“£313“

ill 00

\l\\ i

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AN INVESTIGATION OF FACULTY COMMITMENT

TO THE UNIVERS ITY

presented by
Richard A. Frost

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Bll‘_D_.__ degree in W

/' r,
,' // . V )
’ , ‘ .,k ‘L;‘_ - /
/2/ / ‘1 ,' \ 1,4“ ,
/ I {I ~, ‘
. ‘1 [A 9;4¢__,,Z/~'/r{‘ P>>

,mz.\ l r
'/Louts CL amatakos

Major professor

// 6‘
Date // /7 N

 

MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution O~ 12771

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checltout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
We a l :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"—W Ila—IT

L.____________;_ 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T—I I

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cMma-pd

 

W___

 

AN INVESTIGATION OF FACULTY COMMITMENT

TO THE UNIVERSITY

BY
Richard A. Frost

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1991

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF FACULTY COMMITMENT
TO THE UNIVERSITY

BY
Richard A. Frost

The purposes of .American ihigher education are
instruction, research, and service. Faculty perform the
essential tasks of teaching, conducting research, providing
service, participating in institutional governance and helping
to develop the organizational culture which are critical
elements to fulfill the main purposes of higher education.
Through the efforts of faculty a university can achieve the
purposes and goals of the institution. However, if faculty
are not committed to the university goals, the university
fragments into isolated centers, with little cohesiveness or
common direction. The primary objective of this study was to
investigate the strength of faculty commitment to their
employing institution.

During the past thirty-five years there have been major
events which have effected both faculty and universities.
First the "golden age" between 1955 to 1974, provided
resources and opportunities for both faculty and universities
to develop and grown ‘The results were reflected in the number
of students, budgets, and buildings increasing but also the
proliferation of academic departments and specialization.
Following this era of growth was a period of retrenchment and

reappraisal caused by economic and demographic factors. The

Richard A. Frost

result of these periods was the development of faculty members
with a fragmented commitment to their institution.

The investigation of the strength of faculty commitment
was conducted by using a sample of faculty from Carnegie—
Mellon University and Ohio University. The academic
departments of each institution were reviewed and five were
selected based on their similarities. The Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire, developed by Mowday, Porter and
Steers was used to measure the strength of faculty commitment.

Sixty percent of the faculty surveyed responded allowing
for the analysis of the data to be performed. The analysis of
the data revealed that the faculty mean score on commitment
corresponds to the "neither disagree or agree" anchor on a 7
point Likert scale. The strength of commitment was also
analyzed according to the tenure status of the faculty and
years of service to the institution. The data revealed that
faculty who are tenured are slightly more committed then
nontenured faculty. With respect to years of service there
was no difference revealed between 10 year increments of

service.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following people for
their help in completing the requirements of the Doctorate.
To my parents for the dream and background which got me
started. To the rest of the family for their support. To Lou
Stamatakos for his guidance, patience and ever present red
pen. To Susan for her love, encouragement, insight, and
without whose help the task would still be ongoing. My

sincerest thanks and love to all of you!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I - AN INVESTIGATION OF FACULTY COMMITMENT

TO THE UNIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stgtement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . .

Putposes _t ttg Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Significance gt ttg gtpgy . . . . . . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mgthodoloqv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations gt tgg gtggy . . . . . . . . . . .
Organization gt the Studv . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . .
Faculty Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Events gt the Past Thirty-Five Years . . . . .
Faculty and University Changes . . . . . . . .
Commitment gg gp Organizational Variable . . .

Research gp Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection gt Sample Institutions gpg Population
§e122£i2n 2: pp Instrument . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures it Instrument Administration . . . .
Dgéigg and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
Su_mmary

 

14
15
17
20
22
23
24

25
26
29
32
41
50
54

55
55
56
63
66
69

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Demographic Dgtg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Statistical Analysis tg Address tptgg Purposes . . . . . 76
Degree gt Organizational Commitment gt Total Sample . . . 76
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

 

CHAPTER V - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 82

Synopsis _t tpg Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Conclusions gpg Inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Implications gt Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . 95

 

APPENDIX A - Example of Letters to Faculty Sample
and Copies of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

APPENDIX B - Dunn's Multiple Comparison Formula . . . . 107

APPENDIX C - Survey Results for Carnegie-Mellon
University and Ohio University . . . . . . . . . . 108

APPENDIX D - Survey Results for Tenure and Nontenure
Status of Faculty Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

APPENDIX E - Table of Faculty Organized by
Ten Year Increments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O I O O O O C O O 0 O O O O O O 121

vi

LIST OF TABLES

 

TABLE PAGE
NUMBER NUMBER
1 Sample Population Size and Number and Percent gt
Faculty Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2 tgnurg Status gt Responding Faculty . . . . . . . . 72

 

3 Number and Percent gt Responding Faculty 1g
Groupings of Ten Years of Service . . . . . . . . . 72

f

ean and Standard Deviation for Facultv Respondents
from Each University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5 Mean and Standard Deviation for Responding Faculty
Grouped py 1gpurg Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6 Mean and Standard Deviation for Responding Facultv
tp Groupings of Ten Years of Service . . . . . . . . 75

7 Test gt the Null Hypothesis gt Two Groups gt

 

 

 

 

Responding Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8 Mean gpg Standard Deviation for Responding Faculty

gt Both Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
9 Results gt Two-Tailed tggt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10 Illustration gt Group Compariggpg . . . . . . . . . 79

 

11 Comparisons gt Faculty Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 79

vii

CHAPTER I
AN EXAMINATION OF FACULTY COMMITMENT TO
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Inttoductiop

Approximately fifteen years ago, higher education was
concluding twenty of its most prosperous and productive
years. The GI Bill coupled with the post-World War II
baby boom drastically increased the number of students
enrolling in higher education. The increase in enrollments
and a dynamic economy served as catalysts for the expansion
of classrooms, residence halls, physical plants and research
facilities. This growth was reinforced by a dramatic
increase in public and private support for higher education
as universities endeavored to identify their role in serving
an expanding economy. The prosperity of universities
necessitated the hiring of new faculty which was accompanied
by the development of new academic disciplines and
specialities to meet the needs of the students, growing
economy and new knowledge. Keller in Academic Strategy: 1gp
Revglution lg American Higher Education (1983), confirms the
success of higher education by stating: "...the 20 years
between 1955 and 1974 were the most prosperous years ever
for American higher education" (Keller, 1983, p. 8).

The events in the subsequent years, 1974-1984, required
universities to modify academic programs, adjust to
reductions in student enrollments, and operate with fewer

financial resources. These incidents occurred with no

2
corresponding decrease in the costs of programs, personnel,
or maintenance of physical facilities. Keller observed this
shift in the direction of higher education and wrote:

By the mid-19705, however, the extraordinary postwar

boom in higher education began to fizzle. By 1980 it

was clear that at best a decade of hardship and decline

lay ahead once again. (Keller, 1983 pp. 10-11)

These new conditions significantly affected the types of
organizations higher educational institutions have become.

These two periods of time have influenced the character
and the organization of higher education significantly, and
the consequent institutional changes and their impacts on
the faculty and collegiate environment are worthy of
investigation. However, most central to this condition of
"feast to famine" are the faculty and how the new
institutional conditions and culture have changed the
complexion of their role in higher education.

Faculty are the primary resource responsible for the
achievement of the missions of the collegiate institution.
The events of this era (1975-1984) and the contradictory
directions between these two eras (1955-1974 and 1975-1984)
have required, if not forced, the faculty to establish new
relationships among themselves and with the university.
Faculty are now involved in relationships such as collective
bargaining agreements, governance conflicts between faculty
and administration, tenured versus non-tenured faculty,

teaching versus research, department versus department,

liberal arts versus professional schools, minorities and

3
women versus white males, and graduate versus undergraduate
teaching responsibilities (Karol and Ginsburg, 1982, p. 12).
The collegial nature of the institution which provided much
of the early strength of higher education is being severely
tested by these conflicts and changed relationships. At
issue is, given the three decades of change, stress, and
conflict, are faculty committed to the entire university or
are faculty, as Kerr describes them, "...a series of
individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common
grievance over parking" (Kerr, 1964, p. 20). This research
was an exploratory study of faculty's professional
commitment to the university at which they are employed.
Statement gt the Problem

A contractual relationship exists between the
university as an organization and faculty as members of the
organization. The university provides the students and
facilities where faculty utilize their skills and
competencies toward the achievement of the institution‘s
stated goals. Faculty contribute the competence and
processes which empower faculty and staff of the university
to teach, conduct research, provide service, and establish
an organizational culture. Faculty also participate in
numerous forms of institutional governance which contribute
significantly to the operation of the university. Within
this relationship there needs to be a commitment by the
faculty to employ their competencies toward fulfilling the

values and objectives of the institution. Bowen and

4
Schuster identify the importance of faculty to the quality
of a university. They state:

The excellence of higher education is a function of the

kind of people it is able to enlist and retain on its

faculties. (Bowen and Schuster, 1986, p. 3)

This statement makes explicit the critical role of faculty
in the university.

Through the efforts of faculty in their various roles,
an institution can collectively achieve the goals of the
university. However, if faculty are not committed to the
university goals, the university fragments into isolated
centers of activity with obscure direction and independent
actions which hinder the achievement of its goals.
Therefore, the relationship in which faculty associate
themselves to the institution identifies the strength of
commitment by the faculty members to the university as an
important factor in today's American higher education.

As previously stated, faculty through their
professional competence to teach students, carry out
research, and furnish service empower the university to
implement and fulfill its goals. Without faculty,
universities would not possess these primary resources and
therefore cease to be viable institutions. In addition,
faculty create and facilitate the major socialization
process which influences the culture of the university, and
they participate in a variety of processes (academic senate,
hiring faculty, university committees, etc.) which

contribute to the overall operation. There are three

5
statements which illustrate the relationships of the faculty
to the university. The first two establish the role of
faculty with the students in academic programs:
Faculties are an indisputable resource in ensuring
institutional survival and viability. Whatever is done
in the academic program will be done by faculty, and
they can do it superbly, well, or poor. (Mayhew, 1979,
p. 224)
With respect to students he writes:
...whether they stay, once enrolled, seem related to
the degree of satisfaction with the social environment
and academic program. (Mayhew, 1979, p. 224)
These statements reflect the time-honored and essential
roles faculty play in the creation and development of
quality academic programs and the retention of students,
both basic qualities for a university's existence. With
respect to the role of faculty within the organization,
Mayhew states:
It is also axiomatic that institutional existence,
continuation, change, and even survival are related to

the institution's traditions, saga, and perception of
itself... it is the faculty that is the most effective

collective memory and exemplar of a tradition.
(Mayhew, 1979, p. 225)

With this statement, Mayhew indicates the crucial role
faculty perform in developing institutional identity and the
necessity of faculty participation in creating the
institutional direction and performance.

Having identified that faculty are integral to the
effective functioning of a university, the question is,
should they do so in a collegial mode and with a sense of

commitment to the institution? The collegial commitment to

6

the institution is a critical dimension of the academic
identity because it determines the faculty's personal and
professional roles and relationships to the university
community. Without this understanding and commitment
different colleges, departments, and faculties are free to
establish directions, programs, and policies which respond
to the particular interests of the group or individual, not
necessarily what is most appropriate for the entire
university. Barnard notes that the different parts of the
individual organization need to be congruent with the total
organization to be effective. He states:

...to be effective an organization must persuade the

individual members that his personal interests are in

accord with, and will be furthered by accomplishment of

the objectives of the employing organization.
(Barnard, 1948, p. 163)

Another perspective which reinforces the compelling need to
operate as an integrated whole is the concept that without
mutual commitment among the participants concerning the
purpose of the organization, that organization will be
ineffective in accomplishing its purpose. In the book Egypt
and Authority, Hodgkinson quotes W. James to emphasize the

mutuality necessary in an organization:

A social organism of any sort whatever large or small,
is what it is because each member proceeds to his own
duty with trust that the other members will

simultaneously do theirs. A government, an army, a

commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team

all exist on this condition without which not only is
nothing accomplished but nothing is even attempted.

(James, 1897, p. 24)

Being an effective organization, as illustrated by Barnard

7
(1948) and Hodgkinson (1971), requires that a commitment be
made so that there is a mutuality of purpose and effort and
that a basic "trust" exists which allows and nurtures
membership and optimal performance.

The commitment and contributions of faculty to the
university are critically important for the institution in
realizing the achievement of its goals. These two
variables, commitment and contributions, were significantly
affected by the events of the "feast and famine" eras.
There is not a fixed date or event which can be identified
as when and how this commitment began to be influenced.
However, as early as 1967, Sanford began to write about the
splintering of the collegial environment. Sanford stated:

A second major trend has been the use of professional

societies and professional as opposed to institutional

identification on the part of college teachers. The
net effect has been to pose a conflict of
identification and loyalty among members of the

teaching profession. (Sanford, 1967, p. 295)

The increase of "professional" disciplines and
associations was part of the evolution of the "golden age"
in which academic disciplines began to expand, explore, and
develop the different specialties which emerged within
fields during recent years. Specialization of academic
fields resulted in the fragmentation of the collegial base
and among faculty. Fragmentation among faculty occurred as
a consequence of faculty identifying with their academic

discipline and not the particular culture unique to their

institution. The specialization of knowledge perse is not

8
harmful, but during the development of these changing
professional identities, the universities did not provide
and the faculty did not seek the commonality of academic
commitment which creates a sense of belonging to the
university. Truman, in 1970 wrote:
There has been the heavy emphasis upon professionali-
zation, professionalization by disciplines and even a
kind of microprofessionalization with the result that
interaction of individuals has been within such
professional boundaries, and there has been a kind of
atrophy of intrainstitutional contacts and identifica-
tions.... There has been, in consequence of this a
weakening of concern for the collective educational
enterprise that spans any such professional boundaries
or should span them. (Truman, 1970, p. 6)
With university enrollments, dollars, programs, and services
growing rapidly during the golden age, it was predictable
that the organization would experience a positive feeling of
success while not recognizing that the basis of
relationships and common values were being eroded. This
was, in fact, what Sanders wrote about in 1973:
... as a community of scholars--those who face campus
problems daily and intimately are impressed by the
erosion of the sense of community, especially with
respect to the general goals of higher education, the
purposes of any given institution, and the parts the
different members of the university should play in
carrying out these purposes. (Sanders, 1973, p. 60)
While the bountifulness of the years of the 1950's to the
early 1970's contributed to the expansion of higher
education, at the end of that time there was little
resemblance to the earlier collegial community which had
been the foundation of higher education.

In the later part of the 19705, a new and unpleasant

9

wave broke over college campuses. The economy, which fueled
the expansion of physical facilities, research, academic
programs and personnel roles, began to retard these changes
under the crush of inflation, unemployment, foreign
competition and rising price of oil. Concurrent with this
economic trend was the demographic fact that the "baby boom"
had passed and that the pool of potential college students
was decreasing. These two converging factors, a depressed
economy and fewer traditional students, quickly confronted
universities and colleges and placed faculty in situations
of immediate instability and future uncertainties. In the
recent Carnegie Council report, Three Thousand Futureg, it
was stated that colleges and universities:

... are becoming or will become less dynamic in their

development; more torn by internal stresses and strains

in a Hobbesean world of "every man against man"...

(Carnegie Council, 1981, p. 3)

The members of higher education became concerned with
these new threats. They faced the retrenchment and the
restructuring of the organization and their roles. Faculty
who had experienced the increase in self-esteem and
importance during the "golden years," were now faced with
the need to change and address the realities of the 80's.
In most cases, faculty have resisted the compelling nature
of current events and have moved towards protecting their
individual positions rather than manifesting a concern for

the entire institution. Gross in Organizational ng in

American Universities and Keller in Aggggmig Sttgtggy both

 

10

describe faculty behavior in their institutions:
Faculty members tend to be focused predominantly on
their own individualized and specialized activities
rather than on departmental problems and problems of
university wide significance. The new result has been
the neglect of many organizational problems and a no-
man's land of decision making in the universities.
(Gross, 1974, p. 71)
Hence, although the ideology of the professoriate
posits a collective and continuing concern for their
institutional homes and work places, the reality is
that collectivity is increasingly rare and faculty and
staff concerns are seldom for the well being of the
entire college or university or for the integrity of

academic affairs of their universities, their schools,
or even their departments. (Keller, 1983,

p. 73)

With this narrow perspective of self-preservation, faculty
no longer became or remained members of the university
community but rather became loyalists to their own
professional and personal interest and manifested marginal
commitment to the university. If this perspective is the
true state of faculty, then any change or dynamic
development of organizational contraction or expansion will
be difficult to accomplish because of the wide range of
professional and personal interests and lack of commitment
to the total institution.

How important is faculty commitment to the operation
and maintenance of a university? While the literature in
Organizational Psychology and Management is limited in its
study of higher education, it is clear that commitment is an
important variable in the operation of organizations,

including the collegiate institution.

