co PS !3 CO fa D CO fa O H fa U PS H EH Q Q W 2
Eh <! fa 2 o <3 CO O M CO H W H 0} fa D O H O PS <1 2 ft o O CO o H H CO o CO - S3 CO k) H C J c & C 2
PS ft O fa H H H Q U Ej W Z 2 < W H ft PS PS Z) ft o o
Eh O fa C J O X o EH O O S3 2
co a h PS CO P O PS to S3 <! co O O M H M PS S3 PS EH co PS O
1-3 H < 2 C> D Q l"3 1 1 Ml > LJ rn Q S3 H
i—i * * * *
-H rQ oo G\ <JD fd 0 i—S 00 B M o O O i PLI • • *
CM
a\ 00 o CD o o 3 • * «
•P H CM CM CM fd I I >
CO 0 r- CM 00 rj d 00 r-S * r> 0) §*
(—i CM CM S * r> 0) §*
«
00 CM •
00 0 a
cn 00 LT) 00 a>- d a\ CM co m 00 Ch in 3 CD « * •
o g CM rH 00 PU
X* tP tn<w a •H *—1 *
"H & CD rH •P CD CO CD rd £! CO >1 >1 > O -P tfi H g CD o w CD CD rH rH <D d o > d
6 H o -H 0 •H 0 in CD 03 !M M CO o -P 3 nd 04 CO CO •
H <"0 0 CD (D d a w > tn 0 0 -P <d CD h d X -H cd
u 0 -H CD -P tn > a fd +3 a -P d -h tn +J d -H CD •H fd d o fd M tn tn -H CD o fd tn H W 04 •H PU 3 d fd 0 X m CD "H rQ Qa CD •H U CD S d cu PQ H tn
•H U)
U * 0) & rH O 8 CM CM i—\ 0 525
75
building counselors. This allowed Hypothesis II to be
retained. However, even though the total perceptions of
Hypothesis I and Hypothesis II did not render significant
differences, there were some individual items that rendered
significant differences. Table VII displays the individual
items that rendered significant differences and were common
to both hypotheses.
Table VII reports the group means for the principals,
their spouses, and the counselors for each item rendering a
significant difference in the data of both Hypothesis I and
Hypothesis II. The greater the mean score, the greater the
perceived level of stress. The items have been listed in
rank order of the perceived level of stress as reported by
the principals.
"Evaluating staff members' performance" (stressor 25)
was indicated by principals to be a higher stressor than
perceived by either the spouses or the counselors. "Feeling
that I am not fully qualified to handle my job" (stressor 4)
was listed next by principals. Principals again reported a
higher stress perception than the spouses or the counselors.
"Trying to resolve differences with my superiors" (stressor
13) was third and both the spouses and counselors perceived
a higher stress level than did the principals. "Administer-
ing the negotiated contract" (stressor 29) and "being involved
in the collective bargaining process" (stressor 24) were the
76
H H >
W
M <
EH
fa W EN
5 3 H
fa U 5 3 fa P^ fa fa fa H Q
Eh < O H fa H 5 3 O H to <
a 0
FA Q
5 3 fa 05
B <
EC EH
CO PS O to to fa 6 Eh CO
H3 <
D Q
H > H Q 5 3
Q 5 3 <1
CN fa to D O CM co
I
co
PM
H CO U P4 IS o H i-3 PCS fa & TFL
S3
D 0 U 1
to & O < fa p4
H < 1 u EH 53
Q
FA FFI EH
fa O
CO H CO >H
3
5
CO
0 <Js ro o CM rH a i n o 00 cr̂ a) m ro CM VD i n CM
to c d * * » • S a g CO CM CM CM CM
2 0 a
01 CM 00 O ro i n
c d a LD i> l> ro to rd ro o i n KO CTi
3 CD * * • » •
G g 00 CM CM CM rH A CO
to rH rd rH o m CM 04 d o O o
•H fd VD ro rH VsD O CD • • § * e d g r o CM CM CM l—1
•H N
to •Q <D
>i 0 O CO rH -ro d • *
i—! CD M to 53 > i u CD u MH g 0 T* A CD MH M 0
•Q - P CD MH fd fd CD 6 O rH •H 0 0) eC tO CD d <d £* -P -P to g d CD
g fd CD rH CD d o g IH fd , £ > 0 £1 •H 0 <D IH rH 0 •P u -P m H 0 0 Jd 13 CU H -P CD +3 to 0 t n CD
to a -P CD tO d > u* d fd t s u •H rH d
Cn fd JG CD CD M -P 0 -H a g -P -H O A CD O > d
•H H U-4 -P -P -P fd d -H -P 0 t n - H CO M •rH fd rd m d rH t J I rd •H -P fcn 3 n •h fd a -p a d
rH (D rH 3 •H "H •H 0 d fd rd Oi <D tr1 >i £ g o •H > a) M CD fa fa EH c CQ
U CD & i n ro as § CM rH CM CM 1-3
1 3
77
last two items. Again, the spouses and the counselors
registered higher mean scores than the principals.
As reported in Table V, there was no significant differ-
ence between the total perceptions of the spouses and the
counselors. This allowed Hypothesis III to be retained.
Hypothesis I was retained because it reported no significant
differences (Table I). Even though the total perceptions of
Hypothesis I and Hypothesis III did not render significant
differences, there were some individual items that rendered
significant differences and were common to both hypotheses.
Table VIII displays the individual items that rendered
significant differences and were common to both Hypotheses I
and III.
Table VIII reports the group means for the principals,
their spouses, and the counselors for each item rendering a
significant difference in the data of Hypothesis I and
Hypothesis III. The greater the mean score, the greater the
perceived level of stress. There was only one item (stressor
24) that rendered a significant difference common to both
Hypotheses I and III.
"Being involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24)
was the only item that registered a significant difference
common to both Hypotheses I and III. The spouses were the
common respondent to Hypotheses I and III. Out of the thirty
five items tested, stressor twenty-four was the only one that
78
spouses measured significantly different from both the
principals and the counselors.
TABLE VIII
INDIVIDUAL STRESSORS THAT RENDERED A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FOR
BOTH SPOUSES-PRINCIPALS AND SPOUSES-COUNSELORS
No. Item Principals
Mean Spouses Mean
Counselors Mean
24 Being involved in the bargaining process 1.609 1.945 2.242
When comparing Hypothesis II with Hypothesis III, the
counselors are the common respondents. Table IX reports the
group means for the principals, their spouses, and the
counselors for each item rendering a significant difference
common to both hypotheses. The items have been listed in
rank order of the perceived level of stress as reported by
the principals. There were three items common to both
hypotheses.
In the three items showing significant difference in
Table IX, the principals and spouses seem to agree on the
level of stress for the principal and the counselors register
a significantly different perception. "Imposing excessively
high expectations on myself" (stressor 10) was perceived
to have a higher level of stress by the principals and their
79
X H
m h-'i <n
W HI EH
53 H
P W S3 O *3 53 w 03 3 hI W ^3
H H O P 53
H B PS !S Pk C I O 03 H PS Ph O H ^ 03 2 W M O 03 03 H ^ D 03 D O
O P-j < O C D
t P EC 03 W EH PS P ^ O O W PQ 1̂ 1 P W jz; PS cn w o 53 Ph Pm D
O & <U < B EC < &H P
03 w PS HI O eh 03 03 (14
M O PS EH 03 03 H
03 1-3 t * < h3 D < P 53 H <1 > H P 53
03
U i—1 £H 00 CO CM <D fd r - CO tn <D CM 1—1 CM a a • • •
s 00 00 CN 0 a
03 a A
LO to as 00 00 LO pi a CM as «sf 0 g lO 00 as Ot * * *
03 00 CM t—4
W i—1 fd a . fl KD CF\
*H fd 00 00 o 0 Q) LO 00 <v£> « g • * e
•H 00 CN rH M p4
-a t n m t n
•H i—! a X! CD •H
w -P CD >1 >1 aS X! W H 2 o -P 03 0 0 03 CD > G «H a> a a
•H 0 rH O •H 0 03 fd u M 03 03 3 <X3 04
6 CD a *d o CD CD o 0 a cn > t n •P X -H fd CD rH C H CD -P 0 -H
rd tn > £ t n -P d -P & -H £ o -H CD •rH aS
-H CD M tn t n 03 Ck as *-3 tn u O X! 04 0 a fd Q* CD CD ^ *H X? B <D H Pm PQ
CD JQ O i—! B i—1 CNI CM
125
80
spouses as was perceived by the counselors. The counselors
perceived a higher level of stress for "preparing and allocat-
ing budget resources" (stressor 21) than did either the
principals or the spouses. The last of the three common items
was "being involved in the bargaining process" (stressor 24).
