See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331430234

ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOL HEAD MASTERS

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 2,782

1 author:

A. Sivakumar
K.S.R. College of Engineering
60 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effectiveness of Brain Based Approach in Enhancing Physics Learning Among the students of standard VIII View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. Sivakumar on 01 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637 IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education

ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOL HEAD MASTERS

A. Sivakumar
Research Scholar, Department of Education, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

ABSTRACT
This study sought to explore the administrative behavior of school heads. For this purpose, 300 school heads were chosen
from private, government and govt. aided schools in western region of Tamil Nadu State. Findings indicate that the
administrative behavior of school heads is positively but moderately significant; and significantly influenced by the nature of
school, qualification and gender. Result also shows that there was no significant gender difference regarding administrative
behavior except for nature of the school.
Administration
The word „administer‟ is derived from the
Latin word „administrate‟, which means to care for or
to look after people, to manage affairs. According to
this wide definition almost every human activity
involves some kind of administration (Jipson V. Paul,
2011). Luther Gulick said, “Administration has to do
with getting things done; with the accomplishment
of defined objectives”. James L. McCanny defined
“Administration is the organization and use of men
and materials to accomplish a purpose. It is the
specialized vocation of managers who have skills of
organizing and directing men and materials just as
definitely as the engineer has the skill of building
structure or a doctor has the skill of understanding
human ailments”. Pfiffner and Presthus have defined
administration as “Organization and direction of
human and material resources to achieve desired
ends”. Simon‟s theory of administration plays a vital
role in administration. Simon (1976) clarified the
processes by which goal specificity and formalization
contribute to rational behavior in organizations
(Scott, p.45). He criticized Fayol's platitudes and
Taylor's "economic man" assumptions, proposing the
"administrative man" who pursues his self-interests
but often doesn't know what they are, is aware of
only some of the possible decision alternatives, and
is willing to settle for an adequate solution than
continue looking for an optimal one. Behavior can
be defined as the way in which an individual behaves
or acts. It is the way in which an individual conducts
herself/himself. Behavior should be viewed in
reference to a phenomenon, an object or a person. It
www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS
can be seen with reference to social norms, or the
way in which one treats others or handles objects
(Wilma Guez and John Allen, 2000).
Educational Administration
Administration is a social process concerned
with identifying, maintaining, motivating,
controlling and unifying formally and informally
organized human and material resources within an
integrate system designed specifically to achieve
predetermined objectives. Administration has to do
with getting things done with the accomplishment of
defined objectives. It is important to be able to relate
administration in the context of education or school
organizations. To be able to do that Education
Administration may be considered as a means of
achieving the goals of education through effective
and efficient manipulation of available inputs
(National Open University of Nigeria).
Aderonmu and Ehametalor (1981) defined
educational administration as "essentially a service,
activity or tool, through which the fundamental
objectives of the educational process may be more
fully and efficiently realized". Educational
administration broadly means running of
educational institutions, which involves guidance,
leadership, and controlling of the efforts of
individuals in the achievement of the goals of the
institution (Ayanniyi, 1999).
Important Duties in Educational Administration
Administration Planning is the process of
setting objectives and determining the actions in
order to achieve the goal. It is anticipatory in nature
and sets priorities, and proactive rather than passive.
Oliver Sheldon coined „Organizing’ is the process of
Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 107
 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637 IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
combining the work which individuals or groups Nadu. The profile of school head was as follows: Out
have to perform with facilities necessary for its of 300 teachers, 137 were females and 163 were
execution such that the duties performed provide the males, their experience varied from above 15 years
best channels for efficient, systematic, positive and (M=387.24, SD=37.) and below 15 years (M=382.24,
co-ordinate application of available effort. SD=41.86). The majority of participants had majored
Controlling involves measuring and monitoring the in different qualification, i.e. M.A., B.Ed., M.Sc.,
performance in accordance to the plans and taking B.Ed., and M.Ed.
action when required. It establishes performance Instrument
standards based on the objectives, measures and Administrative Behavior Scale (ABS) was
reports actual performance compares the two and developed and standardized by A. Sivakumar and
takes preventive action when necessary. Directing is Dr. G. Singaravelu (2015) which evaluates 10
the art or process of influencing people such that important facets of artistic administrative behavior
they willingly strive to achieve group goals. It focuses such as planning, organization, communication,
on the development of willingness to work with zeal decision, coordination, visualization, development,
and confidence, provides adequate guidelines to supervision, relation, and monitoring. The
complete the task, and motivates individuals to participants were required to put (Y) beside an item
achieve goals in a coordinated manner. It also if it described the exact aspect of the career, (N) if
focuses on exercising leadership while determining the item did not illustrate the aspect, and (?) if they
responsibility and accountability. Supervision could not decide.
ensures that the plans are being executed according Analysis of Data
to the directives. It enhances the quality of the work Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Administrative
done and ensures accomplishments (T. Manichander, Behavior and its Subscales
2016). S. No. Facet N Mean SD
Research Questions 1
Artistic Administrative
300 384.69 39.965
Behavior
1. What is the degree of administrative behavior of
2 Planning 300 39.19 5.396
the school heads?
2. Is there any significant comparison in the 3 Organization 300 38.88 5.335