11
McGregor in his book, The Professional Mgpgggtg,
identifies the importance of having interdependence between
the individual and organization:
When an individual genuinely identifies himself with a
group, leader or cause, he is in effect saying that the
goals and values associated with that cause have become
his own. He then self-consciously directs his efforts
toward those goals and gains intrinsic satisfaction
through their achievement. (McGregor, 1967, p. 49)
McGregor's thoughts are closely related to those of
Barnard's stated earlier. Both authors point to the need
for a close relationship to exist between the individual and
the organization to assure effectiveness. Another way of
understanding these thoughts is that where there is
commitment by the individual to the organization, there will
be a higher level of productive behavior and effectiveness
of an organization's performance. Mowday, Porter, and Dubin
(1974) in their research "Unit Performance, Situational
Factors, and Employee Attitudes in Spatially Separate Work
Units" (1974) reveal that workers who have a high level of
commitment may perform more effectively than workers who are
less committed. An even stronger statement of the
importance of commitment is made by Hall in The Competence
Process-Managing for Commitment and Creativity. He states:
Commitment is the soul of work. It is the sense of
purpose that guides one's activities; it is the meaning
that justifies one's investment of self; it is the
feeling of responsibility that defines one's role and
reason for being. (Hall, 1981, p. 87)

For Hall, commitment is the key variable which establishes

selfrespect, belonging, and expectancies. If we follow

12
Hall's line of reasoning, faculty committed to their own or
their department's survival would demonstrate a lower need
to contribute or be concerned about the entire organization.
On the other hand, if they were committed to the university
or college, they would be directed towards strengthening the
institution and the mission through their "activities,"
"investments," and the exercising of "responsibility" (Hall,
1981, p. 87).

Commitment as a factor in the organization has been
viewed from an individual's perspective but also from an
organizational viewpoint. Schien (1970) and Steers (1975)
propose that commitment is one of the variables which serves
as an index of organizational effectiveness. This index of
organizational effectiveness was also used by Thomas Watson,
founder of IBM. He states:

I firmly believe that any organization, in order to

survive and achieve success, must have a sound set of

beliefs on which it premises all of its policies and

actions. Next, I believe that the most single factor
in corporate success is faithful adherence to those

beliefs. (Watson , 1983, pp. 43)

This reference to "adherence to those beliefs" translates
into the commitment of faculty to the university which
enables institutional "success" to be most likely.

The two time intervals which occured during the past
thirty years appear to have affected the commitment levels
of the faculty to the whole organization. As reported in
the literature, this situation presents the institution as a

fragmentary organization of faculty who focused their

13
commitment on their own survival and not on the survival of
the whole university. This description of the university is

illustrated in the Carnegie Council report Three Thousand

 

Eutures. This report states the effects will be:
"...department against department..., ...academic against
vocational areas..., ...non-tenured against tenured..., and
administrators and board against faculty and students..."
(Tgtgg Eggpgand Futures, 1981, p. 114).

An ERIC, dissertation, and literature search produced
no articles or studies which addressed the presence or
absence of a relational commitment by the faculty to the
entire university. There were studies which sought to
understand commitment of faculty through other dimensions.
Gaining an understanding of the dimension of relational
commitment between faculty and the university is an
important step towards developing a more complete
understanding of how higher education currently sees itself
and functions. Developing this understanding may allow for
a clearer understanding of the characteristics of committed
or noncommitted faculty; identify particular groupings of
faculty on the continuum of commitment; identify individuals
who may or may not be likely to leave their jobs; and
identify faculty members who perform at higher levels. Each
of these findings could provide insights which would help
administrators and faculty to better understand each other
and devise strategies for establishing, assuring and

reinforcing mutual criteria for excellence, survival and

 

 

 

l4
mutually advantageous priorities of the entire university.

Purposes gt the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree
of commitment of faculty to their university. The following
were the purposes of this investigation:

1. To report the degree of organizational commitment
of the selected faculty from Carnegie-Mellon University,

Ohio University, and combined as a total sample.

 

2. To determine whether there was a statistical
significance between the commitment score for tenure and
nontenure faculty.

3. To determine if the years of service of faculty was
statistically significant in the level of faculty
commitment.

To achieve these purposes the investigator administered an
instrument designed to gather descriptive information on
organizational commitment.

This instrument was used to gather information about
the faculty population studied at the two collegiate
institutions. The instrument administered had previously
been tested and validated to determine an individuals belief
in the organizations goal and values, willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a
strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.
(Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1979, p. 226) The findings were
subjected to the following null hypothesis:

1. Faculty respondents from Carnegie-Mellon University and

 

 

15

Ohio University are equally committed to their respective
institution.
2. Faculty respondents who are tenured and nontenured
faculty are equally committed to their university.
3. Faculty repondents with different lengths of service to
their institution are equally committed to their university.

Significance gt tgg Stggy

Faculty through the performance of their

 

responsibilities are the primary human resource of the 3
university. The importance of this exploratory study holds
significance for the faculty, the administration, the
operation, and the university as an organization.

There have been different studies of the faculty
related to socialization, conflict, motivation and other
aspects of their roles. However, there have not been
studies which have sought to determine whether faculty are
committed to the entire university. If faculty are a
primary human resource in a university, then it is important
to know whether or not they are committed to the university.
The findings of this investigation are expected to yield
insights for the faculty and the administration enabling
them to develop a clearer understanding of each other and
strategies toward attainment of mutual objectives.

Commitment has been empirically researched from the
perspectives of side-bets (Becker, 1960), attributions
(O'Reilly & Caldwell 1980), and individual/organizational

goal congruence (Angle & Perry, 1981). This investigative

 

 

 

 

 

16
study is expected to furnish information through which
further comparisons of commitment could be made in
relationship to these different perspectives.

The significance of this study is grounded in the

following reasons:

1. Presently there is a void in the literature of
higher education which articulates the degree to which

faculty are committed to the whole university.

 

2. The results of this study may provide a point of
reference for understanding the commitment of faculty as an
organizational variable of the university. The
determination of the degree of faculty commitment to the
university will allow for comparative studies to be
performed in such areas as: commitment to a profession
(Sheldon, 1971), job attachment (Koch & Steers, 1978), moral
commitment organizationally (Buchanan,1974), job involvement
(Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), and organizational identification
(Miller, 1967). This research could yield results which
would strengthen the understanding of faculty and

universities as organizations.

3. Through the determination of the degree of faculty
commitment to the university a deeper comprehension could be
developed by faculty and administrators, helpful to
developing viable strategies for recruitment, socialization,
and participation of faculty in institutional affairs, and
in achieving a more effective organization.

4. Through this investigation the traditional

 

 

 

 

 

17
understandings of higher education and the concepts of
organizational psychology/management are being integrated.
Such conceptual integration may provide knowledge and
insight for reconceptualizing how higher education is
designed, developed and managed.
Design

This study was a descriptive analytical investigation

conducted through the use of the "Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire" (1979) to determine the degree of commitment

 

of faculty to their employing organization. To establish
the research design, different methodologies such as case
study, descriptive, experimental, developmental studies, and
survey research were reviewed and analyzed to determine
which could most accurately answer the question under
investigation, namely, the degree of faculty commitment to
the university. Descriptive research was selected as the
design because it concentrates on determination of "what is"
rather than determination of "why it is" (Ripple, 1969).

The next step in developing the descriptive design was
to define commitment and select an instrument which would
accurately measure the commitment of faculty to the
university.

Commitment as a variable in work was categorized by
Morrow in 1983. She identified six forms of commitment in
work. They are: "value focus, career focus, job focus,
organization focus, union focus, and combined dimensions of

commitment" (Morrow, 1983, p. 487). Of these foci, the

18
"organization focus" was most appropriate in exploring
faculty commitment because the constructs enable the
investigator to understand the relationship of the
individual faculty member to the institution in which he/she
is employed. The remaining foci, "value, career, job,
union, and combined dimensions of commitment" identified by
Morrow, enables investigations in understanding how a
faculty member relates to a different set of commitment

orientations. After reviewing the various definitions of

 

commitment provided by Morrow and the literature, the one
selected which delineated what was being examined in this
study was a definition develOped by Mowday, Porter, and
Steers 1979. They define commitment in three parts:
1. strong belief in and acceptance of the
organization's goals and beliefs;
2. a willingness to exert considerable effort on
behalf of the organization;
3. a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organization
(Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1979, p. 226)
This definition was most appropriate for the purposes of
this study because it specified the attitudinal variables of
commitment as an active relationship between the faculty
member and the university. Utilizing Mowday, Porter, and
Steer's distinctive definition would require faculty to
either agree or disagree with the three parts of the
commitment definition and therefore identify their level of
commitment to the university.

In 1979 Mowday, Porter, and Steers developed the

procedure for evaluating the presence or absence of these

19
three evidences of commitment. They constructed a 15-item
questionnaire which measures the active commitment reflected
in the definition. The relationship between the concept and
each of the questions is sound and has been established as
having strong psychometric qualities. The complete
statement of psychometric properties is presented in Chapter
III. Mowday, Porter, and Steers administered the instrument
to 2,653 employees. Their samples contained a broad cross
section of professional and blue-collar individuals with the
test populations being large enough to cover faculty
classifications and university organizations. The
definition as measured by the instrument would establish the
strength of faculty commitment to the university.

To explore the question of relational commitment of
faculty to the university, two representative universities
were chosen as sites. The first was Carnegie-Mellon
University, a private institution located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. The second was Ohio University, a part of the
State of Ohio Higher Educational System located in Athens,
Ohio. These institutions were chosen because they reflected
both private and public organizations and had both
experienced the growth of the "golden years" and turmoil of
the 1980's. They also presented interesting comparisons in
terms of size, institutional identification, (Ohio
University being part of a state system), and institutional

mission.

20
Methodology

The methodology which was used to conduct this
examination was based in the administration of the
"Organizational Commitment Questionnaire" (Mowday, Porter,&
Steers 1979) to the faculty within each of the two
universities, Ohio University and Carnegie-Mellon
University. The selection of academic departments to be
studied within these universities was made by the
investigator after reviewing the course offerings in each
university catalog to determine comparability of curriculums
between academic departments. The academic departments
which had the most comparable course offerings in terms of
requirements and course descriptions were: History,

English, Philosophy, Psychology, and Management.

After determining the academic departments, a list of
the faculty members in the matched departments of each
university was developed through the use of the directory of
faculty. Faculty so identified received a letter
introducing the investigator, the purpose of the study,
explaining the process, and requesting participation of the
faculty recipients. The "Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire" was included with the letter along with a
stamped self-addressed envelope for the return of the
questionnaire to the investigator. There was an eight-week
time line for the instrument to be received, completed and
returned to the investigator (See Appendix A). A reminder

letter was mailed to each faculty member in this study three

21
weeks after the first mailing requesting the return of the
completed instrument as quickly as possible.

Eight weeks after the initial mailing, the returned and
completed questionnaires were scored to determine a score of
commitment and organized according to each respondent's
university affiliation. The scores were then added together
and divided by the sample of returned questionnaires from
each university to provide a mean score of commitment for
each university. The first hypothesis tested the two sample
means according to the null hypothesis to determine if there
were real or chance differences between the two populations.
If there was no real difference, the two samples would be
combined to provide a commitment score for the total sample.
Subsequently, the total combined responses from faculty
respondents from both institutions were organized by faculty
tenure or nontenure status at their universities. The
second hypothesis required that a mean for tenure and
nontenure was determined and a two-tailed t test was
conducted to ascertain whether there was significance
between the two means of tenured and nontenured faculty.
The third hypothesis required the analysis of the data to
examine faculty commitment according to years of service in
the university. The data were organized in according
increments of ten years, forming four groupings: 1 to 10
years, 11 to 20, 21 to 30, and 30 on up. Means were
computed for each of these groupings and Dunn's multiple

comparison procedure was used to contrast the six pairs.

 

22
Assumptions

This study was structured based on a series of
assumptions. These assumptions are:

1. That a professional relationship of commitment
exists between the university and the faculty. The
university provides the resources, facilities, and students
and the faculty provides the process which enables the
institution to fulfill its mission.

2. The experiences of the growth of facilities,
enrollments, and the development of academic disciplines
during "golden years" and unfavorable contemporary
conditions have had an impact on faculty and the relational
commitment of faculty to the university.

3. University effectiveness is affected by the
presence or absence of relational commitment of the faculty.

4. The definition of commitment and the instrument
developed by Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1979, pp.226)
accurately represent commitment of the faculty to the
university.

5. There is a compatibility of university
organizational behavior and actions and that of other human
organizations such as business, hospitals, state agencies,
telephone companies, and research organizations.

6. Faculty participating in this study will understand
the instrument's terminology and answer the questionnaire
honestly.

7. The findings from each college sampled may have

 

23

implications for the entire host institution.

Limitations _t tag gtggy
The following are the delimitations of the study:
1. The exploration of commitment was limited to two
institutions: Carnegie-Mellon University and Ohio
University; therefore, the results cannot be viewed with ‘
certainty that they would apply to other universities or

colleges.

 

2. The population will be limited to five academic
departments in each university which limits the ability to
apply the results to all academic departments in either
university.

3. As part of the preparation for conducting the
research, the Michigan State University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects was consulted. The
Committee expressed concerns about the anonymity of faculty
during the research process. Their recommendation, which
was accepted, was to track the faculty responses with only
the letter number code. By accepting and using this method
of identification, it limited the ability to analyze the
responses according to sex, ethnicity, or academic rank.

The following are the limitations of the study:

1. The results of the instrument's application will be
limited by comprehension of the language used in the
questions and honesty of respondents.

2. The literature in higher education concerning

24
commitment of faculty to the university is based mainly on
professional opinion, which limits investigative ability for
building upon research designs and findings other than what
is known in Organizational Psychology and Management.
Organiaation gt tag gtpgy
The investigation of the relational commitment of
faculty to their university is organized into five chapters.
Chapter one contains the introduction and statement of
the problem, purposes, significance, and design of the
research; methodology; limitations of the study; definitions
and organization of the study.
Chapter two contains a review of the literature and
research pertinent to the purpose of this study.
Chapter three contains the design of the study,

methodology, instrumentation, collection, and analysis of

the data.

Chapter four contains a presentation of the findings of
the study.
Chapter five contains a review of the purpose and

methodology of the study, major findings, conclusions,

implications, and recommendations for further study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

"We're in a period of great fragmentation. There is
almost no common commitment among faculty members,
except to their academic discipline, and there is no
agreement as to how we should shape the curriculum to
explore the map of human experience. There is a great
churning going on." (Rhodes, 1986, p. 14)

The condition described above by Rhodes reflects an
opinion that American universities, whose missions include
teaching, research, and service, are characterized by
faculty who are fragmented in their commitment to their
institution. The result of such fragmentation, to use
Rhodes' words, creates "a great churning going on" within
the institution.

The principal purposes of this study were threefold:
to explore whether the faculty are committed to the whole
institution, to determine if there was a significant
difference between commitment among tenure and nontenure
faculty, and to compare the commitment scores as organized
by years of service. To establish the context for these
purposes, Chapter II includes: (1) a discussion of faculty
roles within the university and their importance, (2) a
review of the major events of the last thirty-five years
which have had a major impact upon higher education, (3) a
review of faculty and university changes (development of
academic disciplines, self-perception of faculty,

participation in university operations, etc.) which evolved

from the past thirty-five years, (4) commitment as an

25

26
organizational variable, (5) research findings concerning
commitment, and (6) a summary of the chapter.
Eaculty Rgtgg
To understand why it is important that the faculty be

committed to the whole institution, it is first important to
know and understand their responsibilities within it.
Administrators, staff, students, researchers, boards,
external agencies, and society all contribute and share in
the maintenance and operation of a university. Faculty,
however, have a special province in the academic community
due to the nature of their tasks. Faculty teach, conduct
research, provide service, participate in institutional
governance and operations, and share in the development and
maintenance of the organizational culture.

Bowen and Schuster define and describe teaching,
research, service and participation in governance by the
faculty in their book American Professor (Bowen and
Schuster, 1986, pp. 15 to 21). The following are their
perceptions of these activities. One, teaching by the
faculty is the process of instruction which is intended to
create competence and skills within the students so that
they can contribute to a job and society. Teaching enables
faculty to transmit knowledge, advise students, serve as
role models, and try to meet the societal trust that
learning will occur. Two, faculty conduct research, both
basic and applied, that seeks to discover new knowledge,

answers to problems, or develop future lines of inquiry.

27
Three, service by faculty are activities which enhance the
individual, provide expertise, or enrich society. Faculty
are able to perform this function due to their unique
expertise and abilities. Four, faculty participate in the
governance and operations of the university through
involvement in academic senates, hiring new faculty, the
evaluation process, proposing and implementing new programs,
developing departmental and college budgets, recruiting
students, and drafting and reviewing policies. The
performance of these operational duties by faculty is
accomplished through formal structures or informal means
which have received tacit approval of the institution. The
fifth function in which the faculty participate is the
shared development of the university culture. Mayhew
writes, "the faculty is the most effective collective memory
and exemplar of tradition." (Mayhew, 1980, pp.224). Clark
elaborated on the importance of the "organizational saga" to

the university and its members. He states:

... an organizational saga is an unparalleled means of
unity. It forges links across internal divisions and
organizational boundaries, as internal and external
groups emotionally share their common belief. It binds
together various organizations of work and avenues of
participation, emphasizing the whole over the parts, as
the making and expressing of the story. Most
important, the saga deeply commits the individual to
the organization.

(Clark, 1971, pp. 510-511)

Mayhew identifies faculty as the most "effective" source of

the organizational saga or culture and Clark illustrates why

an organizational saga and culture are important to a

28
university. These five tasks of the faculty are performed
to different degrees by each person and collectively they
form what faculty do within a university.

Teaching, research, service, participation in
governance and operations, and developing the institution's
culture are the responsibilities of the faculty. The review
of these faculty responsibilities raises their importance to
a university. Could the university fulfill its missions if
faculty did not perform these responsibilities? Through
these activities the faculty provides the essential energy
to the university and enables the university to achieve its
goals. Statements which demonstrate the importance of
faculty to the university are presented by Bowen and
Schuster, and Lipsett and Ladd.

