THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANLNSTR-UMENT .. _ v'DES‘GNED T90 ASSESS ’THE'PITTENTLAL? '. . _'_-_f:}1:if_7?_§:;>:i; FOR CONFLICT RELATLVE T0 , , ..,.‘:. FACULTY -AD-M|NISTRATOR RELATIONSHIPS " ~ I Thesis for the Degree‘of‘Ph. DQ ‘ MLCHIGANZSTATE'UNIVERSHY ‘ «DAVID ALLEN HARRIS ‘ 1970 '—-u—v- * “"‘1.’ f.“ ‘“ 3153'.“ "‘ IIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIWII'NIIIWIIIII 3 1293 01082 1449 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT RELATIVE TO FACULTY- ADMINISTRATOR RELATIONSHIPS presented by David Allen Harris has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. degree in EDUCATION %,Q@ CIA /Major plQ fess DateJAy II": 1970 0-169 ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT RELATIVE TO FACULTY- ADMINISTRATOR RELATIONSHIPS BY David Allen Harris Statement of Problem The purpose of this study was to develOp an instrument, the Potential for Institutional Conflict Questionnaire (P.I.C.Q.), designed to assess the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator relationships at selected public Michigan institutions of higher education. In the develOpment of the instrument (P.I.C.Q.) empha- sis was given to establishing consistency with present theo- retical knowledge about the nature of organizations, in iso- lating and studying the major dimensions incorporated in the instrument, and in obtaining acceptable internal reliability. Method of Investigation and Analysis A basic Likert-type instrument (P.I.C.Q.) was developed using empirical and inductive procedures. A cOmbination of these two approaches was considered useful in checking theo- retical assumptions against numerical values. Items were included in the P.I.C.Q., Form I, that re- lated to collective negotiations, morale, shared David Allen Harris administrator-faculty decision making, and student, govern- ing body and state legislature status and involvement in the institutional setting. A tentative listing of dimensions was developed on the basis of item-sorting, panel agreement, induction, and theoretical knowledge. The P.I.C.Q., Form I, was then field tested with the responses subjected to a number of statistical procedures including item analysis, internal reliability analysis, and cluster analysis. The P.I.C.Q., Form I, was studied rela- tive to item content, item clarity, levels of internal re- liability, and in determining the extent to which the pro- jected dimensions had received statistical support. Based upon the multiple analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form 1, a new dimensional classification schema and the P.I.C.Q., Form II, were developed. The P.I.C.Q., Form II, was administered to a random and stratified sample drawn from the population of four public Michigan institutions of higher learning. The re- sponses were subjected to factor analysis. Factor analysis was used in isolating and studying those dimensions account- ing for the most variance. Based upon this analysis final names were assigned to the major dimensions and the P.I.C.Q. Form III, was developed for use in assessing the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator relationships. Major Findings The multiple analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, resulted in 61 items being eliminated from the original 151 item David Allen Harris instrument. Acceptable levels of internal reliability are found for the total instrument and for the two sub-scales relat- ing to Collective Negotiations and Morale. The two sub- scales relating to Environmental Constraints (Now Applies) and Environmental Constraints (Should Apply) displayed low levels of internal reliability. Factor analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, revealed that four basic dimensions were incorporated in the instru- ment that related to the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator relationships: 1. Administrative Leadership 2. Shared Academic Governance (Normative) 3. Collective Negotiations (Utilitarian) 4. Morale The factor analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, provided positive support for four basic sub-scales of 81 items. On this basis the P.I.C.Q., Form III, was developed. The P.I.C.Q. should be of intrinsic interest to the faculty and administrations; the findings from it can be used for purposes of faculty-administrator self-evaluation relative to the potential for conflict. Copyright by DAVID ALLEN HARRIS 1971 THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT RELATIVE TO FACULTY- ADMINISTRATOR RELATIONSHIPS BY David Allen Harris A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This writer is deeply grateful to many people for their considerate, enthusiastic, and selective contributions made to this study. This writer is especially grateful to: Professor David C. Smith, Guidance Committee Chairman, for his counsel, support, and encouragement in develop- ing increased intellectual autonomy. Professor Max Raines for his sensitive appraisal of the original study proposal and his continuing interest in the study. Professor Keith Anderson whose interest in and support for this study were most helpful. Professor James McKee for his understanding guidance and sharing of his vast knowledge of human organizations. Mr. John Schweitzer for his support and assistance in the application of appropriate statistical procedures. Mrs. Audrey Mehlhaff for her excellent editing and typ- ing. My wife, Betty, and children, Timothy and Cameron, who shared the obstacles and successes throughout the study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWI‘EDGEMENTS O O O O o 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O I O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O .7 0 ii LIST OF TABLES. O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 v LIST OF APPENDICES...0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00...... Vii Chapter I. THE PROBLEMOOO00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Need....................................... Purpose.................................... Hypotheses of the Study.................... Method of Research......................... Significance of the Study.................. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study... Description of Terms Used.................. Overview of the Study...................... QOUIm-bnbl‘ 'l-‘ II. SELECTED REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............. \0 Organizational Theory: Conflict, Control, and the Impact of the Professional on Organizational Structures................ 9 Collective Negotiations: Historical Devel- opment and Expansion into the Public sector...0.0...0.00IOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 13 Historical Review of Collective Negotia- tions in Public Education (K-12)......... 16 Historical Analysis of Institutional Governance in American Higher Education.. 25 sumarYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOVO00.00.000.000. 36 III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 41 General Characteristics of the Instrument.. 41 Pre-test and Statistical Tests............. 45 Implementation and Analysis of Form II of the P.I.C.Q. Based Upon the Preceeding Analysis................................. 47 Population and Sample...................... '49 Institutional Profiles..................... 50 Summary.................................... 50 iii Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS....................... 52 P.I.C.Q., Form I.......................... 52 Construction of the P.I.C.Q., Form I..;... 52 Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, by a ' Panel of Experts........................ 54 Testing of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, to Examine Item Content.................... 54 Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, by Cluster Analysis........................ 55 Testing of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, to Examine Internal Reliability............ 56 Summary of the Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I.................................. 57 P.I.C.Q., Form II......................... 61 Deve opment of the P.I.C.Q., Form 11...... 61 Administration of the P.I.C.Q., Form II... 61 Preparation of Data for Factor Analysis... 63 Factor Analysis to Ascertain the Dimen- sions Underlying the Variable Areas..... 64 Factor Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, Item Matrix............................. 65 Summary of the Factor Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, and the Revised Dimensions Based Upon Factor Analysis... 78 Summary................................... 79 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOWENDATIONS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 81 General smary C I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 1 DiscuSSion. O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 83 conCIUSionSe I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 85 Recommendations for Further Study......... 89 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I 99 APPENDIX A. O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 109 APPENDIX B. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 123 APPENDIX C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0‘. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 135 APPENDIX DOOOOOIOOOOOOOO‘...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO 156 iv Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Page Assignment of empirically derived constella- tions of 151 P.I.C.Q., Form I, items to a model of "Projected Dimensions" of institu- tional conflicts.................................. 53 Table of sample size and stratification by rank and administrative classification............ 55 P.I.C.Q., Form I, items discarded based upon panel analysis, item analysis, and cluster anaIYSiSOCOOOOOCOOOOOO0.000000000000000.00.0.00... 56 P.I.C.Q., Form 1, total test internal reli- abilitYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 58 P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest I (Environmental Constraints - Now Applies) internal reliabil- ity anaIYSiSOOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.00...OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO 58 P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest II (Environmental Constraints - Should Apply) internal reli- ability anaIYSiSO000000.000ooeeeoeeooooooeoooeoooo 58 P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest III (Collective Negotiations) internal reliability analysis....... 59 P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest IV (Morale) internal reliability analYSis...0.0.0.0...OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 59 Revised projected dimensions of institutional conflictOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 60 Table of population, sample size, and strati- fication by rank and administrative classifi- cation.‘0.0...0.0.0.0...00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 62 Rates of return on an institutional basis......... 62 Eigenvalues 2.500 and higher...................... 65 Rotated item factor matrix for 90 items of the P.I.C.Q., Form IIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOO 67 Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor IOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 69 Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor III.O.ICC...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0... 7o LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 16. Item content and factor loadings for questions inFaCtOI‘111.....c............................... 72 17. Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor IVOO0.0.0...I000......00.000.000.000...- 76 18. Projected dimensions of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, and dimensions based upon factor analysis......... 79 19. P.I.C.Q., Pom111.000.000.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 90 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. P.I.C.Q., FOR-M 1.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 109 B. P.I.C.Q., FORM IIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO000...... 123 C. INTER CORRELATION MATRIX PREPARED FOR FACTOR ANALYSISOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO0.... 135 D. P.I.C.Q., FORM III, WEIGHTINGS BASED UPON DIRECTION OF CONFLICT OR NON-CONFLICT........ 156 vii CHAPTER I The Problem N292 Higher education is experiencing a period of critical stress on its traditional organizational patterns. Exist- ing patterns of institutional governance have become prob- lematic. Faculty and administrator uncertainty toward ex- isting and proposed institutional governance designs is a topic of concern in the present period of stress confront- 1 ing higher education. From the Report of Committee T on the Place and Func- tions of Faculties in University Government and Administra- tion2 issued in 1920 to the report on Facultngarticipation in Academic Governance in 1967,3 studies and reports have stressed the lack of faculty participation in academic gov- ernance and faculty discontent toward their role in l Clyde Moyers and Gerald Pinson, "Collective Nego- tiations in Colleges and Universities," School and Society, November 1, 1966, p. 390. 2 J. E. Leighton, "Report of Committee T on the Place and Function of Faculties in University Government and Ad- ministration," American Association of University Profes- sors Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 3, March 1920, pp. 17-47. 3 Faculty Participation in Academic Governance in 1967, Report of the AAHE Task Force on Faculty Representa- "W"—" . . . tion and Academic Negotiations Campus Governance Program, Washington, D. C., American Association for Higher Educa- tion, 1967. 2 institutions of higher learning in the United States. To- day the demand for change, the rate of change, and the im- plementation of new modes of institutional governance are creating increasing tensions within higher education. Within this context of stress and change, collective negotiations are emerging as a new and pervasive force which is modifying the traditional governance patterns in American higher education. Boards of Trustees, administra- tors, and faculty members in states having public employee legislation, are faced with a new organizational mode which may fundamentally modify the decision-making process in American higher education. Erickson views collective negotiations in higher educa- tion as paralleling, in substance and scope, the development of collective negotiations in the public schools.4 A recent study by the American Council on Education found that most institutional members and faculty respondents view collec- tive negotiations as becoming a common feature of higher ed- ucation.5 There is a general agreement concerning the development and expansion of collective negotiations in higher educa- tion. There is no general agreement concerning the appro- priateness of collective negotiations, the institutional 4 Donald A. Erickson, "A Fast Express Named Militancefl The North Central Associationguarterly, Vol. XLII, No. 3, .— Winter, 1968, PP. 229-230. 5 "Study by the American Council on Education on Atti- tudes Toward Collective Negotiations," Chronicle of Higher Education, (editorial project for education), Oct. 28, 1968. 3 viability of collective negotiations, support by faculty members and administrators for collective negotiations, or the factors that correlate with support and non-support for collective negotiations as an institutional governance de- sign. Writers support, in general, one of two perceived gov- ernance designs within institutions of higher education. The first governance model reflects the principal of shared authority in a community with common interests. The second governance model reflects an absence of common interests and the assumption of permanent conflict between faculty members and administrators requiring collective negotiations.6 A few writers see both governance designs existing in variable form within institutions of higher learning. There are few studies that have attempted to analyze ferrulty member and administrator attitudes toward varient governance designs within institutions of higher learning. AS important is the need to investigate what factors con- tI‘ibute to faculty member and administrator preferences to- Ward particular governance designs within institutions of hig’her learning. If institutions are to be viable in re- 8‘DlVing insitutional conflict, there may exist a need to \ .r 6 Algo D. Henderson, "Control in Higher Education: Nrehds and Issues," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XL, c’- 1, Ohio State University Press, January, 1969, pp. 6-8. 1 7 George Madden, "A Theoretical Basis for Differentiat- arig Forms of Collective Bargaining in Education," Education- Er..3§dministrationQuarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2, University 9(auncil for Educational Administration, Spring, 1968, pp. 76- 4 deve10p instruments that measure membership attitudes to- ward organizational conflict and particular governance modes. Essential in developing such instruments is the importance of ascertaining what factors underlie the poten- tial for institutional conflict. PUIEOSG It was the purpose of this study to develop an instru- ment designed to assess the potential for institutional con- flict relative to faculty-administration relationships. .EYpotheses of the Study Hypothesis A: It will be possible to develop the basis for an instru- ment that seeks to assess the potential for institutional Couiflict relative to faculty-administrative relationships that has theoretical support. Hypothesis B: It will be possible to develop a basic instrument that will have acceptable internal reliability. HYpothesis c: It will be possible to ascertain what dimensions under- lie the basic instrument. This will serve as an empirical c:heck against the theoretical assumptions upon which the baSic instrument was developed. Method of Research A basic attitude scale instrument was developed on the basis of existing theory and knowledge relative to institu- tional conflict in higher education. The instrument was pre-tested and subjected to statistical tests to ascertain the levels of internal reliability. Sub-test scales were refined using cluster analysis. The final form of the basic instrument was subjected to factor analysis in order to study the dimensions that are reflected in the instrument. Significance of the Study The significance of this study stems in part from the fact that little is known about university faculty and ad- ministrator attitudes toward institutional conflict and or- ganizational modes of resolving conflict. This study should be of interest to the following groups of persons: 1. College and university administrators who are or who anticipate being involved in using collective negotiations as a new governance design. 2. Faculty members and their organizations anticipat- ing using collective negotiations within their in- stitutions. 3. Labor relations specialists interested in data and methods of acquiring data concerning structures, processes, and behaviors involved in resolving con- flict with the model of collective negotiations in higher education. 4. Scholars of organizational theory interested in 6 institutional conflict and institutional attempts in resolving conflict. Labor organizations that seek to expand their in- fluence in higher education. Individuals aspiring to become college and univer- sity administrators. This group may increase their understanding of some of the problems of academic administration. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study The study is based upon the following assumptions and limitations: 1. 2. Conflict is not inherently bad or unwholesome. Institutions produce, experience, and reflect con- flict. It is possible to construct the basis of an instru- ment that will analyze attitudes of faculty and ad- ministrators toward institutional conflict and col- lective negotiations as an institutional attempt to resolve conflict. Dimensions of institutional conflict cannot be posited on an a_priori basis but rather through a combination of appropriate theoretical understand- ing of conflict and an application of factorial techniques. The attitudes of organizational members will influ- ence their behaviors in attempting to resolve con- flict within an institutional setting. 7 6. The basic instrument was considered as an attempt to describe, in a tentative form, the dimensions of conflict and conflict resolution within selected institutions of higher learning. 7. It was not considered to be within the scope of this thesis to apply the final form of the instru- ment to selected institutions. 8. The study was limited to selected institutions of higher learning in Michigan. Description of Terms Used In order to reduce semantic confusion in the interpre- tation of this study the following descriptions were used: Attitude - an attitude is a tendency or disposition to respond in a certain way to specified stimuli. Conflict - divergence of opinions or interests of groups that occur within an institutional setting. Faculty member - full-time instructor or researcher with no supervisory authority over other faculty members involving evaluation relative to salary, promotion, and retention. Administrator - full-time person who has supervisory authority over other faculty members involving eval- uation relative to salary, promotion, and retention. American Association of University Professors - an asso- ciation, operating exclusively on the college or university level, founded in 1915 with the declared intent of maintaining academic integrity of higher education by protecting the rights of professors. National Education Association - an association that represents the largest teacher organization in the United States. Its membership contains both teach- ing and administrative personnel. It consists pri- marily of elementary and secondary teachers. The NBA refers to itself as a "professional association? as contrasted to union terminology. 8 American Federation of Teachers - an association that represents teachers on all levels. Founded in 1916 the AFT, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, considers it- self as an employee organization, rather than a professional organization. Potential for Institutional Conflictguestionnaire (P.I.C.Q.Tfi- this term refers to the instrument con- structed by the investigator. The categories of this instrument are analyzed in greater detail in Chapter Four of the study. Sub-tests - this term describes the tests which make up the P.I.C.Q. Overview of the Study Chapter II discusses the literature pertinent to the study. Chapter III presents the analysis of the instrument and the research design of the study. Chapter IV consists of the results of the statistical analysis that tested the hypotheses of the study. Chapter V is a summary of the study in which the find- ings, conclusions and investigator's recommendations are presented. CHAPTER II Selected Review of Literature 0 Four general areas of the literature were related to this study. The first dealt with organizational conflict and control. This area was reviewed in order to establish the background for the development and analysis of the topic and instrument being developed. . The second area was related to the development of col- lective negotiations in general with special reference to the public sector. A review of the literature in this area was made in order to identify the basis of collective nego- tiations and its emergence in the public sector. The third area reviewed the history of collective nego- tiations in public education. This area was reviewed in or- der to determine the extent to which similarities may exist between public education (K-12) and higher education. The last area reviewed was related to the historical development of institutional governance in American higher education. Collective negotiations were examined in this section as the emergence of a new governance form. Organizational Theory: Conflictz Control, and the Impact of the Professional on Organizational Structures There are multiple theories of conflict pertaining to organizations. One view contends that conflict is a '1 10 resultant of the failure of the social system to implement alternative organizational modes of group interaction. Ac- commodation, competition, assimilation, cooperation, and collusion are cited as variant group interactional modes.8 An alternative school holds that if the organizational membership accepts the concept of partnership, the process of sharing will reduce or terminate intra-system conflict. Conflict is that which retards goal attainment.9 10 and Merton,1 A third view, represented by Argyris posits that conflict is a psychological phenomenon. Stu- dents of this school are interested in reducing conflict through reducing the stimuli responsible for undesirable be- havior. A fourth view of conflict states that conflict is a dy- namic element in all social systems. Heraclitus viewed life as movement based upon successive conflict involving oppo- sites. Moore12 has detailed a similar view of conflict in the writings of Machiavelli. In the early development of sociology as a discipline, conflict was considered to be a 8 Robert Dubin, "A Theory of Conflict and Power in Union-Management Relations," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, Cornell University, July 1960, p.502. 9 Ibid. p. 502. 10 Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization, New York Harper and Brothers, 1957. 11 Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957. . 12 Sam Moore, "Machiavelli Has A White Hat, Too," Mich- igan Journal of Secondary Educatiog, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1967, MIChigan Association of’Secondary School Principals, East Lansing, Michigan: P- 23- ll universal factor found in all social systems: substantial current research is based upon this view.13 Relative to contemporary research a number of views re- garding the nature and scope of conflict have emerged. Dubin,14 Gross,15 Etzioni,16 and Simmel17 regard conflict as having a neutral loading. The organizational members deter- mine the extent to which conflict in a given situation is negative, positive, or integrative. Such views by leading organizational theorists support a more objective analysis of conflict operating within an institutional setting. 