THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER EMPOWERMENT AND PRINCIPAL POWER BASES

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paula M.
Short, College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and
Policy Analysis. 211 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.

This study investigated the relationship between principal use of
power and teacher empowerment. Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) was
used to measure teachers' perceptions of the type of power base used
by principals and the School Participant Empowerment Scale was used to
measure teachers' perceptions of their level of empowerment. The study
was conducted in an urban school district in the south and consisted
of 301 teachers from 6 elementary, 5 middle, and 3 high schools. Using
multiple regression analysis, it was determined that Expert, Referent,
and Reward Power bases made significant contributions to the variance
in teachers' perception of their level of empowerment.

Empowerment has become part of today's rhetoric of educational
discourse and exchange (Lightfoot, 1986). Empowerment aids in the
understanding and visualization of the human ability within
organizations to improve and increase opportunities for autonomy,
responsibility, choice and authority (Lightfoot, 1986). It is
considered to be a basic element of school reform. Themes associated
with creating empowered schools include trust, communication,
structures for involvement, risk taking, and critical incidents
(Short, Greet & Michael, 1991). When used in policy discussions, the
literature on organizational management and sociology of work explains
empowerment as alteration in the distribution of power in the
workplace (Lichtenstein, McLaughlin & Knudsen, 1991). However,
Lichtenstein and others also argue that central to the discussion
about empowered teachers is enhanced control over decisions that
affect the school workplace generally and the classroom in particular;
highlighting organizational arrangements for decision making and
teachers' institutional authority. Decision making, among other
issues, plays a crucial role in teacher empowerment, strengthening and
increasing teacher effectiveness..

Rinehart and Short's (1992) research on empowerment of teacher leaders
found that teacher leaders perceived opportunities for decision
making, among other issues, to be empowering aspects of their work.
Teacher empowerment and teacher participation in decision making
generates higher energy levels and increases positive attitudes toward
teachers' performance (White, 1992). Another important issue that
relates to the construct of empowerment is autonomy. Teachers need to
feel autonomous in order to accomplish their tasks. Autonomy is
synonymous with empowerment. Prawat (1991) argues that a
bureaucratically organized school environment denies teachers autonomy
and control in the workplace and over the profession itself. He states
further that the lack of autonomy and control is problematic because
it affects teachers' productivity and commitment.

Prawat (1991) suggests that the enhancement of teachers' ability to
deal with social oppression is to overcome the common tendency to hold
back or to yield to those who are in positions of power. School
administrators, specifically principals, should serve as facilitators
and not be perceived as those who exert power and authority among
teachers. Glickman (1991) suggests that principals of successful
schools are the coordinator of teachers as instructional leaders.
Principals must shift from decision makers to facilitators (Aronstein,
Marlow & Desilets, 1990).

The concept of power has thoroughly been discussed in the literature
(French & Raven, 1968; Hersey & Natemeyer, 1979; Hoy & Miskel, 1982;
Stimson & Appelbaum, 1988). French and Raven (1968) in their classic
study identified five types of power available to principals. Hersey
and Natemeyer (1979) expanded French and Raven's power bases into
seven. They categorized them into two groups: positional and personal.
These categories were based on the teachers' perception of the
principal. The positional power bases are: 1 .Reward power based on
the perceived power to determine distributions of rewards; 2.Coercive
power based on the perceived power to punish; 3. Legitimate power
based on the perceived authority to prescribe behavior; 4. Connection
power based on the perception that the principal has relationships
with influential people inside or outside the school organization. The
personal power bases are: 1. Referent power based on the teacher's
identification with the principal; 2. Information power based on the
perception that the principal has valuable information; 3. Expert
power based on the perception of the principal' s special knowledge or
expertise.

