Educational Administration Quarterly

In this two-part response, it is contended in thefirst case that the dubious notion that all organizations have the same set of requirements that must be met if they are to survive is grounded in a misapplied biological analogy, and in the second case that the labeling of the structured observation research as neo-Taylorism is based on arguments that show only superficial similarities but claim much greater ones. (Editor's Note: The author was extended the opportunity to respond to two articles that appeared in the Fall 1982 issue of EA Q).

Based primarily on social information processing theory, two purposes guided this investigation: (1) to determine the effects of structural and expenctancy linkages on three indicators of school effectiveness and (2) to assess the stability fo these relationships during a school year. Teachers and students from 89 elementary and secondary schools participated in the study. Data were collected early in the fall semester and late in the spring semester. As a group, the structural and expectancy linkage variables were consistent predictors of the criterion variables, especially later in the school year. The findings support the social information processing model and Mintzberg's conception of professional bureaucracies.

The incidence of growth, stability, and decline in college and university enrollments during the 1970s is examined. The results show that variations in growth, stability, and decline are related to institutional type and control. A numbe rof institutional and environmentalfactors are discussed in an effort to explain the observed dynamics.

Arguing that those factors that hinder task completion will relate to dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction with agents, and dissatisfaction with pay in superintendents and principals. The authors believe that this approach to the study of satisfaction, when applied to specific roles, provides a detailed picture of the constraints of a given role. The results of the studylend support to this line of argument.