18 21 Bennis, Simmel,19 Gross,20 Walten and McKersie, 13 Robert E. Ohm, "Collective Negotiations: Implica- tions for Research," in Collective Negotiations and Educa- tional Administration, ed. by Roy Allen and John Schmid, University of Arkansas: The University Council for Educa- tional Administration, 1966, p. 98. 14 Dubin, A Theory_9f Conflict and Power in Union- Management Relations, p. 501. 15 Bertram M. Gross, Organizations and Their Managing, New York: The Free Press, 1968. 16 Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. 17 George Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affil- iations, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1964. Warren Bennis, "Leadership Theory and Administra- tive Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, December, 1959, PP. 259-301. Ibid. 20 1968. 21 . Richard E. Walton and Robert B. McKerSie, A Behav- ioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, New York: McGraw Book Company, 1965 . Bertram Gross, Organizations and Their Managing, 12 and Coser22 have in recent studies and theoretical views, contended that conflict is not only ubiquitous to organiza- tional life but essential to the well being of the organiza- tion. Ohm23 states that the lack of conflict within an or- ganization cannot be interpreted as a sign of institutional stability. There appears to be general agreement among contempor- ary students of organizational life that conflict is common to virtually all organizations and that effective organiza- tions are those organizations that transform conflict into 24 Collective negotiations are viewed organizational assets. as an emerging mode of resolving conflict within an organiza- tional setting. Increasing attention has been given to the relationship between the professional and the manager within organiza- tions. Thompson,25 Parsons,26 Etzioni,27 and others consid- er that the growth in the number of professionals have modi- fied elements of the Weberian bureaucratic model. Etizoni 23 Ohm, "Collective Negotiations: Implications for Re- search," pp. 100-112. 24 Rensis Likert, "A Motivational Approach to a Modi- fied Theory of Organization and Management," Modern Organi- zation Theor , Ed. M. Haire, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969, p. 204. 25 Victor A. Thompson, "Bureaucracy and Innovation," Administrative_§cienceQuarterly, Cornell University: Grad- uate School of Business, N.Y., Vol. 20, June, 1965, pp. l-20. 26 Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, New York: The Free Press, 1960. 27 Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, New York: The Free Press, 1961. 13 has proposed that the Weberian bureaucratic model is invert- ed in terms of the traditional views of live and staff in organizations that sponsor and augment the construction, synthesis, utilization, and communication of knowledge.28 Corwin predicts increased conflict as professionals engage the organizational managers in attempts to gain increased participation and control over the institutional decision making centers.29 Collective negotiations appear to be, at least in part, an organizational response to the tension be- tween the professional and bureaucratic principles of organ- ization.3o Organizational viability is in large measure dependent upon the institutional forms which are constructed to chan- nel and resolve organizational conflict. Studies that in- vestigate conflict and the organizational responses to con- flict are important if man is to use conflict as an organi- zational asset. Collective Negotiations: Historical Development and Expan- sion Into the Public Sector Collective negotiations is an organizational process wherein an employee group and an employer engage in a series of maneuvers involving offers and counter offers that 28 Ibid. _ 29 Roger G. Corwin, A Sociology of Education, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. 30 Ohm, Collective Negotiations: Implications for Re- search, p. 112. 14 maintain or modify the organizational employment relation- ship.31 Good faith and a written document are assumed con- ditions of the process. Moscow states that the function of bargaining power in the private sector is to influence change in one group's position in order to achieve agree- ment.32 In 1935 the United States Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, known as the Wagner Act. Lieberman says of this Act: '...one of the most significant labor laws ever enacted in the United States. It was based in part upon the view that employer refusal to permit employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employer through the organization of their own choigs was a major cause of industrial conflict." The public sector had been traditionally considered by Americans to be outside of the pale of collective negotia- tions. Legally the public sector was constrained from rep- licating the industrial model of collective negotiations. This condition was modified during the 1960's.34 In 1961 President Kennedy appointed a task force to analyze the question of employee-management relations in the federal government. On January 17, 1962, President Kennedy 31 Michael H. Moscow, Teachers and Unions: The Applic- ability of Collective Bargaining to Public Education, Phila- delphia: Industrial Research Unit, University of Pennsylvania, 1966, p. 210. 32 Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moscow, Collective Negotiations For Teachers: An Approach to School Administra- tion, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 33 Ibid. p. 68. 34 Ibid. pp. 87-88. 15 issued Executive Order 10988 which granted the right of col- lective negotiations to federal employees. The affect of the Executive Order 10988 has been pervasive in stimulating state and local employee groups to secure similar legislation on state and local levels.35 A number of conditions contributed to a change in pub- lic attitudes and legislation toward the use of collective negotiations in the public sector. Lieberman and Moscow state that when union membership declined in the industrial sector during the 1950's union attention was directed to the large and expanding work force in the public sector. The aggressive expansion of the American Federation of Teachers is regarded as a direct result of union interest in expand- ing their influence into the public sector.36 Zack indicates that federal, state, and local employees have in recent years realized that workers holding an equiv- alent position in the private sector have had many rights denied to workers in the public sector. Since the 1930's workers in the private sector have had the legal right to form, join, and engage in collective bargaining. This added to higher remuneration and better working conditions in the ,private sector and slow governmental responses to public - employee felt needs has increased public employee 35 Arnold M. Zack, "Why Public Employees Strike," The Arbitration Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, American Arbitration Association, 1968, pp. 69-74. 35 Ibid. pp. 87-88. 16 dissatisfaction.37 Lieberman and Moscow38 and Zack39 emphasize the impor- tance of union activity in the public sector, growing dis- parity between public and private workers, entrance of younger and more highly educated staff members into the pub- lic sector, and modifications of existing labor legislation as factors in extending collective negotiations into the public sector. Historical Review of Collective Negotiations in Public Educa- W) Stinnett states that Connecticut experienced the first written agreements between school boards and teacher associa- tion in the 1940's.40 Lieberman41 views 1960 as the real be- ginning of collective negotiations in public education. The development of collective negotiations in public education has been a development of the 1960's. Two teacher organiza- tions have played significant roles in the expansion and im- plementation of collective negotiations: the American Federa- tion of Teachers and the National Education Association. 37 Arnold M. Zack, Why Public Employees Strike, pp. 70- 71. 38 . . Lieberman and Moscow, Collective Negotiations For Teachers, PP. 22-26. 39 Zack, Wherublic Employees Strike, pp. 69-74. 40 T. M. Stinnett, Jack H. Kleinmann, and Martha L. Ware, Professional Negotiations in Public Education, New York: MacMilIan Company,vl§66, p. 7. 41 Lieberman and Moscow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers, p. 35. 17 The American Federation of Teachers, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, has been in existence since 1916. However, its development as a viable national teacher organization is a phenomenon of the 1960's. The majority of its membership comes from urban areas. New York City has been the center of AFT activity. The union contract negotiated there in 1961 had a major impact upon the National Education Associa- tion Administration organizations, and teachers throughout the nation.42 In contrast the National Education Association (NEA) was founded as a professional organization. Until the mid- 1960's all certified employees of a given school district were eligible for membership: the AFT excludes administra- tors from membership. Until the early 1960's the NEA's official position rela- tive to collective negotiations was negative. Collective negotiations with the implied use of the strike was consid- ered to be unprofessional.43 The 1962 NEA Delegate Assembly probably represented the last strong stand against collective negotiations with the possible use of the strike. Dr. Corey, Classroom Teacher Association Executive Secretary, viewed the use of such de- vices as "inappropriate, unprofessional, illegal, outmoded, 42 Ibid. pp. 34-55. 43 National Educational Association, "Addresses and Proceedings," National Education Association, Vol. 101, Washington, D. C., 1963, p. 465. 18 and ineffective,"44 By 1966 there were 142 work stoppages by public employees and from September 1967 through March 1968 work stoppages had involved 133,000 teachers.45 The NEA's 1962 and 1963 resolution on professional nego- tiations contained this statement: ' "Under no circumstances should the reso- lution of differences between professional associations and boards of education be sought through channels set up for hand- ling industrial disputes. The teacher's situation is completely unlike that of an industrial employee. A board of education is not a private employer and a teacher is not a private employee. Both are public servants. Both are committed to serve the common, indivisible interest of all per- sons and groups in the community in the best possible education for their children. Teachers and boards of education can per- form their indispensable functions only if they act in terms of their identity of pur- pose in carrying out this commitment. In- dustrial disputes conciliation machinery which assumes a conflict of interest and diversity of purpose between persons and groups, is not appropriate to prggessional negotiation in public education. A fundamental change occurred in the NEA's view lective negotiations between 1963 and 1968. The NEA of col- 1968‘ official position relative to collective negotiations stated: "The National Education Association be— lieves that local associations and school boards must establish written professional negotiation agreements. 44 Classroom Teachers Association, "Responsibilities of Teacher Power," Classroom Teachers Association Journal, October, 1968, p. 5. 45 Ibid. pp. 5-6. 45 Ibid. 19 It (the NEA) recognizes that under cer- tain conditions of severe stress, caus- ing deterioration of the educational program, and when good faith attempts at resolution have been rejected, strikes have occurred and may occur in the future. In such instances, the Association will offer all of the services at its command to the affiliate concerned to help re- solve the impasse. The Association denounces the practice of staffing schools with any personnel when, in an effort to provide high quality ed- ucation47educators withdraw their ser- vices." In addition the 1968 official resolution called for binding arbitration, released time without loss of time for negotiations and the extension of negotiations to institu- tions of higher learning.48 The NEA drastically modified its position relative to collective negotiations: today there are few differences between the NEA and the AFT. 49 states that collective negotiations are a Lieberman reality in public education and that it will continue to emerge in states that have permissive legislation as well as those states that lack permissive legislation and/or regu- lating negotiations in public education. Both the AFT and the NEA are investing at least seven times the amount of money that the National School Boards 47 National Education Association, Addresses and Pro- ceedings, Vol. 106, Washington, D. C., 1968, pp. 526-527. Ibid. p. 526. 49 Myran Lieberman, "Collective Negotiations: Status and Trends," The Educational Digest, Vol. 32, No. 4, Decem- ber, 1967. 20 Associations are investing in negotiations. With expanding and accelerating teacher organization activity in collective negotiations it is estimated that by 1972 some 80 per cent of the nation's teachers will be teaching in districts hav- ing contracts or engaged in negotiations requiring manage- ment changes.50 The following factors have been cited as motivating pub- lic school teachers toward accepting and using collective negotiations as an organizational process: 1. Conflict over resource allocation. 2. Conflict over the perimeters of employee-employer relationships. 3. Conflict over the nature and functions of the teacher as a professional. 4. Loss of personal identity through school district reorganization. 5. Teacher shortage and resultant increased teacher ability. 6. Success of the union movement in the private sector. 7. Increased competition between teacher organizations. 8. Higher visiability of minority groups in our culture and their impact upon education. 9. Changing state legislation authorizing collective negotiations.51 5° Ibid. pp. 24-26. 51 Moscow, Teachers and Unions, p. 2. 21 10. Desire for increased teacher participation in insti- tutional decision-making process. 11. Increase in the proportion of teachers who are males. 12. Increase in the proportion of teachers whose fathers were blue collar workers.52 A cluster of factors, many of them complex in composition and reciprocal in influence, appear to have shaped the emergence of collective negotiations in public education during the 1960's. , In a study dealing with teacher perceptions of, and atti- tudes toward, the uses of collective bargaining power Evans found that few teachers were militant enough to strike, apply sanctions, or pressures to achieve resolutions of the negotiations problems presented. Teachers were most militant about the right to negotiate, fair representation, salaries, fringe benefits, and grievance policies. They were less aggressive about a voice in educational decision-making pro- cesses . 53 52 Dohertyand Oberer, Teachers, School Boards, and Col- lective Bargaining; A Changing of the Guard, Cornell Univer- sity: The State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, ' 1967, p. 20. 53 Geraldine A. Evans, Perceptions of and Attitudes To- ward the Use of Collective Bargaining Power, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968). 22 55 ascertained in recent studies Queen54 and Fisher that attitudes toward collective negotiations on the part of teachers and administrators were significantly different. In another analysis Rosenthal indicated considerable difficulty in studying membership in teacher unions and re- lated dependent variables. Organizational change is occur- ring at such a rapid rate in public education that dependent variables have become unstable from one time to the next in the same school system. He calls for imaginative research in this area.56 A study by Midjaas investigated the extent to which different attitudes existed toward the negotiability of cer- tain items between teachers, administrators and board members within three types of districts. He found that teachers, ad- ministrators and board members varied in their attitudes to- ward what was negotiable. Teachers ranked as more negotiable areas relating most directly with the teaching process; ad- ministrators ranked as more negotiable salary and fringe benefit areas; with board members ranking as more negotiable 54 Bernard Queen, Rglationship of Teacher Collective Activity to Attitudes of Classroom TeachersL Sihool Adminis- trators and’ScHool Board Members, (unpublished doctorai’dis- sertation, Ohio State University, 1967). 55 James R. Fisher, The Relationship of Sex, Level and Position of Oregon Educators to Attitudinal Statements That Deal With Collective Negotiations and Sanctions, (unpublished doctoral dissertaion, University of Oregon,i§67). 56 Alan Rosenthal, "The Strength of Teacher Organiza- tions: Factors Influencing Membership in Two Large Cities," Sociology of Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, Fall, 1966, pp. 378- 380. 23 areas involving school-community interests.57 In a national survey completed in 1966, Hopkins found that teacher opinions in school districts with existing con- tracts expressed desire to negotiate class size, in-service training, dismissal practices, extra-curricular activities, assignment of duties, and transfer, the boards and school ad- ministrators displayed negative opinions concerning the nego- tiability of these items.58 CA study by Carlson of North Carolina on public school teacher attitudes toward collective negotiations and sanctions relative to an independent variable, traditional-progressive educational attitudes, resulted in the following findings: 1. Significant correlation between attitudes toward collective action and progressivism. 2. Male teachers more favorable toward the use of col- lective negotiations than female teachers. 3. Lack of consistency among participants of educational beliefs. It is possible for teachers to maintain progressive beliefs in one area and traditional be- liefs in other areas.59 57 Carl L. Midjaas, Differential Perceptions of Negotia- bility in Selected Illinois Pubiic Secondary Schbol Districts, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Illinois, 1966). 58 J. E. Hopkins, A National Survey of Collective Nego- tiations in Public Schoo1 Systems With Advanced Negotiation Agreements, (unpublished dissertation, Ohio State Univ.,l965L 59 P. W. Carlson, Attitudes of Certified Instructional Personnel in North Carolina Toward ggestions Concerning Col- lective Negotiations and Sanctions, (unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University of North Carolina, 1966). 24 Gregg found in a Michigan Study that teachers are be- coming increasingly interested in participating and determ- ining school policy changes other than salary through the use of collective negotiations.60 Corwin investigated the relationships between profes- sionalism and militancy in teachers. His hypothesis stated that the effects of professionalizing teachers (involvement in professional organizations) would increase teacher mili- tancy. He found that personal and professional characteris- tics were related to attitudes toward the use of collective negotiations.61 Herberston analyzed and correlated AFT and NEA members, superintendents, and board members attitudes toward collec- tive negotiations. Board members were most conservative and AFT members were most liberal. All the groups were found to be more politically conservative than the general public.62 In an investigation of teacher attitudes toward the willingness to support the right of teachers to strike, Clark found that 55 per cent of all teachers responded in the affirmative. Administrators were overwhelmingly opposed 60 Perry K. Gregg, A Case Study_of the Public Schogl Collective Negotiations Process Designed For the Use of Ad- ministrators In-Trainin , (unpublished doctoral diesertation, , New York Un vers ty. 61 Ronald G. Corwin, "Professional Persons in Public Organizations," Educational Administration Quarterly, Autumn, 1965, p. 17. 62 Jack R. Herberston, Teacher Negotiations as Perceiv- ed by Representatives of Teacher Groups, Superintendentsy and School Board Presidents, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1966). 25 to the strike.63 Recent research indicates that teachers favor collec- tive negotiation more than do school administrators or board members; experience in the collective negotiations process increases teacher militancy, men are more favorable than are women toward collective negotiations, liberal attitudes re- late to acceptance of collective negotiations, and that ex- perience with collective negotiations increases the area considered to be negotiable (economic to non-economic) by teachers. Historical Analysis of Institutional Governance in American EighEE_Education Conflict and control were early organizational realities facing American higher education as they are yet today. Only the context and the actors have changes from time to time. Early American colleges were controlled by external gov- erning bodies that were religious in overtone. The faculties were very weak and the presidents,with few exceptions, were the creatures of the governing bodies. Gradually, during the nineteenth century, the president became the center of con- trol with the governing bodies using a corporate structure delegating more and more to the president.64 A major trend 63 Robert L. Clark, The Roles and Positions of the NEA and the AFT in Negotiations: Opinions of Teachers and SchooI Administrators of Five Selected School Districts in Illinois, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Illinois, 1965). 64 Frederick Rudolph, The American College and Univer- sity, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968). 26 in American higher education has been the slow movement a- way from external sources of power and control toward sources of internal control.65 This movement away from external to internal sources of control is seen by Clark as the result of secularization, the broadening of the function of higher education, the ideal and operational reality of the university, and the in- creasing scale of organization. The expanding scale of or— ganization creates more sub-divisions, more specializations and a diffusion downward of technical authority.66 College faculties had not attempted to assert themselves through collective action since the early days of William and Mary:67 in general the college teacher of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had few moral, institutional, or legal rights. In 1878 a trustee of Cornell University seriously argued for the right of the university to hire and fire pro- fessors as a factory owner hires and fires workers.68 During the late nineteenth century the dissatisfaction with the absence of a legal basis for tenure and termination of tenure stimulated the rapid professionalization of college and university teachers. The establishment in 1915 of the 65 Burton R. Clark, "Faculty Authority," American Asso- ciation of University Professors Bulletin, Winter 1961, p. 294. 66 Ibid. p. 294. 67 Walter Metzger, Academic Freedom in the Age of the Universit , Columbia University Press, New York, 1955, pp. 1 - . (3 call 587-598). 68 Rudolph, The American College and University, p. 415. 27 American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a pro- fessional society dedicated in particular to the development and enhancement of standards of freedom and tenure, created an organizational mode of offering protection to faculty members from the institutions of higher education.69 In 1920 the Report of Committee T on the Place and Func- tions of Faculties in University Government and Administra- Eigg was published. The findings of this committee were that faculty participation in academic governance had been decreas- ing for at least a quarter of a century. The need for more faculty involvement in institutional decision-making process- es was cited as a major objective of the AAUP.70 The AAUP has released similar reports since the 1920 re- port and has reported on a slow but steady increase in faculty participation in the governance of institutions of higher education. The AAUP has maintained a pervasive inter- est in increasing the role of faculties in the governance of colleges and universities.71 The AAUP has emphasized the principle of shared decision making and authority within an academic community character- ized by common interests. The AAUP's formal statement of 69 George Strauss, "The AAUP as a Professional Occupa- tional Association," Industrial Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1, October 1965, p. 129. 70 J. E. Leighton, "Report of Committee T on the Place and Function of Faculties in University Government and Ad- ministration," pp.17-47. 71 Strauss, The AAUP as a Professional Occupational Association, pp. 129-131. 