J J . v «.1 ..-. u u .... -M-.h:u-x I} at .- ru n! w.-‘4. . L .x 0"! ,5qu quaolr‘fi' “‘ 5539.. A? fi b 'L'I} 3'; E‘. c v» ‘ 1 .. fins-11‘1“.“ . r “ ‘ I’IA". -‘-y , \4' 3? ’V t. <- zm‘fz.‘ ’.U°£“Fru .. :E '9 .7“ - v VF“? é‘fii‘h EitW'MJ‘. .m-é. . “.7“ r1! I. - : l .1 w 28:53”; v,‘ 5v. - N. I‘LL.- 2‘ . r 'l ‘ ,4. A!" - 51:11,. hi . 1.3!}; a; (A. “—1; 1.. 411:“; v& 1". i 5§QEL a. .‘i-z‘jj’ f3" 41“:\_ A Pf'lra‘tn- ‘ "'"L" m > ”337’: ' 'T: .‘ "1'1: . . ”9513333 ‘5.“ T ‘5: 1 8'1); v” a: 2“? :.. I35.“ €3§fh¥¢~é¥ - ~ - 33 5,3415; 12?? 1 7" “ “55» " ‘ age-Sm ' 9-; 3326"“. ~ I A—IV ." “I w‘ s itm‘gwég ‘vQ. 5-. -.‘~. , ‘W‘x‘wv' . L H 11%;.“ ‘1 Vi "main": ..1 vl", 1 ,. fl'AonJu a: ,F\’ “s- v r :3: i; '7‘ .9 we» ..«ru 0 u',» .. .1: ”pa-“:3 . a -. .1’.~.1...-.=f,v..':-.-: . l J .e-fi’" 5.: ~ USNIVER SITY Ll BRAR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 00896 27 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Perceived Level of Participation in Decision-Making 0f Chief Music Administrators in Relationship To The Size of The Music Department In Budgeting, Faculty Evaluation, and Public Relations presented by Bobby Blake has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctorate degreein Education Administration t Major professor Date /" fad-J lff’f MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771 LIBRARY Mlchlgan Stale Unlvorslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ”W038 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution extrema-aw! THE PERCEIVED LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING OF CHIEF MUSIC ADMINISTRATORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SIZE OF THE MUSIC DEPARTMENT IN BUDGETING, FACULTY EVALUATION, AND PUBLIC RELATIONS BY Bobby Blake AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education Administration 1991 ‘54— 078% (.9 ABSTRACT THE PERCEIVED LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING OF CHIEF MUSIC ADMINISTRATORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SIZE OF THE MUSIC DEPARTMENT IN BUDGETING, FACULTY EVALUATION, AND PUBLIC RELATIONS BY Bobby Blake Chief music administrators are given titles that do not always indicate their level of participation in decision—making in administrative duties and responsibilities. Related literature suggests that the role of chief music executives is influenced by institutional size. The purpose of this research was to determine if there was a significant relationship between department size and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. A questionnaire was developed and sent to a sample of 167 chief music administrators of four-year institutions of higher education. The total population from which the sample was drawn consisted on 242 institutions from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Proportional Stratified Random Sampling procedure was employed. Each institution was stratified into the small, medium or large strata based on the number of full-time .....,.... . W-.. .... «N. .... _...-1 .9..-” .-_._~_1.- ‘4‘- ". ' I rllh.w “”'“"‘"~I:v—......A,., #9.. faculty members.§\A seven paint continuum scale g§§*u§§d_tg~ _»¥ calculate the perceived level of participation in decision . , "mu—naupwuuwt’vw~" - ‘A—an making of chief music administrators. The respgnse ratgmfggLn G’_______“~“d,_l . the combined sample population was 57%. Hypotheses were developed from the following research question: Is there a significant relationship between the size of a music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in (1) departmental budgeting, (2) faculty evaluation, and (3) public relations? The hypotheses were tested using ANOVA at the .05 significance level. The Scheffe and Tukey Multiple Comparison tests were also utilized. The results of the tests indicate the following: (1) There is no significant difference in the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting and public relations. (2) There is a significant difference between the small music department and the large music department in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in faculty evaluation. Recommendations for further study are as follows: (1) A study of the selection process of administrators is needed. (2) A comparative study of programs designed to develop administrators is needed. (3) A descriptive analysis of job descriptions of chief administrators is needed. Copyright by BOBBY BLAKE 1991 DEDICATION In memory of my uncle, Mr. Robert Blake, whose life expired September 19, 1988. His moral and financial support will always be remembered. My successfull completion of this dissertation represent many sacrifices by family members and I dedicate this document to them as a token of my appreciation. fi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The manner in which one performs his occupation can make all the difference and cannot be totally relegated by superiors. Thanks to Dr. Kenneth Neff for being thorough, patient and very professional. A special thanks to Dr. Wanda Lipscomb who accepted me as an administrative intern. This dissertation could not have been successfully completed without her support. ifi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 0.0.InoooolooooooobttoooooaooooOODIIO. Vii LIST OF FIGURES o.o.noose-eno.o.eon...tooeoeooeoooeeooviii mug—3W1” Introduction to the Problem ....................... Variables ......................................... Purpose of the Study ............................. Research Questions ............................... Definitions ....................................... Need for the study ............................... Assumptions ....................................... Limitations and Delimitations ..................... WW Educational Administration: A Broad Context ....... Music Administration ............................. Administrative Turnovers in Music ................. Managerial Studies in Music ....................... Specific Studies Used to Develop the Theoretical Framework .................................... £hlflt§£.11__flsth9§919§! Population ....................................... The Stratified Population ......................... 10 11 12 20 25 30 38 48 51 Descriptive Survey Method ......................... Questionnaires Not Used .L......................... Bias I.I0.00.0.0000...II.......OOIOOIOIOOIOOOOOIOO Instrument Design ................................. validity and Reliability 0......IOICIOII-OUIIOOOIO Pilot Study Results ............................... Statistical Approach Level of Significance ............................. Size of the Sample Assumptions ....................................... Hypotheses ........................................ How the Data Were Secured ......................... WW Results of The Study Bar Graphs Null Hypothesis I . Null Hypothesis II ................................ Null Hypothesis III WM ouceuooooooooooooeoo9.00.00... Summary O0.0...IOOIII......IOIIOOOOIIIOOIII.0.00.00... Research Questions ... Discussion .....IOOIIOOOCOI...DOQOIUOOOOOIIOIDOOOIOI. Conclusions .......................................... other Observations ... Recommendations cocoooooeoooocooloooto-oocooluc cooOnococoooooooonooooooo-lone. 52 56 57 57 60 61 68 68 68 69 69 71 72 73 74 84 97 106 108 110 122 122 126 R. 'l APPENDICES Annendiu Position Notices .............................. 125 Figural ...-.....IOIOOOOUOOI....-...IIOOOIIDII128 Tab1e1-3 II.OOO.........IOIOOCICUOOCDOOOC... 129 Anoendixj Population (242 Institutions) ................. 132 AppendixJ: Model Scale II.I...-IIIOIIICIQOIOIOOIOOO0......146 Annendile Cover Letter 1 (Pilot Study) .................. 147 Cover Letter 2 (Sample Population) Questionnaire Pilot Study Evaluation AnnendixJ Computer Printouts (SPSSx) Tables4-16 I.0.000.000......-....IOOOIOOOODI 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY so.to.Itoa00..noooooooooooooooooooeoooooo 163 vi LIST OF TABLES Tflhlfi_1 - Numbers Composing The Small Sample Population ........................................ Tnhl§_2 - Numbers Composing The Medium Sample Population coco-0000....coo-coeooeoooooooooeeoooooo Tah1§_1 - Numbers Composing The Large Sample Population coo-cocoooloooloooeoooooooooooooocoooooo Tfihlfi_1 Tlhlfi_§ ANOVA Results Hypothesis I ................. Scheffe Results Hypothesis I ............... Tukey Results Hypothesis I ................. ANOVA Results Hypothesis II ................ Scheffe Results Hypothesis II .............. Tukey Results Hypothesis II ................ ANOVA Results Hypothesis III .............. Scheffe Results Hypothesis III ........... Tukey Results Hypothesis III .............. ANOVA Pooled Results ...................... Scheffe Pooled Results .................... Tukey Pooled Results ...................... Spearman Correlation Coefficients ......... 129 130 131 156 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 160 160 161 161 162 ... Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 LIST OF FIGURES Sampling Procedure ........................ 128 Preparing The Budget ...................... 76 Allocation Departmental Budget ............ 77 Approving Departmental Expenditures ...... 78 Responsibility For Departmental Budget .... 79 Preparing The Budget ...................... 80 Allocating Departmental Budget ............ 81 Approving Departmental Expenditures ...... 82 Responsibility For Departmental Budget .... 83 - Evaluating Faculty Performance .......... 85 Promoting Faculty Via Academic Rank ...... 86 Evaluating Faculty In Merit Pay .......... 87 Evaluating Faculty For Tenure ............ 88 Hiring Faculty Members ................... 89 Firing Faculty Members ................... 90 Evaluating Faculty Performance .......... 91 Promoting Faculty Via Academic Rank ...... 92 Evaluating Faculty In Merit Pay .......... 93 Evaluating Faculty For Tenure ............ 94 Hiring Faculty Members .................. 95 Firing Faculty Members .................. 96 Departmental Representative .............. 98 viii Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Departmental Departmental Departmental Departmental Departmental Departmental Departmental Literature For Recruitment Of Recruitment Of Representative Literature For Recruitment Of Recruitment Of The Public .. Students .... Faculty ...... The Public .. Students .... Faculty ...... 99 99 100 100 101 102 103 Chapter 1 W Music departments of institutions of higher education are generally headed by a chief music administrator. The chief music administrator may be referred to as chair-person, head, coordinator, director, or dean, depending on the choice of the institution. Although these terms are used to identify the top administrative position of the organizational structure of music programs in some institutions, basic research suggests that the duties and responsibilities are not always the same, nor are they clearly defined. According to House (1973), "There are some slight or imagined connotations associated with these various titles due largely to historical circumstance." (p. 39) Except in the case of independent music schools and conservatories, music programs exist as integral units within large institutional structures. Within these patterns, as we have pointed out, the size of a school system and the level of instruction have much to do with defining actual administrative roles. Titles alone do not provide a reliable index of real function. (House, 1973, p. 20) The aforementioned statements establish a need for an investigation of actual duties and responsibilities of chief music administrators. In addition, the relationship between the size of the music department and the duties and responsibilities of chief music administrators is worthy of investigation. Robert H. Klotman (1973) refers to elementary and secondary music education programs; nonetheless, the following statements pertaining to titles and positions 2 coincide with the views of Robert W. House. The music administrator may hold a variety of titles, but regardless of the official one given him by a school system if he is held responsible for the final decision from the music department, he is its chief administrator. Titles are mainly for identification purposes and will vary according to community size and salary schedules, which are constructed on work loads. In some instances, the official title will reflect the emphasis and significance that a particular community may hold for its music program. (Klotman, 1973, p. 19) Klotman adds that the title given an administrator basically reflects the administrator's importance to a particular community. In addition, he suggests that there is a relationship between titles, community size and workloads. But, those differences are not clearly defined. Furthermore, this research investigated exactly what chief music administrators do vis a vis duties and responsibilities and their perceived level of participation in decision making in the duties and responsibilities they perform. The first step was to locate literature stating specific duties of chief administrators. Heimler (1967) stated that the specific duties of a department chair are as follows: The chairman's job includes these specific tasks: (1) improving instruction; (2) developing and revising courses;( 3) making the semester schedule; (4) developing programs; major, minor, state teaching credential, M.A., General education; (5) recruiting faculty; (6) evaluating faculty and staff; (7) preparing the departmental budget; (8) administering the departmental budget; (9) reviewing and approving student petitions; (10) requisitioning textbooks and library materials; (11) maintaining departmental records; (12) attending meetings and conferences; (13) making faculty schedules; (14) responding to on-and off-campus inquiries regarding college program and regulations; (15) taking care of departmental correspondence; (16) writing student recommendations for employment and graduate school. 3 After reading several articles with numerous specific duties and responsibilities, the focus of this research was narrowed down to three areas pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of a department chair-person: departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. These administrative areas were chosen because the following evidence suggests that many department chairs have little or no training before performing tasks as chairs in the areas of budgeting, evaluation and public relations. According to Tucker (1984), a major problem facing a department chair is inadequate preparation to perform tasks expected of a manager as opposed to an academician. Three areas that managers are expected to perform adequately and are generally taught are budgeting, evaluation and public relations. On the other hand, training higher education administrators through degree programs in administration is a fairly new notion. A survey of more than 400 department chairs in the State University System of Florida by Alan Tucker (1977) showed that 68 percent of the department chairs had no previous administrative experience or training in administration. The potential or odds for disaster in terms of inadequate preparation for performing the tasks seemed overwhelmingly negative. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that many department chairs experienced similar problems as faced Patty Hawkins (a first year dean at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas in 1980). She stated the following about her experience: 4 Although I had viewed the budget in terms of faculty positions and salaries, staff, and facilities, I had not realized its full scope, nor had I realized that it also included dealing with unemployment compensation, equipment depreciation, and hundreds of supplies, projecting increases in telephone and postage rates: and trying to control run-away xeroxing costs. (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 1981, p. 23) The importance of faculty evaluation to a department chair-person can also be observed in the following quotation: Evaluation of faculty performance is one of the chair-person's most difficult and important responsibilities. Probably no other activity has more potential for strengthening or weakening the department over a period of years. One of the most important components of faculty evaluation is communication with each faculty'member regarding what is expected and.what will be evaluated. This communication can be in the form of a contract, a written memorandum of understanding, or an official assignment statement. A verbal understanding not in writing may not be enough. Handled properly, evaluation can improve faculty morale and result in a strong, effective department. Handled improperly, evaluation can destroy morale, decrease the chances for the department's success in meeting objectives, and place the chair-person on the receiving end of a long succession of grievances. Most colleges and universities have or should have official documents that provide specific information about the evaluation process, such as how often evaluations will be conducted, who will do the evaluating, in what form the evaluation will be submitted, who may use them, how they will be used, and what may be placed in the faculty member's personnel file. (Tucker, 1984, p. 143) Public relations is a very important function of a department chair-person. Chair-persons communicate with presidents, deans, registrars, personnel officers, maintenance personnel, faculty committees, and students. other constituents outside of the institution are alumni, state and federal government officials, legislators, civic organizations, regional and national professional 5 organizations, high-school and junior college students, parents, counselors, townspeople, and professional colleagues (Tucker, 1984). Knowing which button to push for each constituent can be a challenge for the seasoned chair-person and can be overwhelming to the inexperienced department chairperson. The academic department chair-person faces many different problems. Almost all his problems, however, involve people. It thus follows that if he has not previously learned the skills of dealing with people, he must soon acquire them. These leadership skills are frequently referred to as human relations skills or interpersonal skills. Probably 75 percent of the chair-person's time is devoted to talking with fellow faculty members, students, the dean, or with other members of his constituency who present unique or special problems of one kind or another. (Roach, 1976, p. 10) Job descriptions of chief music administrators of various music programs would give more insight as to what is expected of chief music administrators. However, the descriptions were not available and in some cases job descriptions for chief music administrators do not exist. Therefore, it was only fitting to look to other sources for basic descriptions. Turn to appendix A and view the position announcements taken from the Chronicle of Higher Education. While looking at the position announcements, the objective is to try to determine the duties and responsibilities of chief music administrators and their level of participation in decision-making in the administrative process by the information given. After looking at the job announcements, one can see that each institution expects the same or similar qualifications 6 of the chief music administrator; however, there is no clear picture of what is expected in terms of duties and responsibilities except in the two dean's positions. There is definitely a problem in interpreting exactly what a chief music administrator does at the other institutions by the information given. Thus, this research investigated this problem to determine if there were differences in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations in relationship to the size of the music department. As noted in the sources listed in appendix A, interpreting the duties and responsibilities as well as the perceived level of participation in decision making of chief music administrators in the administrative process was a difficult task because the duties and responsibilities were not clearly defined. In addition, the use of broad, general statements complicated the problem more. Now that a general picture of the problem has been presented, the researcher incorporated the following variables in the research design. W The independent variable in this research was the size of the music department. The size of the music department was determined by the number of full-time faculty employed. The researcher used four-year colleges and universities with music departments located in the mid-west region of the United States (as indicated in The College Music Society, 1987) . The dependent 7 variable in this research was the perceived level of participation in decision making of chief music administrators. The control variable in this research was the chief music administrator. This variable was held constant at each institution by researching the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators only. ENIDQEQ_9£_Ih§_fiin§! This research was developed to determine if there was a significant relationship between the size of the music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations at four year colleges and universities in the mid—west region of the United States. W Is there a significant relationship between the size of the music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in (1) departmental budgeting, (2) faculty evaluation, and (3) public relations at four year colleges and universities in the mid-west region of the United States? 11311111111911: Chie£_unsig_Administxatgr: The individual who is in charge of establishing departmental objectives and the essential management of all music degree programs. The individual may be referred to as the dean, coordinator, head, or chair-person of the music department. ; . . 8 mities: Tasks or functions that one is obligated to perform because of one's position. Duties are defined in job descriptions, contracts and/or institutional policies. Duties are tasks that are actually performed by the administrator. Responsibilities: Refer to that for which one is held accountable. The individual may or may not actually perform the task, but is held accountable. The actual duties may be assigned to another person but the overseer is responsible for any developments concerning the task. Budget: A budget is a statement of an organization's goals, plans, and priorities, for a specific period of time, expressed in financial terms (Nonnamaker, Spring 1987, EAD 851H, Budgeting in Higher Education Classnotes) . The budgeting process is used to achieve the organization's mission, goals, and objectives. malnation: The act of valuing or rating. "A necessary condition for effective evaluation is clear, specific criteria. Four kinds of personnel decisions based on performance evaluation data must be made each academic year: (1) promotion decisions; (2) tenure decisions; (3) annual assessments; and (4) recommendations for merit pay." (Tucker, 1984, p. 151) W: The act of communicating in behalf of an organization to the general public. Acting as a designated spokesperson for an organization or institution in oral and written communication. The individual represents the organization or institution. Wm: A designed curriculum in a college or university which grants music degrees. W: Refers to the entire music unit including any sub-divisions (i.e., Music School, Conservatory or Department) . Size_o£_the_Musi_c_Depar_unent: Refers to the total number of full-time faculty members in the department. A small music department is one that has up to nine full-time faculty members. A medium sized department is one that has between ten and nineteen full-time faculty members. A large department is one that has twenty or more full—time faculty members. (Tucker, 1984). WWW refers to the degree of involvement or authority of the chief music administrator. Wes: The states that were included in this research were Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. W The need for this and similar studies is of vital importance to music administrators, educators and others who wish to pursue similar avenues in research. Declining enrollments, new strategies in state resource allocations, growing needs for continuing education in all academic fields, and changes in institution and state priorities have forced institutions and departments to merge, change organizational structures, and undoubtedly change the level of participation in decision-making of the duties and responsibilities of chief administrators. For those reasons, this research will present 10 needed answers pertaining to the impact of change on music departments in higher education. One common practice, according to the review of literature, is that a successful teacher, scholar or researcher is often chosen to be an administrator. Is this the most effective way to develop administrators? A successful teacher does not equal a successful administrator. There is a need for any chief educational administrator to have a foundation in budgeting, educational law, curriculum development, evaluations, and public relations. For these reasons, research into the perceived level of participation in the actual duties and responsibilities of chief administrators in all academic areas is needed so that training programs can be adequately developed for each field of study. Furthermore, more detailed job descriptions of the specified duties and responsibilities can be created as a result of similar research. Assumptions 1. The perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators was accurately measured. 2. There is a relationship between the size of the music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. 3. Subjects used in the study did accurately report their perceived level of participation in decision-making in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. 11 4. The necessary variables were included in the research design. Win: This study was limited and delimited as follows: 1. Only four year institutions of higher education from the mid-west (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin) region of the United States with a music department as indicated in The College Music Society (1987) were used in the study. 