The counselors again perceived a higher level of stress for
the principals than did the principals or their spouses.
When comparing the individual items that rendered a
significant difference in Hypotheses I, II, and III, there
was only one item common to all three hypotheses. Table X
reports the group means for the principals, there spouses,
and the counselors. "Being involved in the bargaining pro-
cess" (stressor 24) was the only item rendering a significant
difference common to all three hypotheses.
TABLE X
INDIVIDUAL STRESSORS THAT RENDERED A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FOR
ALL GROUPS, PRINCIPALS-SPOUSES-COUNSELORS
NO. Item Principals
Mean Spouses Mean
Counselors Mean
24 Being involved in the bargaining process 1.609 1.945 2.242
The purpose of Hypothesis IV was to determine which
stressors were perceived by junior high school principals
to be most stressful. For preliminary analysis these
81
stressors were grouped into five categories, called factors,
of seven stressors each. The purpose of establishing these
factors of categories was to create general areas of related
stressors to facilitate understanding and analysis. In
addition to the analysis of the descriptive data of the group
means and standard deviation, a one-way analysis of variance
was computed to determine if the differences between the
level of perceived stress was statistically significant
between groups. A .05 significance level was established for
testing the data. Hypothesis IV was stated previously in
Chapter I as follows.
Hypothesis IV.—There will be no significant difference
in the perceptions of the junior high school principals
between the five subsets of the questionnaire; (a) adminis-
trative constraints, (b) administrative responsibilities,
(c) interpersonal relations, (d) intrapersonal conflicts,
and (e) role expectations.
The items on the questionnaire were categorized to
five factors representing stressor areas. These areas were
administrative constraints, administrative responsibilities,
interpersonal relations, intrapersonal conflict, and role
expectations. There were seven related situations in each
factor. The rank, mean, and standard deviation of each
factor as reported by the principals are shown in Table
XI.
82
TABLE XI
DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON THE FIVE STRESSOR AREAS AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS
Rank Factors Mean Standard Deviation
1 Administrative Constraints 24.390 3.836
2 Interpersonal Relations 21.914 3.906
3 Intrapersonal Conflict 21.539 2.983
4 Role Expectations 20.226 3.306
5 Administrative Responsibilities
19.062 3.600
Those stressors included in the administrative constraints
category (questions 1, 9, 12, 26, 27, 31, 32) were perceived
to be the most stressful of the five factors and produced a
mean score of 24.390. The possible range for the mean scores
was seven to thirty—five. The higher the mean score, the
greater the stress is perceived to be. This factor showed
the second largest variance with a standard deviation of
3.836. Interpersonal relations (questions 3, 7, 13, 20, 23,
33, 34) was second with a mean score of 21.914 and standard
deviation of 3.906. This factor showed the greatest variance
of scores. The third factor was intrapersonal conflict
(questions 4, 5, 10, 15, 17, 22, 28) with a mean score of
21.539 and a variance of 2.983. This factor showed the least
variance of all the factors. The fourth factor was role
83
expectations (questions 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19, 30) with a
mean score of 20.226 and a variance of 3.306. The factor
reported by the principals to be the least stressful was
administrative responsibilities (questions 2, 14, 21, 24, 25,
29, 35) with a mean score of 19.062 and a variance of 3.600.
Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV display the analysis of
variance used to determine where significant differences
existed among the five stressor areas as reported by
principals. Table XII reports the degrees of freedom, t
values, and probability when a t-test was performed between
the administrative constraints factor and each of the other
factor areas. The administrative constraints factor rendered
a significant difference between each of the other four
stressor areas. Table XII reports the comparisons in rank
order according to the t values.
Table XIII reports the degree of freedom, t value, and
probability when a t-test was performed between the inter-
personal relations factor and each of the other factors. The
comparison with administrative constraints xs reported in
Table XII. The interpersonal relations factor rendered a
significant difference among three of the other four stres-
sor areas. There was not a significant difference rendered
in the analysis with the intrapersonal conflict factor.
Table XIV reports the degree of freedom, t value, and
probability when a t-test was performed among the intra-
personal conflict factor and each of the other factors not
84
TABLE XII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRAINTS FACTOR WITH THE OTHER FObR FACTORS
Factor Degrees of
Freedom t
Value 2-Tail
Probability
Administrative Responsibilities 254 11.46 .001*
Role Expectations 254 9.30 .001*
Intrapersonal Conflict 254 6.64 .001*
Interpersonal Relations 254 5.12 .001*
•Significant at .05 level.
TABLE XIII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS FACTOR WITH THE REMAINING FACTORS
Factor Degrees of
Freedom t
Value 2-Tail
Probability
Administrative Responsibilities 254 -6.07 .001*
Role Expectations 254 3.73 .001*
Intrapersonal Conflict 254 .86
.389
•Significant at .05 level.
reported in Tables XII and XIII. The intrapersonal conflict
factor rendered a significant difference with each factor
except interpersonal relations. There was no significant
85
difference with interpersonal relations as shown in Table
XIII.
TABLE XIV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE INTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT A N FACTOR WITH THE REMAINING FACTORS
Factor
Administrative Responsibilities
Role Expectations
Degrees of Freedom
254
254
t Value
-5.99
3.33
2-Tail Probability
.001*
.001*
*Significant at .05 level,
TABLE XV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE ROLE EXPECTATIONS FACTOR WITH THE REMAINING FACTOR
Factor Degrees of Freedom
t Value
2-Tail Probability
Administrative Responsibilities
- ' i __ * t> ~
254 -2.69 .008*
The role expectations factor rendered a significant
difference with each of the other four factors. Table XV
reports the analysis of role expectations with the adminis-
trative responsibilities factor. The other comparisons are
reported in Tables XII/ XIII, and XIV.
86
The administrative responsibilities factor rendered a
significant difference with each of the other four factors.
The degree of freedom, t value, and probability is reported
in Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV where the comparisons with
each of the other factors is reported.
Table XVI reports the analysis of variance for the five
stressor areas. An F ratio of 40.96 was obtained. Since
this F probability (p = .001) exceeded the established .05
significance level, there was a significant difference in
mean scores of the five stressor areas; therefore, the
answer to question four is "yes." Consequently, Hypothesis
IV was rejected.
TABLE XVI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE FIVE STRESSOR AREAS AS REPORTED BY THE PRINCIPALS
Sources of Variation
Degrees of Freedom
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Ratio
F
Between Groups
Within Groups
4
635
2 0 5 6 . 2 8 0
7 9 6 9 . 4 8 4
5 1 4 . 0 7
1 2 . 5 5 4 0 . 9 6 . 0 0 1 *
An analysis of variance was employed to test null
Hypothesis V in order to determine if the biographical areas
of age, size of school, size of school district, and total
years of experience as a principal produce significant
differences in perceptions of the junior high principals.
87
A .05 significance level was established for testing the data.
Hypothesis V was stated previously in Chapter I as follows.
Hypothesis V.—There will be no significant differences
between the perceptions of junior high school principals m
terms of (a) age, (b) size of school, (c) size of school dis-
trict, and (d) total years of experience as a principal.
For the purpose of this study, data reported by female
principals were not included in the analysis. This decision
was made after a review of the junior high school principals
in Texas revealed the fact that there was not a sufficient
number of female junior high school principals. Even if, by
chance, all female principals had been selected in the random
sample, a 100 percent return still would not have produced a
sufficient numer of female respondents to render information
satisfactory for generalizing conclusions. The study pro-
duced only one female respondent.
Table XVII reports the group mean, standard deviation,
t value, degrees of freedom, and two-tail probability for
the principals when they are grouped in the designated age
categories. The respondents were divided into two subgroups
according to age. There were 128 total respondents with 30
reporting their age to be under 40 and 98 reporting their age
to be 40 or over. In determining the age groupings, 40 was
selected as the dividing point since the literature supports
the theory that the age 40 may be a psychological barrier
for some people (1, 2 ) W h i l e this was not a point of
88
§ H Eh < 04
P O o o
o
H
W 0 CD W ^
co m
< p
Oi w H H PM H U D
> » 9 X H PH X
Ph a
W PM a is PQ W M rtj ixi ta &H Eh s
CO O
o CO CO 13 CO o w H P4 Eh Eh Hi cn w a PES
w p-l
M
> H
2 <!
s o u
>i •p
r—I -H * *H rH O
rd -h i—1
EH ,Q o
I rd •
<N & 0 u CM
en g
CD 0 <DM-in3 KD H 0 CD Cv3
tn <D t—!
