Teacher’s role is widely regarded as a classic conflict situation. This paper attempts to analyze the problems and conflicts of teacher's role performing and to understand the sources of the conflicts in terms of the allocation of authority in the formal organization of the school. To set the frame the discussion, after a brief clarification of what is meant by the basic concepts to be used the five basic variables affecting teacher role in the school organization are adopted. They are centralization, tall organization, incongruence of role and authority, priority of administrative authority, and traditional autority and ascribed status. The main concepts to be used in this paper are from organization, especially bureaucracy, and role theory, since their utility has been acknowledged in the field of educational administration and sociology of education. In other words, the influence of the formal structural characteristics of the school organization upon the functional aspects of the school is analyzed. In conclusion, this paper has revealed two sources detrimental to the teacher's role performance. First, the structural characteristic of the school organization such as centralization, tall organization, and the priority of administrative authority has been in favor of the increase in bureaucratization of the school. Bureaucratization has further been accelerated by the massification of education, heterogenous background of teachers, and imposition of bureaucratic attributes from without, especially from educational administration. While the basic purpose of bureaucracy is to promote efficiency, the result does not live up to the expectations. Since the Janus like characteristic of bureaucracy, it reveals inefficiency: bureaupathology or dysfunctional I aspect, generally referred as displacement of goals by over-comformity or role distortion. There are many bureaucratic restraints, including instructing, grading, promoting, evaluating, and they can subert teacher's professional commitments. Thus the normative demands of bureaucracy and teacher's professionalism which stresses autonomy, flexibility, and utilization of expertise for the benefit of client inherently come into conflicts. This fact poses difficult problems for both administrators and teachers to perform the professional role. Secondly, autocratic pre-modernity of the teacher consciousness and valueorientation come into conflict with modern bureaucratic school organizational structure. This is easily analyzed by the fact the traditional authority and ascriptive status are preferred to the rational legal authority and achieved status. The teacher has in the past and at present been expected to be the model, protector, and transmitter of the traditional moral virtues and he emphasized the importance of the spiritual as opposed to material and technological culture. Furthermore, it is generally assumed that the spiritual culture has been originated from the Confucianism. This internalized traditional autocratic value-orientation of teacher, accordingly the autocratic socio-psychological climate of teacher society, is exposed to potentially severe role conflict in the situation of urgent need of value change from traditional to new in order to modernize the nation, for it is teacher role. to pre pare youth with new values to innovate the society and to shorten the cultural lag. So the teacher is in the midst of incompatible dual value conflicts. In short, it is the dual factors of bureaucracy of the school organization and pre-modernity of the teacher consciousness that cause both the individual and organizational role conflict situations in the school. It is self-evident and inevitable that teacher as a role occupant is likely to meet with the problem situations to a greater or lesser extent. Traditionally, more attention has been given to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Today, according to behavioral approach, conflict can be functional to individual and organization, and give rise to transformation. To resolve the problem situations, the positive reactions of administrators in upper position of the authority hierarchy are greatly expected, for the innovation from bellow is difficult in bureaucracy and change in a system will tend to occur from the top down, not from the bottom up.