administrative behavior of school heads across 4 Communication 300 38.69 4.917

various personal characteristics?
5 Decision 300 38.71 5.538
3. Is there any significant relationship in the
administrative behavior of school heads across 6 Coordination 300 38.99 4.698
various factors in administrative behavior? 7 Visualization 300 38.64 5.573
4. Is there any significant effect of a) gender, b)
locality, c) qualification, d) experience, and e) 8 Development 300 38.28 5.314
nature of school in the administrative behavior? 9 Supervision 300 39.02 4.912
5. Is there any significant interaction effect between
a) gender and qualification, b) gender and 10 Relation 300 38.18 5.203
experience, c) qualification and experience, d) 11 Monitoring 300 36.12 5.764
gender and nature, e) experience and nature, f)
Table-1 depicts that Planning obtains the
gender and locality, and g) experience and
highest mean (M=39.19), and Monitoring obtains the
locality in the administrative behavior?
lowest mean (M=36.12).
6. Is there any significant interaction effect among
Table 2: Administrative Behavior with respect to
a) gender b) locality c) qualification d) experience
Gender, Locality and Experience
e) nature of school in the administrative t- P-
behavior? Variable N Mean SD Sig.
value value
7. Is there any significant influence of Male 163 382.71 39.32 Not
Gender .931 .353
administrative behavior across various personal Female 137 387.04 40.73 Significant
characteristics of school heads? Locality
Urban 117 386.99 37.66
.814 .416
Not
Rural 183 383.21 41.40 Significant
Participants: The population comprised 300school Above 15 Not
heads in several schools in west region of Tamil Experience 147 387.24 37.86 1.086 .278
yrs. Significant

