Download THE EFFECTS OF PRINCIPALS` HUMOR ORIENTATION AND

THE EFFECTS OF PRINCIPALS’ HUMOR ORIENTATION AND PRINCIPALS’
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE ON PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP
EFFECTIVENESS AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Rachel L. Jones
December, 2006
© 2006
RACHEL L. JONES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THE EFFECTS OF PRINCIPALS’ HUMOR ORIENTATION AND PRINCIPALS’
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE ON PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP
EFFECTIVENESS AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS
Rachel L. Jones
Dissertation
Approved:
Accepted:
______________________________
Advisor
Dr. Sharon Kruse
______________________________
Department Chair
Dr. Susan Olson
______________________________
Committee Member
Dr. Andrew S. Rancer
______________________________
Dean of the College
Dr. Patricia A. Nelson
______________________________
Committee Member
Dr. Xin Liang
______________________________
Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. George Newkome
______________________________
Committee Member
Dr. Catherine C Knight
______________________________
Date
______________________________
Committee Member
Dr. Duane M. Covrig
ii
ABSTRACT
The interpersonal communication skills of principals have become increasingly
more critical to their success and therefore increased attention to the specific
communication traits leading to enhanced effectiveness is demanded. The purpose of this
study was to examine the relationship between teacher perceptions of principals’ humor
orientation, communication competence, and leadership effectiveness. Additionally, the
power of the independent variables, perceived humor orientation and communication
competence, to predict perceived leadership effectiveness was also examined. This study
utilized trait theory of leadership, transformational leadership theory, charismatic
leadership theory, as well as research on communication competence, administrator
communication, humor, and humor orientation.
This study used a survey administered to elementary teachers in three large
suburban school districts to determine their perceptions. Data were collected from 338
elementary teachers from 15 different schools. The instruments used were the Humor
Orientation Scale (HOS), the Audit of Administrator Communication (AAC), and the
Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ). Pearson Correlation Coefficients were run to
determine the relationship between HOS and PLQ and to determine the relationship
between HOS and AAC. An analysis of variance was done to determine the predictive
power of HOS and AAC related to PLQ. A second method of linear regression was run
iii
in which HOS and AAC were combined to utilize their interaction effect in predicting
PLQ.
Results indicated a significant relationship between HOS and PLQ as well as each
of the six domains of the PLQ. A significant relationship was also found between HOS
and AAC as well as each of the four domains of the AAC. The analysis of variance
yielded significant results for the AAC as a predictor of PLQ however; HOS was dropped
from the equation, as it did not contribute any predictive power beyond the AAC. When
the two independent variables were combined, their interaction effect was also proven to
be a significant predictor of PLQ. Therefore, principals who are perceived as both highly
humor oriented and communicatively competent, will, over 50% of the time, also be
perceived as an effective leader.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Sharon Kruse, for her encouragement,
wisdom, time, and energy. She instinctively knew when I needed pushed, and when I
needed to be picked up. I consider it a privilege to have learned from her. I would also
like to express my gratitude to Dr. Andrew Rancer, one committee member who not only
inspired me but also welcomed me into his home for hours of statistical programming and
analysis. His enthusiasm for my study meant a great deal to me. I am grateful to all of
my committee members for their thoughtful guidance throughout this process.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support I’ve received over the last
4 years from my staff at Gurney Elementary School. A large part of pursuing this goal
was to be able to represent them as they deserve. I have been humbled from my first day
at Gurney in the presence of such devoted, high caliber professionals.
There were many friends and colleagues who have helped me throughout this
process; too many to personally thank. However, Stephen Osborne has shared in my
struggles and triumphs as if they were his own. Through the countless hours of
coursework, research, writing, and the endless driving to and from The University of
Akron, I have found a friend in Steve and I will value that friendship for a lifetime.
My family made it possible for me to achieve this goal. My husband, Russ, has
been a true partner providing me with time and encouragement. I can’t put into words
the gratitude I feel for Russ and being able to share this accomplishment with him. I
v
hope that my journey through the doctoral coursework and dissertation process serves as
a model for my children, Sadie and Rees, so that they know there are no boundaries to
what they can accomplish at any stage in their lives.
My father, Dr. Michael Schwartz, has been the model of educator and leader for
which I strive. He was the inspiration for my study of humorous communication in
leadership. I have truly valued his interest in my research and continuous encouragement
throughout this process.
Finally, my mother, Ettabelle Schwartz, in her own way and quite possibly
without even knowing, instilled in me the confidence to achieve in any path of life I
chose. I am forever grateful for her endless support and unconditional love.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................2
Purpose............................................................................................................4
Assumptions ...................................................................................................6
Delimitations...................................................................................................6
Definition of Terms and Operational Definitions...........................................6
Summary.........................................................................................................9
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................10
Introduction...................................................................................................10
History of Leadership Theory.......................................................................11
Trait Theory of Leadership .......................................................................14
Transformational Leadership ....................................................................16
Charismatic Leadership ............................................................................18
Communication Competence........................................................................20
Interpersonal Competence ........................................................................21
vii
Administrator Communication Competence ............................................26
Humor ...........................................................................................................30
Theories of Humor ....................................................................................30
Functions of Humor ..................................................................................32
Humor Orientation ....................................................................................33
Valuing Human Resources .......................................................................28
Summary.......................................................................................................36
III.
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................39
Introduction...................................................................................................39
Purpose..........................................................................................................39
Variables .......................................................................................................41
Participants....................................................................................................42
Sampling .......................................................................................................45
Instruments....................................................................................................45
Humor Orientation Scale ..........................................................................46
Audit of Administrator Communication...................................................47
The Principal Leadership Questionnaire...................................................50
Data Collection .............................................................................................51
Threats to Internal and External Validity .....................................................52
Data Analysis................................................................................................54
IV.
RESULTS...........................................................................................................55
Introduction...................................................................................................55
Relationship Hypotheses...............................................................................56
viii
Prediction Hypotheses ..................................................................................56
Data Descriptions and Distribution...............................................................56
Variables/Rational and Assumptions of Statistical Tests and Methods .......60
Results...........................................................................................................61
Summary.......................................................................................................70
V.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .....................................................................73
Introduction...................................................................................................73
Summary.......................................................................................................73
Conclusions...................................................................................................77
Discussion.....................................................................................................82
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................90
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................99
APPENDIX A LETTER TO PRINCIPALS.........................................................100
APPENDIX B SUPERINTENDENT CONSENT LETTER................................101
APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS ..........................................................................102
APPENDIX D INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD LETTER ........................106
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1 Leadership Theory Timeline ..............................................................................12
2.2 Bass’ Transformational Leadership Model ........................................................17
2.3 Jantzi and Leithwood Transformational Leadership Model...............................18
2.4 Types of Administrator Communication............................................................28
4.1 Frequency Distribution of Participants...............................................................58
4.2 Survey Descriptives............................................................................................59
4.3 The Relationship Between Perceived Humor Orientation and Perceived
Leadership Effectiveness ..............................................................................62
4.4 The Relationship Between Perceived Humor Orientation and Perceived
Communication Competence........................................................................63
4.5 Stepwise Multiple Regression of HO, AAC, and PLQ ......................................65
4.6 HOACC and PLQ Regression ............................................................................66
4.7 Stepwise Multiple Regression of HO, AAC, and PLQF ....................................68
4.8 HOACC and PLQF Regression..........................................................................68
4.9 Stepwise Multiple Regression of HO, AAC, and PLQI .....................................69
4.10 HOACC and PLQI Regression...........................................................................70
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.1 Theoretical framework of leadership, communication competence, and
humor orientation..........................................................................................38
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this era of school choice, when our nation’s public education system is
constantly being challenged, the strengths we seek and strive to develop in our school
leaders are of critical importance. The effectiveness of the school principal is arguably
the best predictor of school success (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980; Valentine &
Bowman, 1988). One critical competency sought in all educational administrators is that
of interpersonal communication (Barth, 1990; Roost, 1991). Both internal and external
constituents – students, staff, families, and community, rely on the school principal for
leadership. According to Valentine (1981), “Most principals spend 75% or more of their
working day communicating with teachers, students, parents, secretaries, and any other
persons with whom they work.” (pp. 34-35). Therefore, it would seem that this
individual would benefit from possessing the necessary competence in communicating
with various factions of the school community in order to be effective.
This study seeks to explore the one aspect of that communication, humor, and its
relationship with leadership effectiveness. Humor orientation, a personality-based
communication trait, has been proven to enhance leaders’ effectiveness in businesses
(Campbell, Martin, & Wanzer, 2001; Rizzo, Wanzer, & Booth-Butterfield, 1999), the
medical profession (Wrench & Booth-Butterfield, 2003), and school classrooms (Aylor &
Opplinger, 2003; Gorham & Christophel, 1992; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999). However, to
1
date no published research has been done in education to determine the effects of an
administrator’s humor orientation. Moreover, since humor orientation has been directly
linked to communication competence (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield,
1995), it would be logical to see a positive relationship between humor orientation and
overall principal leadership effectiveness.
Statement of the Problem
The demands on school principals have accumulated to create an intimidating list
of expectations. No longer is the principal simply the lead teacher. Looking at the longterm role of the principal, Senge (1990) describes it as being a steward of the school’s
vision and mission who must protect the organization and yet, constantly scrutinize it
looking to change. Kennedy (2002) describes the day-to-day role of principal with an
overly extensive list: manager, visionary, instructional leader, politician, strategist,
community leader, emotional leader, child advocate, responsible for increased levels of
achievement for all students, and responsible for creating an equitable allocation of
resources. Kennedy wonders if, in light of this list, the job posting should read, “Only
God Need Apply.” Very few principals could assume all of these roles successfully.
Therefore, standards and expectations for principals focus on the role of being facilitator
and collaborator to illustrate the importance of involving others in the total leadership of
the school. In 1996 the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium developed the
ISLLC Standards for School Leaders. These standards have focused the role of school
leaders, specifically principals, on collaborative, school-based leadership practices.
According to these ISLLC Standards, an effective school administrator is one who
promotes the success of all students by:
2
1. Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation and stewardship of
a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
2. Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
3. Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe,
efficient, and effective learning environment.
4. Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
5. Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
6. Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context.
The National Association for Schools of Excellence (NASE) echoes these
standards and emphasizes that the critical role of the principal dictates that an
individual’s innate personal qualities are more important than their professional skills.
Personal qualities demonstrate the character needed of an effective principal such as
personal flexibility, commitment to working interdependently, and intelligence.
Contrastingly, professional skills can more easily be improved through training and
mentoring. Therefore, identifying those personal qualities and traits most evident in
effective school leaders can guide the continued development of those traits in existing
school leaders and outline an emphasis for the future development of those traits in
upcoming school leaders.
3
Purpose
The statement made by NASE turns much attention to the interpersonal traits of
school leaders. This research study narrows those interpersonal traits to a focus on
communication competence and humor orientation and their relationship with principal
effectiveness. Evidence has shown that communication has become increasingly more
important for school leaders (Carter & Cunningham 1997). Kowalski (2005) points out
that although there are findings that link organizational outcomes to communication, the
actual topic of communication in the literature on educational administration has been
ignored. Kowalski asserts that this is an area in need of study as relationship-enhancing
communication will be most effective for administrators who must initiate and sustain
change. This type of communication will produce mutual understandings, influence,
openness, credibility, trust and ultimately, positive organizational development.
Humor orientation is also a personality-based, communication trait with evidence
of enhancing credibility, trust, influence and other critical organizational components,
similar to communication competence. Humor orientation is an interpersonal trait that
Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield (1991) describe as a predisposition to employ
humor on a regular basis in one’s verbal and nonverbal communications. In addition,
evidence exists that directly links humor orientation to communication competence in
that those demonstrating high humor orientation are more flexible in their
communication, more aware of the emotions of all parties involved in the
communication, and overall better adapters in a variety of communication situations
(Wanzer et al., 1995). Campbell et al. (2001) studied the relationship between humor
orientation and manager effectiveness. In their research they concluded that subordinates
4
who perceived their managers to be highly humor oriented, also perceived them to be
highly effective. This study seeks to closely recreate that test within the field of
educational administration. Communication competence is added as a variable in this
study to emphasize the importance of overall communication skills to the school
principal.
The research questions posed in this study are:
RQ1: What is the relationship between principals’ humor orientation,
communication competence, and leadership effectiveness as perceived by teachers?
RQ2: How much is a principal’s leadership effectiveness predicted by humor
orientation and communication competence?
Methodology for this research study is described in detail in Chapter III. A
sample of convenience was used and consisted of 338 elementary teachers reporting on
15 elementary principals. All teachers completed three survey instruments, the Humor
Orientation Scale (HOS; Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991), the Audit of
Administrator Communication (AAC; Valentine, 1981), and the Principal Leadership
Questionnaire (PLQ; Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). Demographic information of the
teachers was also collected. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each instrument
along with reliability alphas. Correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the
significance of the relationship between each variable being studied. Finally, a multiple
regression equation determined how much a principal’s leadership effectiveness can be
predicted by humor orientation and communication competence.
5
Assumptions
1. The researcher assumes that all teachers participating in the study are certified
or licensed appropriately for their teaching position.
2. The researcher assumes that the measurement instruments employed are
appropriate for this population.
3. The researcher assumes that teachers answering the surveys are doing so
honestly and independently of each other.
4. The researcher assumes that the self-reported demography is sufficiently free
from error.
5. The researcher assumes that teachers read and understand the measurement
instruments’ directions for completion.
Delimitations
This study was limited to teachers and principals in suburban elementary schools
with students enrolled in grades K-4 or K-5.
The empirical data for this study came entirely from 15 elementary schools, 6 of
which house grades K-5 and 9 of which house grades K-4. The elementary schools are
from three suburban school districts that reside in two different counties within northeast
Ohio. Of the 15 elementary schools, two were reported as “effective,” and 13 as
“excellent” according to the State of Ohio Department of Education.
Definition of Terms and Operational Definitions
Affective Involver. The principal understands the teacher and accepts the
teacher’s feelings, thoughts, and values as measured by the Audit of Administrator
Communication items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 24, and 26.
6
Articulating a vision. Behavior on the part of the principal aimed at identifying
new opportunities for the school staff and developing, articulating, and inspiring others
with his or her vision of the future as measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire
items 1-5.
Charisma. A form of influence one has on followers due to follower perceptions
that the leader has exceptional qualities (Weber, 1947). High levels of emotional
expressiveness, self-confidence, self-determination, and freedom from internal conflict
(House, 1977)
Communication Competence. “The ability of an interactant to choose among
available communicative behaviors in order that he may successfully accomplish his own
interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his fellow
interactants within the constraints of his situation” (Wiemann & Knapp, 1975, p. 26).
Developer. Personal and professional growth is stimulated by the administrator as
measured by the Audit of Administrator Communication items 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23.
Encourager. Positive rather than negative reinforcement is utilized by the
administrator as measured by the Audit of Administrator Communication items 4, 8, 12,
16, and 20.
Fostering group goals. Behavior on the part of the principal aimed at promoting
cooperation among school staff members and assisting them to work together toward
common goals as measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire items 9-13.
High performance expectations. Behavior that demonstrates the principal’s
expectations for excellence, quality, and high performance on the part of t he school staff
as measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire items 22-24.
7
Humor. “Any intentional communicative instance, which is perceived as
humorous by any of the interacting parties” (Martineau, 1972, p. 114).
Humor Orientation. An individual’s predisposition to effectively employ humor
in daily verbal and nonverbal messages (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991).
Individualized support. Behavior on the part of the principal that indicates respect
for school staff members and concern about their personal feelings and needs as
measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire items 14-18.
Informer. Information, directions, and decision to a teacher are clearly
communicated by the administrator as measured by the Audit of Administrator
Communication items 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 25, and 27.
Intellectual Stimulation. Behavior on the part of the principal that challenges
school staff members to reexamine some of the assumptions about their work and rethink
how it can be performed as measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire items2021.
Modeling. Behavior on the part of the principal that sets an example for the
school staff members to follow consistent with the values the principal espouses as
measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire items 6-8.
Trait. A distinguishable, enduring way in which one individual differs from
another (Guilford, 1959).
Transformational Leadership. Leaders with strong values, ideals and who are
very effective in motivating followers to perform in the best interest of the greater good
(Bass, 1985).