Without going to the extreme and asserting that "the

faculty is the university," the talent, training,

vitality, and social conscience of the faculties are
critical ingredients of the power of each college or
university to deliver acceptable teaching and learning.

(Bowen and Schuster, 1986, p. 3)

That faculty is the heart of the academy is more than a

professional conceit. The stronger American colleges

and universities have never been bureaucratic
institutions where decisions passed down a hierarchy of
administrators. They are associational structures in
which professors--many with exceptional independence
because of academic tenure and traditions which
surround it--have played the decisive role in

governance. (Lipsett and Ladd, 1971, p. 54)

Through the work they do within a university the faculty are
a "critical ingredient" and participate in a "decisive role

in governance" of the institution.

Faculty are responsible and accountable for the

29
critical functions of teaching, conducting research and
service, participating in institutional duties, and
contributing to the shared development of the university
culture. These functions are the special province of the
faculty and are essential for achieving the goals of the

institution.

Events gt the Past Thirty-Five Xears

 

Over the course of the last thirty-five years,
universities have experienced tremendous expansion as well
as a period of hard times. To understand why higher
education is in a "period of great fragmentation" as spoken
of earlier, it is important to review the conditions
underlying the fragmentation and how those conditions
affected the faculty (Rhodes, 1986, p. 14).

The period between 1955 to 1974 has been referred to as
the "golden age" in American higher education. In Academic
Strategy: The Management Revolution 1g American Higher
Education, Keller (1983) identifies the tremendous growth
which took place in America's colleges and universities. A
summation of the conditions of growth of the university
during this era is outlined below. Student enrollment
increased from 2.5 million in 1955 to 8.8 million in 1974.
The massive influx of students required physical facilities
of universities to double in size and more college buildings
were built in those 20 years than in the preceding 200
years. Academic programs expanded, providing more areas of

study which added to the increasing number of institutions

30
granting advanced degrees. An indication of the growth of
academic programs is found in a comparison of the number of

degrees which were granted in 1955 and in 1974.

1955 1974
Bachelors Degree 266,000 633,000
Masters Degree 58,000 278,000
PhD 8,800 33,000
(Keller, 1983, pp. 8-9)

Faculty were a significant beneficiary of this twenty-
year growth period in terms of employment, opportunities,
compensation, research funds, facilities, and in the
importance of faculty roles in the operation and maintenance
of the institution. McConnell states how the changes during
this period of time changed the roles of faculty.

One of the most significant changes since World War II
is the great growth of faculty power, coupled with
faculty professionalization. Either by formal delega-
tion or by tacit approval, college and university
faculties have attained a high degree of professional
self-government. They control education for and
entrance to their profession, selection, retention, and
promotion of their members, the curriculum, work sched-
ules, and evaluation of their own work. (McConnell,
1971, p. 99)

The combined effect of these events also increased the

esteem of the faculty within the university and the society.

Schuster and Bowen state:

Around 1970 the American faculty's condition probably
reached its most robust state. Higher education was
enjoying tremendous and sustained growth, and faculty
participated in many of the benefits. The campus work
environment was favorable and faculty prestige was
high. More fundamentally, the academic profession had
achieved substantial influence over curricular matters
and over the selection and promotion of academic
personnel. Thus, in important ways, by 1970 the
American faculty had "arrived." (Bowen and Schuster,
1986, p. 13)

31

The "golden age" for faculty represented a time when their
talents and competence were recognized and prized not only
by the university but also by society. American higher
education was filled with hope and the prospect of continued
growth and deveIOpment in the future.

The "golden years" began to fade in the mid 19705 under
the weight of a sharp increase in the price of oil and a
generally depressed economy. This turn of events led many
universities toward uncertain futures and real predicaments
as they struggled to handle the conflict, retrenchment, and
reappraisal that accompanied this new condition. The

Carnegie Council report Three Thousand Futures (1981)

 

articulated the variables which influenced the shift from
"feast to famine." The following is a summary of those
variables: reduced enrollments, decline in state and
federal revenues, increased competition for students,
faculty's defensive posture to the new situation, decline in
the quality of people in administration, greater selectivity
by students choosing institutions, public agency intrusion
into university affairs, threats to the future of private
education, decline in the quality of research with fewer
young scientists, increased internal stresses within the
institution, less cooperative governance, more competition
for funds, and pressures of new technology threatening the

need for classroom-type education (Three Tagggagg Eaturgs,

 

1981, pp. 2-3). These variables affected each university in

different ways and responses varied among institutions.

32

The faculty felt the pressures of the late 1970s and

early 19805 most significantly. They no longer had a

surplus of students, an abundance of research funds,
attractive economic packages, ease of establishing new

programs, or ease in obtaining other employment

opportunities. The faculty's sense of well being and

security shifted to pessimism and doubt as they viewed their

position and the events of the period. Bowen and Schuster

articulated this shift:

...in the fifteen years since then, various
developments have eroded those hard won accomplishments

and jeopardized the well—being of the academic
profession and with it the quality of American higher

education. (Bowen and Schuster, 1985, p. 13)
The past fifteen years have taken a toll on the faculty,

their perceptions within the university and their

commitments to the institution.

Between 1955 and 1988 American higher education

experienced periods of unprecedented growth and a time of

reduced resources and retrenchment. The events of these

periods influenced the directions and changes for both

faculty and higher education.
Faculty and University Changes

The preceding thirty-five years were periods of sharp

contrast for American higher education. The pendulum swung

from tremendous growth to the challenge of reduction of

resources in a relatively short period of time. These

contrasting periods in higher education influenced faculty

and their behaviors with the results being interwoven into

33

the entire environment of the university. The university no

longer has the common commitment of the faculty produced by

their sense of common roles and purposes with the

university. The two eras and the events within each

resulted in the creation of a fragmentation among the

faculty as well as with the university. (Bowen and Schuster,

1985 and Carnegie Council , 1981)

Academic disciplines expanded rapidly during the

"golden years" with the discovery of new knowledge and the

faculty's commitment to develop new specialties. The

direction of developing academic disciplines was encouraged

by society, university administrators, and within
disciplines and supported by the level of knowledge, student

demands, financial resources, and the desire to maintain

America's position as the leading nation of the world in

higher education. (Sanford, 1967) Through the

proliferation of disciplines the faculty's identification

shifted away from a broad university orientation toward

their specialties or subspecialties. The need to create the

foundations of the new academic disciplines took a primary

place of importance for the faculty. The totality of the

university and mission came second. Schuster and Bowen

along with Blau state the difficulties resulting from the

development of academic disciplines:

We believe there has been a widespread and disturbing
trend toward the increasing segmentation of the faculty
and that this tendency has adverse consequences for the

professoriate and for higher education. First,
increasing fragmentation has resulted from narrowing

34

academic specialization by disciplines. Specialty has
begotten subspecialty and that process has continued
unabated over many years. Parochial, campus-bound
loyalties long ago gave way at many institutions of
higher education to a much more cosmopolitan discipline

defined professoriate. (Bowen and Schuster, 1986, p.

16)

Although these improvements in faculty performance
resulting from a cosmopolitan interest in communication

with colleagues outside benefit the academic
institution, the weaker loyalty of the better qualified
faculty harms it. For this difference in allegiance
threatens to create a process of negative selection, as
the best faculty members, whose local commitments are

leave and the least qualified ones, who have

weaker,
(Blau, 1973, pp. 120-121)

stronger ties, remain loyal.

Diversity of knowledge and development of disciplines were

inevitable but it was accompanied by the weakening of

"campusbound loyalties". The need of the professor to

connect to the discipline drew him or her away from the

institution and towards the discipline, leaving a void in

the professor's relational commitment within the university.
The development of new disciplines was also accompanied

by a companion need to establish professional associations

and standards and principles of the new disciplines. The

process necessary to the development of these organizations
and foundations required the faculty to project their

identities into these new and emerging organizations,

foundational knowledge, and standards. Through such

faculty activity, faculty shifted their previous institution
orientation to external reference points of the developing
discipline and their professional associations.

Accompanying the shift in reference was also the sense that

the standards of the discipline were of more importance than

35
the standards developed by the employing university

community. Ikenberry explains:

His principal identification tends to be with his
professional group of national, if not international,
dimensions, and not necessarily with the particular
organization or institution by which he is employed.

He tends to hold to universalistic standards rather
than institutionally derived standards, to values of
specialized knowledge rather than broad and perhaps
institutionally relevant competence, and to appear to
be affectively neutral, even in a time of institutional

crisis. (Ikenberry, 1974, p. 28)

Blau and Scott support Ikenberry's statement in Formal

Organizations: A Comparative A roach, as they articulate
how external reference points effect the association with

the main community. They state, "... as every member of the

group, but nobody else, is assumed to be qualified to make a

professional judgment" (Blau and Scott, 1962, p. 62). Thus,

development and establishment of professional academic
associations drew faculty's commitment away from the
university and created a conflict concerning which group,

the university or the association, was qualified to perform

evaluation.
As was indicated earlier, the faculty traditionally

have participated in the institutional governance and

operation. This involvement has taken on a different

character with the advent of the growth and specialization

of academic fields. The specialization of disciplines has

limited the faculty's perspective, sensitivity to, and

awareness of the greater institution. This shift of faculty

attention, affiliation and loyalty has directed the faculty

36
to be highly protective of their areas of specialty,

consequently jeopardizing the whole institution by

fragmenting what is best for the whole. Keller in Academic

Strategy emphasized this point by noting Burton Clark's

observation,

...the role of faculty authority is shifting from

protecting the rights of the entire guild, the rights
of the collective faculty, to protecting the autonomy
of separate disciplines and autonomy of the individual

faculty member. (Keller, 1983, p. 37)

Truman lent credence to Keller's observation,

There has been a heavy emphasis upon
professionalization, professionalization by discipline

and even a kind of microprofessionalization with the
result that the interaction of individuals has been
within such professional boundaries, and there has been
a kind of atrophy of intra-institutional contacts and
identifications so we now have a situation perfectly
familiar in most universities, where a man will have
more intimate and close contacts with colleagues three
thousand miles away and will share more affection and
loyalty with him than he will with a colleague who
occupies an office three doors down the corridor.
There has been, in consequence of this, a weakening of
concern for the collective educational enterprise that
spans any such professional boundaries or should span

them. (Truman, 1970, p. 7)
This is not to state that all faculty have transferred their
perspectives and loyalties to specialized disciplines or

associations, but it does identify how faculty may order

their relationships and connectiveness. Faculty

participation in institutional governance is based on a
shared concern and commitment to the whole university.
Without the collective thinking, involvement in and critical

evaluation by the faculty about the whole institution, a

perilous situation arises. Clark states:

37

The many subjects of academia produce an endless number
of churches and sects that are in turn subdivided still
further by institutional settings that vary radically
in character. Academic groups set apart by subject and
in part by type of institution become the unmeltable
ethnics of higher education. One by one, they are
stubborn about their place in the sun. They root
themselves in their basic operating units, the
departments and the professional schools evolving
considerably on their own terms. The overall system
becomes essentially bottom-heavy: it is not vulnerable
to easy tipping by winds of change nor can it be
steered by those who think there is a rhetorical helm.

(Clark, 1985, p. 41)

The faculty have drawn away from the whole university and

they have created an environment which is straining to

provide commonality among faculty and academic areas in the

face of a dispersion of interests and commitment. Faculty

break into factions, protect themselves, provide little

service to the entire institution and thus destabilize the

whole organization.

Does the condition of a weak commitment to the whole

university bring with it the peril that has been described?

When an organization is created to function through a series

of interrelationships and a shared perspective is not

present, then the organization becomes vulnerable.

Behaviors will become more irrational, adversarial, and with

limited chances of creating a comprehensive understanding.

Truman and Lipsett/Ladd identify these patterns of

behaviors.

An aggregate that is no longer coherent as a community,
unsure of and attaching hesitant value to its

collective undertakings, is easily split into factions.
Responses of such an aggregate to attack are likely to
be unconstructive and bewildered though not necessarily

lacking in passion. (Truman, 1970, p. 8)

38

The American professoriate today is an extraordinarily
diverse assortment of professionals, very much divided
collectively--and, in many cases, uncertain
individually about what they and their institution
should be doing. They operate in an institutional
context in which decisionmaking is exceptionally
decentralized and power diffuse, in which the mode of
operation is associational--the collective endeavor of
peers——rather than bureaucratic with hierarchical lines
of command. If the faculty had a soul or moral unity,
it could probably withstand the pressure buffeting it
and keep the university on course. If academe were
less intensely politicized, the diversity would be
fairly manageable. If the university were a
bureaucracy with directives flowing from top to bottom,
a strong central administration might yet impose unity
on the faculty even if its members were at odds. But
when professors are collective decision-makers; when
they are deeply divided on all core beliefs,
identifications, and expectations; and when,
furthermore , they are operating in an environment
where political pressures are intense, in which their
institution is a pivotal one, and thus, a setting in
which many of the great controversies in American life
are-~and will continue to be--fought out; then
fragmentation of the academy appears to be nigh
unavoidable. (Lipsett and Ladd, 1971, p. 60)

These statements identify a diverse university community and

faculty being of many different minds, commitments, and

purposes. Lipsett and Ladd's conclusion identified the

unproductive nature of a community, the university, where

there was not a central "core" of beliefs and commitments.

Fragmentation among faculty has also occurred between

the various academic ranks and purposes they serve. There

has always been a degree of tension between the faculty of

different academic ranks and the varying expectations of

teaching, research and service. These strains have surfaced

more clearly as institutions were affected by the period of

retrenchment and reappraisal. The prosperous years provided

a financial base large enough to accommodate the economic

39
needs, promotions, and diverse array of programs of a
university. The reduction of financial resources resulted
in universities cutting back on salaries, promotions, and
programs. Consequently, faculty have felt less certain
about their futures and a need to defend their purposes and
programs. Bowen and Schuster identify the tensions which
exist between the ranks of faculty.

Collegiality has been further undermined by tension
between junior and senior faculty, and by perceived
salary inequities. (Bowen and Schuster, 1986, p. 144)

. ..junior faculty had ceased to function as fully
participating members of their campus communities, even
within their own departments, as they “burrowed" toward
tenure. (Bowen and Schuster, 1986, p. 147)

Unlike junior faculty, they (faculty holding mid-level
ranks) had achieved tenure and were more or less secure
("financial exigencies" and the like aside). But,
looking over their shoulders, they say the new breed of
well-trained young faculty fixated on scholarship and
performing--albeit out of a dire necessity-—at levels
heretofore rarely seen on campus. And looking ahead,
they saw the senior faculty, anointed under a different
reward structure and now safely ensconced in the
highest paying grades. As presidents and deans sang
praises to the institution's redirected mission, many
mid-careerists contemplated their marginal prospeCts
for promotion with a deep sense of inequity. (Bowen
and Schuster, 1986, p. 149.)

...many senior faculty who had played loyally by the
"old rules," not just for years but for decades, but
were now faced with a shifting reward structure. Some
were angry, embittered, alienated from the new
order.... Many members of the senior arts and sciences
professoriate, the "old guard," felt they had been
relegated to subordinate status. (Bowen and Schuster,
1986, pp. 149-150)

The faculty seems to be growing more segmented than
usual, and the end of this movement toward
fragmentation is not in sight. (Bowen and Schuster,
1986, p. 152)

These observations identify perceptions which caused

4O
tensions to exist between faculty and which have resulted in
competition and resentment rather than cooperation. The
schism between faculty has not been limited to the
differences in ranks but includes the work performed. Karol
and Ginsburg in Managing tag Higher Education Enterprisg
(1982, p. 12) articulate the strife present between teaching
and research, liberal arts and professional schools,
graduate and undergraduate, and sciences and humanities
departments. Within this type of environment the faculty
responds by being protective and defensive rather than
collaborative and supportive. The result is faculty who are
leery of questions or challenges and dismiss the importance
of the relational commitment within the institution.

The past thirty years for American higher education
have comprised perhaps the most dynamic time period in its
350-year history. The tremendous growth of the "golden
years" provided the necessary financial resources and
motivations for institutions to pursue the challenges of
expanded facilities, programs, knowledge, student bodies,
and responsibilities to society. Universities eagerly
accepted these opportunities for growth with the results
being institutions that were larger, more diverse in
knowledge, manifesting greater complexity of interests, and
dispersion of directions. The growth of the university was
followed by a time of restraint which created conditions
within the university that more clearly identified areas of

difference, conflict, and fragmentation. These thirty years

 

————————
m=-—_h-ll

41
have shaped the environment that confronts universities
today and have contributed to the consequence of the faculty
being less committed to the whole institution.

Faculty and universities changed as a result of the
events of both time periods. Faculty developed new academic
disciplines resulting in a narrower focus of direction and
when threatened by retrenchment became self protecting with
little interest in the whole university. Universities
became loose knit organizations with a limited sense of
collegiality and an atmosphere of competition among the
various institutional interests.

Commitment ag ag Organizational Variable

To this point the review of the literature has been
concentrated upon what faculty have experienced during the
past thirty years and the impact of growth and retrenchment
upon faculty commitment to the entire university. The
review of faculty roles, and the effects of events of the
past thirty-five years provide an understanding of the
faculty, and the university as an educational organization
and the nuances which operate within the organization's
structure and processes.