Stimson and Appelbaum (1988) found that teachers typically view their
principals as relying on personal rather than positional power.
Teachers were more satisfied with principals who relied on personal
power and on principals who dearly understood their own power styles.
The previously cited

studies fortify the belief that allowing teachers to be active
participants in the process of decision making will aid in having
prosperous outcomes in the school environment. As teacher empowerment
spreads through the educational system, sharing decisions is as vital
as the enlargement of responsibilities that is so satisfying to
teachers (Karant, 1989). Therefore, it becomes important to understand
the relationship between principals' use of power and teachers'
perceived levels of empowerment. Principals' use of power and
teachers' empowerment are major concerns to school administrators and
teachers. Principals, as leaders of organizations, have the ability to
influence the behavior of other individuals or groups in the decision
making process (Hoy & Miskel, 1991). School principals have alternate
ways to persuade teachers in their use of power.

Purpose of Study

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship
between the principal's use of power bases and teacher perceived level
of empowerment.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study included 301 teachers from an urban school
district in the state of Florida. The sample included teachers from
six elementary schools, five middle schools and three high schools,
regardless of subject area. The data indicated that 216 (71.8%) of the
teachers were female, while 81 (26.9%) were identified as male. Four
teachers (1.3%) failed to respond).

Instruments

The School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES), developed by Short
and Rinehart (1992), was used to measure teachers' perceived levels of
empowerment. It contains 38 statements on a five-point Likerttype
scale, including the categories: strongly disagree, disagree. neutral,
agree, or strongly agree. This instrument contains six subscales: (1)
decision making, (2) professional growth, (3) status, (4)
self-efficacy, (5) autonomy, and (6.) impact. It was reported that
Coefficient alpha for the total scale was .94 and those for the six
factor scales ranged from .81 to .89. The split-half reliability of
this instrument is .75 (Short & Rinehart, 1992). The five French and
Raven (1989) bases of power were measured by the Rahim Leader Power
Inventory (RLPI) (Rahim (1989). This 29-item instrument uses a
five-point Likert scale to measure teacher perceptions of the
principal use of five power bases: 1) coercive power, 2) reward power,
3) legitimate power, 4) expert power, and 5) referent power. Construct
validity of the RLPI was partly tested through factor analyses.
internal consistency reliability coefficients for the RLPI subscales
ranges from .72 to .88 (Rahim, 1988).

Procedures

The study was described to the faculty in a faculty meeting in each
participating school and each teacher who agreed to participate in the
study received a packet containing the School Participant Empowerment
Scale, the Rahim Leader Power Inventors, the Demographic Information
Sheet, a bubble sheet, a #2 pencil and an envelope in which to place
all completed instruments. The instruments were collected onsite
within a one week period.

Research Design and Analysis

Data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. Multiple
regression was used to analyze the relationship of the five power
bases and selected teacher characteristics to teacher perceptions
overall.

Results

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the relationship between
teachers' perception of empowerment and teachers' perception of
principal' s use of power bases and selected teachers'
characteristics. The overall F was 7.24 which is significant (p =
.0001).

The results of the analysis indicated that for all the variables, the
R2 was .3151. An examination of the individual variables entered in
the multiple regression revealed that Expert Power, Referent Power and
Reward Power made significant contributions to the variance in
teachers' perception of their level of empowerment.

Discussion

According to the analysis of the data, there is no relationship
between teachers' perception of empowerment and teacher
characteristics such as: age, gender, years of experience, school
level and educational background. These findings contradict those
obtained by Short and Rinehart (1992) who found. among other things,
that experience and age were statistically significant predictors of
teachers' perception of empowerment. Short, Miller-wood and Johnson
(1991) also found that some teachers characteristics may influence
teacher perception of school environment and type of involvement in
decisions. However, as it was indicated in this study, age was not
significantly related to teachers' perception of empowerment.