8
Summary
Chapter I introduced a study designed to test the theory that there is a strong
relationship between a principal’s communication competence, humor orientation, and
leadership effectiveness. The study also tests the degree to which a principal’s leadership
effectiveness can be predicted by his or her humor orientation and communication
competence. These variables are assessed using the Humor Orientation Scale (BoothButterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991), the Audit of Administrator Communication
(Valentine, 1978), and the Principal Leadership Questionnaire (Jantzi & Leithwood,
1996).
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This review of literature will focus on the three variables being examined in this
research study: leadership effectiveness, communication competence, and humor
orientation. Studying leadership effectiveness requires first a look at the history of theory
on leadership. Because this study examines specific personality traits, the trait theory of
leadership is described. Transformational leadership and charismatic leadership are also
reviewed as they are two models supporting the critical emphasis on principals’
interpersonal skills leading to effectiveness. The interpersonal trait, communication
competence, is then defined and theory supporting its conceptualization is outlined in
detail. Finally, this review covers the variable of humor orientation. Humor is defined,
theories and functions of humor reviewed, and the recent conceptualization of the
personality-based communication trait, humor orientation, is examined in detail. This
literature review lays the groundwork for testing the theory that a significant relationship
exists between leadership effectiveness, communication competence, and humor
orientation.
10
History of Leadership Theory
The term leadership has accumulated a variety of definitions over time.
Leadership has been defined in terms of one’s personality traits, behaviors, patterns of
interaction, role, title, power, influence over others, ability to induce compliance, as a
group process, and various combinations of these (Yukl, 1998). For example, Bowden
(1926) compared leadership with the strength of one’s personality, while Bingham (1927)
asserted that leadership is possessing a great number of desirable personality and
character traits. From an influence perspective, Nash (1929) defined leadership as
influencing a change in follower conduct. Supporting that, Tannenbaum, Weschler, and
Massarik (1961) defined leadership as “interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation
and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified or
specified goals” (p. 7). In fact, in an analysis of commonalities among leadership
definitions, Yukl (1989) determined “most definitions of leadership reflect the
assumption that it involves an influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted
by the leader over followers . . . that it is a group phenomenon involving the interaction
between two or more persons” (p. 3). This comprehensive look at leadership shows the
hallmark of all definitions as interaction and influence between people. Therefore,
communication would be a logical component of leadership to study.
The research and theory of leadership has shifted often over the past century
(Table 2.1). In the early 1900s the “Great Man” theory dominated the study of leadership
(Northouse, 2004). This theory focused on specific traits of those believed to be natural
leaders. These leaders were differentiated from others by their strong personalities,
possession of a great number of desirable traits, and/or their ability to employ a
11
combination of their personality traits to influence others in achieving a particular goal
(Bingham, 1927; Bowden, 1926; Tead, 1929). Support for this theory was gained
through researchers citing various failing organizations that appeared to be “saved” by an
extraordinary leader. However, one major shortcoming of trait theory is its narrow view.
Table 2.1
Leadership Theory Timeline
________________________________________________________________________
1990s
Excellence Theory
1980s
Charismatic Theory
1960s-1970s Personal Situational Theory, Transformational Theory
1950s
Behaviorist Theory
Early 1900s Trait Theory
Late 1800s
Great Man Theory
________________________________________________________________________
Trait theory considers only the one-way effect of leader influencing follower and does
not take environmental or situational factors into account. Furthermore, it does not
consider the interaction effect between the two. Additional details related to trait theory
are provided later in this chapter.
A shift away from trait theory occurred in the 1940s. Stogdill (1948) published
results of surveying leadership research from the turn of the century to 1940. His
critiques of the trait theory research led to its demise. He criticized trait theorists for not
attending to the contexts in which effective leaders arise. He also noted ambiguous
results over those four decades of research, which he alleged resulted in arbitrary lists of
leadership traits from various researchers that often lacked consistency. Thus, in the
1950s and 1960s, a behaviorist approach to studying leadership emerged (Northouse,
2004). Researchers began to identify behaviors that were consistently demonstrated by
12
effective leaders. However, once again, this approach narrowly focused on solely
behaviors and did not attend to the context in which these behaviors were employed.
In 1974, Stogdill published a review of leadership trait studies from 1949 to 1970
that culminated in an illustration of how research had begun to produce empirical
evidence of consistent traits and skills found in effective leaders. Although this was not a
return to supporting the original trait theory from the turn of the century, Stogdill
concluded that possession of particular traits and skills does increase the likelihood that a
leader will be effective. Also critical in Stogdill’s report was his insistence for situational
factors to be considered in the study of effective leadership. From this, a personalsituational theory of leadership began in which researchers considered contexts when
identifying the most effective personality traits of a leader. This body of research
recognizes that leaders with certain traits may be effective in one situation but not in
another.
To conceptualize the relationship between a leader’s traits, behaviors, and
situational factors, Rost (1991) contends the excellence theory of leadership emerged.
This theory asserted that excellent leaders have consistent traits such as energy,
trustworthiness, charisma, or communication, which help them choose the correct
behaviors so that they are most effective in various situations. However, this
combination can be traced back to Westburgh (1931) who asserted that leadership
includes the personal and action traits of the individual as well as the conditions in which
the individual is asked to lead. It appears that this theory of considering traits, behaviors,
and situations together has existed for quite some time but perhaps has lacked support, as
researchers tend to focus on only one aspect of leadership at a time.
13
Trait Theory of Leadership
According to Yukl (1981), personality traits are stable dispositions to behave in a
particular way. These traits remain constant over time and context. As early as 1869,
Galton began studying the hereditary patterns of “great men.” Most early theorists
followed this rationale and began to study leadership based on one’s inherited traits. This
proclaimed “great man” theory focused on identifying the innate characteristics possessed
by effective leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther
King that clearly differentiated them from their followers.
There are several positive aspects of the trait theory of leadership outlined by
Yukl (1998). First, it is an appealing and comforting notion that our leaders are gifted
individuals with characteristics differentiating them from ordinary. Second, the trait
theory also has a century’s body of research to support it. No other theory can match that
history and depth of study. Third, within the leadership process, trait theory is the only
study of the pure leader component. It does not look at the situation or the followers; it
seeks only to better understand the leader within the process. Finally, the trait theory of
leadership provides those in the field with an idea of the characteristics that will be most
beneficial in their positions or in hiring others for critical positions. It can provide
supervisors or employers with a guide when seeking to enhance the leadership effect of
an organization.
Over time the trait theory of leadership has received criticism. One critical claim
is that the theory provides no definitive list of traits; instead, subjective, arbitrary lists are
used by various organizations, fields and researchers (Northouse, 2004). Critics claim
that the trait theorists’ failure to consider the role of situations in leadership is a major
14
shortcoming. Also, critics note that trait research tends to look solely at specific traits
and the emergence of leadership but not at how those traits have affected certain
outcomes such as productivity, achievement, or follower satisfaction (Northouse, 2004).
A final criticism of the trait theory is that it provides no support for the training or
improvement of leaders. If traits are indeed personal qualities that are stable over time
and context, such as IQ, then one could conclude that little can be provided in terms of
leadership training (Stogdill, 1974).
Despite the shortcomings noted in the trait theory of leadership, Stogdill’s follow
up study in 1974 of trait research did elicit several consistent traits and skills of leaders.
Stogdill provided these as evidence of common traits and skills within leaders but
emphasized that possessing these personal characteristics simply increases the likelihood
that the leader will be effective, it is not a guarantee. Stogdill also emphasized the need
to consider the contextual factors in which the leader is placed when studying his or her
effectiveness. The traits and skills that Stogdill concluded relate to leader effectiveness
are as follows:
Traits – adaptable to situations, alert to environment, ambitious, assertive,
cooperative, decisive, dependable, dominant, energetic, persistent, self-confident,
tolerant of stress, willingness to assume responsibility
Skills – intelligent, conceptually skilled, creative, tactful, diplomatic, fluent
speaking, knowledge of work, organized, persuasive, socially skilled. (Stogdill,
1974)
In continued study by Boyatzis (1982), he found that one attribute serving as the
best differentiator between effective and ineffective leaders is interpersonal skill.
Boyatzis included such characteristics within interpersonal skill as empathy,
persuasiveness, oral communication ability, social insight, charm, tact, and diplomacy.
15
Many of these attributes are included in what has been defined as transformational
leadership and they also tie directly to the two independent variables in this study,
communication competence and humor orientation.
Transformational Leadership
In the 1960s, research in the field of leadership had moved beyond simply trait
and situation studies and began to examine the dynamic interaction and exchange
between leader and follower (Yukl, 1998). Downton (1973) and Burns (1978) began
outlining a new concept of leadership, transformational leadership. Challenges of school
reform and restructuring are reasons cited for a movement supporting this theory
(Leithwood, 1992, 1994). In Burns’ transformational leadership model, the effective
leader is able to reach the motives of his or her followers and to raise their sense of
morality to help them reach their full potential. The transformational leader is in tune to
the needs of his or her followers and yet is able to compel them to put aside their own
self-interests for the benefit of the organization. Bass (1985) provided a model of
transformational leadership asserting that transformational leaders have strong values,
ideals and are very effective in motivating followers to perform in the best interest of the
greater good. Bass included four factors comprising the concept of transformational
leadership: idealized influence/charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. These factors (Table 2.2) are
comprehensive in that they cover the necessary charisma a leader needs to motivate
followers, the need for leaders to use emotional appeals, the need to support and
encourage followers to challenge values and beliefs, and the ability to truly make
16
followers feel valued. Transformational leadership outlined a new concept of leadership
that focused more on one’s interpersonal skills in developing people and building teams.
Table 2.2
Bass’ Transformational Leadership Model
________________________________________________________________________
Factors
Leadership Description
________________________________________________________________________
1. Idealized influence and
Charisma
Leaders whom others wish to emulate; respected and
trusted individuals viewed as role models
2. Inspirational motivation
Motivates by communicating high expectations and
inspiring a shared vision
3. Intellectual stimulation
Encourages followers to be creative and innovative
4. Individual consideration
Serves as a mentor or coach
________________________________________________________________________
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) utilized results of the research on transformational
leadership and adapted models such as Bass’, which were created for nonschool
organizations, to create a new conception of transformational leadership for schools.
Their conception is comprised of six dimensions of transformational school leadership
(Table 2.3). Although this model was adapted from nonschool organizations, it
encompasses the traits and skills educational administrators need to have to successfully
create a culture of experimentation, risk-taking, and open dialogue leading to the norms
and practices of effective schools (Oaks, Quartz, Gong, Guiton, & Lipton, 1993). Jantzi
and Leithwood’s six-dimensional concept is the basis of the Principal Leadership
Questionnaire, which will be used as an assessment instrument in this research study.
17
Table 2.3
Jantzi and Leithwood Transformational Leadership Model
________________________________________________________________________
Dimensions
Descriptions
________________________________________________________________________
Identifying and articulating a
Vision
Identifies new opportunities, articulates and inspires
others with a vision
Fostering the acceptance of
Group goals
Behavior that promotes cooperation; empowers
followers to work collaboratively
Providing individualized
Support
Demonstrates respect for staff and recognizes their
personal feelings and needs
Intellectual stimulation
Challenges staff to reexamine assumptions about their
Work
Providing an appropriate
Model
Sets a strong example of having consistent values
Demonstrates great expectations for excellence and
High performance expectations
quality in work
________________________________________________________________________
Charismatic Leadership
One interpersonal attribute receiving tremendous attention in leadership research
is charisma. Charisma is also an important attribute to examine in that it is a
characteristic noted of the variable, humor orientation, discussed later in this chapter.
Charismatic leadership and transformational leadership are often terms used
interchangeably by authors. However, there are distinct differences. The word
‘charisma’ comes from the Bible, meaning ‘gift’. Max Weber (1947), a sociologist,
studied three main ways of gaining legitimacy in social settings, one of which was
charismatic authority. Weber defined charisma as a form of influence one has on
followers due to follower perceptions that the leader has exceptional qualities. In 1987
18
Conger and Kanungo published their attribution theory of charisma. This theory
purported that follower attribution of charisma to a leader is determined by a combination
of the leader’s behavior, skill, and the contextual factors. Conger and Kanungo
determined that charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders who challenge the
status quo with their vision, use unorthodox ways of achieving the vision, make selfsacrifices and take personal risks, demonstrate self-confidence, and use persuasive
appeals. According to this theory, followers are so enamored with the leader that they are
motivated to please and imitate the leader. Charismatic leaders are able to move
followers past surface level acceptance of his or her values to actually internalizing the
same values, attitudes, and beliefs to achieve the organization’s goal. Proponents of
charismatic leadership advocate that these types of leaders have transformational effects.
The Conger-Kanungo model (1988) suggests the leader uses strategies, which make
followers feel empowered within a situation. The three strategies of leaders empowering
followers are:
1. Visioning strategy to strengthen follower commitment.
2. Context changing strategy - changes factors associated with perceptions of
powerlessness
3. Self-efficacy information strategy – strengthens members’ beliefs in their own
capabilities. (p. 195)
In this sense, Conger and Kanungo believe that the charismatic empowering of followers
can achieve transformational effects. Many of the aforementioned attributes associated
with charismatic leaders are also found in individuals who employ humor on a regular
basis in their communications. This will be outlined in detail later in this chapter.
19
Communication Competence
Yukl (1989) determined that a major commonality among leadership definitions is
the interaction and influence between two or more persons, thus the field of interpersonal
communication begs examination. The study of communication competence shows a
trend of defining competency in behavioral terms emerging in the 1970s. Many
definitions of communication competence utilizing behavioral components have been
professed by scholars with some noticeable agreement and overlap. One source of
confusion is the often-interchangeable terms, communication competence, and
interpersonal competence. Oftentimes, communication competence is defined solely as
oral and written skill proficiency instead of one’s effectiveness in regular, human
interactions. Therefore, it is critical to know the evolution of definitions and the
construct, communication competence.
Researchers have attempted to define communication competence for decades.
White (1959) and Bower (1966) both defined competence in terms of an individual’s
ability to interact effectively in all aspects of their environment. Then in 1969,
Weinstein’s definition of competence narrowed the focus in the field to interpersonal
behaviors. Elaborating on the concept of interpersonal behavior, Bochner and Kelly
(1974) described interpersonal communication competence as achieving the critical goal
of the relationship. In 1977, Wiemann also extended the definition of communication
competence to one’s ability to choose among available communication behaviors in order
to accomplish their goal and still maintain the face and line of the other interactant.
Supporting Wiemann’s (1977) view, Larson, Bachlund, Redmond, and Barbour (1978)
agreed that communication competence is “the ability of an individual to demonstrate
20
knowledge of appropriate communication behavior in a given situation” (p. 16). In 1983,
Spitzberg synthesized many components of these prior schools of thought by defining
communication competence as a construct that encompasses elements of knowledge,
motivation, skill, behavior, and effectiveness.
Interpersonal Competence
Originally, interpersonal competence was the construct developed and studied by
scholars, which encompassed many communication behaviors. Foote and Cottrell (1955)
began using the term interpersonal competence (IC) in their study of social skills. They
included six components in their study of IC: health, intelligence, empathy, autonomy,
judgment, and creativity (p. 41). Over a decade later, Holland and Baird (1968)
developed an instrument to measure IC, the Interpersonal Competency Scale, which was
based on Foote and Cottrell’s model. The scale was proven a valid and reliable
instrument. However, Holland and Baird (1968) did find two of Foote and Cottrell’s
(1955) components to not be consistent with the behavioral concept of IC, intelligence,
and health. These two components were proven to have no effect on one’s competence in
the area of social skills or interpersonal skills.
In 1965, Argyris conceptualized IC in terms of problem-solving abilities. His
model consists of six weighted categories, which can be used to code and analyze
communication behaviors. However, in 1968, Argyris broadened his model. He redefined IC as “the ability to cope effectively with interpersonal relations” (p. 148) and
then outlined three prerequisites for effective “coping”: (a)Accurate perception of the
situation, (b) employing problem-solution strategies that endure, and (c) retaining
cooperation and maintaining effective working relationships with interactants after
21
solutions are chosen and employed. Although Argyris (1968) maintained a focus on
problem-solution interaction, he realized the need to factor in one’s perceptions within a
social situation, thus incorporating more of Foote and Cottrell’s (1955) earlier study of
social skills.