Important to understanding the commitment of faculty to
the institution and how commitment performs as an
organizational variable are the findings and concepts found
in the literature of Management and Organizational
Psychology. Even though the university is not easily

included in the context and language of Management or

42

Organizational Psychology literature, the concepts and
knowledge concerning commitment from Management and
Organizational Psychology reveal the relevance of the
concepts to the collegiate institution. Cyert reinforces
this point and states:

Unfortunately, management in education is still a

concept that stimulates a negative reaction from many

academics. As a result, organizations in higher

education tend to neglect management concepts and

practices. (Cyert, 1983, pp. vi)
Commitment in these disciplines of organizational psychology
and management has been explored as a concept which relates
to the individual, the group, the organization and as part
of the culture of the institution. Each of these commitment
orientations provides insights to commitment as an
organizational variable and underscores the importance of
the faculties' commitment to the university.
The Individual and Commitment

One of the first to write about commitment in a
conceptual manner was Mary P. Follet in the 19305. Follet's
conceptual understanding revealed a process which would
develop the individual's abilities towards understanding
self, others, and the organization. She believed this
greater understanding would enable the individual to
integrate different viewpoints of the individual and the
organization and form a unified group in pursuit of a common
goal. In order for the individual to act with greater

understanding and commitment, Follet believed that through

its policies and procedures the organization should

43
encourage and support the individual in recognizing the
commonality of the pursuit of both the individual and the
organization. She wrote:
It seems to me that the first test of business
administration, of industrial organization, should be
whether you have a business with all its parts so
coordinated so moving together in their closely knit
and adjusting activities so linking, interlocking,
interrelating, that they make a working unit- that is
not a congeries of separate pieces, but what I have

called a functional whole or integrative unity.
(Follet, 1932, p. 71)

Our obligations, our responsibilities, our loyalty,
should be to a functional unity of which we are a part.
(Follet, 1932, p. 83)

Follet does not explicitly use the term commitment but her
reference to the individual being part of the "functional
unity" is of the same meaning. This form of commitment
requires that the individual accept responsibility for the
"functional whole" and to be involved in the “whole a
making." Follet used these unusual words to describe
individuals and organizations which realize that there is
more to be gained collectively then there is in being
separate entities.

The concept of an "integrative unity" proposed by
Follet parallels McGregor's (1960, pp.51-53) thoughts of how
the organization's and the individual's needs must be
acknowledged if there is to be an effective work
environment. According to both authors, if the individual
or the organization only perceive their own needs, then
there will be severe limits to the effectiveness of both.

It is clear that Follet realized that an individual has a

44

collective responsibility to the organization and that it is
only when this becomes manifested by the individual that the
organization can perform at its most effective level.

A different approach to viewing the individual and
commitment is presented by J. Hall. The point for Hall is
that individuals who are committed to work are then
purposeful in what they do and how they do it. Possessing
this commitment permits and strengthens the individual to
create a "healthy environment" within the organization and
enables individual differences among employees to be
recognized and integrated. He writes:

Commitment is the soul of work. It is the sense of

purpose that guides one's activities; it is the meaning

that justifies one's investment of self; it is the
feeling of responsibility that defines one's role and
reason for being; and, when shared, it is a common bond
which holds people together in ways that transcend
differences and personal gratification. ...

But work will serve few requirements for either

normalcy or health if it is devoid of commitment.

Indeed if commitment is ignored, discounted as a nice

but unnecessary moral factor, or simply mismanaged,

both normalcy and health will be impaired. (Hall,

1982, p. 87)

This perspective illustrates that with commitment to work
individuals invest themselves in the organizational process
and establish a direction to their effort. Hall contends
that the individual's commitment to work creates the ability
for a "common bond" and a state of "normalcy" to be present
in the organization. Commitment as configured by Hall, is a

statement of the importance of commitment to both the

individual and the organization.

45

Cgmmitment and Qrganizatigpa; ggata

Salancik presents commitment from a somewhat different
orientation, attending to the effect of commitment on goals
and values. In this form commitment is seen as the
acceptance of the organization's implicit or explicit
values. An acceptance of these values aligns the
individual's actions and attitudes with those of the
organization and the goals the organization is trying to
achieve. The following statement is how Salancik

understands commitment and the results it achieves.

...an individual who is committed to an organization
will tend to adhere to its norms. One implication of
membership is that you will behave in ways appropriate
for a member; that is, you will conform to the implied

or explicit values and expectations of those to whom
you are committed. ...

The importance of socializing organizational members to
the values of the organization is obvious when one
realizes that the organization cannot always control
who comes into the organization. If the organization
altered its values to accommodate each new influx of
members it would be in a poor position to develop
coherent strategies for organizing activities.

An effective use of commitment within an organization

is to induce individuals to pursue specific objectives

of the organization... (Salancik, 1977, p. 27-29)
Salancik's perspective displays how the commitment of the
individual to the organization creates a process for him or
her to accept the organization, what it believes, how it
performs, and what it pursues. A commitment of this type
bonds the individual to the organization in both attitudes

and behavior. This type of commitment results in an

integrated group of people who are willing to perform

46
together, share common goals and directions.
Conceptual Models gt Organizattons and Commitment
A different perspective of commitment can be found in
the model of organizational behavior. These models
articulate behaviors, management processes and styles of
organizational interaction that maximize opportunity for the
individual and the organization to be effective. One such
model is the "Managerial Grid" developed by Blake and
Mouton. It is their contention that a "9,9" style of
management which maximizes the competence of "production"
and "people" will prove to be most successful. They define
work in this style by saying:
Work accomplishment is from committed people;
interdependence through a "common stake" in the
organization purpose leads to relationships of trust
and respect. (Blake and Mouton, 1964, p. 10)
Their argument is that when this model of management is
accepted and implemented, commitment of people will occur
leading to conditions of mutual understanding and agreement,
participation, integration of individual and organizational
purposes. They state:
Commitment does not mean the opposite of all of the
above with the addition of an intangible but
indispensable plus. The plus is a personal sense of
desire to contribute to the organization's success,
through accomplishing the purposes of that component
for which one has accepted responsibility. When an
individual acts according to this sense of purpose in a
spontaneous, self-generated and self-directing way,
organization and individual commitment are integrated.
(Blake and Mouton, 1964, p. 167)

This is a model of organizational performance which centers

on two variables, production and people, in the belief that

47
when those variables are competently managed the result will
be commitment which will enable both the organization and
the individual to perform more effectively.

A different approach to organizational models was
proposed by Burns and Stalker. Their efforts concentrated
on classifying organizations as either "mechanistic" or
"organic." "Mechanistic" institutions were described as
hierarchical, with emphasis on vertical interactions, task
differentiation, and insistence on loyalty. "Organic"
institutions were seen as networks of loyalty, control, and
authority; specialized knowledge collaborating with others;
involvement; and commitment to the "organization's tasks,
directions, and achievements." Burns and Stalker propose
that the organic form of an organization is most effective
in dynamic conditions, uncertain environments, and where new
discoveries are frequent. It would appear that a present-
day university reflects many of the criteria and conditions
of an "organic" organization. Most of the criteria of the
"organic" institution fit, but there is the question as to
whether faculty are committed and loyal to the organization,
the university (Burns and Stalker 1961, pp.

119-125).
Otgapizational Culture apg ngmttmgpt

The culture of an organization permeates the structure,
processes, and people of the institution and provides an
additional perspective of the importance of commitment.

Organizational culture most simply defined is the way things

48
are done within an organization. While the concept is
relatively new, it has provided many insights into
organizations and why they are successful. The process of
developing an organizational culture is accomplished through
the values, models, ceremonies, and communications which
occur within an institution. As the culture forms, it
serves to organize people's thoughts, feelings, and actions
towards the basics of the organizational mission. In the
university the faculty are central to the development and
implementation of the institution's culture, as noted by
Mayhew (1979). If the faculty are not committed to the
organizational culture, then their attentions will shift to
their own discipline-related cultures which would tend to
fragment the whole. Corson and Truman articulate how the
culture of the university, if not embodied by the faculty
lessens the belonging to and trust of the institution. They
state:
Increased emphasis throughout society on specialization
accentuated many professors' identification with their
professional disciplines.... Coupled with the
essential independence of the intellectual way of life,
this tended to erode the "social cement"- the mutual
trust that derives from a complimentary relationship
among colleagues in an enterprise- that is essential to
an organizational effectiveness. (Corson 1975, p. 13)
For all of the members of the college and university in
these years, there has been in consequence a
disappearance of trusts, of shared unarticulated
assumptions, underlying informal means of accommodation
and control available in a genuine community. (Truman,
1970, p. 8)
Miles (1979) reveals that the trust between and among people

is critical to organizations experiencing stress.

49

The element of human behavior which is central to an
analysis of organizations under stress is that of
mutual trust. It is the mortar between human bricks.
(Miles, 1969, p. 355)

These statements indicate that the culture of the
contemporary university does not possess strong bonding
qualities among its members and, as a consequence, is prone

to follow different directions rather than that which is
In the absence of "social cement"

established by the whole.
and "trust" within the university, the organizational

culture will tend to reinforce the separateness and its

benefits rather than the benefits to be derived from a
Clark in "Belief and Loyalty in

commitment to the whole.
College Organization" outlines how the culture of a

university does hold significant importance in its ability

He states:

to empower the institution.

...an organizational saga is an unparalleled means of
unity. It forges links across internal divisions and
organizational boundaries, as internal and external
groups emotionally share their common belief. It binds
together various operations of work and avenues of
participation, emphasizing the whole over the parts, as
the specific forms are seen to have contributed to the
making and expressing the story. Most important, the
saga deeply commits the individual. ...

...a common institutional definition becomes a
foundation for trust, easing cooperation and

.0.

communication.

A high degree of loyalty causes individuals to stay

with a system, to save and improve it rather than to
(Clark, 1971, p.

exit to serve self-interest elsewhere.

510-511)
An "organizational saga" is the collection of history molded

into the working knowledge of an organization which connects

the parts to the whole, enabling it to have a sense of

50

presence and purpose. With faculty being dispersed by

disciplines, subdisciplines, ranks, and varied purposes, the
fragile nature of the institutional culture moves toward a
general identity with little distinctiveness. The process
of weakening university cultures has lessened the degree of
shared beliefs, values, and commitment to the whole
institution.

Management and organizational psychology have theorized
about commitment as a concept with relationships to the
individual, the group, the organization and the culture of
an institution.

Research on Commitment
The preceding section has concentrated on commitment as
an organizational variable and how it relates to the
individual, group, organization, and culture. The
conceptual knowledge provides a background from which to
view different research studies of commitment. The research
on commitment reveals that commitment is an important
variable in organizational effectiveness.
In 1957 Goulder performed a study, Cosmopolitans apg

Locals: Toward 52 Analysis gt Latent Social Roles, on a

 

small college which sought to understand the different
social roles faculty performed within the institution. The
study focused on "loyalty to the organization, commitment to
professional skills and values, and reference group
orientations" as the variables of the study. The variables

0f the study defined the different social roles of

51

"cosmopolitan" and "local" which were ascribed to faculty as
a result of their responses to the questionnaire. Through
faculty responses to the questionnaire, Goulder was able to
attribute behaviors to different social roles. The
"cosmopolitan" is seen as "low on institutional loyalty,
high on commitment to specialized role skills, and likely to
use an outer reference group for orientation". The "local"
is "high on loyalty to the employing institution, low on
commitment to specialized role skills and likely to use an
inner reference group orientation." The study of the
faculty revealed two important tendencies; one is that
locals have a greater degree of influence within the
university, and two, that locals exhibit a higher degree of
participation in the institution. The results of the study
were not statistically significant, but the tendencies were
important in developing an understanding of faculty roles.
While the study was conducted in 1957, it appears that the
definitions of "cosmopolitans" and "locals" would fit the
faculty in today's universities. The tendency that faculty
have greater commitment outside the university would
translate, following Goulder's work, to less influence and
participation in the university. This research identifies
faculty behaviors within a university and defines
characteristics of faculty roles (Goulder, 1957-58, pp. 281-
306 and 444-480).

In addition to the work done by Goulder, there have

been many other research studies done on commitment of the

52

individual to the organization. Mowday, Porter, and Dubin
in 1974 conducted research which looked at "Unit
Performance, Situational Factors, and Employee Attitudes in
Spatially Separate Work Units." The findings suggested that
highly committed employees may perform better than ones less
committed. Steers in 1977 researched the "Antecedents and
Outcomes of Organizational Commitment." The research was
conducted with 382 hospital workers and 119 scientists; both
samples were from major organizations. To obtain the
measures for this research, data were collected from
"personnel variables, job characteristics, work experiences,
organizational commitment, desire and intent to remain and
behaviors" (Steers, 1977, pp. 46-56). Three of his findings
were of interest to this study. First was that people "more
highly educated... would be less committed to the
organization and perhaps more committed to a profession or
trade." Second was that commitment raises the likelihood
that the employee will want to remain with the organization.
Last was that an outcome of commitment is to provide a more
stable work force. These findings can help to understand
the faculty's ability to commit as well as the result of not
having commitment. These findings help to show that
commitment is an important organizational variable for both
the individual and the institution.

Angle and Perry (1981) conducted research attempting to
link organizational commitment to organizational

effectiveness. This research was conducted with employees

53
of bus companies in the western states. The Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire was chosen as the instrument to
measure organizational commitment and organizational
effectiveness as measured by tardiness, absenteeism,
operating expenses and adaptability. The organizational
effectiveness data were collected from employment records,
expenses report and self-reports on adaptability. Angle and
Perry's findings revealed that organizational commitment was
related positively to "turnover" and "organizational
adaptability." The findings did not show significant
relationships to tardiness or operating expenses. These
results provide additional understanding of how commitment
relates to an employee's willingness to stay with an
organization and how adaptable the employee will be to
change (Angle and Perry, 1981, pp. 1-13).

In 1977 Evan constructed a research model which
explored "hierarchy, alienation, commitment and
organizational effectiveness". The model was constructed to
test how hierarchy would affect commitment and alienation
and, in turn, organizational effectiveness. To test this
model Evan reviewed the research conducted on hierarchy,
alienation, commitment and organizational effectiveness.
This review included research conducted by Lammers 1967,
Fischer 1967, Mulder 1971, Kolaja 1960, and others. The
research literature was tested against the model and six
hypotheses. Three of the hypotheses relate to

organizational commitment. The three hypotheses stated:

54

Worker alienation is negatively related to

organizational commitment.

Organizational hierarchy is negatively related to

organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is positively related to
organizational effectiveness. (Evan, 1977, p. 81)
Evan's results did not yield significant findings on "worker
alienation" and "organizational hierarchy," but they did

reveal support for "organizational commitment" being
positively related to "organizational effectiveness."

The research conducted on commitment identifies
commitment as a significant variable in understanding the
employees, their interactions with the organization and the
culture of the organization.

Summary

Chapter II presented the review of the literature for
the investigation of faculties level of commitment to their
employing organization. Chapter II included (1) a review
of faculty roles and their importance to the institution,
(2) the major influences of the past thirty-five on higher
education, (3) a review of faculty and university changes,

(4) a presentation of commitment as an organizational

variable, and (5) research findings concerning commitment.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

This chapter contains a description of the methodology
employed to explore faculty commitment to the university and
to compare the faculty sample according to tenure status and
years of service to the institution. As well, this chapter
includes a presentation of the process used to select the
institutions, population and instrument, administration
procedures of the investigation, and the design and data
analysis of the investigation.

Selection gt tag Sample Institutions and Populations

The central purpose of this research was todetermine
the level of commitment of faculty to their university.
CarnegieMellon University and Ohio University were chosen as
the two universities from which to obtain the faculty
sample._ These institutions were chosen because they
represent private and public institutions of higher
education, both experienced the events and impacts of the
feast and famine, and they share a comparable philosophy of
being a mid-size comprehensive institution.

The initial step in the selection of a faculty sample
was to determine comparable academic departments in the two
universities. This process was conducted by the
investigator who reviewed the course catalog and
departmental requirements of each department of both
universities. Through this process the academic departments

of English, Psychology, Philosophy, History,

55

56
and Management were determined to be comparable in both
course offerings and requirements.

The faculty population in these departments was
identified from the 1987-88 faculty directory of each
university. Only faculty who held ranks of assistant,
associate, or full professor were included in the sample.
Instructors and administrators who held faculty rank were
excluded because their tasks and participation in the
university vary considerably within and between the two
universities. The three ranks at both institutions
represented individuals who were in the tenure track process
and whose responsibilities included teaching, service,
research, participation in organizational governance and
involvement in the institutional culture. The total
population and sample consisted of 244 faculty--100 faculty
at CarnegieMellon University and 144 faculty at Ohio
University.

Selection gt ap tpgttggggt

The selection of the instrument to be used in this
exploratory investigation was predicated upon its succinct
and applicable definition of organizational commitment and
its validity and reliability in measuring the constructs of
organizational commitment.

Initially the investigator reviewed the pertinent
literature to determine the appropriate definition of
organizational commitment. Morrow (1983) conducted an

analysis of commitment which established five forms of

57

commitment: "value focus, career focus, job focus,
organization focus, union focus, and combined dimensions of
commitment." As part of the analysis of commitment, Morrow
conducted an epistemic correlation of thirty different
instruments' definitions to the method the instrument
measured commitment. Morrow's review compared the overlap
with other forms of commitment, exclusion of other forms of
commitment, reliability, and relative impacts to culture,
personal factors, relative permanence over a life course,
and means of influence (Morrow, 1983, pp. 487-491).