According to this study, empowered teachers perceived principals to
use expert power, referent power and reward power. Coercive power and
reward power were not significant. Among the three types of power
bases found to relate to greater teacher empowerment, expert power
seems relevant. Principals as experts offer the most potential for
influencing teachers for school improvement. Teachers in this study
tended to rely more on the power bases that did not use positional
mechanisms as demonstrated throughout the literature. Expert power is
based on the perception of the principal's special knowledge or
expertise and it is categorized under personal power bases (Hersey &
Natemeyer, 1979). On the other hand, reward power, which is based on
the perceived power to determine distributions of rewards, is
categorized positional power.

These results imply that teachers do grant authority to principals,
either because of their ability to distribute rewards, (reward power)
or because of their knowledge and expertise (expert power). These
results present a useful framework to think about the role of the
principal in a school where teachers perceived that they are empowered
since principals on many occasions, may need to influence teachers to
perform certain tasks or make changes in their work behavior.
Therefore, it is interesting that empowered teachers are influenced by
principals through their reward power and expert power. Otherwise,
teachers would not feel obligated to change or accept principals
recommendations.

The results of this study also revealed that teachers perceived their
principals to use referent power. Referent power is based on the
teachers' identification with the principal and it falls under the
category of personal power bases (Hersey & Natemeyer, 1979). According
to Stimson & Appelbaum (1988), when teachers' perception of principals
rely on personal rather than positional power and they were more
satisfied, and perhaps, more empowered, than those who perceived their
principal using only positional power. From these results, it can be
concluded that empowered teachers perceive their principals to rely
primarily on personal power (referent and expert power) and one from
positional power (reward power) to gain followers' compliance.

In this study, it was observed that teachers perceived their
principals not to rely on two specific power bases: legitimate and
coercive power. Legitimate power refers to power based upon
internalized values in the subordinate which dictates that the
administrator has a legitimate right to influence the subordinate and
that the subordinate has an obligation to accept this influence
(French & Raven, 1968). On the other hand, coercive power refers
specifically on the subordinates' perception that they will be
penalized for non-compliance (French & Raven, 1968). Teachers in this
study indicated that the more they were empowered, the more believed
that their principals do not use influences or punishments to
influence teacher work and behavior. It is interesting to note that
coercive power results in decrease attraction of the teacher toward
the principal and offers high resistance (French & Raven, 1968).

Thus, the results of this study indicated that principals influence
teachers through their use of power; basically, three power bases
which appear not to conflict with teachers' perception of empowerment.
Therefore, it contradicts the idea by Zierkel & Guditus (1979) that
greater teacher empowerment may erode the power of the principal.

Conclusions

Implications for Practice

Since expert power, referent power and reward power were found to be
statistically significant, it is important to look for the
implications for real educational settings. The notion that as
teachers become more empowered principals lose power simply may be
incorrect. According to these findings, empowered teachers are aware
of the principal's expertise and recognized it as an important factor
to promote effective change. It can be expected that if principals
find the best way to share their knowledge with teachers, this action
will increase referent power since principals will be perceived as
being like them. It is important to note that referent power refers to
the identification of the teachers with the principal. It is also
important to point out that satisfied teachers believed that their
principals cared about their opinions and responded to their concerns.
Stimson and Appelbaum (1988) stated that principals may use one or a
combination of the various power bases to influence teachers.

Reward power belongs to the category of positional powers: different
from referent power and expert power which fall in the category of
personal power. The empowerment perceived by teachers was
significantly related to reward power. Principals in their daily work
have to be aware that rewards have to be based on the principle of
equity. All subjects will have the opportunity to be rewarded.
Ultimately, teachers and principal become part of a team, working
closely to improve schools for kids. In that respect, principal
expertise (expert power), ability to produce resources valued by
teachers (reward power) and perceived similarity to teachers (referent
power) are powerful sources of influence that principals can use in
creating an empowering environment for teachers.