Also conceptualizing IC, Bennis, Van Maanen, Schein, and Steele (1979) outlined
five personal competencies in their model that they asserted would lead to healthy
interpersonal relations. The first competency is the ability to send and receive
information and feelings reliably. To be competent in this area, one must be able to listen
attentively, perceive accurately, and demonstrate a high degree of sensitivity. The second
competency is the ability to express feelings. This area includes both self-disclosure and
empathy. The third competency is the ability to process information and feelings reliably
in an interpersonal experience. The fourth competency is the ability to implement a
course of action. Finally, the fifth competency, the ability to learn in each of the
aforementioned competencies, is the most difficult and yet the most critical. Bennis et.
al. believe that when individuals can be both participant and observer of their own
behavior, maximum growth toward IC will occur. Also important to note is that three of
the five competencies in this model refer specifically to communication behaviors.
Competence in face-to-face interaction, interpersonal communication competence
(ICC), is often studied through one of three main schools of thought. First, Goffman
(1959) viewed the study of face-to-face interaction as self-presentation. He viewed
competence as dyadic and each encounter as a situational constraint on the interactants’
communication behavior. Goffman viewed the competent communicator as one who
demonstrates the critical quality of an encounter through: (a) his presentation of
22
appropriate faces and lines, and (b) his support of the faces and lines presented by others.
Therefore, the competent communicator is capable of helping others maintain their
identity when it is threatened, or “saving face” as it is commonly termed. This view
tends to be narrow in its focus by only examining difficult interactions and primarily
interactions between only two persons.
Argyle (1969) studied ICC as a social skill, which is the second school of thought
and broader than Goffman’s conception. In his framework, Argyle (1972) describes the
social skill process of being motivated by a goal, resulting in selective perceptions of
cues, which are then translated into a set of responses. Argyle outlines seven dimensions
in his model: (a) extroversion and affiliation, (b) dominance-submission, (c) poise-social
anxiety, (d) rewardingness, (e) interaction skills, (f) perceptual sensitivity, and (g) roletaking ability. This model goes beyond the actual face-to-face exchange and
encompasses one’s ability to balance their stance, poise, emotion, and perceptions
throughout the exchange to have an effective lasting impression.
The third school of thought is represented by Bochner and Kelly’s (1974) study of
ICC as a human relations or group interaction. Their conceptual framework is composed
of two assumptions: (a) all human beings are motivated to interact effectively in the
pursuit of influencing their environment, and (b) this competency is learned throughout
one’s lifetime. While these two assumptions are consistent with the models proposed by
Argyris (1965, 1968) and Bennis et al. (1979), Bochner and Kelly’s (1974) framework
includes three criteria to evaluate competency: (a) the ability to formulate and achieve
objectives, (b) the ability to collaborate effectively, and (c) the ability to adapt
23
appropriately to situation and/or environment variations. Bochner and Kelly cite five
skills most likely to contribute to ICC: (a) empathy, (b) descriptiveness/feedback,
(c) owning feelings and thoughts, (d) self-disclosure, and (e) behavioral flexibility. In
1977, Bochner and Yerby tested the Bochner and Kelly model (1974). The Group
Assessment of Interpersonal Traits (GAIT) instrument was used and the results indicated
two factors accounting for 62% of the variance. The first factor, Interpersonal Openness,
is comprised of descriptiveness, owning feelings, and self-disclosure, components of the
Bochner and Kelly model (1974). The second factor, Acceptance/Flexibility, includes
empathy and behavioral flexibility, which are also from the Bochner and Kelly model
(1974).
Pulling from these three schools of thought, Wiemann and Knapp (1975)
proposed a more comprehensive definition of ICC”
The ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors
in order that he may successfully accomplish his own interpersonal goals during
an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within
the constraints of his situation. (p. 26)
From this definition and based on previous models from Argyris (1962, 1965), Bochner
and Kelly (1974), Argyle (1969, 1972), and Goffman (1959, 1963, 1967), Wiemann
created his model of ICC that included five dimensions: (a) affiliation/support, (b) social
relaxation, (c) empathy, (d) behavioral flexibility, and (e) interaction management. Each
dimension can be identified according to observable behaviors in face-to-face
interactions. Interaction management is, according to Wiemann (1977), the “sin qua
non” of competence (p. 199). Interaction management encompasses those procedural
guidelines that structure and maintain interaction. Skillful interaction management is the
24
ability to handle such procedures as initiation/termination of interaction, allocation of
speaking turns, and control of topics. Successful management is defined as handling
these matters in such a way as to satisfy all participants. According to Wiemann (1977)
there is greater evidence linking interaction management to communication competence
than there is for any of the other four dimensions in his model.
As Wiemann (1977) maintained the critical component of communication
competence to be interaction management, Hazleton and Cupach (1986) supported that
assertion with a study of “ontological knowledge”. Hazleton and Cupach conceptualized
“ontological knowledge” as the communicators’ perceptions of social reality. It is the
communicators’ ability to describe, predict, and explain human behavior. Wiemann’s
(1977) dimension, interaction management, is focused on skill, but as pointed out by
Wiemann and Kelly (1981), “knowledge without skill is socially useless, and skill cannot
be obtained without the cognitive ability to diagnose situational demands and constraints”
(p. 290). In Hazleton and Cupach’s study (1986), ontological knowledge was proven to
be significantly associated with communication competence.
Wiemann (1977) developed a model of communication competence that included
attributes of the communicatively competent that may be observed and measured by
others. Researchers have gone on to study how the competence of a communicator is
judged. Pavitt (1990) posits that observers compare a communicator’s performance to
that of the “ideal” communicator. Pavitt and Haight’s (1986) inferential model of
competency evaluation contains two parts. First, there is a structure for representing
competence-related beliefs. This structure is composed of prototypes, which are created
by three concepts: (a) focal concept, which names the prototype; (b) traits that describe
25
the focal concept’s characteristics; and (c) behaviors that describe the focal concept’s
characteristics. For example, the communicatively competent (focal concept) person is
fairly talkative (trait/behavior). Second, there is a process by which these beliefs are used
in evaluating a communicator’s competence. The first stage, impression formation, is
when the observer forms an impression of the communicator, his or her focal concept,
traits, and behaviors. The second stage, competence evaluation, is when the observer
evaluates the communicator’s competence by comparing the impression to their
impression of the “ideal” communicator. The purpose of studying competence is to
discover how communicators succeed or fail in making desirable, effective impressions
of themselves on observers. This perceiver-oriented approach is thus a most profitable
choice in studying aspects of communication.
Administrator Communication Competence
Research shows that educational administrators at all levels spend at least 70% of
their time directly involved in the communication process (Miltz & Kanus, 1977).
Therefore, communication competence in school leaders would seem a critical need for
an effective organization. Katz and Kahn (1978) stress the importance of a free flow of
information within an organization. This flow of information prevents
intraorganizational problems and supports the relationship of the organization to the
larger social context (Katz & Kahn, 1978). The organization’s leadership must
encourage feedback and confirmation messages within the communication system.
Luthans (1973) agrees with this view and emphasizes that organizational communication
must be examined behaviorally as communication effects change through both
psychological and language processes.
26
Within an organization, communication flows either horizontally or vertically
(Valentine 1981). Horizontal communication supports organizational interaction stability
while vertical communication is used to effect change. Katz and Kahn (1978) note a
distinct difference in upward and downward communication flow in that upward
communication is not characterized by spontaneous or complete expression. Downward
communication, from leader to subordinate, is used for five purposes in an organization:
(a) task instruction, (b) task rationale, (c) procedures and practices, (d) feedback, and
(e) indoctrination of goals (Katz & Kahn). Luthans (1973) emphasized the need for
attention to both the upward and downward channels of communication as it does create
one of the greatest challenges for the administrator.
The importance of communication by the organizational administrator is also
emphasized by Mackay and Gaw’s (1975) description of monologic and dialogic
communication. Table 2.4 describes both types of communication. Monologic
communication by an administrator creates a more traditional image of a boss. In
contrast, dialogic communication by an administrator is more personal in nature. This
type of communication uses words to transmit both a personal and cognitive meaning.
Dialogic communication is most effective in organizations experiencing and/or sustaining
change. Mackay and Gaw’s list of descriptors for dialogic communication by an
administrator is very similar to the functions of one’s use of humor, as will be outlined
later in this chapter.
27
Table 2.4
Types of Administrator Communication
________________________________________________________________________
Monologic
Dialogic
________________________________________________________________________
Power over others
Creates an atmosphere of openness,
freedom and responsibility
Persuasion for personal gain
Establishes mutual trust and respect
Shaping another’s image regardless of
other’s concern for developing a unique
self
Uses sincerity and honesty in
communication
Developing one’s own prestige and status
at the expense of others
Appreciates individual differences and
uniqueness
Willing to admit errors
Gives effective feedback and uses feedback
Demonstrates a positive attitude toward
understanding and learning
________________________________________________________________________
Valentine (1981) assessed various instruments in existence that measure
interpersonal communication in school organizations. Two shortcomings of existing
instruments were noted. First, some instruments focused on components of interpersonal
communication and encompassed all aspects of social interaction but lacked the
understanding of the relationship between communication and leader behavior. Second,
other instruments gave a much more comprehensive look at organizational
communication but were such extensive assessments that they were not practical for
assisting school leaders with immediate and useful feedback. Therefore, Valentine
28
(1981) created his own model of an administrator communication audit based on the
research and realities of school administration.
Valentine’s model is comprised of five constructs. First, the school leader
communicates as an Affector. This construct describes the school leader as one who
accepts feelings and values of staff members, shows an interest in staff members’
personal lives, and shares his or her own personal thoughts and values to allow staff
members to see them as not solely an authority figure. The second construct is
Encourager. A school leader is an encourager by positively reinforcing staff through
praise and compliments, using humor to create a positive atmosphere, discussing
thoughts shared by teachers and even rephrasing them to show increased attention. The
third construct is Involver. A school leader is an involver by promoting teacher
involvement in discussions related to school issues, creating a sense of belonging and
worth. The fourth construct is Provider. A school leader is a provider by continuously
informing teachers of various aspects related to the school and clearly expressing
directions, expectations and decisions to all staff. The fifth construct is Promoter of
Growth. A school leader is a Promoter of Growth by promoting goal setting by staff
members to reach professional maturity, by giving quality and honest assessment
feedback to all staff, and by encouraging thorough evaluation of all educational programs
and improvements. Valentine has used these five constructs of administrator
communication to create the Audit of Administrator Communication which is the
instrument used in this study and described in detail in Chapter III. It is important to note
that Valentine clearly stated the use of humor in the construct of Encourager as a means
29
for creating a positive environment for teachers. In upcoming sections, humor will be
outlined in detail noting this specific function as well.
Humor
In studying the effects of humor, a definition of humor must first be established.
Several definitions of humor exist. Sociologists often define humor in terms of
interaction, specifically, intentional attempts to provoke a laugh or smile (Fine, 1984).
Ziv (1988) defined humor as social messaging that intends to evoke a laugh or a smile.
Chapman and Foot (1976) defined humor using three constructs, stimulus, response, and
disposition. As a stimulus, humor is any communication intended to elicit a response
characterized by laughing or smiling. A response is the amount of laughter and smiling
elicited from the situation. Disposition is related more to a personality trait that may be
considered an individual’s “sense of humor.” A more comprehensive definition of humor
and one that will be used as the definition of humor for the purposes of this study was
developed by Martineau (1972), “ any intentional communicative instance which is
perceived as humorous by any of the interacting parties” (p. 114). Beyond this definition
of humor, several theories of humor must also be understood in studying the effects of
humor on other constructs.
Theories of Humor
Several theories exist related to the existence and use of humor in society.
“Laughter as an expression of feelings of superiority over someone else,” is Morreall’s
definition of the Superiority Theory (1987). Superiority Theory has been the dominant
theory of humor since the 1600s. This theory implies that those laughing are enjoying
humiliating someone or watching someone being humiliated. It has been reported that
30
much of what is considered funny, is based on the disparagement of others, which then
emotionally elevates individuals above the target, eliciting enjoyment. The type of
humor related to this theory is most often disparaging, or aggressive.
A second perspective, the Incongruity Theory, evolved approximately 200 years
ago (Morreall, 1987). This theory also treats humor as a type of enjoyment. It is the
enjoyment found in something that does not fit one’s “mental patterns.” For example, the
laugh that comes from seeing snow fall in mid-April or from finding the humor in the
oxymoron term of “jumbo shrimp.” The incongruity theory has a second direction,
incongruity-resolution theory, which is the reaction when discovering that two
incongruous terms are actually related (Suls, 1983). A person might not understand the
humor in a joke because they cannot make the connection between the two elements. An
example would be a person not finding humor in a man named “Tiny” without the
knowledge that the man is actually a seven foot seven inches tall professional basketball
player.
A third perspective is the Relief Theory. The basic premise of this theory is based
on the early work of Freud and other psychologists and is the belief that laughter is a
release of repressed or unused energy (Brooks, 1992).
Morreall (1983) describes his own theory of humor, Mental Distance, which can
be thought of in terms of time or space. We’ve all said at some point, “I’m sure we’ll
laugh about this years from now.” Events are found humorous after adequate time has
passed and mental distance has been achieved. Similarly, being able to joke about
situations that are geographically far away also creates mental distance.
31
These theories of humor are not exhaustive but allow a base for understanding the
background and research. With this understanding, humor can be studied as a function.
Functions of Humor
Research has shown various forms of humor to be very functional in our society.
Related to communication, Graham, Papa, and Brooks (1992) reported positive functions
of humor such as playfulness and establishing friendships, which are positively correlated
to communication competence. Humor is also used as a tool for managing anxiety or
embarrassment as it can divert attention from an uncomfortable situation (Ziv, 1984). As
an interpersonal skill, humor is used to introduce difficult topics or avoid difficult topics .
Humor has also been proven as a means of social control. Humor can be used
effectively to show approval or disapproval of someone’s actions that may agree with or
violate group norms (Webb, 1981). Coser (1960) wrote that “in laughter, all are equal”
(p. 111), illustrating the point that humor equalizes the status among members in a group.
This also would allow easy assimilation of new members into a group. These
conclusions are supported by Sherman (1985) who also found humor to be a useful tool
in reducing social distance. These social benefits of humor are often observed in
organizations.
In an organizational setting, Vinton (1989) found that humor was effective in
socializing new members to the culture, creating bonds among employees, and
facilitating the accomplishment of work. Deal and Kennedy (1982) also support
organizational humor as they found it unifies employees, enhances cultural values, and
reduces conflict. Moreall’s (1983) research provided evidence that workplace humor
enhances mental flexibility and mental and physical health. He found that humor
32
provided the “social lubricant” that positively established camaraderie among coworkers.
Studies show that managers believe humor is a most effective way of dealing with
conflict, relieving tensions and stress, motivating employees, and enhancing overall
communication channels (Davis & Kleiner 1989; Malone 1982).
Humor Orientation
In 1991 Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield began to study humor in
communication from a productive perspective. Realizing that the effective generation of
humor was restricted to only a few while the majority serve as audience member, BoothButterfield and Booth-Butterfield began to study these differences in humor
communication and eventually conceptualized the communication trait, humor
orientation (HO). Individuals who are skilled at producing humor and do so regularly
across a variety of contexts demonstrate the communication-based personality trait of
humor orientation. With the conceptualization of the humor orientation trait being just
over a decade old, researchers are only beginning to discover its impacts. In creating and
testing their HO scale, Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield concluded that people
who are high in HO perceive more situations as appropriate for humor use, perceive few
situations as inappropriate for humor use, and use a greater variety of categories of
humorous communication (i.e., impersonation, nonverbal, etc.). High HOs will use
humor spontaneously across a wide variety of situations.
Since the recognition of the trait humor orientation, several studies have been
done to test the effects of being a highly humor-oriented individual or a low humororiented individual. In 1996, Wanzer et al. studied effects of HO on an individual’s
popularity. Using college students, participants rated themselves on the HO Scale and
33
the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Each participant asked outside acquaintances to rate them
on the HO Scale and on a measure of social attractiveness. The results showed that in
general, high HO people were less lonely and their acquaintances perceived them to be
more humorous. These results support prior research showing that a “sense of humor” is
associated by many with maturity and social competence (Masten, 1986). People who
are viewed as funny or humorous are better able to function in society, make friends
easier, and are more socially attractive (McGhee 1989). Sherman (1985) found that this
applied to children as well in that children considered by their peers to be less humorous,
were liked the least.
