A Conceptual Model for the Study of the Communication of Authority in a Bureaucratic Education System
| Pages | 107-124 |
| Date | 01 February 1967 |
| Published date | 01 February 1967 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009612 |
| Author | K.E. TRONC |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OP EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 107
VOLUME V, NUMBER 2 OCTOBER, 1967
A Conceptual Model for the Study of
the Communication of Authority in a
Bureaucratic Education System
K. E. TRONC
A bureaucratically structured education system employs formal
communication to a high degree, since incumbents of the various
hierarchical authority levels authorize actions to be undertaken
by their subordinates. The process of authorization is here sub-
jected to an analysis in terms of message structure and com-
munication flow. A comparison of the ways in which authoriza-
tions arc communicated at the various levels of the bureaucratic
system leads to a number of hypotheses. It was hypothesized (1)
that the mode of communication used by the superordinate
Department of Education to authorize the actions of intermediate
headteachers will be used in turn by these intermediates to
authorize the actions of their subordinate teachers, (2) the
prevailing mode of communication employed by the superordin-
ate Education Department to authorize the actions of intermediate
headtcachers will be used by intermediates to authorize the
actions of their subordinates teachers even in specific cases where
exceptions to the prevailing superordinate communication mode
are present, and (3) inconsistency or asymmetry between Phase
I and Phase II communication modes is a function of the person-
ality of the intermediate role-incumbent. These hypotheses were
tested in a recent study of the communication of authority by
headteachers of Queensland State primary schools. The first two
hypotheses were supported; because of lack of data the last
hypothesis could not be tested.
A fundamental element in administration is communication of
authority. Symptomatic of the paucity of research in the com-
munication field is the fact that during the period 1940-1965,
only about thirty investigations can be regarded as "major"
con-
tributions, either in scope or implication, and the majority of
these deal with communication generally, rather than the com-
MR. KEITH TRONC is Lecturer in Education at Kelvin Grove Teachers'
College, Brisbane and Tutor in Education in the University of Queensland. He
holds the degrees of B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed., of the University of Queensland
and the Dip. Ed. Admin. of the University of New England. A member of
the Australian College of Education, he holds a Canadian Commonwealth
Scholarship in the Department of Educational Administration at the University
of Alberta.
108 Journal of Educational Administration
munication of authority. Thus, there is little quantitative evidence
on communication of authority, and it may be questioned whether
many of the findings can be applied to the school setting, result-
ing as they do from studies in non-school organizations or from
artificial laboratory situations.
The model presented here is seen as an analytic device which
may serve to isolate and clarify some of the intricacies of the
communication system. It focuses upon the relationship between
different levels in a bureaucratic education system, and more
specifically, upon the content and manner of communication be-
tween these levels.
There are certain terms which are basic to the conceptual
framework, viz., authority, administration, communication, com-
munication mode, prescription, proscription, permission, communi-
cation content, task, affect, organization. Each will be defined in
turn.
Authority
The term "authority" has suffered from much imprecision in
its use. Fayol1 places considerable emphasis on formal "legal"
authority, while Urwick2 recognizes a "technical" authority based
on popularity or seniority. Sears3 defines four varieties of author-
ity—"law, knowledge, social standing and personal taste"—but
nevertheless employs the term mainly in its legal connotation.
Dimock4 asserts that authority is "influence with people." Grif-
fiths5 has expressed concern with the current terminological
imprecision, and points out that many writers use the terms
"authority" and "power" interchangeably. Griffiths himself accepts
the Simon6 definition: "a subordinate may be said to accept
authority whenever he permits his actions to be guided by a
decision reached by another, irrespective of his own judgment as
to the merits of that decision." This is similar to Weber's7 view of
authority as "the probability that certain specific commands (or
all commands) from a given source will be obeyed by a given
group of persons. In an authority relationship, the subordinate
holds in abeyance his own critical faculties for choosing between
alternatives, and uses the formal criterion of the receipt of an
order as the basis for a choice."
Although the Simon and Weber definitions are widely accepted,
they are inadequate in that they define not authority, but rather
the response to authority. As a basis for the use of the term
"authority" in the model presented here the following interpreta-
tion will be employed: Authority resides in the stated or
accepted
right of incumbents of a position to exercise power over other
To continue reading
Request your trial