2. Since 1987, there were changes in the status of the music departments of some institutions (i.e., school closed, department demolished, increase or decrease in the department size). I 3. All questionnaires were not usable because many questions were not sufficiently answered. 4. Survey methods have inherent limitations including the adequacy of instrument design, clarity, response rate, etc... 5. Chief music administrators were the only subjects to respond to the questionnaire. 6. The research will only cover the perceived level of participation in decision-making pertaining to departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations of chief music administrators. Chapter 2 Wine The administration of music programs at both collegiate and public school levels is in need of serious attention.... A composer, performer, or musicologist tonight, a music administrator tomorrow morning. The frequent result is a level of ineptness in fiscal, facilities, and personnel management that would not be tolerated for a day in a commercial operation. (Leonhard, 1984, p. 62) This chapter provides a formal description of the theoretical framework of this study and establishes the foundation of this research via complete documentation for the study's context, problem, hypotheses, significance, and methodology. It acknowledges existing research regarding the problem. The concept of administration in school and university music units was adopted from business management and educational administration. For that reason, it is only fitting that pertinent studies in the aforementioned academic fields are acknowledged. This literature review will proceed from a general, broad context to a Specific, focused review of literature pertaining to music units. “WW3 As a point of departure, literature related to chief administrators (duties, responsibilities, roles, and functions) across the educational spectrum was viewed to get a general perspective of how similar studies had been conducted. In addition, these studies were viewed because chief administrators generally make decisions about their own duties and responsibilities, depending on their role or function in 12 13 the educational setting. Many studies have been conducted pertaining to the roles, duties, functions, responsibilities and aspects of decision-making regarding chief administrators. However, the following studies do not focus on the level of participation in decision-making (regarding department budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations) as related to the size of a specific academic unit. The studies reviewed in this section were selected because they offered insight as to specific variables used in this research and insights pertaining to procedures and methodologies in conducting studies that focus on chief administrators. Chairing the Academic Department (Tucker, 1984) was one of the sources from which the foundation for the theoretical framework of this study was developed. The book delineates procedures, common practices, problems and policies that are common to all academic departments. Although the entire book was useful, the chapters pertaining to the Chairpersons' Roles (Chapter 1) , Types of Departments (Chapter 2) , Department Decision-Making (Chapter 6), Faculty Evaluation (Chapter 8) and The Budget Cycle (Chapter 14) were especially instrumental in building the conceptual framework of this study. The definition for the differences in the department size (small, medium and large) was extracted from this source. As institutions have grown more complex, more decisions are being made by chair-persons. As the basic academic unit, the department is the place where colleges and universities actually conduct the majority of their activities. Decisions made here are very difficult to undo elsewhere. Effective leadership and competent administration of the department, therefore, are 14 essential to the sound operation of the institution. (Tucker, 1984, p. xi) If the majority of decisions are made at the department level; what is the perceived level of participation in the decision-making process of the chief administrator of the department? This research provides a documentation of the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators. Robert A. Scott (1980) presented a paper at a National League for Nursing Conference in New York on November 20, 1980. His presentation addressed aspects of a department chair-person including role ambiguity, stress, suggestions for new department heads and a bibliography. Scott discussed department heads; ..." who they are and what they look like in aggregate: what they do-i.e, their role and function; and why they do what they do, why what they do is important and why what they do will be different in the future." (Scott, 1980, p. 4) Most department heads are chosen from their department faculties on the basis of personal characteristics and scholarly competence. They are then socialized, not trained, by interactions with others. As a consequence, role expectations and feedback can result in role ambiguity and uncertainty. (Scott, 1980, p. 4) Scott also listed a host of duties and functions that chair-persons of departments are generally expected to perform. The particular demands on a department head vary greatly and are at least in part a consequence of department size. In a department of three or four faculty and one secretary, the chair-person may indeed be an amateur who convenes his colleagues as a committee of the whole. In a large department with several dozen faculty, graduate and post-doctoral students, research assistants, technicians, and secretaries, the wise chair-person will have a full-time executive officer and by laws that specify organizational principles and 15 departmental procedures. Nevertheless, it is important for all chair-persons to know about institutional services to call upon for technical assistance. (Scott, 1980, p. 9) This paper was important to the present research because it offered insights as to what one could expect concerning the duties and responsibilities of a chair-person in relationship to the size of the faculty and staff. Furthermore, Scott addressed role ambiguity and why it exists. A study conducted by Blalock (1987) was designed to identify the administrative development needs of department chairmen in five selected four-year, private, liberal arts colleges. Chairmen were instructed to identify their own duties from a list of twenty-six. From the list of twenty-six, the responsibilities identified as most important were as follows: academic program, faculty concerns, and operation of the department. The major problems identified were personnel issues and budgetary limitations. The most time-consuming responsibilities were academic program and administrative details. Interviews were conducted with 70 department chairmen and the academic deans and presidents of each of the participating institutions. Given an additional list of 14 administrative skills, the chairmen were most concerned about developing human relations skills, effective decision-making, managing conflict, representing divergent groups, motivating faculty, time management, handling department correspondence, and evaluating faculty. The chairmen were also instructed to show preference for a type of forum designed to develop 16 administrative skills. The most popular forum preferred was a workshop or regional seminar with individual and group activities conducted during the school year by a team of consultants. Both academic deans and presidents agreed on the importance of curricula and faculty-related responsibilities and on human relations skills as most important to the successful performance of a department chairman. Over one—half of the department chairmen indicated a positive attitude toward developing administrative skills. Sixty percent of the deans and presidents thought there was a need for administrative skill development for chairmen, but more than half of the deans were not interested in establishing such a program and more than half of the presidents were interested. (Blalock, 1987, p. 1996-A) This study substantiated the importance of public relations, faculty evaluation, and budgeting to a department chair-person. Furthermore, more than half of the department chairmen in the study showed a positive attitude towards developing administrative skills. Thus, attempts have been made to strengthen the needed administrative skills of department chair-persons. The Dean As Administrator: Roles, Functions and Attributes is a compilation of presentations from six deans of college nursing programs as part of an Executive Development Series (I) entitled Have You Ever Thought of Being a Dean? The presentations were presented in 1980-81 at regional meetings of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. According to information disseminated in the presentations, candidates approaching a deanship for the first time were overwhelmed by the demands of the position, and very few people understand 17 or ever have a chance to have a conversation with a dean to find out what a dean does. Furthermore, misconceptions about the dean's position are numerous. This study orientated individuals interested in becoming a dean of nursing colleges by offering a hands-on look at the deanship. A two-day workshop was developed at various regions to inform individuals about the roles and functions of deans of college nursing programs. The workshop started with job descriptions of deans of nursing colleges. Administrative exercises were introduced to develop skills and knowledge about budgeting and other administrative responsibilities. The six deans made presentations on topics related to administrative duties and responsibilities. This research was especially important to the present research because the deans stated experiences and problems that they had faced as deans and told how the problems could have been remedied or prevented with similar workshops. As mentioned in the introduction to the problem, Patty L. Hawkens, Dean of the School of Nursing at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas stated her experience when first developing a budget. Although I had viewed the budget in terms of faculty positions and salaries, staff, and facilities, I had not realized its full scope, nor had I realized that it also included dealing with unemployment compensation, equipment depreciation, and hundreds of supplies, projecting increases in telephone and postage rates: and trying to control run-away xeroxing costs. (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 1980-1981, p. 23) Information of this nature assisted the researcher in formulating specific questions for collecting data. This was 18 done by observing the various problems stated by the deans. In addition, the procedures used for orientating prospective deans (workshops for orientating administrators) of college nursing programs assisted the researcher in developing recommendations for developmental research. In an effort to determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between the leadership style of university academic department heads and the organizational climate in academic departments, Davis (1978) analyzed the leadership style and organizational climate of 43 academic departments and department heads containing 599 faculty members at a mid-western university. The following variables were also considered: (1) Department heads' situational control, ( 2) department size, (3) department heads' academic discipline, and (4) years' experience as a department head. Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC), Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure and Position Power questionnaires were used to determine department heads' leadership style and degree of situational control. Faculty members reported measures of organizational (department) climate on Likert and Likert's Profile of Organizational Characteristics (POC). Multiple linear regression coefficients (R2) with corresponding F ratios and probability levels were computed for all statistical hypotheses at the alpha .05 level. (Davis, 1978, p. 1946—A) The results were as follows: (1) There was no significant relationship between task—oriented leadership styles of department heads and department size, measures of situational control, and experience as a department head; (2) Department leadership, motivation, communication, decision-making, goal setting, and control were positively and linearly related; and 19 (3) Department size in this study did not play a significant role in relationship to the leadership style of the department head. A graduate seminar paper completed by Frank E. Parcells (1981) defined the role, duties and responsibilities of chief vocational education administrators in community colleges. Parcells used a survey to collect data on vocational education administrators of community colleges in the State of California. The findings were used to develop job descriptions for administrators of vocational education programs. The approach used in Parcells's research offered insights about procedures in collecting data on duties and responsibilities of chief administrators. The data collected in Parcells's study was also used to develop job description. The aforementioned studies were presented to give a general context and understanding of the foundation of this research as it relates to other academic disciplines. It is evident that the roles, duties and functions of chief administrators are not always clearly defined and this makes it arduous to ascertain information about the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. Nevertheless, there have been many studies developed over the last decade that merge the fields of music and administration. In effort to present background and historical significance to the field of music administration and to the research at hand, the next section covers general 20 studies in music administration. “Minimization A recent publication (The Business of Administration and Supervision in Music Education: A Selective Annotated Bibliography) by Dr. Louis R. Rossman (1989) listed 469 annotated bibliographies of publications that span the fields of'business administration, education administration and music administration. In addition to the substantial list of books, articles, dissertations, conference and seminar papers as well as a list of other publications, the book includes a subject index that was used to research publications related to specific topics (i.e., Budgeting, Faculty Evaluation, and Public Relations). An author index completes the contents of the book. This book was extremely helpful in locating recent publications related to the present research. Rossman thoroughly summarized the contents of the 469 publications. Three studies (by’Wilson, 1964; Baker, 1967; and Hannewald, 1974;) focus on one or'more of the variables (size, budgeting, faculty evaluation, public relations, and/or decision-making) used in the present research in the context of a music unit. In addition, these studies are significant because they enrich the historical development of research in music administration in higher education over the last 26 years. A dissertation written by Harry Robert Wilson (1964 ) combined general factors of administration with the administration of a college music department. The study was developed through 21 selected literature on music education and administration. Some factors considered in the study were decision-making, planning, organization, coordination, communication, cooperation, departmental structure and evaluation. In the conclusion section of the research, nine principles were presented as guides to effective administration of college music departments. Those principles stated in his dissertation (pp. 265-268) are as follows: 1. Departmental objectives should be determined, based on overall institutional objectives and. a written statement prepared -- write it down and be certain that all pertinent constituencies are informed; their understanding will affect the overall progress. 2. Departmental policy in relation to institutional policy should be developed as needed, and clearly defined. 3. Structure administrative activities to forward departmental goals. Let the pattern of administrative activities evolve out of a definition of functions to be performed and the assignment of specific staff to carry them out. 4. Responsibility with commensurate authority should be assigned those individuals qualified to carry out the appropriate tasks required. 5. Improving human relations should be given increasing emphasis and consideration. Human relations is a continuous thread running throughout all evolving concepts of educational administration. 6. Adequate provisions for comprehensive and efficient operational activities relative to departmental functions should be made and continually reinforced. Give personnel the facilities and tools with which to do the job well. 7. Integrity is the most fundamental principle of all and should be the rock upon which the house is built--its very basic foundation. 8. Democracy is the climate in which the departmental operation should exist. It is the medium which conditions, to a certain extent, motivation and thereby controls the yield of the end product. 9. Constant evaluation, both long and short-term, should obtain, if adequate adjustment is to be realized in attaining goals. 22 In the previous recommendations, the significance of evaluation and developing human relations skills was stressed. The appendix section of the aforementioned research included a bibliography list of 1,243 sources pertaining to the fields of music and educational administration. Also in the appendix section, a description of the survey used to develop some portions of the dissertation was presented. This description was of assistance when developing the questionnaire used for the present research. Baker (1967) conducted a study to obtain information about the practices and problems among Southern Baptist college music administrators and among a group of selected (non-Southern Baptist) church related college music administrators. He compared the data of the two groups with the standards published by the American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Schools of Music, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. A thirteen page questionnaire developed from Baker's personal experience, research and the refinements of a pilot study' was used. Interviews with ten music administrators and nine deans from ten selected Southern Baptist Colleges were also used. The following findings were summarized from the data in his dissertation (pp. 2-3): (1) The average class and applied music teaching load 5 for all of the music administrators surveyed was twelve and one-half semester hour. (2) The median number of full-time faculty members employed by the Southern Baptist Colleges was 7; the median number of part-time faculty members was 1.50. (3) The average undergraduate teaching load for the Southern Baptist College music department faculties 23 was 15 semester hours. (4) Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the Southern Baptist college music administrators estimated one semester hour of private music teaching was equivalent to two-thirds of an hour of class teaching. (5) The principal problems indicated by the music administrators of both groups of colleges included the following: (1) too heavy teaching loads, (2) inadequate musical backgrounds of freshman music students, (3) too small attendance at music programs, (4) inadequate music buildings, (5) inadequate practice rooms, (6) inadequate band and orchestra facilities, (7) inadequate music listening equipment, (8) inadequate score holdings for undergraduate and graduate music programs, and (9) inadequate music book and periodical holdings for the graduate program. This study was important to the present research because questions pertaining to the level of involvement in decision-making of chief music administrators (in relationship to the problems presented) were developed as a result of the aforementioned information. Furthermore, background information regarding problems facing music administrators was presented. Hannewald (1974) developed a study to determine the administrative functioning of the music units of member institutions of the National Association of Schools of Music. A survey was used to gather data. Ten administrative areas composed the contents of the questionnaire: (a) policy and decision-making, (b) supervision, (c) regulations and planning, (d) faculty concerns, (e) student services, (f) facilities and equipment, (9) curriculum and instruction, (h) research and services, (i) finances, and (j) public relations. Music units from four types of institutions were sent questionnaires: (1) independent conservatories and schools of music, 24 (2) conservatories and schools of music as professional schools of larger institutions, (3) divisions of music within larger institution, and (4) department of music within colleges. The response rate of the questionnaires was 55.8 percent. The findings were as follows: (1) Similarities were recognized among all music units when executive authority was exercised in faculty matters, policy making, planning, facilities, and finances. (2) There was no clear'pattern in the administration of tasks in curriculum and instruction and in-services for students. (3) There was no student involvement in administration. (4) The organizational structure and management styles were termed traditional. The conclusions of the study were as follows: (1) Planning must be implemented in administrative matters. (2) There is much ambiguity in the duties and responsibilities of music administrators. (3) Some administrative tasks can be delegated to non-academic personnel instead of faculty. (4) Seven recommendations were listed to help improve the administrative functioning of music units. This study was important to the present research because Hannewald actually analyzed decision-making as it related to policy making. Again, it was noted that the duties and responsibilities of music executives have not been clearly defined according to the second conclusion. Moreover, as a result of the vast number of problems, administrators of higher education institutions have witnessed many turnovers in the chief music administrative position. 