In 1995, Wanzer et al. studied the connection between HO and communication
competence. Their study included the use of college students completing the HO scale,
the Social Management Scale for communicator competence, and the Affective
Orientation Scale. Results indicated that people with higher HO were more flexible in
their communication. They are not incessantly funny, rather they are able to recognize
and adapt to communication situations, thus being more communicatively competent.
Their results also showed that higher HO individuals are more aware of emotions and use
them to guide their communication.
Additional studies have been done to show the effects of the perceived HO of an
individual. For example, Wrench and Booth-Butterfield (2003) utilized undergraduate
students, graduate students, and general public citizens at a shopping mall to complete the
HO scale reporting on their physician. They also completed surveys reporting their
perceptions of their physician’s credibility and of their overall medical satisfaction.
Results showed that patients who perceived their physicians to be highly humor oriented,
34
also perceived them to have greater credibility thus resulting in greater patient
satisfaction and compliance.
Similar to the medical field, HO has been studied in the field of education as it
relates to teachers and students. Student perceptions of teacher’s HO have been shown to
impact student learning. Gorham and Christophel (1992) identified humor as a behavior
teachers use to motivate students in the classroom. In their research, Wanzer and Frymier
(1999) sought a relationship between student perception of teacher HO and student
learning. Using over 300 undergraduate students in communication, they required
participants to complete the HO scale referring to the professor they had had prior to
coming to the communication class. They also completed an affective learning scale and
the Learning Indicators scale. Results showed a significant, positive correlation between
student perceptions of their teacher’s HO and student reports of learning as well as
greater affect for the teacher and course. Also in the field of education, Aylor and
Opplinger (2003) questioned whether student perceptions of their teacher’s HO would
significantly affect the amount of and satisfaction with student-teacher out-of-class
communication (OCC). Undergraduate students were utilized as participants.
Participants were interviewed as to the frequency and type of OCC they experienced with
a particular teacher and they rated their satisfaction with that OCC on a 5-point Likert
scale from “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied.” Students also completed the HO scale
reporting on that same teacher. Results also showed a significant, positive correlation
between student perceptions of their teacher’s HO and the frequency and satisfaction of
OCC.
35
Another area in which HO has been explored is in the relationships between
business managers and their subordinates. Campbell et al. (2001) studied effects of
subordinate perceptions of manager’s HO. Specifically, they were seeking a correlation
between subordinate perceptions of their manager’s HO and subordinate job satisfaction.
Similar to this internship study, Campbell et al. also observed the relationship between
subordinate perception of their manager’s HO and subordinate perception of the
effectiveness of their manager. The HO scale was used as well as a job satisfaction
survey and a managerial effectiveness measure. Results proved a significant, positive
correlation supporting that when subordinates perceive their managers to be highly
humor oriented, they also perceive them to be more effective and they experience greater
job satisfaction. This supported earlier findings from a very similar study with
subordinates and managers by Rizzo et al. (1999). Therefore, it has been illustrated that
the perceptions of an individual’s HO has a significant impact and influence on those
with whom they work.
Summary
Chapter II has provided the basis for examining the relationship between
leadership effectiveness, communication competence, and humor orientation. Figure 2.1
represents this relationship in a graphic organizer. Leadership is consistently defined as a
process involving two or more people interacting and even influencing each other (Yukl,
1989). Interactions among people cannot be completely understood without a close look
at the communication skills employed. Narrowing this even more to a look at the school
principal as a leader interacting with a wide variety of constituents on a daily basis, the
communication skills of that principal become a critical component of his or her
36
effectiveness. School principals are required to use those communication skills to
accomplish a mounting list of responsibilities in a time of challenge and reform in public
education. Transformational leadership theory describes an administrator who has
charisma, inspires others, is respected, is trusted, is seen as credible, encourages and
empowers others, stimulates creativity, and serves as a mentor (Bass, 1985) Similarly,
Valentine (1981) described an effective administrator communication style to include one
who is trusted with and accepts staff members’ feelings and values, who is encouraging,
who is inspiring, who involves staff members sincerely, and who stimulates personal and
professional growth. While the transformational leader and the effective communicator
share attributes, they all are tied to the cited functions and effects of humor. Evidence
shows humor functions to create cohesiveness among members of an organization,
enhance organizational values, enhance mental flexibility and creativity, motivate,
establish credibility, and increase job satisfaction (Campbell et al., 2001; Deal &
Kennedy, 1982; Moreall, 1983; Wrench & Booth-Butterfield, 2003). The commonalities
among leadership effectiveness, communication competence, and humor orientation are
the basis for examining their relationship.
37
Figure 2.1. Theoretical framework of leadership, communication competence, and
humor orientation.
38
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter reviews the components of the overall methodology used in the
study. Covered in this section are the research questions, variables, population, sampling
and data collection methods, and the internal and external threats to validity.
Purpose
This correlational research study seeks to test and verify a unique theory. This
theory asserts that a principal’s perceived communication competence, and more
specifically, perceived humor orientation, will directly impact his or her perceived
effectiveness as a leader. School principals need strong communication and interpersonal
skills. The ISLLC Standards for School Leaders outline responsibilities for principals
that include facilitating a shared vision, sustaining a nurturing yet academically focused
school culture, enlisting staff to cooperate in safely and effectively managing the facility,
and collaborating with colleagues, families, and community. All of these roles demand
strong communication skills. Effective principals must possess communication skills to
create a climate that influences, unites, inspires, and empowers all stakeholders toward
achieving the school’s mission. Humor in the workplace is one effective means of
establishing just such an environment. Humor functions to effectively reduce stress,
39
increase mental flexibility, socialize new members into the organization, equalize status,
gain approval, manage anxiety, introduce negative information or directives, control
conflict, regenerate values, increase physical and mental health, and more (Coser, 1960;
Davis & Kleiner, 1989; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Malone, 1982; Morreall, 1983; Vinton,
1989). Humor orientation has also been strongly related to communication competence
(Wanzer et al., 1995), and competent communication is rapidly becoming the most
critical hallmark of an effective principal. Therefore, with the proven benefits of
employing humor in communication, it would follow that a principal’s ability to utilize
humor in his or her overall communication behaviors will impact his or her effectiveness
as an educational leader.
The instruments being used to measure these variables are The Humor Orientation
Scale (HOS), The Audit of Administrator Communication (AAC), and The Principal
Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ). These instruments will be described thoroughly in this
chapter.
Two research questions guide this study:
RQ1. What is the relationship between principals’ humor orientation,
communication competence, and leadership effectiveness as perceived by teachers?
Based on this research question, the following research hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 1. There is a significant relationship between humor orientation as
measured by the HOS and leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ
composite and six domains.
Hypothesis 2. There is a significant relationship between humor orientation as
measured by the HOS and communication competence as measured by the AAC
composite and four domains.
40
RQ2. How much is a principal’s leadership effectiveness predicted by humor
orientation and communication competence?
Based on this research question, the following research hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 3. Leadership effectiveness as measured by the composite score on
the PLQ will be significantly predicted by humor orientation as measured by the
composite score of the HOS and by communication competence as measured by
the composite score on the AAC.
Hypothesis 4. Leadership effectiveness as measured by the domain of the PLQ,
Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals, will be significantly predicted by
humor orientation as measured by the composite score of the HOS and
communication competence as measured by the composite score on the AAC.
Hypothesis 5. Leadership effectiveness as measured by the domain of the PLQ,
Providing Individualized Support, will be significantly predicted by humor
orientation as measured by the composite score of the HOS and communication
competence as measured by the composite score on the AAC.
Variables
There are three main variables in this research study. The first variable is
teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s use of humor. The Humor Orientation Scale
(HOS; Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991), a survey instrument described later
in this chapter, measures this variable. The second variable is teachers’ perceptions of
their principal’s overall communication competence. This variable is measured by the
Audit of Administrator Communication (AAC; Valentine, 1978), also a survey
instrument described later in this chapter. Finally, the third main variable, teachers’
perceptions of their principal’s leadership effectiveness, is measured by another survey
instrument, the Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ; Jantzi & Leithwood, 1994).
Data are also collected on additional independent variables related to demographic
information: teacher’s sex, teacher’s race, specific teaching assignment teacher’s years
41
of experience, teacher’s level of education, teacher’s years working with targeted
principal,.
Participants
There are 2,254 public elementary schools in the state of Ohio alone (Ohio
Educational Directory, [ODE], 2005). Rather than attempt a random sampling from each
of those schools, this study was conducted using a nonrandom, convenience sample
approach. Although the results from this study may not be generalizeable to the entire
population of elementary teachers and principals, the information gleaned will contribute
to both the study of communication traits and to the body of knowledge related to
administrator effectiveness.
This study uses three suburban school districts in two different counties of
northeast Ohio. Elementary teachers (K-5) teaching general education, special education,
and specialty areas (e.g., art) were surveyed. All teachers surveyed were licensed or held
Ohio teaching certification in accordance with the State of Ohio Licensure Standards. All
three districts are accredited public schools by the State of Ohio Department of
Education.
The first school district (SD1) is an inner ring suburban district bordering a large
metropolitan city in Cuyahoga County. The racial makeup of the student population is
approximately 34% African American and 61% Caucasian. The racial make up of the
teaching staff is approximately 6% African American and 88% Caucasian. According to
the State of Ohio Department of Education, the district’s overall proficiency rating is
“effective.” There are five elementary schools in SD1, all housing grades K-4:
42
y Elementary School 1 (ES1) is ranked “excellent” and has a male,
Caucasian principal who holds a doctoral degree.
y Elementary School 2 (ES2) is ranked “effective” and has a female,
African American principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 3 (ES3) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 4 (ES4) is ranked “effective” and has a female,
African American principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 5 (ES5) is ranked “excellent” and has a male,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
Through survey implementation, demographic information on the teaching staffs of each
elementary school was obtained.
The second school district (SD2) is a suburban district located in Stark County,
bordering a major metropolitan city in Summit County. The racial make up of the
student population is approximately 3.3% African American and 73.5% Caucasian. The
racial makeup of the teaching staff is approximately 2% African American and 88%
Caucasian. According to the State of Ohio Department of Education, the district’s
overall proficiency rating is “excellent.” There are six elementary schools in SD2, all
housing grades K-5:
y Elementary School 6 (ES6) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 7 (ES7) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 8 (ES8) is ranked “excellent” and has a male,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 9 (ES9) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
43
y Elementary School 10 (ES10) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 11 (ES11) is ranked “excellent” and has a male,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
Through survey implementation, demographic information on the teaching staffs of each
elementary school was obtained.
The third school district (SD3) is a suburban school district in Cuyahoga County.
The approximate racial make up of the student population is 7.5% African American,
2.3% Asian, and 90.2% Caucasian. The racial makeup of the teaching staff is 2.4%
African American and 97.6% Caucasian. According to the State of Ohio Department of
Education, the district’s overall proficiency rating is “excellent.” There are four
elementary schools in SD3, all housing grades K-4:
y Elementary School 12 (ES12) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 13 (ES13) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 14 (ES14) is ranked “excellent” and has a female,
Caucasian principal who holds a masters degree.
y Elementary School 15 (ES15) is ranked “excellent” and has a male,
African American principal who holds a masters degree.
Through survey implementation, demographic information on the teaching staffs of each
elementary school was obtained. In addition, all of the aforementioned figures and
percentages are based on the Ohio Department of Education’s district and building report
cards for the 2005-2006 school year.
44
Sampling
The sample for this study consisted of 338 elementary teachers from the three
school districts. There are four factors to be considered when seeking statistical power:
sample size, level of significance, directionality, and effect size (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2003). A Type I error is the risk of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true (Salkind,
2000). For this research study the significance level, p < .05, is a very conventional level
for research in the social sciences. This means that there is only a 5% chance of rejecting
the null hypothesis when the null is true. A Type II error is affected by the sample size
and how closely the sample characteristics match that of the larger population (Salkind,
2000). As sample size increases, statistical power increases and Type II error decreases.
With a sample size of 100 and for a two-tailed test, a product-moment coefficient of .19
would need to be obtained to be considered significant at the .05 level. Therefore, by
obtaining an N = 300 or more, the results from this two-tailed correlational study will
increase in statistical power. This was a sample of convenience however, so the
characteristics of these elementary teachers and principals from three school districts in
northeast Ohio cannot be seen as representative of the larger population of elementary
school teachers and principals statewide or even nationwide.
Instruments
Three instruments were administered in this study. They are: (a) The Humor
Orientation Scale (HOS) which measures one’s ability to employ humor effectively;
(b) The Audit of Administrator Communication (AAC) which measures one’s
communication competence; and (c) The Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ)
45
which measures a principal’s overall leadership effectiveness. A sample of the
instruments on one document for the purposes of this study’s survey is in Appendix C
Humor Orientation Scale
The Humor Orientation Scale (HOS) developed by Dr. Steven Booth-Butterfield
and Dr. Melanie Booth-Butterfield (1991), measures individual differences in the ability
to encode humor. After reviewing the literature on scales that measured various aspects
of humor, Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield created a list of statements that, for
the first time, directly referenced the communicative use of humor in interpersonal
situations. The HOS was developed using several hundred undergraduate students at a
large eastern university. Dimensionality of the scale was determined through a
confirmatory factor analysis. Item-whole correlations and internal consistency were
determined and indicated a strong unidimensional scale (r = .90). Descriptive statistics
for the original sample showed a mean score of 59.4 and a standard deviation of 9.2 with
a mean item score of 3.5 on the 5-point Likert scale. Booth-Butterfield and BoothButterfield then conducted a retest of the same college students 8 weeks after they first
administered the HOS. The sample retest correlation was .70 showing stability over time
and ruling out mood as a factor in rating. In summary, Booth-Butterfield and BoothButterfield determined the HOS to be a reliable and valid measure of individual
differences in the communication of humor. This researcher also found the instrument
reliable, cronbach’s alpha = .930.
The Humor Orientation Scale is a 17-item measure that may be used as a selfreport measure or another report measure by simply changing the pronoun in each
statement. The statements relate to telling jokes, telling stories, and an overall perception
46
of being funny. Specifically, 11 items address telling jokes, 8 items address telling
humorous stories, 2 items address overall use of humor in communication, and 1 item
calls for a comparison of the subject to others. The participant scores each statement
using the provided likert scale which ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. When scoring the instrument, negative statement scores are reversed. A scale
score can range from a low of 17 to a high of 85.
Since its creation, the HOS has been utilized in many communication research
studies. The HOS has been used to study individual popularity (Wanzer et al. , 1996),
individual communication competence (Wanzer et al., 1995), perceived credibility
(Wrench & Booth-Butterfield, 2003), effects on teaching and learning (Aylor &
Opplinger, 2003; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999), and subordinate job satisfaction (Campbell
et al., 2001). Campbell et al.’s study (2001) of subordinates’ perceptions of their
manager’s humor orientation and overall management effectiveness was the first study to
come close to linking the communication trait, humor orientation, and leadership
effectiveness. Although humor orientation has been studied in the field of education, it
has been limited to only the teacher-student relationship. This research study is unique
because it takes humor orientation and seeks to determine its effects on the perception of
overall leadership effectiveness and it utilizes the field of educational administration.
Audit of Administrator Communication
The Audit of Administrator Communication (AAC), developed by Dr. Jerry
Valentine (1978), provides information regarding teachers’ perceptions of their
principal’s communication skills. Dr. Valentine originally identified 10 constructs
representing the theory and literature in the field of administrator commnunication:
47
Acceptor of Other’s Feelings, Sharer of Own Feelings, Encourager Through
Reinforcement, Encourager Through Feedback, Involver, Provider of Information,
Provider of Directions, Provider of Decisions, Promoter of Personal Growth, and
Promoter of Program Growth. After logical analysis of these constructs, he reduced the
number from 10 to 5: Affecter, Encourager, Involver, Provider, and Promoter of Growth.