CD U a pm
CD 3 ro
«P rH rd »
> CM
£ o
M "H LO
<d +> cm m
rd cd in co
£ -H • •
cd > CNS i—1
-P CD cn Q
l> H VX? 00
£ ro in
rd • *
CD cn in
a i—1 o r—i r—1
>i 0 a CD 3 O CO
tJ1 CO OS CD
ixi
CD U tn CD
< > < W 0
- U w rd r—( cd a fd >i fd
Pu o cn •HI o cn
O d fd -H u a)
CD >1 CM TS
£ O
D ^
H CD > CD
LO O
-P fd
-P a rd o •rl
•H
tn •H cn •K
89
contention in this study, it did seem reasonable to use 40
as a dividing point in age grouping. The under 40 age group
reported the higher mean score of 112.367 with the 40 and
over group reporting a mean of 105.531. The standard devia-
tions of the two groups indicated the range of scores to be
very close. The standard deviation for the under 40 group
was 13.83. The standard deviation for the 40 and over group
was 13.408.
A t value of 2.43 was obtained by analysis of variance.
The degrees of freedom was 126. Since the two-tail probability
(p = .017) exceeded the established .05 significance level,
the difference was judged to be significant between the means
of the two age groups of principals.
The respondents were divided into two groups according
to the size of school in which they served as principal.
Table XVIII displays the group mean and standard deviation
of each group. The school sizes were grouped such that the
first group would include schools with an average daily
membership between 270 and 999. The second group would
include schools with an enrollment of 1,000 and over. After
an investigation, it was determined that 270 would be the
bottom limit of the first group because there were no schools
in Texas with an enrollment of less than 270 which were
classified as junior high schools. The first group, smaller
schools, reported a mean score of 107.833. The second group,
larger schools, reported a mean score of 104.385. The
90
H H
X
w
CQ <
Hi < 5S O H
s P-l 13 o a o o J 121 S H O O EC & U < 03 O M Pm PS O
03 W h3 N < H Pn 03 H a >« a m H Pi P f i i W
fU W P m o EH &
0 Pm O IS
W u3 tn 25 S o H 03 H & CU O W 03 U 03 M W m cu
w > H EH
3 < P-i S O o
EH 03
>1 •p
i—1 -H •H «—i KD cd -H if)
1 B ,Q CM I fd *
CM , f i 0 u PA
to S CD 0 CD <4-4 »d KO u o a) CM t n CD «—1 a) n p Fn
CD ^ • 3 rH
-P i—I *
i—S >
CH • d o H 00 M "H rH 00 nj -P oo
*d fd • •
0 -H 00 CO fd > i-H rH -P 0) 03 Q
oo m a CO 00 rd 00 oo CD • *
s r - ^ o o rH rH
> i : i o c CD <N \D 3 O CM i tr1 rH CD 1 u Pm
CD N
•H 03 M
CD i—1 > 0 0 0 & a £ 03 o> fd
o% 1 o
o o r - o
| cxi i—i
-P fd
•P a fd O H
m •H a
•H 03
91
smaller schools reported a standard deviation of 13.811, and
the larger school reported a standard deviation of 13.488.
There were 102 schools responding in the 270 to 999 group.
The 1,000 and over group contained only 26 respondents.
Even though the larger school grouping had considerably fewer
respondents than the smaller school grouping, the two groups
showed very little difference in range of scores.
Table XVIII also reports the analysis of variance for
the two groups representing school size. A t value of 1.14
was obtained. Since the two-tail probability (p = .256) did
not exceed the established .05 significance level, there was
no significant difference between the means of the groups
determined by school size.
The principals were divided into three groups according
to the size of the school district that they represented.
Table XIX is a two-part table that reports both the descrip
tive data and the analysis of variance for the three groups.
Group one contained all respondents from school districts
ranging in size from 270 to 644. Group two ranged in size
from 645 to 1,309. Group three included all districts
ranging in size from 1,310 and over. Group three recorded
the lowest mean score of 104.97. Group two had the highest
mean score of 113.85. Group one recorded a mean score of
109.18. Group two reported the greatest variance in their
response.
92
TABLE XIX
COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ^fCIPALS ^CARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS WHEN GROUPED BY SCHOOL
DISTRICT SIZE
Descriptive Data
Size of District Frequency Mean Standard Deviation
270-644 11 109.18 2.05
645-1,309 26 113.85 6.71
1,310 and over 91 104.97 2.17
Analysis of Variance
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Degrees of
Freedom
2
125
Sum of Squares
1644.82
22413.72
Mean Square
822.41
179.31
F Ratio
4.587
F Prob.
.012'
^Significant at .05 level.
In the analysis of variance, an F ratio of 4.587 was
obtained. Since this F probability (p = .012) exceeded the
established .05 significance level, there was a significant
difference. The principals of larger school districts
reported significantly lower perceptions of stress than
principals of smaller districts as in groups two and three.
The responses of the principals were divided into three
groups according to their years of experience as a principal.
It was determined that these groups would represent the
beginning years as a principal, the middle range years, and
93
long-term service. Group one represented one to five years
of experience, group two represented six to fifteen years of
experience, and group three represented principals with six-
teen or more years of experience. Table XX reports the
descriptive data and the analysis of variance for the three
groups in regard to principals' perceptions on work stressors
when analyzed by years of experience. The means ranged from
a high of 108.53 for group one to a low of 104.07 for group
three. Group three reported the greatest variance in their
responses.
In the analysis of variance, an F ratio of 1.006 was
obtained. Since the F probability (p = .369) did not exceed
the established .05 significance level, the difference was
judged to be not significant between the means when grouped
by years of experience as a principal.
Hypothesis V required the analysis of the perceptions
of the principals when grouped by age, size of school, size
of school district, and years of experience as a principal.
The analysis of these different areas rendered significant
differences in the perceptions of the principals regarding
occupational stressors when grouped by age and size of school
districts. When grouped by size of school and by years of
experience as a principal no significant differences were
found. Since there was significant difference found within
Hypothesis V, the answer to question five is both "yes" and
"no." "Yes," when grouped by age and size of school district,
94
"No," when grouped by size of school and years of experience
as a principal. Consequently, null Hypothesis V was rejected,
TABLE XX
COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALS REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS WHEN GROUPED BY
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Descriptive Data
Years of Experience
Frequency Mean Standard Deviation
1 to 5 years 38 108.53 1.39
6 to 15 years 60 107.78 0.65
16 years and over 30 104.07 3.07
Analysis of Variance
Source of Variation
Degrees of
Freedom
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Ratio
F Prob.
Between Groups
Within Groups
2
125
381.32
23677.32
190.61
189.42 1.006 .369
The purpose of Table XXI is to report the analysis of
the individual stressors. It reports the mean scores and
rank order of all the stressors as reported by the principals
spouses, and counselors. The range of mean scores for prin-
cipals was from a high of 3.67 on "trying to resolve differ-
ences among staff members" (stressor 33) to a low of 1.61 on
"being involved in the collective bargaining process
95
H X X
m \A m < Eh
EH
O m & o cn PM & w o & h3
ca cn cn ^ £;
P cn O
o o cn Q cn !z; g ^
B -cn cn
w Pm cn o P o
& PM m cn 0 rK *». o cn a
iz; di <S H k a
£5 p h jz; & i< Pu
O a cn
§ < m g
tO
0 i—I CD 0) d 2 O O
d m PS
m ro
* 00
M O 03 CO a) u -P cn
44 20
.46
.20
91
*
*
ro ro ro CM ro
* o 00 LO i—i rH ro
V£> in ro rH rH
a • •
ro ro CM Rank
2*
19
12*
34
21
15
18
33
Mean
3.59
3.04
3.22
2.08
2.96
3.14
3.09
2.21
Rank
<T\ 12
14
31
i i i
21
20
13
33
Mean
3.54
3.38
3.34
2.46
3.07
3.09
3.36
2.26
*d
>i
>i r-1 +3 a CD d D1
CD M
MH
13 CD -P tfl C r̂-i 2 H U fd U O CD
CD x; -P
tn d
*iH -P fd d
•iH TS
O O a
d cd
CD I—I cu o a> a
0 £ O
tn a» a <d •H rH CD 0) PQ -P
>i a
tp fd d g H 0) M-( •H O > M CO CD ^ 04 to 3 fd cn -P
CN
CD •iH >i
| MH rH u •H U CD rH CD rd CO fd d & d d P3 O 0 2 O tT •H 5-i
•iH 4J 04 +> -P (d - fd rH e -9 d -P rH 0 o P3 O -ro nd CD MH MH
PL| d >i CO X •P -H g U CD O
•P 4-> CD d •P 4-> X̂ ^ <D 0 £ d g O CD m fd X!
