Volume 19 Number 2
May 1980

Carl G. Foster and Sigmund A. Boloz

THE education of Navajo youth drastically changed with the signing of the Treaty of 1868 at Bosque Redondo. The United States government agreed it would provide a house and a competent teacher for every 30 children between the ages of 6 and 16, who could be induced or compelled to attend school. However, in 1884, only 20 pupils were enrolled in Fort Defiance, the first permanent school on the Navajo Reservation. By 1970, there were approximately 48 reservation boarding schools, 9 day schools, and 8 dormitories operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the number of Navajo students attending any type of school had swelled to more than 54,000.

It is clearly evident, with the increase of students and facilities and in the wake of numerous laws and often critical reports, that the leadership styles of the Bureau administrator could not remain static. As did others across the country, the BIA administrator had to adopt new techniques as each new situation arose. Until the late 1970s, school budgets, curriculum development, and the hiring and firing of staff rested outside the local BIA school site. Consequently, the typical BIA administrator was mainly concerned with planning, organizing, and controlling situations. Yet traditionally each of these tasks were performed with little interaction with the other.

However, Public Law 95-561 indicates that the present BIA school administrator will have increased responsibilities for the operation and maintenance of the instructional environment. Through P.L. 95-561, the responsibilities of the local boards of education are being increased, including greater power in overseeing all phases of the student’s education. Because of this, some BIA administrators may be forced into a new role - effective leadership.

The definitions of leadership are diverse. As defined by Hampton (see Note 4), it can be "the interpersonal process by which a manager seeks to influence employees to accomplish tasks." Fiedler (see Note 4) suggests it is ". . . relationships involving power and influence . . . " To the traditional BIA administrator, this may be a new realm. P.L. 95-561 has begun and will continue to create many new conflicts, and the BIA administrator who seeks the shelter of the office will intensify those conflicts. Therefore, to assist the administrator in the implementation of the law, this article will discuss leadership styles, subordinate styles, and situational factors that effect leadership.

Little conclusive evidence supports the idea that personality characteristics are important to successful management. Such characteristics are not defined consistently and are difficult to estimate or measure. However, useful information can be gleaned and utilized by the school administrator. Ghiselli (see Note 6) reported that a successful administrator possesses the ability to provide guidance and direction, and that intelligence and decisiveness are linked with success, but less strongly. Mahoney (see Note 11) concluded that an individual’s interest and values may be indicators for predicting his effectiveness in general or in a specific job situation. He suggested that whenever possible, an administrator’s interest should be investigated in relation to the performance desired.

Other studies, such as the one reported by Stogdill (see Note 16) show that leaders have a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, usually are vigorous and persistent in the pursuit of goals, are venturesome and original in problem-solving, exercise initiative in social situations, are self-confident and have a sense of personal identity, are willing to accept consequences for decisions and actions, exhibit a readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, show a willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, and demonstrate the ability to influence others or are able to structure social situations to the purpose at hand.

The need for power may also be manifested through leadership styles. Schrage (see Note 16) and Wainer and Rubin (see Note 20) stated that the personal-power leader tends to dominate, be inspirational, and make demands for personal loyalty. Some, because of their need to dominate, are overbearing in their actions and continually interfere with subordinates. This type is often quite uninhibited in exercising any sort of personal dominance that is not within the realm of the task.

On the other hand, the social-power leader tends to channel efforts toward impersonal commitments to do what the task requires. He differs from the personal-power leader, since personal-power is based upon the leader and tends to disappear when the leader leaves, while the loyalty evoked by social-power leader is attached to the organization and is more likely to survive when the leader leaves.

Furthermore, as Schrage, Wainer and Rubin have indicated, the most successful leaders have high needs for achievement and moderate to low needs for power. This achievement orientation tends to be compatible with the aggressive behavior that the organization requires for success, while the low need for power is channeled into the hiring of highly trained professionals whose technical abilities are able to contribute to the organization’s success. But, the leader with a high need for power and a low need for achievement tends to hire subordinates who are less qualified professionally. Therefore, it seems that the higher the leader’s need for achievement, the greater the organization’s success, while the higher the leader’s need for power, the lower the organization’s success.

Investigations have been performed on task-oriented leaders, who are concerned with task accomplishment, and on people-oriented leaders, who are concerned with employee satisfaction. The task-centered leader depressed employee satisfaction and cohesiveness and was often described as autocratic, restrictive, socially distant, directive, and structural. As Stogdill (see Note 18) reported, task-centered leaders were most often associated with productivity—but their autocratic or restrictive styles tended to inhibit it while their socially distant or directive styles were associated with productivity.

On the other hand, people-centered leaders were not consistently related to productivity either, nor did they always enhance employee satisfaction. These leaders were most often described as democratic, permissive, follower oriented, participative, and considerate. Stogdill generally felt that the task-centered leader seemed to accomplish the desired direction and the people-centered leader tended to promote employee satisfaction and group cohesiveness. Each style may have merit, however, and must be measured in relation to the goals and objectives of the institution, for each may produce the desired institutional outcomes.

A leader is unable to lead unless there is someone who is willing to follow. Because of this fact, investigators looked at this marriage, and concluded that it is usually beneficial for the styles of the subordinates to be related to the styles of the leadership in order for maximum productivity to be achieved. Some have warned that the greater the deviation the less that is accomplished. Stimson (see Note 17) supported this view when he found that less experienced subordinates tended to prefer the people-centered leader, while the more experienced subordinates desired the task-centered leader.