www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 108

 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637 IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
Below 15
153 382.24 41.86 Table 4: 3-Way Factorial ANOVA of the School
yrs.
Heads in Administrative Behavior
From Table-2, it is evident that there is no Type III Sum of Mean P-
significant comparison of school heads gender, Source df F
Squares Square value
locality and experience of their administrative Gender 664.870 1 664.870 .431 .512
behavior as follows: gender (t=.931, p>0.05), locality Qualification 4522.495 2 2261.248 1.466 .232
(t=.814, p>0.05) and experience (t=1.08, p>0.05). Experience 8.963 1 8.963 .006 .939
Table 3: Administrative Behavior with respect to Gender *
1116.375 2 558.188 .362 .697
Qualification
Qualification and Nature of School Gender *
Source of Sum of Mean 1661.892 1 1661.892 1.078 .300
Variable df F Sig. Experience
Variation Squares Square Qualification *
Between 12484.372 2 6242.186 4.048 .018
8745.971 2 4372.985 Experience
Groups Gender *
Within Qualification * 8772.651 2 4386.325 2.844 .060
Qualification 468827.078 297 1578.542 2.77 .064
Groups Experience
Total 477573.048 299 Error 444124.579 288 1542.099
Between Total 44872491.690 300
131242.431 2 65621.215
Groups Corrected Total 477573.048 299
Within
Nature
Groups
346330.617 297 1166.096 56.27 .000 Table-4 indicates there is no significant effect
of gender (F (1, 288) = .431, p<0.05), Qualification
Total 477573.048 299
(F (1,288) =1.46, p<0.05) and Experience (F (1,288)
Table-3 indicates there are no differences in =.006, p<0.05) on the school heads artistic
administrative behavior across the three groups of administrative behavior. The table also reveals that
school heads with qualification (F=.2.77, p<0.05). there is no significant interaction effect between
The table also reveals that there are differences in gender and qualification (F (1,288) =.362, p<0.05)
administrative behavior across the three groups of and gender and Experience (F (1,288)=1.078,
school heads with nature (F=.814, p<0.05). p<0.05) on the school heads artistic administrative
The ANOVA analysis revealed there is behavior. However the table shows that there is
difference somewhere among the means of three significant interaction effect of qualification and
groups regarding Nature of School Heads, but the experience (F (1,288)=.018, p<0.05) on the school
precise location of difference is not clear. To locate heads artistic administrative behavior. Finally the
the exact place of differences, a post hoc comparison table expressed that there is no significant
of the means was run. In so doing, a Dunnett‟s T3 interaction effect among gender, qualification and
test was utilized. Table-3.1 displays the results of experience (F (1,288)=0.60, p<0.05) on the school
Dunnett‟s T3 test (1. Government School; 2. heads administrative behavior.
Government Aided School, and 3. Private School). The three way Factorial ANOVA analysis
Table 3.1: Post Hoc for Type of School revealed there is difference somewhere among the
95% Confidence
Nature of Nature of
Mean
Std. Interval means of three groups regarding Qualification of
Difference Sig.
School (I) School (J) Error Lower Upper School Heads, but the precise location of difference
(I-J)
Bound Bound is not clear. To locate the exact place of differences, a
2 -34.727* 5.674 .000 -48.43 -21.02 post hoc comparison of the means was run. In so
1
*
3 -52.268 5.486 .000 -65.53 -39.00 doing, a Dunnett test was utilized. Table 4.1 display
1 34.727* 5.674 .000 21.02 48.43 the results of Dunnett test (1: M.Sc. B.Ed./M.Ed.; 2.
2
*
3 -17.541 3.848 .000 -26.80 -8.28 M.A. B.Ed./M.Ed.; and 3. M.Ed.).
1 52.268* 5.486 .000 39.00 65.53 Table 4.1: Post Hoc Test
3
2 17.541* 3.848 .000 8.28 26.80 Qualification Qualification Mean
Std. Error P-value
(I) (J) Difference (I-J)
Note: *mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 1 3 12.32 5.918 .067
The results of the post hoc Dunnett‟s T3 test *
2 3 14.55 6.542 .047
revealed that, at the level of 0.05 there were
significant differences among all nature of the school The results of the post hoc Dunnett test
heads artistic administrative behavior. revealed that, at the level of 0.05 there were
significant differences between M.A. B.Ed./M.Ed.
www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 109
 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637 IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