•P >i g 0 •P >i CO H - n - M
MH rH d M MH fd 43 ^ fd fd fd o fd g O 0 -P tn X5
H O to -P CD H O >1 rH 4J
tp g tPT! d c c d rd
•H 13 •H nj -H CD rH d rH jS ^ CD fd CD O CD CD CD O d CD |X| to Pm -P d
•
ro • »
m
CD g
mh o
to O <d .p d M
fd CD <D g > rH CD O X! 'Tf fd >i
tP -P a) d -h X! -H m
-p o -P o x; O -H a H
MH fd rH d rH O
o
-p 2
•«H £
CD > fd
CD XJ H £
4-> O tP XS d >i £
*H MH ,14 W (D a *H co
-H -P O ^ fd ^ E~t to -P
VJD
tP a o g fd
cn CD O d CD U CD
MH MH •H TS
a) > rH O CO CD U O •P
CD g
MH O
T5 CD •P O CD ft X CD
CO •H
XI tr> 0 o d CD
-P o d
to -p tr> d d CD 'H TS > i ps ?H -P Eh CO
CO n o H Jh CD 0. 0
tJ» to d
•H >i rH £ a) CD >i Em XI
oo
9 6
m u o «H CD W d 3 o o
a cd A
11
13*
15
21
I
30 29 27
*
CM r - ro 00 00 CN o ro CN CM o V£) 00
* • • • • • *
ro ro ro ro CN CN CM
CN
03 0 03 3 O & 03
d td 0 s
a fd &
a ai a) S
* CM
CM CM
ro
LO
CN m
00
r -i—i
o CM ro
* o CM CM
ro oo
CM
* r -CM
O ro r - in cn m H o in r - 00 • • • * • *
ro ro CN CM CM CM
TO <D '3
-H -P d 0 U I i H X X
w
m <
03 rH ctS 0. •H O d
-H U P-!
a rd
a fd 0 S
*-4 o 03 03 CD U -P 03
in i—i
•K in as oo CM
CO in CM
* CM CM
CN a\ !> o O ro in rH CN ro 00 00
ft e ft ft « * *
ro ro ro ro CN CM CN
* V£> CM
O r -
CM
1 -P u d jQ «P CD
U CD CD fd O as & U CD •P £ •m x: -P 03 0 rd d £ 0 CD 03 03
•H o n a 03 •H ,d CD CD T* d a. > M
>i £ ,d -P > d CD 0 rH M 0 0 rH tn -P O fd 0 fd CD 0
-P 03 -H CD .Q CD u *H 04 CD O d M JQ fd 03 4-4 tn a d CD CD rH
JQ CD U 4-1 0 03 fd
P rQ >i CD U i—1 CD -H 4H 03 g D1 g H 03 0 d JO •P 15 O >f 0 M CD CD CD >i 4-4 fd rd •P •P g rd O U g > E d CD CD 03 0) 4-1 4H •H CD U 0 i—1 > U £ Q) -P M U
4H 03 a H CD 03 rH 0 O g fd 0 0) ^ 4-4 03 O 3 > fd •hk. 03 0 •H JH ^d Cu u fd CD 03 G CD 03 d 03 U 4H 0 ^ -0 -P o 03 03 U 0 0 0) CD 03 0 £ 03 X d CD CD g •H u 04 £ a tn g g
0 0 a 03 CD -P •H cp o d >i >i •H d -H g fd 0 03 c -H -H 4H 03 g rQ +> fd o 4J +> SP 0 0
A* £ (d tn 6 ^ tn-H >1 d •P fd 0 -P tnTi rH *H -P d u d d d tn g -H d 03 fd a cd fd 03 O *H 0 -H •H a g a
-H -P «P O CD rH MH X! -P g -H ,£! fd CD CD d rH > Cb 04 PU CD M -P •H s >i4J CD +J a. -P -H fd fd 3 0 g x CD CD U 0 •H Oi -P x o x: > S3 M -P H CD fX| Cum £ o EH £ 03 < CD S +3 0
* *
o •
rH CM •
ro « •
m ft MD
rH rH rH rH i—1 rH rH
97
CD 3 a
• H - P £ 0 a 1 i
H X X
w J PQ *C Eh
CO SH 0 i—!
Ran
k * rH 00 23
1*
17
24*
20
33
0) CO a 3 0 o M
ean
3.5
9
3.3
8 00 00 • CM 3
.59
3.1
9
2.8
3
3.11
CM •
CM
(/} (D CO
Ran
k * CM
22
KD
23
26
16
35
3 0 Oi cn
Mea
n
3.5
9
3.5
8
2.9
1
3.5
1
2.9
0
2.7
7
3.1
3
1.9
5
co i—i cd
04
Ran
k
* If) 00 22* *
CM CM 26
*
17
35
i—i 4J fd fd 3 & T3 •P -H
>
CO -H C 0 G
•rH *H u CO 0 -rH UH co O 0 £ co <D 0 CD •d w £ U CD ^ -P CD > cn -H H
rd i—i g -p CD fd
0 rC! r d 4J +J - p
Cn -P 0 d OH
• H (y a > MH O fti 4H CD
fd Qa
•
r-tH
C\ <5? CM *3* O 00 J 1 m in 00 00 r- CM KO • • * • * « • •
r o CO CM CO CM CM CO i—!
rH fd > 1 g u - H
0 c 0 ?H 0 • h a rH - p 0 >
CD 0 0 X I • H
CD 0 g o t n - P CO - P - P jC" > 1 XS x \ 0 0 0 fd - P g a O o fd * h 0 0 o . •P CO & C3 rH
*rH CD MH g i 0 - H • H i—1 o n3 0 TS •P t n rH i—1 H 0
- H -rH 0 0 £ £ •P - H CU o - P 03 CD 0 - P 0 - H - P X ! * H ?H - P CO - p fd u - P • H "H O 0 fd 2 £ t n fd fd rH CO CO X ! a . o CD CD 0 04 0 £ • H 4J
0^ > i—i 0 0 0 CO 0 CO X fd 0 0 rH 0 PA G to •P CD CD JC! T5 M > i—1 - P CO - P • H 0
- H 0 rH fd 0 PI 0 CD - P 0 H > 1 CO 0 0 U 0 0 • d o > - H •G CD - P - H CO ncs > g U 0 u fd > - P g - P - H £> 0 £ fd +J > o . & - H • H fd rH M U fd & ^ 0 •P r H
- P •P - P • H 0 0 - p CO 0 CP H O fd •P JQ O i 0 CO Cn CO H > G
fd i—1 • H 0 - p - p £ 0 > 1 1 3 co G - H Cn fd Cn co co o • H 0 Cn U 0 a g £ rH fd in £ £ C n - H H a U d • H 0 * H
• H 0 «d 0 •rH 0 > i £ rH fd 3 • H fd Cn rH i—1 Cn fd rH 0 CO i—1 0 . g • H 4H PU 0 rH O • H I S X ! G Cn 0) rCl u CD U) > 1 a 0 CO 0 CO a o - H n CD o 0 CD 0 0 > i JH O M 0 0 0 CO fd u 0 fd PM CO £ Pli PM M XX EH a CM u CM 4-> rd US 04 CQ
•
00 •
<Tt «
o *
rH »
CM •
00 *
1—1 i—1 CM CM CM CM CM
98
"d cd 0 d -H -P d o 0 1 i H X X
w m < EH
to u 0 1—1 R
ank
Ch 13*
22
31
32
ro KD
CD
to d 0 u M
ean
3.36
3.27
3.4!
