| This study was designed to answer the question: are the power and influence behaviors of high school principals in West Virginia correlated with decision-making involvement of faculty senates? Data were collected in two phases. Phase 1 data resulted from surveys sent to two populations: (a) 108 respondent principals were asked to indicate their self-perceived power base utilization, and (b) 96 faculty senate chairpersons were asked to rate the decision-making involvement of their faculty senates. Phase 2 data, which was designed to confirm, amplify, or repudiate phase 1 findings, resulted from interviews and power structure analyses at three high schools representing three levels (high, average, and low) of decision-making involvement.; The Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the correlations between the two variables, using.05 as the alpha level. Four correlations were found. Positive correlations were found between reward power and instructional duties, reward power and teacher evaluation, connection power and budgeting of instructional supply money. A negative correlation was found between coercive power and instructional duties.; The phase 2 power structure analyses yielded significant findings such as principals are not universally considered influential members of their faculty senates. Alpha High School, with high decision-making involvement, had a principal who was influential; the others did not. The four correlations and the findings of the power structure analysis led to six conclusions: (1) Power base utilization is not a sufficient explanation for the variance in the level of faculty senate decision-making involvement. (2) Self-perceived measures of principal power base utilization were not helpful in this study. (3) Both principals and faculty senate chairperson want to be involved in faculty senate decision making, and they articulate needed improvements. (4) Governance behaviors of high school principals in West Virginia are little different from those predicted by the literature. (5) The power structure analysis is a better predictor of power relationships within faculty senates than is survey research. (6) Power structure analysis has the potential as a useful tool in the study of individual schools and their power structures. |