and M.Ed. qualification of the school heads artistic significant differences among all nature of the school
administrative behavior. heads artistic administrative behavior.
Table 5: 3-Way Factorial ANOVA of the School Table 6: 3-Way Factorial ANOVA of the School
Heads in Administrative Behavior Heads in Administrative Behavior
Type III Sum of Mean P- Type III Sum of Mean P-
Source df F Source df F
Squares Square value Squares Square value
Gender 3285.358 1 3285.358 2.809 .095 Gender 1671.189 1 1671.189 1.046 .307
Experience 620.993 1 620.993 .389 .534
Experience 1072.746 1 1072.746 .917 .339
Locality 1662.556 1 1662.556 1.040 .309
Nature 125275.501 2 62637.751 53.554 .000 Gender * Experience 191.006 1 191.006 .120 .730
Gender * Experience 4.515 1 4.515 .004 .951 Gender * Locality 285.463 1 285.463 .179 .673
Gender * Nature 1669.182 2 834.591 .714 .491 Experience * Locality 4426.587 1 4426.587 2.770 .097
Experience * Nature 2818.430 2 1409.215 1.205 .301 Gender * Experience *
241.312 1 241.312 .151 .698
Gender * Experience * Locality
1409.633 2 704.817 .603 .548 Error 466652.207 292 1598.124
Nature
Total 44872491.690 300
Error 336852.837 288 1169.628
Corrected Total 477573.048 299
Total 44872491.690 300
Table-6 indicates that there is no significant
Corrected Total 477573.048 299
effect of gender (F (1, 292)=1.04, p<0.05),
Table-5 indicates there is no significant effect
Experience (F (1,292)=.389, p<0.05) and Locality (F
of gender (F (1, 288)=2.80, p<0.05), Experience (F
(1,292)=.1.0, p<0.05) on the school heads artistic
(1,288)=.917, p<0.05) on the school heads artistic
administrative behavior. The table also reveals that
administrative behavior. However the table shows
there is no significant interaction effect between
that there is significant effect of Nature (F (1, 288)=
gender and Experience (F (1,292)=.120, p<0.05),
53.55, p<0.05) on the school heads artistic
gender and Locality (F (1,292)=.179, p<0.05) and
administrative behavior. The table also reveals that
Experience and Locality (F (1,292)=2.77, p<0.05) on
there is no significant interaction effect between
the school heads artistic administrative behavior.
gender and Experience (F (1,288)=.004, p<0.05),
Finally the table expressed that there is no significant
gender and Nature (F (1,288)=0.714, p<0.05) and
interaction effect among gender, experience and
Experience and Nature (F (1,288)=1.20, p<0.05) on
Locality (F (1,292)=.151, p<0.05) on the school
the school heads artistic administrative behavior.
heads artistic administrative behavior
Finally the table expressed that there is no significant
Planning is dependent variable. Planning is
interaction effect among gender, experience and
depending up on organization, communication,
Nature (F (1,288)=0.603, p<0.05) on the school
decision, coordination, visualization, development,
heads administrative behavior.
supervision, relation and monitoring. Below are the
The three way Factorial ANOVA analysis
results of the several tests conducted with the help of
revealed there is difference somewhere among the
regression analysis.
means of three groups regarding Nature of School
Table 7: Model Summary
Heads, but the precise location of difference is not Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
clear. To locate the exact place of differences, a post .528a .279 .267 34.223
hoc comparison of the means was run. In so doing, a From Table-7, R=.528 it means
Dunnett test was utilized. Table-5.1 display the administrative behavior has a positive relationship
results of Dunnett test (1: Government School; 2: with gender, locality, qualification, experience and
Government Aided School; 3: Private School). nature. R Square=.279, 27% of the variation in
Table 5.1: Post Hoc Test supervision is enhanced by gender, locality,
Nature of the Nature of the Mean Std. P- qualification, experience and nature. And Adjusted
School (I) School (J) Difference (I-J) Error value
R Square=.267.
1 3 -52.27* 4.991 .000 Table 7.1: ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
2 3 -17.54* 4.691 .000 Regression 133229.413 5 26645.883
1
Residual 344343.635 294 1171.237 22.750 .000b
Note: *mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 477573.048 299
The results of the post hoc Dunnett test Table 7.1 indicates that the F-value is
revealed that, at the level of 0.05 there were significant (F=22.75, p<0.05) it means dependent