28 principle states: "The faculty should have primary respon- sibility for determining the educational policies of the institution.... Educa- tional policies include...subject matter and methods of instruction, facilities and support for research of faculty mem- bers and students, standards for admis- sion of students, for academic perform- ance and for the granting of degrees.... The faculty is also properly concerned and should actively participate in deci- sions made on other matters that may directly affect the educational policies ....the size of the student body, signifi- cant alterations in the academic calendar, the establishment of new schools on divi- sions, the provision of extension ser- vices to the community, and assumption by the institution of research or service 092 ligations to private or public agencies. Bertram H. Davis, Executive Director of the AAUP, has stated that the 1962 policy statement captured considerable faculty imagination across the nation. Davis feels that all policy matters are appropriate matters of concern to the faculty and requires their consideration. Such concerns should occur in an atmosphere of mutual respect through an Academic Senate or Council. The AAUP, states Davis, does not see any basic differences, in an ideal sense, between administration and faculty because both groups are members of the academic community which is identified by common in- terests.73 72 American Association of University Professors, "Faculty Participation in College and University Government: Statement of Principles Approved by the Council," American Association of UniversityiProfessors, Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 1962, pp. 321-323. 73 Bertram H. Davis, "The Faculty and Institutional Policy," The Educational Record, Vol. 47, No. 2, Spring, 1966, pp. 185-191. 29 Although the AAUP has maintained an official position of faculty and administrator cooperation in academic govern- ance as the ideal state, the spread of collective negotia- tions into higher education has produced pressures for a change in its official position concerning collective nego- tiations. Until the 1960's unionism and the collective negotia- tions process was not an operational alternative mode of academic governance in higher education. During the 1960's it has become an alternative strategy. Clark predicted in the early 1960's that the result of having institutional authority and operational control move downward in higher education would produce conflict between administrators and faculty. Clark stated: "This conflict has natural, not manufac- tured, sources and each side has a cogent cause. Going into battle, the faculties march under the banner of self-government and academic freedom, emphasizing equality of relations among colleagues and de- emphasizing administrative hierarchy. The administrators move forward under a cluster of banners: Let's bring order out of chaos or at least reduce chaos to mere confusion; let's increase efficiency, utilize our scarce resources of men and money effective- ly; let's give the organization as a whole a sense of direction, with knowledgeable hands on the helm; let's insure that we handle external forces--the legislature or our constituencies in a way that will in- sure the survival and security of the whole enterprise. Clark viewed the future in 1961 as increasing power for 74 Clark, Faculty Authority, p. 296. 30 both faculty and administration. While predicting greater administrator-faculty conflict, he saw faculties gaining greater institutional authority in a decentralized organiza- tional setting.75 During the 1960's increasing numbers of institutions of higher education experienced increased faculty militancy, collective negotiations, and the use of the strike. In 1968 it was estimated that of the 300,000 college faculty members throughout the nation in excess of 15,000 belonged to over 100 union locals: most are AFT affiliates.76 In 1969 the faculty union of the City University of New York entered into a contract with the trustees representing the first collective negotiations agreement at a major public university. The negotiated salary scale was the highest in the nation.77 Again, in 1969, faculty members of the Wisconsin State University System voted 1,531 to 835 in favor of collective negotiations with the board of regents. Also during the same year all six state colleges in New Jersey and Central Michi- gan University entered into collective negotiations.78 75 Ibid. pp. 293-302. 76 Israel Kugler, "The Union Speaks for Itself," The Educational Record, Vol. 49, No. 4, Fall, 1968, p. 414. 77 American Council on Education, Higher Education and National Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 33, September, 1969, p. 4. 78 National Education Association, NBA Newspaper, No. 322, November 10, 1969, p. 16. 31 In early 1968 the AAUP, the American Council on Educa- tion, and the Association of Governing Boards published a statement emphasizing faculty responsibility to participate in institutional governance through appropriate and well- defined procedures. The statement concluded that collec- tive negotiations, including the use of the strike, is not considered an appropriate means for faculty participation.79 This position is similar to positions articulated by pub- lic education associations during the early 1960's. However, in the same year, the AAUP released a formal statement on faculty participation in strikes that modified in substance its previous absolute opposition to the use of the strike. The statement declared that in some situations affecting an institution which "...so flagrantly violate academic freedom (of students as well as of faculty) or the principles of academic government, and which are so resistent to rational methods of dis- cussion, persuation, and conciliation, that faculty members may feel impelled to express their condemnation by withholding their ser- vices, either individually or in concert with others. It should be assumed that faculty members will exercise their right to strike only if they believe another component of the institution is inflexibly bent on a course which undermines an essential element of the educational process." Peggy Heim, "Growing Tensions in Academic Adminis- tration," The North Central Association Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3, Winter 1968, pp. 244-245. 80 American Association of University Professors, "Statement on Faculty Participation in Strikes," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1968, p. 157. 32 The American Federation of Teachers and its higher edu- cation unit, the United Federation of College Teachers, maintains the same position in higher education as it does relative to public education (K-12). Israel Kugler, President of the United Federation of College Teachers, an AFL-CIO affiliate, stated the AFT posi- tion relative to higher education: "The board of directors is the board of trus- tees; the managers are the presidents and the hosts of deans. It is these groups that wield the power and authority and determine the destiny of a university. To be sure, they have woven a web of faculty senates and coun- cils which simulate the original role of policy-making that university faculties once had. The advisory nature of these bodies pro- vides them with some active role in curriculum and student affairs, but virtually no part to play in securing the necessary finances to provide professionag salaries, work load, and working conditions. 1 The NEA's higher education division is militant and aggressive in expanding into higher education. Alan Strat- ton, Executive Director of the NEA's Higher Education Divi- sion, indicates that his division will be aggressive in es- tablishing new college units and in extending assistance to existing college units.82 0 As the differences blurred between teacher organi- zations during the early 1960's, relative to collective 81 Israel Kugler, AAUP and AFT - Which Way for the Professors?, Washington, D. C., American Federation of Teach- ers, pp. 1-11. 82 A. Stratton, private interview held during a trip to Washington, D. C., December, 1969. 33 negotiations and the use of the strike, so the differences appear to be blurring today that distinguish college fac- ulty organizations and their acceptance of collective nego- tiations and the use of the strike. The majority of institutional, administrator, and gov- erning board associations are negative toward collective negotiations and the use of the strike. This seems to be true for public and higher education. Davis details some of the factors involved in increas- ing faculty militancy as the rapid growth of institutions, construction of statewide systems of higher education under central control, impersonal power exercised by administra- tors, power of budget officials to modify or cancel academic decisions, increasing numbers of probationary faculty mem- bers, economic gains won by public school teachers through collective negotiations, the civil rights movement, and autocratic administrators.83 Marmion found that unionization made its first inroads into junior colleges, transitional normal schools, and church-related colleges. The reason is the absence of a well-established mode of faculty participation in the deci- sion-making processes of these institutions.84 Case found that California faculties prefer, in terms of 83 Bertram H. Davis, "Unions and Higher Education: Another View," American Association of Universit Professors Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 3, Autumn, 1968, pp. 31 - 20. 84 Harry A. Marmion, "Unions and Higher Education," Ed- ucational Record, Vol. 49, No. 1, Winter, 1968, p. 42. 34 the academic senate arrangement, a relationship of shared authority and partnership. Faculties reject the relation- ships in which the administration dominates the faculty or where the faculty dominates the administration. This study did not analyze administration reactions and preferences to the governance model of the academic senate.85 Ortell, in another study dealing with California Jun- ior Colleges, found that leaders of the teacher associations favored a broad scope of negotiations, mass resignations over salaries and unsafe conditions for students, compulsory arbitration, exclusion of deans from the bargaining unit, in- clusion of department heads in the bargaining unit, and writ- ten contracts.86 Gross and Grambsch, based on an extensive national sur- vey found that adminstrators and faculty tend to agree on in- stitutional goals and related factors to a degree greater than is assumed to be the actual case.' They observed that the high degree of congruence that exists between perceived and pre- ferred goals at various colleges and universities reflects institutional success in attracting and holding faculty and administrators who accept the institution's goals. They appear to infer that there doesn't necessarily exist a basis 85 -H. Case, Faculty Participation in the Governance of Junior Colleges: A Study of Academic Senates in California Junior Colle es, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity ofCaIigornia, 1968.) 86 Edward Ortell, Perception of Junior College Leaders With Respect to Selected Issues in ProfesEional Negotiations, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, U. S. International Univer- sity, 1968.) 35 for conflict between faculty and administrators due to the control of greater power by the administration. This does not seem to be in conflict with university purposes.87 Dykes, in a study of faculty participation in Academic decision-making, found faculty members asserting faculty participation as essential but assigning a low priority in terms of their own participation and negative toward their colleagues that do. Most faculty members desired a town hall form of government with the belief that in times past faculties had greater control in institutional governance than is the case today. Faculty members divided decisions into educational and non-educational categories and ascribed appropriate faculty influence to the educational category. Dykes concluded his study with the observation that faculty members hold a simplistic view of the distribution and functioning of power and control within the university. This study was conducted with the College of Arts and Sci- ences of a large Midwestern University and was based upon personal interviews.88 In a recent study Bylsma observed that collective nego- tiations in community colleges in Michigan have acted to 87 Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch, University Goals and Academic Power, Washington, D. C., American Council on Education, 1968. 88 Archie R. Dykes, Faculty Participation in Academic Decision-Makin , Washington, D. C., American Council on Edu- cation, I538. 36 democratize these institutions. The center of decision- making has shifted from pervasive administrator control to a near division of control with faculty in most areas. It was also found that the bureaucratic structure became more formal as a consequence of collective negotiations.89 SUMMARY In the first area of the literature reviewed in this chapter the emphasis was upon organizational conflict and control. Conflict was seen as being ubiquitous to organiza- tions, essential to a vital organization, and given meaning in particular situations by the organizational members. Effective organizations appear to be able to resolve con- flict in ways that enable the organization to adjust to new conditions. Control was seen by a number of students of organiza- tional behavior as being in the processes of change. Pro- fessionals have increased throughout organizations and are challenging the organizational managers for increased partic- ipation in, and control over, organizational decision-making. Collective negotiations were seen as an organizational re- sponse to the tension between the professional and bureau- cratic principles of organization. The second area of the literature reviewed in this Donald Bylsma, Changes in Locus of Decision-Maki_g and Organizational Structure in Seiected Public Community Colleges in Michigan Since 1965, (unpublished doctoraiidis- sertation, University of Michigan, 1969. ) 37 chapter examined the deve10pment of collective negotiations in general and with special emphasis given to the public sector. The development of collective negotiations in the pri- vate sector during the 1930's was contrasted with the public attitudes toward and legal constraints against collective negotiations in the public sector. President Kennedy's Executive Order 10988, union inter— est in organizing an expanding work force in the public sec- tor, increased public employee dissatisfaction and changing demographic patterns within the public sector have contrib- uted to collective negotiations becoming an organizational reality throughout the public sector. ' The third area of the literature reviewed in this chap- ter described the development of collective negotiations in public education and relevant research concerning collective negotiations in public education (K-lZ). .The development of collective negotiations was consid- ered to have been a phenomenon of the 1960's. In the early 1960's the AFT and the NEA were seen as two distinct organ- izations, in terms of organizational goals membership, and behavior. However, by the late 1960's there appeared to be few substantive differences between the NEA and the AFT. Collective negotiations had become a permanent feature of public education. The reasons for teacher acceptance of collective nego- tiations were described as complex in composition and 38 and reciprocal in influence. Relevant research found that teachers favored collec- tive negotiations more than did school administrators or board members, experience in the collective negotiations process increases teacher militancy, men tended to be more supportive of collections than did women, support for col- 1ective negotiations was correlated with liberal attitudes, and that experience in the collective negotiations process increases the areas considered to be negotiable. The fourth and last area of the literature reviewed in this chapter was related to the historical development of institutional governance in American higher education with collective negotiations considered to be an emerging govern- ance mode. Relevant research concerning academic govern- ance in higher education was discussed. Conflict and shifting patterns of control was seen as a permanent feature of American higher education. Control has steadily shifted away from external sources to internal sources of control. The development of the AAUP was seen as an organization- al attempt in protecting its members from the cohesive au- thority of institutions of higher education. The major thrust of the AAUP has been to increase faculty participation and control in the decision—making processes of institutions of higher education. A highly normative view of how decisions should be made in higher education has been the major theme of the AAUP. 39 This official position of faculty and administrator cooper- ative in academic governance as an ideal state was seen as coming under increasing pressures during the 1960's with the expansion of collective negotiations into higher education. The NEA and the AFT have aggressively sought to ex- pand into higher education using the same techniques that achieved success for them in public education during the mid-1960's. It appears from recent official statements of the AAUP that faculty participation in strikes under certain circum- stances is justified. As the differences became minute be- tween public educational teacher organizations and labor unions during the early 1960's, concerning collective nego- tiations and the use of the strike, so did the differences appear to be blurring that distinguish college faculty or- ganizations and their acceptance of collective negotiations and the use of the strike. A number of the reasons cited for acceptance of col- lective negotiations by college faculty were seen as similar to the reasons given for teacher acceptance of collective negotiations in public education. It was found that those institutions that early embrac- ed collective negotiations had inadequate means for resolv- ing institutional conflict. Recent studies have found considerable agreement be- tween faculty members and administrators concerning institu- tional goals and faculty members holding simplistic views 40 toward participation in decision making. The review of literature supported the writers conten- tion that collective negotiations has become an alternative strategy in higher education. If institutions of higher ed- cuation are to translate conflict into tangible institution- al assets, attitudes toward institutional conflict and those factors that contribute to these attitudes should be under- stood. CHAPTER I I I Design and Procedures This chapter sets forth the design and procedures used in the construction and evaluation of the P.I.C.Q.. The first section of this chapter dealt with the gener- al characteristics of the instrument with emphasis given to a description of the initial attitude scale construction. The second section of this chapter dealt with the devel- opement of the instrument concerning the pre-test, Statisti- cal tests used to ascertain internal reliability of the in- strument, inter-item correlation matrix, cluster-analysis, and the construction of the final form of the instrument. The third section of this chapter dealt with the imple- mentation of the instrument to the selected population with factor analysis used to study what dimensions are reflected in the instrument. The fourth and final section of this chapter dealt with the samples in this study in terms of method of selections and selected characteristics of the populations from which the samples were selected. General Characteristics of the Instrument The purpose of this study was to construct a measure of institutional conflict between faculty and administrators 41 42 based upon relevant literature in higher education, organi— zational theory, and use of an appropriate research design. The investigator was influenced by Halpin and Crofts' research into the construction on an instrument to measure the organizational climate of schools90 and the Educational Testing Service's deve10pement of an instrument to measure 91 Each effort at instrument con- institutional vitality. struction was regarded as a preliminary step toward devel- oping a measure that, after considerable field testing, might provide useful techniques for describing and under- standing some of the bases of human behavior in particular institutional setting. Each effort relied upon the construc- tion of experimental questionnaires that, it was assumed, represented multi-dimensions of institutional conflict and modes of resolving conflict. The development of the attitude scales in the instru- ment was based upon the method of summated attitude scale construction designed by Likert (1932).92 He found that scores based upon the relatively simple assignment of inte- gral weights correlated .99 with more complicated normal 90 Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, The Organiza- tional Climate of Schools, Chicago: The Midwest Administra- tion Center, The University of Chicago, 1963, p. 130. 91 R. E. Peterson and D. E. Loye (Eds.), Conversations Toward a Definition of Institutignal Vitalit , Princeton, Educational Testing Service, 1967, pp. 1-11 . 92 Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavorial Re- search, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967, pp. 483- 486. 43 deviate system of weights.93 A summated rating scale is a set of attitude items, all of which are considered of approximately equal intervals, and to eachof which subjects respond with degrees of agree- ment or disagreement (intensity). The scores of the items are summed and averaged over all statements. It was decided that the "don't know" or "not sure" categories on the Likert scale would be eliminated. The re- spondent must choose among alternatives. Kerlinger states that although some respondents may be irritated by being forced to choose, choosing is a standard human behavior.94 Likert-type items provide measures of preceptions and not fact. When a university faculty member or administrator is asked to describe institutional conflict, the investigator obtains a description of institutional conflict based upon the preceptions of each respondent. Any item answered in the same way by all respondents from all institutions would be of limited value because it would provide little strength to the instrument. An intent of the investigator was to construct an instrument, using Likert-type items, that would have an acceptable level of accuracy in terms of internal reliability and that would have discriminable power. 93 Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Con- struction, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.: 1937, p. 151. 94 p. 498. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavorial Research, 44 For statements expressing potential or actual conflict, the "strongly agree" response was given the weight of four, the "agree response" a weight of three, the "disagree re- sponse" a weight of two, and the "strongly disagree" re- sponse a weight of one. For statements expressing a poten- tial for non-conflict, the scoring system was reversed, with the "strongly disagree" being given the four weight and the "strongly agree" response being given the one weight. Items were constructed on the basis of data obtained from persons involved in the management of conflict within institutions of higher learning, of theoretical concepts relative to organizational behavior, of a selected review of the literature and of speculations of the investigator and certain Michigan State University staff members concerning some of the probable patterns of institutional conflict. The investigator, using these multiple approaches for obtaining items, compiled 446 items. The items were screen- ed for clarity and redundancy. 151 items survived this pre- liminary screening. These items formed the core of the in- strument that was analyzed by a panel of experts and sub- sequently field tested. The items were submitted to a panel of professional educators in higher education, organizational theory, and labor and industrial relations. Each panel members was re- quested to read each item and indicate if, in his opinion, the item expressed potential or actual conflict or non- conflict. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of 45 Educational Research any item that lacked eighty percent agreement, in terms of the direction of conflict or non- conflict, was considered as a probable reject. However, all items were retained for the field test. Preceeding the questionnaire items was a set of in- structions which directed the respondent in the proper man- ner of indicating his reponses to the questionnaire items. In addition, each respondent was requested to leave his questionnaire unsigned and to place it in the return enve- lope that was attached to each questionnaire. Pre-test and Statistical Tests The items were sorted on the basis of how the items seemed to constellate. Four potential subtests were identi- fied as possible dimensions of institutional conflict. These names are listed in Table l. The first version of the Potential for Institutional Conflict Questionnaire (P.I.C.Q.) was administered to a .stratified random sample of an institution's faculty mem- bers and administrators. The chief criterion in choosing this sample was the heterogeneity of the colleges within the institution and economic limitations of administering the in- strument. One of the major tasks in constructing a new education- al instrument is in experimenting and determining the item content and item clarity. The investigator used the Gener- alized Item Analysis Program (GITAP) that is a part of 46 FORTAP, a Fortran test analysis program.95 The GITAP pro- gram was used in analyzing the item content and item clarity. The items in the instrument were qualitative and were expressed in attitudes. This created difficulties in ana- lyzing such data: the data should be quantified. In order to quantify and establish reliability, the Method of Recip- rocal Averages was used. The procedure employed a priori set of item response weights assigned by the investigator for each item. The Reciprocal Averages Program (RAVE), that is part of the FORTAP program, was used to score the re- sponse choices of the subjects and to compute the Hoyt in- ternal consistency reliability coefficients.96 Hoyt's procedure for determining test reliability is based upon the analysis of variance theory. This procedure provides an estimate between the obtained variance and the true variance that is more accurate than that obtained by an arbitrary division of the test into two halves or into other fractional parts.97 The RAVE program was used to analyze the entire instru- ment as well as the four subtests. In the construction of the instrument it was considered 95 F. E. Baker and T. J. Martin, "Fortap: A Fortran Test Analysis Package," Laboratory of ExperimentalDesign, University of Wisconsin, 1968, pp. l-lS. 95 Ibid. 97 Robert L. Ebel, "Estimation of the Reliability of Ratings," Psychometrika, Vol. 16, 1951, pp. 407-424. 