2.98
2.59
2.56
3.53
3.43
Spouses
Rank
CTk 00
10
14
30
32
i—1
Spouses
Mean
3.35
3.39
3.30
3.20
2.63
2.41
3.68
3.41
to 1—1 fd & R
ank
ro
II
* LO
16
34
30
CM
10
•H
D
d •H
n
Mean
3.64
3.48
3.59
3.30
2.10
2.61
3.66
3.52
rH 0 fd 0
fd B •P
i to B CD u > i O r H CD O i d CD > - P d fd H d n " d -P 0 d fd CU fd 0 O 0 0 CU
(D d CD CD H -p - P to CD to £t rC rQ to T5 fd fd CD
tO fd - P CD H CO rH - H r d - H fd U CD u 0 0 M~i (d CD d -P & - p - P 0 B CD O Cn d U O 0 • H pL)-H
•P H d - O Cn,d Cr> - P rH to CD -P g -H CD - H o to CD to -H Cn U
u <D CD - P U - P - P U d d X3 d d 0 B > fd d fd fd O l - P *ro-H *H CD 0 to fd ^ ts •P N •H CD to - p 4J to m ,d +j CO * H <D ,d d d CD CD M CD IH & d +> -P 0 0 CD «H U u H CD tO fd - P fd 04 S QA 0 - p •P d -H -P Cn Cn U to B ^ w CO •P O •H M to - P £ d fd CD •P 0
fd * H & 0 CD fd •H CD U fd O U Cn • d •H A +J H t H CD X! CD d •p 13 Cn i—1 O - P 0 CD o u - P CD 0 Ou •H CD fd >1 >1 d fd •H d CD -P •P d d fd B - P fd -P O tP o h (d •rH O H tr> *Q to O d fd Cn-H O i fd d > 1 O O d to
*Q • H fd d -P
0 fd •H "H rH i—I PL| •H -H ^ d Cn CD 0 •H d M i—i s r-l M & M Qa rH rH •H •P d a , * ro H & -H CD <d u CD H W M 6 *0 "d CD J3 d B d •H o 0) o > 1 ^ 3 > o CD 0 0 0 0 d d CD O 0 0 CD Q > i CD d U 4J w iw P«4 £ CU £ O fd fd pq - r o 0 <1 o 03 to s B EH 0
LO *
VD • «
00 •
cn o •
rH •
CM CM CM CM CM CM ro ro ro
99
<D 2 S 41 £ 0 O \ 1
H x X
w
m
cn u o t—I CD w £
O a
AS C fd &
£ fd CD a
U3 <D (fi 2 0 01 C/3
Cfl rH cd •rH o £
•H
G rd P$
a cd 0) S
£ rd
£ cd C) s
O tn w CD +J
cn
CM
CTs CM
ro
i> CM
CO
r-<£>
ro
VjD CM
00 «
CM
in CM
O 00
CM
a\ CM
in
CM
r ! ^ d)
to o
O O M-l
H M-l
>i a, o
* CM
O 00
CM
as CM
in •vD CM
* vo CM
o o
CM
CO CO CO
1—1 fd > ^ 0 0 U <-H & a,-p fd M
0 O 04 •
*H jH| rH 3 £
fd 3 p4 «H
fd en a -h g CD
-H O fd •H fd £ u 4J tp fd tp
£ 0 0 -H M CD -P M-J & •H
IW CP M rH •H a o o !U
tr» >iTJ XI °r| n a o U1 EH fd tn *
ft m 00
100
(stressor 24). The range of mean scores for the spouses was
from a high of 3.68 on "feeling that meetings take up too
much time" (stressor 31) to a low of 1.95 on "being involved
in the collective bargaining process" (stressor 24). The
range of mean scores for the counselors was from 3.59 on two
stressors, "trying to resolve parent-school conflicts"
(stressor 20) and "having to make decisions that affect the
lives of individual people that I know" (stressor 17), to a
low of 2.15 on "feeling not enough is expected of me by my
superiors" (stressor 8).
Further examination of the rank order of stressors by
groups reporting revealed that "feeling that meetings take
too much time" (stressor 31) was the highest ranking stressor
common to all three groups. "Trying to resolve parent-school
conflicts" (stressor 20) and "having to make decisions that
affect the lives of individual people that I know (stressor
17) were the only other stressors common to all groups and
ranking in the top 20 percent. Principals and spouses agreed
that "imposing excessively high expectations on myself
(stressor 10) also ranked in the top 20 percent of the stres-
sors. Principals and counselors agreed that "complying with
state, federal, and local organizational rules and policies"
(stressor 27) was also in the top 20 percent. Spouses and
counselors agreed that "being interrupted frequently by
telephone calls" (stressor 1) and "trying to complete reports
and other paperwork on time" (stressor 32) were in the top
101
20 percent of stressors for the principal. The three groups
commonly agreed that "feeling that X am not fully qualified"
(stressor 4), "administering the negotiated contract (stres
sor 29), "trying to resolve differences with my superiors
(stressor 13), and "being unclear on just what my responsi-
bilities are" (stressor 30) were all among the bottom 20
percent of the stressors. "Feeling that not enough is
expected of me by my superiors" (stressor 8) and "being
involved in the collective bargaining process"(stressor 24)
were listed by all three groups as the least stressful of
all -
The previous biographical points of age, school size,
school district size, and years of experience as a principal
were all reported in accordance with their statistical
significance. The following areas of health, exercise and
full- or part-time administrator were not statistically tested,
These areas were treated as additional information and have
been reported in terms of frequency and percentage of occur-
rence. The following is a general description of the nnd-
ings obtained as a result of those questions.
The respondents were asked to rate their health status
on a five-point scale, ranging from excellent to poor. Table
XXII displays the distribution of the principals in the
various categories of health status. Health was rated as
excellent by 47.6 percent of the principals while none felt
they were in poor health. There were 42.2 percent reporting
102
good health and another 9.4 percent reporting average health.
Only one respondent reported his health to be below average.
TABLE XXII
HEALTH STATUS OF THE PRINCIPALS
Health Status Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage
Excellent 6 1 47.6 47.6
Good 54 42.2 89.8
Average 12 9.4 99.2
Fair 1 .8 100.0
Poor 0 0.0 0.0
All principals responding reported that they served as a full-
time administrator.
Table XXIII reports the frequency, in hours, of physical
exercise by the principals. Twenty-one, or 17.2 percent,
reported less than one hour of exercise per week. For 42.2
percent of the principals, exercise took less than four hours
per week of their time. For 24.2 percent of the principals,
exercise totaled from four to six hours per week, while 10.2
percent spent seven to nine hours per week exercising. Only
7.1 percent reported exercising more than ten hours per week.
The final question was an open-ended question designed
to get principals to respond to methods used to cope with
103
TABLE XXIII
NUMBER OF HOURS EXERCISED PER WEEK BY THE PRINCIPALS
r Cumulative
Hours of Exercise Frequency Percentage Percentage
Less than 21 17.2 17.2 1 hour 21 17.2
1 to 3 hours 54 42.2 59.4
4 to 6 hours 31 24.2 83.6
7 to 9 hours 13 10.2 93.8
10 to 12 hours 2 1.6 94.4
13 or more hours 7 5.5 99.9
the tensions and pressures of their jobs. A wide variety of
strategies were reported. Table XXIV reports the different
strategies and the frequency with which they were reported.
An examination of the strategies reported yielded four areas
of classification. The four areas are recreational activi-
ties, exercise activities, relaxation activities, and
miscellaneous activities. The most frequently reported
activities were recreational. Golf and fishing were reported
15.6 and 14.8 percent of the time, respectively. Exercise
activities of yard work, jogging, farming, and gardening were
frequently reported with yard work being reported 14.1 per-
cent of the time. The most frequently reported relaxation
activities were reading and television with reading being
104
TABLE XXIV
METHODS PRINCIPALS REPORTED USEFUL IN COPING WITH THE TENSIONS AND PRESSURES OF THEIR JOB
Stress Coping Strategies Frequency Percent
Recreational Activities
Golf 20 15.6
Fishing 19 14.8
Hunting 7 13.3
Tennis 6 4.7
Softball 4 3.1
Basketball 3 2.3
Music 3 2.3
Swimming 2 1.6
Racquetball 1 .1
Dancing 1 .1
Camping 1 .1
Bike Riding 1 .1
Exercise Activities
Yard Work 18 14.1
Jogging 13 10.2
Farming 11 8.6
Gardening 11 8.6
Exercising 6 4.7
Walking 6 4.7
TABLE XXIV—Continued
105
Stress Coping Strategies Frequency Percent
Relaxation Activities
Reading 13 10.2
Television 6 4.7
Hobbies 4 3.1
Art 1 .1
Atari 1 .1
Miscellaneous Activities
Time with Family 17 13.3
Church Work and Prayer 16 12.5
Leave Job at School 16 12.5
Travel 16 12.5
Solitude 3 2.3
Auto Mechanics 1 .1
Sex 1 .1
reported 10.2 percent of the time. The miscellaneous activi
ties of travel, time with family, leave job at school, and
church work and prayer were reported 13.3, 13.3, 12.5, and
12.5, respectively.
Summary
This chapter dealt with analysis of data. It includes
reports of data generated by junior high school principals,
106
their spouses, and school counselors relative to occupational
stressors of the principals. Group means, standard deviations,
t-test, and analysis of variance were employed to determine
the status of the perceptions of the three groups and to test
the null hypotheses. It was found that:
1. Hypothesis I was retained. No significant differ-
ence was determined between the perceptions of the principals
and their spouses regarding occupational stressors m the
daily lives of the principals.
2. Hypothesis II was retained. No significant differ-
ence was determined between the perceptions of the principals
and the counselors regarding occupational stressors in the
daily lives of the principals.
3. Hypothesis III was retained. No significant differ-
ence was determined between the perceptions of the spouses
and counselors regarding occupational stressors in the daily
lives of the principals.
4. Hypothesis XV was rejected. There were significant
differences in the perceptions of the principals among the
five stressor areas.
5. Hypothesis V was rejected. There were significant
differences in the perceptions of the principals when grouped
in terms of age and size of school districts.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Anderson, S. B., S. Ball, and R. T. Murphy, Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, San Francisco, Jossey Bass Publishers, 1975.