25 W The following studies were included in this review of literature because many of the problems experienced by music administrators indirectly present information pertaining to their perceived level of involvement in administrative areas and the impact of many variables on their positions. Furthermore, a general background of common problems facing music executives was needed to develop a conceptual framework for the present research. An article written by Robert L. Cowden, chairman of the department of music at Indiana State University in 1984 , focused on 273 four-year degree-granting institutions that were members of the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) during the 1977-1981 period. Sixty Two (62) percent of the institutions experienced music administrative turnovers during 1977-1981. The findings stated that music administrative turnovers in both private and public institutions happened on campuses where music enrollments were smallest. The following reasons were given by academic officers of institutions used in the study: . . .chose to return to teaching, moved, retired, finished term, was 'nudged out', was terminated, died. Other reasons given include: went to a position outside music, was promoted, combined music with another department, and failed the review process. (Cowden, 1984, p. 46) Size (in terms of the number of students enrolled in music) had an impact on administrative turnovers according to the article. In addition, it was noted that music administrators of institutions of higher education have confronted 26 departmental mergers and closings, and this has affected the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators. The following percentages were further delineated: Among private institutions with 51 to 100 music majors, the turnover rate of administrators was 24 percent; for those with 1 to 50 music majors, the turnover rate was 75 percent. Among public institutions, 46 percent of those departments with 101 to 200 music majors sustained a change in administrators, and 79 percent of those with 1 to 100 music majors were involved in a turnover. (Cowden, 1984, p. 46) Again, size (in relationship to the number of music majors) seemed to have had a significant impact on the turnover rates of chief music administrators at institutions used in this study. The method used for reporting the findings (percentage form) was also used in the present research. Cornelius (1986) conducted a study to determine the relationship between college and university chief music administrators and institutional factors responsible for job turnover rates among chief music administrators. The following institutional factors were evaluated in the study: collective bargaining, program budget reduction, faculty tenure ratios, changes in full-time part-time faculty ratios, faculty retrenchment, reduction of non-academic staff, administration reorganization, institutional support for the arts, and enrollment trends. Cornelius also compared the reasons given for job turnover rates of new, short-term, and long-term chief music administrators. A questionnaire was sent to all full member schools of the National Association of Schools of Music 27 (NASM). Three hundred forty—nine (83.7%) of the participating sample replied to the questionnaire. Chi-square was used to detect statistical significance of seven hypotheses. Significant results were revealed in the following instances: (1) turnover of chief music administrators and the presence of reorganization of the music unit. (2) chief music administrators length of service and the presence of reorganization of the music unit, and (3). the chief music administrator's length of service and the presence of reduction of non-academic music staff. Analysis also revealed that 77.0% of the respondents were serving in their first positions as chief music administrator and that only 13.5% of those surveyed had served any other institution in that role during the period of the study, thereby raising questions regarding the existence of a career path in college music administration. (Cornelius, 1986, p. 799) This study was useful to the present research because it revealed problems facing chief'music administrators pertaining to budgeting and faculty department size. Furthermore, some portions of the methodology was used as a guide in presenting the results of the present research. The results stated in Cornelius's study supported the hypotheses of the research at hand. Background informationlpertaining to the administrative experiences of chief music administrators was presented with a variety of variables. Prescott (1983) investigated "the possible impacts of job preparation and administrative training, levels of compensation, psychological dispositions and various demographic factors on turnover among university and collegemusic department chair-persons and.band.directors." (p. 1238) Four Hundred (400) music departments composed the sample 28 taken from 1,307 four year universities and colleges with a curriculum in music and music education. A questionnaire was developed to record reasons for turnovers. The results of the questionnaire were compared with variables thought to influence turnover. Reasons for turnovers were categorized in one of the following areas: preparatory, compensatory, psychological and demographic. The results of the study showed that factors noted under preparatory factors (including the following: administrative training, number of earned degrees, management seminars and workshops) impacted turnover more than factors listed under compensatory, psychological and demographic factors. The fact of the matter was that the more formal administrative training of the respondents, the less likely chance turnover occurred among the sample. Psychological factors such as job aspirations, job expectations, their status and degree of job satisfaction was next in importance according to the results of the study. Factors listed under the Compensatory category were found to be less of an influence on turnover than the two previously mentioned categories. Demographic factors ranked last among the other categories. "Sufficient evidence has been gathered; changes are suggested in the methods and curriculum for training music department chair-persons and band directors." (Prescotts, 1983, p. 1238) Prescott's study was important to the present research because he analyzed the reasons and decisions for turnovers among chief music administrators. In addition, the methodology used to gather and report data was useful in presenting insight 29 in collecting and reporting data for the present research. Information from this study was also used to develop recommendations for further study. Prescott's study looked at the administrative training, earned degrees of the administrators and other background information of music administrators. It is fitting that the next study pertaining to the backgrounds of administrators is presented in this section. Chang (1984) conducted an analysis of the backgrounds and leadership styles of music administrators in higher education. Specifically, he compared the differences and similarities among music administrators in bachelor, master's, and doctorate degree granting institutions. Three instruments were used in data collection and they were as follows: A Survey of Academic leadership: Who is the Music Administrator, Leadership Style: Autocratic or Democratic, and LBDQ—Form XII: Initiating Structure or Consideration. The analysis of data was done by using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) and Wylbur language. The findings consisted of a list of information pertaining to the personal backgrounds, professional backgrounds and professional activities of the music administrators used in the study. This research was extremely helpful in that it presented documented activities and characteristics of music administrators. In addition, questions developed in the Background Information Section on the questionnaire used in the present research was influenced by the information presented 30 in Chang's research. IANAGERIAL_§THDIES_IN_HHSIQ The following studies were grouped together because the studies present the duties and responsibilities of' music administrators in conjunction with management theory and approach. Three Case Studies of Public Universities (one in Kentucky, one in Virginia, and one in West Virginia) were written by Schmidt (1982) that described the nature of a music administrator's job in terms of administrative activities, characteristics of managerial work, and managerial roles performed. Data was collected as follows: (1) Literature review of higher education music administration, educational administration, and management theory; and (2) an on-site structured observation of three in-service, higher education music administrators of'middle-sized public university schools or departments of music for three days each. The results of the study indicated that a typical workday of the population observed included 17 desk work sessions in which 30 pieces of mail were processed; 13 brief telephone calls; 3 scheduled meetings; and 1 tour. On the average, a typical day consisted of six and one half hours and 49 distinct activities. Managerial work characteristics of music administrators observed in this study were as follows: constant pace of work; mixture of handling trivial and important activities; 58% of administrative work time was spent in verbal contact media; desk work sessions consumed 40% of the administrative work 31 time; scheduled meetings consumed the largest part (44%) of the total time spent on administrative contacts; interactions were primarily on a one-to-one basis; and interactions with subordinates consumed 60% of all contact time. Ten managerial roles of music administrators were categorized into three categories: interpersonal, decisional, and informational. The administrator's role as information provider was utilized 54% of the administrative work time. According to Schmidt, the other roles noted most important were interpersonal, leader, decisional and resource allocator. This study was important because it offered insights pertaining to the time (in percentages) consumed by the duties and responsibilities of chief music administrators. This research also presented insight pertaining to the perceived level of involvement in the duties and responsibilities of chief music administrators. A study by McMinn (1980) was designed to develop and recommend a strategic planning model to higher education music administrators. One of the objectives of the study was to determine the unique aspects that influence planning for a music unit. The goal was to develop a model that included concepts of strategic planning that could be used in the planning process for higher education music administrators. A survey was sent to 49 institutions to assess the planning practices of music administrators. The return rate of the questionnaire was 71 percent. The survey indicated that there was no systematic approach to strategic planning used by music 32 administrators of higher education institutions. A discussion of the ways in which music administration is unique among educational administration was derived from personal interviews and readings in the literature. The discussion centered around the nine main areas of responsibility of a music executive; faculty and personnel, curriculum, organization, fiscal management, facilities and equipment, community services and public relations, music students, scheduling, and library and audio center. The discussion highlighted many planning variables which a music executive must consider and emphasized the complex nature of music administration. (McMinn, 1980, p. 2987) A strategic planning model was developed by comparing and contrasting strategic planning models in the business field. Five music administrators evaluated the model that consisted of four packets of materials including the following: (1) Introduction to Strategic Planning, (2) The Model in Descriptive and Chart Form, (3) The Model From a Business Perspective, and (4) The Model Applied to Music Administration. The planning model was recommended to be used in the following ways: (1) A primary planning tool, ( 2) A supplement to existing strategic planning efforts, and (3) to develop strategic thought patterns to be used in developing other strategic patterns. This study was pertinent because McMinn observed many segments of administration of music programs including public relations and budgeting. Information pertaining to basic decisions in regards to public relations and budgeting was stated. Information related to budget-planning presented in McMinn's study was used to develop background for understanding in planning a budget for music units. 33 Kathryn Ann Martin ( 1986) conducted a study that investigated the congruence or lack of congruence between the department chair's perceptions of the management and leadership responsibilities of the department chair and the dean's expectations of the department chair's responsibilities in the areas of management and leadership in schools\colleges of fine arts in state supported institutions with membership in the International Council of Fine .Arts Deans (ICFAD). 'The population consisted of fine arts deans and the chairs of music, art, and drama. A cross-sectional questionnaire was used to gather data. The total target population consisted of 368 individuals. There was an eighty-four percent (84%) response rate to the questionnaires. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: Demographic, Management, and Leadership. Subcategories were as follows: administrative responsibilities, interpersonal communication, faculty development and curriculum. The data was evaluated with statistical analysis by computer using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSSx). "Statistical significance was infrequent. However, the lack of congruity implies practical significance, impacting day to day decision-making and administrative functions of management and leadership." (Martin, 1986, p. 2911) Martin's research was important to the present research because she focused on perceptions of management and leadership responsibilities of department chairs and deans. The present research focused on the chair-persons' perception of the level 34 of involvement in decision-making in relationship to budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations. The questionnaire developed to measure perception and the general approach of Martin's research was helpful in developing the methodology for the present research. A study conducted by Sinclair (1986) described the relationship of the role and scope of music administrations in higher education to a managerial administrative leadership model. A questionnaire divided into four sections was used to collect data. Section one of the questionnaire covered demographic information. Section two established the administrator's responsibilities, level of authority, and degree of involvement in executing a list of 108 tasks. Section three consisted of a quiz designed to evaluate the music administrator's participative management technique. Section four consisted of a leadership test designed to identify the music administrator's leadership style. Sinclair received 156 questionnaires from current higher education music administrators. Results from sections one and two were stated using descriptive statistics. Chi-Square was used to evaluate the results of null hypotheses. The test scores indicated that the cumulative leadership style of music administrators was impacted by the fact.that they did.not feel secure in their position and often did not have the ability to delegate responsibility. This study was pertinent because Sinclair actually focused on the degree of involvement of chief music administrators in 35 108 administrative tasks. This research also focused on the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators. The methodology used in detecting degree of involvement was useful in the development of the measuring scale in the present research. According to Mitchell (1986) , academic leadership studies have not stressed the significance of strategies used in the primary work unit to increase faculty performances and job satisfaction in effort to enhance department effectiveness. The purpose of her research was to developed and test a theory of chair-person management. Strategies were developed from information gathered during interviews of nineteen department chair-persons at three comprehensive universities in three mid-western states. Mitchell used a constraint comparative method to collect and analyze the data. Evidence is presented to support the theory generated: The congruent interaction of the chair-person's values (basic beliefs) , the department's stage of development (goals), and the management strategies (leadership activities and actions) utilized assures chair-person leadership effectiveness; effectiveness is further enhanced by congruence in values and goals in faculty and administrative levels, and chair-person's acquisition and control of resources. (Mitchell, 1987, p. 3995) This study was helpful because Mitchell observed a specific academic unit (music) and focused on the operative management theory of the chair-person based on the chair-person's perception. In addition, faculty enhancement in terms of productivity and satisfaction were key factors in determining the effectiveness of the management theory. In Mitchell's 36 study, the importance of faculty was stressed in the evaluation of the chief music administrator's management style. The perceived level of participation in decision making of chief music administrators was influenced (in some way) by the faculty of the department, according to some previous statements. The present research investigated the relationship between department size (the number of full-time faculty) and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators. Although budgeting, faculty evaluation, public relations and decision-making have been mentioned in a great deal of the literature, the next study focused on the manner in which faculty evaluations have been conducted by some member institutions of the National Association of Schools of Music. A.descriptive study by Hipp (1979) was developed with.the purpose of determining the practices employed in the evaluation of music faculty in colleges and universities affiliated with the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Four-Hundred-Sixty-Three (member NASM) schools were surveyed and a response rate of 78. 6 percent was achieved. Specifically, Hipp wanted to determine if there were significant relationships between the category of the institution (state supported institutions offering only undergraduate degrees in music, state supported institutions offering graduate degrees in music, privately supported institutions offering only undergraduate degrees in. music, and privately' supported institutions offering graduate degrees in music) and faculty 37 evaluation practices. The instrument used to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables was the Cramer's V statistical measurement. Hipp also wanted to know the importance of the sources of evidence regarding faculty evaluation, and who participated in the decision-making affecting the awarding of promotions in rank, tenure, and merit increases in salary. Last, he wanted to know the relative value of the uses of the results of faculty evaluation in music. The results of the study show that significant relationships exist at the .05 level between category of institution and the following elements in the faculty evaluation process: 1) the role of the music executive, 2) the make-up of the special faculty committee on evaluation, 3) the utilization of specialized evaluative instruments, 4) colleague evaluation, and 5) the self generated report of professional activities. Among the sixteen criteria specified in the survey, significant relationships were found to exist at the .05 level between institutional categories and the relative importance of course development, music performance, composition/creative output, research, publications, continued professional development, advising and counselling activities, professional status, length of service, service to the music unit, service to the profession, and public service. Statistical evidence was found which indicates the existence of significant relationships at the .05 level between institutional categories and the relative importance of tenured music faculty, the special faculty committee, and the music executive as formal participants in decision-making for either promotions, tenure, or merit salary increases. (Hipp, 1979, p. 3176) Hipp's research is important to the present research because the two studies focused .on faculty evaluation. In addition, Hipp's research presented useful information regarding individuals involved in evaluating faculty for promotion, tenure and merit pay. This‘information was used 38 to develop questions for the present research regarding faculty evaluation. ‘e;e e: e .. 9;;0 09’: 00 a 0-0 _ - '-n;e The most impressive book that addressed the administration of music programs was that of Robert W. House (1973). House stated that the size of a music program will have an effect on the duties of a chief music administrator. In addition, he presented several ways that duties might vary in relationship to the size of the music program as noted below: Of course, the relative size and historical development of the music unit will somewhat affect the specific duties of the music executive officer. When he has a significant teaching load, or where the size of the music faculty exceeds the normal span of control, an executive assistant is usually appointed to assume part the administrative task. In quite large institutions, where subdivisions of the music unit occurs, many executive functions are delegated to the heads of these sub-divisions; in such case, the music chairman actually assumes many of the functions of a dean. Conversely, in small institutions, there is a tendency for the fine arts dean or school principal to retain a more active role in decision making for the music unit. But, since the music program is essentially unique and individual, it is generally the case that the chief executive officer for music is expected to discharge the essential responsibilities for“management. f that.unit. (House, 1973, p. 40) After reading that passage, it is reasonable to assume that their are definitely differences in the perceived level of participation in decision making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations in relationship to the size of the music department. However, the following questions were not answered: 1. How small or how large should the music department be before it is impacted? 2. To what degree is the perceived 39 level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators inldepartmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations different? 3. There are some music departments that are neither large or small. Are they affected differently? The following theory was also extracted from the quote stated by House (1973): The chief music administrator at a small institution and department will participate with less involvement than a chief music administrator at a large institution and department because of the organizational structure of the department. Is the organizational structure significantly correlated with the size of the faculty? These questions were addressed in the present research. According to Glidden (1988), people are confused about the difference between a collegiate music department, a school of music, and a college of music because the nomenclature has not been standardized. His definition and function of the terms are as follows: The terms department, school , and college do not reflect differences in size but, rather relationships with other units within a college or university. Typically, a department is headed by a chair-person and is part of a larger unit within the institution, such as a college of arts and sciences or a college of fine arts. A department chair-person, therefore, usually reports to a dean, who in turn reports to an academic vice-president. The term school usually refers to a professional unit for a single discipline, as opposed to a college, which would typically house several disciplines. Schools are usually headed by deans or directors -- aldean.if that person reports directly to the vice-president, a director if the school is part of a larger professional unit, such as a college of fine arts. There are a few colleges of music in the United States -- they are equivalent to professional 40 schools in which the dean reports directly to a vice-president. The important difference in structure is not in the title of the unit but in the allocation of resources and determination of policies and practices related to such important matters as tenure, promotion, and faculty appointments. Music units that have relative autonomy, that is, those in which the administrator reports directly to a vice-president for academic affairs, usually have an advantage in all of these matters. One less administrative layer means one less level to which music's special needs must be interpreted. (Glidden, Music Education in the United states (Chapter 15) , 1988, p. 249) The information in the aforementioned quote suggests that the chief music administrators' position in the organizational structure of the institution is the most vital factor in control of his or her level of involvement in decision-making. This study had substantial influence on recommendations for further study listed in Chapter Five of the present research. Herbert Harold Henke's dissertation (1966) presented existing patterns of organization and administration for music education degree programs throughout the United States. Three hundred forty-six music education chairmen from colleges and universities throughout the country participated in the study. The questionnaire form of inquiry was used with tape-recorded discussions and personal interviews. The results of the study were as follows: the size of the institution, the campus organizational plan, and the number of music education students had no bearing upon the patterns used for the organization and administration of music education degree programs. Furthermore, the topic of this research (The Perceived Level Of Participation In Decision-Making Of Chief Music 41 Administrators In Relationship To The Size Of The Music Unit In Budgeting, Faculty Evaluation, And Public Relations) was developed from a recommendation of Henke ' 8 study. The recommendation was that a study of the roles and functions of chairmen or coordinators of music education degree programs was needed. According to Henke's study, the size of the institution and the number of students enrolled in the music education program did not make a significant difference in the organizational structure nor the administration of music education degree programs as perceived by 346 music education chairmen throughout the country. This study was conducted in 1966. The above study was very important to this research because it served as a structural, organizational, and methodological guide. The data collection procedures were readily adapted. Although Henke ' 8 study stated that the size of the music program had no effect on the organization and administration of music education degree programs for the population studied, other sources (Klotman, House, 1973) state that the size of the music program will affect the duties and responsibilities of chief music administrators and inevitably effect the perceived level of participation in decision-making. Penland (1983) conducted a study of the 1980-1981 status of the organization and administration of academic music units in higher education. The purpose of the study was to determine if the title of the unit and the location of the unit within 42 the institution made a significant difference in major organizational and administrative processes. .A questionnaire was used to collect information from 73 institutions. The results were as follows: (1) Schools and departments located in colleges (four hierarchical levels from the presidential office) were the most popular in organizational structure. (2) The primary goal of the music unit was to train students for careers in teaching, church music, and therapeutic services. (3) Chair-persons spent three-fourths to full time on administrative duties but considered themselves both faculty members and administrators. (4) There were no significant differences found when schools and departments were compared in organizational structure and size; goals and priorities; formal leadership, communication, and decision-making provisions; and financial and support provisions with two exceptions. The conclusion of the study was that the name of the unit and its location in the institutions' organizational structure made no significant difference in major organizationand administrative processes. Unlike many business executives, music administrators have not been trained as generalists, hired into an organization as junior executives and then carefully nurtured and advanced through.the ranks. Instead they are usually successful music educators who also have demonstrated administrative interests and capacities, are perhaps appointed to the chairmanship when it falls vacant, and then succeed, fail, or tire of the job, and return to their full-time academic roles. (House, Symposium in Music Education (Chapter 10), 1984, p. 284) According to House, an estimated ten to fifteen thousand music educators were functioning as music administrators with 43 no administrative training on a formal basis. Nonetheless, very few of the music programs were headed by full-time administrators. He stated that most chairmen of music units carry quarter-time or half-time teaching loads as a choice because they want to maintain their professional roots and because music faculties prefer administrators who have been their teaching colleagues and continued to work in the field. Some unique concerns of music administrators were as follows: (1) teaching locations, (2) masses of costly equipment, (3) spirit and dedication and (4) specialized instructors who are relatively unconcerned about the usual academic issues. House divided administrative responsibility of music administrators into three major categories: (1) The Music Curriculum, (2) Personnel, and (3) Space, Equipment, and Fiscal Operation. Five different approaches to developing music administrators were also stated. Nonetheless, he conceded that " if general progress is to be made toward greater administrative expertise, more weight needs to be placed upon deliberate preparation and qualification for the job. " (p. 288) The five approaches were stated as follows: 1. Learn informally in stages by observing administrators at work and pitching in where needed. 