47 relevant at the pre-test level to ascertain the extent to which items were aligning themselves on a discernible dimen- sion. All data were configured into a single inter-item correlation matrix. The "BASTAT" routine was used by the investigator to establish simple Pearson product moment correlations. The simple correlations were organized into a matrix of results on printed output.98 Next, the investigator cluster-analyzed, by inspection, the correlational matrix. This allowed the investigator to identify those items which appeared to group together along a discernible pattern. The content of those items which the statistical analy- sis had indicated to group together were examined for con- tent fit. Some 61 items were deleted due to a low inter- item correlation. Implementation and Analysis of Form II of the P.I.C.Q. Based Upon the Preceeding Analysis Some 90 items survived. The final form for the pur- poses and sc0pe of this study was administered at four in- stitutions of higher education in Michigan. Because of the complexity and nature of the instrument, not all responses included complete data. It was important to compensate for missing data in a way that would not affect 98 Agricultural Experiment Station, "BASTAT: Calcula- tion of Basic Statistics on the BASTAT Routine," Michigan State University, 1969, pp. 25???) 48 the correlation matrix in either a positive or negative man- ner. The investigator used the Incomplete Data Correlation- al Program (IDCORR), in order to construct the basic corre- lation matrix to be used in subsequent factor analysis.99 This program computed the correlations gnly from obser- vations which included measurements on relevant variables. Missing data are suppressed in order that it does not affect those correlations based on actual data. The program pro- vides a punched output of the correlations in a symmetric correlation matrix with the matrix row and columns specified on each card. The resulting correlation matrix was subjected to fac- tor analysis. The investigator was interested in isolating the number and nature of the dimensions incorporated in the instrument. Panel agreement, item analysis, internal reliability and cluster analysis had resulted in tentative sub-test scales. The investigator hoped to locate and identify unities or dimensions that underlay the instrument on a more objective basis. Such an exploration of variable areas is considered to be valuable in conceptualizing constructs. Factor analysis, in the analysis of the instrument under consideration, was considered as a useful construct validity tool. 99 David Kline, "IDCORR: Incomplete Data Correlation Progran," Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 1968, pp. 1-16. 49 The main statistical routine in factor analysis is common factor variance. Thus, through the use of factor analysis, the investigator was able to study the constitu- tive meaning of the constructs upon which the instrument was based. By correlating data obtained with a given variable with data from other measures theoretically related to it the investigator was able to check his theoretical constructs. The symmetric correlation matrix (90 x 90) was subjected to Factor A, a basic factor analysis program. This program provides components (principal area) and analytic orthogonal rotational solutionals.100 The Kiel-Wrigley criterion was used. If K, K-l, is the criterion value, the principal axies solution was rotated using Quartimax and the Varimax rotational codes in sequence until a factor was found on which fewer than K variables have their highest loading.101 The resulting principal axies, Varimax and Quartimax factor loadings, were analyzed to study the dimensions under- lying the instrument. ngulation and Sample The random stratified sample of the study was drawn from the total faculty and administrator population of four public Michigan institutions of higher learning. 10° Anthony v. Williams, "Factor A," Com uter Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, 1969, pp. 1.50 101 Ibid. 50 These four institutions were selected because each appeared to have experienced different academic governance modes. Institutional Profiles Institution A is a large university with a 1969 enroll- ment of approximately 44,000 students of which 7,000 were enrolled in graduate programs. The faculty and staff total approximately 2,500. This institution is regarded as a phototype of the multi-purpose institution of higher educa- tion. Institution B is a former state teachers college that became a state university some years ago. It had an enroll- ment in 1969 of 11,500 students of which 1,400 were enrolled in graduate programs. Institution C is a former state teachers college that became a state university some years ago. In 1969 it had an enrollment of 15,000 students of which 2,000 were enrolled in graduate programs. Institution D is a multiple-campus, two-year community college. In 1969 it had an enrollment of approximately 13,400 students. SUMMARY The first section of this chapter described the general configuration of the instrument with a discussion of the application of the attitude scales designed by Likert. The second section of this chapter discussed what 51 statistical procedures would be used in analyzing the field test responses. These procedures included panel agreement, item analysis, cluster analysis, and internal reliability as relevant to the construction and analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I. The third section of this chapter related information relative to the implementation of the P.I.C.Q., Form II to the selected population. This section, also, contained a discussion of why factor analysis appeared appropriate in studying the dimensions of the instrument. The fourth section of this chapter indicated the bases for selecting the samples and certain selected general char- acteristics of those institutions from which the samples were drawn. The analysis of results were reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV Analysis of Results The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument designed to assess the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator relationships at selected public Mich- igan institutions of higher education. A major focus of this study was to isolate the number and nature of the di- mensions incorporated in the instrument. Because the study involved essentially the developement and analysis of an instrument, a number of guideposts were offered for use as points of evaluation and to outline the path the developement and analysis would take. A discussion of each of these guideposts will be included in this chapter. At each step, the data relevant to that step will be pre- sented. 1. P.I.C.Q.! Form I. A. Construction of the P.I.C.Q.,Form_I. The 151 items that had survived screening for clarity and redundancy were sorted onan intui- tive and theoretical basis. To each constella- tion which emerged a plausible name was assign- ed. These dimensions are listed in Table l. The 151 item P.I.C.Q., Form I, may be found in Appendix A. 52 53 TABLE 1. Assignment of empirically derived constellations of 151 P.I.C.Q., Form I, items to a model of "Projected Dimensions" of institutional conflicts. Projected Dimensions of Institutional Conflict Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension‘ I Environmental Constraints-Now Applies II Environmental Constraints-Should Apply III Collective Negotiations, Utilitarian IV Morale The four dimensions posited in Table 1 were viewed as very tentative. The development of these projected dimensions were viewed as a con- ceptual aid in linking theoretical views of in- stitutional conflict, item content dealing with institutional conflict, and the actual views of institutional members toward institutional con- flict. The most tentative of the dimensions were the first two dealing with environmental constraints because they contained items relating to shared faculty-administrator academic governance and student, governing body, and state legislature roles in academic governance. Because of the generalized and broad scope of these two partic- ular dimensions, the investigator was interested in ascertaining if they would remain intact after appropriate field testing and analysis. 54 3. Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, by a panel of experts. The P.I.C.Q., Form I, was analyzed by a panel of professional educators in higher education, organizational theory, and labor and industrial relations. This analysis was intended to as- certain if the items expressed potential con- flict or potential non-conflict based upon the recommendations of the Office of Educational Research. Any item that lacked at least 80 per cent agreement by the panel, in terms of the direction of conflict or non-conflict, was con- sidered as a probably reject. Items discarded on the basis of the panel's analysis are re- ported in Table 2. C. Testing of the P.I.C.Q.L Form 1, to examine item content. In the P.I.C.Q., Form I, the responses to the 151 items were secured from 39 faculty members and administrators from a large number of col- leges and departments within a large mid-western university. The response rates are reported in Table 2. Based upon the field test of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, the Generalized Item Analysis Program (GITAP) 102 was used to examine the items. Items 102 F. B. Baker and T. J. Martin, "Fortap: A Fortran Test Analysis Package," pp. 1-15. 55 TABLE 2. Table of sample size and stratification by rank and adminis- trative classification. NUMBER RESPONSE USEABLE PERCENT OF RANKS SAMPLED RATE RESPONSES USEABLE RESPONSES Professor 14 12 10 71 Assoc. Prof. 13 12 10 71 Ass't. Prof. 8 6 6 75 Instructor ll 9 7 66 Admin. _9 ‘_§ _§ 51 TOTALS 56 47 39 71 discarded on the basis of this analysis are re- ported in Table 3. D. Analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I! by cluster analysis. Based upon the field test all 151 items were pooled into an inter-item correlation matrix. The simple (Pearson product moment) correla- tions were displayed in a matrix approximately 151 x 151. The matrix was cluster analyzed by inspection suppressing inter-item correlations below the .005 level. The investigator was interested in identifying potential dimensions within the correlation matrix and to check the content, or the per- ceived meaning, of those items which might be 56 TABLE 3. P.I.C.Q., Form I, items discarded based on panel analysis, item analysis, and cluster analysis. REASON FOR REASON FOR " REASON FOR ITEM DISCARDING ITEM DISCARDING ITEM DISCARDING 1 1, 3 22 3 60 1, 2, 3 2 23 l, 3 61 1, 2, 3 3 24 l, 3 63 3 4 1, 3 27 l, 2, 3 65 1, 3 5 1, 3 30 3 66 l, 3 6 1, 2, 3 32 3 67 1, 2, 3 7 l, 3 33 2, 3 68 1, 2, 3 8 1, 2, 3 38 2, 3 82 3 9 1, 2, 3 39 3 83 3 10 1, 3 41 1, 3 84 3 ll 1, 3 42 3 85 l, 2, 3 12 3 43 1, 2, 3 86 3 13 1, 3 44 3 99 ' 2, 3 l4 3 45 3 100 3 15 3 49 1, 3 130 2, 3 16 l, 2, 3 50 1, 3 131 2, 3 17 l, 3 51 3 137 3 18 1, 3 52 1, 2, 3 145 2, 3 19 l, 3 53 1, 2, 3 146 2, 3 20 3 54 1, 3 147 2, 3 21 1, 3 58 3 151 3 1. Less than eighty percent agreement by panel. 2. Weak in terms of analysis of item clarity and item- content. Low inter-item correlation, at the .005 level of significance, and failure to group together along a discernible pattern. grouped into dimension. Items discarded on the basis of this analysis are reported in Table 3. E. Testing of the P.I.C.ng Form I, to examine in- ternal reliability. Reliability is defined as the pr0portion of true variance to the total obtained variance. There is no way to directly calculate the S7 variance of true scores, but it can be estab- lished by subtracting the error variance from the total variance. This follows from the fact that total variance equals the sum of the true score variance and the error variance. In the analysis of variance model, the mean square for individuals is the total obtained variance, and the mean square for error in the error variance. Thus, the reliability of an instrument can be computed by the following formula: = MS Ind. - MS Error R MS Ind. Using an g_priori set of item weights for each item, the Reciprocal Averages Program (RAVE) was used to compute the Hoyt internal consis- tency reliability coefficients which is based upon the above mentioned reliability formula.103 In Tables 4 through 8 the total instrument and sub-test reliability coefficients are reported using this formula. Summary of the analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form I. Panel members experienced difficulty in decid- ing if many of the items contained in the first two sub-tests displayed weakness based upon item clarity and item content. 103 Ibid. 58 TABLE 4. P.I.C.Q., Form I, total internal reliability analysis. SUM OF MEAN SOURCE SQUARES ’ D.F. SQUARE RELIABILITY Individuals 111.08 32 3.47 .8688 Items 855.14 149 5.73 Error 2172.00 4168 .45 TOTAL 3138.23 4949 TABLE 5. P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest I (environmental constraints-now applies) internal reliability analysis. SUM OF MEAN SOURCE <§QQARES D.F. SQUARE RELIABILITY Individuals 22.88 32 .715 .3808 Items 162.31 43 3.77 Error 609.29 1316_ .442 TOTAL 794.48 1451 TABLE 6. P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest II (environmental constraints- should apply) internal reliability analysis. SUM OF MEAN SOURCE 4§QUARES D.F. SQUARE RELIABILITY Individuals 20.38 32 .636 .2865 Items 383.83 43 8.926 Error 625.25 1376 .454 TOTAL 1029.46 1451 59 TABLE 7. P. I. C. 0., Form I, Subtest III (collective negotiations) internal reliability. SUM OF MEAN SOURCE SQUARES D.F. _§gUARE RELIABILITY Individuals 173.00 32 5.40 .9228 Items 165.35 42 3.93 ErrOr 560.68 1355 .417 TOTAL 899.03 1418 TABLE 8. P.I.C.Q., Form I, Subtest IV (morale) internal reliability analysis Sfifi'fif MEAN SOURCE SQUARES D.F. SQUARE RELIABILITY Individuals 84.64 32 2.64 .8773 Items 31.38 16 1.74 Error 186.93 516 .324 TOTAL 302.95 626 ” _—— Cluster analysis indicated that a considerable number of items included in the first two sub- tests lacked inter-item correlations at the .005 level or failed to align themselves on a discernible dimension. Finally, internal consistency reliability anal- ysis revealed that although the total instrument 60 had acceptable reliability,the first two sub- tests displayed low internal reliability. Thus, the empirical findings (panel agreement, item analysis, cluster analysis, and internal reliability) supported the need to modify the classification schemes. It may be recalled that the first two dimensions had been question- ed by the investigator because of the varied items included under Environmental Constraints- Now Applies and Environmental Constraints- Should Apply. It seemed appropriate, on the bases of the multiple analyses of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, to develop a new taxonomy model. The taxonomy may be found displayed in Table 9. TABLE 9. Revised projected dimensions of institutional conflict. I. II. III. IV. DIMENSIONS Environmental Constraints Shared Academic Governance "Normative" Collective Negotiations "Utilitarian" Morale 2. 61 PoIoCOQo I. FOrm II. A. Development of the P.I.C.Q., Form II. Based upon the multiple forms of analysis that were made on the P.I.C.Q., Form I, a consider- able number of items "washed out" of the 151 items that were incorporated in the instrument; 90 survived the four types of analysis describ- ed above. The remaining 90 items appeared to constellate into four major dimensions, report- ed in Table 9. All four dimensions appeared to relate, in a positive way to current knowledge about organizational theory. It was believed that the P.I.C.Q. had been pre- tested sufficiently to permit its use with a broader sample of institutions of higher learn- ing. Administration of the P.I.CLQ., Form II. A random and stratified sample was drawn from the population of four public Michigan institu- tions of higher education. The following table presents relevant data concerning population size, sample size, and type of stratification used in the testing of the P.I.C.Q., Form II. 62 TABLE 10. Table of pOpulation, sample size, and stratification by rank and administrative classification. INSTITUTIONS RANKS A. ' B. C.‘ D. Professor 50 15 10 3 Assoc. Prof. 50 21 20 10 Ass't. Prof. 30 47 40 40 Instructor 30 37 40 53 Admin. 22_ 16 29. 24 SAMPLE TOTALS 180 130 130 130 Institutional Population TOTALS 2,467 500 740 328 The sample size represents approximately 20 per cent of the pOpulation. Rates of return and breakdowns by categories and institutions are presented in the following table: TABLE 11. Rates of returns on an institutional basis. iINSTITUTIONS A. B. C. D. No. Mailed 180 130 130 130 No. Returned 140 90 65 60 No. Non-useable 35 30 25 5 No. Useable 105 60 40 65 ResponSed in Percent of Total Sample Size 57% 69% 50% 50% 63 The response rate of return represents approxi- mately 72 per cent of the total sample size of 570. The useable responses, in terms of per cent of the total sample size, represents approximately 54 per cent. 'The return rates compare favorably with other recent studies dealing with perceptions of faculty and admin- istrators within institutions of higher learn- ing.104 C. Preparation of data for factor analysis. Because of the complexity and nature of the in- strument, not all responses included complete data. The Michigan State University factor analysis computer programs did not compensate for missing data. For this reason the Incom- plete Data Correlational Program was used.105 The mean and standard deviation for each vari- able was based only on observation including measurements of that variable and correlations were computed only from observations which in- cluded measurements on both of the relevant variables. A punched inter-item correlation matrix, 90 x 90, was prepared by this program for use in factor analysis. 104 Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch, University Goals and Academic Power, pp. 21-22. 05 . 1 David Kline, "IDCORR: Incomplete Data Correlat1on Program," Computer Institute for Social Science Research, pp. 1-16. 64 .................... Halpin and Croft in their developement of the OCDQ stated that: "the use of numbers, in itself, guaran- tees no greater fidelity to the events to be signified than is to be found in the original descriptions we make of the observed behavior. Statistical proce- ' dures, no matter how elaborate, can never compensate for imprecise raw data. In- deed, neither words nor numbers should be construed as the criterion against which the other is to _be evaluated, the best we can do is to establish a "useful" concord- ance between these two types of symbols, especially in respect to the events that they signify..." In a similar fashion the investigator applied both statistical procedures and theoretical knowledge relative to the items and probable dimensions of the instrument. The number of items and the probable dimensions had been modified as a result of using both approaches. A major thrust of this study was to ascertain what the major dimensions were that underlie the instrument. Factor analysis appeared to offer a useful technique in deriving abstrac- tions from large groupings of inter-relating data. The symmetric correlation matrix, 90 x 90, that was put in punched out-put by the IDCOR Program, was used as the basic in-put for 106 Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, The Organiza- tional Climate of Schools, p. 14. 65 the factor analysis program.107 E. 'Factor analySis Of the'P.I;C.Q., FOrm II, Item Matrix. The first step in the factor analysis of the in- strument was to obatin from the Factor A program on unrotated item factor matrix.108 This matrix is listed in Appendix C. The investigator next entered an eigenvalue threshold of 2.500 in determining which factors would be extracted for rotation. An eigenvalue represents the relative strength of the factor. Those eigenvalues with a value of 2.500 or higher are listed in Table 12. TABLE 12. Eigenvalues 2.500 and higher. EIGENVALUES 1. 19.6319 4. 3.7554 2. 6.8622 5. 2.7686 3. 3.8090 6. 2.5870 107 David Kline, "IDCORR Incomplete Data Correlation Program," pp. 1- -16. 108 Anthony V. Williams, "Factor A," pp. 1-5. 66 There were six factors with eigenvalues above 2.500 that were eXtracted from the matrix. In order to ascertain which dimensions would account for the variance in the six factors a quartimax rotational solution using the Kiel- Wrigley criterion was used. Two, three, four, five, six, and seven factor rotational solu- tions were obtained using this procedure. It was found that fewer than three items were dis- played in the fifth rotational solution, thus the four factor rotational solution was examin- ed in detail. The matrix for the four-factor rotational solution for the 90 items, grouped »according to factors, is presented in Table 13. Eighty one items loaded (3.50:) into the four factors: nine items failed to load (3.50i) in- to the four factors. The item content and fac- tor loadings for the questions in Factor I are listed in Table 14. The item content and factor loadings for the questions in Factor II are listed in Table 15. The item content and factor loadings for the questions in Factor III are listed in Table 16. The item content and factor loadings for the questions in Factor IV are listed in Table 17. 67 TABLE 13. Rotated item factor matrix for 90 items of the P.I.C.Q., Form II. , 1.... .. . VARIABLES 1- 4T, (N2278) , ITEM NO. FACTOR I' FACTOR II ' ’FACTOR III~ FACTOR IV 1 -.027 -.026 '.430 .239 2 -.268 -.134 .' .022 3 .090 .143 -.0§I -.486 4 .218 .060 -.208 -.354 5 .221 .246 -.279 -.422 6 .153 .044 -.113 -. 7 .341 .080 -.456 -.003 8 -.007 -.012 .027 .552 9 -.101 -.261 -.045 .326 10 -.201 -.350 .139 .100 11 .375 .141 .157 .156 12 .332 .361 -.255 .448 13 -.243 -.405 .016 -.§46 14 -.l39 -.3§I .011 -.031 15 .172 -.086 -.103 .325 16 -.103 -.353 .243 -.333 17 -.161 -.356 .147 -.319 18 .027 .336 .013 .007 19 -.229 -.351 .143 .130 20 .108 -.260 -.045 .077 21 .426 .116 -.437 .124 22 -.019 .092 .242 .610 23 -.048 .098 .068 .631 24 -.330 -.070 .386 .066 25 -.009 -.018 .246 .467 26 .029 .005 -.024 . 27 .077 .032 .166 .178 28 .317 .112 -.490 .098 29 -.081 -.537 . .104 30 .155 .594 .232 -.096 31 .139 .542 .126 -.081 32 .216 .516 .228 -.078 33 .336 .461 .028 -.010 34 .077 .526 .249 .114 35 .657 .078 .073 -.029 36 -. -.510 -.059 .126 37 .744 -. 42 -.225 -.118 38 .607 -.118 -.152 -.255 39 .7 -.l36 -.173 -.158 40 .747 -.065 -.075 -.156 41 .733 -.103 -.078 -.170 42 .593 .027 -.026 -.085 43 .441 .222 .086 -.222 44 .35I .069 —.187 -.160 45 .514 .050 -.084 -.051 46 .653 .087 -.199 -.101 47 .69 .139 -.024 .016 68 TABLE 13. (Continued) ......................... VARIABLES 48—90 (N5278) ITEM NO. FACTOR I " FACTOR II' ‘FACTOR III FACTOR IV 48 '.812 .059 .017 .060 49 .787 .069 .103 .039 50 7788 .116 -.021 .105 51 7788 .052 .096 .062 52 '7778 .173 -.014 -.037 53 778I' .174 .002 .031 54 7788 .086 -.015 .096 55 7788 .074 -.080 .135 56 7818 .089 -.084 .036 57 7857' .101 .043 .013 58 7288 -.372 -.071 .182 59 .384 37888 -.055 .191 60 .425 -.009 -.016 .218 61 7788 -.051 -.196 .005 62 -.451 -.o40 .177 -.018 63 .599 -.223 —.140 —.033 64 7888 -.016 -.037 .026 65 7888 .036 -.182 .061 66 .640 .130 -.106 .060 67 7788 .065 -.062 -.016 68 7888 .098 -.003 .047 69 .888 .123 .069 .064 70 -7418 .220 .071 .219 71 -. .206 .120 .219 72 -.319 .359 .230 .080 73 -.314 .413 .254 .107 74 -.395 78I8 .116 .074 75 -.676 .213 .121 .147 76 4:282 .108 .603 -.093 77 -.046 .294 .513 .024 78 -.263 .062 788T -.042 79 -.241 .211 7888 -.030 80 .144 .171 -7878 .076 81 -.153 .191 .513 .117 82 .143 -.055 ~788Z' .015 83 -.299 .069 .586 .138 84 -.231 .119 7274 -.065 85 .137 -.308 -.597 -.040 86 .136 .082 37877 -.066 87 -.047 .003 .551 -.003 88 -.063 .127 7888 .099 Variables at 3.50 level underlined to particular factor. show loading in a 69 TABLE 14. Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor I. FACTOR ITEM NO. 3.. ... .... . QUESTION" ..... .. ....... LOADING 3 Our College is too centralized in .486 terms of authority. 4 Administrators, by virtue of their .354 position, are unable to speak in behalf of the interests and/or concerns of the faculty. 5 Our Administrators find it diffi- .422 cult to share decision-making powers with faculty members. 6 The Board of Trustees favors the .414 Administration over the faculty in terms of decisions relating to the allocation of economic re- sources. 8 Our institutional problems are .552 solved through interaction be- tween faculty and Administration without undue pressure or defen- siveness. 12 The expectations held for faculty .448 members is unreasonably high in such matters as teaching load, advisement, writing, and committee assignments. 22 Our College is too centralized in .610 terms of authority. 23 Administrators, by virtue of their .631 position, are unable to speak in behalf of the interests and/or concerns of the faculty. 25 Our Administrators find it difficult .467 to share decision-making powers with faculty members. 70 TABLE 15. Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor II. FACTOR ITEM NO.‘ ' ' ' _QUESTION ' ' LOADING 16 The College actively seeks to in- .353 crease on a large scale the ad- mission of minority peoples as both students and faculty members. 17 The state legislature is very -.356 supportive of our College. 36 The size of the gap between fac- -.510 ulty salaries and Administrative salaries is unreasonable. 10 Our faculty has substantive author- -.350 ity to make College policy. 