Dr. Valentine had the AAC validated by a panel of educators including principals,
teachers, and professors representing K-12 educational expertise. The AAC has a
reliability coefficient of .973 utilizing the Kuder-Richardson Modified 20 Formula. After
a factor analysis, 27 of the original 40 survey items were identified as valuable and
created four factors:
1. Affective Involver (AI) (8 items): The administrator understands and
accepts the feelings, thoughts, and values of the teacher. The administrator seeks
involvement in the personal, nonprofessional life of the teacher and shares
personal, nonprofessional interests with the teachers. The administrator seeks
opinions and feelings on school-related issues and shares with teachers personal
thoughts on school issues. Teachers feel comfortable discussing personal or
professional problems with the administrator.
2. Informer (I) (8 items): The administrator clearly communicates
information, directions, and decisions to the teachers. Teachers believe they are
kept informed as much as is realistic. Teachers understand what is expected.
3. Developer (D) (6 items): The administrator stimulates and encourages the
teacher toward personal and professional growth. This involves establishing
personal and professional goals coupled with a realistic assessment of present
capabilities.
4. Encourager (E) (5 items): The administrator utilizes positive rather than
negative reinforcement. The administrator encourages teachers by showing an
interest in teacher concerns and making the teacher feel those concerns are
significant. (Valentine, 1981, p. 9)
Factor loadings were squared and a sum of those squares determined the percent of
common variance for each factor: AI = 34%, I = 26%, D = 22%, and E = 18%. Factor
scores were developed using normative data following the instruments use in more than
48
50 elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Factor score coefficients for each item
within a factor were identified and then multiplied by the average score of all participants
responding. Those products were then summed by factor to develop the factor scores: AI
= 3.3609, I = 4.8927, D = 4.3712, and E = 3.7923. The AAC is a Likert type scale.
Participants rate their principal on the 27 items using a scale of 1-5 whereby 1 = never, 2
= rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = usually, 5 = always. Scores are then calculated as a total
AAC and subscores for each of the four factors. This researcher’s data and statistical
analysis yielded the following reliability coefficients for the AAC and each domain: Total
AAC = .833, Affective Involver = .900, Informer = .898, Developer -.867, and
Encourager = .822.
Since the creation of the AAC in 1978, it has been used as a valid and reliable
measure of principals’ communication behavior in many studies. The AAC was used to
study the effects of principals’ communication behaviors on such dependent variables as
teacher perception of overall school climate (Denney, 1983), teacher job satisfaction
(Grigsby, 1981), and overall school effectiveness (Knowles, 1984). The AAC has also
been used in comparison studies such as male and female communication behaviors
(Battle, 1982), principal communication behaviors related to their personality styles
(Bueler, 1984), and the differences and similarities in communication behaviors of
elementary, middle, and secondary school principals (Rawn & Valentine, 1980).
Although studies found utilizing the AAC are not very recent, it was chosen for this study
because of its explicit focus on the administrator’s communication behaviors only and
because of its evident ties to Bass’s (1985) model of transformational leadership. As
stated in the literature review, Bass (1985) outlined four factors of transformational
49
leadership which address trust (similar to AI) communication (similar to I), inspiration,
intellectual stimulation (similar to D), and individual consideration or mentoring (similar
to E).
The Principal Leadership Questionnaire
The Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ) was created by Dr. D. Jantzi and
Dr. K. Leithwood (1996) and is based on six dimensions of transformational leadership
(Leithwood, 1994). This questionnaire is also Likert-style with 24 statements on which
teachers rate their principal from 1-4 with one meaning strongly disagree and four
meaning strongly agree. The 24 statements are organized into the six dimensions of
transformational leadership and each factor has a calculated reliability coefficient:
y Identifying and articulating a vision (PV) (5 items): behavior on the part of the
principal aimed at identifying new opportunities for his or her school staff
members and developing, articulating and inspiring others with his or her vision
of the future. (Cronbach’s alpha of .88)
y Providing an appropriate model (MB) (3 items): behavior on the part of the
principal that sets an example for the school staff members to follow consistent
with the values the principal espouses. (Cronbach’s alpha of .86)
y Fostering the acceptance of group goals (FC) (5 items): behavior on the part of
the principal aimed at promoting cooperation among school staff members and
assisting them to work together toward common goals. (Cronbach’s alpha of
.80)
y Providing individualized support (IS) (5 items): behavior on the part of the
principal that indicates respect for school staff members and concern about their
personal feelings and needs. (Cronbach’s alpha of .82)
y Providing intellectual stimulation (NS) (3 items): behavior on the part of the
principal that challenges school staff members to re-examine some of the
assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed.
(Cronbach’s alpha of .77)
y Holding high performance expectations (HE) (3 items): behavior that
demonstrates the principal’s expectations for excellence, quality, and high
performance on the part of the school staff. (Cronbach’s alpha of .73).
(Jantzi D. & Leithwood, K, 1996, pp. 533-534)
50
Scores are calculated for a total PLQ and individual scores for each of the six domains.
The data and analysis from this study resulted in the following reliability coefficients for
the PLQ: PLQ total = .799, Modeling Appropriate Behavior = .901, Providing a Vision =
.891, Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals = .883, Providing Intellectual Stimulation
= .796, Providing Individual Stimulation = .791, Holding High Expectations = .736. The
PLQ was used in a 5-year study of educational policy implementation in the Canadian
province of British Columbia (Leithwood, Dart, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1993). In this
longitudinal study, the PLQ along with two additional surveys were administered to
approximately 700-800 teachers in each year of the study who were engaged in
implementing restructuring policies within their schools and classrooms. In creating this
questionnaire, Leithwood adapted models of transformational leadership developed in
nonschool contexts from Bass (1985), Burns (1978), and Yukl (1989).
Data Collection
Prior to the administration of any surveys, approval was gained from the
Institution Review Board (see Appendix D). The superintendents of each school district
as well as the principals from each elementary school received informed consent
paperwork (see Appendices A and B). To ensure maximum participation and return rate,
the researcher was present at the staff meetings in each school to personally administer
the surveys. A statement assuring anonymity was read to each staff and no building
principals were present. This freed teachers to complete surveys without any undue
pressure for obligatory, biased responses. The researcher collected all surveys from each
participant when completed.
51
For management purposes, the three instruments were combined to create a
survey packet for each participant (see Appendix C). The cover reiterated in writing the
statement made by the researcher ensuring anonymity for all participants. It also
contained questions related to demographic characteristics. Each survey had individual
directions for completing its respective Likert scale. Each survey packet was coded
according to the site, EL1-15. The average time taken for each participant to complete
the packet was 15 minutes. Finally, as a gesture of gratitude to all participants for taking
the time to complete the survey packet, they all received complimentary pens.
Threats to Internal and External Validity
Each of the three instruments described for this research study have some degree
of reliability and validity, which ensures accurate inferences can be drawn form the data
collected. Because this is a correlational study examining the relationships between the
perceptions of principals’ humor orientation, principals’ communication skills, and
principals’ leadership effectiveness, the theories of humor orientation, communication
competence, and leadership effectiveness could only be supported indirectly. Causality is
difficult to determine. Internal validity is the extent to which extraneous variables can be
controlled so that the observed effect can be attributed solely to the targeted variable
(Gall et al., 2003). Tension between teachers and principals is another possible threat to
internal validity. In SD1 for example, a teachers’ strike was just barely avoided a month
prior to collecting the data for this study, and there were discussions regarding the closing
of one of the elementary schools for the upcoming school year. In SD2 - ES8, it was
known that the principal was retiring at the end of the school year. The possible strain of
the relationship between the teachers and the administration in that particular district
52
could affect teacher reporting on surveys. The time of the school year in which data were
collected could also be a threat to validity. Late spring is a difficult time of the year,
often one in which teachers are feeling overburdened with paper work to prepare for the
end of the school year. It is also the time when most districts are required to inform the
teachers’ union of possible reductions in staffs for the next school year. In an attempt to
control for some of these threats, the researcher attended staff meetings personally and
administered and collected surveys in one meeting so that the instrument did not become
part of every teacher’s stack of paperwork. Also, with the cooperation from each
district’s superintendent, the principal of each building was not present during the
administration or collection of the surveys to eliminate any additional emotions or
pressure.
External validity is the extent to which the findings of the research can be applied
to additional populations or environments beyond those that were studied (Gall et al.,
2003). This study is limited in that the sample used is one of geographical convenience
and the elementary teachers and principals used from the three districts in northeast Ohio
may not be representative of the larger population of teachers and principals in the state
or nation. The intention of this study was to survey approximately 300 teachers;
however, they reported on only 15 principals. Additionally, 10 of the principals are
females and 13 of the principals are Caucasian. Because the sample of both teachers and
principals may not be representative of the larger population in the state or the country,
that is to be considered a threat to validity.
53
Data Analysis
This research study used both correlation statistical analysis to determine the
relationship between the variables and also a regression equation to determine if humor
orientation and communication competence can be considered significant predictors of
principal effectiveness. First, descriptive statistics were computed for the results of each
instrument overall and the domains of the instruments. Next, reliability of each
instrument and each instrument’s domains were computed through the use of Cronbach’s
alpha. To answer RQ1, correlation coefficients were determined between the HOS and
PLQ and between the HOS and the AAC. Correlation coefficients were also determined
between the HOS and the individual domains of the PLQ and AAC. These were all twotailed tests with a significance level of .05. To answer RQ2, a multiple regression
equation was calculated to determine if humor orientation and communication
competence are significant predictors of a principal’s perceived leadership effectiveness.
This equation utilized composite scores of the HOS and the AAC. The composite score
of the PLQ was used as the dependent variable for hypothesis three whereas hypotheses
four and five utilized specific domains of the PLQ as the independent variable. From
these statistical analyses, it could then be determined whether or not to reject or accept
the null hypotheses.
54
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction
Chapter III outlined the methodology used in this study. This chapter will review
in detail the several statistical tests that were run on the data collected. First, descriptive
statistics were conducted to collect information on the frequencies related to the
demographic information provided by subjects on each survey. Also, descriptive
statistics were given for each measurement tool used: HOS, AAC, and PLQ. Pearson
Correlation Coefficients were then used to explore the relationship between perceived
humor orientation and perceived communication competence and to show the
relationship between perceived humor orientation and perceived leadership effectiveness.
Two types of multiple regression equations were conducted to determine if the
two independent variables (perceived humor orientation and perceived communication
competence) were significant predictors of the dependent variable (perceived leadership
effectiveness). The first type of multiple regression method used was Stepwise Selection.
This method considers the independent variables as if each was entering the equation last
to determine their individual contributions toward predicting the dependent variable. Due
to possible weaknesses from multicollinearity, another method of regression was used in
which the two independent variables were combined to create one new variable. That
new variable and the dependent variable were then run through a regression analysis to
55
determine their relationship. The outcomes of these tests will be discussed in detail
throughout this chapter. The statistical software used to conduct the analyses was SPSS
for Windows 13.0.
Relationship Hypotheses
H1: There is a significant relationship between humor orientation as measured by
the HOS and leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ composite
and its six domains.
H2: There is a significant relationship between humor orientation as measured by
the HOS and communication competence as measured by the AAC
composite and its four domains.
Prediction Hypotheses
H3: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the composite score on the PLQ
will be significantly predicted by humor orientation as measured by the
composite score on the HOS and by communication competence as
measured by the composite score on the AAC.
H4: One dimension of leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ domain,
Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals, will be significantly predicted by
humor orientation as measured by the composite score on the HOS and
communication competence as measured by the composite score on the AAC
composite score.
H5: One dimension of leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ domain,
Providing Individualized Support, will be significantly predicted by humor
orientation as measured by the composite score on the HOS and
communication competence as measured by the composite score AAC
composite score.
Data Descriptions and Distribution
For this study, 338 elementary teachers were surveyed. The participants were
teachers in three different school districts in northeast Ohio. Table 4.1 displays the
details of the participant demographic information by school district. There were 128
participants from SD1, 97 participants from SD2, and 113 participants from SD3.
56
Overall, 307 of teachers participating were female, 31 male. The breakdown of
participants by race showed a majority of 317 teachers being Caucasian. School District
1 had 113 Caucasian teachers and 13 African American teachers. School District 2 had
95 Caucasian teachers and 1 African American teacher. School District 3 had 109
Caucasian teachers and 3 African American teachers.
The summary of the participants’ current teaching positions shows a total of 214
teaching in general education classrooms with 80 in SD1, 65 in SD2, and 69 in SD3.
There was a total of 64 participants classified as special education teachers with 25 in
SD1, 17 in SD2, and 22 in SD3. Only 58 teachers were reported as specialty area
teachers such as art, physical education, or music. Of those 58, 22 were in SD1, 14 in
SD2, and 22 in SD3.
School District 1 reported the largest number of teachers (44) with 0-5 years of
teaching experience, while School District 3 had the largest number of mid-career
teachers (29) with 11-15 years experience, and School District 2 had the largest number
of veteran teachers (35) with 20+ years of experience. Years of teaching experience and
years of teaching experience with the current principal proved to be very different
descriptors.
In the total sample, 248 participants had only 0-5 years of experience working
with their current principal. In School District 3 none of the participants had worked with
their current principal for more than 10 years, and in School District 1 only 2 participants
reported working with their current principal for more than 10 years.
Over half of the teachers in the entire sample had at least a Masters degree.
Within the sample of teachers, 158 reported having earned a Masters degree and
57
completed additional graduate coursework and 77 of those participants were in School
District 3 alone.
In summary, Table 4.1 illustrates a large sample of primarily female, Caucasian,
well-educated, elementary teachers in general education classrooms. Their years of
experience varied however, the majority of the sample had 5 years or less working with
their current principal.
Table 4.1
Frequency Distribution of Participants
________________________________________________________________________
Descriptor
School district 1 School district 2 School district 3 Total
________________________________________________________________________
Female
111
89
107
307
Male
17
8
6
31
African American
13
1
3
17
Caucasian
113
95
109
317
Other
1
1
1
3
General educator
80
65
69
214
Special educator
25
17
22
64
Specialty area educator
22
14
22
58
0-5 yrs. experience
44
19
15
78
6-10 yrs. experience
29
21
22
72
11-15 yrs. experience
15
11
29
55
16-20 yrs. experience
20
11
17
48
20 + yrs. experience
20
35
30
85
0-5 yrs. with principal
124
48
76
248
6-10 yrs. with principal
2
31
37
70
11-15 yrs. with principal
1
15
0
16
16-20 yrs. with principal
1
3
0
4
Bachelor degree
41
25
21
87
Masters degree
34
42
15
91
Masters degree +
52
29
77
158
Doctorate
1
1
0
2
________________________________________________________________________
58
Descriptive statistics were also run for each of the three instruments, Humor
Orientation Scale, Audit of Administrator Communication, and Principal Leadership
Questionnaire. Table 4.2 displays this information. The mean score and standard
deviation for each instrument and its dimensions are listed. In addition, the minimum,
maximum, and standard deviations are also listed. Skewness, which is a measure of the
lopsidedness of the distribution, and Kurtosis, which is a measure of how flat or peaked a
Table 4.2
Survey Descriptives
______________________________________________________________________________________
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistic
Std. Statistic Std.
error
error
______________________________________________________________________________________
N
Humor Orientation
total
Min. Max.
Std. Dev.
85.00
59.2763
10.72
.094
.134
-.010
.266
Principal Leadership 318 37.00 129.00
Questionnaire (PLQ)
total
78.0440
13.18
-.352
.137
.401
.273
PLQ
Provide vision
Modeling
Foster group goals
Individual support
Intellectual
stimulation
High expectations
Audit of
Administrator
Communication
(AAC) total
333 22.00
Mean
333
334
331
329
331
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
24.00
14.00
23.00
59.00
12.00
15.9730
9.6826
16.2810
16.3131
9.3293
3.19
2.00
3.25
3.90
1.86
-.648
-.734
-.677
-.603
-.477
.134
.133
.134
.134
.134
.408
.611
.171
.612
.462
.266
.266
.267
.268
.267
337
4.00
15.00
10.3531
1.77
-.623
.133
.246
.265
318 50.00 135.00
102.2421
17.76
-.560
.137
.017
.273
AAC
Affective involver 334 9.00 40.00
26.4551
6.30
-.349
.133 -.227
.266
Developer
322 8.00 30.00
23.5248
4.67
-.674
.136 -.051
.271
Informer
337 13.00 40.00
31.5490
5.53
-.654
.133 .418
.265
Encourager
333 6.00 25.00
20.6036
3.83
-1.096
.134 1.285
.266
______________________________________________________________________________________
59
distribution appears, are also reported; however, their values do not qualify as significant
(Salkind, 2000).