2 . Supplemental training via active workshops designed for music administrators. 3. Pursue graduate study that includes course work in supervision. 4. Develop a doctoral program that includes music curriculum development, personnel management and organization, facilities and equipment and fiscal operations. 5. A combination of all aforementioned 44 suggestions in a special school designed to develop music executives. Cornelius (1988) presented an excellent case as to the need for academically sound, trained administrators in music units. Millions of dollars are controlled by chief music administrators at some institutions of higher education. Music executives need sound training in budgeting. Cornelius suggested that individuals trained in other fields such as public relations, fund raising, recruiting and student affairs are sought to handle such specialties in large music schools. According to Cornelius, one of the key missing components of music units is clear planning. Cornelius's research was important to the present research because the he cited problems with the vast number of untrained administrators in music units handling millions of dollars, public relations and other areas of administration in which they were unskilled. Moreover, this article supports the need for developing a curriculum for producing music administrators. This information is used in the recommendation section of the present research. There are at least three classification of music support staff: (1) the musically and academically credentialed, who generally have academic rank; (2) the musically and, to a greater or lesser degree, academically credentialed who serve as staff without rank; and (3) the professionally qualified, non-academic support staff, who comprise financial personnel, secretarial staff, logistical support personnel for major events, and even those involved in some aspects of public relations. (Cornilius, 1988, p. 79) 45 In retrospect, the review of literature in this chapter was developed to give a formal description of the theoretical framework of this research and provide documentation for the study's context, problem, hypotheses, significance, and methodology. A general overview of literature pertaining to chief administrators' (department chairs', deans', and managers') roles, duties, responsibilities and functions in many academic fields of study was presented. Through those studies the following points were emphasized: 1) Duties and responsibilities of chief administrators are ambiguous, 2) Decisions made at the department level are very difficult to undo elsewhere, 3) Chief administrators need significant training in administrative areas” 4) Size'was noted.as having different effects (depending on the definition of size and other variables included), and 5) Job descriptions may evolve out of studies focusing on roles and functions of chief administrators. Sources listed under the sub-topic of W presented the following points: 1) An annotated bibliography with over 400 references pertaining to music administration was developed, and 2) Studies in this section present background of research conducted in music administration at the college level. Sources listed under the sub-topic Administntin Turnozezs_1n_nusio presented the following points: 1) Size (in relationship to the number of music majors) does impact turnovers in the chief music administrator's position, 2) Discussions of problems encountered by chief music 46 administrators often present their perceived level of involvement in their own duties and responsibilities, and 3) The more administrative training, the less likely turnovers occur. Sources listed under the sub-topic Manegeriel_fitndies_1n Musio presented the following points: 1) Faculty involvement will impact the leadership style of the chief music administrator, 2) Effective time management is necessary for completing all tasks expected of an administrator\manager, and 3) Planning must be included in all administrative processes. The final section of this chapter (Speoifio_fitudies_nsod WWW) presented theories surrounding the problem in the context of music units. 1) The relative size and historical development of the music unit will somewhat affect the specific duties of the music executive officer. 2) The present research was developed from a recommendation from Henke's study. 3) Job title does not indicate function (depending on the situation). 4) Five suggestions were made for developing music administrators. Although chief music administrators are given different titles (Directory Heads. Coordinator, Dean, Chairman, Chair-person and Department Chair) , Klotman (1973) states that the title reflects the importance of the individual by a particular community. Regardless of the title given a chief music administrator, an unanswered question still remains: Is there a significant relationship between the size of the music department and the perceived level of participation in 47 decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations in four-year colleges and universities in the mid-west region of the United States? Chapter 3 331.19.421.93: 2221113121211 The population was composed of chief music administrators of four-year post secondary institutions with a music department (as indicated in The College Music Society 1987) and are located in the mid-west region (Illinois Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin) of the United States. The College Music Society publishes a directory of music faculties in colleges and universities in the United States and in Canada. The publication also includes the address and telephone number of each institution, the degree programs offered in the music department and a listing of the music faculty (rank and specific teaching areas). W A proportional stratified random sampling technique was employed in this research because of the disproportionate population used in this study. There were 154 institutions with a small music department; 43 institutions with a medium music department; and, 45 institutions with a large music department. In addition, the percentage or proportion of the total population used in this research was driven by the statistical approach (One-Way Analysis Of Variance) used to analyze the data. Sixty-nine percent of the total population (167 institutions out of 242) was used as the sample population. The high percentage was chosen because of the disproportionate sizes of the three groups and the small population of 48 49 institutions with medium and large music departments. For example, 20% of the medium and large groups would not yield enough schools to satisfy requirements for using ANOVA to make inferences about the population at large. Twenty percent would only yield 8 and 9 schools respectively. When using ANOVA, one must compute at least 20 responses to each question to have adequate representation in the related cells. Twenty responses represent almost 50 percent of the medium and large populations. Therefore, the researcher used 69% of the total population ( 106 small departments, 30 medium departments, and 31 large departments) as the sample population. In effort to safeguard for an adequate response rate, 69% of the population was used. In addition, that percentage gave more credence to inferences made about the larger population (the United States) . The method used to select the sample is of utmost importance in judging the validity of the inferences made from the sample to the population. The novice is often more concerned with the size of a sample than with its representativeness. The size of a sample can never compensate for a lack of representativeness (bias). If a sample is randomly drawn, it is representative of the population in all respects-that is, the statistic differs from the parameter only by chance on any variable, real or illusory, measured or not measured. Through the magic of statistical theory, the degree of this difference can be estimated. The method of random selection of samples will ensure, within a certain known margin of error, representativeness of the samples and hence will permit establishing limits within which the parameters are expected to lie with a particular probability (Glass and Hopkins, 1984). In the proportional stratified random-sampling design, the population is composed of an integral mixture of separate discrete units in conglomerate relationship. The first problem 50 is to separate the several discrete elements in the total population and from each of the individual groups, then, to select a random sample proportionately representative of the numerical strength of each of the components within the entire“ conglomerate structure. Figure 1 in appendix A is a diagram of the steps used to apply the proportional stratified random-sampling design. In order to insure randomness and the correct application of the proportional stratified random sampling technique, the following steps were completed: 1. The institutions were stratified into three groups: the small strata was composed of departments with 1 through 9 full-time faculty members; The medium strata was composed of departments with 10 through 19 full-time faculty'members; and, the large strata was composed of departments with 20 and above full-time faculty members. 2. Each institution was assigned a number in each strata: (small department-154 institutions) The institutions were numbered 1-154 on separate pieces of paper and the numbers were put in a small box. (medium department-43 institutions) The institutions were numbered 155-196 and the numbers were put in another box. (large department-45 institutions) The institutions were numbered 197-241 and put in a third box. 3. Aymaster list was composed‘with.the number listed for each institution. 4. The three separate boxes were filled with .individual slips of paper (box one, numbers 1-154; box two, numbers 155-196; and.box three, numbers 196-241) with numbers on each slip representing each institution as indicated in 51 number 2. 5. Each box was shaken to mix the numbers. 6. After the sample size was designated (106 institutions of the small strata, 30 institutions of the medium strata, and 31 institutions of the large strata), numbers were drawn from each box until the sample size for each strata was filled. 7. The sample population was then established. The total population is listed in appendix 8 with the numbers and names of the institutions. Tables 1-3 in appendix A indicate the exact numbers composing the small, medium and large populations after they were randomly selected. MW The 242 institutions listed in appendix B‘were stratified based on the following criteria: 1. The institutions were listed in The College Music Society (1987). 2. They were four year institutions of higher education with a music department. 3. The institutions were located in the mid-west region of the United States (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin) . 4. The size of the department was determined by the number of full-time faculty listed in The College Music Society (1987) and the definition of department size supplied by Allen Tucker (1984). The following interpretations of listings of abbreviations in The College Music Society (1987) were made: .ADI - Adjunct listings of instructors were not considered full-time members lof the music department. 2]: - Part-time listings of instructors were considered as liSted (Part-time). Leoturer - Listings 52 of instructors as lecturers were not considered full-time positions. Although actual degrees (i.e. , BA in Music) were not given for a few institutions in The College Music Society (1987), those institutions were included in the population if a four year status and a music department with a chair-person was indicated. Because of the nature of music degree programs (many hours of one on one teaching situations), the role of part-time instructors is very important and the actual size of the department is distorted. Recognizing this problem, part-time instructors, adjunct instructors and lecturers were not counted in the full-time faculty count. W The descriptive survey approach (questionnaire) was used to collect the needed data. A cover letter with questionnaires were sent to the sample population on August 15, 1990 with a return deadline of September 10, 1990. Questionnaires were received as late as October 10, 1990. After questionnaires were properly edited (looked over carefully to see if the directions were followed, to see if all questions were answered and to see if the questionnaires had been signed) , the following response rate was calculated: SmelLMusiLnepanment - 55 questionnaires were returned out of 106 for a response rate of 52%. MW - 20 questionnaires were .returned out of 30 for a response rate of 67%. Leroe_Musio Department - 21 questionnaires were returned out of 31 for a response rate of 67%. There were also some questionnaires not 53 included in the response rate because they were thrown-out due to insufficient information and alterations made on the questionnaire by the respondents. Usable responses were received from the following institutions: BMW (55 Institutional Illinois Blackburn College Greenville College Knox College Montoy College North Central College North Park College Indiana Bethel College Barlham College Indiana Uesleyan University Marion College ISIS Brier Cliff College Nbrthwestern College Simpson College Michigan Albion College Aquanis College Concordia College Grace Bible College Minnesota Augsburg College Bethany Lutherian College Bethel College College of St. Catherine Chin Blufton College Cincinati Bible College and Seminary Olivet Nasareen University Rosary College St. Ambrose University Trinity College Trinity Christian College University of Illinois at Chicago Taylor University St. Joseph's College St. Mary's College St. Mary of the Wood College Billsdale College Olivet College Spring Arbor College William Tyndale College College of St. Scholastica Hemline University Southwest State University Muskingum College Ohio northern University Ohio Wesleyan University 54 ohio (cont'd) Hiram College Wittenburg University xenyon College Mt. Union College lisoonsin Carthage College Ripon College Carroll College Silver Lake College Marion College Univ. Of Wisconsin Mt. Senario College (Plattville) Univ. Of Wisconsin (Superior) Medinm_Musio_nsnartnent (20 Institutions) Illinois Moody Bible Institute Wheaton College Indiana Anderson University University of Metre Damn ' De Pauw University University of Evansville Indiana Purdue University Valparasio University 1213 Wartburg College Michigan Calvin College nope College Wayne State University Minnesota Dr. Martin Luther College University of Minnesota (Duluth) ohio Capital University University of Dayton (Heidelburg College University of Toledo 55 lisoonsin Univ. 0! Wisconsin (Greene Say) Univ. or Wisconsin (Whitewater) W (21 Institutions) Illinois Chicago Musical College northern Illinois University Northwestern University Southern Ill. Univ. Indiana Indiana University (Dloonington) 12!! Iowa State University University of northern Iowa Miohioan Eastern Michigan University Michigan State University University of Michigan Minnosota Moorhead State University St. Olaf College ohio Baldwin-Wallace College Bowling Green State University Cleveland Institute or .Music Miami University Ohio State University Ohio University University or Cincinnati 56 lisoonain Univ. 0: Wisconsin (Madison) Univ. Of Wisconsin (Oshkosh) Questionnairaa_not_naoo Questionnaires received from the institutions following were not included in the response rate for one of the following reasons: 1) the questionnaire was not completed; 2) directions were not followed properly (i.e. , two responses per question) ; 3) questionnaire measuring scale was altered by respondents: and, 4) questionnaire was left blank in several places. Small_Muaio_Dooartmont (13 Institutions) hlverno College, WI Dordt College, 11 Bradley University, IL northwestern College, WI Carleton College, MN Lake Forest College, IL Cedarville College, on Upper Iowa University, In Chicago State Univ., IL St. Xavier College, IL Coe College, IL University of Saint Thomas, MN William Penn College, In Mooiua_nusio_nooartmont (4 Institutions) Drake University, In Northeastern Illinois Univ., IL Mankota State Univ., MN ‘University of Chicago, IL Laroa_Musio_Dooartmont (s Institutions) Ball State Univ., IN Univ. 0: Wisconsin, Sue Claire Indiana State Univ., IN Youngstown State Univ., on St. Cloud State Univ., MN 57 Dias Data in descriptive survey research are particularly susceptible to distortion through introduction of bias into the research design. Particular attention should be given to safeguard the data from the influence of b as.... Bias is any influence, condition, or set of conditions, which, singly or together, cause distortion or aberration of the data from those which may have been obtained under the conditions of pure chance; furthermore, bias is any influence which may have disturbed the randomicity by which the choice of a sample population has been selected. Bias can infect the descriptive survey more easily than most other methodological genres and it is sometimes difficult for the researcher to detect. The researcher cannot avoid having data influenced and contaminated by bias of one sort or another. To interpret the data and to formulate conclusions without acknowledging the effect that bias may have had either in causing distortion of the data or in conditioning the outcome of the research is to demonstrate naivete and an immature approach to serious research. (Leedy, 1974, p. 108) Although the descriptive survey method relies upon observation for the acquisition of its data, those data must then be organized and presented systematically so that valid and accurate conclusions may be drawn from them. (Leedy, 1974, p. 80) W After observing numerous measurement scales, the seven-point measurement scale located in appendix C was used as a model for developing the measurement scale used in this research. In the example in appendix C (Exhibit I), a continuum or range of possible leadership behaviors available to a manager isg M presented. Each type of action is related to the degreeW of W ‘ v “““ W‘M ‘V— hwmfl WWW!“ 'mm~wl " ' ”n t v to his subordinates in reaching decisions. The actions seen ..., M.A“Nb-W «w m ..,, t“... mums-nun ~. ‘ ......ml on the extreme left (of the model) characterize the manager WW Hwy—W W-vs“ hula-W " “AWN” WM’ who maintains a high degree of control while those seen on the . - ....me WM Mm! W 'W s.- -~ ‘ ...... W W. ‘W' M...“ sums-A'- In.“- ._ ...-v.4 .4". v' --- r 58 extreme right characterize—themmgeuho relinquishes a high“, degree of control. Neither extreme is absolute: authorityfil ...- __-. Mag-WW” ~r——- V " F'— and freedom are never without_ their limitations. ..., -..-.4- ‘ _—-wmum~m'f¢h~"‘ I'M" In the model developed for this research, a continuum or range of perceived levels of participation of a chief music administrator in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations is presented. Each type of action is related to the degree of perceived involvement of the chief music administrator in making decisions concerning departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations. The actions seen on the extreme left characterize the chief music administrator who is not perceived to be involved in the stated process in any way. While those seen on the extreme right characterize the chief music administrator that is single-handedly participating in making decisions that affect the academic unit. An explanation of each point on the continuum scale is provided. (1 indicates no participation and 7 indicates sole participation of the chief music administrator.) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 l. The chief music administrator does not participate in the process. In this case, the chief music administrator is not involved in the decision-making process pertaining to the related ~administrative area. 2. A higher level administrator dictates procedures to chief music administrator. The chief music administrator does . 59 actually what he or she is told by a higher level administrator concerning the administrative task. 3. A higher level administrator selects a committee of which. the chief music administrator is named, and the committee reports to the higher level administrator. In this situation, the chief music administrator is a member of a committee that decides and recommends a plan of action pertaining to the administrative task. 4. The chief music administrator selects a committee and the committee in turn makes recommendations and requests to a higher level administrator. The chief music administrator determines his or her own committee and allows the committee to make the final recommendations to a higher level administrator. 5. The chief music administrator selects a committee; after the committee meets, makes decisions and recommendations to the chief music administrator, the chief music administrator makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. In this situation, the chief music administrator may or may not alter the recommendations of the chosen committee before submitting the information to a higher level administrator. 6. The chief music administrator solely makes recommendations and requests to a higher level administrator. With and without input from a committee or other group, the chief music iadministrator makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. 7. The chief music administrator solely determines procedure 60 and process for the academic unit. Final decision-maker for the department. The chief music administrator does not need the approval of a higher level administrator when making decisions pertaining to the administrative task. A copy of the cover letters, questionnaire, and pilot evaluation form is located in appendix D. W Validity of instrument may be defined as how well the instrument measures whatever it is that the instrument constructor said that it measured. If it measures what it purports to measure, then there are two different measurements - one set of measures from the instrument (instrument scores) and one set of measures from what the instrument is measuring (criterion scores). One can compute a correlation between these two sets of numbers, and the correlation coefficient (rxy) is the coefficient of validity. The validity of a test is how well the test correlates with a specific criterion. Validity is expressed as the correlation between the test scores and the specific criterion. The results are located in appendix E. Reliability of a test is defined as the stability or consistency of measurement. Will the test yield the same score on an individual if two or more measurements are made? Since reliability involves the idea of consistency, consistency ' itself would. indicate that one needs at least two observations on an individual in order to determine whether the measuring instrument is doing the same thing each time. Thus the 61 coefficient of reliability is simply the correlation between two measurements of the same thing. In effort to safeguard against some problems associated with developing and refining an instrument, a pilot study was conducted. Specifically, the pilot study was designed to evaluate the clarity and usefulness of the questionnaire. Rilst_£;nd!_nssults An evaluation form (pertaining to the aforementioned questionnaire) was developed and sent . to ten music administrators. The evaluation form was developed to determine the adequacy of the instrument for the following research: The Perceived Level Of Participation. In Decision-Making Of Chief Music Administrators In.Relationship To The Size Of The Music Department In Departmental Budgeting, Faculty Evaluation, And Public Relations. (The questions and responses are indicated in this section.) The questionnaire and pilot evaluation form.were sent to the following individuals: Dean Frederick Miller Mr. James McGinnis De Paul University 1505 Exeter Avenue, N.W. School of Music Knoxville, TN 37921 804 W. Belden Chicago, IL 60614 Mr. Kenneth Bloomquist. IProfessor George Umberson, Director of Bands Director Michigan State Arizona State University University School of Music .School of Music Tempe, AZ 85287 East Lansing, MI 48825 62 Dean Robert Glidden Mr. Thomas Tacke Florida State University Adrian College School of Music Dept of Music Tallahassee, FL 32306 Adrian, MI 49221 Professor Margaret Bent Professor Karol Berger, Chair . Princeton University Stanford University Dept of Music Dept of Music Princeton, NJ 08540 Stanford, CA 94305 Mr. Christoph Wolff Dean Frank Tirro Harvard University Yale University Dept of Music Dept of Music Cambridge, MA 02138 New Haven, CT 06520 The information was mailed to the names and addresses on June 28, 1990 with a deadline response date of July 20, 1990. Six of the ten (60%) individuals responded. The information that follows is.a summary of the responses listed on the pilot evaluation form related to the questionnaire presented in appendix D. The music administrators that completed the questionnaires will be referred to as respondent 1 thru 6 (laDean Frederick Miller, 2-Dean Robert Glidden, 3-Professor George Umberson, 4=Mr. Kenneth Bloomquist, 5=Mr. James McGinnis, 6=Mr. Thomas Tacke) in this section. Question 1. Which of the responses best express your view of the length of the questionnaire? Consumes too much time adequate length .Answer: Respondent 1 thru 6 chose adequate length. Question 2. How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? 