Morrow's twofold analysis of commitment was reviewed by
the investigator to determine which form of commitment and
which instrument was most accurate and appropriate in
representing organizational commitment. The "organization
focus" was selected as the form of commitment which most
accurately defined organizational commitment for this study.
The "Organizational Commitment Questionnaire" (1979)
developed by Mowday, Porter and Steers has the most precise
definition of organizational commitment and measures the
constructs of the definition effectively. The definition of
the organizational form of commitment was inclusive of the
following three elements:

a. ...a strong desire to remain a member of the
organization.

b. ...willing to exert high levels of effort for the
organization.

c. ...believes and accepts the values and goals of the
organization.

58
There are fifteen items in the instrument with five

items being negatively worded to lower the response bias

toward positively worded items. The items were scored on a

7-point Likert scale with the anchors being: strongly

disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neither

disagree or agree, slightly agree, moderately agree and

strongly agree. The instrument was constructed around three

factors:

1. ... a strong belief in and acceptance of the
organization's goals and values,

2. ... a willingness to exert considerable effort on
behalf of the organization,

3. ...a strong desire to maintain membership in the

organization. (Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1979, p.
226)

The items of the instrument had been developed to measure

these three attitudinal and behavioral constructs in public

and private organizations. Scoring of the instrument was

accomplished by summing the items and dividing them by

fifteen to create an indicator of the employee's commitment

to the organization. The instrument was written in a direct

manner, which could allow the respondent to manipulate their

answers if desired. Being written in a forthright manner

enables the reader to understand what is being asked in the

question. This form of question writing also allows the

reader to predict the desired response and answer the

question accordingly. Mowday, Porter and Steers performed

an assortment of analyses to determine the psychometric

properties of the OCQ. To establish the data bases to

59
perform the different analysis, they administered the
instrument to 2,563 employees across a broad cross-section
of work environments. The different populations sampled
were: public employees, classified university employees,
hospital employees, telephone company employees, scientists
and engineers, auto company managers, psychiatric
technicians and retail managers. The following is a summary
of the different analyses performed on the OCQ.
1. Internal Consistency Reliability
A. Coefficient alpha was shown to be consistently high with
the range of .82 to .93 (Cronbach, 1951). The median was
.90 and the results parallel other measures of attitude.
8. Item analysis showed that each item has a positive
correlation to the total score. The range of correlations
were from .36 to .72 with a median of .64. These findings
indicate that the fifteen items were similar to the
framework of the attitudinal dimensions which are being
measured.
C. Factor analysis of the items was also done utilizing
Kaiser (1958) varimax solution. The results of the
following analysis showed a single factor solution and
identified general support for the items and the underlying
constructs.
2. Test-retest reliability was examined with the
samples of the psychiatric technicians and retail managers.
For the psychiatric technicians the test-retest

reliabilities were r=.53, .63, and .75 over a two, three and

60
four month period. The retail managers test-retest
reliability was r=.72 over two months and r=.62 over three
months. The results of the test-retest reliability analysis
related positively to other attitude measures such as the
"Job Descriptive Index" whose test-retest reliabilities
ranged from .45 to .75 (Smith et al, 1969).

3. Construct validity - There is not a clear standard
of comparison for organizational commitment as it relates to
convergent validity, but Mowday, Porter and Steers believe
that by analyzing the instrument along five lines of inquiry
that when the analysis is viewed together, the results of
the inquiry support convergent validity of the OCQ.

A. The first test was to correlate the OCQ against a
similar instrument which measures affective responses. To
conduct this examination the instrument "Sources of
Organizational Attachment" was used and correlated to the
OCQ. The results were that across six samples the
convergent validities ranged from .63 to .75 with a median
of .70. These results determined that the OCQ did possess
convergent validity.

B. The second test was to analyze the behavioral intentions
to remain with the organization. In five samples there was
a single item assessing anticipated separation from the
organization. In the five samples the OCQ and the single
item showed significant correlations.

C. The third test was to determine if commitment is related

to the "motivational force to perform, and intrinsic

61
motivation.“ The OCQ was compared with four studies with
the results being a correlation of .35 to .45 which indicate
a "moderate relationship" between the two variables.
D. The fourth analysis was to determine how organizational
commitment related to "the central life interest of
employees." The term "interest" was defined by the
expression of orientation to work or nonwork activities.
The outcome was that people who were oriented to a work
central life interest were likely to be more committed to
the organization. It was also found that persons who had a
non-work interest were more likely to have a low level of
organizational commitment.
E. The last test to define convergent validity was
conducted with the retail employees. In this case the level
of willingness to exert effort, belief in goals, and
willingness to remain were independently assessed by the
employees' superiors. The results of the OCQ and the
independent assessment of the superiors had a correlation of
r=.60.
Each of these tests or analyses supports the OCQ as having
some convergent validity.

4. Discriminant validity was important to establish
the relationship between the commitment variable and other
organizational variables so that the results of the OCQ
would represent clear definitions of commitment and not a
mixture of variables. To develop this feature the authors

tested the OCQ against the attitude measures of job

62
satisfaction, job involvement and career satisfaction. The
job involvement measure was Lodahl and Kejner's (1965) and
demonstrated a measure of r=.30 to r=.56 for four samples
with the OCQ. Career satisfaction was analyzed using Steers
and Braunstien (1976) three item measure with the
correlations being .39 and .40. Lastly, job satisfaction
was examined using the "Job Descriptive Index" and
correlating it with the OCQ. The resulting correlations
ranged from .01 to .68. While there was some correlation
between the OCQ and each variable, the level of the
correlations was low enough to state that the OCQ does
possess levels of discriminate validity.

5. The last test was to determine if the OCQ indicator
of the commitment could validly predict an employee's
willingness to stay with the organization and perform at
higher levels. Turnover was analyzed from three
perSpectives: voluntary turnover, longitudinal studies and
static incidences of employment. In each of the cases it
was found that there was a relationship between commitment
and turnover. The relationship between commitment and
absenteeism was also tested and found that in two out of the
three studies, persons who were committed were less likely
to be absent.

The last test of the predictive validity using the OCQ
was with performance. There are many factors which
influence performance, but the authors believed that there

is a relationship between performance and commitment. A

63
study of bank employees by Mowday (1974) revealed that the
mean level of employee commitment was higher among the
higher performing banks than it was for those employees who
were less committed and in low performing banks. Commitment
and performance was also studied by Crampon over time using
retail management trainees. The results were that there was
some evidence to support the relationship of commitment and
performance. The predictive validity of the OCQ was present
in predicting turnover; however, it was less strong in its
ability to predict performance.

The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was
developed to measure the attitudes of employees as attitudes
relate to commitment. The analyses conducted by the Mowday,
Porter and Steers provide a strong psychometric basis for
the instrument. The results of a combination of analyses
demonstrated strong support for internal consistency and
test-retest reliability. The instrument also provided
acceptable levels of convergent, discriminant and predictive
validity.

Procedures ta Instrument Administration

The procedures to administer the OCQ followed the
standards set forth for research performed on human subjects
and consistent with the directives from the Michigan State

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects.
The following description outlines the procedures which were
performed in the administration of the OCQ to the faculty of

Carnegie-Mellon University and Ohio University.

64

1. Letters were drafted requesting the participation
of the faculty members at both universities. (See Appendix
A) The letter identified the researcher, purpose of the
study, briefly described the instrument and the time it
would take to complete, how and when it was to be returned
to the researcher, that their participation was anonymous,
and that by completing the questionnaire the faculty member
provided informed consent to be a participant in the study.
The letter also included the offer to those faculty wishing
to receive a copy summarizing the results of the study, that
upon request a summary report would be mailed to them upon
completion of the research.

2. The instructions about completing the instrument
were at the top of the first page. (See Appendix A) In
addition to the instructions was the request that the
faculty member should not write his or her name on any part
of the instrument and that through the return of the survey
each faculty member provided informed consent to
participate.

3. A list of faculty for both schools containing the
names and addresses of potential participants was developed.
Academic catalogs were obtained from both universities and
in the catalogs was a list of faculty by academic
department. From the catalog the appropriate lists were
developed which also identified the faculty member's rank

and university address. Each faculty member was assigned a

random code for the investigator's tracking purposes. The

65
assignment of a code was developed to track which
participants had returned the completed instrument. There
was a letter in the code, either 0 for Ohio University or C
for Carnegie-Mellon University. Next to the letter was a
random number assigned to each faculty member. A second
mailing of a modified introductory letter and instrument
would be necessary if the established sixty percent return
rate was not realized from the initial mailing to
participants. Shaughnessy and Zechmeister state that with
mail surveys a 60 percent return rate is considered good in
terms of providing results with low response bias. They
further state that a standard of 60 percent is demanding in
light of the fact that most mail survey return rate is 30
percent. (Shaughnessy and Zechmeister 1990 p. 90) After the
second mailing the code sheets were destroyed.

4. The introductory letter, survey and a stamped pre-
addressed return envelope for the return of the instrument
were assembled and mailed out to participants.

5. All letters were mailed during the second week of
September 1988.

6. After three weeks the returned and completed
surveys were compared with the coded lists to determine
which faculty had not returned the completed instrument.
Those who had not returned the completed instrument were

sent a second follow-up letter requesting the faculty
member's participation by completing and returning the

instrument. The follow-up letter contained the same

66
instructions included in the initial letter.

7. After three additional weeks the completed and
returned instruments were organized by the university code
and scored. The scoring was done by the investigator.
Scoring was accomplished by adding together the numerical
score of the items and dividing the total by fifteen. Each
of the negatively worded items was reverse scored. Upon the
completion of the scoring, the data was analyzed.

Design apg Qata Analysis

The design of the data analysis of faculty commitment
to the university was directed toward three conclusions:
determination of a mean score of commitment for the total
sample of faculty, a test of the null hypothesis between
tenure and nontenure mean scores of commitment to
demonstrate a chance or real difference, and a planned test
using Dunn's multiple comparison to contrast the means of
the four faculty groups which were organized according to
years of service. (Kirk, 1982, pp. 106-109) The following
were the steps performed to reach these results:

1. Each completed and returned instrument was scored
requiring the fifteen items to be summed and then divided by
fifteen to produce a summary score of commitment for each
faculty respondent.

2. The summary scores of the faculty respondents were
then organized according to the university they worked for
and years of service. The summary scores and years of

service were then totaled and divided by the total sample

67
size to provide a mean score of commitment for each
university and years of service.

3. A two-tailed test of significance was performed
using the two score means to determine if there was a chance
or real difference between the two samples. The formula for
the calculation of the t-value was:

1. (Nl-l)sl + (n2-1)52 /N1 + N2 - 2

2. N1 + N2 /N1 x N2

3. (STEP 1 x STEP 2)

4. SQUARE ROOT OF STEP 3

5. X1 - X2

6. t = STEP 5 / STEP 4 df = N1 + N2 - 2

7. t value in Table II "Conducting Educational

Research"
(Tuckman, 1978, p. 258)

4.’ The two sample means and years of service were then
added together and divided by the total sample to provide a
mean score of commitment for the total sample and a mean for
the number of years of service.

5. The total sample was then organized according to
tenure status, either tenure or nontenure. The individual
faculty scores of commitment were then added together and
divided by the sample to produce a mean score of commitment
for tenure and nontenure faculty.

6. A two-tailed test of significance was then

conducted to determine if there was a real or chance

difference between the two means of tenure and nontenure

68

faculty.

7. The total sample was then ordered according to

years of service to the university using increments of ten

years to create four samples. A mean for each group was

then computed.

8. The four sample means were then contrasted using

Dunn's multiple comparison procedure. This procedure was
selected because it allows for contrasting multiple means,
its ability to analyze data which have large standard

deviations, and its conservative nature. The Tukey method

of analysis was also considered, but the large standard

deviations of the four samples could not be handled

accurately by the procedure. The formulas to determine the

number of combinations of comparisons and level of

significance were:

1. Method to determine number of combinations: K = n
I / Square root of I (n - Square) I The combinations
were: A vs B, A vs C, A vs D, B vs C, B vs D, and C vs
D

2. Level of significance

Alpha / K = Level of significance

(Kirk, 1982, pp. 106 - 109)

The formula which performs the comparisons between the four

groupings of faculty by years of service is contained in

Appendix B.

69

Summary
Chapter III covered the general plan followed in the

study which was to seek responses from the faculty sample at

CarnegieMellon University and Ohio University. The

responses from the faculty sample were intended to reveal
the degree of faculty commitment to their employing

institution as defined and measured by the Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire (1979). Additionally, the

responses were organized by the tenure status of the faculty

and years of service to determine if these variables

reported statistical significance.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

The purposes of this study were to determine the
strength of commitment of the History, English, Philosophy,

Psychology, and Management faculty at Carnegie-Mellon
University and Ohio University and to report whether there
were significant differences in commitment between the two

faculties with respect to the variables of tenure/nontenure

and years of service. The contents of this chapter are:

(1) demographic data of the samples; (2) descriptive

statistics according to (a) each institution, (b) total

population, (c) tenure and nontenured faculty and (d)

faculty groups organized by years of service; and (3)

results of statistical analysis which address the three

purposes of the investigation.

Demographic Data

Carnegie-Mellon University and Ohio University were the

two institutions selected as the sites for the

investigation. Comparable academic departments were

determined through a careful review of the course offerings

and academic requirements of each department as found in the

1987-88 academic catalogs of each university. The

comparison of the academic departments resulted in the
identification of five complementary departments. All of

the faculty in the five disciplines of History, English,

Philosophy, Psychology and Management of these two

institutions were requested to complete and return the

70

71

"Organizational Commitment Questionnaire." Instructors and

administrators who held the faculty rank were excluded

because their tasks and participation in the university vary
considerably within and between the two universities. Table
1 contains the basic demographic data of the sample

population by institution and total population.

Table 1

Sample Eopulation Size and Number and Percent gt Faculty
Respondents

 

 

Number Number of Percentage
of Dept. Returned of Returned
Members Instruments Instruments
Carnegie-Mellon University 100 62 62.00%
Ohio University 141 83 58.86%
241 145 60.16%

Total Sample

The returned and completed instruments represented 60% of

the total population. This was considered an adequate

return from the institution by the investigator for the

purposes of this study. This return rate was considered

adequate based on Shaughnessy and Zechmeister statement that

in mail surveys "...60 percent is good" (Shaughnessy and

Zechmeister, 1990).
Table 2 reveals the composition of faculty member

subjects according to tenure status. These data served as

the basis for determining whether the differences in the

commitment scores according to tenure status have

significance.

Table 2
Tenurg Status gt Responding Faculty
Tenured Nontenured
Faculty Faculty
Carnegie-Mellon University 38 36.2% 24 60.0%
Ohio University 67 63.8% 16 40.0%
105 100% 40 100%

Total Sample

The final set of demographic data were the four groups

of faculty arranged by increments of ten years of service to

their institution. The arranging of faculty by increments

of ten years was decided in consideration of the tenure

processes of the two institutions. Both institutions tenure

process allowed for faculty to be on staff for 3 years
prior to the 7 years of the tenure decision process
beginning therefore the nontenure period could be up to ten

years and on this basis it was decided that ten year

increments would be meaningful.

Table 3
Number and fiercent gt Responding Faculty it Groupings gt Ten

Years gt Service
1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 & Up

Years of Years of Years of Years of

Service Service Service Service
Carnegie Mellon Univ. 39 62.9% 9 14.5% 9 14.5% 5 8.1%
Ohio University 22 26.5% 31 37.3% 26 31.4% 4 4.8%

61 42.1% 40 27.6% 35 24.1% 9 6.2%

Total Sample

Tables 1 through 3 contain the basic demographic data
of the faculty sample by institution, the total sample, and
in the classifications of tenure/nontenure status and years

of service. These sets of data were the basis for

73
investigating the purposes of this study and testing the
hypothesis.
pesgtiptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics in the following tables
evaluate the measures which were used to determine the
findings of the investigative study. In Table 4 the
descriptive statistics reported are the mean which is the
central tendency of the sample and the standard deviation
which is the principal measure of variability.

The determination of the mean and the standard
deviation for the completed and returned instruments from
Carnegie-Mellon University and Ohio University were the
rudimentary measures which provided the basis for analysis

of the null hypothesis to be tested on the samples from the

two institutions.

Table 4

Mean and Standard Deviation for Faculty Respondents from

 

 

Each University
"QCQ" Sample Mean Standard
Scores Scores Deviation
Carnegie-Mellon University 289.80 62 4.67 1.32
Ohio University 395.13 83 4.76 1.28

The mean scores for both universities coincided with the

high end "neither disagree nor agree" anchor on the

o e e O ' "
"Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. A mean score

corresponding to this anchor revealed that the responding

faculty exhibit a neutral response to organizational

commitment. The standard deviation for Carnegie Mellon

74
reported a lower range of scores when compared with the
standard deviation for Ohio University. The mean score for
Caregie Mellon viewed with the standard deviation reveals
that the range for commitment of faculty will be lower then
for faculty at Ohio University. A complete set of
individual scores is to be found in Appendix C.

The second set of descriptive statistics reports the
mean and standard deviation of the tenure and nontenured
faculty members at both institutions and collectively.
These results were the basis of the two tailed t-test to
determine if there was a statistically significant
difference between the levels of commitment of the two
faculty samples. A complete set of individual scores

according to tenure status is to be found in Appendix D.

Table 5

Mean and Standard Deviation for Responding Faculty Grouped
py Tenure Status

"QCQ" Sample Mean Standard
Scores Scores Deviation
Tenured Faculty
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. 194.45 38 5.11 1.13
Ohio University 329.20 67 4.91 1.20
Total Sample 523.65 105 4.98 1.18
"OCQ" Sample Mean Standard
Scores Deviation
antenured Faculty
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. 95.33 24 3.97 1.23
Ohio University 66.04 16 4.13 1.41
Total Sample 161.37 40 4.03 .