13 The Board of Trustees are genuinely -.405 concerned about improving faculty conditions at the College. 19 Staff members have the right to -.351 disrupt our College community in behalf of their beliefs. 33 Our faculty has substantive author- .461 ity to make College policy. 34 Our College policies are made within .526 an environment of Faculty-Administra- tors co-operation. 58 A College organization charged with -.372 - the responsibility for negotiating a contract for the Faculty should exclude department chairmen. 29 Our College Administrators further -.537 their own interests more than they further the interests of faculty members. 30 In general, our College Administra- .594 tors and faculty members co-operate in solving our institutional prob- lems. 71 TABLE 15. (Continued) ..................... FACTOR ITEM NO. .............. QUESTION . .._. ......... ’LOADING 31 Our institutional problems are .542 solved through interaction between faculty and Administration without undue pressure or defensiveness. 32 Our faculty has major recommending .516 responsibilities in institutional governance. 72 The most important problems facing .359 our institution can only be solved within a climate of mutual trust between Administrators and Faculty. 73 Faculty members increase the chances .413 of solving institutional problems through participation in the Academic Senate or Council. 74 The real need is to make the Academic .419 Senate/Council a viable agency where Faculty and Administrators can work together in meeting the needs of our students. 72 TABLE 16. Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor III. ITEM NO. 11 21 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 QUESTION Our College policies are made within an environment of Faculty-Administra- tors co-operation. In our institution, faculty members are not involved in making decisions on things that really matter. College faculty members, in order to fulfill the goals established by the institution, must establish some form of collective negotiations. Public demonstration by faculty mem- bers are necessary techniques for in- forming the Administration, Board of Trustees, and public of faculty de- mands. Under certain circumstances College faculty organizations should go out on strike. Faculty members should be willing to walk in a picket line that has been organized by the local faculty organi- zation. In the event of a strike, faculty mem- bers should be willing to walk in a picket line. Faculty members should be willing to have their local organization notify accrediting agencies and national pro- fessional organizations of unsatis- factory conditions as a means of chang- ing these conditions. If faculty organizations do not like teaching conditions the way they are, they should take active measures to change others to their way of thinking. FACTOR LOADING .375 .426 .744 .607 .733 .747 .733 .593 .441 73 TABLE 16. (Continued) ................... ITEM NO.“ 45 35 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ........ QUESTION Faculty members who try to bring about changes through organized action are more professional than faculty members who never try to make changes. Administrators accept the concept of collective negotiations as a future reality at this institution. In public employment the success of demands depends on relative bargaining power. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees to secure clerical assistance for faculty mem- bers. . College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees to increase fac- ulty salaries. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the improvement of retirement benefits. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate class size. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with the Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees for fringe benefits. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal griev- ance procedures. FACTOR LOADING .514 .657 .603 .698 .812 .782 .784 .798 .776 74 TABLE 16. (Continued) C ITEM NO. 53 54 55 56 57 59 ‘60 61 62 QUESTION Local College faculty organiza- tions should negotiate with Ad- ministrators and/or Boards of Trus- tees for the establishment of for- mal Sabbatical policies. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal Advise- ment load. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of a formal Academic Calendar. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees for official recognition of the nego- tiating team. Local College faculty organizations should negotiate with the Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees personnel policies. A College organization involved in negotiating a contract for the faculty should exclude deans. A College organization provided with the power to negotiate for Faculty members should exclude from its mem- bership the university president. Unsatisfactory conditions within the institution will not work themselves out without the intervention of a local Faculty negotiating organiza- tion. College Administrators should be permitted to be officers of local Faculty organizations. FACTOR LOADING .791 .794 .765 .691 .852 .384 .425 .783 -.451 75 TABLE 16. (Continued) ..... FACTOR ITEM NO. ' QUESTION ' “ LOADING 63 Faculty members should affiliate .599 with a national teaching union to improve their condition of employ- ment. 64 Faculty members should affiliate .546 with an independent organization to improve their conditions of employ- ment. 65 Local College faculty organizations .583 should negotiate curriculum matters (items). 66 Local College faculty organizations .640 should negotiate conditions appro- priate for student learning. 67 Local College faculty organizations .745 should negotiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for repre- sentation on policy-making committees. 68 Local College faculty organizations .668 should negotiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the recruitment of Faculty members. 69 Local College faculty organizations .803 should negotiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for leaves of absence. 70 Faculty members and Administrators -.412 can solve institutional problems best through an academic senate. 71 Unionization creates an environment -.651 wherein co-operative problem solving is made very difficult. 75 .Co-operation in solving individual -.676 and institutional problems is de- creased when the Faculty is unionized. 76 TABLE 17. Item content and factor loadings for questions in Factor IV. FACTOR ITEM NO. ‘ QUESTION , LOADING 1 The Board of Trustees are genuinely .430 concerned about improving faculty conditions at the College. 2 Our Administrators represent trained .386 professionals who should accept fac- ulty advice but maintain responsi- bility for policy formulation. 7 In general, College Administrators -.456 tend to avoid responsibility for their actions when difficulties arise and place them on faculty members. 76 Various assignments I have completed .603 received recognition as being par- ticulary good pieces of work. 77 I feel that I have received train- .513 ing and experience in my present position that has been constructive in my professional growth. 78 I have had exceptionally good working .591 conditions and equipment. 79 I have felt secure in my position .526 here at the College. 80 I have had little feeling of achieve- -.573 ment in the job I have been doing. 81 The working relationships I have had .513 with my co-workers has been very good. 82 I have received few particularly -.464 challenging assignments at the college. 28 In general, College Administrators -.490 tend to avoid responsibility for their actions when difficulties arise and place them on faculty members. 77 TABLE 17. (Continued) FACTOR ITEM NO. QUESTION LOADING 24 Our faculty regards the Administra- .386 tors as a facilitating agent for the faculty. 83 I feel that there are adequate .586 opportunities for promotions within the College. 85 Under prevailing circumstances I -.547 could not encourage anyone to undertaEe a College teaching- research career. 86 Under prevailing circumstances I -.377 could not encourage anyone to undertake a College Administrative career. 87 My present position requires the .551 use of my best abilities. 88 I have felt that there is a good .529 chance I will be promoted in my present position. 89 The personnel policies of the .419 College are knOwn by the majority of my co-workers. 90 I understand the basis for my .446 annual salary increases. 78 Summary of the Factor Analysis of the 'P;I.C.Q., Form'II,'and'the‘reviSed dimen- siOns baSed upon factor analysis. The data in the 4-Factor Quartimax rota- tional solution supported three of the four dimensions that had been developed on the basis of theoretical knowledge, content analysis, and cluster analysis. The dimensions dealing with collective nego- tiations (utilitarian), shared academic gov- ernance (normative), and morale remained stable. The items within each subtest (dimension) yielded-high loadings on only one of the four factors. Each subtest (dimension) appeared to be relatively inde- pendent. The dimension dealing with environmental constraints was modified as a result of the factor analysis. Eight of the items in- cluded in this projected dimension did not load high in any of the factors. The re— maining items with high loadings appeared to represent attitudes toward administra- tive leadership. The projected dimension of Environmental Constraints was replaced with the new dimension of Administrative 79 Leadership. The projected dimensions of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, and the dimensions that resulted from factor analysis are re- ported in Table 18. TABLE 18. Projected dimensions of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, and dimensions based upon factor analysis. DIMENSION BASED ON PROJECTED DIMENSIONS FACTOR ANALYSIS I. Environmental Constraints I. Administrative Leader- ship II. Shared Academic Governance (Normative) II. Shared Academic Govern- ance (Normative) III. Collective Negotiations (Utilitarian) III. Collective Negotiations (Utilitarian) IV. Morale IV. Morale SUMMARY First, the items that had survived initial screening were sorted. On this basis four probable dimensions were isolated. Second, a panel of experts analyzed the item content relative to the direction of conflict or non-conflict. Approximately one-third of the items were weak in this re- gard but retained for subsequent statistical procedures. Third, an analysis was made of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, to isolate weak items on the basis of item content and item clarity. 80 Fourth, cluster analysis was made of the P.I.C.Q., Form I, to isolate weak items and to reconsider the dimen- sional aspect of the instrument. Two of the dimensions appeared to be isomorphic with the dimensional construct developed earlier in the study: two appeared weak. Fifth, the P.I.C.Q., Form I, was subjected to a series of statistical routines that computed the internal consis- tency reliability of the instrument (total and sub-scales). Two of the sub-tests appeared to be weak. The results of these multiple analyses resulted in a reduction of the instrument by some 61 items and a reclassi- fication of the dimensions. Sixth, the P.I.C.Q., Form II, was applied at four public Michigan institutions of higher education. Seventh, the data secured from a sample of four public Michigan institutions of higher education were prepared, through computer programs, for factor analysis. Eighth, factor analysis was computed on the raw data. Three of the original dimensions received support from the analysis. The fourth dimension, Administrative Leadership, replaced the projected dimension of Environmental Constraints. The summary and conclusions may be found in Chapter 5. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Summapy y The primary purpose of this study was to develop an instrument (P.I.C.Q.) designed to assess the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator relationships at selected public Michigan institutions of higher edUcation. The impetus for the study came from the widespread ob- servation that higher education is experiencing, in the contemporary period, considerable stress on its traditional organizational patterns. It was found in the review of the literature that conflict is a part of almost every social organization, that conflict appears to be a vital component of the present crisis in institutional governance, and that no instrument has been developed that attempts to assess the potential for institutional conflict. In the developement of the questionnaire it was consid- ered to be of basic importance to establish consistency with present theoretical knowledge about the nature of organiza- tions, to isolate and study the major dimensions incorpor- ated in the instrument, and to obtain acceptable internal reliability. Empirical and inductive procedures were used in the development of the P.I.C.Q.; a combination of these two 81 82 approaches was considered to be useful in checking theoreti- cal assumptions against numerical values. A modified Likert-type item questionnaire was developed on the basis of what seemed to make practical sense and on the basis of existing theoretical knowledge about the nature of organizational conflict. Items were included in the P.I.C.Q., Form I, that related to collective negotiations, morale, shared administrator-faculty decision-making, and student governing body, and state legislature status and in- volvement in the institutional setting. A tentative listing of dimensions was developed on the bases of item-sorting, panel agreement, induction, and theoretical knowledge. The P.I.C.Q., Form I, was then field tested with the responses subjected to a number of statistical procedures which included item analysis, internal reliability analysis, and cluster analysis. The investigator was interested in studying item content and clarity, finding internal reli- ability coefficients for the total questionnaire and its sub-scales, and in determining the extent to which the pro- jected dimensions had received statistical support. Based upon the multiple analyses a number of items were eliminated, a new taxonomy contained refined dimensions was developed and the P.I.C.Q., Form II, was developed. . The P.I.C.Q., Form II, was believed to relate in a positive way to current knowledge about organizational theory. It was further believed that the items had been sufficiently pre-tested to permit its use with a broader 83 sample of institutions of higher education. A random and stratified sample was drawn from the pOpu- lation of four public Michigan institutions of higher learn- ing. The response rate compared favorably with similar studies dealing with faculty and administrator attitudes to- ward institutional decision-making. Subsequent to the implementation of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, the responses were subjected to factor analysis. Factor analysis was used in isolating and studying those dimensions accounting for the most variance. Based upon this analysis final names were assigned to the dimensions and the P.I.C.Q., Form III, was developed for use in assessing the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator relationships. Discussion The writer had hoped to study differences between fac- ulty and administrator attitudes toward the potential for conflict within their respective institutions. However, the scope of the writer's initial intentions turned out to be naively ambitious. The scope of the study was confined to the development of an instrument designed to assess the potential for conflict relative to faculty-administrator re- lationShips. An attempt was made to include, based upon practical considerations, items relating to student rights and involve- ment in institutional decision-making processes. Theoretical support and statistical analyses failed to support the 84 retention of such items or projected sub—scales in the p.1.c.0. ' Perhaps such items incorporated into a student compo- nent might receive support in institutions experiencing radi- cal student activism. None of the institutions sampled in this study had experienced radical student activism or overt violence in an extreme form. A number of respondents attached to their completed questionnaires lengthy letters containing detailed explana— tions of their attitudes toward various items, the import- ance of the instrument, and how the instrument could be fur- ther improved. Many of the comments supported preSent know- ledge about institutional conflict in higher education such as the need to seek ways of resolving conflict, the import- ance of understanding that administrator and faculty inter- ests are not identiCal and that collective negotiations is becoming a reality in higher education. For some respondents the questionnaire appeared to have created a degree of dissonance. Some respondents in this category seemed to the writer to be unable to accept the responsibility of making choices concerning a wide range of institutional activities. Some respondents in the dissonance category indicated that "they resented being forced to choose." Others stated that the instrument was "biased," "simple statements of fact that needed no comment," or "constituted an invasion of their privacy." Still others indicated that "their actual 85 attitudes fell in-between the response choices," "did not believe in conflict," or viewed such questions as "unpro- fessiona1.f The majority of the administrative staff members of one institution declined to complete the questionnaire because of their involvement in current collective negotiations. A major administrator questioned the right of implementing the instrument in his institution, and long delays occurred in receiving the responses back from another institution in which the campus mail service had been used to disperse the questionnaire. I The writer found that the one institution that reported no dissonance in the form of written remarks or telephone messages was the one institution that had experienced col- lective negotiations over a period of some years. It seemed to the writer that the P.I.C.Q. represented, because of the forced nature of the choices and the issues involved, a threat to a small but significant number of the respondents. The impulse to complete the questionnaire was probably dependent upon how relevant the respondent thought the items were, how aware the respondent was of the issues involved in the questionnaire, and the extent to which the respondent was free from conflicting interests. Conclusions The study resulted in the following findings related to the stages of instrument developement and analysis: 86 Some 451 items were screened for clarity and for redundancy. Approximately 151 items survived this first screening. These items formed the core from which the writer subsequently identified the major dimensions of the P.I.C.Q. The remaining 151 items were sorted on an intuitive and theoretical bases. To each constellation that emerged, a plausible name was assigned. The four projected dimensions were Environmental Constraints (Now Applies), Environmental Constraints (Should Apply}, Collective Negotiations, and Morale. The P.I.C.Q., Form I, was submitted to a panel to determine if the items eXpressed potential conflict or non-conflict. Some 32 items failed to receive the minimum eighty per cent panel agreement. How- ever, rejection of items was deferred until after additional tests had been run on the items. The P.I.C.Q., Form I, was field tested with the re- sponses subjected to an analysis of item clarity and item content. Some 21 items were considered as probable rejects. Again, final elimination of items was delayed until other statistical procedures had been used with the reponses. Cluster analysis revealed that some 53 items had low inter-item correlations at the .005 level of 87 significance. Combining the three procedures of panel agreement, item content and item clarity analysis, and cluster analysis 61 items were eliminated from the instru- ment. Acceptable levels of internal reliability were found for the total instrument and for the two sub- scales relating to Collective Negotiations and Morale. The two sub-scales relating to Environ- mental Constraints (Now Applies) and Environmental Constraints (Should Apply) displayed low levels of internal reliability. The empirical findings (panel agreement, item analy- sis, cluster analysis, and internal reliability co- efficients) supported the need to modify the dimen- sional classification schema. The majority of the 61 items eliminated from the P.I.C.Q., Form 1, were in the two sub-scales displaying low levels of in- ternal reliability. -Thus, a modified dimensional schema was developed that retained the dimensions relating to Collective Negotiations, and Morale. A new dimension named Academic Governance (Normative) replaced Environ- mental Constraints (Should Apply). A single dimen- sion entitled Environmental Constraints, containing 88 items relating to a number of theoretical consider- ations, was the final dimension included in the format. The P.I.C.Q., Form II, was developed on the basis of the field test and multiple analyses of the.P.I.C.Q., Form I. The 90 item questionnaire was administered to a random and stratified sample drawn from a pop- ulation of four public Michigan institutions of higher education. The responses were subjected to factor analysis. The analysis showed that the best factorial way for cate- gorizing the behaviors described by the 90 items closely matched the modified dimensionalschema. A factor pattern was obtained in which most of the items in a given sub-scale loaded on the same factor. Based upon an evaluation of the items included in the dimension named Environmental Constraints it was determined that the title Administrative Leadership better described the behaviors reflected in the items contained within that particular sub-scale. Thus, the study revealed that the P.I.C.Q., Form II, contained four basic dimensions that related to the potential for conflict relative to faculty- administrator relationships: A. Administrative Leadership 89 B. Shared Academic Governance (Normative) C. Collective Negotiations (Utilitarian) D. Morale This dimension contains items that relate to atti- tudes concerning the extent to which authority is centralized within an institution, the extent to which administrators cooperate with faculty members in sharing power and in making decisions, and the extent to which administrators can represent faculty interests. This dimension contains items that relate to atti- tudes concerning the extent to which faculty members and administrators display mutual trust, the extent to which the faculty is involved in policy recommend- ations and policy-making modes, and the extent to which the Academic Senate represents an organization- al form that enables faculty and administrators to increase the possibilities of solving insitutional problems. This dimension incorporates items that relate to attitudes toward the classical bargaining model that is based upon an adversary relationship between par- . ties. Emphasis is given to a wide range of possible negotiable items and the types of action that fac- ulty would support in achieving particular bargain- ing objectives. 90 This dimension contains items that relate to atti- tudes concerning the individual's feeling of self- worth, feeling of isolation, perceived support of the work-group, and opportunities for self-1 advancement within the institution. The factor analysis of the P.I.C.Q., Form II, had shown strong support for four basic sub-scales con- sisting of 81 items. On this basis the P.I.C.Q., Form III, was developed. The P.I.C.Q., Form III, is displayed in Table 19. The P.I.C.Q. is designed to be used by administra- tors in higher education concerned with the poten- tial for conflict within their institutions. High- er total test scores and sub-scale scores should indicate greater potential for conflict. The administration of the P.I.C.Q. at a_given time within an institution measures attitudes toward con- flict at that specific point in time. Changing con- ditions that are occurring in higher education can create or destroy faculty attitudes. This suggests the need for more frequent administrations of the P.I.C.Q. rather than using the results of'a single administration of the P.I.C.Q. over an extended period of time. Until relationships between the P.I.C.Q. measures 91 and external criteria of the institutions "state of faculty-administrator conflict" have been identified, each institution using the P.I.C.Q. should analyze the instrument on an item by item basis. Item analy- sis should be made with respect to the significance of that item to that specific institution. Such item analysis should help provide the institution with the full benefit of the instrument. The P.I.C.Q. can be given in a group situation; it should require not more than thirty minutes. On an individual basis not more than fifteen minutes should be required for completion of the P.I.C.Q. The P.I.C.Q. should be of intrinsic interest to the faculty and administration; the findings frOm it can be need for purposes of faculty-administrator self- evaluation. Recommendations for Further Study As a result of this study five areas for further research relative to the P.I.C.Q., Form III, were identified. They were, however, beyond the scope of this study. 1. Would the same results have been obtained by factor- ing similar data from an independent and large sample of institutions of higher learning? The P.I.C.Q. might be improved based upon such a cross- validation study. 92 TABLE 19. P.I.C.Q., Form III. l STRONGLY AGREE SECTION‘I Respond to each statement by marking either 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE as an acceptable condition or practice in your institution. 1. Our College should not be 7. Our institutional prob- too centralized in terms lems are solved through of authority. interaction between fac- ulty and administration 2. Our College is too central- without undue pressure ized in terms of authority. or defensiveness. 