Variables/Rational and Assumptions of Statistical Tests and Methods
The two statistical tests used in this study were chosen based on the two research
questions and five hypotheses posed. Hypotheses one and two were tested using the
Pearson product-moment correlation. These are relationship hypotheses, which are
nondirectional and thus a two-tailed correlation coefficient is the test used to examine the
relationship between two variables. The alpha level set for these hypotheses was at a
probability equal to or less than .05, which is most common and widely accepted in social
science research (Salkind, 2000). Assumptions made for correlation coefficients are that
the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is linear and that error
is evenly distributed and uncorrelated (Salkind, 2000).
Hypotheses three, four, and five postulate that the independent variable, perceived
principal leadership effectiveness, is predicted by the variables, perceived principal
humor orientation and perceived principal communication competence. These
hypotheses were tested using a multiple regression equation. Assumptions made when
using multiple regressions are that the relationship between the independent variables and
the dependent variable is linear and that error is normally distributed and uncorrelated
with the independent variables (Leach, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005). Multicollinearity, the
effect of two or more predictor variables being highly correlated, is a problematic
condition (Leach et al., 2005). It is advisable to select independent variables which are
independent or uncorrelated with one another but are both related to the predicted
variable (Leach et al., 2005). However, in this research study it was first critical to
60
demonstrate that humor orientation is indeed a component of communication competence
as suggested by the literature review. Thus, one would expect these two independent
variables to be highly related. Because the two predictor variables are significantly
correlated, two methods were used to combat any negative influences of
multicollinearity. Multiple regression was first conducted using a simultaneous method
called Stepwise Selection. This method enters each independent variable as if it were
entered last and tests each one to determine if it is making a unique contribution to the
strength of the prediction. In this procedure, a variable may be dropped even if it was a
good predictor at one time because in conjunction with other independent variables it is
no longer considered a substantial contributor (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). The second
method of regression combined the two independent variables to create a new composite
variable as a predictor. This process examined the interaction of the two independent
variables and their strength in predicting the dependent variable.
Results
H1: There is a significant relationship between humor orientation as measured by
the HOS and leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ composite
and six domains.
Hypothesis one used the teachers’ composite scores on the HOS and the
composite and domain scores on the PLQ to determine if a significant relationship exists
between perceived principal leadership effectiveness and perceived principal humor
orientation. The HOS offers only a composite score but the PLQ offers a composite
score as well as the following domain scores: Providing Vision/PLQP (questions #1-5),
Modeling Behavior/PLQM (questions #6-8), Fosters Group Goals/PLQF (questions #913), Individualized Support/PLQI (questions #14-18), Intellectual Stimulation/PLQN
61
(questions #19-21), and High Expectations/PLQH (questions #22-24). Table 4.3 displays
the correlations between HO, PLQ, and the domains of PLQ
Table 4.3
The Relationship Between Perceived Humor Orientation and Perceived Leadership
Effectiveness
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Principal
Principal Leadership Questionnaire Subscales
Leadership
Questionnaire Provides Fosters
Models
Intellectual Individual High
Total
vision
acceptance behaviors stimulation support
expectations
of goals
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Humor
Orientation
Pearson
0.471
0.480
0.444
0.430
0.389
0.365
0.258
Correlation
Significance 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
(2-tailed)
N
316
328
327
329
327
327
332
________________________________________________________________________________________________
As Table 4.3 shows, HO and PLQ are significantly correlated (r = 0.471, p <
0.05). The coefficient of determination, which is the percentage of variance shared by
these variables, is .22. This means that 22% of the variance in perceived principal
leadership can be explained by perceived principal humor orientation. Additionally, each
of the domains of the PLQ was significantly correlated with HO. The domain of the
PLQ, Providing Vision, correlated the strongest with HO (r = 0.480, p < 0.05), even
stronger than the composite of the PLQ. The domain of the PLQ, Holding High
Expectations, correlated the weakest with HO (r = 0.258, p < 0.05) yet is still considered
statistically significant.
H2: There is a significant relationship between humor orientation as measured by
the HOS and communication competence as measured by the AAC
composite and four domains.
62
The second hypothesis examined the relationship between humor orientation and
communication competence. Once again the HOS was used to determine teachers’
perceptios of principals’ humorous predisposition. The AAC was used to determine
teachers’ perceptions of principals’ communication competence. HO was also correlated
with the domains of the AAC: Affective Involver/AACA (questions #1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21,
24, and 26), Developer/AACD (questions #3, 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23), Informer/AACI
(questions #2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 25, and 27), and Encourager/AACE (questions #4, 8, 12,
16, and 20). Table 4.4 reports the correlations between them.
Table 4.4
The Relationship Between Perceived Humor Orientation and Perceived Communication
Competence
______________________________________________________________________________________
Audit of
Audit of Administrator Communication Subscales
Administrator
Communication
Affective
Encourager Informer Developer
Total
involver
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Humor
Orientation
Pearson
0.541
0.532
0.444
0.439
0.412
Correlation
Significance
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
(2-tailed)
N
316
330
329
332
320
______________________________________________________________________________________
As Table 4.4 shows, the composites of both HO and AAC are significantly
correlated (r = 0.541, p <0.05). Therefore, 29% of the variance in perceived principal
communication competence can be explained by perceived principal humor orientation.
Additionally, all four domains of AAC were found to be significantly correlated with
HO. The domain, Affective Involver, yielded the strongest correlation (r = 0.532, p
<0.05) while the domain, Developer, yielded the weakest correlation (r = 0.412, p <0.05).
63
The statistically significant correlations in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 all fall within
the moderate range (Salkind, 2000). With an N of over 300, these correlation coefficients
and coefficients of determination are very meaningful. Therefore, the null hypotheses are
rejected for Hypotheses one and two.
H3: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the composite score on the PLQ
will be significantly predicted by humor orientation as measured by the
composite score on the HOS and by communication competence as
measured by the composite score on the AAC.
To determine the proportion of the variance in perceived principal leadership
effectiveness that could be explained by perceived principal humor orientation and
perceived principal communication competence, a multiple regression analysis was
performed. The moderate correlation between HO and AAC reported in Table 4.4 was a
concern when running the multiple regression equation. As stated earlier,
multicollinearity arises when a moderate to high correlation exists among predictor
variables. Multicollinearity can be a problem for several reasons. First, it can limit the
size of R considerably as the independent variables will be “going after” similar
variability in the dependent variable. Second, multicollinearity produces overlapping
information and therefore it is difficult to determine the importance of each independent
variable individually. Finally, multicollinearity increases the variances of regression
coefficients which will likely result in an unstable prediction equation (Leach et al.,
2005).
One method for combating multicollinearity is to use methods of multiple
regression that consider each predictor variable separately. Stepwise selection is one
such method and therefore used to control for multicollinearity in this study. Stepwise is
64
a simultaneous method of regression in which each independent variable is entered into
the equation as if it were last to determine its individual contribution to the prediction of
the dependent variable. Table 4.5 displays the results of the Stepwise Selection method
of multiple regression. The summary displays that AAC is significantly correlated with
PLQ (r = 0.829, p < 0.05) and therefore the adjusted R squared of .686 indicates that
AAC alone predicts 69% of the variance in PLQ. The stepwise method actually excluded
the variable HO because it did not meaningfully contribute beyond the variable AAC.
Table 4.5
Stepwise Multiple Regression of HO, AAC, and PLQ
______________________________________________________________________________________
R
Adjusted
R Square
R Square
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
______________________________________________________________________________________
Predictor:
Audit of
.829
.687
.686
0.000
1.000
1.000
Administrator
Communication
______________________________________________________________________________________
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
______________________________________________________________________________________
Excluded:
Humor
.143
.717
1.394
Orientation
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Dependent Variable: PLQ
A Tolerance value close to zero for an independent variable is a strong indication
of multicollinearity (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). In this case, although the two
independent variables are significantly correlated and that may be cause for concern
related to multicollinearity, a Tolerance level of 1.000 or .717 is not. Finally, when
examining the variance inflation factor (VIF), 1.000 and 1.394 is also not considered a
65
concern related to multicollinearity. The VIF describes the linear association between
one predictor variable and the other(s). A strong linear association such as a VIF of 10 or
higher is cause for concern (Mertler, 2005).
The second method of regression used in this study entailed combining the two
independent variables to create one single construct. The total HO scores and the total
AAC scores were multiplied to create this new composite variable, HOAAC. The
composite variable, HOAAC, represents the interaction between the two, original
independent variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). Table 4.6 displays the results of the
composite variable in the regression equation intended to predict total PLQ.
Table 4.6
HOACC and PLQ Regression
______________________________________________________________________________________
R
R Square
Adjusted
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
R Square
______________________________________________________________________________________
Predictor:
HOAAC
.720
.519
.518
0.000
1.000
1.000
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Dependent Variable: PLQ
The correlation between HOAAC and PLQ is statistically significant (r = 0.720,
p < 0.05) and the summary shows that 52% of the variance in PLQ can be predicted by
the composite variable, HOAAC. Therefore, the interaction of both independent
variables, meaning principals who were scored as both highly humor oriented and highly
communicatively competent, is also a significant predictor of perceived principal
leadership and thus the null hypothesis is rejected.
66
H4: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ domain, Fostering the
Acceptance of Group Goals, will be significantly predicted by humor
orientation as measured by the composite score on the HOS and
communication competence as measured by the composite score on the
AAC.
A multiple regression analysis was again used to determine if perceived principal
humor orientation and perceived principal communication competence can significantly
predict perceived principal effectiveness of fostering the goals of the organization
(PLQF), dimension of the PLQ. Following the same steps as completed for hypothesis 3,
the Stepwise Selection method of multiple regression was used to control for
multicollinearity. The correlation coefficient for AAC and PLQF was r = 0.725, p < 0.05
which is significant and results in an adjusted R squared of 0.524. Therefore, 52% of the
variance in PLQF can be predicted by AAC alone. The Stepwise method excluded the
variable, HO, because it, once again, did not make a meaningful contribution to the
prediction of PLQF beyond AAC. Table 4.7 provides the details of this test. Again, the
Tolerance level of 1.000 and .707 as well as a VIF of 1.000 and 1.414 are not cause for
concern related to mutlicollinearity.
67
Table 4.7
Stepwise Multiple Regression of HO, AAC, and PLQF
______________________________________________________________________________________
R
R Square
Adjusted
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
R Square
______________________________________________________________________________________
Predictor:
Audit of
.725
.526
.524
0.000
1.000
1.000
Administrator
Communication
______________________________________________________________________________________
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
______________________________________________________________________________________
Excluded:
Humor
Orientation
.054
.707
1.414
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Dependent Variable: PLQF
The second method of linear regression utilizing the composite variable as the
predictor was completed. Table 4.8 displays the results of the linear regression with the
composite variable, HOAAC. The composite variable also proves to be a significant
predictor of PLQF with an adjusted R squared of .420. HOAAC accounts for 42% of the
variance in PLQF. Therefore, although AAC is again shown as the strongest sole
Table 4.8
HOACC and PLQF Regression
______________________________________________________________________________________
R
R Square
Adjusted
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
R Square
______________________________________________________________________________________
Predictor:
HOAAC
.649
.422
.420
0.000
1.000
1.000
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Dependent Variable: PLQF
68
predictor of PLQF using the Stepwise method, using the interaction of the two
independent variables in predicting PLQF is also significant and thus, Hypothesis four is
confirmed and the null hypothesis rejected.
H5: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ domain, Providing
Indiviualized Support, will be predicted by humor orientation as measured
by the composite score on the HOS and communication competence as
measured by the composite score on the AAC.
To determine the ability of perceived principal humor orientation and perceived
principal communication competence to predict PLQI, another multiple regression
analysis was completed. Table 4.9 shows the Stepwise Selection method of multiple
regression analysis which was used again to control for possible issues related to
multicollinearity. This method produced results showing that AAC is a significant
predictor variable with an adjusted R squared of 0.455, accounting for 46% of the
Table 4.9
Stepwise Multiple Regression of HO, AAC, and PLQI
______________________________________________________________________________________
R
R Square
Adjusted
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
R Square
______________________________________________________________________________________
Predictor:
Audit of
.676
.457
.455
.000
1.000
1.000
Administrator
Communication
______________________________________________________________________________________
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
______________________________________________________________________________________
Excluded:
Humor
.789
.712
1.404
Orientation
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Dependent Variable: PLQI
69
variance in PLQI. Again, the variable, HO, was excluded for lack of a meaningful
contribution beyond AAC. The Tolerance and VIF are not concerns in relation to
multicollinearity.
Finally, Table 4.10 displays the results of the linear regression analysis using the
composite variable, HOAAC, as the predictor for PLQI. The model summary reports that
HOAAC is in fact a significant predictor of PLQI. HOAAC explains 33% of the variance
in PLQI. As shown earlier, although AAC is the strongest, sole predictor of PLQI using
the Stepwise method, the hypothesis as stated links the two independent variables
together as co-predictors and thus the method of creating the composite variable from the
interaction of HO and AAC (HOAAC) yields the better prediction equation for the
purposes of this study. Therefore, Hypothesis five is confirmed and the null hypothesis
rejected.
Table 4.10
HOACC and PLQI Regression
______________________________________________________________________________________
R
R Square
Adjusted
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
R Square
______________________________________________________________________________________
Predictor:
HOAAC
.575
.331
.329
0.000
1.000
1.000
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Dependent Variable: PLQI
Summary
In summary, the results of this study show statistical significance related to the
relationship between perceived humor orientation, communication competence, and
principal leadership effectiveness. Hypothesis one stated that there is a significant
70
relationship between perceived HO and perceived principal leadership effectiveness.
Likewise, Hypothesis two stated that there is a significant relationship between perceived
HO and perceived communication competence. Test results supported these two
hypotheses with significant correlations not only of composite scores but for all domains
of the AAC and PLQ as well.
Hypothesis three went deeper into the relationship and stated that perceived HO
and perceived communication competence would significantly predict perceived
principal leadership effectiveness. While results supported this hypothesis, by utilizing
the Stepwise selection method of multiple regression, AAC surfaced as the strongest sole
predictor variable. Similarly, Hypotheses four and five looked at the predictive ability of
perceived HO and perceived communication competence but narrowed the focus to two
domains of the PLQ: Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals (PLQF) and Providing
Individual Support (PLQI). These two hypotheses were tested and the results again
showed that AAC is the single, strongest predictor variable. Because the Stepwise
method simply excluded HO when it did not continue to contribute to the prediction
beyond AAC, a second method was used for Hypotheses three, four, and five. In this
method HO and AAC were combined to create a new variable, HOAAC, as the predictor
variable. This method utilized the interaction of the two independent variables as a new
independent variable which, in all three cases, showed as a statistically significant
predictor. In determining the best predictor of principal leadership, the Stepwise model is
the more effective method to use as it is more parsimonious. However, because the
hypotheses in this research study call for the examination of both independent variables
in a prediction equation, the method of combining them into one, new variable that
71
utilizes their interaction effect is the best model. Cross validation of these models of
multiple regression, while outside the scope of this research study, is necessary to
enhance the integrity of the analyses.
72
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter will provide a summary, conclusions, and a discussion of
implications based on the research study results. The summary will review the initial
problem, the theory and constructs supporting the study, procedures used for sound
statistical analyses, and the original five research hypotheses. The conclusions will
provide a synthesis and evaluation of the major findings of this study drawing
connections to the review of literature and research. Finally, the discussion will address
the implications of the results to the fields and practices of both educational leadership
and communication. Suggestions for further research will also be included.