63 Answer: Respondent 1 = 20 minutes Respondent 2 8 minutes Respondent 3 = 10 minutes (Average = 16 minutes) Respondent 4 = 30 minutes Respondent 5 = 15 minutes 6 Respondent - 15 minutes Question 3. Are the differences in the level of participation in decision-making (expressed in the italicized statements adjacent to the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6-7) clearly stated? Answer: Respondent 1 = No. Respondent 2 thru 6 a Yes. If no, explain Respondent 1 (In my situation, most often subordinates advise me or consult with me before I make a decision.) Question 4. Are the directions in the questionnaire stated clearly? Answer: Respondent 1 thru 6 - Yes. Comment by respondent 1: Though the seven italicized responses are each sufficiently long that one must continually return to the list for each item. Question 5: Can items (1-4 on the questionnaire) pertaining to Budgeting be adequately answered with the responses listed on the continuum scale. 64 Answer: Respondent 1 = No. Respondent 2 thru 6 = Yes. If no, explain. Respondent 1: In my case, subordinates advise me or consult with me, before I make a decision Question 6. As a music administrator, how important is budgeting as it relates to the questions listed on the questionnaire? Very Important, Somewhat Important, or Not Important. Answer: Respondent 2 == Somewhat Important. Respondents l,3,4,5,6 = Very Important. Question 7. Can items (5-10 on the questionnaire) pertaining to Faculty Evaluation. be adequately answered. with the responses listed on the continuum scale? Answer: Respondents 1,2,3 - No. Respondents 4,5,6 - Yes. If no, explain. Respondent 1: Dean evaluates along with the associate dean and respective department chairs. Respondent 2: Wot enough options. I don't select a committee. The faculty elects and on those matters of evaluation, etc.. is a separate discrete part of the process. Respondent 3: We have an elected personnel committee. 65 Question 8. As music administrator, how important is Faculty Evaluation as it relates to the questions listed on the questionnaire? Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not Important. Answer: Respondent 1 thru 7 a Very Important. Question 9. Can items (11-14 on the questionnaire) pertaining to Public Relation be adequately answered with the responses listed on the continuum scale? Answer: Respondents 1,2,4,5 2 Yes. Respondents 3,6 = No.' If no, explain. Respondent 3: I have a specific person hired for PR and one for recruitment and this answer is not in the options. Respondent 6: Departmental representation at events does not apply to administrator's duties. Comment by Respondent 1: For item 13, The dean delegates to admissions staff of the School of Music. Question 10. As a music administrator, how important is Public Relations as it relates to items listed on the questionnaire? Answer: Respondents 1,4,6 - Very Important. Respondents 2,3,5 - Somewhat Important. 66 The statements and questions listed under Background Information of the questionnaire do not relate to the continuum scale. Please list the number(s) of the statement(s) or question(s) that you think is (are) unclear and inappropriate and supply suggestions for improving the questions and\or statements e Respondent 1: In question 1, under background information, include school within a university. Question 2 is unclear because I do not know what is meant by divisions or what is meant by department. Respondent 2: In question 3 insert " in this institution" unless the total number of years are sought. Comment pertaining to number 8: Many administrators at the Director or Dean level determine themselves whether they will teach. Respondents 3, 4, 5, 6:, No comments. The results of the pilot study were given to the research committee members on July 27, 1990. The committee chair, Dr. Kenneth Neff, met with the researcher and approved the questionnaire on August 3, 1990. He stated that no changes were necessary since the focus of the research was on the chief music administrator. (Faculty involvement was not sought. There were other instances where the chief music administrator was not involved in some administrative tasks, but the option ' to ‘use that response 'was not utilized. by respondents.) Nonetheless, two changes were made as a result of comments pertaining to items listed under BACKGROUND INFORMATION. 67 Question 2: Which of the following describes the division within the department? Change: Which of the following describes the division within the total music area at your institution? Question 3: How many years have you served as chief music administrator? Change: Now many years have you served as chief music administrator at the present institution? The approved questionnaire was then mailed to the sample population on August 15, 1990. The majority of the questionnaires were returned rapidly. The last returned questionnaires were received October 10, 1990. The data were then being prepared for statistical analysis. As stated earlier, the questionnaires were then numbered (coded) and checked to see if they were properly completed. As a result of the analysis, some questionnaires could not be used and part two of Question 8 under BACKGROUND INFORMATION was deleted from the analysis. Question 8 (BACKGROUND INFORMATION): Do you have teaching responsibilities? Yes No If yes, how many classes do you teach per year? The manner in which the second half of the question (regarding the number of classes) was answered made it difficult to evaluate everyone on an even scale. Some respondents listed 68 numbers per semester and per quarter. Many respondents listed percentages of time devoted to teaching. W The statistical approach is generally dictated by the types of variables being used as well as the intent of the research. In this research, the outcome variable (level of participation) is continuous and the predictor variable (department size) is discrete. The One-Way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) is appropriate to use when the outcome variable is continuous and the predictor variable is discrete. The purpose is to evaluate if the differences in group means are larger than would be expected from sampling error (chance) . The power of the statistical procedure depends on the level' of significance, the size of the effect, the size of the sample, and the type of statistical tests used. W The level of significance refers to the probability of committing a Type I error (falsely rejecting a null hypothesis that is true) . The level of significance chosen for this study is .05. The .05 specifies the degree of risk of a type-I error. The null hypotheses were tested using .05 level of significance. 8111.91.2hl_flllnll The sample size consists of 69% (167 institutions) of the _ total population (242 institutions). The break-down of each strata is as follows: (1) the sample size for the small music department strata is 106 institutions (70%) of 154: (2) the 69 sample size for the medium music department strata is 30 institutions (70%) of 43: and (3) the sample size for the large music department strata is 31 institutions (69%) of 45. The number of institutions used in the statistical analysis for each strata was as follows: (1) 55 responses for the small music department strata: ( 2) 20 responses for the medium music department strata: and (3) 21 responses for the large music department strata. The uneven numbers analyzed for the groups impacted the power of the test. Nonetheless, the Scheffe Multiple Comparison test was used to check the homogeneity of variance. Assnmntiena In ANOVA it is assumed that the errors in the population (1) are normally distributed, (2) have equal variances, and (3) are independent. 'When n's are equal, ANOVA is ”robust" to violations of assumptions 1 and 2. When n's are.not equal, however, homogeneity of variance is necessary for accurate results. Homogeneity of variance can be tested using Scheffe's test for accuracy with nonnormal populations (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, p. 359). flxnetheses Hypothesis I: There is a difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting in relationship to the size of the music department. The theory is as follows: In a small music department, the chief music administrator will have very little to do with the department budget (this . may be a function of organizational structure). In a large department, the chief music administrator will have more control over the department budget thus more participation in 7O decision-making. In a medium department, the perceived level of participation of the chief music administrator will resemble that of 6a large department. "In quite large institutions, where subdivisions of the music unit occurs, many executive functions are delegated to the heads of these sub-divisions: in such cases, the music chairman actually assumes many of the functions of a dean. Conversely, in small institutions, there is a tendency for the fine arts dean or school principal to retain a more active role in decision-making for the music unit.” (House, 1973, p. 40) Hypothesis II: There is a difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in faculty evaluation relative to the size of the music department. According to Tucker (1984) , "Evaluation of a faculty member's performance is usually derived from some or all of the following sources: the faculty member's chair-person or other administrator: the faculty member's self-evaluation: the faculty member's peers: professional colleagues at other universities (in matters of promotion and tenure): students: and other university officials. The department chair-person is usually the person responsible for collecting evaluations about each faculty member from these sources." (p. 150) Hypothesis III: There is a difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in public relations in relationship to the size of the music department. The theory is as follows: if the 71 department is small, decisions concerning public relations become that of a higher level administrator. In the case of a large department, the chief music administrator makes the final decision and in the case of a medium department, the chief music administrator again has control of decisions pertaining to public relations The previous hypotheses were stated in the null and tested at the .05 level of significance using ANOVA and the Scheffe and Tukey statistical tests. nQl_The_nata_lere_aesnred The data were secured.by accurately tabulating all of the responses of chief music administrators as listed on the returned questionnaires and by processing the information using descriptive statistic analyses (frequency distribution of each variable, central tendency and variability) and inferential statistic analyses ( the One-Way Analysis of Variance and the Tukey and Scheffe Multiple Comparison tests to detect statistical significance in differences among the groups). The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSSx). CHAPTER 4 BEEHLIE_QI_IHE_&IEDX In this chapter, the collected data have been organized, transformed, presented in graphs and tested for statistical‘ significance so that important relationships between the dependent variable (perceived level of participation) and the independent variable (department size) are emphasized. In addition, the data are presented in the various aforementioned forms so that the reader can examine the results of the study and draw conclusions. The results of the study are presented as follows: (1) The frequency distribution of the total sample population (96 respondents) is presented because variability in the frequency distribution can provide clues about unusual occurrences related to the variables. Furthermore, through observation of the total sample population distribution, adherence to the assumptions of ANOVA can be verified. ( 2) The frequency distribution of each strata (small - group 1, medium - group 2, and large - group 3) is presented so that the variability across groups can be observed and compared. . (3) Each hypothesis is tested. An ANOVA statistic is computed for the pooled results of questions in the budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations sections respectively. (4) The Scheffe and Tukey multiple comparison tests are also performed on the pooled budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations sections respectively. The statistical data and graphs have been limited only to the information that relate to the hypotheses of this research. 72 73 We Bar graphs have been used to visually display the results of each item in the questionnaire. However, the results of statistical tests (related to computer printouts) of hypotheses are presented in appendix E and should be referred to for more details. Because of the nature of the seven.point scale, the mean as a central tendency measure means very little because each point stands alone in its significance. The Y axis on the bar graphs in this chapter represents the total number of responses for each of the seven numbers on the X axis. The seven point scale in the graphs represents the following responses as indicated on the questionnaire: (1) Chief music administrator does not participate in the process at all. ( 2) A higher level administrator dictates procedures to chief music administrator. (3) A higher level administrator selects a committee to which the chief music administrator is named, and the committee reports to the higher level administrator. (4) The chief music administrator selects a committee and.the committee in turn makes recommendations and requests to a higher level administrator. (5) Chief music administrator selects a committee, makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then the ' chief music administrator makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. (6) Chief Music Administrator solely makes recommendations 74 and requests to higher level administrator. ( 7) Chief Music Administrator solely determines procedure and process for the academic unit. As final decision-maker for the department, the chief music administrator is responsible for departmental action. Point one on the scale indicates no involvement of the chief music administrator in decision-making and progressively moves to complete control and involvement in decision-making at point seven. Each step denotes greater perceived involvement in decision-making of chief music administrators. The bar graphs show the total distribution and the comparative distribution of the responses. Total distribution refers to the frequency of responses for the entire sample population (N-96) . Comparative distribution refers to the frequency distribution for each strata (small, medium and large). The frequency distributions (total and comparative) and the implications of the graphs are presented for the three hypotheses of this research. W There is no difference in the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting in relationship to the size of the music department. The null hypothesis was tested for significant difference using ANOVA and the Scheffe and Tukey multiple comparison tests. The results revealed that there is no statistical difference at the .05 level of significance in the perceived level of participation in decision-making ‘of chief music 75 administrators in relationship to the size of the music department in departmental budgeting. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The statistical results are located in appendix E and should be referred to for .more details. Frequency distributions are presented in this chapter. The total distribution (N=96) of the sample population was examined as well as the comparative distribution (small n=55, medium n-20, large n=21) of each group. In,Figures 2-5, it is important to note that the results of the total distribution of the entire sample (n=96) are misleading because of the disproportionate sample strata populations (small n=55, medium ngzo, large nz21) and the results of the comparative distributions present a display of the responses by department size. For example, since the small strata is composed of 55 responses (twice the number of the other two groups, 20 and 21 respectively), reading the results in the total distribution may be misleading. 76 To further emphasize the point, Figure 2 indicates that the process selected the most for preparing the budget was number 6: The chief music administrator solely makes recom- mendations and requests to a higher level administrator when preparing the budget. On the other hand, Figure 6 (displayed later in this chapter) , indicates that all three groups selected different processes as their more popular response. laud ' Iguana-co I I A Scaleocme! Adn. l-Doee No: Partlclpete 1.1: blasted To 3-A Pen Of-Connlt. To Reeon. «Select; A Conn“. & Connlt. Recon. S-Selecu A Connlt. Thea He\SlIe Recon. G-Solely Makes Recon. 7-Flael Declsloe Maker WW Figure 2 - Preparing The Budget 77 Figure 3 indicates that the most selected process for allocating the departmental budget was number 7: The chief music administrator determines the process for the academic unit. mam .0 46m In" Scale-Chief Adn. Vl-Doee Not Participate Isle Dictated To 3-A Part 0! Conn“. To Recon. «Select: A Connlt. & Connlt. Recon. S-Selecte A Conn“. Thee He\She Recon. G-Solely Makes Recon. 7-Fleal Decleloe Maker Figure 3 - Allocating Departmental Budget 78 Figures 4 and 5 indicate that the chief music administrator is perceived to be the final decision maker for the academic unit when approving departmental expenditures and accepting responsibility for the departmental budget. Number 7 was the most selected response in both cases. i hund Ira-puma Scale-Chief Adn. i-Doea Not Participate 1dr Dictator! To 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Select: A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiectt A Connit. Thea He\Sh_e Recon. G-Soi'ely Makes Recon. 7-Flaai Decisioa Maker I I I I I I I I Ii Figure 4 - Approving Departmental Expenditures 79 am j .WM Scale-Chief Adn. l-Doea Not Participate Zela Dictateti To 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Select: A Connit. l: Connit. Recon. S-Sclecta A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. 7-Fiaai Decisioa Maker 888883; IIIII an: I I I Figure 5 - Responsibility For Departmental Budget Figures 6-9 indicate the differences in responses between groups (small, medium, and large). Each group is represented by different bar colorations as indicated in the legend in the upper right corner of each figure. Abbreviated explainations for each point on the scale (that explains the actions of the chief music administrator) is located in the bottom corner of each figure. Figure 6 indicates that chief music administrators of small music departments are perceived to be more likely to select a committee, make his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when preparing the budget. Chief music administrators of medium size music departments are perceived . to be more likely to make recommendations and requests to higher level administrators based solely on their own judgement. A chief music administrator of a large music department, 80 according to the results of this research, is perceived to be more likely to use both of the decision-making processes previously chosen by administrators of the small and medium groups equally. was... ”a a. no "" 1; § §§auaman 1:: s ...... § w new) s s . 14- g $ Scale-Chief Adn. 121 % g l-Doea Not Participate 10 S § 2.1. mama To 3. § % BIA Part Of Connit. To Recon. 3. § § § “Select: A Connit. I Connit. Recon. 4. S % % SsSelecta A Connit. Thea He\SlIe Recon. 3] g ? § G—Soieiy Mateo Recon. 0 .\ i3 R 7mm Decieioa mm us I I I O O N Figure 6 - Preparing The Budget 81 According to the responses in Figure 7, regardless of the size of the music department, the chief music administrator is perceived to be more likely to solely determine how funds are allocated to the academic unit. mum . am am A (...... 1e« §§aula4q w I ace-M w Luv-M) 12+ Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate his Dictated To JsA Part 9! Connit. ‘l'o Recon. ' . .41Seiectt A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiectt A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soiely Makes Recon. 7-Fiaal Decisioa Maker 104 ’/////////////////////////; '////////////////////////////// ’/////////////////////////////////. Figure 7 - Allocating Departmental Budget 82 In Figure 8, the data suggest that regardless of the size of the department, the chief music administrator is perceived to be more likely to be the final decision-maker for the academic unit when approving departmental expenditures. mam a. .4 :n4 ‘“'” “m g Imam 13* § Iluunmwen O «I § sum-co '0‘ § $ Scale-Chief Adn. “‘ § S I-Doee Not Participate '34 $ S g zdmouuudro ”'1 S g 15.3. 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. 0« 7 $ § “:3: «Select: A Connit. I Connit. Recon. .‘ ' \‘ S $ $5: S-Seiectt A Connit. Thea He\SiIe 3060-- 1).. ‘J § % § ' $53 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. 2* ” . ’1 S § g :3 7-Fiaai Decision Maker 9‘ Figure 8 - Approving Departmental Expenditures 83 As with Figure 8, Figure 9 suggests that regardless of the size of the department, the chief music administrator is perceived to be more likely to be held responsible for the complete implementation of the departmental budget. Inn-dflnnnne .0. ' hunt .fl §§anmnae ||uummueo "‘ Lao-M tr Scale-Chief Adn. u‘ i-Doea Not Participate Isle Dictated To J-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. - 4-Seiecta A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Selects A Connit. Thea He\SiIe Recon. 6-Soiely Maker Recon. 7-Fiaai Decisioa Maker V///////////////A '///////////////////////////A 1 2 8 4 6 0 7 InnWHMIIe Figure 9 - Responsibility For Departmental Budget 84 W There is no difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in faculty evaluation relative to the size of the music department. The null hypothesis was tested for significant differences using ANOVA and the Scheffe and Tukey multiple comparison tests. The tests revealed that there are significant differences at the .05 significance level in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. The statistical results are located in appendix E and should be referred to for more details. In the following Figures (10-15) it is important to note the total distribution of the entire sample size (n=96) but, because of the unequal sample sizes among each strata, the comparative distribution (in Figures 16-21) displays the responses by department size. 85. Of the total sample population, the most selected response in Figure 10 pertaining to the evaluation of faculty performance was 6: The chief music administrator solely makes recom- mendations and requests to a higher level administrator. 81‘ ”i I I 804 q \ Inna-(He Scale-Chief Atln. i-Doea Not Participate Z-It Dictated To 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. “Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiecta A Connit. Thea He\Si|e Recon. 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. 7-Fiaal Decisioa Maker Figure 10 - Evaluating Faculty Performance 86 Of the total sample population, the most selected response regarding promoting faculty in Figure 11 was 5: The chief music administrator selects a committee, makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. em mu Ian-ohm Scale-Chief Adn. ' l-Doea Not Participate his Dictated 'l'o J-A Part Of Connit. ‘l'o Recon. 4-Seiectt A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiectt A Connit. Thea He\SlIe Recon. C-Soieiy Maker Recon. . 7-Fiaai Decisioa Maker annue3833333838: All-IIIILAJIII Figure 11 - Promoting Faculty Via Academic Rank 87 In Figure 12, the most selected response in regards to evaluating faculty for merit pay was 1: The chief music administrator does not participate in the process at all. “‘ ‘ Input . Inna-M ScaleoChiet Adn. l-Doea Not Participate 2.1a Dictated To 3eA Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Select: A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiectt A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. G-Soiely Makes Recon. 7-Fiaai Decisioa Maker Figure 12 Evaluating Faculty In Merit Pay 88 Of the total sample population, the most selected response (noted in Figure 13) regarding the evaluation of faculty for tenure was 5: The chief music administrator selects a committee, makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. mam 31 .. 3- Lawn a: 25W |§§enubmdn. a. 2‘ - Scale-Chief Adn. "‘ no... Not Participate ‘7‘ 1a]: Dictated To 33'- 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. ‘3‘ 4-Selectt A Connit. I Connit. Recon. 11 - 5.5mm A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. .‘ G-Soiely Maker Recon. 7: 7-Fiaai Decisioa Maker 5. 3. 1 . Figure 13 - Evaluation Faculty For Tenure 89 The most selected response concerning hiring faculty members was 5: Chief music administrator selects a committee, makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. “P“ Isa-alum Scale-ChiefiAdn. l-Does Not Participate his Dictated To 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. . «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. G-Soieiy Makes Recon. 