| The purposes of this study were to: (a) describe the supervisory styles (as identified by Dr. Carl Glickman and associates) and rule administration behaviors (as researched by Dr. Frank Lutz and associates) of a sample of administrators to infer about a population, and (b) describe the relationship between and among the three supervisory styles and the three rule administration behaviors.;A random sample of administrators were given Glickman/Tamashiro's (1980) Supervisory Beliefs Inventory (SBI) and either the elementary or secondary version of Caldwell/Lutz's (1958) Rule Administration Scales. A descriptive analysis of the data including the means and standard deviations of the six variables was generated. Correlations were made between the scores on the measured variables. Also, by drawing from a representative sample, inferences about the population from which the sample was drawn were made.;The descriptive analysis revealed differences in the administrators' responses to the Supervisory Beliefs Inventory and the Rule Administration Scales. Most notably, the highest mean for a supervisory style for both the elementary and secondary administrators was for the nondirective supervisory style, whereas the lowest mean for a rule administration behavior was for the mock rule administration behavior. In addition, five of the six correlations for the positive hypotheses were either weak or statistically insignificant.;In conclusion, American elementary and secondary school administrators' supervisory styles are weakly correlated to their rule administration behaviors. There were inherent weaknesses in the Rule Administration Scales which were simplistic, limited in scope, and outdated. |