3. Administrators, by virtue 8. The expectations held of their position, are un- for faculty members is able to Speak in behalf of unreasonably high in such the interests and/or con- matters as teaching load, cerns of the faculty. advisement, writing, and committee assignments. 4. Our Administrators find it difficult to share decision 9. Administrators, by vir- making powers with faculty tue of their position, members. should not speak in be- half of the interests 5. Our Administrators should and/or concerns of the not find it difficult to faculty. ‘ share decision-making powers with faculty members. 6. The Board of Trustees favors the Administration over the faculty in terms of decisions relating to the allocation of economic resources. SECTION II 10. The College should actively 11. The state legislature seek to increase on a large scale the admission of minor- ity peoples as both students and faculty members. should be very supportive of our college. 93 TABLE 19. (Continued) SECTION II (Continued) 12. The size Of the gap between 20. In general, our College faculty salaries and Admin- Administrators and fac- istrative salaries should ulty members should co- not be unreasonable. operate in solving our institutional problems. 13. Our faculty has substantive authority to make College 21. Our institutional prob- policy. lems should be solved through interaction be- 14. The Board of Trustees Should tween faculty and Admin- be genuinely concerned about istration without undue improving faculty conditions pressure or defensive- at the College. ness. 15. Staff members should have 22. Our faculty should have the right to disrupt our major recommending re- College community in behalf sponsibilities in insti- of their beliefs. tutional governance. 16. Our faculty should have sub- 23. The most important prob- stantive authority to make lems facing our institu- College policy. tion can only be solved within a climate of 17. Our College policies should mutual trust between Ad- be made within an environ- ministrators and Faculty. ment of Faculty-Administra- tors co-operation. 24. Faculty members increase the chances of solving 18. A College organization institutional problems charged with the responsi- through participation in bility for negotiating a the Academic Senate or contract for the Faculty Council. should exclude department chairman. 25. The real need is to make the Academic Senate/ 19. Our College Administrators Council a viable agency should further their own where Faculty and Admin- interests more than they istrators can work to- further the interests of gether in meeting the faculty members. needs of our students. SECTION III 26. Our College policies are 27. In our institution, fac- made within an environment of Faculty-Administrators co-Operation. ulty members should be involved in making deci- sions on things that really matter. 94 TABLE 19. (Continued) SECTION III (Continued) 28. Administrators should 35. If faculty organizations 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. accept the concept of col- lective negotiations as a future reality at this institution. College faculty members, in order to fulfill the goals established by the institution, must estab- lish some form of col- lective negotiations. Public demonstration by faculty members are nec- essary techniques for in- forming the Administra- tion, Board of Trustees, and public of faculty demands. Under certain circum- stances College faculty organizations should go out on strike. Faculty members should be willing to walk in a pick- et line that has been or- ganized by the local fac- ulty organization. In the event of a strike, faculty members should be willing to walk in a pick- et line. Faculty members should be willing to have their local organization notify accrediting agencies and national professional or- ganizations of unsatis- factory conditions as a means of changing these conditions. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. do not like teaching con- ditions the way they are, they should take active measures to change others to their way of thinking. Faculty members who try to bring about changes through organized action are more professional than faculty members who never try to make changes. In public employment the Success of demands de- pends on relative bargain- ing power. - Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees to secure clerical assist- ance for faculty members. College faculty organiza- tions should negotiate with Administrators and/ or Boards of Trustees to increase faculty salaries. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the improvement of re- tirement benefits. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate class size. TABLE 19. 95 (Continued) 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. SECTION III (Continued) Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with the Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees for fringe bene- fits. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees for the estab- lishment of formal griev- ance procedures. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal Sabbatical policie Local College faculty or— ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal advisement load. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego— tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of a formal Academic Calen- dar. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego— tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for official recognition of the negotiating team. 48. 49. 50. 51. s. 52. 53. 54. Local College Faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with the Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees personnel poli- cies. A College organization in- volved in negotiating a contract for the faculty should exclude deans. A College organization provided with the power 'to negotiate for Faculty members should exclude from its membership the University president. Unsatisfactory conditions within the institution will not work themselves out without the interven- tion of a local Faculty negotiating organization. College Administrators should be permitted to be officers of local Faculty organizations. Faculty members should affiliate with a national teaching union to improve their condition of employ- ment. Faculty members should affiliate with an inde- pendent organization to improve their conditions of employment. 96 TABLE 19. (Continued) SECTION III (Continued) 55. Local College faculty or- 59. Local College faculty or- ' ganizations should nego- ganizations should nego- tiate curriculum matters tiate with Administra- (items). tors and/or Boards of Trustees for leaves of 56. Local College faculty or- absence. ganizations should nego- . tiate conditions appro- ‘60. Faculty members and Ad- priate for student learn- ministrators can solve ing. institutional problems best through an academic 57. Local College faculty or- senate. . ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators 61. Unionization creates an and/or Board of Trustees environment wherein co- for representation on Operative problem solv- policy-making committees. ing is made very diffi- . cult. 58. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- 62. Co-operation in solving tiate with Administrators individual and institu- and/or Boards of Trustees tional problems is de- for the recruitment of creased when the Faculty Faculty members. is unionized. SECTION IV Respond to each statement as it applies to yourself. 63. Various assignments I have 66. I have felt secure in my completed received recogni- position here at the tion as being particularly College. ' good pieces of work. 67. I have had little feeling 64. 65. I feel that I have receiv- ed training and experience in my present position that has been constructive in my 68. professional growth. I have had exceptionally good working conditions and equipment. 69. of achievement in the job I have been doing. The working relationships I have had with my co- workers has been very good. I have received few par- ticularly challenging assignments at the college. 97 TABLE 19. (Continued) 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. SECTION IVijontinued) The Board of Trustees are genuinely concerned about improving faculty condi- tions at the college. In general, College Admin- istrators should not avoid responsibility for their actions when difficulties arise and place them on faculty members. Our Administrators repre- sent trained professionals who should accept faculty 76. 77. 78. advice but maintain respon- sibility for policy formu- lation. I feel that there are ade- quate opportunities for promotion within the College. Under prevailing circum- stances I could BEE en- courage anyone to under- take a College teaching- research career. Under prevailing circum- stances I could BEE en- courage anyone to under- take a College Adminis- trative career. 80. 81. My present position re- quires the use of my best abilities. I have felt that there is a good chance I will be promoted in my present position. The personnel policies of College are known by the majority of my co-workers. I understand the basis for my annual salary in- creases. In general, College Ad- ministrators tend to avoid responsibility for their actions when diffi- culties ariSe and place them on faculty members. Our faculty should re- gard the Administrators as a facilitating agent for the faculty. 98 2. The present data on the P.I.C.Q. cannot yet be used for normative purposes. Application of the P.I.C.Q. to an independent and large sample of institutions of higher education is needed in establishing test norms . 3. There exists a need to determine the relationship between the P.I.C.Q. measures and external criteria of the institutions "state of faculty-administrator conflict." 4. There exists a need to develop, based upon an inde- pendent and large sample, institutional types rela- tive to the potential for conflict. 5. Would an analysis of respondent demographic data re- veal varient attitudes toward the potential for in- stitutional conflict? It would be interesting to study the relationship of academic rank and atti- tudes toward institutional conflict within and across institutions. These recommendations could be of considerable impor- tance to the field of organizational theory and educational administration. Each recommendation offers promise for a significant project. BIBLIOGRAPHY ' Books Argyris, Chris. Personality_gnd Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Bennis, Warren G. Chan in OrganizatiOns. New York: McGraw-Hill, l9 . Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy in Modern Sociepy. New York: Random House, 195 . . Exchan e and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley and Sons, I964. Chamberlain, Neil W., and Kuhn, James. Collective Bargaining, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Corwin, Roger G. A Sociolo of Education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, I965. Coser, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict.. New York: The Free Press, 1956. Demerath, Nicholas J.; Stephens, Richard W.: and Taylor, R. Robb. Power Presidents, and Professors. New York: Basic Boo s Inc., . Doherty, Robert E., and Oberer, walter E. Teachers, School Boards and Collective Bargainin a Chan ing of the Guard. Cornell University: Tie State ScHooI of InHUstrial and Labor Relations, 1967. Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision Making. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Educa- t1on, 1968. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Etzioni, Amitai. A Com arative Analysis of Complex Organiza- tions. New York: TEe Free Press, 1961. . Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall Inc., 1964. Follett, Mary P. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Follett. Henry C. Metcalf andLyndall Urwick, editors. New York: Harper, 1942. 99 100 Gross, Bertram M. Organizations and Their Managing. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Gross, Edward, and Grambsch, Paul V. Universitnyoals and Academic Power. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1968. Halpin, Andrew W. (ed.). Administrative Theorygin Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958. , and Croft, Don B. The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1963. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavorial Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Lieberman, Myron. Collective Negotiations for Teachegg. Chicago: Rand.McNally, 1966. . The Future of Education. Chicago: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1960. , and Moscow, Michael H. Collective Negotiations For Teachers: An Approach to School Administration. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Likert, Rensis. "A Motivational Approach to a Modified Theory of Organization and Management." Modern Or aniza- tional Theory. Edited by M. Haire. New YorR: John Wiley and Sons, 1969. Medsker, Leland. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957. Metzger, Welter. Academic Freedom in the Age of the Univer- sity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Moskow, Michael H. Teachers and Unions: TheApplicability of Collective Bargaining to Public Education. Phila- delphia: IndustriaI_Research Unit, University of Penn- sylvania, 1966. Ohm, Robert E. "Collective Negotiations: Implications for Research." Collective Negotiations and Educational Ad- ministration. Edited by Roy Allen and John Schmid. Fayetteville, Arkansas: College of Education, Univer- sity of Arkansas, and the University Council for Educa- tional Administration, 1966. 101 Parsons, Talcott. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: The Free Press, 1960. Peterson, R. E., and Loye, D. E. (Eds.). Conversations To- ward a Definition of Institutional Vitality. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1967. Rourke, Francis E., and Brooks, Glenn.E. The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968. Shils; Edward B., and Whittier, C. Taylor. Teachers, Admin- istrators and Collective Bargaining. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1968. Simmel, George. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1964. Stinnett, T. M.: Kleinmann, Jack: and Ware, Martha. Pro- fessional Negotiation in Public Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, i966} Walton, Richard E., and McKersie, Robert B. A Behavorial Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw Book Company, I965. Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and Uniyersity Ad- ministration. Stanford: Stanford UniverSIty Press, 1958. Journals Bennis, Warren. "Leadership Theory and Administrative Be- havior.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. IV (December, 95 I pp. 59- o Chamberlain, Neil W. "The Union Challenge to Management Con- trol." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. XVI (January, 1963), PP.184-192. Clark, Burton R. "Faculty Authority." American Associatigp of University Professors Bulletin, Vol. XLVII, No. 4 Corwin, Ronald G. "Professional Persons in Public Organiza- tions." Educational Administrationguarterly, Vol. I (Autumn, 1965), p. 17. 102 Cosand, Joseph. "Faculty Organizations-Faculty-Administrator Relations." The North Central Association Quarterly, Vol. XLII, No. 3 (Winter, 1968), pp. 256-258. Davis, Bertram H. "The Faculty and Institutional Policy." The Educational Record, Vol. XLVII, No. 2 (Spring, 1966), pp. 185-191. . "Unions and Higher Education: Another View." American Association of University Professors Bulletin, VoI. LIV, No. 3 (Autumn, 1968), pp.817:320. Dubin, Robert. "A Theory of Conflict and Power in Union- Management Relations." Industrial and Lapor Relations Review, Vol. XIII (July, 1960), pp. 50I¥518. Ebel, Robert L. "Estimation of the Relability of Ratings." Psychometrika, Vol. XVI, 1951, pp. 407-424. Erickson, Donald A. "A Fast Express Named.'Mi1itance'." The North Central AssociationQuarterly, Vol. XLII, No. 3 (Winter, 1968), PP. 229-230. Ferguson, Tracy H. "Collective Bargaining in Universities and Colleges." The Journal of the College and Univer- sity Personnel Association, Vol. XX, No. 1 (November, )1 PP. 1‘21. Garbarino, Joseph W. "Professional Negotiations in Education." Industrial Relationg, Vol. VII, No. 2 (February, 1968), pp. 93-106. Heim, Peggy. "Growing Tensions in Academic Administration," The North Central Association Quarterly, Vol. XXXVII, Henderson, Algo D. "Control in Higher Education: Trends and Issues." The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XL, No. 1 (January, I969), PP. 648. Hixson, Richard: Miner, Robert W.; Davis, Bertram H.; and Smith, G. Kerry. "Four Associations Look to the Junior College." Junior College Journal, Vol. XLIX, No. 4 (December, I968 - January, 19695, PP. 10-17. Homer, Stanley M. "Faculty Power and Participation." College Journal, Vol. XXXVI, No. 5 (February, 1966), PP. 28- 2. Howe, Ray A. "Collective Bargaining for Teachers." The North Central Association Quarterly, Vol. XLII, No. 3 (Winter, 1 pp. - o 103 Howe, Ray A. "Faculty Administrative Relations in Extremis," Junior College Journal, Vol. XXXVII, No. 16 (November, I966). pp. I4315. Kadish, Sanford H. "The Strike and the Professoriate." Amer- ican Association of University Professors Bulletin, VoI. LIV, No. 2 (Summer, 1968), pp. 160-168. Kugler, Israel. "AAUP and AFT-Which Way for the ProfessorS?" Reprinted and revised from Changing Education. Washing- ton, D. .: American Federation of Teachers. . "The Union Speaks for Itself." The Educational Record, Vol. XLIX, No. 4 (Fall, 1968), p. 414. Lahti, Robert E. "A Faculty Role in Policy Formulation." Junior Colle e Journal, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1 (September, 19665, pp. 9-12. Larson, C. M. ”'Collective Bargaining' Issues in the Cali- fornia State Colleges." American Association of Univer- sity Professors Bulletin, VoI. LII , No. 2 (Shmmer, 1967), pp. 21 -2 0 Laser, Marvin. "Toward a Sense of Community." Journal pg Higher Education, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2 (February, 1967), pp. 61-69. Lehman, Edward W. "Toward a Macrosociology of Power." American Sociolo ical Review, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4 (August, I969), pp. 453-463. Leighton, J. E. "Report of Committee T on the Place and Func- tion of Faculties in University Government and Adminis- tration." American Association of University Professors Bulletin, Vol. VI, No. 3 (MarCh, 1920), pp. 14-17. Lessinger, Leon M. "Organized Teacher Power and Local Boards. The Education Digest, Vol. XXXII, No. 8 (April, 1968), pp.il-3. Lieberman, Myron. "Battle for New York City's Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XLIII (October, 1961), PP. 2-8. . "Collective Negotiations: Status and Trends." The Education Digest, Vol. XXXII, No. 4 (December, 1967), pp. 24-26. . "Faculty Senates: Institutionalized Irresponsi- bility." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. LI, No. 1, (September, 104 Lieberman, Myron, "Teachers Strikes: An Analysis of the Issues," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. XXXVI, No. l, Liesch, James R. "Strikes and Sanctions: A Moral Inquiry," The Education Digest, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4 (December, 1968), pp. 39-42. Livingston, John C. "Collective Bargaining and Professional- ism in Higher Education." Educatignal Record, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1 (Winter, 1967), pp. 79-88. Lombardi, John. "Faculty in the Administrative Process." Junior College Journal, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3 (November, 196?) 3 pp. 9-15. Madden, George. "A Theoretical Basis for Differentiating Forms of Collective Bargaining in Education." Educa- tional AdministrationQuarterly, Vol. V, No. 2 (Spring, 1968’. PP. 76-90. Marmion, Harry A. "Unions and Higher Education." Educational Record, Vol. XLIX, No. 1 (Winter, 1968), PP. 41-48. McConnell, T. R. "Faculty Interest in Value Change and Power Conflicts." American Association of University Pro- fessors Bulletin, Vol. LV, No. 3 (Autumn,’I969), PP. 342— McNeil, Gordon H. "Faculty Participation in College and Uni- versity Government: A Utilitarian Approach." American Association of Universit Professors Bulletin, Vol. XLVIII, No. 4 (Winter, 19625, PP. 364-367. Moore, Sam. "Machiavelli Has a White Hat, Too." Michi an ‘2—(11- Journal of Secondary Education, Vol. VIII, No. 967), p. 28. Moyers, Clyde, and Pinson, Gerald. "Collective Negotiations in Colleges and Universities." School and Society, (November 12,.1966), P. 390. Rosenthal, Alan. "The Strength of Teacher Organizations: Factors Influencing Membership in Two Large Cities." Sociolo of Education, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4 (Fall, 1966), pp. 378-380. Schmuck, Richard, and Blumberg, Arthur. "Teacher Participa- tion in Organizational Decisions." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Princi als, VoI. LIII, No. 339 (OctOber, 1969), pp. 89-I55. 105 Strauss, George. "The AAUP as a Professional Occupational Association." Industrial Relations, Vol. V, No. 1 (October, 1965), P. 129. Strong, E. W. ”Shared Responsibility." American Association of University Professors Bulletin, Vol. XLIX, No. 2 788mmer, I863), pp. 10 - . Swanson, Norman C., and Novar, Leon. "Chicago City College Teachers Strike.” Junior College Journal, Vol. XXXVII, No. 6 (March, 1967): PP. 19-22. Taylor, George W. "Public Interest in Collective Negotia- tions in Education." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XLVIII (September, 1966): PP. 16-22. Thompson, Victor A. "Bureaucracy and Innovation." Adminis- trative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. XX (June, 1965), PP. 1-20. Zack, Arnold M. ”Why Public Employees Strike," The Arbi- tration Journal, Vol. XXIII, No. 2 (1968), pp. 69-74. Publications of Professional Organizations American Association for Higher Education. Egculty Partici- pation in Academic Governance. Report of the American Association of Higher Education Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations Campus Govern- ance Program. Washington, D. C. 1967. American Association of School Administrators. School Admin- ietrgtors View Professional Negotiations. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1966. American Association of University Professors. ”Faculty Participation in College and University Government: Statement of Principles Approved by the Council." Amer- ican Association of Universit Professors Bulletin, VET. III, No. 4 (December 196 , pp. 3 1-3 . American Association of University Professors. "Faculty Par- ticipation in Strikes." Washington, D. C.: American Association of University Professors Bulletin, Vol. LIV, No. 2 (Summer,il§68): PP. 155-I59. American Association of University Professors. "Statement on Faculty Participation in Strikes." American Association of University Professgrs Bulletin, VoI. LI , No. 2 (Summer, 1968), p. 157. 106 American Council on Education. "Study by the American Council on Education on Attitudes Toward Collective Negotiations." Chronicle of Higher Education, (Editor- ial project for education), October 28, 1968. Classroom Teachers Association. "Responsibilities of Teacher Power.” Classroom Teachers Association Journel, (October, 1968), p._5. National Education Association. Addresses and Proceeding_. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1963. National Education Association. Addresses and Proceeding_. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1968. National Education Association. "What's Negotiable?” National Education Association Research Bulletin, Vol. XLVI, No. 2 (May, 196877788778738‘. Unpublished Materials Bylsma, Donald. "Changes in Locus of Decision Making and Or- ganizational Structure in Selected Public Community Colleges in Michigan Since 1965." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertaion, University of Michigan, 1969. Carlson, P. W. "Attitudes of Certified Instructional Per- sonnel in North Carolina Toward Questions Concerning Collective Negotiations and Sanctions.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1966. Case, H. "Faculty Participation in the Governance of Junior Colleges: A Study of Academic Senates in California Junior Colleges.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of California, 1968. Clark, Robert Lee. "The Roles and Positions of the NBA and of the AFT in Collective Negotiations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Illinois, 1965. Evans, Geraldine, A. ”Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward the Use of the Collective Bargaining Power." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968. Fisher, James R. "The Relationship of Sex, Level and Posi- tion of Oregon Educators to Attitudinal Statements that Deal with Collective Negotiations and Sanctions." Un- published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. 107 Gregg, K. Perry. "A Case Study of the Public School Col- lective Negotiations Process Designed for the Use of Administrators In-Training." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, New York University, 1969. Herberston, Jack R. "Teacher Negotiations as Perceived by Representatives of Teacher Groups, Superintendents, and School Boards Presidents." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Colorado State College, 1966. Hopkins, J. E. "A National Survey of Collective Negotiations in Public School Systems With Advanced Negotiation Agree- ments." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965. Klaus, Ida. "The Emerging Relationships." Address made at the Conference on Public Employment and Collective Bar- gaining, University of Chicago, February 5, 1965. Midjass, Carl L. "Differential Perceptions of Negotiability in Selected Illinois Public Secondary School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1966. Ortell, Edward. "Perceptions of Junior College Leaders with Respect to Selected Issues in Professional Negotiations.