7-Fiaai Decisioa Maker 5‘ ..m 8 i 2 8 massac- Figure 14 - Hiring Faculty Members 90 Of the total sample population, the most selected.response concerning the firing of faculty members was 5: The chief music administrator selects a committee, makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then the chief music administrator makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. Muzdm a. M ... ‘ mm Scale-Chief Adn. i-Does Not Participate leis Dictated To 3eA Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Selects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. 7-l-‘iaal Decisloa Maker Figure 15 - Firing Faculty Members 91 The following figures (16-21) indicate the frequency distribution for each group (small n=55, medium n=20, large n=21) . According to the perceptions of the respondents, Figure 16 indicates“ that the chair of a small and medium music department is perceived as being more likely to solely make recommendations and requests to a higher level administrator concerning the evaluation of faculty performance. A chair of a large music department is perceived to be more likely to select a committee, make his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level 7-Fiaai Decision Maker administrator. "mam 2’] a . bond :2: :$ §§amsaunp ' § Ilnuemupem 10‘ § 18« g . . . 14« § Scale-Chlei Adn. § i-Does Not Participate 12d ' § 2-l Di ted To -:3. \ I ‘8' 10‘ 3. % 3-A Part Oi Connit. To Recon. .' % “Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. 3‘ ..1 § S-Seiectt A Connit. Thea He\Sl|e Recon. 4 $5 § C-Soiely Makes Recon. ‘ \- Figure 16 - Evaluating Faculty Performance 92 As chair of a small music department, Figure 17 indicates that one is perceived to be more likely to have a higher level administrator dictate procedures concerning faculty promotion. A chair of a medium and large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then.make recommendations to a higher level administrator. mam a. 2. been 20- a 1. are: (use) 1,. I m, M 1“ 55532333255 WM) 12. Scale-Chief Adn. L: V l-Does Not Participate 1" % Z-Is Dictated To 8- % J-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. .. % «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. 9‘2: § S-Selects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. ‘d % 6-Soiely Makes Recon. 2. § : 7-Fiaai Decisloa Maker “if k :2 Figure 17 - Promoting Faculty Via Academic Rank 93 Figure 18 indicates that a chief music administrator of a small music department is perceived to be more likely not to be involved in the process at all . A chief music administrator of a medium music department is perceived to be more likely to solely make recommendations and requests to higher level administrators although a large percentage are not involved in the process at all. A chief music administrator of a large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator. Nut; at W a . at I 22. figsnnahan :fl« lliesmuuem 1. " .;:;:;:¢:;. w M) 18‘ 14+ 12‘ ScaleoCliief Adn. l-Does Not Participate leis Dictated To ' J-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. 5-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\SlIe Recon. 6-Solely Makes Recon. 7-Flaai Decisioa Maker zzzzzwaaawwzxzxzaaaa Figure 18 - Evaluating Faculty In Merit Pay 94 .According to Figure 19, a chief music administrator of a small music department is perceived as being more likely to have procedures concerning the evaluation of faculty for tenure dictated to him or her by a higher level administrator. A chief music administrator of a medium and large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based of committee recommendations, then make rec- ommendations to a higher level administrator. Muggnfinunne an . lumt 1" “M 1.- [Iluuummnnr 14« m -- Lune-m) Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate 2-ls Dictated ‘l'o 3-A Part 0! Connit. To Recon. 4-Seiects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Selects A Connit. Thea He\SlIe Recon. 6-Soiely Makes Recon. 7-Piaai Decisloa Maker '////////////////////7//////////A ’////////////////A azzzzmmwz Figure 19 - Evaluating Faculty For Tenure 95 Figure 20 seems to indicate that regardless of the size of the music department, chief music administrators are per- ceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when hiring faculty members. Worm 3* :IJ Unuu 24- ‘ a. and (ii-66) an [Iluumnehau u- wow-a) 1.- 144 Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate 12‘ 2.1: Dictated To 10‘ 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. .‘ 4-Seiects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. 8-4 S-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\SlIe Recon. 4- 6-Solely Makes Recon. 2. ' , p g 1mm Decisioa Maker 0 ‘ 8 . E m i 2 . I 7 Figure 20 - Hiring Faculty Members 96 According to the frequency distributions shown in Figure 21, a chief music administrator of a small music department is perceived as being more likely to: (a) select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator, or (b) solely make recommendations and requests toca higher level adminis- trator about an equal percentage of the time when deciding to fire faculty members. A chair of a medium or large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator. Nmfigdflnnmnl a» hand 1e- cum-cs) 10' \‘ I W” 14‘ WM) 12: 10‘ o. N 4. Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate Z-Is Dictated To 3-A Part 0! Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soleiy Makes. Recon. 7-PIaal Declsioa Maker ///////////////////////////////ll ’/////////////////////////////// Figure 21 - Firing Faculty Members 97 W There is no difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in public relations relative to the size of the music department.. The null hypothesis was tested for statistical significance using ANOVA and the Scheffe and Tukey multiple comparison tests. The results revealed that there is no significant difference at the .05 significance level in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in public relations in relationship to the size of the music department. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The statistical results are located in appendix E and should be referred to for more details. The frequency distribution for each response is provided in Figures 22-29. It is important to note that the frequency distributions of the entire population (N=96) in Figures 22-25 are quite different from the frequency distributions of the separate populations (small n=55, medium n=20, large n=21) in Figures 26-29. 98 Figure 22 indicates that the most selected response in choosing a departmental representative is 7: The chief music administrator is the final decision-maker. WNW 1 Scale-Chief Adn. «Does Not Participate 2-ls Dictated ‘l’o 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\Si|e Recon. G-Soleiy Makes Recon. 7-Fiaal Decisioa Maker I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 22 - Departmental Representative 99 Figures 23-25 indicate that the most selected response is 5: The chief music administrator selects a committee, makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. "min a: as IL“_' ' 40< E§§enuemum as a: n; a: Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate 2-ls Dictated To 30A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soiely Makes Recon. 7-Flaal Decisloa Maker Figure 23 -Departmental Literature For The Public Nun-am ‘5. 0- Lawn ”J ' Ian-moms) Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate 2-ls Dictated To 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. SeSeiects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. 7-Fiaai Decision Maker Figure 24 - Departmental Recruitment Of Students 100 g i mum §§I-bmdn Scale-Chief Adn. l-Does Not Participate lZ-ls Dictated To 3-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Seiects A Connit. Thea He\She Recon. 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. 7-Fiaal Decisloa Maker , ‘ ‘ 8 3 8 I 8 I e e 8 8 I I I I I I I I I I Figure 25 - Departmental Recruitment Of Faculty Figures 26-29 indicate the frequency distribution for each strata (small n=55, medium n=20, large n=21). According to Figure 26, regardless of the size of the music department, the chief music administrator is perceived as being more likely to make the final decision in determining the departmental representative. mam a. a. 18 . V 10 ‘S g 14- $ S c c 12‘ § \ § % Scale-Chief Adn. ‘0‘ § S § i-Does Not Participate .. § § \§‘ 2-ls Dictated To $ % % J-A Part Of Connit. To Recon. M Q S % «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. I‘ % S % S-Seiects A Connit. Tiles He\Ske Recon. 3. g S .. § . 6-Soieiy Makes Recon. A OJ % S § :52: hill-a1 Decisioe Maker Figure 26 - Departmental Representative 101 Figure 27 indicates that a chief music administrator of a small and large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations.to a higher level administrator when developing departmental lit- erature. At the same time, a chief music administrator of a medium music department is perceived as being more likely to determine the procedure for the academic unit. Manganeepnne “ w an ‘ . s: §§5hfl0hfli 1e- Illnemmwe» 1" Unpaha) 14‘ 12‘ Scale-Chief Adn. S S i-Doee Not Participate 10‘ is; S S . 1-ls Dictated To .‘ S S J-A Part Oi Connit. To Recon. 0‘ S S «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. “ S S S-Selects A Connit. Thea l-le\SlIe Recon. 2‘ S S 5* G-Soiely Makes Recon. o..& r N S g k 1r-I'iaal Declslefl Maker 1 2 . 7 Figure 27 - Departmental Literature For The Public 102 As a chief music administrator of a small and medium size music department concerned about recruiting students, one is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make rec- ommendations to a higher level administrator. As chief music administrator of a large music department, one is perceived as being the final decision-maker for the academic unit. anndflnunne 22‘ lee-It ao- ‘ . mm ::‘ lltnemuweo ‘ Loo-M) 14J Scale-Cklei Adn. i-Does Not Participate leis Dictated To 3-A Part Oi Connit. To Recon. «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S-Selects A Connit. Thea He\Ske Recon. 's-sucly Makes Recon. :sumnnnmueumnr“ 7///////////////////////A Figure 28 - Departmental Recruitment Of Students HUS as dec om de< 103 Figure 29 indicates that regardless of the size of the music department, the chief music administrator is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make his or her decisions based on committee recommendations, then make rec- ommendations to a higher level administrator when making decisions concerning the recruitment of faculty. ”games 2: maul :aJ S Egan-chap a» S IIuKNnmmn lI-i $ WM) 1eJ % r_1 “‘ ' S Scale-Ckiei Adn. 13‘ S «Does Not Participate 10‘ S .. . his Dictated To \ S 1, R 84 S S 3-A Part Oi Connit. o econ. . p. S S «Selects A Connit. I Connit. Recon. S S S-Seiects A Connit. Thea ile\Ske Recon. ‘1 \‘ S S «Solely Makes Recon. :4.“ I S S .5: .S ...~ “a“, Dcclaloa Maker 1 '2 '5 Figure 29 - Departmental Recruitment Of Faculty CHAPTER 5 REHHIBXI_QQN£LREIQHEI_BECQHHZNDAIIQNE BHHHIRX Chief music administrators of four year institutions of. higher education are given titles such as chair-person, head, coordinator, director, and dean, depending on the choice of the institution. These titles do not always indicate the function or role of the chief music administrator in decision-making for the music unit. The perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators relies. heavily on. their role or function. regarding* the respective duties and responsibilities assigned them by the institution. In an effort to observe the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators, an investigation of their duties and responsibilities was made in the areas of departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. Because it is theorized and supported by literature (House, 1973: Klotman, 1973) that the role and function of the chief music executive is impacted by community and institutional size, the relationship between department size (the number of full-time faculty members in the music unit) and the role, function and perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators was also investigated. Thus, the purpose of this research was to determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between department size (small department: 1-9 faculty members: medium department: 10-19 faculty members: 104 105 large department: 20 and above faulty members) of the music unit and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation, and public relations. The theoretical framework surrounding the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators at small, large and medium size music departments are stated respectively as follows: (1) A small music department chief administrator is perceived as participating less in decision-making because of organizational structure due largely to the size of the department. The decisions generally go through several other administrators before reaching the final decision-maker (Glidden, 1988: House, 1973). (2) On the other hand, a chief music administrator of a large music department would have more control of decision-making for the music unit because the final decision often ends with that individual. (3) Medium sized music departments tend to take on characteristics of large departments, therefore it is hypothesized that the perceived level of participation in decision-making of a chief music administrator of a medium size music department resembles that of chief music administrators of a large music department. Three hypotheses were developed as a result: (I) There is a difference in the level of participation in decision-making of chief'music administrators in departmental 106 budgeting in relationship to the size of the music department. (II) There is a difference in the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in faculty evaluation relative to the size of the music department. (III) There is a difference in the level of participation in decisiondmaking of chief music administrators in public relations in relationship to the size of the music department. 81mm Is there a significant relationship between the size of a music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in (1) departmental budgeting, (2) faculty evaluation, and (3) public relations? A questionnaire was developed, tested in a pilot study, modified and sent to chief music administrators of four year institutions of higher education with. music departments throughout the mid-west region of the United States (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin). The institutions were selected from The College Music Society (1987) : a publication of music departments and faculty members throughout the United States and Canada. The Proportional Stratified.Random Sampling procedure was employed, The total population consisted of 242 institutions (154 institutions in the small music department strata: 43 institutions in the medium music department strata: and 45 institutions in the large music department strata). Questionnaires were sent to (167 institutions) 69% of the total population (242 107 institutions) . The 167 institutions composing the sample population were divided as follows: 106 institutions of the small strata, 30 institutions of the medium strata, and 31 institutions of the large strata. The response rate was as follows: (1) 55 questionnaires were returned out of 106 for a response rate of 52% for the small music department strata: (2) 20 questionnaires were returned out of 30 for a response rate of 67% in the medium music department strata: and (3) 21 questionnaires were returned out of 31 for a response rate of 67% for the large music department strata. The response . rate for the combined population (96 returned out of 167) was 57%. A seven point measuring scale was developed (within the questionnaire) to measure the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators. The seven point scale started with point 1 (indicating that the chief music administrator does not participate in the decision-making process) and progressively moves to point 7 (indicating that the chief music administrator is the final decision-maker for the academic unit) . In between points 1 and 7, points 2 through 6 acknowledges several types of decision-making processes involving a higher level administrator, committees and committee recommendations. . The three aforementioned hypotheses were stated in the null and tested. A One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for statistical significance at the .05 significance level. In addition, the Scheffe and Tukey multiple 108 comparison tests were employed. The major findings regarding the tested null hypothesis were as follows: Null Hypothesis I: The results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance revealed that there‘ is not a significant statistical difference in department budgeting at the .05 significance level. Therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Null Hypothesis II: The results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance revealed that there is a significant statistical difference in faculty evaluation between the small and large music departments chief administrators. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Null Hypothesis III: A One-Way Analysis of Variance revealed that there is no significant statistical difference in the group means in public relations in relationship to the Size of the music department. Therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Discussion The researcher has already presented his interpretation of findings in light of the theoretical framework presented in the review of literature. He has discussed the major issues and problems raised in chapter one. These issues have been presented and interpreted in the specific context of this study and then generalized in relationship to similar research and the broader population at large. . The first issue to be discussed is that pertaining to departmental budgeting. The perceived level of involvement of chief music administrators in determining the decision-making process for departmental budget preparation, 109 departmental budget allocation, departmental budget expenditures and departmental budget responsibility were the specific areas observed in this research. These items were observed to see if there were any statistically significant' differences related to the size (Number of full-time faculty members) of the music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of the chief music administrator. The findings in this research do not support the following hypothesis: There is a difference in the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting in relationship to the size of the music department. The results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance and the Scheffe and Tukey multiple comparison tests indicate that there is no difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department pertaining to departmental budgeting. The findings were unexpected because the general theory supported by House (1973) and Glidden (1988) is that in large institutions the department chairman assumes many of the functions of a dean in the decision-making process. In small institutions a fine arts dean retains a more active role in decision-making. Therefore, one would expect there to be measurable differences in relationship to the size of the music department (specifically in a large and small music department) . 110 One of the reasons why the results may have developed differently than expected is because of the differences in the definition of size (large and small) in the general theory. Another reason could be misuse or misinterpretation of the theory. House (1973) states that large institutions generally have subdivisions of which there are heads of the sub-divisions and that small institutions are controlled by deans of large units (i.e., dean of humanities might chair issues concerning music, english, history and art). The definition of size in this case tends to emphasize organizational structure. In the present research, size is defined by the number of full-time faculty members in the music department. These are obviously two different angles from which one might view size. The two angles may account for the mis-interpretation of the general theory because some large institutions' music departments (i.e. , Michigan State University) are divided and these subdivisions are headed by chair-persons yet the chief music administrator reports to the Dean of a larger unit (Arts and Letters). The point being made here is that size may describe the department or the institution. Furthermore, none of the studies in the review of literature presented in chapter two encompassed all of the variables utilized in the present research. The population used in the present research is also different from any of the other studies. Davis (1978), researched the relationship between department heads situational control, department size, department heads academic discipline and years' experience as 111 a department head. The findings showed that there was no significant relationship between 'task-oriented leadership styles of department heads and department size, measures of situational control and experience as a department head. The population consisted of 43 department heads and academic disciplines containing 599 faculty members at a mid-western university. Although the variables in Davis's study are different from the variables in the present study there are enough similarities that might suggest similar results. Two variables in particular (measures of situational control and department size) in Davis's study and level of participation in decision-making and department size in the present research seem quite similar in focus. Thus, the results are the same: no statistical significant relationship. One study focuses on chair-persons of music departments at many' mid-west institutions of higher learning and the other study focuses onidepartment chair-persons of different academic disciplines at one institution. According to the results of the present research, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the sample population (chief music administrators in each strata) is perceived as being more likely to be involved at the same level of participation in decision-making in the specific areas listed on the questionnaire pertaining to budget development. Size did not make a statistical significant difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making in 112 departmental budget preparation, departmental budget allocation, departmental budget expenditures and.departmental budget responsibility in this study. Although statistical tests indicate no significant differences pertaining to departmental budgeting in the present study, the functional significance and meaning of the results of this research suggest the following for chief music administrators at four year institutions of higher education in the United States: (1) chief music administrators are perceived as being more likely to make recommendations and requests to a higher level - administrator when preparing the departmental budget. (2) chief music administrators are perceived as being more likely to be the final decision maker for the music unit when allocating the departmental budget and approving departmental expenditures. (3) chief music administrator are perceived as being more likely to be held responsible for departmental budget concerns. The second issue to be discussed is that pertaining to faculty evaluation. The perceived level of involvement of chief music administrators in.determining the decision-making process for evaluating faculty performance, promoting faculty through academic rank, evaluating faculty for merit pay, evaluating faculty for tenure, and evaluating faculty for hiring and firing purposes were the specific areas observed in.this study; These items were observed.to see if there were any statistically significant differences related to the size of the music department and the perceived level of participation 113 in decision-making of the chief music administrator. The findings in this research do support the following hypothesis of this research: There is a significant difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in faculty evaluation in relationship to the size of the music department. The results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance and the Scheffe and Tukey multiple comparison tests indicate that there is a significant statistical difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators between groups 1 (small music department) and 3 (large music department) in relationship to the size of the music department pertaining to faculty evaluation. 