2. Sax, G., Principals of Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation, 2nd ed., California, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1980.
107
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study identifies the perceptions held by junior
high school principals, their spouses, and school counselors
regarding occupational stressors of the junior high school
principals in the State of Texas. The occupational stressors
center around five areas of administrative concern: (a)
administrative constraints, (b) administrative responsibili-
ties, (c) interpersonal relations, (d) intrapersonal conflict,
and (e) role expectations.
All junior high school principals in the State of Texas,
their spouses, and school counselors served as the population
for the study. A randomly selected sample of 300 were sent
questionnaires, and 128 respondents were included in the
analysis.
Three questionnaires were used to collect data from the
participants. The Biographical Questionnaire and Question-
naire, Form A were used to collect data from the principals.
Questionnaire, Form B was used to collect data from the
spouses and counselors.
Descriptive statistical methods were employed to cal-
culate means and standard deviations of the principals,
108
109
spouses', and counselors' perceptions of the occupational
stressors of the principals. T-test and one-way analysis
of variance were used to analyze the data generated by the
principals, spouses, and counselors.
Findings
The following findings resulted from the population
who participated in this study.
1. There was no significant difference between the
principals and spouses in the overall perceptions of the
piriiici.pa.ls1 occupa.tiona.1 strossors*
2. Of the ten individual stressors rendering a signif-
icant difference between the perceptions of the principals
and spouses, four were in the area of administrative respon-
sibility; administrative constraints and interpersonal
relations contained two each; and role expectations and
intrapersonal conflict contained one each.
3. There was no significant difference between the
principals' and counselors' overall perceptions of the
principals' occupational stressors.
4. Of the nine individual stressors rendering a signifi-
cant difference between the perceptions of the principals
and the counselors, four were in the area of administrative
responsibility; intrapersonal conflict contained three; and
role expectations and interpersonal relations contained one
each.
110
5. There was no significant difference between the
spouses' and counselors' o v e r a l l perceptions of the princi-
pals' occupational stressors.
6. Of the three individual stressors rendering a
significant difference between the perceptions of the spouses
and counselors, two were in the area of administrative
responsibilities and the other was in the area of intrapersonal
conflict.
7. The perceptions of the principals were examined
regarding sources of stress. This issue was examined m
reference to two factors, a group of stressors as well as
individual stressors resulting from only one situation. The
five factors are administrative constraints, administrative
responsibility, interpersonal relations, intrapersonal con-
flict, and role expectations. The area of administrative
constraints was reported by principals as the most stressful.
The area of administrative responsibilities was reported as
the least stressful.
8. The principals reported the top three job stressors
as resolving differences among staff members, meetings taking
up too much time, and evaluating staff members' performance,
respectively.
9. The spouses reported the top three stressors of the
principals as meetings take up too much time, making decisions
that affect the lives of people, and being interrupted fre
quently by telephone calls, respectively.
Ill
10. The counselors reported the top three stressors of
the principals as making decisions that affect the lives of
people, resolving parent-school conflicts, and meetings take
up too much time, respectively.
11. Analysis of variance produced significant differ-
ences among the five stressor areas except for the relation-
ship between interpersonal relations and intrapersonal
conflict. This was the only combination that did not produce
a significant difference.
12. A mean score of 3.67 was obtained for the stressor
trying to resolve differences among staff members. This was
the highest mean score reported by the principals.
13. There was a significant difference in their percep
tions of occupational stressors when the principals were
grouped by age. Principals under the age of forty perceived
a much higher level of stress than principals forty and over.
14. The prinipals reported no significant difference
in perceptions when they were grouped by school size.
15. As a total group, the principals perceiving them-
selves as having the greatest level of stress were those
whose school district had an ADA of 645 to 1,309. The
principals reporting the least amount of stress were those
whose school district had an ADA of 1,310 and over.
16. The principals reported no significant differences
in their perceptions of occupational stressors when grouped
by years of experience as a principal.
112
17. Of the principals responding, 90 percent reported
good or excellent health.
18. The principals indicated that 83.6 percent exercised
less than six hours per week.
19. The principals used physiological activity most
frequently to cope with stress. Some of the most popular
activities are golf, fishing, yardwork, and travel.
20. Some of the popular cognitive coping strategies
are prayer and leaving the job at school.
Conclusions
As a result of the data generated by this study as well
as the findings, several conclusions have been made.
There was no significant difference among the total
perceptions of the junior high school principals, their
spouses, and counselors regarding occupational stressors of
the principals. However, it should be noted that there were
differences in perceptions when the stressors were examined
individually. The greatest difference in perceptions of
individual stressors was found in the area of administrative
responsibility. Of the seven individual stressors in the
administrative responsibility area, more than half produced
a significant difference among the three groups. There is a
definite difference of opinion among junior high school
principals, their spouses, and counselors regarding job
responsibilities of the principals.
113
An analysis of the principals' perceptions of the
occupational stressors clearly showed that the administra-
tive constraints factor contained the stressors that princi-
pals felt were the most stressful. They reported that four
of the top ten stressors were contained within that factor.
These included feeling that meetings take up too much time;
complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and
policies; being interrupted frequently by telephone calls;
and trying to complete reports and other paperwork on time.
The remaining high stressors were well distributed over the
other four factors. It should be noted that these are all
areas where the principal has little or no control.
Interpersonal relations and intrapersonal conflict each
contained two of the top ten stressors reported by the princi-
pals. These areas are rated as high stressors particularly
as they relate to solving conflicts and making decisions that
affect people's lives. Noted here is the fact, however, that
principals do have some control in these areas. Role expec-
tations and administrative responsibilities were reported
to have minimal effect. Each of these factors contained only
one stressor in the top ten. Gf particular interest here is
the fact that as principals increase the amount of control
that they have, the level of stress significantly decreases.
When the total group's (principals, spouses, and
counselors) perceptions were analyzed, it was concluded that
114
no one knows the pressures of the junior high principalship
better than the principals themselves. They perceived a
higher stress level in their work than either the spouses or
counselors. Since the counselors perceived a higher stress
level than the spouses, it is concluded that a close working
relationship with the principals must actually be experienced
in order to gain a better perception of the real pressures of
the job. Many principals expressed the physiological coping
strategy of leaving the job at school as their method of
handling the stress. This may actually be a successful
relief and explain in part the difference in perceptions of
the counselors and spouses.
In this study, the variables of age and school district
size produced a significant difference in the perceptions
of the principals. Although the variable of years of
experience as a principal did not produce a significant
difference in the principals' perceptions, it did show that
the longer a person served in the principalship, the lower
the perceived level of stress. This relates to the data on
age in that the younger principals perceived a much higher
level of stress than the older principals and from a logical
viewpoint were less experienced. The conclusions drawn from
these variables are that the larger the district, the more
assistance the principals received with their diverse
responsibilities. The districts employ directors, consultants,
and other educational specialists to assist the principals
115
with the educational responsibilities. The smaller districts
place more of these responsibilities with the principals and
thus increase the stress level.
The additional biographical data collected indicates
that the principals have identified coping strategies that
are effective. They have identified s u c h physiological and
cognitive approaches as golf, fishing, yardwork, jogging,
reading, time with the family, prayer, and leaving the job
at school. The fact that 71 percent of the principals
reported having more than five years experience as a princi-
pal and 90 percent reported their health to be either good
or excellent relates to the fact that stress identification
and experience enable the principals to become proficient m
stress resolution. The principals who are successful in their
position and keep their health are those who have learned
patterns of conflict resolution, learned to anticipate
problems, and learned how to cope and manage those problems.
Recommendations
As a result of careful consideration of the data col-
lected and the conclusions drawn from this study, the first
recommendation is that in the analysis of job performance
for building principals, people should pay close attention
to the literature on stress* Special attention should be
given to the general causes of stress and patterns of stress
resolution* The findings in this study closely resemble
116
the categories that are found in the research literature on
stress. A person who is inexperienced and has a lot of new
responsibilities introduced to them for the first time,
particularly responsibilities that pertain to their per-
formance and the lives of others may endure a high level of
stress.
School boards and superintendents must be made aware
of the significance of stress in the jobs that principals are
expected to do. They must make early training available for
inexperienced principals that teaches them the skills to
reduce stress. The principals should be given training in
how to recognize the origins of stress, how to cope with
those origins in their environment and how to develop patterns
of conflict resolution. These skills are necessary to assure
opportunity for success and good health.
The Texas Education Agency, professional organizations,
local school districts, and any other organizations interested
in the successful development of building principals must be
made aware of the importance of early training for principals
in the area of stress management. The findings of this study
indicate that new building principals need a little more
attention than veteran principals on reducing and resolving
stress around the traditional areas of conflict.