The "OCQ" is the "Organizational Commitment Questionnaire"
that was developed by Mowday, Porter and Steers in 1979.

The mean score for tenured faculty appears to report

the tenured faculty responding to the "slightly agree"
anchor, there was an indication that these faculty have a
more positive sense of organizational commitment. The
nontenured faculty response being tied to the "neither
disagree nor agree" anchor reveals an indifference towards
organizational commitment. These means reveal that tenured
faculty are slightly more committed then nontenured faculty.
The final set of data in Table 6 reports the analysis
on the groupings of faculty by years of service to the
institution. These descriptive statistics were the basis

for comparisons conducted using Dunn's multiple comparison

 

 

procedure.
Table 6
Mean and Standard Deviation for Responding Faculty ta
ire—llama o_f fl Lars o_f ___Service
"OCQ" Sample Mean Standard Mean
Scores Deviation Years of
Service
1 to 10 Years 276.21 61 4.53 1.34 5yrs9mos
11 to 12 Years 185.00 40 4.63 1.56 16yr58mos
21 to 30 Years 173.60 35 4.96 .95 24yr56mos
31 & Up 49.13 9 5.46 1.96 34yrs$mos

See Appendix B
Each group of faculty organized in increment of ten years
were compared with every other group to determine if there

is statistical significance between the groups regarding

their level of commitment to the institution. The means for

76
each set of ten years reveals an increase in the level of

commitment as the number of years served increases.

Statisticai Analysis tg Address Three Purposes

There were three purposes of this exploratory

 

investigation: (1) determination of the degree of
organizational commitment of the responding faculty, (2) to
determine whether there was a statistical significance
between the commitment score for tenure and nontenured
faculty, and (3) to compare the years of service of
responding faculty to determine if there was statistical
significance.

Degree gt Organizational Commitment gt Total Sample

 

In order to determine the degree of commitment of the
total sample of faculty, it was first necessary to confirm
whether there was a real or chance difference between the
two institutional samples. If the test of the null
hypothesis revealed only a chance difference, then the two
faculty samples could be combined. To determine whether
there was a significant difference between the two faculty

samples a null hypothesis was formed which stated that thg

faculty respondents from Carnegie-Mellon and Ohio University

ate egually committed to their respective institution. The

 

 

null hypothesis was subjected to a t-test. The results of

the t-test are presented in Table 7.

77
Table 7

Test gt thg,Ngii Hypothesis gt Two Grou s gt Responding
125911.13!

Separate Variances t
Combined Variances t

.521 DF = 139 Prob. = .603
.523 DF = 143 Prob. = .602
The test of the null hypothesis that the respondents from
Carnegie-Mellon University and Ohio University are equally
committed to their respective university was accepted and
suggests that there was no statistically significant
difference between the two samples at the .05 level of
confidence. Therefore, the two samples could be combined
for the purposes of this analysis.

Having resolved that there was no significant
difference between the faculty respondents of Carnegie-
Mellon University and Ohio University, the two sets of
faculty sample scores were then combined to determine the
mean score of commitment and standard deviation for the
total population. Table 8 reports the mean and standard

deviation for the entire group of respondents.

Table 8

Mean and Standard Deviation for Responding Faculty _t Both
Universities

 

"OCQ" Sample Mean Standard
Scores Deviation
Total Sample 684.93 145 4.72 1.32

The mean Organizational Commitment Questionnaire score for

the total number of respondents was 4.72 which corresponded

78
to the anchor "neither disagree nor agree" on the
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. This mean score
and standard deviation seemed to suggest that faculty
commitment to their employing institution related to a range
of faculty being slightly uncommitted to moderately
committed their institution of employment.
Determination gt Significance Between Tenured _pg Nontenutgd

Faculty

To determine whether there was a significant difference
between the means of the tenure and nontenured faculty, a
test of the null hypothesis that both tgnured and nontenpted
taculty are egually committed to their respective university

was performed. Table 5 contains the basic data which was

 

used in this process. The level of significance for the
two-tailed t-test was .05. Table 9 reports the results of

the two-tailed t-test.

Table 9
Results gt Two-Tailed T-test

T= .22 DF = 143 P = 1.96

The test of the second null hypothesis, that tenure and
nontenure faculty are equally committed to their university
was accepted because the test reveals the difference
between the two samples was significant at the .05 level.
This finding revealed that tenured faculty were slightly
more committed to their institution, meaning that they would

work actively to uphold the values of the institution,

79

achieve the stated a goals, and seek to remain there.
Comparison gt Faculty According tg Egatg gt Service

To compare groups of faculty in ten year increments,
the Dunn's multiple comparison procedure was used. Using
the data in Table 6 the six comparisons were made to
determine if there was significance between faculty in ten
year increment groups at the .05 level of confidence. To be
significant the comparison had to be .0083 or less. The
level of significance using Dunn's method is determined by
dividing the level of confidence by the number of
comparisons. The results from Dunn's multiple comparison
would be applied to the third null hypothesis, faculty
pesponsdents with different lengths of service to their
institution are equally committed to their univeraitv. Table
10 illustrates the comparison of groups and Table 11

provides the results of the comparisons.

Table 10

Illustration gt Group Comparisons
O to 10 years 11 to 20 years 21 to 30 years 31 & Up years
0 to 10 years 0 to 10 years 0 to 10 years

11 to 20 years 11 to 20 years
21 to 30 years

Table 11

cm a 'sons gt Racuity Groups

Comparison of one to ten years to eleven to twenty years

Source 88 DF Mean F P
0.159 1 0.159 0.094 0.760
238.098 141 1.689

80
Table 11 (cont.)

Comparison of one to ten years to twenty-one to thirty years

Source SS DF Mean F P
3.825 1 3.825 2.265 0.135
238.098 141 1.689

Comparison of one to ten years to thirty-one and up

Source SS DF Mean F P
6.559 1 6.559 3.884 0.051
238.098 141 1.689

Comparison of eleven to twenty years to twenty-one to thirty
years

Source SS DF Mean F P
2.078 1 2.078 1.231 0.269
238.098 141 1.689

Comparison of eleven to twenty years to thirty-one and up
years

Source SS DF Mean F P
5.103 1 5.103 3.022 0.084
238.098 141 1.689

Comparison of twenty-one to thirty years to thirty-one and
up years

Source SS DF Mean F P
1.788 1 1.778 1.059 0.305
238.098 141 1.689

*SS-Standard Score
DF-Degrees of Freedom

F - Ratio between Groups
P - Level of Significance

The results of Dunn's multiple comparison procedure to each
comparison reveal that the null hypothesis that faculty with
different lengths of service to their institution are
equally committed to their university is accepted. By
accepting the null hypothesis it can be stated that years of
service does not significantly affect the level of

organizational commitment.

81
Summary
This chapter contained the data analysis plan and a
discussion of the types of analysis used. This included a
discussion of the actual stages in the data analysis
methodology. The general findings were then presented
including the demographic data, descriptive statistics, and

statistical analysis to determine the specific findings.

CHAPTER V
PURPOSE, PROBLEMS, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains a synopsis of the purpose and the
problems of this study, the findings, the conclusions, the
implications of results for faculty, administrators and higher
education, and the recommendations for further research.

Synopsis gt tag Rroblem

The purposes of this investigation were to determine the
strength of faculty commitment to their employing institution
and to further test.whether tenure status.and.years of service
of faculty were statistically significant in relationship to
faculty commitment to their institution.

Faculty are a significant contributors to the achievement
of university goals through the performance of their roles as
teachers, researchers, providers of service, developers of
institutional culture, and participants in university
operations (Mayhew,1979 and Bowen and Schuster 1986). Each
faculty member may perform these roles with a different
understanding, but the outcome from the performance does
significantly affect institutional goal attainment and
success. (Bowen & Schuster 1986)

The last thirty-five years for American higher education
manifested two contrasting periods of events. The first era
was ‘tremendous. growth in all facets of the institution
(Keller, 1983) which was then followed by the second era of

retrenchment and reappraisal within the institution (Bowen and

82

83
schuster, 1986). These two periods influenced.and changed the
physical facilities, financial positions, composition of the
student.p0pulations, academiijrograms, administration, staff
and the faculty of the university. As a result of the
influences of both eras, the faculty and the university have
had to adjust their relationships, interactions and
perceptions of how they work together and work to achieve
institutional goals.

The contrasting and demanding events characterize of this
thirty-five year period.have influenced the roles of faculty.
The expansion of the university during "golden years" resulted
in faculty developing a changing self-concept. The process
of university growth created new academic disciplines which
were accompanied by related professional organizations and
active participation by faculty in university operations. The
era of retrenchment directed faculty towards a more
adversarial relationship with the institution and colleagues.
The faculty concentrated on preserving and protecting the
academic specialties they had developed during the "golden
years". Thus, it was not unexpected that such conditions
would strain as well as mitigate against collegial
relationships previously characteristic of higher education.
The results of the two contrasting eras with respect to
faculty was the fragmentation of faculty, not only among
themselves but also within their institution (Keller, 1983,
Truman, 1970 and Bowen and Schuster 1986). ‘

Commitment as an organizational variable has been

84

discussed and researched in the disciplines of Organizational
Psychology and Management. The concept of commitment has
included (1) personal and professional performance as well as
organizational performance (Follet, 1932, MacGregor 1960,
Hall, 1981 and Salanick 1977); (2) the development of models
of organizations and members' organizational behavior (Blake
and Mouton, 1964 and Burns and Stalker, 1961); and (3)the
relationship and relevance to the organizational culture
(Corson, 1975, Truman 1970, and Miles, 1969).

Research investigations have been conducted to understand
commitment as an organizational variable. ‘The investigations
of commitment in this context have examined social roles
(Goulder 1957) , employee performance (Mowday, Porter, and
Dubin, 1974), outcomes of Icommitment (Steers, 1977) and
organizational effectiveness (Angle and Perry 1981). This
theoretical and empirical background reinforces the
significance of commitment to the individual and as an
organizational variable and supports the purposes of this
research investigation.

The findings from the respondents of the two universities
were subject to the following null hypothesis:

1. Faculty respondents from Carnegie—Mellon University and
Ohio University are equally committed to their respective
institution. I

2. Tenure.and.nontenure faculty are equally'committed.tottheir
university.

3. Faculty with different lengths of service to their

85
institution are equally committed to their university.

To conduct this investigation, two universities were
selected as the sites, Carnegie—Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Ohio University, in Athens, Ohio.
These sites were chosen because they reflected private and
public institutions and both had experienced the events of the
"feast and famine"of the past thirty years. The curriculum
and requirements of the academic departments were reviewed by
the investigator to determine comparable departments to be
used as the sample. The review revealed the five academic
departments of English, History, Psychology, Philosophy, and
Management to have comparable curricula and requirements. All
of the faculty in these departments who held the academic rank
of assistant, associate, or full professor were included in
the sample. Administrators were excluded because of the wide
variation in position responsibilities and tenure status.

The instrument selected to determine the level of
commitment of faculty at the Carnegie-Mellon University and
Ohio University was the "Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire" (OCQ) developed by Mowday, Porter, and Steers
in 1979. This instrument was selected after first reviewing
a wide range of theoretical definitions of commitment and the
accuracy of the definition's constructs. The second step was
to determine which instrument most precisely measured the
constructs of commitment. This two part review was conducted
by the investigator with the assistance of an analyses of

commitment by Morrow (1983) . The review and analyses revealed

86
that the OCQ was based on constructs which accurately defined
commitment and that the instrumentation precisely measured
commitment with strong psychometric qualities.

The process to solicit and collect.the research data took
place over an eight week period of time. The investigator
sent each identified faculty member a cover letter introducing
the investigator, the project and instructions explaining how
to complete and return the instrument. (See Appendix A) A.
self-addressed return envelope was included with each
instrument. After three weeks a follow-up letter was sent to
faculty who had not returned the instrument with another
instrument asking for their prompt response.

At the conclusion of the eight weeks all of the completed
and returned instruments were scored. Scores on the OCQ
served as an indicator of commitment for each respondenta The
individual faculty scores were summed and.divided by the total
number of returned instruments to determine the mean and
standard deviation for each university. A test of the null
hypothesis was performed on the means of each university's
respondents to determine whether there was a significant
statistical difference at the .05 level between the two groups
of responding faculty. The result of the test revealed no
real statistical significance between the two samples thus,
for the purposes of this study the two samples from the
respondents could be combined to provide the one measure of
commitment. Subsequently, the samples were combined to

provide a mean commitment score for the whole sample.

87

The data was then organized by tenure status of all
responding faculty and a test of the null hypothesis was
conducted to determine if there was statistical significance
between the means to those respondents who had tenure and
those who did not have tenure.

The last analysis required the entire sample of
responding faculty to be organized by years of service. The
faculty was grouped in periods of ten years with the means
being compared by use of Dunn's multiple comparison procedure.
This method was used to test the null hypothesis that years of
service by faculty to their university do not influence the
level of commitment.

Bindings.

There were three findings pursuant to the purposes of
this investigation. First was the determination of a mean
commitment score for the total sample. Second was the
comparison of the tenure and nontenure mean commitment scores
to determine if there was a statistical significance. Third
was the planned comparison of four faculty groups by ten year
increments of service to determine whether the years of
service was statistically significant. The findings are
summarized below.

Mgap Commitment Sggtg tgt the Total Sample

The first purpose of this investigative study was to
determine the institutional strength of commitment of the two
institutional groups of faculty respondents. The following

null hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of confidence by

88
employing the t-test. After determining that there was no
statistically significant difference between the two groups of
responding faculty the nuli hypothesis that the two groups gt
teaponding faculty are egually to commitment committed tg
theit respective institution could be accepted. By accepting

the null hypothesis the investigator was then able to combine
the two samples of responding faculty to develop a mean score
of commitment for the entire sample. The two samples were
then combined to establish the mean commitment score for the
total sample. The mean commitment score for the total sample
was 4.72 with a standard deviation of 1.32. This commitment
score corresponded to the high end of the "neither disagree
nor agree" anchor on the "Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire" (1979), thus responding faculty were neither
committed nor not committed to the universities in which they
were employed.
Determination gt Statistical Significance gt Tenure Status
The second purpose of the study was to determine whether
there was statistical significance between the mean scores of
tenured and nontenured faculty and expressed in the following
null hypothesis; tenure and nontenure faculty are egually
gommitted to their university. The mean score for tenured
faculty was 4.98 and nontenured was 4.03. The result of the
two tailed t-test revealed a t score of .22 which was
statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence.
This result revealed that there was a statistically

significant difference in the strength of commitment between

89
tenured and nontenured faculty. This finding reveals that
tenured faculty were slightly more committed to the
institutional values, willing to work to achieve the values,
and reflected a stronger desire to stay employed in the
institution than nontenured faculty. The null hypothesis of
tenure and nontenure being equally committed was not accepted

with these results.

Comparison gt Faculty Groups According t_o Years gt Servicg

 

The third purpose was to determine whether years of
service to the institution by faculty, using increments of ten
years, was statistically significant when the groups were
compared. A null hypothesis was developed to test this
purpose, the hypothesis was that faculty with different
lengths of ggrvice to their institution are egually committed

 

to their university. The level of significance was .0083 and
the range of P scores resulting from Dunn's multiple
comparison procedure were .051 to .305. There was no
statistical significance between the six comparisons,
revealing that years of service does not influence the
strength of commitment by faculty. The test of the null
hypothesis was accepted.
mom—81m a_nd .In_f<Lenc_es

The findings of the analysis on the faculty sample reveal
several conclusions regarding the degree of the faculty
commitment to their university and the relationship between
commitment and the two variables, tenure status and years of

service to the institution. The following are conclusions

90
which were developed after a thorough review of the findings.
Conclusions apg Inferences aa a Result gt tag Ritat Rurposg

1. The faculty respondents from Carnegie-Mellon
University and Ohio University report commitment scores which
were neither strong nor weak in relationship to their
institution. Thus it can be concluded that the faculty at
these two institutions hold an indifferent attitude about
their institutions' goals and their willingness to work to
achieve the goals of Carnegie-Mellon or Ohio University and an
indifferent attitude about their willingness to continue their
employment at the institution. (Truman, 1970 and Lipsett and
Ladd, 1971)

2. The commitment scores of the faculty respondents
illustrate no clear commitment or noncommitment to their
respective institutions. Thus, it can be concluded that the
findings of this investigation support the literature, which
identifies faculty being fragmented within the institution.
(Sanders, 1973 and Bowen and Schuster, 1986)

3. From the findings of the Carnegie-Mellon University
and Ohio University data, there is no significant difference
between the private and state universities responding
faculties' commitment level to their institution. Thus, it
can be concluded that the responding faculty were not
influenced or affected by the private or state status of their
institution. (Gross, 1974)

Conclusions and Inferences as a Result of the Second Putpgsg

 

1. The tenure status revealed some influence on the

91
strength of faculty commitment to the university. The
reported level of commitment between the tenured and
nontenured faculty respondents revealed a significant
difference, thus it can be concluded that tenure increases the
level of commitment to the university. (Bowen and Schuster
1986)

2 . Nontenured faculty respondents revealed an indifference
level of commitment to their university. From this data it
can be inferred that nontenured faculty have different
expectancies and commitments which manifested a higher
priority than that of making a strong commitment to their

university. (Karol and Ginsbury, 1982)

 

1. Years of service to a university, according to the
results of respondents, reveal no significance between the
different years of service groupings. It can be concluded
that length of service is not an essential or prominent

variable in determining the strength of commitment by faculty.