'The hypothesis was developed from the following evidence presented by Tucker (1984): Evaluation of a faculty member's performance is usually derived from some or all of the following sources: the faculty member's chair-person or other administrator: the faculty member's self-evaluation: the faculty member's peers: professional colleagues at other universities (in matters of promotion and tenure: students: and other university officials. The department chair-person is usually the person responsible for collecting evaluations about each faculty member from these sources. (p. 150) If the chair-person is held responsible for collecting evaluations from the variety of sources listed: there must be variation concerning who is involved in the decision-making process regarding faculty evaluation. The previous quote establishes sources of variation in participation in the faculty evaluation process. Glidden (1988) offers yet another, theory 114 as to why variation exists. The important difference in structure is not in the title of the unit but in the allocation of resources and determination of policies and practices related to such important matters as tenure, promotion, and faculty appointments. Music units that have relative autonomy, that is, those in which the administrator reports directly to a vice president for academic affairs, usually have an advantage in all of these matters. One less administrative layer means one less level to which music's special needs must be interpreted. (p. 249) The previous quote suggests that organizational structure of the department strongly correlates with the variation in the decision-making process used to evaluate faculty. Hipp (1979) conducted a descriptive study with the purpose of determining the practices employed in the evaluation of music faculty in colleges and universities affiliated with the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Hipp also researched the importance of the sources of evidence regarding faculty evaluation, and who participated in the decision-making affecting the awarding of promotions in rank, tenure, and merit increases in salary. Statistical evidence was found which indicates the existence of significant relationships at the .05 level between institutional categories and the relative importance of tenured music faculty, the special faculty committee, ' and the music executive as formal participants in decision-making for either promotions, tenure, or merit salary increases. (Hipp, 1979, p. 3176) Again, the previous source indicates that there is variation in those involved in the decision-making process regarding promotion, tenure and merit pay. The present research documents differences in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship 115 to the size of the music department regarding faculty evaluation, Statistically significant differences were noted between group 1 (small music department) and group 3 (large music department) regarding promoting faculty through academic rank, evaluating faculty in merit pay, and evaluating faculty for tenure. The functional significance and meaning of the results of these differences suggest the following for chief music administrators at four year institutions of higher education in the United States: (1) Chief music administrators of small music departments are perceived as being more likely to have decision-making processes concerning the promotion of faculty through academic rank dictated to them by a higher level administrator. Chief music administrators of medium and large music departments are perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when evaluating faculty for promotion. (2) When evaluating faculty for merit pay, a chief music administrator of a small music department is perceived as being not involved in evaluating faculty members for merit pay. A chief music administrator of a medium music department is perceived as being'more likely to solely make recommendations to a higher level administrator. A.chief music administrator of a large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher 116 level administrator. (3) When evaluating faculty for tenure, the chief music administrator of a small music department is perceived as being more likely to have the decision-making process dictated by a higher level administrator. .A chief music administrator of a medium and large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when evaluating faculty for tenure. No statistically significant difference was noted in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department when hiring faculty members, firing faculty members, and evaluating faculty performance. Regardless of the size of the music department, when hiring and firing faculty members, chief'music administrators are perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator. When evaluating faculty performance, chief music administrators of a small music department are perceived to be more likely to solely make recommendations to a higher level administrator. There are significant statistical differences in the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department in faculty evaluation. The third issue to be discussed is that pertaining to public relations. The perceived level of involvement of chief 117 music administrators in determining the decision-making process for selecting departmental representatives, developing departmental literature, recruiting students, and recruiting faculty are the specific issues observed in the present study. These items were observed via questionnaire to see if there were significant differences related to the size of the music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of the chief music administrator. The findings do not support the hypothesis that there is a difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators pertaining to public relations in relationship to the size of the music department. The results indicate that there is no statistical difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department for'developing departmental literature, recruiting students and recruiting faculty. The findings were unexpected because the general theory is that in small institutions, a fine arts dean retains a more active role in decision-making for the music department and in a large institution the chairman of the music department assumes many of the functions of a dean (House, 1973: Glidden, 1988). Therefore one would expect measurable differences in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the institution. Again, as stated in response to hypothesis I, one of the reasons why the results may have developed differently 118 than expected is because of the differences in the definition of size (large and small) in the general theory. Another reason could be misinterpretation of the theory. Furthermore, the theories stated by House and Glidden refer to the size of the institution and this research focused on the size of the music department. Size did not make a statistical significant difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making in relationship to the size of the music department in selecting a departmental representative, developing departmental literature, and recruiting students and faculty in this study. The functional significance and meaning of the results of this research suggest the following for chief music administrators at four year institutions of higher education in the United States: ( 1) Regardless of the size of the music department, the chief music administrator is perceived as being more likely to be the final decision-maker in determining the departmental representative. (2) A chief music administrator of a small and large music department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when developing departmental literature. At the same time, a chief music administrator of a medium music department is perceived as being more likely to be the final decision-maker for the academic unit in developing departmental literature. (3) A chief music administrator of a small and medium music 119 department is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based.on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when determining a procedure for recruiting students. A chief music. administrator of a large music department is perceived to be more likely to determine the procedure and process for the academic unit when determining a procedure for recruiting students. (4) Regardless of the size of the‘music¢department, the chief music administrator is perceived as being more likely to select a committee, make decisions based on committee recommendations, then make recommendations to a higher level administrator when making decisions concerning the recruitment of faculty. The major issue of this research revolves around differences in the perceived level of participation in.decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department. The separate analysis of the perceived level of participation in the three areas (budgeting, faculty evaluation, and.public relations) produced various results as noted in the aforementioned discussions. However, a One Way Analysis of Variance and the Scheffe and Tukey tests were performed on the perceived level of participation (which consisted of the pooled results of items in the budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations sections in appendix E) and the results indicated a significant statistical difference between.group 1 (small music department) and group 3 (large music department). 120 conclusions 1. There is no significant difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department in departmental budgeting. 2. There is a significant difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department in matters concerning faculty evaluation. 3. There is no significant difference in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in relationship to the size of the music department in matters pertaining to public relations. cheLQhaemtim Two issues that were not the focal point of the present study but often appeared in the review of literature were that of chair-person role ambiguity and ambiguity in the selection process of chair-persons. "Most department heads are chosen from their department faculties on the basis of personal characteristics and scholarly competence. They are then socialized, not trained, by interactions with others. As a consequence, role expectations and feedback can result in role ambiguity and uncertainty." ( Scott, 1980, p. 4) The two issues according to Scott are somehow linked. I think that there is room for question as to how administrators at the department level are selected, chosen, elected, recommended or appointed. Are administrative skills evaluated 121 in the process? What criteria are evaluated when the decision is being made? How serious is the position taken by faculty members (respect)? Does the position warrant a trained administrator? How important is training to this position? Well, the following analogy somehow explains my point of view: I can type about 120 words per minute although I have never had any formal training in typing. I often type letters, memorandums and even the drafts of my dissertation. I have been typing since I was a freshman in undergraduate school more than 15 years ago. My speed has improved and I have picked up a rule and strategy here and there from a variety of secretaries. My being able to type is only the surface level of training. There are rules, strategies and even commands for performing tasks on the typewriter and computer that I have no knowledge of. Yet, I realize that I am no match for the trained typist and I shudder to think what would happen if I were hired as one. The point is that trained individuals (in.most cases) are trained to deal with the intricacies of the position to a level that the average individual would not be familiar. It seems only fitting that a position (chief music administrator) of such vital importance would be handled with more care in the selection process. This is not to say that it is not being done adequately by some institutions, but the literature suggests that it is still an important concern. On those matters pertaining to role ambiguity, the lack of job descriptions seem to be the most fundamental problem. 122 In order to grasp the substance of the position (the level of participation in decision-making, duties and responsibilities, budget, facilities, staff and personnel, students, equipment, and administrative support) one needs written documents (contract, handbook, bylaws) explaining procedures, processes and expectations. Again, this is not to say that this situation has not been handled adequately by some institutions, but personal conversations with administrators enlightened me as to the lack of job descriptions in some cases thereby causing role ambiguity. In light of many factors impacting sources of funds to music department (department mergers, state budget cuts, emphasis in science education, etc...) it is imperative that chief music administrators be grounded in the fundamental principles of budgeting (House, 1984). Music administrators need to know the pros and cons of many budgeting systems, the budget cycle in higher education and federal government, institutional funding sources, and budget vocabulary. The risk of putting an individual in charge to test his or her knowledge of budget management (preparation, allocation, and responsibility) is too great to leave to chance (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 1980-1981) . The perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators is vital in that it signals the degree of control the chief music administrator has in managing funds for the department. 123 Faculty evaluation is greatly impacted by the level of participation in decision-making of the chief music administrator; Much of the decision impacting the evaluation of faculty is related to the who (in terms of the decision-makers) and the process and criteria used to evaluate faculty (Tucker, 1984). .Specifically, there are differences in relationship to the size of the music department in the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in evaluating faculty for promotion through academic rank, evaluating faculty in merit pay, and in evaluating faculty for tenure (as noted in the findings of the present research). Regardless of the size of the music department, the perceived level of participation. in decision-making of chief music administrators in hiring and firing faculty members is about the same (as noted in the findings of this study). Each facet of faculty-evaluation should be completely documented (process, criteria, participants, time-line, etc...) and fully understood by the chief music administratoru ‘Without clear, specific criteria, and explanation of the process, confusion is inevitable. The year 1990 marked many instances of'public and government involvement in communicating displeasure in public performances (Stanford University Marching Band, Too Live Crew, Madonna, etc...). Many issues pertaining to censorship culminated in 1990. As a result, public performances are being screened even in academe. Public relations has always been an important tool of a chief music executive. Funds are often generated 124 as a result of public performances. The public image of the institution relies heavily on the performing groups that represent that institution through public performances or the media (Sports, Music, etc...). ' Although the academic area of focus for this study was music administration, the review of literature suggests that similar studies are needed in all academic areas and the following recommendations should be considered. Recommendations An evaluation of the data collected and the conclusions reached serve as the basis for the following recommendations: 1. There is a need for studies that investigate the process and procedures used in determining how department chair-persons are selected, elected, recommended and/or appointed. 2 . Current seminars, workshops, and academic programs designed to develop administrative skills should be investigated, compared in content and evaluated by products. 3. A descriptive analysis of job descriptions of chief administrators is needed. 4. A study of the relationship between the organizational structure of a music department and the perceived level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators is needed. APPENDIX A Position Notices Figure 1 Tables 1-3 125 APPENDIX A Position Notices Dean of the College- Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 The University of Cincinnati invites nominations and applications for the position of Dean of the College-Conservatory of Music Reporting directly to the Senior Vice President and Provost, the Dean of CCN is the chief academic officer of the professional musical college of this large urban university and is responsible for academic program development, planning, faculty relations and review, and budgetary operations for all undergraduate and graduate programs. It is preferred that the Dean have an earned doctorate plus scholarly and\or creative accomplishments, extensive teaching experience, significant administrative experience, as a dean, department head, or assistant dean in a recognized musical institution. Knowledge of budgetary procedures, academic program planning and evaluation: familiarity with major issues of concern to a professional college that stresses professional performance and placement as well as academic standards: leadership quality to establish positive working relationships with faculty, students, and staff, ablilty to promote and work with alumni and support groups, capacity to communicate effectively both nationally and locally with cultural organizations, and a firm commitment to affirmative action is required. The College-Conservatory of Music has over 600 student\faculty performances each year, an internationally recognized teaching faculty, and outstanding physical facilities. The University of Cincinnati has an enrollment of more than 37,000 students, faculty and staff in excess of 12,000, and a budget of about $367,000,000. Salary will be based upon experience. Submit letters, resume, and references (names and addresses) by March 31, 1983, to: Dr. Janice M. Long, Chair College-Conservatory of Music Deanship Advisory Committee Office of the President 300- 1 Administration Building University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 (513\475—2215) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Chronicle of Higher Education, March 16, 1983 (p. 66) 126 APPENDIX A Position Notices DEAN MANHATTAN SCHOOL OP NUBIC Applicants must have substantial administrative experience on a college level and must have made significant professional contributions as performers or teachers. Capacity for leading and inspiring a diverse faculty and student body is essential. The Dean is responsible, with final approval of the President, for faculty administration, academic policies and curriculum in the professional programs leading to the degrees of BN, MM, and DMA, and is also involved with overall institutional planning. Applications and nominations with supporting materials should be submitted by June 1, 1988 to President Gideon W. Waldrop, Manhattan School of Music, 120 Claremont Avenue, New York, New York 10027 MSM is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer. Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 1988 (p. B\47) HEAD, DEPARTMENT OP MUSIC Western Carolina University Starting date: July 1, 1987: application deadline -- February 10, 1987: college teaching and administrative experience essential: earned doctorate required: rank and salary negotiable and competitive: send letter of application, vita, and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of five references to: Dr. Paul Haberland, 113 Mckee, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723 1:an Chronicle of Higher Education, January 7, 1987 (p. 66) 127 APPENDIX A Position Notices CRAIRPERSON DEPARTMENT OP MUSIC Gaucher College, Baltimore Fall, 1983. Tenure track. Rand and salary open. The ideal candidate will be a versatile generalist with major background in music history, an earned doctorate, evidence of outstanding teaching ability, a record of accomplishment in scholarly and\or performance areas, and imaginative leadership appropriate for building a strong and innovative program in an independent college for women, committed to the liberal arts while adapting and expanding to meet new needs and opportunities. Lett, resume, and three current letters of recommendation by April 25 to Professor Barry Knower, Goucher College, Baltimore, MD 21204 Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 1983 (p. 45) 1 2 8 APPENDIX A The following example is a diagram of the steps used to apply the proportional stratified random-sampling design.- (Practical Research: planning and design by Paul D. Leedy, 1974, p. 104.) . o * o e o + * o oo § 0 o e + O I O o O o O 0 Population is conglomerate. Each + ”NUT'O" LEVEF ’ symbol represents the following: ° (Condensate Populatroni + e Legend: 0 .3)..." , + - Medium 0 O O L— O - Large Departments * e 0 e e *‘W 0 + 1 o + ° 0 4» °‘ + o ' ° .0 0 O o 0 5 O + 0 + 0 ocean 1,1,, [eeeej o o o o ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ STRATIFICATION fever. 0 o o a: :I: i: i s r” 3 (Proportionaifitraulred o o o o o + y + + * trata o. WINCH, o o O o o v ° ° ° ° °. _ Strata No. 2 Sm: he. i l RANDOMIZATION LEVEL [ (Proportional . . ~ ,, StratiiiedSaranel 9° ** 9 9 ] 59MhrCentolneTonl :3 ” r Wropulation Iw 1 DITA LEVEL - Dill Exiim iron the ”m5“ » Stratriied Randomrred Sample Figure 1 - Sampling Procedure 12 9 APPENDIX A The following numbers were randomly selected and have - been numerically ordered for each strata (Tables 1-3): Table 1 - Numbers Composing The Small Sample Strata 2 61 113 4 ca 119 5 es 121 9 so 129 .10 67 131 15 71 132 17 74 133 13 74 135 19 77 13s 23 31 139 27 34 140 29 as , 14: 30 as 144 33 39 14s as 91 147 42 92 149 45 93 15: 4s 93 154 47 9e 4a 104 49 104 so 110 51 111 so 112 L__- 59 113 130 APPENDIX A Table 2 - Numbers Composing The Medium Sample Population 153 180 0 Two institutions were 156 181 given the same number and 157 182 194-A was given one of 138 184 the institutions as a 180 18! result. 165 187 188 188 167 189 168 190 170 191 171 192 173 193 174 0194-1 177 178 179 13 1 APPENDIX A Table 3 - Numbers Of The Large Sample Population 11........, 193 223 199 224 zoo 22s 201 227 202 223 203 230 204 232 aos 233 20s 234 214 233 213 234 217 237 212 239 220 240 221 241 222 i APPENDIX E TOTAL POPULATION: (242 INSTITUTIONS) 132 APPENDIX 3 TOTAL POPULATION: (242 INSTITUTIONS) STATE OF OHIO Small Music Department (1-9 full-time faculty members) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Ashland College Bluffton College Case western Reserve University Cedarville College Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary Defiance College Denison University Findlay College Hiram College Kenyon College Lake Brie College Malone College Marietta College Mt. St. Joseph-On-The-Ohio-College Mount Union College Mt. Vernon College Muskingum College Ohio Northern University Ohio Wesleyan University Otterhein College Ursuline College Wilberforce University Iittenherg University College of looster Xavier University 133 STATE OF NIOHIGAN (Small Music Department) 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Adrian College Albion College Alma College Aquinas College Concordia College Delta College Ferris State College Grace Bible College Grand Rapids Baptist College Grand Valley State College Sillsdale College Kalamazoo Colloge Marygrove College Mercy College of Detroit University of Michigan Dearborn University of Michigan rlint Olivet College Saginaw Valley State College Siena Heights College Spring Arbor College William Tyndale College 134 State of Minnesota (Small Music Department) 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Augsburg College Bethany Lutheran College Bethel College Carleton College Bamline University Macalester College Minnesota Bible College University of Minnesota Morris North Central Bible College College of Saint Catharine Saint Johns University Saint Marys College College of Saint Scholastica College of Saint Teresa University of Saint Thomas Southwest State University Winona State University 135 State Of Illinois (Small Music Department) 64. 65. 66. 67. 6S. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. SO. S1. S2. S3. S4. SS. S6. S7. SS. S9. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. Augustana College Blackburn College Bradley University Chicago State University Bureka College relician College Governors State University Greenville College William.Rainey Barper College Illinois College Illinois University At Chicago Judson College Knox College Lake Torest College Lincoln Christian College Macmurray College Monmouth College Montoy College Mundelein College Rational College of Bducation North Central College North Park College Olivet Masarene University Principia College Quincy College Rosary College College of Saint Trancis Saint Xavier College Trinity Christian College Trinity College Triton College 136 State of Indiana (Small Music Department) 95. 96. 97. 9S. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 10S. 109. 110. 111. 112. -113. 114. Bethel College Barlham College Tort Wayne Bible College Goshen College Grace Theological Seminary & College Hanover College Huntington College University of Indianapolis Indiana University at South Bend Indiana Wesleyan University Manchester College Marion College Indianapolis Marion College Marion Oakland City College Purdue University West Lafayette Saint Josephs College St. Mary's College Saint Mary of the Woods College Taylor University Wabash College 137 State Of Iowa (Small Music Department) 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. ' 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. Brier Cliff College Briena Vista College Central College Clarke College Coe College Corness College Dorot College University of Dubuque Graceland College Grand View College Gunnell College Iowa Wesleyan College Marycrest College Morningside College Northwestern College Open Bible College Saint Ambrose College Simpson College Upper Iowa University Vennard College William Penn College 138 State Of Wisconsin (Small Music Department) 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. Alverno College Beloit College Cardinal Stritch College Carroll College Carthage College Concordia College of Wisconsin Marian College of Fond Du Lue Mount Mary College Mount Semario College Northland College northwestern College Ripon College Saint Norbert College Silver Lake College Viterbo College University of Wisconsin - Parkside- Nenosha University of Wisconsin- Platteville University of Wisconsin- Menomonie University of Wisconsin- Superior 139 State Of Michigan Medium Size Music Department (10-19 full-time faculty members) 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. Andrews University Calvin College Rope College Northern Michigan University Oakland University Wayne State University State Of Minnesota Medium Size Music Department 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. Bemidy State University Carleton College Concordia College Gustavus Adolphus Dr. Martin Luther College Mankato State University University of Minnesota- Duluth College of Saint Benedict 140 State Of Illinois Medium Size Music Department 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. American Conservatory of Music Nbrtheastern University University of Chicago Blmhurst College Moody Bible Institute Wheaton College State Of Indiana Medium Size Music Department 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. Anderson University Butler University De Pauw University Indiana Univ. Purdue University University of Evansville University of Notre Dame Velparaiso University 141 State Of Iowa Medium Size Music Department 182. Drake University 183. Luther College 184. Wartburg College State Of Wisconsin Medium Size Music Department 185. University of Wisconsin 186. University of Wisconsin 187. University of Wisconsin 188. University of Wisconsin 189. University of Wisconsin Green Bay La Crosse River Falls Stevens Point Whitewater State Of Ohio Medium Size Music Department 190. Capital University 191. Central State University 192. Cleveland State University 193. Heidelberg College 194. Ohio Wesleyan University *Nlu-A. University of Dayton 195. University of Toledo 196. Wright State University 142 State Of Michigan Large Music Department f (zo-above full-time faculty members) 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. Central Michigan University Eastern Michigan University Michigan State University University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Western Michigan University State Of Minnesota Large Music Department 202. 