Building principals should give some thought to the
results of this study in that the reported habit of leaving
the job at work seems to insulate the spouse from the stress
117
of the job, and it seems to allow the building principal to
separate the two environments. The principal can then use
the home as a stress reducing strategy. After leaving the
job at school, a number of other strategies could be utilized
as stress reducing agents. The recommendation is that a
principal should discover a successful stress-relieving
activity, whether it be one of the reported strategies or
one more personalized to the principal's interests. But,
above all, a principal must learn to leave his job at school
as much as possible.
The subject of stress and its relationship to school
administration is an area of growing concern. It is recom-
mended that an attention to this material and this research
be included in administrative training courses.
Recommendations for Further Research
The fact that a person seemingly has mastered the job
of being an effective classroom teacher and possibly an
assistant principal does not mean that the person is not new
at dealing with the pressures that come to a building prin-
cipal. That person deserves some attention, and that
attention is probably research attention, research that
begins immediately from the beginning of the school year with
the origins of frustration for a building principal from the
moment of job assignment.
118
Some recommendations for future study would be the
encouragement of diaries for new building principals,
interviews, or questionnaires for principals just starting
their new assignments. These would help identify sources
of stressors that could be dealt with in administrative
training and course work.
In order to take into account the fact that stress
affects job performance, further research is needed to
identify the origins of stress for the building principal so
that patterns of conflict resolution and stress reduction
can be incorporated into administrator training. This study
clearly identifies administrative constraints as the major
area of stress producing situations. It is recommended that
further studies investigate the specific area of administra-
tive constraints to more specifically identify the stress
producing constraints.
A similar study to the one reported here should be con-
ducted in other geographic locations. It should also be
duplicated on other levels of education such as high schools,
middle schools, and elementary schools in an effort to deter-
mine if these same differences in perceptions exist in other
geographic areas and levels of education.
Further study in stressor identification is certainly
important and it is recommended that further research be
conducted in the area of methods for stress reduction.
119
Naturally, any research in this area will be worthwhile,
valid and much needed.
APPENDICES
120
121
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE—FORM A
Rate how each of the following
School administrators have identified the following 35 work-related situations as sources of concern. It is possible that some of these situations bother you more than others.
bother you.
1 — Not applicable 2 — Never bothers me 3 — Rarely bothers me 4 — Occasionally bothers me 5 — Frequently bothers me
Please place a check in the box that most appropriately describes each situation:
1. Being interrupted frequently by telephone
calls
2. Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people
3. Feeling that staff members don't understand my goals and expectations
4. Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job
3. Knowing that I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly
6. Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me
7. Trying to resolve differences between/among students
8. Feeling not enough is expected of me by the School Board
122
9. Having my work interrupted frequently by staff members who want to talk
10. Imposing excessively high expectations on myself
11. Feeling pressure for better job perform-ance over and above what I think is reasonable
12. Writing memos, letters, and other communications
13. Trying to resolve differences with the School Board
14. Speaking in front of groups
15. Attempting to meet social expectations (housing, clubs, friends, etc.)
16. Not knowing what the School Board thinks of me nor how they evaluate my performance
17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.)
18. Feeling I have to participate in school activities outside the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time
19. Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by the authority over me
20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts
21. Preparing and allocating budget resources
22. Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned me
123
23. Handling student discipline problems
24. Being involved in the bargaining process
25. Evaluating staff members' performance
26. Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday
27. Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies
23. Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be
29. Administering the teacher's contract (grievances, interpretation, etc.)
30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are
31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time
32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time
33. Trying to resolve differences between/among s taf f members
34. Trying to influence the School Board's actions and decisions that affect me
35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs
PLEASE CHECK TO MAKE SURE ALL QUESTIONS HAVE A MARKED RESPONSE. PLACE THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE WITH THE RESPONSES FROM YOUR SPOUSE AND YOUR BUILDING COUNSELOR. TIIANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE—FORM B
124
A. School administrators have identified the following 35 work-related situations as sources of concern. Utilizing the rating scale below, rate how you feel each of the situations affect the principal. Check the most appropriate response for each statement.
1 — Not applicable 2 — Never bothers him/her 3 — Rarely bothers him/her 4 — Ocassionally bothers him/her 5 — Frequently bothers him/her
Please place a check in the box that most appropriately describes each situation:
1. Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls
2. Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people
3. Feeling that staff members don't understand the principal's goals and expectations
4. The principal feels he/she is not fully qualified to handle his/her job
5. Knowing that he/she can't get information needed to carry out his/her job properly
6. Thinking that he/she will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over them
7. Trying to resolve differences between/ among students
8. Feeling not enough is expected of him/her by the school board
9. Having his/her work interrupted frequently by staff members who want to talk
125
1-0. Imposing excessively high expectations on himself/herself
11. Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what he/she think is reason-able
12. Writing memos, letters, and other communications
13. Trying to resolve differences with the board
14. Speaking in front of groups
15. Attempting to meet social expectations
16. Not knowing what the Board thinks of him/her
17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people he/she knows (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.)
18. Feeling he/she has to participate in school activities outside the normal working hours at the expense of his/her personal time
19. Feeling he/she has too much responsibility delegated to them by the authorities over them.
20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts
21. Preparing and allocating budget resources
22. Feeling he/she has too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned them
23. Handling student discipline problems
24. Being involved in the bargaining process
25. Evaluating staff members' performances
126
26. Feeling that he/she has too heavy a work load, one that he/she cannot possibly finish during the normal workday
27. Complying with state, federal» and organizational rules and policies
28. Feeling that the progress on his/her job is not what it should or could be
29. Administering grievances and interpreting contracts
30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of his/her job are
31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time
32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time
33. Trying to resolve differences between/ among staff members
34. Trying to influence the Board's actions and decisions that affect him/her
35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs
PLEASE CHECK TO HAKE SURE EACH QUESTION HAS A RESPONSE AND THEN PLACE IN THE SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
127
Appendix C
Biographical Questionnaire
Please complete the biographical information requested below. This information will be used to group respondents_ for data analysis purposes. All information will be held in the strictest of confidence. The data will be reported only in statistical form.
Part One—Study Data
1. Age: under 40 40 and over
2. Male Female
3. Size of school: 300-999 1000 and over
4. Size of school district by ADA: 270-644 654-1309 1310 and up
5. Total years of experience as a principal: 1-5 6-15 16 and over
Part Two—Additiona1 Information
1. Current physical health:
Excellent Poor 5 4 3 2 1
2. Are you a full-time administrator? yes no
3. Hours of physical exercise per week:
less than 1 7-9 1-3 10-12 "4-6 12 and over
Recognizing that school administration is a demanding occupation, what ways have you personally found useful in handling the tensions and pressures of your job?
If you would like a copy of the final study results, fill in name and address. _
1• « 1 2 8 Appendix D
Principal's Letter of Introduction
Dear Administrator,
The packet you have received contains questionnaires for you, your spouse, and your building counselor. X am conducting a doctoral dissertation study to determine the major sources of stress among junior high school principals in the State of Texas. This study differs from other studies in that I am not only interested in the self evaluation of the principal, but I am also interested in the perceptions of the principal's spouse and building counselor. Being a junior high principal myself, it will be interesting to see if principals perceive stress in their jobs in the same manner in which their spouses and building counselors per-ceive stress in the principal's job. Your cooperation in completing your questionnaire and then having your spouse and building counselor complete theirs will be greatly appreciated. It is of utmost importance that the three of you answer the questionnaires completely independent of input from each other. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is included for your convenience.
To date, little information has been collected concerning stress and school administrators. I hope this study will not only provide useful information for administrative preparation and inservice programs but that it will also suggest alterna-tives for increased health and longevity of administrators.
For your protection, the data collected will be used only in statistical form. No names will be used. However, your attention is directed to the biographical questionnaire. This is important in that this information will be used to subgroup the respondents for data analysis purposes.
If you would like a summary of the results, please fill in your name and address at the bottom of the biographical questionnaire. I will be glad to send you an abstract of the completed report. If you have questions or would like addi-tional information, please feel free to call Doug Shouse at 817-465-6381.
Thank you for your time.
Doug Shouse Principal Gunn Junior High
129
Appendix E
Spouse's Letter of Introduction
Dear Spouse,
I am conducting a doctoral dissertation study on the perceptions of junior high school principals, their spouses, and their building counselors regarding occupational sources of stress for the principal. The questionnaire attached con-tains questions for you, the spouse, to answer in regard to your perception of stress in the life of your spouse, the principal. Please give a response to all questions. Being a junior high principal myself, it will be most interesting to see if spouses perceive stress in the work of the princi-pal in the same manner that the principal perceives stress in their work.