Implications of Results
After careful evaluation of the findings of this
investigative study and in conjunction with the literature
review which focused on the commitment of faculty to the
university, it appears that there could be several
implications for the faculty and administration of the
institutions studied and, possibly, other institutions sharing

similar characteristics. The results did not determine why

92
faculty are or are not committed but rather revealed a
description of the strength of commitment of a selected group
of faculty studied at Carnegie-Mellon University and Ohio
University. Although so limited, the study does provide
results which may illustrate conditions which do have
implications for higher education in general.

1. The indifferent commitment scores of the faculty
respondents would likely infer that other relationships or
associations among and with faculty hold stronger meaning,
then a strong attitude of commitment than to the university.
(Ikenberry, 1974 and Truman, 1970)1.

2. Part of the role of faculty within a university is to
develop the institutional culture through their memory and
sharing of the institutional history. The findings of this
study reveal that faculty are, at best, only slightly
committed to the institutional goals, thus raising the
possibility that faculty no longer share the common
institutional culture but rather their own interests and
perspectives. If faculty develop their own culture rather
than that of the institution then the "social cement" among
faculty which Corson (1975) speaks of and the importance of a
"collective memory" that Mayhew (1979) refers to are in danger
of not being present or developed within the contemporary
university culture. The potential consequences of this
condition of diminished or lost values and relationships
mitigate against the development a commonality of purpose,

shared goals or collegiality common that would respond

93
constructively to conditions of change, stress, or
development in a university.

3. Faculty indifference to commitment to the university
might result in negative consequences. These consequences
stemming from the lack of active commitment to the whole
university could influence the institution's identity and
reputation to its publics such as, alumni, present and future
students, the local and state communities, and recruitment of
faculty members and supporting staff employees.

4. The seeming indifference to institutional commitment
on the part of the faculty respondents may illustrate a lack
of shared institutional values and beliefs. The lack of
shared values and beliefs influence the faculty and the
institution in their development of the goals, directions, and
the integration of the different university components. Both
Barnard (1948) and Lipsett and Ladd (1971) speak about these
conditions of uncertainty on the part of the individual
towards the institution which can lead to faculty members'
withdrawing their energy from the whole institution and moving
in directions which support their own personal and
professional needs.

5. As revealed in the study's results, without a clear
commitment to the institution the faculty may behave
unilaterally within the institution and pursue their own
professional goals, thus fragmenting away from each other and
the institution. Fragmentation and separation of

institutional and professional goals and priorities could make

94

institutional standards and measures irrelevant to the
faculty. Ikenberry (1974) notes that in the absence of a
shared institutional commitment, the faculty prefer to
establish themselves in their own area with few connections or
involvements with the institution. Thus, a diminished
importance of the institution to the faculty could create an
environment in which external influences may have more
importance to the faculty than the welfare and survival of
their employing institution.

6. The Management and Organizational Psychology
literature articulates the importance of commitment as it
effects the adherence to norms, work accomplishment, and
rationale for investing oneself in an organization. With the
faculty sample revealing only a slight sense of commitment to
the university, this finding may indicate at these two
institutions that there could be a lack of faculty adherence
to desirable norms of commitment, that there is a lack of a
common stake in being interdependent, and few reasons for
faculty to commit themselves to the organization.

7. If faculty are only slightly committed to the goals
and to a willingness to work to achieve the goals of the
institution, and if they are unwilling to stay at the
university as illustrated by this investigation, than the
result appears to reflect and support a different type of
organizational structure, process, and reward system than
which exists within these universities The organizational

structure may not be as collegial and participatory as desired

95

within its operation due to the lack of shared commitments.
Under such conditions it may be likely that these institutions
will become more bureaucratic and bound up by procedures,
policies and restrictions. The collaborative model of
interaction may be more cosmetic with the real influence in
the hands of a few members as the faculty fight to protect
themselves. The university may become more like a proving
ground for faculty to demonstrate their abilities, to gain
tenure and then move on to another institution. Willingness
on the part of either tenured or nontenured faculty to help,
assist or be a colleague in this type of environment is
doubtful. Burns/Stalker (1961), Follet (1932), and Hall
(1982) all present individual and organizational concepts
which define the importance of commitment to institutional
behavior and performance.

8. The findings regarding the degree of commitment
between tenured and nontenured faculty revealed that tenured
faculty will be more committed to the institution. .These
findings support the belief that the faculty who are seeking
tenure have less investment in the institution and may be a
source of conflict between nontenure and tenured faculty.

(Karol and Ginsburg, 1982)

ngw
The literature reports the existence of a fragmentation
of faculty within the university. This investigative study

provided support for this premise by revealing only a slight

96
commitment to the institutional goals and willingness to work
totaChieve the goals and stay at the institutions The concept
of fragmentation and lack of strong commitment to the
‘university' by faculty' present, an important and critical
development for serious consideration by both the faculty and
administration of American higher education.

This study was one:of the initial attempts to investigate
the strength of faculty'commitment.to'the'university; It‘was,
therefore, limited by the lack of comparable research in
higher education, management and organizational psychology.
There is much left to investigate before a more complete
profile can be presented. The following are potentially
fruitful areas for future investigation.

The sampling procedures which were used in this research
limited the investigation. Sampling only faculty from two
institutions and five departments provided an extremely narrow
cross section of faculty from which to understand their level
of commitment to the institution. The narrowness of this
sample also limits the ability to generalize to other
departments or institutions with any degree of confidence. In
collecting the sample the investigator was also limited in
obtaining demographic information (age, ethnicity, or sex)
from the:responding facultyu This information, if it had been
allowed may have provided useful insights for how commitment
may be understood according to these parameters.

1. Commitment is defined by parameters other then

organizational commitment, for example values, career, job

97
involvement, job satisfaction, or union affiliation (Morrow,
1983). These parameters reveal different aspects to
understand commitment as an individual and organizational
variable. By integrating one or more of the other parameters
with the organizational commitment parameter a more complete
understanding of institutional commitment may be developed.

2. Participation is one job function which faculty
perform.within the institution. Faculty may participate in a
wide variety of institutional actives which could be organized
according to a category structure. With this data of faculty
participation.a comparative study on institutional commitment
and participation in university activities could performed.
This research could determine if there is a correlation
between participation and commitment, and help one understand
whether the participative models of universities are still
validc This study may reveal whether the participative roles,
which faculty traditionally performed, are still effective in
the current university operation given the finding of limited
commitment.

3. Faculty in the performance of their job
responsibilities interact with three entities, the academic
discipline, the department and the university. The faculty
member may have different degrees of commitment to each of
these entities depending upon their experience. Thus, a study
which tries to understand commitment within three levels, the
academic discipline, the academic department and university,

and organizational commitment could help establish where

98
faculty chose to invest their commitment and possibly reveal
methods for both the faculty and the university to more
effectively function.

4. Cameron (1981) developed an instrument which measures
organizational effectiveness in college and universities. The
relationship between organizational effectiveness and
organizational commitment may be an important factor in
understanding universities and provide insights about how both
faculty and universities may change to achieve their goals.
The research would contrast over time whether there is a
difference in organizational effectiveness as measured by
Cameron's instrument and the level of commitment, and could
reveal whether commitment to the whole organization is
important to the successful achievement of university goals -
teaching, research, and service.

5. Faculty are complex individuals with different
personal and professional involvements which may be related to
their sex, ethnicity, educational level, academic department,
or faculty rank. Each of these variables may influence the
level of commitment of faculty to their institution. The
proposed investigation. would focus on determining these
variables and correlating them with the results of the OCQ to
determine if there was a relationship which would influence

commitment.

Appendix A

Example of Letters to Faculty
Sample and Copies of Questionnaire

Appendix A

Example of Letters to Faculty
Sample and Copies of Questionnaire

DRAFT

Dr.
Department of
Ohio University

Athens, Ohio 45701-2979

 

 

XXXXXXXX, 1988

Dear Dr. .

My name is Richard Frost and I am a Doctoral Candidate in
the Administration of Higher Education and Industrial
Psychology at Michigan State University. The purpose of
this letter is to seek your cooperation in completing the
attached survey.

The purpose of the study is to explore faculty's commitment
to their employing institution. The survey contains fifteen
items and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Results will be kept in complete confidence with only a
numerical code on the survey to track returns. The study
has been endorsed by my Doctoral Committee, and the original
authors of the survey are interested in the final results.
If you are interested, I am willing to supply copies of the
final results to you as well as an explanation of the
findings. I recognize that you have a busy schedule but
would truly appreciate your participation in completing the
survey. The instructions are on the survey and a stamped
pre-addressed envelope is enclosed to put the survey in. By
returning the questionnaire, you will be providing informed
consent to be a participant in the study.

I would like to thank you for participating in my
dissertation research. I look forward to receiVing your

results.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Frost

99

DRAFT

Dr.
Department of
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701-2979

 

 

xxxxxx, 1988

Dear Dr. ,

Three weeks ago you received a survey which sought to
explore your commitment to Ohio University. At this time I
have not received your results and would appreciate it if
you would take a few minutes to complete the enclosed
instrument and return it to me.

As I stated in the initial letter, the purpose of the study
is to explore faculty's commitment to their employing
institution. The survey contains fifteen items and will
take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Results will be
kept in complete confidence with only a numerical code on
the survey to track returns. The study has been endorsed by
my Doctoral Committee, and the original authors of the
survey are interested in the final results. If you are
interested, I am willing to supply copies of the final
results to you as well as an explanation of the findings. I
recognize that you have a busy schedule but would truly
appreciate your participation in completing the survey. The
instructions are on the survey and a stamped pre-addressed
envelope is enclosed to put the survey in.

I would like to thank you for participating in my
dissertation research. I look forward to receiving your
results.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Frost

100

"ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE"

Listed below and on the next pages are a series of statements that
represent feelings that individuals might have about the organization
for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about the
particular organization for which you are now working -- Carnegie
Mellon University -- please indicate the degree of your agreement or
disagreement with each statement by checking one of the seven
alternatives below each statement. Do not put your name on the
instrument. By returning the questionnaire you will be providing
informed consent to be a participant in the study.

1. I amwilling to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally
expected in order to help this organization be successful.

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree '
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization
to work for.

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I feel very little loyalty to this organization.

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I would accept almost any type job assignment in order to keep
working for this organization.

 

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I find that my values and the organization's values are similar.

 

 

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

104

6. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.

 

strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I could just as well be working for a different organization as
long as the type of work were similar.

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree ‘ Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of
job performance.

 

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to
cause me to leave this organization.

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for,
over others I was considering at the time I joined.

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 , 5 6 7

11. There's not much to be gained by sticking with this organization
indefinitely.

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

105

12. Often, I find it difficult to agree with organization's policies
on important matters relating to its employees.

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I really care about the fate of this organization.

 

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to
work. ' -

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on
my part.

 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How many years have you worked at Ohio University?

 

 

Are you a tenured faculty member?

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W. (1979) "The
Measurement of Organizational Commitment," Journai gt Vocational
Dehavior, Vol. 14, No. 2 pp. 224 - 247

 

103

Appendix B

Dunn's Multiple Comparison Formula

Appendix B

Dunn's Multiple Comparison Formula

 

 

(c )2 'c 2 . 2
d: t ID£;C.V\ MSerror —1_ +(—jl)_ T".+—_—(CJ”)
nj njl njll

Kirk, R. E., Experimental Design: For the Behavioral Sciences,
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1982

 

107

Appendix C

Survey Results for Carnegie Mellon University
and Ohio University

Appendix C

Survey Results for Carnegie Mellon University
and Ohio University

Carnegie Mellon University

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/Nontenure
Cl 27 1.80 5 Nontenure
C2 65 4.33 3 Nontenure
C3

C4 77 5.13 1 Nontenure
C5 4 9 3 . 2 7 7 Nontenure
C6

C7

C8 16 1.07 15 Tenure

C9 75 5.00 2 Nontenure
C10 72 4.80 11 Tenure
C11

C12 73 4.87 2 Nontenure
C13 73 4.87 6 Tenure
C14

C15 40 2.67 12 Tenure
C16 85 5.67 19 Tenure
C17 90 6.00 35 Tenure
C18

C19

C20 88 5.87 1 Nontenure
C21

C22 70 4.67 30 Tenure
C23

C24 35 2.33 5 Nontenure
C25 90 6.00 14 Tenure
C26

C27 70 4.67 9 Tenure
C28

C29

C30 85 5.67 34 Tenure
C31

C32

C33 88 5.87 10 Tenure
C34

C35 65 4.33 29 Tenure
C36 88 5.87 29 Tenure
C37

C38 79 5,27 4 Nontenure
C39 73 4,37 5 Nontenure
C40

C41

C42

:2: 57 3.80 7 Nontenure

108

Code

C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
C50
C51
C52
C53
C54
C55
C56
C57
C58
C59
C60
C61
C62
C63
C64
C65
C66
C67
C68
C69
C70
C71
C72
C73
C74
C75
C76
C77
C78
C79
C80
C81
C82
C83
C84
C85
C86
C87
C88
C89
C90
C91
C92
C93
C94
C95

Sum of Items

32
93
89

89

77
77
29
92
59
79

86
68
62
54

72
6O

93
58

7O
61
20
75
92

89
74

88

74

89
50
90
31
62
70

81
90

Indicator

2.13
6.20
5.53

5.93

5.13
5.13
1.93
6.13
3.93
5.27

5.73
4.53
4.13
3.60

4.67
4.07
1.33
5.00
6.13

Years of service

109

5
30
27

UN

movement.»

10

Tenure/Nontenure

Nontenure
Tenure
Tenure

Tenure

Nontenure
Tenure
Nontenure
Tenure
Tenure
Nontenure

Tenure
Nontenure
Nontenure
Tenure

Tenure
Tenure

Tenure
Tenure

Nontenure
Nontenure
Nontenure
Tenure
Tenure

Tenure
Tenure

Tenure

Tenure

Tenure
Tenure
Tenure
Nontenure
Nontenure
Nontenure

Tenure
Tenure

ggge Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/Nontenure

C97

C98 95 6.33 20 Tenure
C99 71 4.73 2 Nontenure
C100 92 6.13 1 Tenure

Summary of Data for Carnegie Mellon University
N = 100

Number of responses = 62

% of responses 62%

Tenured faculty = 38
Nontenured faculty = 24

Total years of service = 752
Mean for years of service = 12 years, one month
Sum total raw scores = 4347

Sum total of instrument scores = 289.80

Mean 289.80/62 = 4.67

Ohio University

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/Nontenure
01

02

03

04 57 3.80 18 Tenure
05 95 6.33 30 Tenure-
06

07

08

09

010 67 4.47 25 Tenure
011

012 41 2.73 16 Tenure
013 73 4.87 29 Tenure
014 94 6.27 18 Tenure
015 69 4.60 25 Tenure
016 89 5.93 23 Tenure
017 51 3.40 15 Tenure
gig ' 81 5. 4o 23 Nontenure
020 98 6.53 20 Tenure
021 27 1.80 19 Tenure
022 89 5.93 22 Tenure

110

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/Nontenure

023 84 5. 60 20 Tenure
024 29 1-93 6 Nontenure
025

025 69 4.60 2 Nontenure
027

028 56 3.73 10 Nontenure
029

030

031 70 4.67 1 Nontenure
032 87 5.80 . 6 Nontenure
033

034 _

03S 87 5.80 20 Tenure
036 72 4.80 33 Tenure
037

038

039 99 6.60 19 Tenure
040 86 5.73 34 Tenure
041 56 - 3.73 21 Tenure
042

043 94 6.27 19 Tenure
044 85 5.67 3 Nontenure
045

046

047

048 80 5.33 24 Tenure
049

050 97 6.47 22 Tenure
051 94 6.27 17 Tenure
052

053

054

055

056 68 4.53 22 Tenure
057 87 5.80 24 Tenure
058

059 77 5.13 24 Tenure
060 76 5.07 23 Tenure
061

062 53 3.53 29 Tenure
063 66 4.40 21 Tenure
064

065

066 64 4.26 15 Tenure
067

32: 82 5.47 33 Tenure
070

071 54 4.27 8 Tenure
072

073

111

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/Nontenure

074

075 99 6.60 18 Tenure
076 76 5.07 6 Tenure
077

073 82 5.47 26 Tenure
079 72 4.80 23 Tenure
080 73 4.87 21 Tenure
081

082

083

084' 41 2.73 18 Tenure
085 72 4.80 10 Nontenure
086

087 37 2.47 5 Nontenure
088

089 73 4.87 6 Tenure
090 31 2.07 13 Nontenure
091 40 2.67 . 5 Nontenure
092 81 5.40 24 Tenure
093

094 94 6.27 19 Tenure
095

096

097 53 3.53 31 Tenure
098

099 91 6.07 14 Tenure
0100 64 4.27 18 Tenure
0101

0102 62 4.13 18 Tenure
0103 65 4.33 21 Tenure
0104 79 5.27 19 Tenure
0105 91 6.07 30 Tenure
0106 53 3.53 12 Tenure
0107 76 5.07 19 Tenure
0108 94 6.27 5 Tenure
0109 105 7.00 4 Tenure
0110 38 2.53 21 Tenure
0111 53 3.53 22 Tenure
0112 71 4.73 24 Tenure
0113 77 ' 5.13 24 Tenure
0114 89 5.93 19 Tenure
0115

0116 55 3.67 19 Tenure
0117

0118

0119 89 5.93 . 17 Tenure
0120 52 3.47 17 Tenure
0121 84 5. 60 10 Tenure
0122 61 4.07 16 - Tenure
0123 96 6.40 l Nontenure
0124

112

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/Nontenure

0125 94 6.27 14 ' Tenure
0126

0127 97 6.47 6 Tenure
0128 90 6.00 1 Nontenure
0129

0130 66 4.40 11 Tenure
0131

0132 .