203. 204. 205. Moorhead State University Saint Cloud State University Saint Olaf College University of Minnesota - Minneapolis 143 State Of Illinois Large Music Department 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. Chicago Musical College Chicago Conservatory College De Paul University Bastern Illinois University Illinois State University University of Illinois at Urbana Illinois Wesleyan University Millikin University Northern Illinois University Northwestern University Southern Illinois University - Carbondale Southern Illinois University Vandercook College of Music Western Illinois University State Of Indiana Large Music Department 220. 221. 222. Ball State University Indiana State University Indiana University - Bloomington 144 State Of Iowa Large Music Department 223. University of Iowa 224. Iowa State University 225. University of Northern Iowa State Of Wisconsin Large Music Department 226. Lawrence University 227. University of Wisconsin Bau Claire 228. University of Wisconsin - Madison 229. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 230. University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh 145 State Of OhiO Large Music Department 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. University of Akron Baldwin - Wallace College Bowling Green State University University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory Cleveland Institute of Music Rent State University Miami University Oberlin College Ohio State University Ohio University Youngstown State University APPENDIX C Model Scale 146 APPENDIX C Model Scale Exhibit 1. Continuum of leadership behavior Subordinate-centered leadership M Boss-centered leadership v Use of authority by the manager Area of freedom for subordinates I 1 T T I T T T Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager makes "sells" presents presents presents defines permits decision decision. ideas and tentative problem. , limits; subordinates and invites decision gets asks group to function announces questions. subject to suggestions. to make within limits _it. change. makes decision. defined by decision. ’ superior. Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1975). leadership pattern. 171. . How to choose a Harvard BuSIness Review, 51 (3), 162 - APPENDIX D Cover Letter (Pilot Study) Cover Letter (Sample Population) Questionnaire Pilot Study Evaluation 147 APPENDIX D Cover Letter (Pilot Study) Dear Music Administrator: I am appealing to you for help in enlightening others as to what you do, how important it is to daily operations, and your involvement in decision-making as it relates to departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations. I am a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University in College and University Administration with emphasis in the administration of music programs. I am conducting a study of chief music administrators in four year colleges and universtities in the mid-west region of the United States. The goal of the study is to hopefully determine if the size (number of full-time faculty members) of the music department has an effect on the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations. Please take a few minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the self addressed envelop by September 10, 1990. If you have any questions pertaining to the enclosed information, please give me a call at (517) 353-5440. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Bobby Blake 148 APPENDIX D Cover Letter (Sample Population) Dear Music Administrator: I would sincerely appreciate your input and expertise in responding to the enclosed information. The purpose of this pilot run of the enclosed questionnaire is to have the usefulness of the questionnaire validated by individuals who have been or are presently a music administrator at a four year college or university. I am a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University in College and University Administration with emphasis in the administration of music programs. I am appealing to you for help in enlightening others as to your experiences in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations. The goal of my study is to hopefully determine if the size (number of full-time faculty members) of the music department has an effect on the level of participation in decision-making of chief music administrators in departmental budgeting, faculty evaluation and public relations. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and the pilot study evaluation form and return both forms in the stamped addressed envelop by July 20, 1990. Your participation will greatly assist me in developing the best measuring instrument. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Bobby Blake 14 9 APPENDIX D Questionnaire RESEARCH STUDY LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING OF CIIIEF MUSIC ADMINISTRATORS IN DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETING, FACULTY EVALUATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS l - Chief Music Administrator Does not participate in the process at all. 2 - A higher level administrator dictates procedures to chief music administrator. 3 = A higher level administrator selects a committee of which the chief music administrator is named. and the committee reports to the higher level administrator. 4 . The Chief Music Administrator selects a committee and the committee in turn makes recommendations and requests to a higher level administrator. 5 - Chief Music Administrator selects a committee. makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations. then the chief music administrator makes recommendations to a higher level administrator. 6 - Chief Music Administrator solely makes recommendations and requests to higher level administrator. 7 - Chief Music Administrator solely determines procedure and process for the academic unit. Final Decision Maker for the Department. Chief Music Administrator is responsible for departmental action. QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: Circle the number that carrespones with the best description of the ' ' ' - ' ' ' ' ' Circle only one number for each response. Mamas I. Preparing the Departmental Budget I 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Allocating Departmental Budget .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Approving all Departmental Expenditures l 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Responsibility for Departmental Budget I 2 3 4 5 6 7 mun—Elm UI Evaluating Faculty Performance 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 150 APPENDIX D Questionnaire I - Chief Music Administrator Does not participate in the process at all. 2 a A higher level administrator dictates procedures to chief music administrator. 3 - A higher level administrator selects acommittee of which the chief music administrator is named. and the committee reports to the higher level administrator. 4 - The Chief Music Administrator selects a committee and the committee in turn makes recommendations and requests to a higher level administrator. 5 - Chief Music Administrator selects a committee. makes his or her decisions based on committee recommendations. then the chief music administrator makes recommendations to a higher level ad ministrator. 6 a Chief Music Administrator solely makes recommendations and requests to higher, level administrator. 7 - Chief Music Administrator solely determines procedure and process for the academic unit. Final Decision Maker for the Department. Chief Music Administrator is responsible for departmental action. WI 6. Promoting Faculty via Academic Rank I 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Evaluating Faculty in Merit Pay I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Evaluating Faculty for Tenure l 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Hiring Faculty Members ‘ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I0. Firing Faculty Members I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wanna II. Departmental Representative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Prof essional Meetings, Organizations. Media. etc...) I2. Departmental Literature for the Public I 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Brochures, pamphlets. etc...) 13. Departmental Recruitment of Students I 2 3 4 5 6 7 l4. Departmental Recruitment of Faculty. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 1 APPENDIX D Questionnaire BACKGROUND INFORMATION Supply the appropriate response by filling in the blanks. Supply only one response to each statement and\or question. 1. Identify the organizational structure of the music department. Autonomous College. school or conservatory Department with Arts and Sciences Division Independently organized department Other. Specify 2. Which of the following dccribcs the division within the total music area at your institution? Unit heads or department chairs (i.e. music education. band. performance) Other, Specify 3. How many years have you served as chief music administrator at the present institution? 4. Is your position a full-time administrative position? Yes No 5. Do you have previous administrative experience? Yes ~ No 6. Do you have educational training (classes) in the following areas? Budgeting Yes No Evaluation Yes . No Public Relations Yes No 7. Do you have a full-time administrative assistant (other than a secretary) ? Yes ‘ No 8. Do you have teaching responsibilities? Yes . No 15 2 APPENDIX D Questionnaire If yes. how many classes do you teach per year? 9. What is the number of full time faculty in the music department? l0. What is the number of part time faculty in the music department? II. What is the number of music majors enrolled in the music department? l2. Does the department of music offer a degree program in music administration? Yes No A l3. What is the total student enrollment of the university? 14. If you would like a c0py of the results of this study, please supply the following information: Address Thank you tor your assistance. Name Position\Title College or University Please refer all replies to: Bobby Blake £23 Owen Graduate Center Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48825 153 APPENDIX D Pilot Study Evaluation Please supply the information below by marking an X in the appropriate space and by writing the necessary response. . 1. Which of the responses best express your view of the length of the questionnaire? consumes too much time adequate length 2. How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? minutes 3. Are the differences in the level of participation in decision-making (expressed in the italicized statements adjacent to the numbers l-2-3-4-5-6-7) clearly stated? Yes ' No If no is your response, what steps or differences would you suggest to provide clarity in stating the differences in the level of decision-making? 4. Are the directions in the questionnaire stated clearly? Yes No If your response is no, please list suggestions that might provide clarity. 5. Can items (1-4 on the questionnaire) pertaining to Budgeting be adequately answered with the responses listed on the continuum scale (1-2-3-4-5-6-7). Yes No If no is your response, please explain and provide suggestions for improving the measurement scale. 154 APPENDIX D Pilot Study Evaluation 6. As a music administrator, how important is budgeting as it relates to the questions listed on the questionnaire? Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important 7. Can items (5-10 on the questionnaire) pertaining to Faculty Evaluation be adequately answered with the responses listed on the continuum scale? Yes No If no is your response, please explain and provide suggestions for improving the measurement scale. 8. As music administrator, how important is Faculty Evaluation as it relates to the questions listed on the questionnaire. Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important 9. Can items (I l-l4 on the queStionnaire) pertaining to Public Relation be adequately answered with the responses listed on the continuum scale? Yes No If no is your response, please explain and provide suggestions for improving the measurement scale. 10. As music administrator, how important is Public Relations as it relates to items listed on the questionnaire? Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important 15 5 APPENDIX D Pilot Study Evaluation The statements and questions listed under BACKGROUND INFORMATION of the questionnaire do not relate to the continuum scale. Please list the number(s) of the. statement(s) or question(s) that you think is (are) unclear and inappropriate and supply suggestions for improving the questions or statements. NAME ADMINISTRATIVE TITLE DATES (SERVED IN POSITION) INSTITUTION APPENDIX E Computer Printouts (8P88x) Tables 4 - 16 156 APPENDIX E Table 4 4 ANOVA Results Hypothesis I Variable BUDGET By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE 0.F. SQUARES SQUARES RATIO PROD. BETWEEN GROUPS 2 4.4007 2.2043 1.7090 .1728 WITHIN GROUPS 93 114.5913 1.2322 TOTAL 95 119.0000 Table 5 - Scheffe Results Hypothesis I Variable BUDGET By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE MULTIPLE RANGE resr scuerre Paoceouae aauces ron rue 0.050 LEVEL - 7 3.52 3.52 rue sauces ABOVE an: TABLE assess. - 1) x50. A E ACTUALLY COMPARED WITH neanta) meant THE v LU0.7849 0 RANGE 0 DSORT(l/N(I) + IIN(J)) . NO TWO GROUPS ARE SIGNIFICANTLV DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL 1157 APPENDIX E Table 6 - Tukey Results Hypothesis I Variable BUDGET By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE MULTIPLE RANGE TEST TUKEV-HSD PROCEDURE RANGES FOR THE 0.050 LEVEL - 3.37 3.37 THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TABLE RANGES. THE VALUE ACTUALLY CONPARED WITH NEANIJ)-NEAN(I) 15.. 0.7349 0 RANGE 0 osoarttrntt) + 1/N(J)) NO TWO GROUPS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL Table 7 - ANOVA Results Hypothesis II Variable FACEVAL By Variable DEP DEPARTNENT SIZE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE F SUI 0F NEAN F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARES RATIO PROD. BETWEEN GROUPS 2 24.1437 12.0719 0.2507 .0005 WITHIN GROUPS 93 136.0713' 1.4531 TOTAL 95 150.2150 158 APPENDIX E Table 8 - Scheffe Results Hypothesis II Variabl. By Variable FACEVAL DEP MULTIPLE RANGE TEST SCHEFFE PROCEDURE RANGES FOR THE 0.050 LEVEL - 3.52 3.52 DEPARTMENT SIZE THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TABLE RANGES. THE vALUE ACTUALLv COMPARED WITH MEAN(J)-MEAN(I) 15.. 0.0553 0 RANGE 0 050RT(1/N(t) + 1/N(J)) I') DENOTES PAIRS OF GROUPS SIGNIFICANTLV DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL Mean 3.5505 4.4533 5.0573 Group Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 0'16! N ‘0'10 G) '0'!" Table 9 - Tukey Results Hypothesis II Variable By Varilblc OEP MULTIPLE RANGE TEST TUKEV-HSD PROCEDURE RANGES FOR 3. 37 FACEVAL 3.37 THE 0.050 LEVEL - DEPARTMENT SIZE THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TABLE RANGES. THE VALUE ACTUALLY COMPARED WITH MEAN(J)-MEAN(I) 15.. 0.0553 0 RANGE 0 DSORTII/NII) + t/N(J)) I.) DENOTES PAIRS OF GROUPS SIGNIFICANTLV DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL Mean 3.5505 4.4533 5.0573 Group Grp I Grp 2 Grp 3 u'in N ‘D'In a 'u'io 159 APPENDIX E Table 10 - ANOVA Results Hypothesis III Variable PUBREL By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUM OF MEAN F F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARES RATIO PROB. BETWEEN GROUPS 2 5.7522 3.3751 2.5455 .0532 WITHIN GROUPS 93 110.3312 1.1554 TOTAL 95 117.0533 Table 11 - Scheffe Results Hypothesis III Variable PUBREL By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE MULTIPLE RANGE TEST SCHEFFE PROCEDURE RANGES FOR THE 0.050 LEVEL - 3.52 3.52 THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TABLE RANGES. - t) 15.. E ACTUALLY COMPARED WITH MEANIJ) MEANt THE VALU0.7702 0 RANGE 0 DSORT(i/N(t) + i/N(J)) NO TWO GROUPS ARE SIGNIFICANTLV DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL 1150 APPENDIX E Table 12 - Tukey Results Hypothesis III Variable PUBREL By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE MULTIPLE RANGE TEST TUKEY-HSD PROCEDURE RANGES FOR THE 0.050 LEVEL - 3.37 3.37 THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TABLE RANGES. THE VALUE ACTUALLY COMPARED WITH MEAN(J)-MEAN(I) IS.. 0.7702 ‘ RANGE ‘ DSQRTII/N(I) e 1/N(J)) NO TWO GROUPS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL Table 13 - ANOVA Pooled Results Variable PARTIC By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ' F SUM or MEAN F SOURCE D.F. SQUARES SQUARES RATIO PROB. BETWEEN GROUPS 2 11.3710 5.0000 0.0007 .0004 WITHIN GROUPS 93 51.5543 .5519 TOT‘L 95 72.0202 161 APPENDIX E Table 14 - Scheffe Pooled Results Variable PARTIC By Variable OEP DEPARTMENT SIZE MULTIPLE RANGE TEST SCHEFFE PROCEDURE RANGES FOR THE 0.050 LEVEL - 3.52 3.52 THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TA0LE RANGES. THE VALUE ACTUALLv COMPARED WITH MEAN(J)-MEAN(I) 15.. 0.5753 0 RANGE . DSQRT(1/N(I) o 1IN(J)) t‘) DENOTES PAIRS OF GROUPS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL G G G r-r r P P P Mean Group 1 2 3 4.7225 .Grp 1 5.1214 Grp 2 5.5714 Grp 3 ‘ Table 15 — Tukey Pooled Results Variable PARTIC By Variable DEP DEPARTMENT SIZE MULTIPLE RANGE TEST TUKEY-HSD PROCEDURE RANGES FOR THE 0.050 LEVEL - 3.37 3.37 THE RANGES ABOVE ARE TABLE RANGES. THE VALUE ACTUALLY COMPARED WITH MEAN(J)-MEAN(I) IS.. 0.5753 ‘ RANGE ‘ DSQRT(1/N(I) e 1/N(J)) (’) DENOTES PAIRS OF GROUPS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AT THE 0.050 LEVEL ‘01"! N D'TCI u ‘D‘a‘i Mean Group ‘ 4.7225 Grp 1 5.1214 Grp 2 5.5714 Grp 3 ° 162 APPENDIX E Table 16 - Spearman Correlation Coefficients e1 .2488 F10 .1614 N( 96) N( 96) SIG .007 SIG .055 82 .1982 P11 .3131 N( 96) N( 96) SIG .026 SIG .001 53 .1115 p12 .2131 N( 96) N( 96) SIG .140 SIG .019 34 .1110 P13 .0387 N( 96) N( 96) SIG .141 SIG .354 F5 -.0546 p14 .1553 N( 96) N( 96) SIG .299 SIG .033 F6 .3452 . BUDGET .2954 N( 96) N( 96) SIG .000 ' SIG .002 p7 .4517 FACEVAL .3017 N( 96) 1 N( 96) SIG .000 SIG .000 F8 .3932 PUBREL , 2548 N( 95) , N( 96) SIG .000 SIG .006 F9 .1003 PARTIC .4151 N( 86) N( 96) SIG .165 SIG .000 B1-P14 represent the 14 items related to hypotheses I, II and III listed on the questionnaire in appendix D. In addition, each variable (Budgeting, Faculty Evaluation, Public Relations and Level of Participation) is also correlated above. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of Colleges of Nursing. W Washington, 0.0.: July, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 210954) Baker, G. A. Husic administrative practices and problems in southern baptist colleges (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College For Teachers, 1967) . Wiesel. 1967. 28. 36953 (University Order No. 68-2890) Blalock, C. 11. Administrative development needs of department chairmen in selected four-year private, liberal arts colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1987)- Wu. 1987. .48. 1995A-1996A. (University Order No. DA8724591) Chang, Y. An analysis of the backgrounds and leadership styles of music administrators in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1984) . WW. 1984. .45. 243311- (University Order No. DA8426367) Cornelius, J. H. Task and process in college administration. W (Jun. 1988): 76-82- Cornelius, J. H. Turnover among chief music administrators in selected American colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1986). Dissertation WW. 1986. 11. 799A- (University Order No. DA8611827) Cowden, R. L. What makes a good music administrator. mm W. Palomar! 1984. P- 46-47- Davis, R. K. III An analysis of the relationship between the leadership style of university academic department heads and department organizational climate (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron, 1978) . WW. 1978. .19.. 194615- (University Order No. 7819068) 163 164 Glass, G. V., 8 Hopkins, K. D. . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984. Glidden, R. Music in higher education. unaio_zonoation_in ° . Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1988. (Chapter 15) Hannewald, N. 1.. Administrative functioning of member institutions of the national association of schools of music (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1974). WW. 1974. 3.5. 6390A- Heimler, C. H. The college departmental chairman. Educational Renard. Spring 1967. Henke, H. H. The organization and administration of music education degree programs: intra-campus communication and attitudes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1966). .niaaoztation_i5hatzaota International, 1966, 21, 2170A. (University Order No. 67-407) ' Hickey, A. A. . New York: Random House, 1986. Hipp, J. W. Practices in the evaluation of music faculty in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, The University of’ Texas at .Austin, 1979). International, 1979, in, 3176A. (University Order No. 7928250) House. R. w. AdministratiminmsiLeducation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretce-Hall, Inc., 1973. House. R. w. The professional preparation of music administrators. - ' . Champaign-Urbana: W University of Illinois. 1982, Chapter 10. Klotman. R- H- Thustmlmsiudministratoundjmnism WWW. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Pretice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Kolstoe, R.H. sciences. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1969. LeedY. P-D. Wain. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1974. 165 Leonhard, C. The future of musical education in America: A Pragmatist's View. 1W Enture_of_Musisal_Edncation_in_Americal__2roceedincs_of Donald J. Shetler, ed. Rochester, NY: Eastman School of Music Press, 1984, p. 62. Lovett, R.E. Essential factors and considerations in the administration of a college music department (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1964). Dissertation WW. 1964. 2.6. 2256A- (University Order No. 65-2287) Martin, K.A. Role perceptions of management and leadership responsibilities of department chairs in colleges/schools of fine arts as perceived by deans and department chairs (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1986)- Wu. 1986. .41. 2911A. (University Order No. DA8628342) McMinn, D.J. The development of a strategic planning model applicable to music programs in institutions of higher education (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State UniversitY.'1980)- WW. 1980, Al, 2987A. (University Order No. 802910) McKeachie, W.J . Memo to new department chairman. moational Renard. Spring 1968. Mitchell, M.B. Department chairperson management strategies: enhancing faculty performance and work satisfation (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1986) . International, 1986, 41, 3995A. (University Order No. DA8706240) Penland, A.C. , Jr. Organization and administration of medium to large music units in selected state universities and colleges in the united states (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1983) . W International, 1983, 41, 2062A. (University Order No. DA 8325682) Prescott , W. Job preparation and turnover among university music department chairs and band directors (Doctoral dissertation, 1983). Dissertation—Abstracts International, 1983, L4, 1238A. (University Order No. DA8315558) 166 Purce118. F. E. W college. Harrisburg, Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 2059229) Roach, J. H. The academic department chairperson: functions and responsibilities. W. Winter 1976. Schmidt, L. D. The nature of the music administrator's work: three public university case studies in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1982). Dissertationjhatraote International, 1982, 4.1, 717A. (University Order No. DA8218655) Scott, R. A. W. New York: National League for Nursing Conference, November, 1980 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 205-229) Seegmiller, D. W. College music: programs and their administration (Volumes I - III (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia Universtly. 1966) W: International, 1966, 21, 4290A. (University Order No.67-6532 Sinclair, J. The relationship of the role and scope of music ‘ administrators in higher education to a managerial and leadership model (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1985) niaaertation_Abetraota International, 1985, 4.6. 2126A. (University Order No. DA8522229) The College Music Society. WW. Boulder Colorado: The College Music Society, 1987.“ Tucker. a. W. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984.