To date, little information has been collected concern-ing stress and school administrators. Your cooperation in completing your questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. To insure research integrity it is very important that you handle your questionnaire in the following manner. Once you complete your questionnaire, place it in the self-addressed stamped envelope with the principal's questionnaire and the counselor's questionnaire and please mail to me. It is important that you do not discuss the questions with your spouse prior to returning the questionnaire.
I hope this study will not only provide useful informa-tion for administrative preparation and inservice programs but that it will also suggest alternatives for increased health and longevity of principals. It is not necessary for you to sign the questionnaire. No names will be used. For your protection, all data collected will be used and reported only in statistical form.
The principal has been provided information on how to receive a summary of the results of the study. If you are interested, I will be glad to send an abstract of the com-pleted report. If you have questions, or would like addi-tional information, please feel free to call Doug Shouse at 817-465-6381.
Thank you for your time.
Doug Shouse Principal Gunn Junior High
130
Appendix F
Counselor's Letter of Introduction
Dear Counselor,
I am conducting a doctoral dissertation study on the perceptions of junior high school principals, their spouses, and their building counselors regarding occupational sources of stress for the principal. The questionnaire attached contains questions for you, the counselor, to answer in regard to your perception of stress in the work of your principal. Please give a response to all questions. Being a junior high principal myself, it will be most interesting to see if counselors perceive stress in the work of the principal in the same manner that the principal perceives stress in their work.
To date, little information has been collected concern-ing stress and school administrators. Your cooperation in completing your questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. To insure research integrity it is very_important that you handle your questionnaire in the following manner. Please answer the questionnaire totally independent of input from anyone else. Please do not discuss the questions with anyone prior to completing the form. Once you complete the question-naire, place it in the self-addressed envelope with the principal's questionnaire and the principal's spouse's ques-tionnaire. It is not necessary for you to sign the question-naire. No names will be used. For your protection, all data collected will be used and reported only in statistical form.
The principal has been provided information on how to receive a summary of the results of the study. If you are interested, I will be glad to send an abstract of the com-pleted report. If you have questions, or would like addi-tional information, please feel free to call Doug Shouse at 817-465-6381.
Thank you for your time.
Doug Shouse Principal Gunn Junior High
131
Appendix G
Questionnaire Subsets and Related Questions
Administrative Constraints
1. Being interrupted frequently by telephone calls.
9. Having my work interrupted frequently by staff members who want to talk.
12. Writing memos, letters, and other communications.
26. Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday.
27. Complying with state, federal, and organizational rules and policies.
31. Feeling that meetings take up too much time.
32. Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time.
Administrative Responsibilities
2. Supervising and conducting the tasks of many people.
14. Speaking in front of groups.
21. Preparing and allocating budget resources.
24. Being involved in the collective bargaining process.
25. Evaluating staff members' performance.
29. Administering the teachers contract.
35. Trying to gain public approval and/or financial support for school programs.
Interpersonal Relations
3. Feeling that staff members don't understand my goals and expectations.
7. Trying to resolve differences between/among students.
13. Trying to resolve differences with the board.
132
20. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts.
23. Handling student discipline problems.
33. Trying to resolve differences between/among staff members.
34. Trying to influence the board's actions and decisions that affect me.
Intrapersonal Conflicts
4. Feeling that I am not fully qualified to handle my job.
5. Knowing that I can't get information needed to carry out my job properly.
10. Imposing excessively high expectations on myself.
15. Attempting to meet social expectations.
17. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people I know.
22. Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me.
28. Feeling that the progress on my job is not what it should or could be.
Role Expectations
6. Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the con-flicting demands of those who have authority over me.
8. Feeling not enough is expected of me by my board.
11. Feeling pressure for better job performance over and above what I think is reasonable.
16. Not knowing what the board thinks of me, nor how they evaluate my performance.
18. Feeling I have to participate in school activities out-side the normal working hours at the expense of my personal time.
19. Feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by the authority over me.
30. Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Anderson, S. B., S. Ball, and R. T. Murphy, Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1975.
Cannon, W. B., Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage, New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1929.
Fergusen, George A., Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, 5th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Co., 1981.
Goldberger, Lev and Shlorao Breznitz, Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.
Kahn, R. L., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict a n d Ambiguity, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.
Kerlinger, Fred W., Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.
Kutash, Irvin L. and others, Handbook on Stress and Anxiety, San Francisco, Jossey-Ball Publishers, 1980.
Lazarus, Richard S., Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1966.
May, R., The Meaning of Anxiety, New York, Norton, 1977.
Sax, G., Principles of Educational and Psychological Measure-ment and Evaluation, 2nd ed., California, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1980.
Schofer, Walt, Stress, Distress and Growth, California, International Dialogue Press, 1978.
Selye, Hans, Stress in Hea1th and Disease, Boston, Butter-worths, 1976.
, Stress Without Distress, New York, J. B. Lippincott Company, 197TT
, The Art of Predictive Medicine, Illinois, Charles cT~Thomas, 1967.
133
134
Selye, Hans, The Stress of Life, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw-Hill, 1976.
Spielberger, C. D., Anxiety; Current Trends in. Theory and Research, New York, Academic Press, 1971.
Articles
Brown, G. Ronald and Patrick W. Carlton, "'How to Conquer Stress When You Can and Cope with It When You Can't," National Elementary Principal, 59 (March, 1980), 37-39.
Cunningham, William G., "Teacher Burnout—Solutions for the 1980's: A Review of the Literature," The Urban Review, 15 (Fall, 1983), 1.
Dohrenwend, B. S. and B. P. Dohrenwend, "A Brief Historical Introduction to Research on Stressful Life Events," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, pp. 1-7.
Dunham, J., "Stress Situations and Responses," Stress in Schools, Hemel Hempstead, England, NAS, 1976, pp. 39-46.
Engel, G., "Sudden and Rapid Death During Psychological Stress: Folklore or Folk Wisdom," Annals of Internal Medicine, 74 (1971), 771-782.
Fallen, Berlie J., "The Third World—Escape from Stress and Burnout," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 28-30.
Giammatteo, Michael C. and Dolores M. Giammatteo, Executive Weil-Being," Stress and Administrators, Reston, Virgina, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, pp. 1-59.
Gmelch, Walter H., "The Principal's Next Challenge: The Twentieth-Century Art of Managing Stress," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 62 (February, 1978), 5-12.
Herlihy, Barbara and Dennis Herlihy, "The Loneliness of Educa-tional Leadership," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 64 (February, 1980), 7-12.
Holmes, T. H. and M. Masuda, "Life Change and Illness Susceptibility," Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974, pp. 45-72.
135
Holmes, T. H. and R. H. Rahe, "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale," Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11 (1967), 213-217.
Koff, Robert H. and others, "Coping with Conflict—Executive Stress and the School Administrator," National Associa-tion of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 1-9.
Kutash, I. L. and L. B. Schlesinger, "Successful Psychological Defense: Probing the Defendent's Mind," Journal of the New Jersey Bar Association, 79 (1977), 14-18.
Lemley, Raymond E., "Stress Control—Where Does One Begin? An !Up Close and Personal' Look," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 20-24.
Manera, Elizabeth and Robert E. Wright, "Knowing the Differ-ence Between Stress and Challenge," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65 (December, 1981), 10-15.
Neugarten, B. L., "Personality and Aging," Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977, pp. 141-152.
Salmen, Daniel A., "Parnoia: Perceptions of Public Schools Principals," Clearing House, 54 (December, 1980), 149-154.
Shank, John K., "The Job at the Top: Beloved, Beleaguered, and Too Often Beheaded," Independent School, 39 (October, 1979), 13-14, 17-18.
Vanderpol, Maurice, "School Administrators Under Stress," Principal, 60 (March, 1981), 39-41.
Washington, Kenneth R., "Stress: Is It a Major Problem for Urban School Principals?," Clearing House, 55 (May, 1982), 189-191.
Publications of Learned Organizations
Texas Education Agency, Texas School Directory, Austin, Texas, 1982-1983.
Unpublished Materials
Baugh, Douglas Samuel, "Perceived Stress Among School Adminis-trative Personnel," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1976.
136
Cook, Garald L., "Administrative Stress and Coping Behavior of Wyoming Public School Administrators," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1980.
Dale, Rosemary Louise, "Administrators, Stress, and Coronary Heart Disease," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 1978.
Marshall, Gerald Lynn, "A Survey Study of the Perceptions of Kansas School Administrators on Occupational Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1980.
Schuetz, Kenneth Edward, "Sources of Perceived Stress Experienced by Illinois Principals," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Illinois State Univer-sity, Normal, Illinois, 1980.
Swent, Boyd James, "An Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Oregon School Administrators on Occupational Sources of Stress," unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1978.
top related