This study was concerned with analyzing selected Texas school administrators in an attempt to locate intrapersonal patterns of (1) values, (2) leadership traits, (3) personality traits, (4) critical thinking ability, (5) perception, and authoritarianism. A second aspect was correlating these profiles with each other. The study had a threefold purpose. The first was to perform a detailed analysis of school administrators to determine selected intrapersonal patterns. The second was to determine possible relationships between these selected profiles. The third was to generate plausible hypotheses for testing the intrapersonal patterns found and for determining the magnitude of any existing relationships. The case studies revealed the uniqueness of each participant in this study. With the possible exception of one individual, certain weaknesses were evident in each of the participants. Canonical correlation and the Pearson correlation of D matrices determined that a relationship existed between many of the profiles. Eight hypotheses were presented at the close of the study as guides for additional research. The results of this study indicated that further research was justified in these particular areas. The results of this study indicated that intrapersonal patterns existed within school administrators and that these patterns or profiles are related. However, the determination of the magnitude of these relationships was left to additional research.

Evidence from studies related to the workplace (Ziemenski, 1981 and Knautz, 1982) suggest that occupational stress is a causal factor in job-related illnesses such as coronary heart disease, psychoneurotic and personality disorders, and migraine headaches. II In addition to physiological problems resulting from stress almost every psychosocial variable of importance is affected by stress in the workplace, including productivity, morale, and the .psychological well-being of workers" (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). Cooper and Marshall (1975) proposed two central features of stress at work, the interaction of which determines either coping or maladaptive behavior and stress related disease: (1) the characteristics of the persons (dispositional) and (2) the potential sources of stress in the work environment (situational). There is a growing need to use stress responses to cope with stressful situations encountered in occupations. In order to fulfill their responsibilities, employees should be aware of stressors that develop. The methods utilized in this study should provide an approach to identifying stressors and assessing counterproductive job situations. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the degrees of stress experienced by administrators, teachers I and support personnel of the District of Columbia Public School System to selected occupational factors. This study utilized a descriptive research methodology and survey technique to gather data from a sample population of employees of the District of Columbia Public School System including: (a) administrators, (b) teachers, (c) support personnel, including engineers and clerical support personnel. It was hypothesized that: (1) there is no statistically significant difference in stress levels of administrators, teachers, and support personnel as measured by responses to measurements of perceived occupational stressors (change, clarity, tedium, control, intensity and conflict) according to reported situational and dispositional factors. Analysis of Variance procedures and Pearson Moment Correlation were used to test the hypothesis. Data for the study were obtained from five high schools in the District of Columbia. / Ed. D.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between four selected personality categories as measured by Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) and gender to leader effectiveness and flexibility as measured by Leader Behavior Analysis II Self-A® (LBAII Self-A) and years of experience in school administration. A review of literature traced leadership to the Situational Leadership II model utilized in this study. The model was based on selecting the appropriate leadership style for the individual situation and development level of followers. MBTI® measured sixteen combinations of four personality types which included Extravert® or Introvert, Sensing or iNtuitive®, Thinking or Feeling, and Judging or Perceiving. Four types were selected for this study (ISTJ, ESTJ, INTP, and ESFJ). The LBAII Self-A® instrument measured leader effectiveness and flexibility. The sample was 80 Texas school administrators in eleven school districts. Statistics utilized to test the hypotheses included Hotelling's T2, Multiple Analysis of Variance, Analysis of Variance, and Multiple Regression. Independent variables were gender and personality type. Dependent variables were leader effectiveness, flexibility, and years of experience in school administration. Findings reported a significant difference in leader effectiveness scores of the ESTJ personality type. Additionally, Judging/Perceiving was a significant predictor of years of experience of school administrators. In conclusion, a significant difference was found in leader effectiveness scores which showed that ESTJ personality types had higher scores. Another significant finding was Judging/ Perceiving as a predictor of years of administrative experience. As years of experience increased, Judging (preference for order) increased as a personality variable rather than Perceiving (preference for spontaneity). It was recommended that MBTI® and LBAII® be administered to school administrators as part of pre-service leadership training and for ongoing staff development. These instruments can be utilized as tools to help administrators understand personality type and effective leadership practices.

This study provided administrators in a large southern metropolitan public school district an opportunity to participate in a stress-related research study. The questionnaire contained such stress-related probe areas as spiritual beliefs, preferred and imposed (perceived) orders of major-life emphasis areas, professional environment, personal-social environment, and probes into the ethical positions held by the administrators. The professional environment section contained subsets of internal (on-the-job) probes, external (political) probes, as well as personal (incentive) probes.The personal-social environment section was sub-divided into five Maslow hierarchy-of-need related probes such as physiological needs, safety-security needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-fulfillment needs. The final section of the instrument sampled the administrators' responses to probes concerning their concepts of God, their concepts of the Bible arid their positions on eight ethical statements.