To the educational leader, this is important, for it provides a foundation for the selection of the leadership style that most correctly fits the present subordinate situation. Another study which may support this hypothesis is Gouldner’s (see Note 8) categories of locals and cosmopolitans. Locals tended to be high in loyalty to the organization and low in commitment to specialized role skills and the cosmopolitans were just the opposite. Through his study, it may be concluded that organizations are made up of employees who are in different roles. Because of these pre-existing roles, it may be necessary for the leader to establish numerous leadership styles in order to promote efficient organizational personnel direction.

It is the belief of some, that situations have a direct bearing on the characteristics of the personnel and, therefore, the leadership of the administrator. According to Ray (see Note 15), the most effective leadership style was dependent on the situation. He concluded that task-centered leaders affect subordinate performance in either favorable or unfavorable situations, while people-centered leaders were associated with affecting performance in situations of intermediate difficulty. Blake and Mouton’ suggested that leaders should be diverse in their styles. They felt that by being fluid, the leader could attain more productivity as well as augmenting more group satisfaction. Fiedler found that the better the leader’s relationship with the group,’ the more structured the task, and the greater the leader’s power, the easier the situation was to manage. Finally Golembrewskil suggested that personality, task characteristics, task roles, and group characteristics affect leadership. Because of these variables, he felt that leadership techniques should be selected according to the situation and may have implied that an incorrect selection may cause incorrect subordinate responses.

Public Law 95-561 is a reality and is rapidly becoming more so to the Bureau administrator. The law brings more autonomy to the local school administrator, and it also brings more responsibility. It promotes, possibly for the first time, local control and, therefore, local administrator control. Hence, the administrator must be effective in his leadership role.

The law causes budgeting, personnel contracting, and the establishment, training, and guidance of school boards. Consequently, the traditional planning-controlling-organizing BIA administrator will shortly need to become the leadership oriented administrator. Much time has to be invested into the characteristics of leader, the needs of the subordinates, and the situations surrounding particular responses. Also, investigations have shown that a leader has to be concerned with the task as well as his subordinates and himself. Conclusions indicate that a leader who has too much concern will reduce the attainment of the desired direction. Studies strongly suggested that a leader must be fully aware of the goals and the objectives of the organization, and utilize the correct style to promote the desired direction of the organization. If the personal-power of the BIA administrator is more important than organization achievement, the school will be less successful and the subordinates less satisfied.

Possibly for the first time in the history of the Bureau, the administrator has the opportunity to become more of an instructional facilitator and less of a manager. To perform this task, much time will have to be devoted to becoming aware of the community’s educational desires with legislated avenues sought for implementation. Coordination of all the physical-social-economical components will become paramount. Continuous administrator exposure to all will be necessary, for all will promote the desires of the local education system. The BIA administrator who fails to move as a leader may enjoy a short tenure of office.

1. Blake, Robert R. and Mouton, Jane S. The Managerial Grid, Texas Gulf Publishing, Houston, 196 page 291.

2. Case, C. C. "Navajo Education: Is There Hope?" Educational Leadership, Volume 29, November 1971, pages 129-132.

3. Crowe, Bruce J., Bachner, Stephen, and Clark, Alfred W. "The Effects of Subordinates’ Behavior on Managerial Styles," Human Relations, Volume 25, No. 3, 1972, page 215.

4. Fiedler, Fred E. The Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1967.

5. Fiedler, Fred E., and Chemers, Martin M. Leadership and Effective Management, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1974.

6. Ghiselli, Edwin Explorations in Managerial Talents, Goodyear Publishing Company, Pacific Palisades, California, 1971, page 62-63.

7. Golembrewski, Robert T. "Three Styles of Leadership and Their Uses," Personnel, Volume 38, No. 4, page 34.

8. Gouldner, Alvin W., "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, December, 1957-March, 1958, pages 281-306, 440-480.

9. Hampton, David R. Contemporary Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1977, pages 279-289.

10. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R. K. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 10, 1939, pages 271-299.

11. Mahoney, Thomas A. Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness, Building the Executive Team, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1961, pages 186-197.

12. McClelland, David C. and Burnam, David H. "Power Is the Great Motivator," Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1976, pages 100-110.

13. Good Guys Make Bum Bosses," Psychology Today, December, 1975, pages 69-70.

14. Porter, Lyman W. and Sawler, Edward E. and Hackman, J. Richard, Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1975, page 425.

15. Ray, J. J. "Task Orientation and Interaction Orientation Scales," Personnel Psychology, Volume 26, No. 1, 1973, pages 61-73.

I6. Schrage, Harry. "The R and D Entrepreneur: Profile of Success," Howard Business Review, November-December, 1965, pages 56-69.

17. Stimson, John E. and Robertson, John. "Follower Maturity and Preference for Leader-Behavior Style," Psychological Reports, February, 1973, pages 247-250,

18. Stogdill, Ralph M. Handbook of Leadership, The Free Press, New York, 1974.

19. Thompson, Hildegard. The Navajos Long Walk for Education, Navajo Community College Press, Tsaile, Arizona, 1975.

20. Wainer, Herbert A. and Rubin, Irwin M. "Motivation of Research and Development Entrepreneurs: Determinants of Company Success," Journal of Applied Psychology, June, 1969, pages 178-184.

An introductory article on this subject was published in the January 1980 issue of JAIE, also authored by Sigmund A. Boloz and Carl G. Foster. Boloz is curriculum advisor for District 19, Ganado Public Schools, Ganado, Arizona 86505, and Dr. Foster is in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Northern Arizona University, Box 5774, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001.