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, United States Inter- national University, 1968. Queen, Bernard. "Relationship of Teacher Collective Activity to Attitudes of Classroom Teachers, School Administrators and School Board Members." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Ohio State University, 1967. Stratton, Allen. Private interview held during a trip to washington, D. C., December, 1969. Other Sources Agricultural Experiment Station. "BASTAT: Calculation of Basic Statistics on the BASTAT Routine." Michigan State University, 1969, pp. 22-30. Baker, F. B., and Martin, T. J. "Fortap: A Fortran Test Analysis Package.“ Laboratory of Experimental Desigp. University of Wisconsin, I968. National Education Association. NEA Newspaper, No. 322, (November 10, 1969), p. 16. 4 Williams, Anthony V. "Factor A." Computer Institute for Social Science Research. Michigan State University, 1969. APPENDICES 108 109 APPENDIX A P.I.C.Q., FORM I COPY OF ACCOMPANYING LETTER January 5, 1969 Dear Fellow Educator: The relationships between university faculty members and administrators in Michigan and throughout the United States has been a topic of intense concern in the second half of the past decade. Unfortunately there is a general lack of information about faculty and administrator atti- tudes toward the resolution of institutional problems. The enclosed questionnaire is part of a study dedicated to a better understanding of these relationships from both the faculty members' and administrators' points of view. Although the questionnaires are coded in order to maintain accurate records of return, all mailing lists will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study and in no case will information be available or published by individual or university. The information will be used in completing my Ph.D. dissertation which will be published and available through Michigan State University or University Microfilm in Ann Arbor. Because a sampling process has been used, a small num- ber of questionnaires have been issued. In order to complete a valid study a high percentage of return is necessary. The time needed to complete the questionnaire is approximately fifteen minutes. we earnestly hope that you will be able to assist us. Thank you for your time and consideration. /S/ /S/ David Harris Dr. David Smith Graduate Fellow Department of Administration Michigan State University and Higher Education Michigan State University 110 TO THE RESPONDENT: This is a questionnaire for institutional decision- making processes. In it you will be asked for your per- ceptions about what your institution is like - administra- tive policies, faculty practices, how decisions are made, how decisions should be made, characteristic attitudes of groups of people, etc. This questionnaire is not a test: the only correct answers are those which reflect your own perceptions, judgments, and opinions. Confidentiality of responses can be maintained by not writing your name on the answer sheet. DIRECTIONS: l. PENCILS. Use any soft lead pencil, No. 2 (preferably a machine scoring pencil). Do not use an ink or ball- point pen. 2. MARK ONLY ON THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET. Please make no marks in the questionnaire booklet, which may be reused. 3. MARKING YOUR RESPONSES. Section I consists of state- ments about groups of people, policies and programs at your institution. Different individuals at your univer- sity will have different opinions or attitudes toward these statements as they apply now and as they should apply in the future at your institution. For Part A of each question, please indicate your opin- ion by marking square 1 for Strongly Agree, square 2 for Agree, square 3 for Disagree, and square 4 for Strongly Dis- agree with the statement as it applies now to your 111 institution. Part B of each question should be answered in the same manner, but as the statements should apply to your institution in the future. 4. IDENTIFYINGQQUESTIONS. Please answer the questions printed on the background sheet that apply to you, blackening the appropriate bos for each question. 5. RESPOND TO EVERY QUESTION. Please attempt to answer each statement in the questionnaire. NOTE Questions 1-42, Part A, correlate with questions 1-42 in Table 3 . Questions 1-42, Part B, correlate with questions 43-84 in Table 3. Questions 45-107, Section II and III, correlate with ques- tions 85-151 in Table 3. 1 STRONGLY AGREE your institution. 112 SECTION I Environmental Constraints Respond to each statement by mark sensing for Part A either 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to Part A of each question as it now applies to should apply to your institution. 1. Use of group action by University faculty organ- ization is necessary in order to present a united front to the University Administration and Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees are ,genuinely concerned about improving faculty condi- tions at the University. Our Administrators repre- sent trained professionals who should accept faculty advice but maintain respon- sibility for policy- formulation. Because of area special- izations our faculty are unaware of the many and diverse problems confront- ing our University Admin- istrators. Faculty involvement on policy-making committees tends to slow down the de- cision making processes. Faculty involvement in decision-making tends to make it difficult for administrators to cope with campus emergencies. 7. 11. 12. 13. 14. Respond to Part B of each question as it Our students have the re-' sources to close down the University. Our University empha- sizes its role as a research-oriented insti- tution. Our University is involv- ed in active social re- form. Our student radicals have an open voice on the University campus. The University actively seeks to increase on a large scale the admission of minority peoples as both students and fac- ulty members. The state legislature is very supportive of our University. Our University is allo- cating its funds in an appropriate manner. Student radicals have the right to disrupt our University community in behalf of their beliefs. 1 STRONGLY AGREE your institution. should apply to your institution. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 113 ReSpond to each statement by mark sensing 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to Part A of each question as it now applies to Staff members have the right to disrupt our Univer- sity community in behalf of their beliefs. Our students can recommend the elimination of or cre- ation of learning exper- iences that lack relevancy to them People in our society de- sire higher pay and reduc- ed job requirements. Our faculty members desire to emphasize teaching and/ or research and leave to the Administration the man- agement of the University. Our faculty members desire responsibility in many in- stitutional programs, but dislike being held account- able for their responsibil- ities In our institution, faculty members are not involved in making decisions on things that really matter. Our University Administra- tors play the same roles as do management in industry. Our faculty members are skilled specialists within the University complex. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Respond to Part B of each question as it It is not possible for one faculty member, as an individual, to solve problems of working con- ditions which affect an entire faculty. To the extent that our faculty members achieve a position of greater power within the insti- tution, the Administra- tion will experience a decrease in power. Our University is too centralized in terms of authority. Administrators, by vir- tue of their position, are unable to speak in behalf of the interests and/or concerns of the faculty. Our faculty regards the Administrators as a facilitating agent for the faculty. Our Administrators find it difficult to share decision-making powers with faculty members. The Board of Trustees favors the Administra- tion over the faculty in terms of decisions re- lating to the allocation of economic resources. 1 STRONGLY AGREE your institution. should apply to your institution. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 114 Respond to each statement by mark sensing 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to Part A of each question as it now applies to A major concern of our Ad- ministration is the control of the University complex. In general, University Ad- ministrators tend to avoid responsibility for their actions when difficulties arise and place them on faculty members. Our University Administra- tors further their own in- terests more than they fur- ther the interests of fac- ulty members. In general, our University Administrators and faculty members co-operate in solv- ing our institutional prob- lems. Our institutional problems are solved through inter- action between faculty and Administration without un- due pressure or defensive- ness. Our faculty has major rec- ommending responsibilities in institutional govern- ance. Our faculty has substant- ive authority to make University policy. Our University policies are made within an environment of Faculty-administrator co-operation. 38. 39. 40. 42. 43. 44. Respond to Part B of each question as it Our staff members are involved in all policy making committees of our University. Our Faculty members are, in general, treated equally by University Administrators. The expectations held for Faculty members are unreasonably high in such matters as teach- ing load, advisement, writing, and committee assignments. The major problem fac- ing our University is in making learning rel- evant to our students. The extent to which Faculty salaries in- crease, to that extent Faculty work loads in- crease. Administrators accept the concept of collect- ive negotiations as-a future reality at this institution. The size of the gap be- tween Faculty salaries and Administrative sal- aries is unreasonable. 115 SECTION II Respond to statements on this page by mark sensing either 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to each question as an acceptable condition or prac- tice at your institution. 45. University Faculty mem- bers, in order to ful- fill the goals estab- lished by the institu- tion, must establish some form of collective negotiations. 46. Public demonstrations by Faculty members are necessary techniques for informing the Adminis- tration, Board of Trus- tees, and public of Faculty demands. 47. Under certain circum- stances University Fac- ulty organizations should go out on strike. 48. Faculty members should , be willing to walk in a picket line that has been organized by the local Faculty organiza- tion. 49. In the event of a strike, Faculty members should be willing to walk in a picket line. 50. Faculty members should be willing to have their local organization noti- fy accrediting agencies and national professional organizations of unsatis- factory conditions as a means of changing these conditions. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. If Faculty organizations do not like teaching con- ditiSfis the way they are, they should take active measures to change others to their way of thinking. Faculty members who take part in organized attempts to pressure the Adminis- tration into making changes should pp; be re- stricted in any way. Faculty members who try to bring about changes through organized action are more professional than Faculty members who never try to make changes In public employment the success of demands de- pends on relative bar- gaining power. Faculty members should bargain about anything they desire to bargain about. Faculty members may bar- gain about only the things specifically stat- ed in the law. Local University Faculty organizations should negr- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees to secure clerical assis- tance for Faculty members. l STRONGLY AGREE 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 116 Respond to statements on this page by mark sensing either 2 AGREE University Faculty organ- 65. izations should negotiate with Administrators and/ or Boards of Trustees to increase Faculty salaries. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the improvement of retirement benefits. 66. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate class size. 67. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate with the Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees fringe benefits. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal grievance procedures. 68. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- 69. tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal Sabbatical policies. 70. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal advisement load. 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Local University Faculty organizations should negotiate with Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees for the estab- lishment of a formal Academic Calendar. Local University Faculty organizations should negotiate with Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees for official recognition of the nego- tiating team. Local University Faculty organizations should negotiate with the Ad- ministrators and/or Boards of Trustees per- sonnel policies. A University organiza- tion charged with the responsibility for nego- tiating a contract for the Faculty should ex- clude department chair- men . A University organization involved in negotiating a contract for the fac- ulty should exclude deans. A University organization provided with the power to negotiate for Faculty members should exclude from its membership the University president. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 117 Respond to statements on this page by mark sensing either 2 AGREE Unsatisfactory conditions within the institution will not work themselves out without the interven- tion of a local Faculty negotiating organization. University Administrators should be permitted to be officers of local Faculty organizations. Faculty members should affiliate with a national teaching union to improve their condition of employ- ment. Faculty members should affiliate with an inde- pendent organization to improve their conditions of employment. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate curriculum matters (items). Local University Faculty organizations should negotiate conditions appropriate for student learning. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for representation on policy making committees. Local University Faculty organizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the recruitment of Faculty members. 3 DISAGREE 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Local University Faculty organizations should negotiate with Adminis- trators and/or Boards for leaves of absence. Faculty members and Ad- ministrators can solve institutional problems best through an academic senate. Unionization creates an environment wherein co- operative solving is made very difficult. The most important prob- lems facing our institu- tion can only be solved within a climate of mutual trust between Ad- ministrators and Faculty. Faculty members increase the chances of solving institutional problems through participation in the Academic Senate or Council. The real need is to make the Academic Senate/ Council a viable agency where Faculty and Admin- istrators can work to- gether in meeting the needs of our students. Co-operation in solving individual and institu- tional problems is de- creased when the Faculty is unionized. 118 Respond to statements on this page by mark sensing either 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 86. Collective negotiations by Faculty organizations destroy the traditional role of tenure. 87. Faculty members should affiliate with the American Association of University Professors to improve their condi- tions of employment. l STRONGLY AGREE 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 119 SECTION III Respond to statements on this page by mark sensing either 2 AGREE Respond to each question as Various assignments I have completed re- ceived recognition as being particularly good pieces of work. I feel that I have re- ceived training and experience in my pres- ent position that has been constructive in my professional growth. I have had exceptionally good working conditions and equipment. I have felt secure in my position here at the university. I have had little feeling of achievement in the job I have been doing. I have not been given adequate assistance from my department head in meeting my assigned re- sponsibilities. The working relation- ships I have had with my co-workers have been very good. I have received few par- ticularly challenging assignments at the University. 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE it applies to yourself. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102 O 103. 104. I feel that there are adequate opportunities for promotions within the University. I have received adequate remuneration for the work I have been doing at the University. Under prevailing circum- stances I could ppp en- courage anyone to under- take a University teach- ing/research career. Under prevailing circum- stances I could ppp_en- courage anyone to under- take a University Admin- istrative career. My present position re- quires the use of my best abilities. The relationship I have had with my students has been very good. I would enjoy spending the rest of my career do- ing what I am doing now. There is nothing serious- ly wrong with working con- ditions in my present position the way that they are. I have felt that there is a good chance I'll be pro- moted in my present posi- tion. 120 Respond to statements on this page by mark sensing either 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 105. The personnel policies of the University are known by the majority of my co-workers. 106. I understand the basis for my annual salary in- creases. 107. I find it difficult to communicate with today's students because of a "generation gap." 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 121 SECTION IV BACKGROUND DATA This section conatins questions about the background of the respondents in this study. The results are to be used in a statistical form. Please mark sense the bubble that approxi- mates your status in each question. In which one of the following categories do you 1. Married Female 3. Married Male 2. Single Female 4. Single Male In which of the following age categories do you 2. 31-40 5. 61-70 3. 41-50 How many dependents do you claim for income tax poses? 1. 0-1 3. 4-5 2. 2-3 4. 6 or more Political party registration: 1. 2. 3. Democrat 4. Other Republican 5. None Independent Religious affiliation: 1. 2. 3. Catholic 4. Other Protestant 5. None Jewish Salary this year: 1. 2. 3. I8 1. Less than $7,999 4. $13,000 - $14,999 $8,000 - $9,999 5. $15,000 and over $10,000 - $12,999 fall? fall? pur- your present position your only source of income? Yes 2. No What is the highest degree that you hold? 1. 2. Bachelors 3. Doctorate Masters 116. 117. 118. 119. 122 BACKGROUND DATA This section contains questions about the background of the respondents in this study. The results are to be used in a statistical form. Please mark sense the bubble that approxi- mates your status in each question. How many years of experience do you have at this University? 1. 0-1 4. 7-10 2. 2-3 5. 11 or more 30 4-6 Occupation of parents: 1. Farmer 4. White collar or sales 2. Unskilled labor 5. Business management 3. Skilled labor 6. Professional Was either (or both) parent or guardian a member of a labor union? 1. Yes 2. No Your present academic rank: 1. Instructor 3. Associate Professor 2. Assistant Prof. 4. Full Professor 123 APPENDIX B P.I.C.Q., FORM II COPY OF ACCOMPANYING LETTER January 5, 1969 Dear Fellow Educator: The relationships between university faculty members and administrators in Michigan and throughout the United States has been a topic of intense concern in the second half of the past decade. Unfortunately there is a general lack of information about faculty and administrator atti- tudes toward the resolution of institutional problems. The enclosed questionnaire is part of a study dedicated to a better understanding of these relationships from both the faculty members' and administrators' points of view. Although the questionnaires are coded in order to maintain accurate records of return, all mailing lists will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study and in no case will information be available or published by individual or university. The information will be used in completing my Ph.D. dissertation which will be published and available through Michigan State University or University Microfilm in Ann Arbor. Because a sampling process has been used, a small num- ber of questionnaires have been issued. In order to complete a valid study a high percentage of return is necessary. The time needed to complete the quesionnaire is approximately fifteen minutes. We earnestly hope that you will be able to assist us. Thank you for your time and consideration. /S/ /S/ David Harris Dr. David Smith Graduate Fellow Department of Administration Michigan State University and Higher Education Michigan State University 124 TO THE RESPONDENT: This is a questionnaire for institutional decision- making processes. In it you will be asked for your percep- tions about what your institution is like - administrative policies, faculty practices, how decisions are made, how de- cisions should be made, characteristic attitudes of groups of people, et. al. This questionnaire is not a test; the only correct answers are those which reflect your own per- ceptions, judgements, and opinions. Confidentiality of responses can be maintained by not writing your name on the answer sheet. DIRECTIONS: 1. PENCILS. Use any soft lead pencil, No. 2 (preferably a machine scoring pencil). Do not use an ink or ball- point pen. 2. MARK ONLY ON THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET. Please make no marks in the questionnaire booklet, which may be reused. 3. MARKING YOUR RESPONSES. Section I consists of statements about groups of people, policies and programs at your in- stitution. Different individuals at your university will have different opinions or attitudes toward these state- ments as they apply now and as they should apply in the future at your institution. For Part A of each question please indicate your opinion by mark sensing square 1 for Strongly Agree, square 2 for Agree, square 3 for Disagree, and square 4 for Strongly Dis- agree with the statement as it applies to your institution. 125 IDENTIFYINGQUESTIONS. Please answer the questions printed on the background sheet that apply to you, blackening the appropriate answer box for each question. RESPOND To EVERY QUESTION. Please attempt to answer each 'statement in the questionnaire. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 126 SECTION I Respond to each statement by marking for Part A either 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to Part A of each question as it now applies to your 1. institution. The Board of Trustees are 8. genuinely concerned about improving faculty condi- tions at the College. Our Administrators repre- sent trained professionals who should accept faculty 9. advice ppp_maintain respon- sibility for policy formu- lation. Our College is too centra- 10. lized in terms of authority. Administrators, by virtue of their position, are un- 11. able to speak in behalf of the interests and/or con- cerns of the faculty. Our Administrators find it difficult to share decision— 12. making powers with faculty members. The Board of Trustees favors the Administration over the faculty in terms of decisions relating to the allocation of economic resources. In general, college admin- istrators tend to avoid re- sponsibility for their ac- tions when difficulties arise and place them on faculty members. Our institutional prob- lems are solved through interaction between fac- ulty and administration without undue pressure or defensiveness. Our faculty has major recommending responsi- bilities in institution- al governance. Our faculty has substan- tive authority to make College policy. Our College policies are made within an environ- ment of Faculty- Administrators co- operation. The expectations held for faculty members is un- reasonably high in such matters as teaching load, advisement, writing, and committee assignments. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 127 SECTION II Respond to each statement by marking for Part A either 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to Part B of each question as it should apply to your institution. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Board of Trustees are genuinely concerned about improving faculty condi- tions at the College. Our Administrators repre- sent trained professionals who should accept facu1ty advice but maintain re- sponsibiIity for policy formulation. Because of area specializa- tions our faculty are un- aware of the many and di- verse problems confronting our College Administrators. The College actively seeks to increase on a large scale the admission of minority peoples as both students and faculty mem- bers. The state legislature is very supportive of our College. Our College is allocating its fund in an appropriate manner. Staff members have the right to disrupt our Col- 1ege community in behalf of their beliefs. Our faculty members desire to emphasize teaching and/ or research and leave to the Administration the man- agement of the College. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. In our institution, fac- ulty members are not in- volved in making deci- sions on things that really matter. Our College is too cen-. tralized in terms of authority. Administrators, by vir- tue of their position, are unable to speak in behalf of the interests and/or concerns of the faculty. Our faculty regards the Administrators as a facilitating agent for the faculty. Our Administrators find it difficult to share decision-making powers with faculty members. The Board of Trustees favors the Administra- tion over the faculty in terms of decisions relat- ing to the allocation of economic resources. A major concern of our Administration is the control of the College complex. In general, College Ad- ministrators tend to avoid responsibility for their actions when diff- iculties arise and place them on faculty members. 