www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 110

 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637 IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
variable administrative behavior is more reliable. artistic administrative behavior of the domain of the
Table 7.2: Coefficients study. The domain of planning and supervision has
Unstandardized Standardized the highest mean (39.19, 39.02), this indicates that
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
there is a satisfaction from the school heads in the
(Constant) 337.503 12.189 27.689 .000 artistic administrative behavior. The domain of the
Gender 7.584 4.103 .095 1.848 .066 monitoring has the lowest mean with (36.12) which
1 Locality -3.017 4.233 -.037 -.713 .477 indicates that the school heads has no authority to
Qualification -3.882 2.537 -.077 -1.530 .127
Experience -3.339 4.043 -.042 -.826 .409 present incentives of self-development of the staff
Nature 25.676 2.507 .510 10.242 .000 members.
Dependent Variable: Administrative Behavior.  Is there any significant comparison of school
Table-7.2 indicates that one of the five heads, administrative behavior across various
independent variables is statistically significant: personal characteristics?
nature (p value = 0.00). The greatest influence upon Table-2 shows the results of independent
the variable is nature (beta = 0.510). sample t-test where possible, Levene test were not
Table 7.2 confers the regression conclusions. significant (p>.05). t-test findings shows the bias of
The equation tested is y = α +β1 (x1) +β2 (x2) + β3 administrative behavior with gender, locality of
(x3) + β4 (x4) + β5 (x5) Where y is the administrative school, and experience of the school heads are not
behavior (Constant value) and X1 is gender, X2 is statistically significant t (298) p=.353, .416, and .278,
locality, X3 is qualification, X4 is experience and X5 (p>0.05). The remaining independent variables are
is Nature. confirmed with F-test. F-test shows the administrative
Table 8: Relationship among the Administrative behavior with Educational qualification and Nature
Behavior Components of the school. Results of the F test, educational
qualification not influenced in the administrative
behavior except nature of the school F (297) p=2.77,
Communication