Summary
This research study sought to confirm the theory that a significant relationship
between perceived humor orientation and perceived leadership effectiveness exists and
contributes meaningfully to the study of school leadership. In addition, this study
contributes meaningful research on the construct of humor orientation and therefore also
contributes to the field of communication. At the core of this study is the fact that
interpersonal communication is imperative to the success of an educational administrator
(Barth, 1990; Roost, 1991). The National Association for Schools of Excellence (NASE)
asserts that due to the nature of the principalship, one’s innate personal qualities are more
73
critical to his or her success than professional skills. Herein lies the problem that inspired
this study. Which personal communication traits are critical to the success of the
principal? The NASE is supported by the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders that
includes responsibilities of the principal such as facilitating, articulating, advocating,
nurturing, collaborating, understanding, and influencing. Yukl (1989) studied
commonalities among the extensive pool of leadership theories and determined the
constant, common components to be interaction and influence. This finding in
conjunction with the responsibilities outlined by the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders
supports the idea that the personal communication traits of school principals beg
examination.
The framework supporting this study has several components: trait theory of
leadership, transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, communication
competence, and humor orientation. Yukl (1981) defined personality traits as
dispositions that remain stable over time and contexts. These dispositions, positive or
negative, lead to predictable behaviors. In Bass’ (1985) model of transformational
leadership, an effective leader is described as charismatic, inspiring, intellectual, and
considerate. Bass asserts that these particular traits contribute to effective leadership by
motivating others, appealing to the emotions of others, encouraging others to challenge
themselves, and truly making others feel valued. Transformational leadership was the
model chosen to measure effective leadership traits in this study because beyond simply
considering the traits of a leader, it also considers the interaction and communication
between leader and follower (Yukl, 1998). One component of transformational
leadership sharing many similarities with humor orientation is charisma. As Conger and
74
Kanungo (1987) found, charismatic leaders are perceived as more self-confident,
persuasive, and as having transformational effects on their followers. Humor orientation,
a personality-based communication trait, has also been found to have similar effects.
Individuals with high humor orientation are considered more socially attractive (Wanzer
et al., 1996), more credible (Wrench & Booth-Butterfield, 2003), more mature (Masten,
1986), more effective managers (Campbell et al., 2001), more flexible in their
communication, and more aware of their emotions and the emotions of others (Wanzer et
al., 1995). Most importantly, humor orientation has been proven significantly related to
overall communication competence (Wanzer et al., 1995). Therefore, this study’s
framework brings to one arena the traits of transformational and charismatic school
leaders and the communication trait, humor orientation.
As an outcome of the framework described above, the three variables in this study
are perceived humor orientation, perceived communication competence, and perceived
school leadership effectiveness. Participants consisted of elementary teachers in three
school districts within northeast Ohio. These teachers reported their perceptions of their
current principals on three different instruments having been proven valid and reliable:
The Humor Orientation Scale (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991), The Audit
of Administrator Communication (Valentine, 1978), and the Principal Leadership
Questionnaire (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). Two statistical tests were completed. A
pearson correlation coefficient was used to yield results related to specific relationships
between variables and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the
predicting power of the two independent variables.
75
The specific hypotheses tested for the purpose of this study were as follows:
H1: There is a significant relationship between perceived humor orientation as
measured by the HOS and perceived leadership effectiveness as measured by
the PLQ composite and six domains.
H2: There is a significant relationship between perceived humor orientation as
measured by the HOS and perceived communication competence as
measured by the AAC composite and four domains.
H3: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the composite of the PLQ will be
significantly predicted by humor orientation as measured by the composite of
the HOS and communication competence as measured by the composite of
the AAC.
H4: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ domain, Fostering the
Acceptance of Group Goals, will be significantly predicted by humor
orientation as measured by the composite of the HOS and communication
competence as measured by the composite of the AAC.
H5: Leadership effectiveness as measured by the PLQ domain, Providing
Individualized Support, will be significantly predicted by humor orientation
as measured by the composite of the HOS and communication competence
as measured by the composite of the AAC.
Results of the statistical analyses led to the acceptance of all hypotheses (null hypotheses
were rejected). However, for Hypotheses three, four, and five, the composite score from
the AAC was determined to be the strongest, sole predictor of the composite score on the
PLQ as well as its two selected domains. Follow-up testing was conducted using a
second model of linear regression in which a new predictor variable was formed utilizing
the interaction effect of humor orientation and communication competence (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2005). This composite variable proved to be a significant predictor of
perceived principal leadership effectiveness and therefore reinforced the acceptance of
Hypotheses three, four, and five.
76
Conclusions
There are several major findings as a result of this research study. The
relationship between perceived humor orientation and perceived leadership effectiveness
will be discussed first. It is evident that perceived humor orientation is significantly
related to perceived principal effectiveness (r = 0.471). Statistical results showed humor
orientation accounting for 22% of the variance in the total PLQ score, which is
meaningful given a sample size of over 300. Humor orientation also significantly
correlated with each domain of the PLQ: Provides Vision (r = .480), Fosters Acceptance
of Group Goals (r = .444), Models Appropriate Behavior (r = .430), Provides Intellectual
Stimulation (r = .389), Provides Individual Support (r = .365), and Holds High
Expectations (r = .258). Because Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) created the PLQ to
represent their concept of transformational school leadership, these results contribute to
the major premise of this study, that individuals who are perceived as highly humor
orientated will likely be perceived as transformational, effective school leaders.
However, at least two cautions must be given here when interpreting these results.
First, one cannot over generalize to assume these results to mean that a highly
humor-oriented principal is likely to actually be an effective, transformational leader. No
data are offered in this study to support that the principals were in fact effective as
measured by objective standards. For example, in Wrench et al.’s (2003) study of highly
humor-oriented doctors, there was evidence of their effectiveness beyond patient
perception. The evidence was shown in significantly higher rates of patient compliance
with medical orders. In this research study, a limitation is that the dependent variable
was the perception of leadership effectiveness and not actual leadership effectiveness
77
with quantitative evidence in the form of test scores, staff turnover, or percent of teachers
complying with school and district policies for example. Although the results of this
study are critical in beginning to understand the role humor orientation may play in a
principal’s effectiveness, further research is needed to examine the extension of this
relationship to determine if the perception of leadership effectiveness matches actual
leadership effectiveness. Only then can a stronger case be made to emphasize the need
for humor orientation in the personality traits of principals.
A second caution in interpreting these statistical results is regarding a possible
“halo effect.” In other words, McGhee‘s research (1989) on humor proved that
individuals who are viewed as humorous are more socially attractive. Therefore, there is
the possibility that teachers who find their principals to be highly humor oriented, find
them to be nonthreatening and very likable people for whom they enjoy working and
therefore assume them to be effective leaders as well. Again, this study serves as an
important first step in connecting humor orientation to leadership effectiveness in that it
demonstrates the strong relationship of the two perceptions and demands the continued
examination of the relationship to be demonstrated with more tangible outcomes.
The results also support the existing research on the communication trait, humor
orientation. Specifically, this study demonstrates that a principal who is perceived to be
highly humor oriented will likely also be perceived to have the ability to articulate and
inspire others toward a common vision and goal and to promote cooperation and
collaboration in meeting those goals. That is the description for two domains of the PLQ,
Providing a Vision and Fostering the Acceptance of Group Goals. These results support
prior research in which highly humor-oriented people were perceived as highly credible
78
in their profession (Wrench & Booth-Butterfield, 2003), as motivating others (Gorham &
Christophel, 1992) and as more effective in managerial positions (Campbell et al., 2001).
The trait, humor orientation, is relatively young it its conception and therefore, results
from this study further validate its effects on perceivers and therefore its importance to
the field of communication. As additional effects of humor orientation continue to be
examined beyond simply others’ perceptions, increased knowledge will exist to aid in
fitting individuals with this personality trait in specific, professional roles in which they
will perform most effectively.
The second major finding was the strong correlation between perceived humor
orientation and perceived communication competence. Perceived humor orientation was
found to account for 29% (r = .541) of the variance in the total AAC score. Again, with a
sample of over 300 participants, this is a very meaningful percentage. Perceived humor
orientation also significantly correlated with each domain of the AAC: Affective
Involver (r = .532), Encourager (r = .444), Informer (r = .439), and Developer (r = .412).
Valentine (1981) developed the AAC to reflect interpersonal communication in school
organizations and the relationship between communication and a principal’s leadership
behavior. These results emphasize the critical role that perceptions of humor orientation
might play in influencing perceptions of a principal’s overall communication
effectiveness. Since its conception in 1991, the humor orientation trait has been the focus
of studies that seek to develop the construct as a core component of communication
competence. Wanzer et al. (1995) studied this connection and asserts that individuals
who are highly humor oriented, are more flexible in their communication and are better
able to recognize the need to adapt in communication situations, are more aware of the
79
emotions that guide communication, and ultimately prove to be competent
communicators. This research study strengthens that connection as well. Results showed
high correlations between perceived humor orientation and each domain of the AAC
which implies that principals perceived as highly humor oriented are likely to be
perceived as more aware of staff emotions, using humor to create a positive environment,
showing greater attention to teachers’ thoughts and ideas, involving staff in constructive
discussions, and clearly expressing directions and expectations. These are descriptions of
the AAC domains. By using a different population and different instrument to measure
communication competence than Wanzer et al. used in 1995, this study’s results add to
the growing body of research supporting humor orientation as a component of
communication competence. Knowing that principals spend at least 70% of each day
directly involved in the communication process (Miltz & Kanus, 1977; Sigford, 1998),
determining what makes a principal a competent communicator is critical to the field of
education as most often the effectiveness of the principal will lead to the success of the
school (Sigford, 1998; Valentine & Bowman, 1988).
The third major finding contributes even greater to the study of the key
characteristics of an effective principal. Hypotheses three, four, and five sought to
predict perceived principal effectiveness from perceived humor orientation and perceived
communication competence. When the two independent predictor variables were entered
into the equation separately, communication competence was determined to be the sole,
significant predictor of the PLQ. This is a reasonable result knowing that communication
competence is a large construct that encompasses many positive communication traits,
such as humor orientation. Therefore, a single communication trait will not be able to
80
predict nearly as much of a principal’s leadership effectiveness as the total of
communication competence. This situation prompted the researcher to employ a second
model of linear regression with a new variable.
The combination of perceived humor orientation and perceived communication
competence created a composite predictor variable, HOAAC. This new variable
represents only the interaction effect of HO and AAC, instances in which an individual
was rated high on both instruments. This new composite variable proved to be a
significant predictor of the total PLQ (R = .720), of the PLQ domain, Fostering the
Acceptance of Group Goals (R = .649), and the PLQ domain, Providing Individualized
Support (R = .575). Therefore, it is fair to say that principals who are perceived as both
highly humor oriented and with high communication competence will, over 50% of the
time, also be perceived as effective school leaders. However, this was a simple linear
regression and a more complex path analysis would need to be conducted to determine
the simultaneous effects and relationships existing between each of the domains of the
AAC, the PLQ and the HOS.
The interconnectedness among these three variables is very strong (HO:AAC, r =
.541; HO:PLQ, r = .471; AAC:PLQ, r =.829). School leadership and communication
competence are large, complex concepts and humor orientation is significantly related to
both, including their individual dimensions. These statistical results also illustrate the
exceptionally strong commonalities the concept of transformational leadership has with
the concept of administrator communication competence. It is tempting to say that this
provides evidence of the critical role interpersonal communication plays in leadership
effectiveness, however, once again, these are only perceptions and actual communication
81
competence and leadership effectiveness are not shown here. It still remains valuable
information from the practical standpoint in that it is this researcher’s experience as a
practicing administrator that superintendents evaluate their principals much on the
perceptions that exist related to their performance. Superintendents are realistically
unable to observe the daily interactions of principals and therefore frequently rely on
feedback from others, which can be quite often simply perceptions. With that said,
principals could make good use out of instruments such as the Humor Orientation Scale
and the Audit of Administrator Communication to determine the existing perceptions
related to their communication skills and areas to target for improvement.
Discussion
Results of an ERIC search for literature and research combining the terms, school
leaders and humor, produces only four citations and only two of those address the use of
humorous communication. A search combining the terms, principal and humor, in
abstracts, produces 13 citations. However, the majority of those are actually cartoons and
or humorous anecdotes about the role of principal. When humor is touched on in any of
these articles, the primary focus is typically on the need for principals to maintain a sense
of humor for their own health and coping abilities related to the job (Brubaker, 1991;
Sigford, 1998). The usefulness of humor in a principal’s interpersonal communication
has been virtually ignored within empirical studies in the field. This study suggests that
humor as a communication trait significantly correlates with each domain of
transformational leadership, yet the intersection or interaction of the two constructs has
not been meaningfully considered in the research on educational leadership.
82
Any topic related to humor is easily perceived to be frivolous. Commonly, what
comes to mind is the incessantly funny individual whose charms wear off quickly only to
reveal no other depth or skill in communicating. However, the highly humor-oriented
individual is quite the contrary. Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield (1991)
conceptualized the trait to identify those who are not incessantly funny, but rather those
who are skilled at encoding humor and who tend to use humor more often and effectively
in their communication. The fact that the field of educational leadership has not
recognized a characteristic such as humor orientation, which can easily be perceived as
frivolous, is not surprising to this researcher and veteran administrator for two reasons.
First, historically, education, particularly teaching, has been seen as a predominantly
female career that has had to continuously defend itself as a true profession, equal to
medicine and law. Therefore, to openly embrace the study of a communication trait
related to humor could be seen as weakening the perception of educational leadership as a
profession. Second, humor orientation is not widely known to members of professions
outside of communication. A typical educator, doctor, lawyer or any member of any
other field simply hears the word humor and tends to assume the study of sense of humor
or of telling jokes. It is not commonly thought of as the study of a communication trait.
Therefore, again, it may be seen as inconsequential. This researcher has feared for
months now when telling colleagues of this study that all would begin their Open House
speeches and staff meetings with an opening joke in an effort to come across as effective.
Other colleagues would nod and assume the study related to a sense of humor, needed as
a means of dealing with job-related stress. Distinctions must be made clear between
having a sense of humor and humor orientation. A sense of humor is an understanding of
83
the creativity involved in creating humor or a humorous situation as well as an
appreciation for messages or situations containing humor, not necessarily the ability to
encode humor (Futch & Edwards, 1999). Humor orientation is truly one’s disposition to
effectively employ humor, both verbal and nonverbal, often and in a variety of
communication contexts. It is critical for humor orientation to be seen as a constructive
communication trait of value to educational leaders and worthy of serious study to
enhance our understanding of and improve our abilities in interpersonal communication.
The research on effective interpersonal communication traits of school leaders can
no longer afford to ignore the personality-based, communication trait, humor orientation.
This study suggests humor orientation to be an asset to a principal who, in the midst of
the challenges facing public education, is dealing with significant stress, accountability
requirements, reform movements, and funding controversies. This study provides
meaningful evidence that humor orientation is a critical trait, significantly correlated to
that which principals strive to be, respected and effective leaders. Of critical
consideration are the results showing a statistical significance between humor orientation
and every domain of transformational leadership. The significant correlation with four of
the domains supports the existing research on the effects of humor orientation. Those
domains are: Providing a Vision, Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals, Providing
Individual Support, Providing Intellectual Stimulation. Two domains, Providing an
Appropriate Model and Holding High Expectations, are newly identified effects of humor
orientation produced by this research study. This implies that principals who are
perceived as highly humor orientated are likely to be seen by their staff as a model of
success in the field of education and one whom they wish to emulate. This extends the
84
research (McGhee, 1989) providing evidence that highly humor-oriented individuals are
also socially attractive. Being able to inspire others to work toward common goals for
the school or demonstrating success in confrontational situations with staff or even in
situations demanding the defense of a particular teacher would be perceived by others as
attractive. A highly humor-oriented principal is likely perceived as one who can make
each staff member feel they are personally supported and intellectually challenged. It is
no wonder staff members would want to emulate those abilities.
The evidence that principals who are seen as highly humor oriented are likely to
be perceived as holding high expectations for staff, extends the research on the functions
of humor. Humor is often used effectively to handle difficult situations or deliver
delicate or controversial information. Expressing challenging expectations to a staff
involves just that, delivering difficult news that entails greater effort and additional work
on their part. In a large group situation such as a staff meeting, a principal presenting
new curricular requirements or programming changes for which teachers will be held
accountable needs to utilize the charismatic benefits of being highly humor oriented to
persuade and inspire the staff in this new endeavor. Similarly, in smaller settings or even
one-on-one situations in which a principal is speaking to a staff member regarding
individual, high expectations needing to be met, the immediacy of attention and
consideration felt from a highly humor-oriented principal will likely be a true benefit.