0133 , 36 2.40 18 Tenure
0134

0135 38 2.53 5 Nontenure
0136 75 5.00 5 Nontenure
0137

0138

0139 48 3.20 4 Nontenure
0140

0141 68 4.53 6 Tenure
**0000 48 3.20 15 Tenure

**0000 Faculty member tore the code off the instrument

Summary of Data for Ohio University
N = 141

Number of responses = 83

% of responses 59.29%

Tenured faculty = 67
Nontenured faculty = 16

Total years of service = 1385
Mean for years of service 16 years and 6 months

Sum of all items = 4347
Sum total of instrument scores = 395.13

Mean 395.13/83 = 4.76

113

Appendix D

Survey Results for Tenure and Nontenure Status
of Faculty Sample

Appendix D

Survey Results for Tenure and Nontenure Status
of Faculty Sample

Table of Combined Tenure Faculty

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of Service
c-8 16 1.07 15
C-10 72 4.80 11
c-13 73 4.87 6
C-15 40 2.67 12
c-16 85 5.67 19
c-17 90 6.00 35
c-22 70 4.67 30
c-25 90 6.00 14
c-27 70 4.67 9
c-3o 85 5.67 34
c-33 88 5.87 10
c-35 65 4.33 29
C-36 88 5.87 29
c-46 93 6.20 30
c-47 83 5.53 27
c-49 89 5.93 17
c-52 77 5.13 8
c-54 92 6.13 8
c-55 59 3.93 18
c-58 86 5.73 10
C-61 54 3.60 21
c-65 72 4.80 7
C-66 60 4.00 5
C-69 83 5.53 21
c-70 58 3.87 5
c-75 75 5.00 10
c-76 92 6.13 22
c-78 89 5.93 31
C-79 74 4.93 13
c-81 88 5.87 1
C-84 74 4.93 3
c-87 89 5.93 3
C-88 50 3.33 28
C-89 90 6.00 39
c-94 81 5.40 10
c-95 90 6.00 42
c-98 95 6.33 20
c-ioo 92 6.13 1
0-35 87 5-80 2°
0-36 72 4.80 33
0-39 99 6.60 19
0-40 86 5.73 34
0-41 56 3.73 21
0-43 94 6.27 19
0-48 80 5.33 3:
0-50 97 5-47

114

Code

0-51
0-56
0-57
0-59
0-60
0-62
0-63
0-66
0-69
0-71
0-75
0-76
0-78
0-79
0-80
0-84
0-89
0-92
0-94
0-97
0-99
0-100
0-102
0-103
0-104
0-105
0-106
0-107
0*108
0-109
0-110
0-111
0-112
0-113
0-114
0-116
0-119
0-120
0-121
0-122
0-125
0-127
0-130
0-133
0-141
0-000

Sum of Scores

94
68
87
77
76
53
66
64
82
64
99
76
82
72
73
41
73
81
94
53
91
64
62
65
79
91
53
76
94
105
38
53
71
77
89
55
89
52
84
61
94
97
66
36
68
48

115

Indicators

6.27
4.53
5.80
5.13
5.07
3.53
4.40
4.26
5.47
4.27
6.60
5.07
5.47
4.80
4.87
2.73
4.87
5.40
6.27
3.53
6.07
4.27
4.13
4.33
5.27
6.07
3.53
5.07
6.27
7.00
2.53
3.53
4.73
5.13
5.93
3.67
5.93
3.47
5.60
4.07
6.27
6.47
4.40
2.40
4.53
3.20

Years of Service

17
22
24
24
23
29
21
15
33

8
18

6
26
23
21
18

6
24
19
31
14
18
18
21
19
30
12
19

5

4
21
22
24
24
19
19
17
17
10
16
14

6
11
18

6
15

Table of Combined Nontenure Faculty

Code Sum of Items Indicator Years of service
C’1 27 1.80 5
C'2 65 4.33 3
C" 77 5.13 1
C'5 49 3.27 7
9‘9 75 5.00 2
C'12 73 4.87 2
c-20 88 5.87 1
c-24 35 2.33 5
c-38 79 5.27 4
c-39 73 4.87 5
C‘44 57 3.80 7
9‘45 32 2.13 5
C'51 77 5.13 5
C'53 29 1.93 3
c-56 79 5.27 4
9'59 68 4.53 3
C-60 62 4.13 2
C‘72 70 4.67 2
C'73 61 4.07 1
c-74 20 1.33 8
C'90 30 2.07 2
c-91 62 4.13 9
c-92 70 4.67 5
c-99 71 4.73 2
0-19 81 5.40 23
0-24 29 1.93 6
0-26 69 4.60 2
0-28 56 3.73 10
0-31 70 4.67 1
0-32 87 5.80 6
0-44 85 5.67 3
0-85 72 4.80 10
0-87 37 2.47 5
0-90 31 2.07 13
0-91 40 2.67 5
0-123 96 6.40 1
0-128 90 6.00 1
0—135 38 2.53 5
0-136 75 5.00 5
0-139 48 3.20 4
N=40 728.88 161.37

Scores Sample Mean
Tenure 525.63 105 4.99
Nontenure 161.37 40 4.03

116

Appendix E

Table of Faculty Organized by Ten Year Increments

Appendix B

Table of Faculty Organized by Ten Year Increments

One to ten years

Code Sum of items Indicator Years of Service Tenure/
Nontenure

c-4 77 5.13 1 2
c-20 88 5.87 1 2
c-73 61 4.07 1 2
c-81 88 5.87 1 1
c-1oo 92 6.13 1 1
c-9 75 5.00 2 2
c-12 73 4.87 2 2
c-60 62 4.13 2 2
c-72 70 4.67 2 2
c-90 31 2.07 2 2
c-99 71 4.73 2 2
c-2 65 4.33 3 2
c-53 29 1.93 3 2
c-84 74 4.93 3 1
C-87 89 5.93 3 1
C-38 79 5.27 4 2
C-56 79 5.27 4 2
c-1 27 1.80 5 2
c—24 35 2.33 5 2
c-39 73 4.87 5 2
c-45 32 2.13 5 2
C-66 60 4.00 5 1
c-70 58 3.87 5 1
c-92 70 3.87 5 1
c-13 73 4.67 6 1
c-51 77 5.13 6 2
c-5 49 3.27 7 2
c-44 57 3.80 7 2
c-65 72 4.80 7 1
c-52 77 5.13 8 1
c-54 92 6.13 8 1
c-59 68 4.53 8 2
c-74 20 1.33 8 2
c-27 70 4.67 9 1
c-91 62 4.13 9 2
c-33 88 5.87 10 1
C-58 86 5.73 10 1
c-75 75 5.00 10 1
c-94 81 5.40 10 1
0-31 70 4.67 1 3
0-123 96 6.40 1 2
0-128 90 6.00 1 2
0-26 69 4.60 2

117

Code

0-44
0-109
0-139
0-87
0-91
0-108
0-135
0-136
0-24
0-32
0-76
0-89
0-127
0-141
0-71
0-28
0-85
0-121

N=61

11 to
Code

C-lO
C-15
C-79
C-25
C-8
C-49
C-55
C-16
C-98
0-130
0-106
0-90
0-99
0-125
0-17
0-66
0-000
0-12
0-122
0-51
0-119
0-120
0.4
0-14
0-75

Sum of Items

85
105
48
37
40
94
38
75
29
87
76
73
97
68
64
56
72
84

4158

20 years of service

Sum of Items

72
40
74
90
16
89
59
85
95
66

Indicator

5.67
7.00
3.20
2.47
2.67
6.27
2.53
5.00
1.93
5.80
5.07
4.87
6.47
4.53
4.27
3.73
4.80
5.60

277.20

Indicator

4.80
2.67
4.93
6.00
1.07
5.93
3.93
5.67
6.33
4.40
3.53
2.07
6.07
6.27
3.40
3.27
3.20
2.73
4.07
6.27
5.93
3.47
3.80
6.27
6.60

118

Years of Service

wrap -
ooommmmmmmmmmmmaau

310

Years of Service

Tenure/

Nontenure

HNNHHHHHNNNNHNNNHN

Tenure/
Nontenure

HHHHHHHHHHHHHNHHHHHHHHHHH

Code

0-84
0-100
0-102
0-133
0-21
0-39
0-43
0-94
0-104
0-107
0-114
0-116
0-20
0-23
0-35

N=40

21 to 30 years of service

Code

C-61
C-69
C-76
C-47
C-88
C-35
C-36
C-22
C-46
0-41
0-63
0-80
0-103

Sum of Items

.41
64

2775

Sum of Items

54
83
92
83
50
65
88
70
93
56
66
73
65
38
89
97
68
53
89
81
76
72
80
87
77
81
71

Indicator

2.73
4.27
4.13
2.40
1.80
6.60
6.27
6.27
5.27
5.07
5.93
3.67
6.53
5.60
5.80

185.0

Indicator

3.60
5.53
6.13
5.53
3.33
4.33
5.87
4.67
6.20
3.73
4.40
4.87
4.33
2.53
5.93
6.47
4.53
3.53
5.93
5.40
5.07
4.80
5.53
5.80
5.13
5.40
4.73

119

Years of Service

18
18
18
18
19

Years of Service

21
21
22
27
28
29
29
30
30
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24

Tenure/
Nontenure

P‘HI‘P‘HI‘F‘HI‘F‘HI‘P‘HI‘

Tenure/
Nontenure

HIHPJF'HF‘F'NIHP‘HIJPJHIHPJHIJP'HFJP'HFJF‘HIJ

Code Sum of Items
0-113 77

0—10 67

0-15 69

0-78 82

0-13 73

0—62 53

0-5 95

0-105 91

N=35 2604

31 years and up

Code Sum of Items
C-78 89
C-30 85
C-17 90
C~89 90
C-95 90
0-97 53
0-36 . 72
0~69 82
0-40 86
N=9 737

Summary Data of Faculty By Years of Service

Years

1 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
21 to 30 years
30 and up

Scores

276.94
185.20
173.20

49.14

Indicator

5.13
4.47
4.60
5.47
4.87
3.53
6.33
6.07

173.60

Indicator

5.93
5.67
6.00
6.00
6.00
3.53
4.80
5.47
5.73

49.13

Sample

61
40
35

9

120

24
25
25
26
29
29
30
30

860

Years of Service

31
34
35
39
42
31
33
33
34

312

Means

4.54
4.63
4.96
5.46

Years of Service Tenure/

Nontenure

Hrdh*HIJFJHDJ

Tenure/
Nontenure

FJPIHIJF‘HIdkip

Mean Years

5yrs

811105

16yrs 9mos

25yrs
34yrs

Smos
6mos

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angle, H., and Perry, J. "An Empirical Assessment of
Organizational Commitment and Organizational
Effectiveness," Administrative Science Ouarterly,

Volume 26, 1981.

Barnard, C. I. The Functions gt the Executive, Harvard

University Press, 1948.

Becker, H. S. "Notes on the Concept of Commitment,"
American Journal gt Sociology, Volume 60, 1960.

Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. The Managerial Grid,
Houston Gulf Publishers, 1964.

 

Blau, P. M. The Organization gt Academic Work, John Wiley
and Sons, 1973.

Blau, P. M. and Scott, W. P. Formal Organizations: A
Comparative Approach, Chandler Publishing, 1962.

 

Bowen, H. R. and Schuster, J. H. American Professors: A
National Resource Imperiled, Oxford University Press,

1986.

Buchanan B. "Building Organizational Commitment: The
Socialization of Managers in Work Organization,"
Administrative Science Ouarterly, Volume 19, 1974.

 

Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. The Management gt Innovation,
London Tavistock Publisher, 1961.

Cameron, K. S. "Domain of Organizational Effectiveness in
College and Universities," Academy gt Management
Journal, Volume 24, 1981.

 

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education.
Three Thousand FuturesL The Next Twenty Years for

Higher Education, Jossey-Bass Publishegs, 1981.

Clark, B. "Belief and Loyalty in the College
Organization," The Journal gt Higher Education, Volume

XLII NO. 6, 1971.

Clark, B. "Listening to the Professoriate," Chan e,
Sept/Oct., 1985.

Clark, B. "The Organizational Saga in Higher Education,"
The Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 178, 1971.

121

Corson, J. The Governance gt College and Universities,
McGrawHill Book Company, 1960.

Cyert, R. M. Academig Strategy: The Management Revolution
it Ametican Higher Education, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983.

Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. Corporate Cultures, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., 1982.

Evan, W. M. "Hierarchy, Alienation, Commitment and
Organizational Effectiveness," Human Relations, Volume
30, 1970.

Goulder, A. W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an
Analysis of Latent Social Roles - I, II,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 2, 1957-1958.

Gross, Organizational Lay it American Universities, 1974.

Hall, D. T., Schneider, B. and Nygren, H. T. "Personal
Factors in Organizational Identification,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 15, 1970.

Hall, J. The Competence Process, Teleometrics
International, 1982.

Hays, W. L. Statistics, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, The
Dryden Press, 1981.

Hodgkinson, H. "The Next Decade," Power and Authority,
Jossey Bass Publisher, 1971.

Ikenberry, S. 0. "Restructuring College and University
Organizations and Governance, An Introduction," Journal
gt Higher Education, Volume VLXII, Number 6, June 1971.

Karol, N. H. and Ginsbury, S. G. Managing the Higher
Education Enter rise, Wiley and Sons, 1982.

Keller, G. Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution ip
American Higher Education, The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1983.

Kerr, C. The Uses _t he University, Harvard University
Press, 1964.

Kerr, C. "The Administration of Higher Education in an Era
of Change and Conflict," Conflictl Retrenchment gag
Reappraisai: lag Administration gt Higher Education,
University of Illinois Press, 1979.

122

Kirk, R. E. Experimental Design: For the Behavioral
Sciances, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1982.

Koch, J. T. and Steers, R. M. "Job Attachment,
Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Public Sector
Employees," Journai gt Vocational Behavior, Volume 12,
1978.

 

 

Lipsett, S. M. and Ladd, E. C. "The Divided Professoriate,"
Change, May/June, 1971.

Lodahl, T. M. and Kejner, M. "The Definition and
Measurement of Job Involvement," Journal gt Applied

Psychology, Volume 49, 1965.

MacGregor, D. the Human Side gt Enterprise, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1960.

MacGregor, D. The Professional Manager, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1978.

Mayhew, L. The Carnegie Commission gt Higher Education,
Jossey Bass, 1971.

 

Mayhew, L. Colleges Today and Tomorrow, Jossey Bass Inc.,
1969.

Mayhew, L. Surviving the 80's, Jossey Bass, 1979.

McConnell, T. R. "Faculty Government," Power and Authority,
Jossey Bass, 1971.

Metcalf, H. C. and Urwick, L. Dynamic Administration, The
Collected Papers gt Mary Parker Follet, Harper Brothers

Publishing, 1940.

 

Miles, R. E. "The Pathology of Institutional Breakdown,"
The Journal gt Higher Education, Volume XL, Number 5,
May 1969, The Ohio State University Press.

 

Miller, G. A. "Professional in Bureaucracy: Alienation
Among Industrial Scientists and Engineers," American

Sociological Review, Volume 32, 1967.

Morrow, P. J. "Concept Redundancy in Organizational
Research: The Case of Work Commitment," The Academy gt

Management Review, Volume 8, Number 3, July, 1983.

 

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. and Dubin, R. "Unit
Performance, Situational Factors, and Employees
Attitudes in Spatially Separated Work Units,"
Organizational Behavior apg Human Performance, Volume
12, 1974.

 

 

123

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M.,

and Porter,

L. W. "The

Measurement of Organizational Commitment," Journal gt
Vocational Behavior, Volume 14, Number 2, April 1979,

Academic Press Inc..

Rhodes, F.

Unfocused," Rew York Times, September 7,

Research Methods it Education, Jossey-Bass,

Ripple, R. E.
1969.

Sanders, I. T.

"At 350, the U.S. University is Vast but

1986.

"The University as a Community," The

Univeraity ag an Organization, McGraw Hill Book Co.,

 

1973.

Sanford, N. The American Colle

the College Professor," John Wiley & Sons,

Sheldon, M. E.

Smith, G. Statistical Reasonin

1985.

& Salanick, G. K.
St. Clair Press,

B.
Behavior,

Staw,

Steers, R. M. "Antecedents and
Commitment,'Administrative
22, 1977.

Steers, R. M. "Antecedents and
Commitment, Administrative
22, 1977.

Truman, D. "The Academic Commu
Continuities and Invisible
Number 1, July 1970.

Conducting Educati
1978.

Tuckman, B.
Jovanovich Inc.

ge, "Changing Functions of
1967.

"Investments and Involvements as Mechanisms
Producing Commitment to the Organization,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 16,

1971.

g, Allyn and Bacon Inc.,

New Directions it Oroanizational

1977.

Outcomes of Organizational
Science Quarterly, Volume

Outcomes of Organizational
Science Quarterly, Volume

nity in Transition: Visible
Changes," NASPA, Volume 8,

onal Research, Harcourt Brace

124

T TE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

II III IIIIIIIIMI I

30090 2029

ntcurcen s
lllllillllllllll
3129