128 SECTION II (Continued) Respond to each statement by marking for Part A either 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to Part B of each question as it should apply to your institution. 29. Our College Administrators further their own interests more than they further the interests of faculty mem- bers. 30. In general, our College Ad- ministrators and faculty members co-operate in solv- ing our institutional prob- lems. 31. Our institutional problems are solved through inter- action between faculty and Administration without un- due pressure or defensive- ness. 32. Our faculty has major rec- ommending responsibilities in institutional govern- ance. 33. Our faculty has substan- tive authority to make College policy. 34. Our College policies are made within an environ- ment of Faculty-Administra- tors co-operation. 35. Administrators accept the concept of collective nego- tiations as a future reality at this institu- tion. 36. The size of the gap between faculty salaries and Admin- istrative salaries is un- reasonable. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 129 SECTION III Respond to each statement by marking either 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to each question as an acceptable condition or prac- tice at your institution. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. College faculty members, in order to fulfill the goals established by the institution, must estab- lish some form of collec- tive negotiations. Public demonstration by faculty members are nec- essary techniques for in- forming the Administra- tion, Board of Trustees, and public of faculty de- mands. Under certain circumstances College faculty organiza- tions should go out on strike. Faculty members should be willing to walk in a picket line that has been organized by the local faculty organization. In the event of a strike, faculty members should be willing to walk in a pick- et line. Faculty members should be willing to have their local organization notify accrediting agencies and national professional or- ganizations of unsatis- factory conditions as a means of changing these conditions. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. If faculty organizations do not like teaching con- ditions the way they are, they should take active measures to change others to their way of thinking. Faculty members who take part in organized attempts to pressure the Adminis- tration into making chan- ges should ppp be restric- ted in any way. Faculty members who try to bring about changes through organized action are more professional than faculty members who never try to make changes. In public employment the success of demands de- pends on relative bar- gaining power. Local College faculty or- (ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees to secure clerical assis- tance for faculty members. College faculty organiza- tions should negotiate with Administrators and/ or Boards of Trustees to increase faculty salaries. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 130 SECTION III (Continued) Respond to each statement by marking either 2 AGREE Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the improvement of retirement benefits. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate class size. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with the Adminis- trators and/or Boards of Trustees for fringe bene- fits. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal grievance proce- dures. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego~ tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal Sabbatical policies. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of formal advisement load. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the establishment of a formal Academic Calendar. 3 DISAGREE 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Local College faculty or— ganizations should nego- 'tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for official recognition of the negotiating team. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with the Administra- tors and/or Boards of Trustees personnel poli- cies. A College organization charged with the respon- sibility for negotiating a contract for the Fac- ulty should exclude de- partment chairmen. A College organization in- volved in negotiating a contract for the faculty should exclude deans. A College organization provided with the power to negotiate for Faculty mem- bers should exclude from its membership the Univer- sity president. Unsatisfactory conditions within the institution will not work themselves out without the intervention of a local Faculty nego- 5 tiating organization. 62. College Administrators should be permitted to be officers of local Faculty organizations. 131 SECTION III (Continued) Respond to each statement by marking either 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Faculty members should affiliate with a national teaching union to improve their condition of employ- ment. Faculty members should affiliate with an indepen- dent organization to im- prove their conditions of employment. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate curriculum.matters (items). Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate conditions appro- priate for student learn- ing. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for representation on policy-making committees. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for the recruitment of Faculty members. Local College faculty or- ganizations should nego- tiate with Administrators and/or Boards of Trustees for leaves of absence. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. Faculty members and Ad- ministrators can solve institutional problems best through an academic senate. Unionization creates an environment wherein co- operative problem solv- ing is made very diffi- cult. The most important prob- lem facing our institu- tion can only be solved within a climate of mu- tual trust between Admin- istrators and Faculty. Faculty members increase the chances of solving institutional problems through participation in the Academic Senate or Council. The real need is to make the Academic Senate/ Council a viable agency where Faculty and Admin- istrators can work to- gether in meeting the needs of our students. Co-operation in solving individual and institu- tional problems is de- creased when the Faculty is unionized. 132 SECTION IV Respond to each statement by marking either 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE Respond to each question as it applies to yourself. 76. Various assignments I have 85. Under prevailing circum- completed received recog- stances I could not en- nition as being particu- courage anyone to under- larly good pieces of work. take a College teaching- research career. 77. I feel that I have receiv- ed training and experience 86. Under prevailing circmm- in my present position that stances I would not en- has been constructive in courage anyone to under- my professional growth. take a College Adminis- trative career. 78. I have had exceptionally good working conditions 87. My present position re- and equipment. quires the use of my best abilities. 79. I have felt secure in my position here at the Col- 88. I have felt that there lege. is a good chance I will be promoted in my present 80. I have had little feeling position. of achievement in the job I have been doing. 89. The personnel policies of the College are known 81. The working relationships by the majority of my I have had with my co- co-workers. workers has been very good. 90. I understand the basis 82. I have received few par- for my annual salary in- ticularly challenging creases. assignments at the college. 83. I feel that there are ade- quate Opportunities for promotions within the” College. 84. I have received adequate remuneration for the work I have been doing at the University. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 133 SECTION V ' BACKGROUND DATA This section contains questions about the ‘ background of the respondents in this study. The results are to be used in a statistical form Please mark sense the buble that approximates your status in each question. In which one of the following categories do you fall? 1. Married Female 3. 2. Single Female 4. Married Male Single Male In which of the following age categories do you fall? 51-60 61-70 How many dependents do you claim for income tax pur- 1. 20-30 4. 2. 31-40 5. 3. 41-50 poses? 1. 0-1 30 2. 2-3 4. Political party registration: 1. Democrat 4. 2. Republican 5. 3. Independent Religious affiliation: 1. Catholic 4. 2. Protestant 5. 3. Jewish Salary this year: 1. Less than $7,999 4. 2. $8,000 to $9,999 5. 3. $10,000 to $12,999 4-5 6 or more Other None Other None $13,000 to $14,999 $15,000 and over Is your present position your only source of income? 1. Yes 2. No 134 SECTION V (Continued) 98. What is the highest degree that you hold? 1. Bachelors 3. Doctorate 2. Masters 99. How many years of experience do you have at this Univer- sity? 1. 0-1 4. 7-10 2. 2-3 5. 11 or more 3. 4-6 100. Occupation of parents: 1. Farmer 4. White collar or sales 2. Unskilled labor 5. Business management 3. Skilled labor 6. Professional' 101. was either (or both) parent or guardian a member of a labor union? 1. Yes 2. No 102. Your present academic rank: 1. Instructor 3. Associate professor 2. Assistant Professor 4. Full professor 185 racm.eu enco.ou unto.o: cmso.e cmw«.o —v««.= nmcc.o cmao.oo nov~.a cmmw.= wnHo.cn oom«.e vns~.= r~no.a. ooan.= conn.e c~¢a.oo mano.oo coco.« cu anchco rmwomoo potc.oo rheo.c .w.cao. c:rn.o emca.o accu.aa remade etcmwe rr¢:.o unca.a ance.ou oouada vora.c qmeene wona.o nnro.ou mmou.o core.a .or:.o enro.o waso.a n~'~.o n¢(=.eo r~n~.o no«~.o «ouo.:: rnwu.a eve«.c «mno.o anu~.uu «asu.;| omsu.m seen.no A.hfidouo vo-.o «oso.e .ono.e :«o~.o ease.“ neon.: rmcn.:a seen.al wmrn.=u rnnv.co Aa.«.n0 mowa.co nnm«.co same... smun.e «5(c.a0 ,mwd... «vmn.m onoe.a ooea.cu (nno.a swan.c seen.” vma\.:o ca.w.a: ¢~¢\.c wuss.m .mn;..: r~vq.u. ooou.s eave.oo can: ence.ao .00. fl been.wo rmv=.a: r~¢n.ao u~na.ao cn¢4.30 coon.a car:.« wauc.n orae.a -se.oo vwru.ao sowu.n. sown.n sewn.» wacqod eon~.a (Avo.o “mm“.a vmo«.ou vvr«.eu oem«.av .os«.ec cvo~.e mona.eo mnr«.au one"... rm<~.n coou.n (acn.10 nnnn.s ceaa.e s~¢a.ao asaa.=u enon.a: evo«.a nm-.9 earn.» n=w~.a coms.a «ewe.eo nowa.n- omse.ou mosa.nn oosn.e. m~e~.o- o_-.s muoc.au poma.ao earn.o- crnq.w ovea.a rnvdoflo n~c«.ao nuance! voo~.eo once.a one~.a vnnv.a hora.” oace.a renumz COHPMHOHHOUIHTPGH U XHQZNmmfi «mc«.no vnad.o core.n amon.e «no~.o rmeo.no (ha«.a cnem.an crnn.a rqmw.n 001,.no mr¢~.e 'mu4.e reca.no nvn~.~o worn.a0 raun.a ramn.a rhu~.e pawn.nu .nncn.a. rmrm.no raccoon sonn.a meme.” .y_~..v an...su~ancvme,. woou.no o~u«.a nona.ao mac“.— need.» «ova.n wmca.n .enq.n. .mwu.n mmn~.n «mrn.a vmrn.¢o (009.6 uo.u.~ hh»..no nV...sI pmmn.no n~t«.n .ms..n case." en.~.~ warn.nb m..e.eu «acu.a- n«m«.~n .mr~.ao womdon "fine.“ «a as «a me on .a ~u as ou .905 a N n llfiiii ’..-.___-5_W oueo.o nonw.oo cos«.o. mon~.s. (oeu.a- n~on.e. mwkw.s. vsra.on nvm«.=. mon~.e- roc«.eo cac~.e. on¢«.e. «mo«.ou ove~.e. o~oo.ea ammo.ou eosu.s- mkv«.e. muua.ou sum«.e. sn-.°. noo«.a noon.e. mose.o. oo>~.e. on~«.a. «ow«.a. «oo«.o. aas~.o owed”: 4~nndoo .e.ede. soo=.oo “or“.co c~c«.c0 pocaqe. were.eo toru.oo .oq=.oo schema. coco.co sarong: vacanc- ucr«.ao encwno. u~c9.n rmr=.e. rccauao 'rvo.oo cuc«.oo 4mc«.oo tavaua sac~.eo corona. pseudo. «acumen card“.- scrunc- torque .cra.o 1~w9.3 caqn.o onnc.e unwe.o smeo.a moca.o svsa.o ro—o.oa wmeo.a roos.e cn«:.cn wucc.ao amco.e nuno.oo ammo.ou nomn.o Hmuu.o: were.an vvna.ac nuc«.eo voma.e: coco.a enmo.uu cano.a nmuu.ou ance..- cano.an coco.oo cona.a uncu.c n~as.s oc«~.e .en».. smca.c rora.o ruow.r oavo.e rc«~.c sacs.e cum~.= . w~ws.s cos~.e noes.e cvr~.: o~r=.a umo«.c v~ea.n rmmu.e (noa.e cs.~.c cmr=.o naoa.e «nru.o nnr~.: nmca.a uno«.e e~wu.a mmoa.r snua.e .on~.e .s.~.e s~a~.e ene~.e cmme.: fivtu.e noon.e cvrn.e warn.= “ne~.e vmc~.c oa'~.o some.: ooo~.= enca.c r~¢:.n omca.u cam«.o anou.ao maro.co anw~.u cona.o eonn.e Amwa.e smee.s. pnu=.s em~«.e- enes.= oa«u.: cdn=.ol rsio.n vncm.u ¢n«~.n «me~.o soe~.e sneu.u ease.” eman.n nvn~.o mesa.” enra.o noe«.u car~.o onnu.u rues.” nvra.o cLo«.n pmw~.n ««r~.c onv~.u mar~.o vnw~.u cvsa.u. noma.n onen.u nnuu.o earn.o evna.u «one.u h0¢a.u0 m~ao.a- «:¢«.a raou.e snm~.c eov«.e ~m«~.e necu.a mnu«.o o~a«.n fivea.c c~n«.o v~m~.n scn~.a cac~.a rrh«.q cvn~.o emu~.a m~n~.a ovs~.s nmoa.a cvm~.a aaea.a. ssn~.s «055.30 maca.o have." 0004.: cuma.= co«~.e: hamo.oc onus.n rmsa.o mave.a e.c«.o sens.» maaq.a auqn.a v«on.a saus.a unea.a coon.a mace.e o.ma.n voma.e w:—~.s unv«.q neon.e nwna.n mnva.n nova.» mnm4.9 amps.o. n.es.e cora.a ~nos.o abu».o enme.a nona.o «awn.n. ooau.e. cv¢M.n0 «enm.nu o~n~.n. «kma.e-. recs..- emcL.so venu.ou kuw... rmma.nu anm.au cn¢«.co unnm.ao rova.ac uveu.ac 03...”. on"..a. nmrm.eo Cann.no ran~.eo rnm~.e. rena.e omn«.n: rue..oo oucu.eu wron.m: (awn.no eacn.oo «we..« unne.eo corn.ou econ.au wonp.oo pnen.n- noun.e rave.e. .rrn.e anea.nu pow..n mave.ro meme.e. "mae.no «Hn«.nc wmsu.nu «use.no comp.a- nemq.n- chan.n0 Vern-o0 assa.a- .~a~.e. pscm.no «sun.~ onca.n m~an.m nono.as vane.o. erron euca.uu rm an on on on an mm an a. s. av ov av 0' av ~o so no on an A» on mn .vn an Nn an an aw ,L. 5.- - -1 w«n~.c emno.c osoo.: tora.aa v~ue.o. onn«.: vna~.a. cana.oo soeo.e. psrnna pc¢=.eo nuro.: inn«.c «fine.c omnnno nvwo.ao .coo.= evoc.oo rec:.oo 09:0.00 ano~.ao aovcwou scru.c anc=.a. ua «vea.: r»va.eo who~.a vema.qo aqqn.s- esma.e- nnse.a. .n«a.a wvw4.: on.a.e nwca.b '.se.o- mwoa.o rees.e 'V'To? 4707.:- wnc«.oo ma'«.s mac=.= mane.n nes~.o wen..a emrm.o rcr4.au cerL.no n¢¢M.n («(Mon .ow~.a. rcu«.~: neon.o. ro.~.a wowm.n kao«.a pwuu.u nflausrt FHvAofi aha. : or $0 at as as us as nu ac no no 00 on an we «c 50 an 138 ”11— mnoo.e eseeue. woma.e wdnu.cu rmse.oo onvo.no coe«.o. h~r°.on h0u~.a mu-.a ao 1'9? .. ‘......L.. _ . homo.o ovno.o ooc:.a vana.e. («no.90 rxoo.o. snmo.oo ocno.s. nom«.oa “no“.o mvvo.o rune.s «ano.on unna.o ca.e.eo nu~o.eu coec.o ssnu.a coco.“ ow oacwuoo u=¢~.eo morwuo nocndoo oceanoo umowuo. snc~noo cme~sao Lacuna. «dawns vorawao “one”: unre.co cocoa: awneuo vaneuo serene chafing. mmca.=u eased" an reea.a u~no.o pnu~.a. coco.on cam~.e coo«.u nuan.o e'n«.e mos~.c oo.~.c. oamn.en wnn«.oo nono.o. .«ca.e cnmo.au ca.a.o. scro.a osea.o unv«.ou ssmo.e. caoo.d on rewa.eo ch—4.cc u~¢u.o s~e~.a. n~—«.oo rura.no mnno.n. mnrc.cu snso.nu nnca.o noou.oo mnoe.e. «eno.a nuae.e moo«.e «mauve: were.ec ~0no.cn aneo.e osw«.c soro.eo caco.d ha mvms.e. as.a.e0 o~mu.o c~e«.ou ¢~n«.cn -v5.eo «nos.o. ommu.o. ravn.au rn-.o cmen.co neoe.ao rovn.a nova.ou enea.s earo.ou «ne~.°u can«.ec pvna.o vaou.o eves.e svvo.e ceee.d (a unca.o «nea.o 00:9.0 caco.o a~me.o w-o.oo nosa.o: avna.o. vvma.so curd.a «nw~.o anna.o «roa.ou nova.o noo«.nu nvso.e nac«.u or«=.o some.au once.ea avoa.on coco.oo occa.u nu cos«.oo nsw«.su svso.e ~vvn.eo wo~«.on nn-.an anu.oo cnma.ao von«.s. n~ra.s emoa.s. nono.o pose.s some.s m«~a.o envo.s coao.ao u~au.a0 ea~».: cona.ea o~ou.e. ~e¢~.e n~sa.e onna.9o case.« we umqo.ou mafia.s. cwou.o onsa.e- ocm«.e. "or“.au vacu.o. so-.en cnn«.ea os~«.o oo¢~.au umua.au cnoe.oo osoa.eu nuwa.n nooa.e. maoa.e- one~.e- eneu.o cowo.a ones.o. neonae onon.. wqos.e. neon.. seosnm. 1 ' an cuou.a vo.~.e onnu.oo coo... oo¢«.e ue.~.m vuu~.o vun«.e noca.o ruoo.oo cevn.o mann.a omnn.e venu.a mnm~.ao roam.a vocal onem.n «ena.oo .uoOu.ao encu.o oven.ao row».ao eona.o ene~.e. oeuv.oo p. memo.“ peca.o ceun.o ovao.no oss~.n wsoe.. «oo~.n. no.~.a oowu.c "no“.e ns~a.o. rose.a c~v¢.n .oka.e nouu.u ”Mmm.o0 BosOOQ ov-r.n nome.e. nmpa.e. oooe.o .nssea. ocea.a. unve.e «soars. Ann~.o! puc~.o ease.» «a an a» on wn .» an ~n an en .~ .~ .~ .~ n~ '5 N“: R. 6| e~ ea .3 a. a. we 4. .wa «a 140 llll'".. 0..... one... eoo... ~..... v.0...o ~..... 9...... was... «5.... one... emu... 9.0... «an... «ac... .u.... vow... v.v... .uv... .n.... nae... .c.... men... s..... .o.... .0».... ”.C... .uo... no.... 0.5... .s.... ....n.« nacun.a .oauu.. vomunca .seau.. .n..n.a '..«n. onuun.. .vv.u.. no..u.. ance“. vvuwu.. saaanua .omun.. n..~H.. v...u.a oamunea conuu.. avauu.. svmun.a on..”.« human-4 u.v.n.. ououu.. neoun.. «.suu.. nonun.a ..n.u.. ..hun.. .ouuu.a .u.... .0.... ..~»... .n..... ..n.... .n.... .vs.... owe... ance... ..~.... ...u... .nv.... .s.... 9.0... ...... ..e... ”no... see... «an... .n.... ~.«.w. n..... .0...- ..nph.. .n..... c..... .Nw... ..v... onc.u.a but... abandon has“... neon... 0...... .nos...0 oome.eo nova-o cheu.ou nova-e! n..e.e. ahuo.eo «dud..- Ebrooon FN»d-DI honn.eo Dhndcoc v.na.al «tau... vhva..1 QVN«.90 anon... DUO-sot econ... .u...u.. .hne...q I...m.c svhuoas n.....t than... Ovuwhno a.....m ....... w...... ...s... Rena... secs... ...... ence... .nv.4.. .vru... ease..- ..~.... use“... use“... “so“... anon... sass... s...... c...... .s..... wa..... eons... «don... -b...... .c..... .s..... - any“... n...... ha~...0 - ..n.... n..... our... .~.... n..... s..... nee... .vo.... 4.“... 90.... one... uses... use... use... .o.... s..... ..na.. «on... .~.«.. «we... .5...- Dau... non... sun... sump”. ss.....- ~...m. own... an»... «n...- nhn...b - n...... .u..... use»... c»..... .s..... and“... «an... .00.... .55.... .m..... n.n... ence... .v..... ,cunP..o s.~.... 4...... mama... .v..... .v..... n.....J N.N...- 4...... .n...r. euro... c..... once... ”use... s...... s...... o...... one“... .wuu... u.»~... .s..e... use..... .vv.... emu... Nona... none... ova“... on“... no.~... o.~«..- ..DN..u a..~... .sscm..- .«.~... «new... vncnuow p.....- nnbu..o, hoou..- one“... hand... ..h...0 .nnu..w uuwumno .N~.u... .00.... n...... e..... n..... sun... can... .om... one... nsww... nno~.n can... «so... «on... rmo~.. n..... «a.... c~m~na v..~.. mov~.. ..-.. noo~.. .~A.~.. vvom.. -.~.e .v.~.. has... new... no»... «Dh«.o.e u.«~.. .~m~.. owe... nhhnno- ..n.... .npun. .o..... «am... who... anau... w..~.. now... see... 0.”... one... so»... so»... .v.~.. so»... oo.~.. «v»... .o.... .n..~w. on»... road... use... .«-.. «as... h».... o...... .n.... .mbun... .u..... at. «o ,.Q on 141 na....- 5...... .v..... v.5... v.5... on.... 555.... ....... .55... n...... woo... .5....- n5..... 5...... .5..... ..5.... .5..... .n..... ....... .5..... 55.... .v..u. nna.u. make”. .55.”. mv5.n.. .e..ue. .50.”. o...”- c...u.. ..v.u. v...H.. .55.”. no..”. ..A.H.. v...u.. 0...”. on..u. n...u. .5o.u. 5...”. n..... .o.~u.. 50.... .o..... .w..... .50...- 0...... .vww... cuno..- .v..... ..v.... 5...... .5.... con... now... 5...... n..... 5..... .0.... 5'5... .50... 5.5.... o..... .v.... 5...... n..... .5...5. (co... c.5.... «no... 5...... 5.~..n .5..... .v.... «on... .w....- men... o.5.... n..... .05... v...... 0...... ..5.... 555... 5..... ..o.... ~m.... cow... .5»... new... r~o.... 5...... .o.... .q.... c5vu... .no... ....... 5...... n..... .5..... 35.... ...... .m.... w...... .n.... 5..... 5...... 5...... 50.... .o.... 55.... 0.....- one... 5..... ~.v... .0..... 5~.... on..... one... .~5.... .w:.... w...... 00.9... n5..... ....... no..... ....... .vo.... nan... .s.... .55.... w~..... m...... 9.»... .o..... ...... nn..... .«n...- once... 0.»... o..... .55.... .05.... .95.... .n5.... .n.... .nn...x .05.... .55.... 00.... 5.5... s...... .01....l 5.....- 5n»... ~n...e- .m..... v...... 0.5... 5...... 5~..... «no... ovu.... ..~... .c5m... 0...... on..... «o...- are... .n.... .v..... 5...... .5.... «an... .o.... 5...... w..... .n..... .n5... rum... 5...... 5...... '0‘ .0 -..~... womem.; 5m.... :ommq... .ooum... «on..m woo.... n.5w..u. .5....5 5...... once... 5...... r5oo... .«r... .05.... 5.5... 5..... nu...e. s5..... 5v..5.. «om-.mu, '..7 ‘-‘4 (I. .s.... I . .,w..m... . .5.....- ewe... mos... w5..m. 0......, .m..... .s..... .....a.. w...... noed... .m..... 5.»... .mo..... I'llltlbll .III" I . o . o. o. so .. no -1. a. .o. «m. ,7 .5 it ..5 .155 .M. .5 .\ (y- no5... n..... .w.... ..n... 5..... 5..~.. moo... v.0... coo... .50... ~...... .5N.... ...n..- ..5... ca 9.5.... 5...”.. .m..... o.¢.u.. cw..w.. .ro.”.. .m3.w. m...d.. .o..q.. an..m. 5...”. o...n. cnrvq. 5...H.. oorwneo .urmna. .n¢~u.. mownu.. ....H.. ....J. on .5.~.. ...~.. .n.... ...~.. s..... .a.... ...~.. .~5~.. 5..~.. ...~.. c..~.. an»... 5.5... ...... n...... ..¢... .o..... a...... n...... can... c..... .w 5..... ....... «5.... ...... 0...... a5....- coco... can... .Nc... co.... «coo... .n5... 0.5... 5n¢~.o ~.~..n no5.... 5a.... r5co.. can... .5....- ....... gee... 5~ ......- m..... .m.... .o»... rmr... non... 0.5... 55“...- can... .5.... .m..... 5..... 5...... .5»... n...... 5.5... n..... .n.... .50.... .n.... m..... .m.... one... c~ ..r.... n...... r:¢...- (.5.... 9.0...- n...... .~..... mono... ~.o...- n.r.... r...... -n.... no.... r.....- .m.... wet... «on... ..w.... 5pm.... .....a- 55..... ...... can... ...... .N .onm... r.-... .5.~... .~5...- ..5.... .55.... 5..~... n.m~... .nrw..- .n5w... ~.m~... .mm.... .o.....- ..m...- m.....- row... ¢.o... n~oo.n .n.... ..5.... ..5.... 5...... c...... cn.... coo... .N 5.....- ..o...- ammo... .K.... o..... .m..... .u..... m5ra..- ......- ~n5.... .oo...- .o..... 5..... .o..... n...... ent... .m..... m5m...- m.....- 55.... .mm.... cog... ...... pom... L..... n..... «0.... r5..... 5...... 95.... ....... 50.... r...... .5..... 0...... .m..... r...... ..n.... .ao... .~.... .55... r..... .o.~.. .n.... 0mg... «n..... c...... 00.... «5.... (mm... g..n.o o~.m.. .o.... m..... mm.~.. cop... n..~.. «.r~.. oo.~.. om.~.. m~5~.. ..o~.. ..nn.e “n.... ..5... o~5.... ...~.. cm..... 5..~.. .n.... m..... «0..... «mm... ...... u..n... .o...a. .m..... c...... 55..... 5...... a..... .~ 0. 5. o. n. v. n. N. .. on on 5. on on nn ~n .n .n ow o~ 5N .N mw v~ nu - .w l. i. {I Ill-II .n'll 1+3 9".0' . 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 0999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- 9099.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9909.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999u9. 999999- 9999.9. 9999H9. 9999H9. 9999.9- 99¢9u9. .999u9. 9999H9. 9999.9- 9999H9. m9n9n9- «99.no- 9999u9. 9999n9. 9999u9 99'9u9 9999H9. 9999n9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999”.- 9999”.- 9999H9- 999999. 999999. 9999H9. 9999u9. 9999H9. 9999H9. 9999.9- 9909.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 999~.9. 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9.99.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9099.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 900N.9 9999.9 9999.9 999N.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9- 9909.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9 9099.9 0999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 0099.9. 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.... 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- .NN~9.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9- 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 more... 9099.9. 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9. 9999.9. .9Nn-.9. 9999..- 999999. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 «999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9.. 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9- 9999.9.. 9999.9fl 999999- 9999.9. 9999.9. 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9- 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.! 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 -99r9.9 9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 ch 99 as 99 ch. 99 N9 99 on 99 no 99 no no vo no we no 99 on .99 99 ..-. 99 99 99. 99 .99-I: ,: Hh.---t .9 99 1u4‘4 - ..__.————___— 5909.. Gnu... one... nwon.o nude... ovum..- coco... nnmu.. vac“..- «~o«.o unaa... coca.- onceuao mavens» «wgnue carnuoo corona. mesa”. a...uo. on..dar no..no canine. coca”. nsnaqoc oomu.eu cun~.e. u~v«.oo goo«.eo mhu~.o nov~.¢ chum..- amcn.ao vs-.- coda... enou.o ~o~n.oc oo~«.a cvne.o vsco.o nuqo.u vooe.c. mnn°.ou n~v«.o ova... ossa.eo ”eve.o can-.90 ov~«.e no.9.ao ence... aha... «nos.- nowo.cn caco.co onvu.oo odes... .~ra.¢o naw=.en mac... nswe.oo aumu.o u~v«.. «oc«.a nnv«.o usr=.ou m~u«.on coao.o coun.o ¢nqa.oo asw«.a onsa.ao ~s¢«.a onoa.a nvs~.: vnoo.u svna.4 ovn~.o. ovou.ou unon.en cvs~.o o~n«.oo vooa.a ounu.en v-~.a nonu.o ooo«.o m~oa.. sang..- coma... ssoe.o onuu.eu ova”.- no.6.an oawo.a owns..- «ouo.e ommu.n «an. ..¢H.o onog.a van«.oo cand.au maca.o. ans~.e hwru.nc wovq.n mama... mou«.~ moc«.oo m~c~.eo cssw.a. suca.a. owon.a sno~.a onwu.ou oo.~.o. u~u~.o .o.¢... onu~.o n.-.a. co oo. on so o. my on a. «a a. .o .N 145 g_~ —~ —_ wane... smug... vvna.e cmcu.o «www.c- coca... r~n«.e «on~.ao moeu.a “no“.o. onca.oo nsoo.oo oovu.ou cann.an oas~.oo co—~.e. comumau «n90.9n cnan.eu coon.e noon.- mssv.o anon.- no.n.a om»... savo.o no«n.oo oven.- nu««.o ou.~.o ‘ucu.o. c~ru.ou now—no cocuuo .nvano. wocmuo- nnc~.e «cannoo nhruuo go«~.oo «naunoo «nuanc- ¢o¢~.oo unsnwa. nonnnou suomua. 'ovn.an «Neo.ao nmsnnc. soothe ruvvuo 'nrvqo «nevus when”: noec.a euQ.o coto.on ouco.a oe.«.oa mono.o Ly.o..- uvr«.oo cnr«.o coco.o rowo.e vocu.a- wnro.oo Non~.¢ :nw~.. mss~.a h.uN.o naca.o c~v~.. sooo.o .99”... nom~.o reuu.a ouoa.o n~n~.° «no... «ono.o. ro-.o. rune.e noto.o towu.oo («cu.o u~u~.ou rmbd.o «ncn.a wun~.o rowa.c «sue.au a~ua.o pcqu.o rnw«.a cmro.oo horn.n co.~.u wmo~.o mocu.c «vw~.. cuma.a rv~«.o mnmo.o. “up“.o. cvou.o onhn.e sooa.o "nao.= auso.o unme.aa nov«.ao annooo ennu.o “noo.au .«me.o gnpa.ao rn.«.o acmo.o Loinoo .n~¢.o .o.a.o nv¢e.a ««.«.n «Oou.a ,«.n.ao moro.o- fora.” «oso.o «n.«.n “up“.o «on... nau9.oo n0vo.o oo~«.-u suru.° unmuoa «noo.o no no on no on no wc no on 03 an sh on ma vs nu ~n as on no no so 00 no v0 no no no on on 146 “on“.o conn.. «ooc.o coun.o «wov.a osun.o wocn.o nn~m.e nflfla.a wanm.o vumn.o vnvv.e navv.o mauv.= nanw.o muon.a osnm.c moco.o coco.“ av vm¢~.o nvrmno onsvwo moan”: wonvuo .orvdo rscvwo cuxvdo goo¢.o .svmno co