Superintendents and boards of education can use this information of the possible
benefits of individuals who are perceived to be both highly humor oriented and highly
communicatively competent productively. Instruments such as the HOS and the AAC
used to assess these characteristics can be employed in interview processes, in evaluation
85
procedures, and in steps to identify staff members who may be valuable to recruit into an
administrative role. These are typically not tools used in those aforementioned
procedures. Again, this reflects the lack of value placed on and attention to interpersonal
communication traits and humor orientation specifically. Instead, it is the experience of
this researcher that superintendents and boards of education focus predominantly on the
specific training, level of education, and years of experience of candidates/administrators.
Interpersonal communication traits are simply inadvertently observed through the very
process of a face-to-face interview. As stated earlier in this dissertation, the National
Association of Schools of Excellence claim that the personal characteristics of
administrators is most critical because all other knowledge and skill can more easily be
gained through professional development programs. This statement from NASE brings
into the conversation the very controversial issue of nature versus nurture; can these
personality-based communication traits be taught? While the answer to that question has
been debated for decades, it is considerably beyond the scope of this dissertation but
continues to be an interesting area of study. Recently, the debate has been brought to the
forefront in the field of interpersonal communication and the latest research has fallen on
the side of nature over nurture.
Communibiology is a science that connects the fields of communication and
biology and the introduction of this science represents a paradigm shift in the field of
communication. This new paradigm challenges the long-standing theory of social
learning. Social learning theory posits that communication traits are developed through
experiences in one’s lifetime (McCroskey et. al., 1998). Communibiological theory
posits that one’s communication behaviors are pre-determined by one’s genetic make-up.
86
Recent research has focused on communication traits such as verbal aggressiveness,
argumentativeness (Wahba & McCroskey, 2005), shyness (Heisel & McCroskey,
1999)and humor orientation (Wrench & McCroskey, 2001) and determining their origin
in an individual’s temperament, which is innate. Wrench and McCroskey’s (2001) recent
research study of humor orientation and its connection to human temperament yielded
results supporting their theory that one’s tendency to skillfully utilize humor in
communication is rooted in genetics and not simply developed through social learning.
This information implies that while professional development directed toward improving
administrator communication may continue to be provided in many districts, an
administrator’s communication behaviors are likely incapable of significant change.
Therefore, rather than direct training toward changing or developing communication
traits, efforts should be placed on increasing administrator knowledge of communication
behaviors to better understand others and themselves and then apply that understanding to
their various roles. To that end, how do we in the field of educational leadership
understand communication?
In Chapter I, the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders was referred to in an effort
to illustrate the demands on principals related to communicating effectively. Within the
ISLLC Standards there are nine references to principals needing knowledge of effective
communication or demonstrating effective communication. Similarly, in the most
recently developed Ohio Educator Standards for Principals, there are 13 references to
communicating and/or communicating effectively. More conventional wisdom echoes
these lists of standards. For example, the book 10 Traits of Highly Effective Principals,
From Good to Great Performances (McEwan, 2003), offers an entire chapter devoted to
87
the principal as communicator with advice such as: attend, listen, empathize, disclose, say
what you mean, ask the right questions, be creative, disagree agreeably, pay attention to
parents, communicate with students, and more. It is the stance of this researcher that this
reckless and somewhat patronizing use of the extremely vague term “communicate” and
phrase “communicate effectively”, is contributing to a murky and varied interpretation of
actual, effective communication on the part of school leaders. Communication is a
complex concept and the field of educational leadership, knowing the dependence on
communication to succeed, must work with our colleagues in the field of communication.
We must become more devoted to breaking down the concept of communication
competence and understanding the individual traits that create it, identifying those traits
in individuals and identifying those traits in situations as they are employed. Perhaps we
lean toward the philosophy of nature over nurture because we have done such a poor job
of identifying what we truly need to nurture. Identifying a strong relationship between
the traits, humor orientation and administrator communication competence serves as a
first step in beginning to address and understand the complexity of communication in
educational leadership.
Further research is recommended to perpetuate a deeper understanding of
effective school leadership and communication. Follow-up studies may be conducted
using participants who teach grades 6-12, using participants from a wide variety of
academically performing districts, and using additional measures of humor orientation,
communication competence, and leadership effectiveness. Longevity studies in which
principals are rated by their teachers at several points in time throughout the principal’s
career would contribute information toward the stability of communication and
88
leadership traits. Exploring connections between a principal’s humor orientation and
more tangible outcomes such as student achievement, teacher turnover, amount of parent
involvement in the school, number of teachers assuming leadership roles, or even
principals being promoted to district leadership positions will continue to illustrate the
power this communication trait may have. Ultimately, a better understanding of specific
communication traits leading to a principal’s success as a school leader is crucial. This
information, qualitative and/or quantitative, will assist school systems in ensuring they
have effective educational leaders during challenging times in public education.
89
REFERENCES
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
Argyle, M. (1972). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour (2nd ed.). London:
Penguin.
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness.
Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey.
Argyris, C. (1965). Explorations in interpersonal competence – I. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 1, 58-83.
Argyris, C. (1968). Conditions for competence acquisition and therapy. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 4, 147-177.
Aylor, B., & Opplinger, P. (2003). Out-of class communication and student perceptions
of instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication
Education, 52(2), 122-134.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.
Battle, M. W. (1982). Teacher perception of male and female principal communication
style (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1982). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Bennis, W. G., Van Maanen, J., Schein, E. G., & Steele, F. A. (1979). Essays in
interpersonal dynamics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Bingham, W. V. (1927). Leadership. In H. C. Metcalf (Ed.), The psychological
foundations of management. New York: Shaw.
Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. D. (1980). The effective principal: Perspectives on
school leadership. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
90
Bochner, A., & Kelly, C. W. (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy,
and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23, 270-301.
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). Individual differences in the
communication of humorous messages. The Southern Communication Journal,
56, 205-218.
Bowden, A. O. (1926). A study of the personality of student leaders in the United States.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 149-160.
Bower, E. M. (1966) The achievement of competency. In W. B. Waetjen & R. R. Leeper
(Eds.), Learning and mental health in the school. Washington, DC: ASCD, NEA.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager. A model for effective performance.
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Brooks, G. P. (1992, October). Humor in leadership: State of the art in theory and
practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Brubaker, D. (1991). A backstage view of at-risk students. NASSP Bulletin, 75(538),
59-66.
Bueler, C. M. (1984). A study of relationships among personality traits and
communication styles of secondary and elementary school principals (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia). ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Campbell, K. L., Martin, M. M., & Wanzer, M. B. (2001). Employee perceptions of
manager humor orientation, assertiveness, responsiveness, approach/avoidance
strategies, and satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 18(1).
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American school superintendent.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chapman, A. J., & Foot, H. C. (1976). Introduction. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot
(Eds.). Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1-7). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Conger J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Charismatic Leadership in Management, McGill University,
Montreal.
91
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.). (1988). Charasmatic leadership: The elusive
factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues: A study of the social functions of
humor among the staff of a mental hospital. Psychiatry, 23, 81-95.
Davis, A., & Kleiner, B. H. (1989). The value of humour in effective leadership.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 10(1), 1-3.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Denney, J. D. (1983). The relationship of principal verbal behavior to teacher perception
of communication and organizational climate in middle level schools (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia). ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership; Commitment and charisma in the
revolutionary process. New York: The Free Press.
Fine, G. A. (1984). Humorous interaction and the social construction of meaning:
Making sense in a jocular vein. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic
interaction (Vol. 5, pp. 83-101). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Foote, N. N., & Cottrell, L. S., Jr. (1955). Identity and interpersonal competence.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Futch, A., & Edwards, R. (1999). The effects of sense of humor, defensiveness, and
gender on the interpretation of ambiguous messages. Communication Quarterly,
47(1), 80-97.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Appleton.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Double Day Anchor.
92
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors as
motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication
Quarterly, 40, 239-252.
Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversation:
Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication,
56, 161-183.
Grigsby, C. J. (1981). The relationship of the principal’s communication behavior to the
teacher’s perceived job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Missouri, Columbia). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Hazleton, V. Jr., & Cupach, W. R. (1986). An exploration of ontological knowledge:
Communication competence as a function of the ability to describe, predict, and
explain. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 119-132.
Heisel, A. D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1999) Testing theoretical relationships and nonrelationships of genetically-based predictors: Getting started with
communibiology. Communication Research Reports, 16(1). 1-9.
Holland, J. L., & Baird, L. L. (1968). An interpersonal competency scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 28, 503-510.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern University
Press.
Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Toward an explanation of variation in teachers’
perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(4), 512-538.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organization. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kennedy, C. (2002). The principalship: Too much for one person? Principal, pp. 28-30.
Knowles, B. H. (1984). The relationship between principal communication behavior and
School effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54(2) 101-117.
93
Larson, C. E., Bachlund, P. M., Redmond, M. K., & Barbour, A. (1978, November).
Assessing communicative competence. Paper presented at the Speech
Communication Association Convention, Minneapolis, MN.
Leach, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics:
Use and interpretation (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Adminstration
Quarterly, 30, 498-518.
Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1993). Building commitment for
change and fostering organizational learning (Final Report). Victoria, BC:
British Columbia Ministry of Education.
Luthans, F. (1973). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mackay, J. J., & Gaw, B. A. (1975). Personal and interpersonal communication:
Dialogue with self and others. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Malone, P. B. (1982). Humor: A double-edged tool for today’s managers? Academy of
Management Review 5(3), 357-360.
Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein &
P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical issues (pp.101-125). New York: Academic.
Masten, A. (1986). Humor and competence in school age children. Child Development,
57, 461-473.
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (2000). The communibiological perspective:
Implications for communication in instruction. Communication Education, 49(1),
1-6.
McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Martin, M. M., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication
and personality trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McEwan, E. K. (2003.) 10 traits of highly effective principals, from good to great
performance. Thousand Oaks, CA :Corwin Press.
McGhee, P. (1989). The contribution of humor to children’s social development. Journal
of Children in Contemporary Society, 20(1-2), 119-134.
94
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistics methods
(3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak
Miltz, R. J., & Kanus, L. (1977). Improving supervisors’ interpersonal communication.
Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document
ED 141 319)
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy of laughter and humor. Albany: State
University of New York.
Nash, J. B. (1929). Leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 12, 24-25.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Gong, J., Guiton, G., & Lipton, M. (1993). Creating middle
schools: Technical, normative, and political considerations. The Elementary
School Journal, 93(5), 461-480.
Pavitt, C. (1990). The ideal communicator as the basis for competence judgments of self
and friend. Communication Reports, 3, 9-14.
Pavitt, C., & Haight, L. (1986). Implicit theories of communicative competence:
Situational and competence level differences in judgments of prototype and
target. Communication Monographs, 53, 221-235.
Rawn, E. L., & Valentine, J. W. (1980). Principal communication across grade levels; A
comparative and predictive study. Planning and Changing, A Journal for School
Administrators, 11(4), 189-196.
Rizzo, B. J., Wanzer, M. B., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1999). Individual differences in
managers’ use of humor: Subordinate perceptions of managers’ humor.
Communication Research Reports, 16(4), 360-369.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Salkind, N. J. (2000). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. M. (1990, Fall). The leader’s work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 7-22.
95
Sherman, L. W. (1985). Humor and social distance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61,
1274.
Sigford, J. E. (1998). Who said school administration would be fun? Coping with a new
emotional and social reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and
impression. Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. A survey of theory and research. New
York: The Free Press.
Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. E. McGhee & J. H.
Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research: Volume I. Basic Issues (pp. 3958). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I. R., & Massarik, F. (1961). Leadership and organization.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tead, O. (1929). The technique of creative leadership. In Human nature and
management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Valentine, J. W. (1978). Audit of administrator communication: Use and interpretation.
Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.
Valentine, J. (1981). Audit of administrator communication: Instrumentation for
researcher and practitioner. Peabody Journal of Education. 59(1), 1-10.
Valentine, J. W., & Bowman, M. L. (1988). Audit of principal effectiveness: A method
for self-improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 72(508), 18-26.
Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small Group
Behavior. 20, 151-166.
Wahba, J. S., & McCroskey J. C. (2005) Temperament and brain systems as predictors of
assertive communication traits. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 157164.
Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). The funny people:
A source orientation to the communication of humor. Communication Quarterly,
43, 142-154.
96
Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1996). Are funny people
popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction.
Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 42-52.
Wanzer, M. B.,& Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of
instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education,
48, 48-62.
Webb, R. G. (1981). Political uses of humor. Et cetera, 38, 35-50.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free
Press.
Weinstein, E. A. (1969). The development of interpersonal competence. In D. A. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753-775). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Westburgh, E. M. (1931). A point of view: Studies in leadership. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 25, 418-423.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence.
Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213.
Wiemann, J. M., & Kelly, C. W. (1981). Pragmatics of interpersonal competence. In C.
Wilder-Mott & J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the
legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 283-297). New York: Praeger.
Wiemann, J. M., & Knapp, M. L. (1975). Turn-taking in conversations. Journal of
Communication, 25, 75-92.
Wrench, J. S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2003). Increasing patient satisfaction and
compliance: An examination of physician humor orientation, compliance-gaining
strategies, and perceived credibility. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 482-503.
Wrench, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001) A temperamental understanding of humor
communication and exhilaratability. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 142-159.
Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leaderhship in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
97
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer.
Ziv, A. (1988). Humor’s role in married life. International Journal of Humor Research,
1, 223-229.
98
APPENDICES
99
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PRINCIPALS
April 26, 2006
Dear
,
My name is Rachel Jones and I am a doctoral student at the University of Akron. My dissertation
topic is focused on the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of their principals’
communication skills and humor and their principals’ leadership effectiveness. Your
Superintendent has approved my surveying your certified teaching staff and I appreciate your
cooperation in scheduling a date and time to do this.
Your anonymity and that of each teacher is ensured. Surveys are coded in order for me to know
which principal/school the responses reflect so that I may observe the effects of secondary
variables such as principal’s or teacher’s years of experience or level of education. No names are
given nor are they required on any of the surveys and the only person seeing the results will be
me. All surveys will be scored and entered into a database for statistical analysis and then
surveys will be destroyed.
To confirm, I have my meeting with your certificated teaching (art, phys. ed., music, library,
technology, special education, and classroom teachers) staff set for May 30, 3:30pm. Just a
reminder, you may not be present at this meeting during the time your staff is completing the
surveys. It should only take your staff approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey.
Please do not hesitate to call and leave me a message at the University of Akron (330-972-7773)
or on my cell phone (216-470-0276) if you have additional questions prior to my visit. If I do not
hear from you I will assume you consent along with your Superintendent to the administration of
my survey.
I cannot thank you enough for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Rachel L. Jones
Doctoral Candidate, University of Akron
100
APPENDIX B
SUPERINTENDENT CONSENT LETTER
April 26, 2006
Dear
As per our phone conversation earlier, I am writing to request permission to use your elementary teaching
staff and principals in my doctoral research study. I am examining the relationship between teachers’
perceptions of their principal’s interpersonal communication skills and use of humor and teachers’
perceptions of their principal’s leadership effectiveness.
Anonymity for your school district, teachers and principals is ensured. Surveys are coded in order for me
to know which principal/school the responses reflect so that I may observe the effects of secondary
variables such as principal’s or teacher’s years of experience or level of education. No names are given nor
are they required on any of the surveys and the only person seeing the results will be me. All surveys will
be scored and entered into a database for statistical analysis and then surveys will be destroyed. It should
only take teachers approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey.
I know time is precious and so I cannot thank you and your staff enough for this opportunity. If you would
like, I would be happy to send to you a summary of my research including results and implications. Do not
hesitate to contact me with questions. You can leave a message for me at the University of Akron, 330972-7773.
As a written record of consent for my research, please sign below and return to me in the enclosed, stamped
envelope.
Sincerely,
Rachel L. Jones
Doctoral Candidate, University of Akron
I give consent to the administration of the Humor Orientation Scale, the Audit of Administrator
Communication, and the Principal Leadership Questionnaire to my certified elementary teaching staff.
____________________________________
Print Name and Title
____________________________________
Signature
___________
Date
I (circle one) would like / do not need a copy of the results of this research study.
101
APPENDIX C
INSTRUMENTS
102
103
104
105
APPENDIX D
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD LETTER
106