Coordination

Development
Organization

Visualization

Supervision

Monitoring
Planning

Decision

and 56.27, (p>0.05) (Table-2). Table-2.1 shows the

Relation

Administrative
Behavior results of post hoc test for nature of the school. Post
hoc test correctly point out the significant statistically
among the variables. The result of post hoc test
Planning .726 .548 .422 .582 .611 .519 .515 .611 .468 indicates, all the variables are statistically significant
Organization .497 .398 .539 .577 .488 .516 .559 .393 (p<0.05). The above results are agreed with
Communication .670 .576 .533 .550 .597 .597 .546
Decision .559 .465 .456 .432 .503 .480
(Nandisha, B.V., 2015) study that showed that there
Coordination .613 .486 .480 .607 .452 is no significant difference between administrative
Visualization .509 .481 .589 .528 behavioral changes in both gender and locality wise
Development .603 .523 .483
of school heads. Mohan Lal Arya (2014) studied
Supervision .519 .468
Relation .598 principals effectiveness behavior indicates, the
Monitoring principals of Government Secondary Schools having
N 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 low level of Administrative effectiveness in
Table-8 depicts that among the pedagogical and social relation skills effectiveness,
administrative behavior components are correlated but high administrative skill effectiveness while the
significantly and positively at 0.05 levels. Based on reverse is the case in Public secondary schools. This
the results the school heads are positive in their show the results of this study fail to reject hypothesis.
administrative behavior but have a moderate  Is there any significant relationship of school
correlation. heads, administrative behavior across various
Discussion factors in artistic administrative behavior?
 What is the degree of the administrative Table-8 explains that there is a positive
behavior of the School Heads? relationship between administrative behaviors which
The results show that the means of the explains that when the school head is able to manage
artistic administrative behavior of the school heads the school, head has an artistic behavior in the
in the west region of Tamilnadu are between (39.19- domain of work. This result is agreed with the result
36.12), which is considered medium degree in the of (Gill et al., 2010), the results show that the degree
www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 111
 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
functional empowerment is high and its relationship
with the leadership is positive according to the
exchanging respect and trust. This also agree with
the study of (Kreitner & Kiniki, 1994) that shows
that the innovate personality leads to interaction and
exchanging views, and good relationship with others
This result is agree with (Shosha, 2011) study that
arrived to the positive effect of psycho empowerment
on the innovative behavior of the workers as the
positive effect of the organization empowerment on
the innovative behavior and the result here confirms
that the academic leaders who have the ability to the
administrative works and authorize others. This
show the results of this study fail to reject hypothesis.
 Is there any significant effect of a) Gender b)
Locality c) Qualification d) Experience e)
Nature of School on the artistic
administrative behavior?
Table-4 shows that the results of
independent sample Three Way Factorial ANOVA
test where possible, Levene test were not significant
(p> .05). Three Way Factorial ANOVA test findings
shows the bias of administrative behavior with
gender, locality of school, Educational qualification
and experience of the school heads are not
statistically significant F (1, 288) p=.512, .309, .232, This show the results of this study fail to reject
and .939(p>0.05). The one more independent
variable of the administrative behavior is Nature of
the school is statistically significant F (1, 288)
p=.0.00). Table-4.1 shows the results of post hoc test
for nature of the school. Post hoc test correctly point
out the significant statistically among the variables.
The result of post hoc test indicates, all the variables significantly related to gender (Beta weight=.001),
are statistically significant. This show the results of
this study fail to reject hypothesis.
 Is there any significant interaction effect
between a) gender and qualification, b)
gender and experience, c) qualification and
experience, d) gender and nature, e)
experience and nature, f) gender and locality,
and g) experience and locality on
administrative behavior?
Table-5 shows that the results of
independent sample Three Way Factorial ANOVA
test where possible, Levene test were not significant
(p>.05). Three Way Factorial ANOVA test findings
shows the bias of administrative behavior with
gender and qualification, gender and experience,
gender and nature, experience and nature, gender
and locality and experience and locality of the school
www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS
IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
heads are not statistically significant F (1, 288)
p=.697, .300, .491, .301, .673, and .097(p>0.05)
except qualification and experience. The one more
variable qualification and experience of the
administrative behavior is statistically significant F
(1, 288) p=.0.018). Table-5.1 shows the results of
post hoc test for nature of the school. Post hoc test
correctly point out the significant statistically among
the variables. The result of post hoc test indicates,
M.A. B.Ed./M.Ed. and M.Ed. variables are
statistically significant. This show the results of this
study fail to reject hypothesis.
 Is there any significant interaction effect
among a) gender, b) locality, c) qualification,
d) experience, and e) nature of school on the
artistic administrative behavior?
Table-6 shows that the results of
independent sample Three Way Factorial ANOVA
test where possible, Levene test were not significant
(p>.05). Three Way Factorial ANOVA test findings
shows the bias of administrative behavior with
a)gender, qualification and experience, b) gender,
experience and nature, c) gender experience and
locality of the school heads are not statistically