Table 1
Multiple Regression Between Overall Teacher Level of Empowerment
and Power Bases with Selected Teacher Characteristics

Variables SS MS F PROb
Expert Powe 3911.87 3977.87 17.55 .0007
Referent Power 1943.44 1943.44 8.57 .0037
Reward Power 4033.56 4033.56 17.80 .0001
Coercive Power 38.56 38.56 .17 .68
Legitimate Power 74.27 74.27 .33 .57
Age 252.79 252.79 1.12 .29
Gender 222.94 222.94 .49 .61
Years of T.E. 612.69 612.69 2.70 .10
Level 70.82 35.41 .16 .86
Education 37.82 37.82 .17 .68
Source DF SS MS F PROb
[model 15 24604.29 1640.286
Error 236 53487.69 226.643 7.24 .0001
Corrected 251 78091.984
Total

R2

.3151

References

Aronstein, L.W., Marlow, M & Desilets, B. (1990). Detours on the road
to site-based management, Educational Leadership, 407(7), 61-63.

French, John R.P., & Raven, B.H. (1968). The Bases of Social Power.
Group dynamics: Research and theory. D. Cartwright and A. Zander
(Eds.). 259-270. New York: Harper & Row.

Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational
Leadership, 48(8), 4-10.

Hersey, P. & Natemeyer, W.E. (1979). Power Perception Profile.
Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership Studies.

Hoy, Wayne, K., & Miskel, C.G. (1991). Power and authority.
Educational Administration: Research, Theory and Practice, 76-102. New
York: McGraw Hill.

Karant, V.1. (1989). Supervision in the age of teacher empowerment.
Educational Leadership, 46(8), 27-29.

Lichtenstein, G., McLaughlin, M. & Knudsen, J. ( 1991). Teacher
Empowerment and Professional knowledge. ERIC Document 337857, July.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1986). On goodness in schools: themes of
empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63, 9-28.

Prawat, R. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2, 491-503.

Rahim, M.A. (1989). Rahim leader power inventor. Bowling Green:
Western Kentucky University.

Short, P.M., Greer, J.T., & Michael, R. (1991). Restructuring schools
through empowerment: Facilitating the process. Journal of School
Leadership, 1,127-139.

Short, P.M., Miller-Wood, D. & Johnson, P. (1991). Risk taking and
teacher involvement in decision making. Education, 112(1), 843- 89.

Short, P.M., & Rinehart, J.S. (1992). School participant empowerment
scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school
environment. Educational and Psychological, .52, 951960.

Short, P.M. & Rinehart, J.S. (1992). Teacher empowerment and school
climate. ERIC Document ED34767, April.

Stimson, T.D., & Appelbaum, R.P. (1988). Empowering teachers: Do
principals have the power? Phi Delta Kappa, 70(4) 313-316.

White, P.A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ideal school-site
autonomy. Educational Evaluation, 14(1), 69-83

Zierkel, P.A., & Guditus, C.W. (1979). Bases of power among public
school principals. ERIC Document 170856, April.

~~~~~~~~

By Edwin Gonzales and Paula M. Short

Edwin Gonzales, College of Education, Ohio Dominican University. Paula
M. Short, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis,
University of Missouri-Columbia.
_________________

Copyright of Journal of Instructional Psychology is the property of
Instructional Innovation and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Source: Journal of Instructional Psychology, Sep96, Vol. 23 Issue 3,
p210, 6p.
Item Number: 9611130384

Title: The relationship of teacher empowerment and principal...
Subject(s): TEACHER-principal relationships
Source: Journal of Instructional Psychology, Sep96, Vol. 23 Issue 3,
p210, 6p
Author(s): Gonzales, Edwin; Short, Paula M.
Abstract: Discusses the concept of power among teachers and
principals, focusing on a study which investigated the relationship
between principal use of power and teacher empowerment. Systems used
to measure perceptions of power and empowerment; How the study was
carried out; Details on the results of the study; Conclusions drawn
from these results.
AN: 9611130384
ISSN: 0094-1956
Full Text Word Count: 2645
Database: Academic Search Premier