significant F (1, 288) p=.060, .548, and .698(p>0.05).
hypothesis.
 Is there any significant influence of school
heads, administrative behavior across various
personal characteristics?
Table-8 shows that in a regression analysis of
the data, planning of the school heads was
locality (Beta weight=.000), qualification (Beta
weight=.022), experience (Beta weight=.000), and
nature (Beta weight=.000), However, Gender,
Locality of the School, Educational Qualification,
Experience School head and Nature of the School,
were significantly related to artistic administrative
behavior. This show the results of this study fail to
reject hypothesis
References
Aydin Balyer. (2012). Transformational Leadership
Behaviors of School Principals: A Qualitative
Research Based on Teachers‟ Perceptions.
International Online Journal of Educational
Sciences, 4(3), 581-591. Retrieved from
http://www.iojes.net/userfiles/article/iojes_
949.pdf
Akhilesh Chandra, Ravi Krovi & Balaji Rajagopalan.
Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 112
 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
(2012). Risk Visualization: A Mechanism for
Supporting Unstructured Decision Making
Processes. International Journal of Applied
Management and Technology, 6(4), 48-70.
Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/ijamt/vol6
/iss4/3/
Basu Mudasir. (2012). Administrative Behavior and
Job Activity in Relation to Administrators
Occupational Efficacy. Global Advanced
Research Journal of Educational Research
and Review, 1(8), 172-181. Retrieved from
http://garj.org/garjerr/index.htm
Bennis, Warren, G. (2016). Leadership Theory and
Administrative Behavior: The Problem of
Authority. Administrative Science Quarterly,
4(3), 259-301. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2390911
Basu Mudasir. (2012). Occupational Efficacy and
Administrative Behavior: A Study of
Educational Administrators in Kashmir.
Researcher, 4(11), 30-37. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencepub.net/researcher
Basavaraj, M.H. (2013). A Study of Administrative
Behavior and Job Satisfaction of Secondary
School Heads of North Karnataka. Available
at http://www.
ssmrae.org/admin/images/612a655426e8cff
7bc95774358b7ab35.pdf
Campbell, Roald F. & Faber, Charles F. (2016).
Administrative Behavior: Theory and
Research. Review of Educational Research,
31(4), 353-367. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1168886
Jesper Simonsen Herbert A. Simon (1994).
Administrative Behavior: How organizations
can be understood in terms of decision
processes. Roskilde University, 1-9. Retrieved
from
http://jespersimonsen.dk/Downloads/Simo
n-introduction.pdf
Mohan Lal Arya. (2014). Teacher‟s Perception of
Principal‟s Administrative Effectiveness in
Government and Public Secondary Schools
in Moradabad district. International Journal
of Education and Science Research, 1(5), 47-
57. Retrieved from
http://www.ijesrr.org/publication/12/IJESR
R%20V-1-5-6.pdf
Mohan Lal Arya. (2015). Relationship between
www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS
IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
Principal‟s Administrative Behavior and
Senior Secondary School‟s Effectiveness in
Moradabad. Global Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies, 4(5), 98-109.
Available at www.gjms.co.in.
Martha Oruku & Mumenlugard. (n.d).
Administrative Theory, National Open
University of Nigeria, MGSI172.1-281.
Retrieved from
http://www.nou.edu.ng/uploads/NOUN
OCL/pdf/SMS/MGS%20712.pdf
Nandisha, B.V. (2015). Secondary school
headmasters Administrative Behavior and
Occupational Efficacy effects on their school
improvement. Global Journal for Research
Analysis, 4(2), 78-79. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwidejournals
.com/gra/articles.php?val=MjcyNA==&b1=1
29&k=33
Peter Coleman. (1972). The future role of the school
administrator. Springer, 3(4), 53-64.
Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2
FBF02145407#page-1
Oseph Besong Beson. (2014). Principals‟
Administrative Effectiveness and Staff
Productivity in Selected Secondary School in
South West Region, Cameroon.
International Journal of Academic Research
in Management, 3(2), 155-166. Retrieved
from
http://elvedit.com/journals/IJARM/wp
content/uploads/2014/03 /Joseph-Besong-
Besong.pdf
Pramod Kumarnaik & Nishantmishra. (2016).
Administrative behavior of principal‟s on
organizational health of secondary schools - A
Study. Journal of International Academic
Research for Multidisciplinary, 4(2), 1-9.
Available at www.jiarm.com.
Ravi Kant & Bhimappa Rangannavar. (2013). Effect
of Administrative Behavior of School Heads
and Some Socio-Psychological Factors on the
Organizational Commitment of Secondary
School Teachers, International Journal of
Educational Research and Technology, 4(3),
73-80. Retrieved from
www.soeagra.com/ijert/ijert.htm.
UNESCO (2016). Better Schools: Resource
Materials for School Heads in Africa.
Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 113
 DOI PREFIX: 10.22183 JOURNAL DOI: 10.22183/23474637 IMPACT FACTOR: 1.619 (ISRA) ISSN 2347-4637
An International Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Bi-Annual Journal in Education
Available at http://library.unesco-
iicba.org/English/Better_Schools/Better%20
Schools/MODULE4/module4_unit3.htm
Wellington Samkange. (2013). Management and
Administration in Education: What do
school heads do? A focus on primary school
heads in one district in Zimbabwe.
International Journal of Social Sciences &
Education, 3(3), 635-643. Retrieved from
http://ijsse.com/sites/default/files/issues/20
13/v3i3/Paper-10.pdf
Yusufu, Obadiah T. (1991). Principal's
administrative behavior, strategic planning,
organizational structure, innovative strategy,
school climate and their relation to student
achievement and attendance in selected
schools. Atlanta University Center, 1-101.
Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/cgi/viewco
ntent.cgi?article=2152&context=dissertations
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop
/simon.html
http://publicadministrationtheone.blogspot.in/201
2/07/process-techniques-of-decision-
making.html

www.ycjournal.net RESEARCH TRACKS Volume IV, Issue I, January 2017 114

View publication stats